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, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
1. What assessment she has made of the effect of conversion of schools to academies on teacher pay scales.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
Academies have the freedom to determine their own pay arrangements. They are not bound by the provisions of the “School teachers’ pay and conditions document”, and can set the pay of their staff at the level they consider appropriate to recruit and retain the high-quality teachers they need. Academies’ freedoms also extend to other areas, including the curriculum, enabling them to develop approaches that better meet the needs of their pupils.
Marion Fellows
For local authority maintained schools, teacher pay scales are nationally agreed, as the Minister has just said, and they give teachers a clear indication of how their salaries will increase. However, allowing academies and academy trusts to set their own pay scales means that staff pay is very variable. What assessment has the Secretary of State carried out of the effect of deregulating pay scales on teacher morale and retention?
Mr Gibb
May I first welcome the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and congratulate her on her appointment as shadow Secretary of State? She follows in the footsteps of the long-serving hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and I suspect she was more surprised than I was by her appointment. Having worked with her in seeking to raise standards in Oldham schools, I know how able a shadow Secretary of State she will be.
In answer to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), flexibility is of course important. It enables academies to flex their salaries and to recruit and retain the top-quality graduates they need. It is a very worthwhile policy, and it is working.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that headteachers have the ability to flex salaries to retain the very best staff? Will he also comment on whether resigning after 48 hours in the education sector sets a new record?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will bear up stoically and with fortitude under the burden.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Could the Minister now answer the original question? Is he advocating the abolition of national pay scales, because that is what it sounds like he is saying?
Mr Gibb
What I am saying is that, with the new freedoms academies have, they are able to pay salaries to attract the best teachers. That is a very good policy; it enables them to retain and attract the graduates in maths, physics and modern languages that schools and headteachers are telling us they need to recruit.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The School Teachers Review Body reported a very long time ago, and we are nearly at the end of the academic year. What is holding up the Government’s response to this report?
Mr Gibb
Ah, so there is my shadow, sitting on the Back Benches. He is very welcome. I wish he were sitting on the Front Bench and not there. However, in answer to his question, we are currently considering the STRB report, and we will publish it shortly, together with the Government’s response.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
24. It is likely that academies in better-off areas will be able to access more funding and therefore pay higher salaries and attract the best teachers. What will that do for staff morale in academies in poorer areas? How will they be able to attract the teachers needed to close the attainment gap?
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to face the Minister for the first time today. As he mentioned, we have discussed education issues in one of the areas in my constituency, in Oldham. It has been an interesting week, and I am really pleased that there are still two women at the Dispatch Box overseeing education; that is really good news.
We face a crisis in the teaching workforce, and it has not been made any better by the potential problems with teachers’ pay. Almost 50,000 teachers quit this year—the highest figure ever. More teachers left than were recruited, and applications are still falling. The crisis has left academies spending nearly £200 million more on supply teachers in the last year. Is the Minister now prepared to apologise for the Government’s accusation that the Opposition were scaremongering in raising this issue?
Mr Gibb
The truth is that there are record numbers of teachers in the profession today. There are 456,000 teachers—15,000 more than there were in 2010. Some 43,000 teachers left the profession in 2015, but they were replaced by 45,000 coming into it. Talking down the teaching profession does not help to encourage graduates to come into it. Wherever I go, I talk up the profession. I hope that the hon. Lady, in her role, will do the same.
Angela Rayner
I think that every single teacher does an absolutely superb job. Ministers should listen to teachers when they talk about the issues that teachers face every single day in the classroom. On today’s evidence, it seems that Ministers are failing and not coasting. They are not prepared to apologise. Where is the evidence that devolving terms and conditions to school level will lead to higher standards? Can the Minister tell us of any other high-performing country in which this has been done?
Mr Gibb
Academies are improving their standards at twice the rate of local authority schools; that is particularly the case for primary schools that have been underperforming and have been turned into academies. After two years, they are improving their standards by 10 percentage points—twice the rate of local authority schools—and using their flexibilities to ensure that they can recruit the best teachers into their classrooms.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Academies are able to pay higher rates of pay to keep teachers, but deregulation of pay scales means that staffing budgets can also be slashed, with the key resource—the teacher—becoming a second-class asset. What steps has the Minister taken to protect pay scales to ensure that teachers have a nationally guaranteed level of pay?
Mr Gibb
It is odd to hear people complaining that we are going to cut teachers’ salaries and at the same time saying that there is a shortage of teachers and that it is difficult to recruit. The free market will ensure, of course, that salaries—the jobs market—[Interruption.] We are living in a strong economy. We have to compete for our graduates with companies up and down the country. That is what will secure high salaries for the teaching profession.
Carol Monaghan
Tomorrow’s planned strike by members of the National Union of Teachers has come about as a result of the ongoing erosion of teachers’ pay and conditions, with entitlements such as sick leave and maternity rights under threat. How does the Minister plan to protect teachers’ maternity rights under the academy system?
Mr Gibb
The strike is based on a ballot in which under 25% of teachers in the NUT voted. I agree with Deborah Lawson, the general secretary of Voice, which is a non-striking teachers’ union, who has called these strikes a “futile” and “politically motivated” gesture. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, this strike will
“harm children’s education, inconvenience parents and damage the profession's reputation in the eyes of the public”.
Does the hon. Lady agree with that assessment?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
2. What steps her Department is taking to assist teachers in managing their workload.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
8. What steps her Department is taking to assist teachers in managing their workload.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
First, I add my welcome to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I look forward to engaging with her on our mutual interests: education and, I understand, women and equalities. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for her work as shadow Education Secretary. I think it is fair to say that we did not agree on everything, or perhaps even much, but I do pay tribute to her hard work, and that of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who I have also worked with over the years.
We are continuing our extensive work to remove unnecessary workload for teachers. As part of my commitment to taking action in this area, we established three independent review groups to tackle workload relating to marking, lesson planning, and data management. We have accepted all their recommendations to Government. We urge school leaders and others in the education system also to act on those recommendations, and we will continue to work on this.
Mrs Drummond
Has my right hon. Friend considered lengthening the school day to allow teachers the space to plan and mark during the school day, rather than during evenings and weekends? That would also give pupils the opportunity to engage in subjects such as art, music, drama and sport that may not be part of their curriculum at the moment.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend will remember that in the Budget the Chancellor mentioned support for a longer school day. Many schools already offer extra activities as part of a longer school day. We are keen to support this, and hope that they will broaden their range of activities. However, if we have a longer school day, there is no requirement for teachers to increase their workload to accommodate that. We will come forward with more details in due course.
Rebecca Pow
Having spoken to many teachers in Taunton Deane, it is clear to me that a significant number feel under continual pressure to adapt to a constantly changing system, and there are worries that more changes are on the horizon. Will the Secretary of State give assurances that following the White Paper, teachers will begin to see greater consistency? Will she meet me, and perhaps some local teachers, to discuss these issues?
Nicky Morgan
Of course I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and any teachers or headteachers she might like to invite from her constituency. Our aim is to give schools and colleges as much stability as possible to deliver the ambitious reforms set out in the White Paper. We want to give teachers and leaders the confidence to make changes based on their own professional judgment. We have a workload protocol that gives schools the time to prepare for significant changes, and we are making sure that it takes fully into account the implications for workload.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I have raised on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions the problems in west Cumbria with teacher recruitment and retention, which are leading to workloads building up, to the detriment of our children’s education. I am concerned to see that figures provided by the National Union of Teachers project that Cumbria will see a 4.5% real-terms cut in funding under the Government’s new national funding formula. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that, and to ensure that there is no detriment to children in my constituency?
Nicky Morgan
We are aware of issues relating to recruitment in certain parts of the country and in certain schools. I am pleased to say, as the Minister for Schools has said, that we have recruited more teachers to teacher training for the start of next year. The hon. Lady is right to say, however, that among the reasons that teachers often struggle to stay in the profession are workload, behaviour and other expectations. We will have more to say about the national funding formula. I ask the hon. Lady to wait for the consultation and to make sure that she takes part in it, but I think she will agree that it must be right that pupils with the same needs attract the same amount of money, regardless of where they are based.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Secretary of State really does want to help teachers with the workload pressures that they are under, she has to do much more to tackle the serious shortage of teacher colleagues in schools and the duplicative paperwork that teachers are coping with, and not rely so much on the Minister for Schools, who sees the wonders of the free market as the solution.
Nicky Morgan
The Minister for Schools does a fantastic job, and it is a delight to have his sunny outlook in all of our ministerial meetings. There are schools across the country that manage workload issues. When I visit schools, I always ask about workload, and it is interesting that there are some schools—they are very similar—where teachers are supported in terms of workload, and others where there clearly are issues. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to make sure that when he next visits schools in his constituency, he takes with him, or looks at, the workload report, and asks teachers and heads in the staffroom how they are getting on with implementing the recommendations. I accept that there are recommendations for Government, Ofsted and school leaders; between us all, I am sure that we can make progress.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
3. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that parents have greater say in the running of their children’s schools when they become academies.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
The White Paper set out our commitment to ensure that parents have a more significant voice in schools. We will build on existing effective practice in academies to strengthen the expectation that they will listen to the views and needs of parents. We will also launch a new parent portal, setting out key information that parents need to know about schools.
Rehman Chishti
Parent governors play a vital role in schools across the country and in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham. The excellent portfolio holder for children’s services in Medway, Councillor Mike O’Brien, asks the Minister to confirm that the parent governor role will continue under the Government’s new plans for academies.
Mr Gibb
I agree with my hon. Friend and the excellent Councillor Mike O’Brien, whom I know well and wish all the very best, that parents play a very important role in the governance of our schools. I fully expect that to continue as more schools become academies. High-quality governance is vital for the success of our schools, and boards need governors with the right skills to perform the role well. Many parents have the skills to make them effective governors, and boards will continue to appoint them as governors for that reason. There is nothing in the White Paper proposals to prevent academies from continuing to have elected parent governors if they wish to.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State sought to ban parents from becoming school governors. She has blocked Ofsted from inspecting academy chains, and she refuses to have any democratic oversight of regional school commissioners. In her final days in office, with school improvement stalled, according to the chief inspector, has she not realised that the command-and-control, “Whitehall knows best” approach to schools and education does not work?
Mr Gibb
This seems like an upside-down House: the Labour Front Benchers are on the Back Benches, and its Back Benchers are on the Front Bench. We intend to increase academy engagement with parents by creating an expectation that every academy will put in place arrangements for meaningful engagement with parents and for listening to their views and feedback.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
23. Will the Minister use this occasion to reassure parents of pupils at the Europa School in my constituency that they will still be able to play a part in the running of their school?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Parents in my constituency have been left feeling bewildered and angry after an academy order was issued for Sedgehill School but was withdrawn for six months because the regional schools commissioner could not find a sponsor. What does this uncertainty say about the state of the Government’s academy programme, and how can this uncertainty possibly be good for pupils?
Mr Gibb
What it says is that the regional schools commissioners are very selective about the sponsors that oversee our academies programme. That is why two thirds of secondary schools are now academies, one in five primary schools is now an academy and standards are rising faster in academies than in local authority schools.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I would also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and her team for the work that they did with MPs from across the House to convince the Secretary of State that full-scale forced academisation is not right for our children or our communities. As glad as we are that the right hon. Lady was for turning, she still plans to convert schools into academies across vast swathes of our country. Will she now rethink her description of parents as “vested interests”, which added insult to injury?
Mr Gibb
May I correct the hon. Lady? Her predecessor was not the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell); it was the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and I regret that she felt it necessary to resign. The academies programme is very successful, even without taking the powers that we had suggested. The programme is moving at pace—there were 200 academy conversions last month—and sponsored academies are improving faster under this arrangement. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) will support a programme that began under the Labour party, although it began under a new Labour Government, not this old Labour Opposition.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
4. What progress her Department is making on ensuring that funding is fairly distributed across schools.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
11. What progress her Department is making on ensuring that funding is fairly distributed across schools.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
14. What progress her Department is making on ensuring that funding is fairly distributed across schools.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
A fairer funding system is crucial to deliver our aim of educational excellence everywhere. It was a proud moment when Her Majesty said in her most recent Gracious Speech:
“There will also be a fairer balance between schools, through the national funding formula.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2016; Vol. 773, c. 2.]
The first stage of our two-part consultation on a national funding formula closed in April, and I thank everybody who responded to it. We are carefully considering the many responses we received.
Christopher Pincher
As the funding formula consultation progresses, will my right hon. Friend listen carefully to the voices of parents in Staffordshire—a county that has done relatively badly out of former formulas because it has areas of social deprivation—so that schoolchildren from the Kerria and Glascote estates in Tamworth have the same opportunities as those from Wolverhampton?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that he is a powerful champion on this issue. Of course we will listen to the views from Staffordshire, and I know that the Schools Minister has met a number of delegations from Staffordshire already. As I said earlier, the intention is that children with the same needs do not attract different amounts of money simply because of where they live. The new formula will ensure that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds receive additional funding. The reforms are significant, so we are determined to get them right, which is why we will consult extensively.
Peter Aldous
I am interested in that answer. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the new funding arrangements for high-needs blocks are implemented promptly, and that low-funded counties such as Suffolk do not have to wait many years until they receive the level of funds to allow them to meet the needs of vulnerable learners?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend demonstrates the desire of Members from all parts of the House and from different counties to ensure that the funding formula is looked at. We are distributing additional high-needs funding. This year, Suffolk will receive an extra £1.2 million. As I have said, we are considering carefully the responses to the first stage of the national funding formula consultation on high needs, because we are determined to ensure that those who have been underfunded in the past benefit as quickly as possible.
Luke Hall
I warmly welcome the announcement that South Gloucestershire and Stroud College has been successful in its application for the SGS Pegasus free school. It will be an 80-place school for autistic pupils, opening in September 2017. Can the Secretary of State assure me that Pegasus and other schools in South Gloucestershire and in my constituency of Thornbury and Yate will receive their fair share of funding following the introduction of the new formula?
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My Ministers and I want to ensure that all schools receive their fair share of funding. South Gloucestershire and Stroud College has indeed been successful in applying to open the SGS Pegasus free school. Free schools form an integral part of the Government’s education policy to improve choice and drive up standards in schooling.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I did not expect to be on the Back Benches today, having resigned from a job that I relished doing over the past few months, but we are where we are.
Yesterday on the television, the Secretary of State again presented the illusion that school budgets have been protected over the course of this Parliament, yet she and I both know that school budgets are facing significant cuts in real terms, which are having a huge impact on the frontline. Given that the Chancellor has all but abandoned his fiscal approach, will she be the first person at his door to ensure that our schools have the real-terms budget protection they need?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, because I could see how much she loved doing her job as shadow Secretary of State for Education. The truth is that we have protected the overall schools budget in real terms. This year, the core schools budget will be over £40 billion, which is the highest amount on record.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
What would the Secretary of State say to Schools NorthEast, which represents 1,000 schools in my region and has said that
“the Government risks fuelling the North-South divide in education by proposing to fund schools with similar characteristics differently, based on their location.”?
Nicky Morgan
I would completely disagree with that assertion. I ask the hon. Lady to ensure that she and the schools in her area take part in the next stage of the consultation. She should not forget the funding that has already been allocated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as part of the northern powerhouse fund for schools.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I am afraid that the Government’s claim that they are providing fair funding is unravelling as fast as the pledge of £350 million for the NHS on the Vote Leave bus. Will the Secretary of State confirm that analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the new funding settlement will implement an overall cut of at least 8% in school budgets?
Nicky Morgan
I applaud the hon. Lady’s activity today and her grip on her brief, but the answer is no. In 2016-17, the dedicated schools grant will total £40.68 billion, which is an increase of more than £4 billion since 2011-12 and the biggest amount any Government have ever spent on schools.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that the Education Committee is very keen to press the Department on fairer funding to ensure that it delivers what it says on the tin. Does she agree that another important element of reform is ensuring that schools can plan ahead, and that it would be good if fairer funding enabled schools to do exactly that?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and his Select Committee have done on this issue. I know that the Minister for Schools is due to meet Members shortly to discuss it further. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) is absolutely right: not only do we have to get the formula correct and make it much more transparent, I am also very keen that schools are able to plan ahead, like we would ask any other organisation to do, so that they know how they can manage their budgets in the years ahead.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
When the Government redraw the funding formula to make it fairer, as they say they will, they must remember that fair does not necessarily mean equal and that many schools face differing challenges, particularly in respect of teacher training. Will the Secretary of State therefore look at ways in which we can change the funding formula to help areas and schools with a history of low teacher recruitment rates?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Gentleman has done to represent schools in Bradford, and I know that other Bradford Members of Parliament are also very committed to raising educational standards in their area. In talking about fairer funding earlier, I spoke very specifically about children with the same needs attracting the same amount of money. It is right that children from disadvantaged backgrounds should receive more money. I would ask him to engage with us on things such as the “achieving excellence areas”, which were outlined in the White Paper that was published earlier this year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Progress this afternoon is very slow. I will take a couple of supplementaries, but they must be very brief and so must the replies.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
20. Will the Secretary of State, in reaffirming her commitment to fairer funding, set out the timetable for the consultation process and say when it will eventually be implemented?
Nicky Morgan
I hope to be able to consult extremely shortly. This is complicated and I want to give local authorities time, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to make progress.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is there not a danger for the Secretary of State that some schools will risk losing funding and that those that gain from the new funding settlement will not gain nearly enough to offset both the freeze in the education grant and the national insurance increases?
Nicky Morgan
I do not want to pre-empt the consultation. There are always dangers for Secretaries of State, but there is a danger in inaction, too. We have had an unfair national funding formula for well over a decade, and probably longer. I am not going to go down as the Secretary of State who had the opportunity to try to right that wrong but did not take it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
21. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that small rural primary schools, which are currently on the margins of financial viability, will be as secure under the new formula with academy status as when maintained by the local authority?
Nicky Morgan
We are very aware of the specific demands for rural schools. There will be specific funding to recognise their characteristics, including sparsity in particular. I hope my hon. Friend will take part in the consultation.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
5. What progress her Department is making on giving parents of summer-born and premature children the choice to defer their child’s start at school.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
Subject to parliamentary approval, we have decided to amend the school admissions code to support summer-born children in delaying entry to the reception year. We are now considering how to implement that change, and what other changes it would be appropriate to make to the code at the same time.
Stephen Hammond
I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know that the delay to the consultation on the code is causing some concern, because of inconsistent responses from local authorities. May I press him further: can we ensure that the code covers the difference between actual dates of birth and due dates?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner on this issue. As a consequence of his representations, and as part of our review of the code, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to use the due date of premature children rather than the birth date to determine when they start school.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
6. If she will make it her policy that all school children who are non-UK EU nationals retain access to the education system in the event of the UK leaving the EU.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
As a matter of principle all children resident in the United Kingdom receive a free state school education. That provision goes back to 1880, when compulsory attendance at school to age 10 was introduced in England and Wales. The UK remains a member of the EU until the article 50 negotiations have concluded, which could take two years or more. Until the process is completed, nothing will change. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman my view, because the Home Secretary is about to make a statement on this issue: I think that EU citizens already here, including children, should have the right to remain.
Patrick Grady
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but does she recognise the impact that such uncertainty is having on young people and their education? The First Minister, the National Association of Head Teachers and others are seeking precisely these assurances, so can she give an assurance that children from EU countries will be allowed to complete their education and will not be used as bargaining chips in negotiations about Brexit?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful case. There is obviously an awful lot to discuss in the light of the result of 23 June, which is not the result that I campaigned for. I completely accept his point that we should of course make sure that children of non-UK EU nationals resident here are educated.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
7. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that young people develop character at school.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
As some Members of this House have discovered in recent days, character—whether that be perseverance, respect for others, bounce-backability or the ability to build strong relationships—is an important attribute that should not be underestimated. That is why we are working with schools to ensure that all young people can develop the character traits that will support their future success. We are investing £6 million to test approaches to character education and are delivering character awards to highlight the excellent practice that already exists.
David Warburton
I thank the Minister for that answer. I chair the all-party group on the British Council, which is about to launch an inquiry into the causes of extremism and radicalisation. I am sure that my hon. Friend well understands the crucial importance of the arts in developing breadth and depth of character—we will be debating arts education later today. How is the Department working to ensure that schools are provided with the right tools to build tolerance, balance and understanding in our young people?
Edward Timpson
I commend my hon. Friend for launching his inquiry. I know that there is a debate later in Westminster Hall on the EBacc, and I am sure many of these issues will be discussed. In many ways, schools provide the best protection from radicalisation by ensuring that pupils are encouraged to explore and debate ideas, and to test each other and themselves, so that they leave school with the resilience and critical thinking skills they need to challenge extremist views. To that end, we have launched the educate against hate website to provide practical advice to parents, teachers and school leaders on how to protect children from extremism and radicalisation.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
18. Child abuse is rife in the UK, and I welcome the comments about character. Will the Secretary of State support my call for all primary school children to have statutory resilience and child protection lessons to prevent child abuse?
Edward Timpson
The Secretary of State is very aware of the hon. Lady’s campaign, as well as of the need to ensure that children are as resilient as they can be to the greater dangers that face them in the world in which they live. Those matters remain under review as part of personal, social, health and economic education, and we will return to them in future.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
19. Thank you for spotting the link, Mr Speaker. The original question about character is all very good, but what is the Minister doing to ensure that young people have sound moral judgment and a tough backbone, so that they pick the right side of an argument and accept democratic decisions, supported by their peers and the wider populace?
Edward Timpson
Perhaps I could pick out two traits that would be well worth considering: one is common sense, and the other is kindness—two things that we would do well to try to instil in every young person as they grow up in the society we have created for them.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
We would all agree that participation in sport at school is character building, and the Chancellor announced in his Budget that moneys raised from the sugar tax will be spent on sport in schools. How much money is expected to be raised from the sugar tax, and what talks have taken place on how those funds will be spent?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that money from the sugar levy will be spent directly on sport and physical activity. There is also a commitment of £500 million to help up to 25% of secondary schools extend their school day, and we have doubled the PE and sport premium for secondary schools from £150 million to £300 million per year, which is already making a significant impact on the quality of PE in many of our primary schools.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Character development includes turning young people to the outside world and helping them to gain confidence when thinking and working with people. Work experience in the teens is crucial, and it is damaging that Ministers scrapped the key stage 4 requirement in the curriculum. No wonder business groups urged them to do more, as did the skills commission on careers advice; and a five-year policy and funding vacuum has failed to prepare young people for that world of work. Will Ministers use the new Education and Adoption Act 2016 to restore work experience to the curriculum?
Edward Timpson
Many of us have had the benefit of work experience—I am sure some Members are enjoying that right now on the Opposition Front Bench—and we know that it provides people with a better understanding of the opportunities that they have in later life. The Careers and Enterprise Company is an important development because it seeks to open up those opportunities and create better links between schools and business.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
9. What steps she is taking to increase access to mindfulness programmes in schools.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
Good mental and emotional health is a key priority for this Government, and it is crucial if we want all children to fulfil their potential both academically and for their general wellbeing. It is for schools to decide how best to provide appropriate mental and emotional health to support their pupils, and the Department is undertaking a national survey to find out what activities schools offer, including mindfulness, to help us decide how best to support schools in practice.
Jessica Morden
Having visited schools in my constituency that are running mindfulness programmes in the classroom, I know how much such programmes are appreciated by young people. Given the growing mental health crisis, there is a real urgency to innovate, and mindfulness can be part of that. Will the Minister agree to meet a cross-party group to discuss the availability of such programmes?
Edward Timpson
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and a delegation to discuss the matter further. I am all for greater innovation in schools and for deciding how we can better support children so that they are strong and stable emotionally, which we know is a better backdrop to them being academically successful. I am sure we can arrange a meeting to discuss that further.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Mindfulness can be an important component of a wider PSHE programme, which our good and outstanding schools already implement. What progress is being made towards making PSHE statutory in all our schools?
Edward Timpson
I refer my hon. Friend to the earlier answer on this subject. At the core of this issue is ensuring that we have the highest quality PSHE possible. We continue to keep the matter under review, and will return to it shortly.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that mindfulness can be helpful not only with the social and emotional aspects of learning but in improving the attentiveness of pupils in schools, and therefore their academic achievement as well as their personal wellbeing?
Edward Timpson
There is a small but increasing amount of evidence that backs the hon. Gentleman’s claim. That is why we want to look at this area more carefully, hence the national survey that is under way to enrich the evidence and knowledge to see what really works so that we can improve all the aspects of a child’s life to which he refers.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
10. What plans she has to ensure that reform of the school funding formula does not have a negative effect on schools in London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for contributing to the recent debate on education funding in London. The second stage of our consultation will detail the impact of the formula on schools. I understand the importance of giving schools stability and budget security, but in advance of that consultation it would not be appropriate to speculate on the specific impact of the formula. That would be unfair to schools and parents.
Victoria Borwick
As a long-term governor, and having visited the outstanding Bevington school in Kensington this morning, can I ask the Minister to talk about the area school cost adjustment in respect of meeting the higher costs and vulnerability of schools in London?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why in the first stage of the consultation we propose to include an area cost adjustment in the national funding formula—an increase for schools facing extra costs from higher wages, which will be important for London schools. We have also protected the pupil premium at current pupil rates, so every school knows that they will receive that funding on top of their core budget. London receives over 20% of the whole pupil premium budget.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Educational standards improved dramatically in London under the previous Labour Government, a timely reminder of the virtue of Labour winning elections. In the Minister’s attempt rightly to increase funding to levels needed across the rest of the country, will he confirm that school budgets in London will not suffer, thereby setting back the enormous progress that has been made?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: educational standards and attainment have improved dramatically, in London in particular, over the past decade or so thanks to teachers, parents and pupils in London. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made very clear, the purpose of the funding formula reforms is to fund need, so where there is need in London it will be funded on the same basis as need in other parts of the country.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that schools in my constituency in west London are already having to implement the biggest cuts to their budgets they have ever made? Will he assure the head teachers I met this morning that there will be no further cuts when fair funding comes in?
Mr Gyimah
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it very clear: the core education budget of £40 billion is the highest amount ever invested in education. We are supporting our schools to achieve educational excellence everywhere. We are reforming the funding formula to ensure that that excellence can be delivered across all schools, rather than it being determined by a postcode lottery, as it is at the moment.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
12. What steps her Department is taking to improve schools in parts of the country where there has been persistent underperformance.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
Our strategy for what we are calling “achieving excellence areas” will tackle entrenched underperformance in areas where low school standards are reinforced by a lack of capacity to deliver and sustain improvement. We want to eradicate pockets of underperformance in our school system, and we will do so by targeting leadership and other school improvement programmes in areas of greatest need. We look forward to working with the first areas from this autumn.
Dr Davies
I thank the Minister for his reply. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, has called on the Welsh Assembly Government to introduce academies in Wales, saying that they improve performance. Does the Minister agree with me that raising standards is vital to helping the economy, and that it is important that political boundaries do not get in the way of business growth in my own area of north-east Wales?
Mr Gibb
How wise Sir Michael is, on this and on so much else! Raising standards is key to helping the economy grow and to improving productivity. Officials at the Department will be more than happy to hold discussions with their counterparts in the Welsh Government on how academies are raising standards. We would also be happy to discuss our education reforms over the past six years, which are raising standards and expectations in reading, writing, maths and the whole curriculum, in sharp contrast to what is happening in Wales under a Labour Administration.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
13. What steps her Department is taking to increase the uptake of languages at GCSE.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
The Government have acted to halt the serious decline in the number of pupils taking language GCSEs—40% of pupils in 2011 took a GCSE in modern foreign languages, down from 76% in 2000—and thanks to the EBacc, the proportion of pupils in state schools entered for a modern foreign language GCSE increased by 20% between 2011 and 2015. Our ambition is that 90% of pupils in mainstream secondary schools will enter GCSEs in EBacc subjects, including a language.
Jake Berry
The internationalist manufacturing and business base across Rossendale and Darwen needs people with modern language skills if it is to continue to compete and succeed. What steps can schools take to co-operate with local businesses, such as those in my constituency, to ensure that the menu of language skills that pupils leave school with matches business requirement?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and one of the key goals of the Careers and Enterprise Company is to increase that engagement with business. The CBI’s recent report found that 77% of businesses valued foreign language skills and that nearly one third rated Mandarin as a useful language.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Will the Minister make sure that Punjabi continues to be available at GCSE for many years to come?
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
15. What plans her Department has to improve child and family social work.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
Excellent social work transforms lives, which is why we are establishing a regulatory body to drive up standards and raise the quality of social work training and practice. We are attracting new talent to the profession, investing in high-quality training, rolling out a practice-focused career pathway and developing a new What Works centre to ensure that social workers are equipped with the best knowledge and skills for their practice. This clear strategy to improve child and family social work is set out in the children’s social care policy paper, “Putting Children First”, which I and the Secretary of State published today and by way of a written statement. I encourage all hon. Members to read it.
Nusrat Ghani
Will the Minister explain how the Department’s new graduate entry routes to social work, such as Step Up to Social Work and Frontline, and including the award-winning provision of children’s services from East Sussex County Council, have impacted the social work profession?
Edward Timpson
Step Up and Frontline are beginning to have a significant impact: more than 670 Step Up participants have qualified as social workers and more than 450 students and 103 local authorities started training this year. An evaluation of cohort 1 showed high retention, and 99 Frontline participants have now qualified as social workers. An independent evaluation in March 2016 was hugely encouraging.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Children can remain in foster care until they are 21, while those in residential care have to leave at 18, which creates a truly unfair system. I have organised for MPs to pledge their support tomorrow to show that we care equally about all looked-after children. Will the Minister sign the pledge?
Edward Timpson
I commend the hon. Lady for her continued and passionate commitment to this matter, based on her professional experience and desire to make a difference. If she reads the paper, “Putting Children First”, which I mentioned a few moments ago, she will find a response to a recommendation from Martin Narey’s review into residential care explaining that we will start to pilot “staying close” for children leaving care in residential care settings. This is in line with his recommendation and I am sure will be hugely welcomed.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
16. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on steps to achieve the Government’s aim to make children more physically active.
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
We are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the forthcoming childhood obesity strategy, which will build upon our existing measures to promote school-based physical activity for pupils. Physical education remains a compulsory subject at all four key stages in the national curriculum, which sets out our expectation that pupils should be physically active for sustained periods of time.
Tom Pursglove
What plans does the Minister have to combat the drop-off in participation in sport from primary school to secondary school?
Edward Timpson
I have already alluded to the doubling of the PE and sport premium at primary school—we have invested more than £450 million. We are also determined to ensure that children continue to sustain participation in PE and sport as they move into secondary education. In the Government’s sports strategy, we have committed to working with the sector to better understand the barriers and issues around drop-off and to identify good practice. By knowing what works, we can be better equipped to combat the drop-off that my hon. Friend rightly mentions.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
17. What progress the Government have made on providing 30 free hours of childcare per week for three and four year-olds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
We are delivering at great pace on our commitment to provide parents with 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds. With cross-party support, we have already taken the Childcare Act 2016 through Parliament. We announced in the November spending review that we would invest an additional £1 billion a year into the system from 2019-20—more than ever before—and we are not waiting until 2017 to deliver on our commitment: around 5,000 children from eight areas will get their 30 hours a year from this September.
Karin Smyth
The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, highlighted the danger that the Government will be unable to deliver their pledge to give three and four-year-olds 33 hours of childcare a week. In view of all our findings, what is the Minister doing to ensure that local authorities manage their childcare markets effectively or intervene if necessary?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Lady asks an important question. I am in contact with a lot of local authorities, and the Department has the local authority working group. In addition to the increased funding we have provided, we are working to ensure that local authorities have the capital they need—an extra £50 million—to create places in their local areas where there is a need.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
The Minister for Children and Families has mentioned today’s publication of “Putting Children First”, which provides much-needed reforms to children’s social care—often a much under-sung service. I am sure that colleagues will condemn tomorrow’s strike action by the National Union of Teachers, which is both unnecessary and counter-productive. It will harm children’s education, inconvenience parents and damage the profession’s reputation in the eyes of the public. Finally, I would like to send my appreciation to teachers and students across the country who will receive their key stage 2 results this week.
Patrick Grady
Following the safe and successful return of Major Tim Peake from the international space station, what plans does the Secretary of State have to work with the UK Space Agency to promote space and science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, especially among women and girls?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue, and we of course want to see more young people studying STEM subjects. My first boss in the House in the last Parliament, now Lord Willetts, told me that there were two ways to engage young people in science—space or dinosaurs.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
T2. Following a rather poor Ofsted report for the local authority in Portsmouth, will the Secretary of State outline what support her Department can give to help schools in Portsmouth to become centres of excellence?
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
My hon. Friend is a strong promoter of educational excellence in Portsmouth. Centres of excellence in initial teacher training will be designated on the basis of criteria such as the quality of trainee teachers recruited, the quality of training courses, the outcomes for trainee teachers and training providers’ effectiveness in recruiting. We expect to confirm the schools and universities that have been designated as centres of excellence for the 2017-18 academic year when the allocation of training places is made in the autumn.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Ten days ago, we had the Government’s latest figures for apprenticeships. They showed that only one in four apprenticeships was going to young people under 19, whether it be in the number of starts or participation, and, even worse, that there were only 12,000 traineeship starts compared to 109,000 apprenticeship starts for under-19s. Does this not show that, after all the time and money Ministers have devoted to apprenticeships, they are still flailing around for a coherent strategy to get young people under 19 to the starting-block—either for traineeships or apprenticeships?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Following the apprenticeships review in 2012, employers are designing new apprenticeships that are more responsive to the needs of business. More than 1,300 employers are involved; 241 standards have been published; and more than 160 new standards are in development. In the last Parliament, there were 2.4 million apprenticeship starts, and the reforms to technical education will build on that. This is a very successful part of our education system.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T3. One of the concerns about the fairer funding formula is what happens to sixth-form students. Can Ministers confirm that fairer funding will apply to sixth-form students in particular, and clarify what is proposed for sixth-form colleges?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
My hon. Friend will be aware that in the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed funding of £4,000 per pupil for post-16 education, and that remains the case. Obviously, where there are school sixth forms, reforming the national funding formula will impact on the whole school budget. I do not what to pre-empt what the consultation will say, but I am sure we can have a discussion once we have published it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, there are already examples of academies ignoring the concerns and views of parents, and removing the requirement to have a parent-governor or parent-governors will make matters worse. The White Paper proposes that parents should be able to petition to have their academy moved from an under-performing multi-academy trust to a different MAT, will she tell us how that will work?
Nicky Morgan
I refute the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I do not know of any academies or schools that ignore parents’ concerns. As for the second part, we will make that clear when we have published the Bill. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be part of the Committee that scrutinises the “education for all” Bill.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
T4. Some schools and headteachers are nervous about becoming academies. I believe they need not be, but what reassurance and guidance can the Minister give them on the path to academisation?
Mr Gibb
The process of conversion to academies will be assisted by the Department and once a school notifies the Department it wants to convert to academy status, with all the professional freedoms that that brings, there will be a named official who will help it through the process.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
T9. When research shows that six out of 10 LGBT students have experienced homophobic bullying, there is much to be done to improve life for LGBT pupils. Following her support for UK school diversity week, what plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure schools offer an LGBT-inclusive education?
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must ensure that there is an absolutely inclusive education. I do not want to see any young person missing a day of education, and certainly not because they are worried about being made fun of or not being able to be who they are. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have already announced over £3 million for specific homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying. That is having an effect. I pay tribute to the charities who are working across the country to roll that out and I look forward to continuing to support, and to expand, that work.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
T5. As my right hon. Friend knows, before coming to this place I was a teacher. Teaching colleagues have concerns, which I share, about the appointment of Amanda Spielman as the new chief inspector of Ofsted. She does not hold a teaching qualification or have classroom experience. Does this appointment risk eroding the standing of the teaching profession and teachers’ esteem and morale? What assurances can my right hon. Friend give?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her very heartfelt question. [Laughter.] Well, I do not think that the appointment of the new chief inspector is funny, but a recent shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), apparently does. Amanda Spielman has a passion for improving children’s lives through education. Her work at ARK has transformed the life chances of children in some of our most disadvantaged areas.
I know parents and teachers want Ofsted to inspect in a fair, consistent and reliable way that supports improvement. The chief inspector’s role is not to tell teachers how to teach or to second-guess them; it is to run Ofsted, to provide an inspectorate, to build on evidence and tell the Secretary of State what sometimes she does not want to hear. I know that Amanda Spielman will do that on behalf of teachers across the country.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent report by the Traveller movement showing that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children are four times more likely to be excluded from school than other groups, yet 100% of appeals against exclusions from Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children are successful. What action is the Secretary of State taking to address this state of affairs?
Mr Gibb
We had a group in the last Parliament to address this very issue, and we are considering how to take that work forward. It is very important that all children, regardless of their background, attend school and we do not have any lesser expectations for children from different ethnic groups. This is a particular group that is underperforming in our system and we need to do more to ensure that they attend school and achieve.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
T6. The principal of Paignton academy, Jane English, recently received a lifetime achievement award for teaching and inspiring generations of students, yet the school has been held back by having some elderly buildings that urgently need replacement. Can the Minister update me on when funding will be made available to do this?
Mr Gyimah
First, may I take this opportunity to congratulate Jane English on her lifetime achievement award? She has done a tremendous job. The condition improvement fund was three times over-subscribed this year, which is why the school was unsuccessful—there were a lot of quality bids. I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the next fund will be opening in autumn 2016.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Durham county council is part-way through the legal process of merging South Stanley infant and junior schools to form a primary school, but on Friday the Department issued a notice that the infant school will now be part of Greenlands junior school as a new academy, completely ignoring any consultation with local parents. How does that fit with what the Minister has said about the involvement of parents in these decisions?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T7. More schools in Medway are now being rated outstanding and good. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the excellent work of Councillor Mike O’Brien, the cabinet member for children’s services at Medway council, who, alongside council officers, school leaders and parents, is working hard to raise standards in Medway?
Nicky Morgan
I pay tribute to the work of Councillor Mike O’Brien and I am sorry to hear that he is not well. He is a hard-working and conscientious Medway councillor who is dedicated to serving his constituents and to improving education. His nine years’ experience on Medway Council and his years on Gillingham Borough Council have made him a very effective local representative. Our thoughts are with him and his family at this time.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The children of Thoresby primary school have an abundance of common sense and kindness, and I was delighted that they were awarded the National Character Award last week by the Children’s Minister. Does he agree, however, that we also want to instil determination, grit and tenacity in our young people?
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
T8. I thank the Schools Minister for his recent visit to the Acorn alternative provision academy in my constituency to see the excellent work that it is doing. Does he agree that the delivery of high quality and innovative alternative provision education is vital to raising the life chances of children who find themselves in the most difficult and challenging situations? Can he update the House on the work that his Department is doing to support alternative provision across the country?
Mr Gibb
I was actually expecting a question on term-time holidays from my hon. Friend, but I am nevertheless delighted to join him in congratulating the Acorn AP academy. It is an excellent alternative provision academy with a real focus on academic achievement for vulnerable pupils. I certainly agree that outstanding alternative provision is vital, and in our education White Paper we set out reforms that will help to build a world-leading system of alternative provision. The reforms will incentivise schools to commission high-quality provision and make the schools more accountable for the outcomes of alternative provision pupils.
Mr Speaker
I can authoritatively pronounce from the Chair that the screeds written for Ministers at Education questions are significantly longer than those written for other ministerial Question Times. That is not a compliment.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was telling us earlier about her plans to support young people who leave care, whether it is foster care or residential care. Will she tell us where the new members of staff are going to come from to support them and where the young people are going to live?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Gentleman needs to look carefully at Martin Narey’s report and at our response in the social care policy paper. This is not a question of simply expanding the current provision; we are trying to find innovative ways of supporting young people out of care that will serve them much better in the long term.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Ensuring that students have access to the latest technology is key to raising standards in schools. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Havant College on its pioneering partnership with Google, which ensures that every student has access to a tablet computer?
Mr Gibb
Yes, I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Havant Sixth Form College on harnessing the expertise and ingenuity of Google’s staff and products. The intelligent selection and use of technology in schools and colleges can be a great asset in helping to improve educational outcomes. I hope that this screed was within the time limit, Mr Speaker.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is the Minister of State surprised to learn that when I shared his latest response to my correspondence about teacher shortages in Slough with our local headteachers, they found it cynical and said that it failed to address the real recruitment and retention problems that they face? Will he meet me and those headteachers to discuss a practical arrangement to deal with the teacher shortages in our town?
Mr Gibb
Of course I will meet the right hon. Lady and the teachers from her constituency to discuss this issue, which we take very seriously. We are competing for graduates in a strong economy, and we have recruited 15,000 more teachers since 2010. There are 456,000 teachers in the teaching profession, and 14,000 more teachers returned to teaching last year. That is a higher figure than in previous years. Teaching is still a popular profession, but we are dealing with the challenge of a very strong economy and competing in the same pool for graduates. We take this issue seriously, which is why we have very generous bursaries to attract the best graduates to teaching.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I was rather surprised to find that the number of children being home schooled in Warwickshire had trebled over the past three years. There are 452 such pupils in the current year. Will Secretary of State tell us what provisions exist to ensure that such children get a full and rounded education?
Nicky Morgan
We have already made it clear that we want to know more about what is happening to children who are home educated. The majority will be educated extremely well, but we believe that there is more to do on this. We also want local authorities to know when children are being withdrawn from schools in order to be home educated, and I expect further proposals to follow.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Last month, Baker Small gloated on social media about a win in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Since then further information has come to light, revealing that Baker Small is advising councils on making it harder for children to be given assessments for an education, health and care plan to help cut costs. That goes completely against the principle of the Children and Families Act 2014, which is to create a less adversarial system. Can the Minister assure me, the House, and parents of children with SEND that he is doing all that he can to end the practice, and may I ask what he is going to do about Baker Small?
Edward Timpson
Let me put on record that practices of that kind are totally unacceptable. The new tribunal arrangements that we introduced were intended to make the system less adversarial and more inclusive for parents and young people, so that we could achieve a better resolution of any problems that emerged. We will continue to watch carefully how matters develop, but the hon. Lady can be reassured that we do not accept that that practice is appropriate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but, as usual, demand exceeds supply, and we must now move on.
EU Nationals: UK Residence
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the legal status of EU nationals residing in the United Kingdom in the event of the United Kingdom’s leaving the European Union.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
EU nationals make an invaluable contribution to our economy, our society and our daily lives. They should be assured that, as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have repeatedly said, there will be no immediate change in their status in the UK. The Prime Minister has made it clear that decisions on issues relating to the UK’s exit will be for a new Prime Minister. I am therefore not in a position to make new policy announcements this afternoon.
The discussions that we have with the European Union to agree the arrangements for the UK’s exit will undoubtedly reflect the immense contribution made by EU citizens to our economy, our NHS and our schools, and in so many other ways; but they must also secure the interests of the 1.2 million British citizens who live and work elsewhere in the EU.
The Home Secretary was clear yesterday when she said that we should seek to guarantee that the rights of both groups were protected, and that this would be best done through reciprocal discussions with the European Union as part of the negotiations to leave the EU. It has been suggested that the Government could now fully guarantee EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay, but that would be unwise without a parallel assurance from European Governments regarding British nationals living in their countries. Such a step might also have the unintended consequence of prompting EU immigration to the UK.
It is in the best interests of all for the Government to conduct detailed work on this issue, and for the new Prime Minister to decide the best way forward as quickly as possible. In the meantime, let me stress that EU nationals continue to be welcome here. We have seen some truly abhorrent hate crimes perpetrated against EU nationals in the past week or so, and we will not stand for attacks of that kind. They must be, and will be, tackled in the strongest possible terms.
EU nationals can have our full and unreserved reassurance that their right to enter and to work, study and live in the UK remains unchanged, but to pre-empt future discussions at this point would risk undermining our ability to protect the interests of EU and British citizens alike, and to secure the best outcome for both.
Ms Stuart
I hate to teach the Minister about British constitutional organisations and structures, but ours is a Cabinet Government structure. Irrespective of whether Prime Ministers decide to leave, the Cabinet can still make decisions.
May I point out to Ministers that people are not bargaining chips? It is deeply offensive to assume that this country retrospectively changes the rights of its citizens. It is a duty of Government to allow people to live their lives and to make arrangements and predictions. We have 3 million EU citizens in this country, and 1.2 million British people live in the EU. They have a right to expect the Government to make clear statements.
The Minister may have read a letter to The Sunday Telegraph in which Members of Parliament, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), Frances O’Grady of the TUC, Simon Walker of the Institute of Directors, and Sunder Katwala of British Future—the Co-op is also concerned—say that it is the duty of this Government to state clearly and unequivocally that any EU citizen here will maintain and continue to enjoy the rights that they have acquired. Anything else would represent a failure of the Government to protect their people and future obligations. The Minister may also be aware that the House of Lords is far from happy with the Government’s position. Will he do the right thing now and not turn people into bargaining chips and not worry about what might happen in future but at this moment stand up and say that we honour human rights, that EU citizens have made an important and valuable contribution that will be honoured and that those who are here will continue to be here?
James Brokenshire
I entirely understand the basic premise of the right hon. Lady’s point, which is that we should seek to reassure EU nationals here in the UK and British citizens in other EU countries. On that broad premise, we are not poles apart. The question is about how we achieve that objective, which raises several complex issues. She will understand that we are talking about not only the right to reside, but employment rights, the right to study, entitlement to benefits, access to public services, and the ability to be joined by family members.
This is not, as the right hon. Lady seeks to characterise it, about viewing people as bargaining chips in some way; it is about getting the best possible outcome for EU citizens who are here and for the 1.2 million British citizens who are elsewhere in the European Union. The Government are absolutely focused on getting the best possible solution through discussions with the European Union. She and other EU nationals who are here and contributing to our society can be assured that that is absolutely at the forefront of what we are seeking to achieve in the negotiations that will follow.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House wants to see no disadvantage given either to EU citizens living in this country or to UK citizens living in other European countries. I detect the faint whiff of synthetic indignation over this entire urgent question process. What judgment has the Minister made about the best way to protect the interests of the more than 1 million British citizens living, and in many cases working, in other EU countries, so that no one is disadvantaged at the end of this process?
James Brokenshire
We need to ensure that there is an overall balance and that all the issues are given careful consideration. We have to view things in the round. That is why it would be a mistake to view this in a narrow way and to make statements now that could impede broader discussions about the position of British nationals in other European countries. That is the right approach and is precisely why the Prime Minister set out that we need to consider things very carefully.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I should probably begin by declaring an interest: my wife, Marie-France, is a Dutch national and our three children are half-Dutch. So many British families are similar to ours, with relatives born in Ireland or in other EU countries. The 3 million or so EU nationals living here are the fathers and mothers, aunties and uncles, and grandmas and granddads of millions of British children. To leave any uncertainty hanging over their right to be here is tantamount to undermining family life in our country. That does not strike me as a very prime ministerial thing to do, but it is what the Home Secretary did yesterday. She said that
“people who have an established life here”
would be part of negotiations with Brussels. For people making a huge contribution to our society to be talked of as a bargaining chip, as was said, is insensitive to say the least. But when she adds that
“nobody necessarily stays anywhere forever”,
it becomes quite threatening.
I hope the Minister will go back and tell the Home Secretary that my kids would quite like their mum to stay here forever, if that’s okay with her. In retrospect, does he not accept that the Home Secretary’s comments were ill-judged? Is it not the case that people who have made a life here when it was perfectly legal for them to do so should not now have the rug pulled from under them? Furthermore, is it not entirely within the gift of the UK Government to remove this uncertainty today? Why is the Home Secretary not here today doing precisely that, rather than prioritising her leadership campaign? This is entirely a matter for the UK Government to decide, and it is this Government’s own decision to make this an issue in the negotiations. By doing so, are they not creating the conditions for the unwelcoming climate to continue, and for the rise in xenophobic and racist abuse we have seen?
Finally, does the very fact that we are having to hold this debate today not illustrate how flawed the referendum campaign was? Did people not have a right to know the answer to this crucial question before they went to vote? Sending any EU nationals home has enormous implications for families, for public services and for the economy, so why on earth did the Government instruct civil servants not to carry out any contingency planning on the implications of Brexit? Was that not the very height of irresponsibility? And has it not left us with “neither compass nor chart”, as Lord Hennessey has said? The Conservative party has reduced our country to chaos and created uncertainty being felt in every family. If the Home Secretary wants to be the person to lead us out of it, she needs to have the courage to come to this House and clear up her own mess.
James Brokenshire
If anything was ill-judged, I think the right hon. Gentleman’s comments were and the manner in which he approached his contribution this afternoon. I have been clear that there is no concept of bargaining chips or viewing people in that way. I have been clear on the contribution I see EU citizens making to our country, now and in the future, which is why it will be a part of that negotiation as we look towards a positive future for our country outside the EU. It would not be responsible to take a stance now that could have an impact on the 1.2 million British citizens in countries outside the UK. [Interruption.] It is not a choice of one or the other; it is a question of looking at both of them, and getting the best possible outcome for UK citizens in other European countries as well as giving assurance on the rights of European citizens who are here. It is important that we approach the negotiations in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the point about the rise in community tensions, as he did fairly to us last week when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), made her statement on hate crime. We would have common cause in utterly condemning hate crime—I absolutely condemn it again today—with the further work that will be introduced on tackling hate crime and the further work that the police are doing in our communities at the moment. We celebrate the work of so many European citizens here in our country now, which is why this does need to be part of those discussions and agreements with the European Union, to give that assurance and, yes, to get the best possible outcome for them, as well as for British citizens abroad.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Minister understand that many of us regard the Home Secretary’s recent remarks as wholly inappropriate? Does he also accept that any EU citizen who currently resides in the UK will continue to do so, as he has suggested, but that once the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 has taken place, it will be a matter for domestic legislation here at Westminster to decide, in our traditional fair and reasonable manner, on what basis people should remain, having regard to the interests of UK nationals in other member states?
James Brokenshire
I underline again that we are an open, welcoming country and recognise the contribution that EU citizens make to our country, our economy and our communities. That is why this must form part of our assessment, our consideration and our negotiations and agreement with our European partners. I stress it in those terms very clearly. I hope my hon. Friend will understand why the matter needs to be viewed in that broader construct in the best interests of our country and to get the best outcome from those discussions.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I start by observing that this is one of many questions to which it might have been prudent to have an answer before the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and her fellow Brexiteers persuaded so many of their fellow citizens to vote to leave the EU? Be that as it may, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the European Union, and our fellow citizens who were born outside the UK are now anxious to know what the referendum results mean for them, not just now but in the future. And so are EU citizens across the UK. It is wrong and irresponsible to prevaricate about this.
In launching her bid for the leadership of the Tory party last week, the Home Secretary said:
“We will strive to make Britain a country that works for everyone—regardless of who they are and regardless of where they’re from.”
Actions speak louder than words. Why is the Home Secretary not here today to give the sort of reassurance that one might have expected in the light of that election pitch? What could be more important than her coming to this House to give that reassurance?
At the opening of the Scottish Parliament on Saturday, the First Minister said:
“We are one Scotland and we are simply home to all of those who have chosen to live here. That is who and what we are.”
Will the Minister reconsider, follow the First Minister’s example, and offer such reassurance for the whole of the United Kingdom? If he is not prepared to do that, will he clarify today in what circumstances he thinks it would be appropriate to remove the rights of EU citizens already living here?
James Brokenshire
The hon. and learned Lady has rightly highlighted that there were and will be a range of issues that need to be addressed, and obviously this is one of them. It was a consequence of the decision to leave the European Union; it was not shied away from and was clear in advance of the referendum. She makes her point in a clear and concise way. To come to her broader point, we want to get to a position where we can tell EU nationals who live in the UK that everything will be fine, that we can see them continuing here. I reverse the approach and take it from that standpoint. That is the approach that we will take as we look towards those negotiations and those EU discussions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. If I am to accommodate most colleagues, there will be a premium upon brevity, to be exemplified by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles).
Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The hyperbole and the overstatement from the Opposition Benches will do much to frighten EU nationals in this country, more so than anything that has been said from the Front Bench. But there is an urgency to giving a clear message on the matter. EU citizens are among our top surgeons, our top consultants, our top anaesthetists. They are among our top engineers and our top architects. These are people who can work anywhere in the world and we need to be very clear that we want them here, as part of our economy.
James Brokenshire
I recognise the contribution made by all the people my right hon. Friend mentioned to our economy and also, as I said, to schools, the health service and so many other parts of our communities. I stress again that there is no change to their status now. We have to approach the discussions and focus on how we get the best possible outcome for them as well as for our own citizens, and that is what we will do.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Is it not obvious that the forced deportation of millions of EU citizens is something that no sane or fair Government would contemplate doing? Given that no Government would do it, all we see from the Minister is that the Home Secretary has an incredible “negotiating position” and is causing untold fear and misery for many people in our country. It is time the Government gave clarity on this issue.
James Brokenshire
I am sorry, but I entirely reject the assertions the right hon. Gentleman makes. We have been very clear on confronting the division in our society, and in actually doing the work and setting out the best possible outcome for EU citizens, as well as British citizens, and that is the job we will get on with.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
I was glad to hear a moment ago, in one response from the Minister, that foreign residents are not to be treated as pawns in the negotiations, but I have to say that that was not the impression I had from his opening statement. Protecting their rights is the only ethical position that can now be taken. What is more, the longer the uncertainty about this question persists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) pointed out, the greater the risk of the economic downturn and the economic consequences. The Minister has been sent to do a holding operation today. Will he now take back from this urgent question debate the clear message that waiting until 9 September or beyond is simply not a realistic option and that the best thing to do now is to just get on with granting these rights?
James Brokenshire
I note my right hon. Friend’s contribution, and I would reassert the comments I made about people not being bargaining chips. We are talking about people’s lives here, and we fully appreciate and recognise the personal significance that this has. I do say to him, though, that it is appropriate that we look at this in the round, with all the complexities and all the unintended consequences that might arise from making statements now. It is appropriate to consider it in that way and to get the best outcome.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
There are unintended consequences in not making a statement now and allowing this issue to drift. There are children in schools, whose parents are French or Polish, who are in tears because they fear that they may have to leave. Extremists are exploiting this for “Go home” campaigns and repatriation campaigns that are vile, and the Home Secretary is just giving them succour. The Minister has been sent out here to waffle, while the Home Secretary, once again, has gone to ground on something that she could sort right now. Parliament is sovereign; we could sort this before the recess. Why do we not have a motion through this Parliament, which every one of us could sign up to and support, to say we will respect people’s rights if they are settled here and contributing to our country already? That is the fair thing to do.
James Brokenshire
We do have the certainty of knowing that there will be no immediate change, so people should not be fearful. Equally, others should not try to stoke up anxieties in the way that, I think, has been done in some contributions. It is important that we get this right and that people can continue in the way that they have done. Again, this process of leaving the EU is likely to take a number of years, and there will be no change while we remain a member of the European Union. People need to have that confidence and certainty. We will certainly confront any division, any hatred and any racism that we see, and the police are already taking action on that.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
While I understand the immediate logic of my right hon. Friend’s position, he does need to understand that our partners are not going to be in a position to make a reciprocal commitment, because 27 nations have to agree a position in the negotiations. This is an area in which the uncertainty needs to be brought to an end as soon as possible. Since it is inconceivable that we would not grant retrospective rights, should we not get on with it immediately?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is important that we look at the reciprocal rights and at how we do this at an EU level, rather than with individual member states. I think that is the right approach to take. However, it is important to view this in the round, viewing the role and responsibilities of British citizens who are in other European countries, and ensuring that the actions we take do not have unintended consequences for them.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I find it hard to comprehend: the Minister keeps talking about not using EU citizens as bargaining chips, but then talks as if that is exactly what he is going to do. I also have to declare an interest: my husband is German, he has been a GP in this country for 30 years and, along with others in the community, he is anxious. The Minister says there will not be an answer for several years. In what way should people feel reassured? We caused the problem; we should set the example, and then other countries will respond in kind—just give them the reassurance.
James Brokenshire
I commend and congratulate the hon. Lady’s husband on the contribution he has made to the NHS, as have so many other EU nationals. Again, it is important to underline the fact that EU nationals who have been exercising treaty rights for a period of five years are entitled to permanent residence under existing rules. That is why we need a calm approach to these issues, underlining the existing arrangements that EU citizens will continue to benefit from, as well as looking at what those arrangements will need to be in future. That is where the negotiation plays such an essential part.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is not my right hon. Friend making a bit of a meal of this? Why do we not just do what this House clearly wants to do—to grant the rights to these people? Could not that be implemented very quickly if we repealed the European Communities Act 1972? Does he not accept responsibility for gross negligence in not having any contingency plans?
James Brokenshire
I am afraid that there are significant legal complexities glossed over by my hon. Friend in outlining those solutions. A range of quite complex, multi-faceted issues arise. I have already highlighted things like benefit rights, access to public services, and employment rights, and there are others as well. It is not as simple as some have set it out to be. That is why we need to work through this carefully to get the best outcome.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
There are 36,000 EU passport holders in the London borough of Westminster—almost one in eight of the population. This week I have been flooded by emails from people concerned about the jobs they do, the businesses they run, and the future of their children’s education. Does not the Minister understand that “not immediately” is simply not good enough? People are making decisions about their lives, their businesses and their children: they need reassurance, and they need it now.
James Brokenshire
Of course I understand the points that the hon. Lady very fairly makes. I do not think there is much difference between us on getting to that objective. That is why I make the point that I do about the certainty that people have now, and therefore working towards giving that certainty and assurance as part of the discussions at EU level. I absolutely understand the point that she fairly makes. That is precisely why this needs to be a priority as part of those discussions with our European partners, so that there is certainty for their citizens here, as well as our citizens in those member states.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we should hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than trading off one group of immigrants against another, and immediately unilaterally declare a new immigration status of EU-acquired rights that would give people the right to reside here if they had been here for less than five years, at the same time as advertising to those who have been here for longer than five years that they now automatically have the right of permanent residence, so that as many of them as possible can avail themselves of that right?
James Brokenshire
I have already, in response to an earlier question, explained the position in relation to permanent residence. Those rights are there. Obviously we will retain and respect all existing rights while we remain a member of the European Union. My hon. Friend makes a number of points about potential solutions. Ultimately, that will be a matter for the next Prime Minister.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in condemning Lord Pearson, who has said,
“it is we who hold the stronger hand if we retaliate, because so many more of them”—
“them” being EU citizens—
“are living here”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1563.]
For two specific categories—the 10,000 EU doctors, just under 10% of the staff, who work in the NHS, and EU students who have just embarked on their studies—can the Minister give any guarantees that they will be able to continue?
James Brokenshire
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I entirely agree—those comments are simply not acceptable. On his second point, yes, we know that about 50,000 EU citizens are working within the NHS. The contribution that they make is absolutely essential. I underline the points that I have made about the certainty that they have now in relation to existing EU rights, and working towards a position where we can give clarity moving forward.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Some 55,000 members of our NHS workforce qualified elsewhere in the European Union, as did 80,000 members of our equally valued care sector. They need security, not just now, but in the long term, because the workforce crisis is one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS. In addition to welcoming the extraordinarily valuable contribution that those people make to our health and care sector, will the Minister take back the clearest possible message from this House that we need long-term security now?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the contribution that EU and other citizens make in providing care in the NHS and in the care sector for our elderly. Obviously, as part of the negotiations, we want to ensure that there is an assurance. It exists now—I stress that again—but I acknowledge the priority she has given to it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) led the campaign that got us into this mess. May I take up with the Minister something he said about the British people living in other European countries? I declare an interest as president of Labour International. We have heard from lots of people who live in Spain and elsewhere who are very concerned about their future. Can the Minister end the uncertainty for those British people—many of whom could not vote in the referendum because they have been abroad for longer than 15 years —that they will not be forced out of Spain, France or elsewhere, by ensuring that the British Government make a quick, early statement on security for citizens of those countries here?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well on the bigger implications and broader issues that we absolutely have to acknowledge in making decisions. That is why we need to act with care, consideration and thought, to ensure that we consider the rights not only of those from the EU who are here, but of British citizens overseas, who will be feeling equally uncertain. We need to think about both in our discussions.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who asked the urgent question, will know, nobody on the official leave campaign raised the prospect of sending people away and deporting people. The issue has been raised by the Home Secretary and it is a catastrophic error of judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country even to suggest that those people who are here legally, who are working and who have families and are settled, should be part of the negotiations. She has made a big error of judgment and that message needs to go back to the Home Secretary today.
James Brokenshire
I am very sorry, but I think that my hon. Friend has completely mischaracterised what the Home Secretary said. She was merely saying that people come and go: some people who work here may go back to their home countries. That is the fluidity that we see in labour markets and in the movements of people between different countries. That is what the Home Secretary was referring to. We want to work to ensure that the rights of those who are here are guaranteed, and that will form part of the negotiations.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Minister’s answer to the question seems to be, “Trust me: it’s all in hand.” Is it any wonder that the family of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and thousands of other families up and down this country cannot trust the Government, given how they have handled the immigration question for years? May I ask the Minister to do a little better than saying, “Just trust me”, and to say whether he has made representations on this issue to his opposite numbers in the French or Spanish Governments?
James Brokenshire
The issue is being treated seriously. It is not about multilateral negotiations but about getting it right and assessing all the complexities that I have already highlighted this afternoon. That is the appropriate response. As the Prime Minister has said, we need to look at the issue very carefully and it will be for the next Prime Minister to act.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Knowing the contribution that EU nationals make to Torbay, I welcome this afternoon’s far more positive portrayal of their contribution to society, particularly by one or two Members who have not done that over the past couple of months. Does the Minister agree that, in order to reassure them, we could make it very clear that, unless there is a retaliation within the European Union against British passport holders, we will guarantee their rights in the UK?
James Brokenshire
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. We want to make sure that EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain, but we also, as I have already stressed, need to guarantee the rights of British nationals living in EU member states. That needs to be a priority of our negotiations.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
On exactly that point, can the Minister explain how it can possibly be likely to prejudice the rights of UK nationals in the EU if we do the right thing—if we do the moral thing—and uphold basic human rights by extending the rights of EU nationals here? Does he recognise how out of touch he is on this issue, and will he take that message back to the Home Secretary in no uncertain terms?
James Brokenshire
Of course, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes about wanting to act. We need to be careful about the unintended consequences and other implications of things that we do now, up front, to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for British citizens overseas. It is about looking at this in the round to achieve the best outcome. I think she and I both agree on that, but we differ on how we should go about it.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I understand the concerns that have been expressed today. My mother is a Danish national who has lived in the UK for more than 50 years. My right hon. Friend has set out that there are complexities here. However, can he reassure the House that this is an urgent priority and that plans are being developed urgently, not only in the Home Office but by the EU Brexit unit that has been set up recently by the Prime Minister?
James Brokenshire
Yes, I can. My hon. Friend makes reference to the new unit that has been established, and this is certainly seen as an early item in that work.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that his remarks and the remarks of the Home Secretary have created real insecurity among a number of people, who are now seeking to become British and who are perfectly qualified for British citizenship? The Minister is about to make hundreds of thousands of pounds of profit from those applications. What is he going to do right now to cut the cost of becoming British, or at least to make it happen faster and more efficiently, for the many European citizens who will become British because they are so unsure of their own future?
James Brokenshire
I do not accept that my comments or the comments of the Home Secretary have in any way added to the uncertainty that the right hon. Lady has pointed to. The Prime Minister said clearly that nothing changes while we remain a member of the European Union. Obviously, we need to make decisions for the future, and that will be for the next Prime Minister.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Interestingly, throughout the referendum campaign the Government did not indicate what their position would be on the matter. Since the result, they have demonstrated nothing other than that they are completely unprepared for this and every other issue. EU nationals are part of our communities, and our children share classrooms and friendships with them. The Secretary of State for Education stated in an answer to oral questions just before this urgent question that she believes that EU nationals and their children should be allowed to remain in this country. Does the Minister agree with his colleague?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, I believe that we need to work to make sure that people who are here can stay in the UK. Securing that needs to be part of the negotiations. That is part of those discussions, as is the position of British nationals overseas.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister’s statement condemns large numbers of constituents of mine who are married to foreign nationals, expecting children with foreign nationals or employed in factories here and abroad with foreign nationals to great uncertainty. If he will not accept the will of the House today, will he give a clearer indication of the timescale than simply, “It is a matter for the next Prime Minister”?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of issues that flow through from the decision that has been made for the UK to leave the European Union, and this is but one of them. I entirely recognise the points that he and others have made, but this is how we are able to get the best outcome for European citizens here and British nationals overseas, and therefore it is part of our detailed, considered work. As I have indicated, it is certainly a priority aspect of that work.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
What does the Minister say to my constituent Teodóra Bokonyi, one of the 1,183 EU nationals to whom I wrote last week, who is in full-time education in Scotland and has two years of study left before she gains her degree? What pre-Brexit legal advice was sought by the Government, and will he share that advice, so that I can advise my constituent on how best to be safe and secure in following her studies in the UK?
James Brokenshire
I wish the hon. Gentleman’s constituent well with her studies, which should continue, and she should have no fears in relation to the current situation, as I have highlighted. We do not share legal advice. That has been the well-founded position of many Governments over the years. I want to assure people that nothing is changing now and the process could take a number of years. I wish her well with her studies in Scotland.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, although it is somewhat bizarre to see the Brexiteers on both sides of the House weeping crocodile tears. What am I to tell the 15% of my constituents who are EU nationals, hundreds of whom have written to me to express their dismay and, given the racist attacks like that on the Polish centre in Hammersmith, fear? Many of them are thinking of going to another country. If they do, it will be we, not they, who are the poorer for it. We need certainty, and we need it now.
James Brokenshire
I utterly condemn attacks on any citizens in this country as a consequence of their nationality, faith, creed or colour. They are completely unacceptable and do not represent the country that I or this Government believe in. This House has unequivocally condemned such actions. There have been ministerial visits to the Polish centre. I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly, nothing is changing now and it is the negotiations that will provide the ultimate certainty. We want to ensure that the UK remains an open and attractive place for people to come to, to live, work and study. For my part, that is the approach that I will continue to advocate.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
In the disgraceful absence of the Home Secretary, can the Minister offer any reassurance beyond “not immediately” to my constituent, Alex Westley, and his French-born wife, Morgan, who fear that her long-term future in the UK cannot be guaranteed? Morgan came to Scotland in good faith. She has built a life here and is contributing to Scottish society. Surely, common decency dictates that she and the millions like her deserve guarantees of their long-term security?
James Brokenshire
I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes and the assurance he seeks. Nothing will change immediately, as the Prime Minister has stated clearly. I want us to get to the position where EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain, but that needs to be part of the negotiation.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Yesterday, I was stopped in the street by a constituent who is an EU national whose children were born here. The family are from Denmark, but the children do not speak a word of Danish and the older child is due to start school next term. Does the Minister understand that the Government have an obligation to uphold the best interests and welfare of children and that this uncertainty is putting parents in an impossible position?
James Brokenshire
As I have said in response to other questions, I understand the position we face as a consequence of the UK’s decision to leave the EU. As I have indicated, no immediate changes will happen while we remain an EU member state. Clearly, we want to be in a position to give the guarantees that the hon. Lady’s constituent seeks. That will be a core part of the negotiations that will follow.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
In a written parliamentary question in January, I asked the Home Secretary to outline the contingency plans her Department was making for a leave vote. In the reply, the Minister gave no assurances. Is it not clear that on this issue, as with every question thrown up by the leave vote, the Government have done absolutely no contingency planning? The consequence in this instance is that people who are making decisions about their education, their jobs and their families have no assurances whatsoever from the Government. Is the Minister not ashamed of that position, and does it not reflect the cavalier approach of this Government since they were elected last year?
James Brokenshire
No. I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to proffer. I say to him very clearly that the security and guarantees that he and his constituents may be seeking require the positive outcome of the negotiations with the European Union. That is the absolute focus of this Government with the establishment of the new unit in the Cabinet Office. It will be for the new Prime Minister to take that forward.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Since this Government have shown themselves to be woefully inadequate in setting the right policy and doing the right thing by EU nationals, will the Minister consider devolving these powers to Scotland, which has a Government who can lead and will do the right thing?
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), can we be clear that the Secretary of State for Education confirmed at the Dispatch Box that the children of all EU nationals would continue to be educated in British schools? Will the Minister tell us whether that will go up to the age of 18, or 21, or does he not have clue, as with the rest of his answers?
James Brokenshire
The Secretary of State for Education made her comments this afternoon and clearly he will need to direct further comments to the Department.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are in a very excitable state. [Interruption.] Normally, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is a very cerebral and well behaved fellow. He must take some sort of soothing medicament, because I am sure he wants to listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is frankly unbelievable that no contingency planning had taken place in respect of a leave vote, not just on EU citizens living and working in the UK but on UK nationals living and working in other EU member states. Given that those people are disproportionately older and retired, and EU citizens living and working the UK tend to be younger, in work and paying tax to the Exchequer, what kind of bargaining chip does the Minister think he has?
James Brokenshire
This is not a question of bargaining chips at all, as I have said very clearly throughout my contributions this afternoon; rather, it is about looking at this issue in the round, with all the implications there are. It is not right to suggest that every EU national here fits the categories that the hon. Gentleman described. We have the self-employed, those who are employed, retained workers of self-employed persons, those who are retired, jobseekers, students, the self-sufficient and family members. These are complex issues that require careful consideration. That is what we need to do.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
If the Government are unwilling to guarantee the future of EU nationals living here, what assessment have they made of the impact on public services of the exodus of EU nationals and the potential return of hundreds of thousands of retirees from abroad?
James Brokenshire
As I have already indicated, we want to be in a position in which EU nationals who are already here can stay in Britain. As I have already made clear, there is no change to the current arrangements or situation. We want to work quickly to see that these issues are resolved, but I again repeat that that needs to be part of the negotiations.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I put on the record my absolute disappointment with the Minister’s statement today? On an issue that appears to command consensus among those who campaigned both for leave and for remain, it beggars belief that the Home Secretary yesterday and the Minister today cannot give the reassurance that the millions of people in this country need that they can stay here and have the rights that they deserve, and it is notable that not one Member of this House has so far agreed with the Government’s position. These people are our teachers, our doctors, our entrepreneurs; they are also our taxpayers. They deserve that reassurance. The tone the Minister would then send to other European nations would in my view be the kind of tone we need to keep relations with our allies and protect the rights of our British citizens abroad.
James Brokenshire
I absolutely appreciate and recognise the huge contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and in so many other different ways. They enrich our country. There are difficult challenges to face now as a consequence of the decision that has been taken for the UK to leave the European Union. I have been very clear, as has the Prime Minister, that EU nationals’ rights remain unchanged while we remain a member of the European Union. Clearly, we are working to ensure that the negotiations are successful in giving those guarantees to ensure that those who are here are able to stay.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Minister keeps evading our inquiries on the whereabouts of his boss. What is so important that the Home Secretary cannot attend this urgent question, which in large part has been occasioned by her comments to the press? Does the Minister understand that many thousands of our fellow citizens are fearful and anxious for their future and that his procrastination serves only to fuel rather than to allay that anxiety?
James Brokenshire
I respond to issues relating to migration and our immigration system, so it is entirely appropriate for me to respond to this urgent question. I note and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about uncertainty for European citizens in the UK, as well as for British citizens overseas. That is why I have been clear that there are no immediate changes. I have sought to give that assurance, and it is unfortunate that many contributions have sought to stoke up some of those uncertainties, when the Government have been providing clarity and assurance on the process that will need to take place to give the sort of comfort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has a brass neck for bringing this urgent question to the House, and the Minister has a brass neck for saying that EU citizens will not be used as bargaining chips, because that is exactly what he is doing. His boss, the Home Secretary, has a brass neck for making comments and then not coming to the House. I have continually heard the phrase “strong government”, so will the Minister find the strength to find his boss, do the right thing and make a decision for EU citizens?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his own way, and I will make mine in my own way. We recognise and respect the contribution that EU citizens make in the UK, and equally we must ensure that the rights of British citizens overseas are protected. We will take that combined approach to get the best possible outcome for both.
Surplus Target and Corporation Tax
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on proposals regarding the Government’s surplus target and plans to further cut corporation tax.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
In the past week, I have sought to be realistic with the British people about the economic challenges we now face but to mix that realism with reassurance that we can rise to those challenges. The financial contingency plans that the Governor of the Bank of England and I put in place have proved effective to date. Financial markets have adjusted, but I can report today that, although we remain vigilant, they have shown no signs of disorder. We must now respond to developments in the real economy, which will require a supreme national effort.
First, we must look to support demand and ensure that credit flows freely in our economy. The Governor of the Bank of England said on Friday that
“some monetary policy easing will likely be required over the summer”.
Thanks to the reforms that I introduced, the independent Bank of England has the tools that it needs to act against the cycle and support lending in the economy. The Financial Policy Committee will publish its decisions tomorrow, and we stand ready in the Treasury to act in concert with the Bank of England should more need to be done to support funding for lending.
The second part of our national effort must be to maintain Britain’s fiscal credibility. Eight years ago, people questioned Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world; eight years later, British gilts are seen as a safe haven and funding costs have fallen to record lows. We should maintain the fiscal consolidation measures that we have announced. However, our rules were always explicit that, in the face of what the fiscal charter calls a “significant negative shock”, we should allow the automatic stabilisers to operate, and with the consensus of economic forecasters now lowering the forecast growth for the UK next year—from close to 2% before the referendum to 0.4% now—that is what we will do. We must be realistic that the target for a surplus is unlikely to be achieved in 2019-20. The Office for Budget Responsibility will conduct a formal assessment when it produces a new independent forecast in the autumn, and then we will have a clear idea of what additional measures are required to maintain fiscal credibility.
Thirdly, we need to broadcast loud and clear the message that Britain remains the best place in the world to do business. In the past six years, we have reduced Britain’s corporation tax rate from 28% to 20% today, and 17% in the future. I did that at the same time as taking difficult decisions elsewhere to balance the books. In my view, the strongest signal we could send to the world that Britain, after the referendum, is open to the world and ready to do business would be to cut corporation tax still further. We should aim for a rate of 15% and preferably lower, because if we are pro-business, we are pro-jobs, pro-living standards and pro-working people.
Fourthly, the referendum result revealed a deep-seated feeling of disfranchisement in too many of our communities, especially in the midlands and the north of England. As I said in Manchester on Friday, the northern powerhouse is the right response and we need to redouble our efforts with elected mayors and new transport infrastructure. In my view, once both parties have determined who their leader should be, we should then get on and build a new runway in the south-east of England, because we cannot be open to the world if we cannot fly there.
Fifthly and finally, while we must seek with our European neighbours the best possible terms of trade in goods and services, including financial services, now is the time also to redouble our efforts to promote trade with the rest of the world. I have spoken to my US counterparts. Later this month, I will be travelling to China to build on that important new partnership.
To conclude, this is a blueprint to meet our economic challenge. Nothing positive will come from looking back in anger. We must lift our eyes to the horizon ahead and make the best of what is to come.
John McDonnell
I would like to thank the Chancellor for his response. I think it is important that, as in the Opposition day debate last week, we set the tone of our response at the level of the national interest and take care to avoid making any statements that would adversely impact on fragile markets.
I have to say, however, that a lack of planning for a leave vote is becoming evident across all policy areas. Instead of a clear plan of action, we have so far had a series of ad hoc statements and announcements, including the grateful abandonment of the “Brexit Budget”, which was to increase the sharply the level of austerity being applied. The fiscal surplus target has been abandoned and today the Chancellor has announced planned reductions in the headline rate of corporation tax.
Rather than ad hoc announcements, we need a framework for economic decision making. Previously, the Government sought to do that with the fiscal charter, which was passed into law last autumn despite Labour opposition. May I ask the Chancellor now, since he is no longer pursuing the fiscal surplus target, if the charter is also to be abandoned? Will he be putting a motion to repeal the law before this House? Will he be seeking to place a new fiscal rule on a similar basis in legislation?
The Chancellor has announced today that he will redouble his efforts to invest in the northern powerhouse. Of course the details of that are to be decided, but will he tell the House when he expects to have a detailed programme of investment? What scale of investment should we expect? What areas, and how focused will that investment be? Does he now agree with Labour Members, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, that a major programme of Government investment is urgently needed? Does he agree with the Home Secretary’s decision not to give a guarantee to existing EU nationals living and working in this country? What will be the economic effects of that? Will he therefore give a more detailed statement to the House on the economic consequences of this decision?
The Chancellor has promised that, while seeking to boost investment, he will be maintaining
“the consolidation that we put in place last year.”
May I ask him for some clarification on this point? Is he now ruling out any further or additional consolidation in light of the leave vote? Regarding the planned cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax, the news has not been well-received by our international partners. Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organisation has accused the Chancellor of “tax dumping”. He also highlights the risk to future negotiations with the EU.
I want to raise three critical questions on this issue. The Chancellor’s Budget this year suggested that his one percentage point reduction in the headline corporation tax rate will reduce expected revenues by about £1 billion. Does the Chancellor still hold to that estimate? How will the Chancellor pay for any losses in tax revenues from the proposed corporation tax cuts? Who will pay? The evidence from existing cuts to corporation tax is not favourable. Despite year-on-year reductions in the headline rate to the lowest rate in the G7, business investment remains low by G7 standards and has now fallen for two consecutive quarters.
Businesses are sitting on a cash pile of at least £500 billion yet are failing to invest. What assessment has the Chancellor made that a dramatic reduction in the corporation tax rate will have the desired effect on business investment, given the absence of evidence so far?
Finally, we know that the circumstances after the leave vote will be trying and that major forecasters now anticipate the UK possibly entering a recession over the next year. The Chancellor’s fiscal approach has failed and has been steadily abandoned. In the interests of the country, will he now commit to adopting a fiscal approach that allows the flexibility to invest while maintaining fiscal discipline, as the Opposition and now some on his own side are urging?
Mr Osborne
When I became Chancellor, there was a question mark over Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world, and that was reflected in our bond yields, but because of our determined effort over the last six years, when we have hit an economic shock, as we have done in the last two weeks, the response has been a fall in bond yields—because people have confidence in the UK.
First on planning, extensive contingency plans were in place to deal with financial market disorder as a result of a leave vote, and the fact that we are not debating that today shows that those plans have been effective—we remain vigilant, but those plans were in place. Secondly, we must now decide on the new model of our relationship with the EU. That was not on the ballot paper and has to be a decision for Parliament. We set out the options for the country in advance of the referendum debate, and now we must have that discussion.
Thirdly on planning, the fiscal charter specifically provides for the impact of a negative shock, which is what we have had, and as a result the rules of the charter apply. As I say, it is unlikely that the surplus will be achieved in 2019-20—although that will be for the OBR formally to assess—and it will then be up to the Chancellor to produce new plans to restore the public finances to surplus and for Parliament to vote on them. We thought about that in advance: it is in the charter that the House voted on.
The hon. Gentleman talked about investment. On Friday, I met the Labour leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Leese. We talked about how we could redouble our efforts to invest in transport across the Pennines and about devolved powers for mayors and the like. That will be part of our response to the disfranchisement that too many of our citizens in the midlands and the north of England have clearly felt.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman also asked about business confidence and the corporation tax cuts. Not only have our corporation tax cuts given us the lowest corporation tax rate of all the advanced economies of the world, but we have seen a 20% increase in receipts from corporation tax—because businesses are coming to this country, growing their businesses in this country and employing 2 million people. The best response we can send to the world to show that we are open for business is to go on reducing business tax.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The Chancellor has done the right thing to buttress the decisions of the Bank on monetary policy with fiscal measures, particularly by allowing the automatic stabilisers to kick in. The 2020 fiscal surplus target was always likely to be a casualty at the first sound of Brexit gunfire, and so it has proved—hence the need to take advantage of the charter’s flexibility. Does he agree that, in order most effectively to bolster credibility in the coming years, over the next few months we need to develop a rule that sets fiscal policy in a longer-term framework and which is resilient to changes in the OBR’s short-term forecasts?
Mr Osborne
It is clearly likely that we will be impacted by a cyclical downturn in the public finances—we can already see the growth forecasts being adjusted. The OBR will help us to make an assessment of the referendum result’s structural impact on the public finances and our chances of hitting the target—as I say, it looks unlikely that we will hit it—and then, under the fiscal charter, it will be up to the Government to produce a plan that will be debated and voted on by the House. We have provided for this contingency, and now we need to let the OBR do its work.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I welcome what the Chancellor said about possible monetary policy easing from the Bank, about the automatic stabilisers and, in particular, about export promotion—we hope that that will be matched by a U-turn on the cuts to the UK Trade & Investment’s export promotion budget.
In general terms, we welcome the U-turn on the arbitrary fiscal surplus rule, which, we should remember, planned to cut more than £40 billion a year and was required to run a balanced current account budget. While we support tax competition and recognise that corporation tax cuts might be a useful tool in the fight against capital flight in the aftermath of the appalling Brexit decision, it is also true if we look at the 2016 Red Book numbers as a guide, that a substantial cut in corporation tax—say, 5%—could, in the absence of behavioural change, lead to a reduction of revenue yield of about £2.5 billion a year. I ask the Chancellor one question in particular. Given that he has abandoned his fiscal rule, will he today rule out any plans to claw back potential losses in revenue yield from the cut in corporation tax, in the absence of behavioural change, through the mechanism of further attacks on the welfare budget?
Mr Osborne
First, as a result of the reforms we have made over the last six years, the Bank of England has many more tools at its disposal than it did in the financial crash. Obviously, it can act on monetary policy consistent with its inflation target. The Governor of the Bank of England, speaking in a personal capacity as a member of Monetary Policy Committee, said that easing was likely to be required. A number of other tools, including counter-cyclical financial tools, are available, which means that there is a range of options to deploy. Over the coming weeks, we will hear whether, how and why the Bank of England, which is independent in its decision making, needs to deploy those tools.
I am rather disappointed that the SNP spokesman has not reminded us that it was SNP policy to cut corporation tax. Indeed, that has been its policy for year after year. In the independence referendum, the SNP said that one of the benefits of independence was the ability to cut corporation tax. The great thing about being in the United Kingdom is that the SNP can get corporation tax cuts in any case.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When did my right hon. Friend decide that he was not going to introduce an emergency Brexit Budget to penalise the people who voted leave?
Mr Osborne
We have to be realistic about the economic shock that the referendum result has created, which is acknowledged not just by the Bank Governor but by many independent forecasters—it is reflected in the financial markets. It will have an impact on the public finances, which will partly be cyclical, but also partly structural. In the end, a structural deficit—my hon. Friend, who is a good fiscal conservative, will know this—needs to be addressed through either reduced spending or higher taxes over time. Obviously, as a Conservative, I tend to look at the spending solution rather than the tax one, but that is what happens when there is a structural deficit, as we know to our cost in this country. Let us wait for the OBR to make its assessment in the autumn, then we can collectively decide how to proceed.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The OBR says that cuts in corporation tax have so far had no discernible impact on either business investment or growth. Indeed, in the latest forecast, despite cuts to corporation tax, business investment was revised down. I urge the Chancellor to look instead at helping small businesses or investing in infrastructure rather than going ahead with further cuts in corporation tax, which so far seem to have made no difference.
Mr Osborne
I am all for supporting small businesses, which is why we have a package of rates relief in the Budget. I am all for making the big transport investments, which this country has, frankly, not done for a generation. That is why I support High Speed 2 and indeed High Speed 3, as well as a new runway in the south-east of England.
The OBR has revised up its economic forecast for business investment when we have introduced corporation tax cuts, so it draws a link between the two. A study on the long-term impact of our corporation tax cuts so far suggests that they have seen an increase in our long-run GDP of 1.3%, which is the equivalent of £24 billion in today’s prices.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Before the referendum, the Finance Bill set out the path to lower corporation tax, so I am pleased, following the result, that the Chancellor has set out further steps to reduce it and to invest much more in the northern powerhouse. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what conversations he has had with business leaders about his proactive approach, following the referendum result?
Mr Osborne
Over the past 10 days I have had numerous conversations with various business leaders and leaders of financial institutions, and tomorrow I will be meeting the heads of some of the major banks to discuss how we proceed. The overall, and very clear, message from the Prime Minister’s business council, which met on Thursday, was, “Let us send a message round the world that we are not closed for business, we are not turning our back on the world; we are open to business and we are reaching out to the world.” A good way of doing that is to further reduce corporation tax, and then we must make the most of our links not just with our European friends, but with countries such as China, India and the United States, where we should be seeking to strengthen our trading links.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Cutting corporation tax in this way is highly likely to annoy our EU partners, which is extremely foolish in the run-up to the article 50 negotiations. Would not a better way of averting the risk of recession be to promise to replace the EU funds we are going to lose, and which were such an important part of the northern devolution deals?
Mr Osborne
When it comes to annoying our European partners, I do not think this is going to be the thing that tips the balance after the last couple of weeks. Ireland is a member of the EU and has a 12.5% corporation tax rate. When it comes to investment in the north and the midlands, I am very much open to what further steps we can take. I do not pretend that we have done everything possible; I think there is more we are going to have to do, and all of us collectively—particularly those who represent constituencies in the north and the midlands—need to focus on what we can do to make sure that people feel more enfranchised and connected with this country’s economic success.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Brexit vote was always going to require a Treasury response so I am pleased the Chancellor has produced one, but, rather than concentrate on the profit and loss, I wonder if he would care to look more at the balance sheet and consider measures to lift or relieve some of the constraints on the operational liquidity of capital in the economy. Our capital base is fundamental to our growth, and taxes and regulations on the operation of capital are significant constraints. So will the Chancellor look at investment allowances, tax breaks on starting new businesses and capital gains tax, in the hope that we can maintain a nice liquid market for capital investment in the UK?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right to say that, while taxes on business profits are important, capital taxes are also vital to stimulating investment. That is why in the Budget we reduced capital gains tax—and, with hindsight, that is an even more sensible move than I thought it was at the time. I am always ready to consider further investment allowances, and we have very successful allowances such as the enterprise investment scheme. Of course, the balance has always got to be between simplification and simplicity of the tax system and new allowances, and sometimes people call on me in the same breath to do both things—not my hon. Friend, because he is very clear in his thinking. We have got those allowances, but reducing headline rates is generally the better approach.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
With the benefit of hindsight, does the Chancellor accept that his original threat to introduce a deflationary Budget in the event of a Brexit vote was both bogus and counterproductive?
Mr Osborne
What I was setting out with Alistair Darling, my immediate predecessor, was the realism that will be required when we understand that the economy, impacted by the vote, will have an impact on the public finances, and then it will be up to the House of Commons to decide how we proceed. It was important that that information was in the public domain before people voted.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
First, may I put on record my thanks to the Chancellor for the work he has done over the last week in stabilising the economy following the Brexit vote? Gooch & Housego in my constituency is a company that depends on exports. What message does the Chancellor have for such exporting businesses about Britain’s future role in the world, particularly in terms of trade?
Mr Osborne
We need to do two things. First, we need to determine our new trading relationship with our European partners; about half of our exports go to the European continent and, in my view, we should be pushing for the best possible terms of trade in goods and business services, including financial services. Secondly, we should be maximising our links with the rest of the world. We have a real opportunity with China. As my hon. Friend will know, I have been very involved in trying to strengthen the relationship with that big emerging economy in our world, but we should also look to our links with Japan, India, the United States and the Commonwealth, and this is a call to action that we need to redouble our efforts.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Chancellor gained his office because he promised in 2010 that he would eradicate the deficit by 2015. He failed on that, as we always knew he would, and he is now giving up on achieving that aim by 2020 or indeed by any specific date. Was not his long-term economic plan, which he has now dumped, only ever just a vacuous slogan?
Mr Osborne
We gained office because we were faced with the complete economic mess created under the last Labour Government. We promised to turn that around, and we got a record number of people into work and have had the fastest growing economy for the past three years. When it comes to the deficit, the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister and he left me with an 11% budget deficit—the highest in the peacetime history of this country—but this year it is forecast to be below 3%, so I will compare our record with Labour’s record.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware that I have many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency that export to Europe. Will he explain what steps he is taking to ensure that UKTI has a package that will allow such businesses to look more globally for their exports?
Mr Osborne
I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well, as it neighbours my own. We represent similar communities in Parliament. We as a country do not have to make a choice between exporting to Europe and exporting to the world; we should be doing both. Of course we should be doing everything we can to maintain close trading links with our European partners, and indeed building on them if that is possible, but we should also be looking for opportunities around the rest of the world. The trip that I am making to China will provide an opportunity to communicate that message, and I have also spoken to the Speaker of Congress and others in the United States Administration about what we can do to strengthen our links with that huge market. In the end, however, the best thing that UKTI can do is to help not only our largest companies but the small businesses that my hon. Friend has referred to. In countries such as Germany, many more small and medium-sized companies are exporting than is the case in the UK, but it is within our own gift to address that and we need to give those companies all the help that we can.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
This week marks a year since the Chancellor published his productivity plan, and his record speaks for itself. UK productivity remains at the bottom of the G7 league table and 20% lower than the average. The plan was never a plan. Indeed, his decision today shows that he is continuing down that road. Is it not time for him to do what British businesses are actually calling for, which is to provide investment in our schools, in infrastructure and in affordable housing for workers, rather than doing as he is today and running the risk of our becoming tax haven Britain?
Mr Osborne
I do not think that the business community wants higher business taxes, which is the Labour proposal. When it comes to major transport investments, we are making them. Labour was in office during all those years when money was apparently coming in, but where were the major investments in the railways and the roads? Labour Members complain about our energy investments, but where are the power stations that were opened under the Labour Government? The more we look at that period of our economic history, the more we can see what a massive missed opportunity it was.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am disappointed that none of the leading leave campaigners is here to listen to what the Chancellor has to say about the impact of Brexit. Will he put the economy on a war footing to stave off a recession? Will he invest in infrastructure, particularly housing, and prioritise support to small and medium-sized businesses through the British Business Bank, which was set up by the Liberal Democrats in coalition, so that innovative companies will continue to receive support if bank lending dries up?
Mr Osborne
The British Business Bank—which was created under a policy announced by me at this Dispatch Box—is working successfully, and I pay tribute to Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition Government for helping us to deliver it. Of course it has an important role to play in the future. The right hon. Gentleman is right, in the broader sense, to say that we need to look at what we can do to support demand and credit in the economy. The Bank of England has many tools, and the Governor of the Bank has already indicated that, in his personal opinion, we should be looking at monetary easing.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his fiscal response, and also on his comment on Heathrow in the statement. Will he reassure the House about the strength and stability of the UK banking system, given the reforms of the last six years?
Mr Osborne
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I should point out that I did not identify where the additional runway should be in the south-east of England, although I cannot but note that his constituency is next to Gatwick, so that may have been a loaded question.
As for my hon. Friend’s broader point, he is right to point to the stability of the banking system. Although we remain vigilant, we are not, today, talking about a banking crisis, despite a very significant adjustment in financial markets. That is because of difficult decisions made by this Government and their coalition predecessor to strengthen the capital requirements, so that banks have 10 times as much capital as they had seven or eight years ago, and to strengthen the oversight of our banking system by putting the Bank of England in charge. I think that those decisions have been justified by what has happened in the last 10 days, but that does not mean that we can ease up; of course we remain vigilant.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Chancellor referred to his fiscal charter, which, of course, has three pillars: the welfare cap, debt reduction in every year of this Parliament, and his target of deficit reduction by 2019-20. We know that he is not going to meet the last one, but can he update the House on the other two pillars?
Mr Osborne
The fiscal charter was explicitly designed to ensure that the House of Commons could hold Ministers to account for their fiscal policy, and, indeed, maintain controls on welfare policy. However, it also provided for a specific requirement, in the event of a negative shock, for them to come back to the House of Commons with a new proposal. That, it seems to me, is thinking ahead, and it has been required because of the challenges that we now face in the economy.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Nearly 20% of people in the Calder Valley work in manufacturing, much of which involves high-end niche manufacturers who export. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those businesses need us to negotiate trade agreements not just with the European Union but with the rest of the world, and that it would be wise for us to draw breath before rushing into triggering article 50 for our exit from the EU?
Mr Osborne
The Prime Minister’s position—which I share, and which I think is sensible for the country—is that we should trigger article 50 when we are clear, collectively, about the new model of the relationship that we want with our European allies, so that we are well prepared for the negotiations on which we would then embark.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The Government have already approved a power for the Northern Ireland Executive to reduce corporation tax. In that context, does the Chancellor accept that the decision to cut corporation tax in Britain to 15% raises issues of attractiveness and competitiveness for the Northern Ireland rate when it comes to foreign direct investment?
Mr Osborne
As the hon. Lady knows, we still have to work out the fiscal underpinning of these arrangements, but they allow the Northern Ireland Executive to set any rate that they want. The good news about the reduction in the UK rate is that it applies to businesses throughout Northern Ireland as well, and, to put it, bluntly, makes it cheaper for the Northern Ireland Executive to reduce their corporation tax rate.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I welcome the commitment to lower the corporation tax rate, but may I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) about the need to look at our corporation tax regime in the round? I recently visited Lavenham Press, a printing company in my constituency, whose representatives pointed out that capital allowances had been cut. Given the importance of manufacturing, may I ask my right hon. Friend at least to keep the issue of capital allowances under review?
Mr Osborne
Of course we keep taxes under review. As I have said, my revealed preference is generally to try to reduce reliefs and reduce headline rates, which I think is the least economically distorting approach, but there are many exceptions to that. One of them has been the investment allowance, which we have increased, and which is particularly targeted at small and medium-sized businesses. It now stands at £200,000 as a permanent annual allowance, which is the highest that it has ever been.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
As ever, the Chancellor is fond of having a pop at the previous Labour Government, but there was a crisis in the markets to which that Government had to respond. This is a crisis made in Government to which the markets are responding. With that in mind, and because he has not answered this yet, will he say what proper assessment he has made of the impact of this cut in corporation tax on our country’s productivity crisis?
Mr Osborne
First of all, the problems in the financial markets eight years ago hit this country more severely than almost any other country in the world, and the Government at the time take some responsibility for that. Secondly, the challenge we face is one that was delivered by our democracy. It is a democratic outcome that we accept and respect and we have to make it work for our country. I am determined to make that happen.
As the hon. Lady well knows, productivity growth is a challenge in every western democracy at the moment. Indeed, the US is now predicted to have negative productivity growth. Productivity is still growing in the UK, but we need to do more to improve it. Education reform, welfare reform and transport investment are good places to start.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
From the moment the result of the EU referendum was announced and the British people said that they wanted to leave the European Union, prominent commentators in most areas of the media have revelled in running down the British economy and its future prospects. With employment at a record high and unemployment at a 10-year low, does my right hon. Friend agree that the British economy is well placed to face the future?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are well placed because we have got behind Britain’s businesses, large and small. The essential decision that we—he and I and our colleagues—took collectively six years ago was to push for a private sector recovery, rather than to continually pump in Government money to try to sustain the economy. That approach has been vindicated by the record numbers of jobs and businesses created and our record growth compared with other advanced economies.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
A few weeks ago, we were told that a punishment Budget would be presented to Parliament if there was a leave vote. We are now told that we do not need one and that we can cut corporation tax. The contingency plan that the Chancellor is taking credit for is actually the work of the Bank of England, which presented him with the chance to go into hiding in the aftermath of the leave vote. Given the failure to meet targets and the number of U-turns, is it not the case that the Chancellor is making up a plan as he goes along?
Mr Osborne
The contingency plans that we had in place were joint plans of the Treasury and the Bank of England and require the authorisation of a Chancellor in certain aspects. Based on the assessment we made before the referendum of the different models available to the UK, we now have to make a decision about how we want to proceed as a country. I am clear that we want the closest possible economic links, so that vital industries—not just manufacturing, but financial services, which is important to the Scottish economy—are able to trade as freely as possible with our European neighbours.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The UK is a world leader in the financial services sector, which employs hundreds of thousands across the country and contributes substantially to corporation tax receipts. Will the Chancellor continue to do all that he can to protect this vital sector?
Mr Osborne
Financial services is our largest private sector employer, and two thirds of its jobs are outside our capital city. It is a vital industry in the many different towns and cities of the United Kingdom. One of our key priorities is ensuring not only that our financial services industry continues to be a real success and that it is able to sell its services into Europe, but that we strengthen our links with other great global financial centres and economies. For example, becoming the offshore trading centre for the renminbi has been one of the real success stories of recent years.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor support investment in projects such as further upgrading the Heads of the Valleys Road and electrifying the south Wales metro? Improving transport links will help to improve employment in the south Wales valleys and boost demand across the UK.
Mr Osborne
I am always happy to consider any good proposals to make further investment in our transport infrastructure. We of course support the electrification of railway lines both into south Wales and through the valleys. The Cardiff city deal has just been signed for the wider Cardiff city region, but if the hon. Gentleman has further proposals, I am happy to look at them.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
When the Chancellor cut corporation tax in the Budget, he reduced the losses that banks could offset against corporation tax liabilities. Will he consider extending that to ensure that while we have the lowest possible rates, everyone pays their fair share of corporation tax?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend rightly says that as well as reducing corporation tax rates, we did a lot to reduce some of the reliefs that have been used—and some that have been abused. Broadly speaking, that is the right direction of travel for our tax system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The prize for patience goes to Nigel Mills.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
That is not a prize I get often. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to further reduce the rate of corporation tax—I called for it in the Budget debate last week, so I ought to welcome it. To get the most benefit out of that, we need to simplify our business tax system further to make it more attractive. Will he therefore agree to hold a review to try to make our system as simple as it can be?
Mr Osborne
We are seeking to make our business tax system simpler, and our Office of Tax Simplification will be on a statutory footing and will help us. Let me be a bit discursive at the end here. In this job, I get many requests for tax reliefs and tax breaks for particular things, all of which are very worthy and sensible. They do, however, complicate the tax system. Sometimes the more difficult path is to say that welcome though lots of different reliefs would be, the simpler thing would be to reduce the rate. Broadly speaking—there are exceptions to this—that is the approach that I have followed and intend to follow in the future.
Bills Presented
Vehicle Noise Limits (Enforcement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Foster, supported by Wendy Morton, Kit Malthouse, Mark Field and Michael Tomlinson, presented a Bill to make provision for the enforcement of noise limits for vehicles via automatic monitoring equipment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 27).
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Foster, supported by Wendy Morton, Michael Tomlinson, Maggie Throup, Valerie Vaz, Peter Heaton-Jones, David Warburton, Kit Malthouse, Danny Kinahan and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of small-scale radio multiplex services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 28).
Wild Animals in Circuses (Prohibition) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Foster, supported by James Heappey, Nusrat Ghani, Wendy Morton, Michael Tomlinson, Louise Haigh, Will Quince, Anna Turley, Simon Hoare, Mr Philip Hollobone, Bob Blackman and Jim Dowd, presented a Bill to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 29).
Animal Fighting (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kevin Foster, supported by Nusrat Ghani, Wendy Morton, Michael Tomlinson, Jim Dowd, Anna Turley, Mr Philip Hollobone, Louise Haigh, Simon Hoare, Philip Boswell, Rebecca Pow and Dr Lisa Cameron, presented a Bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to increase the sentence available to the court for those convicted of a criminal offence related to animal fighting; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 30).
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Morton, supported by Kevin Foster, Michael Tomlinson, Sir David Amess, Mary Robinson and Ben Howlett, presented a Bill to extend public access to certain local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 31).
Crown Tenancies Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Morton, supported by Kevin Foster, Michael Tomlinson, Sir David Amess, Ben Howlett, Mark Pawsey and Jeremy Lefroy, presented a Bill to provide that Crown tenancies may be assured tenancies for the purposes of the Housing Act 1988, subject to certain exceptions; to modify the assured tenancies regime in relation to certain Crown tenancies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 32) .
Highway Works (Weekend Working and Traffic Management Measures) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Morton, supported by Kevin Foster, Michael Tomlinson, Sir David Amess, Mary Robinson, Maggie Throup, Ben Howlett, Amanda Solloway, Jeremy Lefroy and Victoria Prentis, presented a Bill to regulate works on certain highways in England by making provision about weekend and bank holiday working and provision about removal of traffic lights and other traffic management measures after the completion of works.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 33).
Local Authority Roads (Wildlife Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Morton, supported by Kevin Foster, Michael Tomlinson, Sir David Amess and Anna Turley, presented a Bill to place a duty on local highways agencies and local transport authorities to make provisions safeguarding wildlife on roads passing through, or adjacent to, specified protected areas; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 34).
Use of Property (Protection) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Michael Tomlinson presented a Bill to make provision about protecting existing and established use of property; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 35).
Road Traffic Offenders (Surrender of Driving Licences Etc) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Michael Tomlinson presented a Bill to make provision about the surrender, production or other delivery up of driving licences, or test certificates, in relation to certain offences; to make provision in relation to identifying persons in connection with fixed penalty notices, conditional offers and the payment of fixed penalties under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 36).
Providers of Health and Social Care (Schemes under Section 71 of the National Health Service Act 2006) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Michael Tomlinson presented a Bill to amend section 71 of the National Health Service Act 2006 to enable schemes under that section to make provision to meet liabilities of health and social care providers in respect of integrated health and social care services.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 37).
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning (Safety Abroad) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Michael Tomlinson presented a Bill to require companies offering or marketing holiday accommodation in other countries to British citizens to undertake specified health and safety measures in relation to carbon monoxide emissions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 38).
Protection of Family Homes (Enforcement and Permitted Development) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Steve McCabe presented a Bill to make provision about guidance to local authorities on when to take enforcement action for breaches of planning law; to clarify guidance on the scope of permitted development rights; to make provision about rights and entitlements, including of appeal, for people whose homes are affected by such breaches; to make provision for the inspection and regulation of building under the permitted development regime; to establish financial penalties for developers who breach planning law in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October and to be printed (Bill 39).
Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Mrs Maria Miller, Kate Green, Teresa Pearce, Liz Saville Roberts, Barbara Keeley, Valerie Vaz, Thangam Debbonaire, Jess Phillips, Sarah Champion and Diana Johnson, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to provide that Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE) be a statutory requirement for all state-funded schools; for PSHE to include Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) and education on ending violence against women and girls; to provide for initial and continuing teacher education and guidance on best practice for delivering and inspecting PSHE and SRE education; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 40).
Housing (Tenants’ Rights) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Mr David Lammy, Mary Glindon and Jonathan Edwards, presented a Bill to establish a Living Rent Commission to conduct research into, and provide proposals for, reducing rent levels in the private rented sector and improving terms and conditions for tenants; to require the Secretary of State to report the recommendations of the Commission to Parliament; to introduce measures to promote long-term tenancies; to establish a mandatory national register of landlords and lettings agents; to prohibit the charging of letting or management agent fees to tenants; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 41).
Railways Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Ian Mearns, Ian Lavery, John Cryer, Steve McCabe, Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to assume control of passenger rail franchises when they come up for renewal; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2017, and to be printed (Bill 42).
Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anna Turley, supported by Kevin Foster, Alex Cunningham, Kerry McCarthy, Liz McInnes, Wendy Morton, Mr Philip Hollobone, Sarah Champion, Jim Dowd and Margaret Ferrier, presented a Bill to increase the maximum sentences available to the court for specified offences related to animal cruelty; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February 2017, and to be printed (Bill 43).
Malicious Communications (Social Media) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Anna Turley, supported by Ruth Smeeth, Paula Sherriff, Chris Matheson, Angela Rayner, Louise Haigh, Melanie Onn, Jess Phillips, Justin Madders, Chris Elmore, Carolyn Harris and Helen Hayes, presented a Bill to make provision about offences, penalties and sentences in relation to communications containing threats transmitted or broadcast using online social media; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 44).
Estimates Day
Courts and Tribunals Fees
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and a privilege to speak to the motion and raise the issue arising from the report by our Select Committee. This is the first time that one of our Committee’s reports has been debated on the Floor of the House in this way.
I begin by expressing my appreciation to all the members of the Committee for the constructive and diligent way in which they have approached the work of the Committee and this report in particular. It was undertaken in an entirely collaborative and non-partisan spirit. As is perhaps appropriate for anything that touches upon the law and justice, we have endeavoured throughout to base our conclusions on the evidence that has come before us. I am grateful for that. The report was agreed unanimously, and I hope that that will weigh with the House and with Ministers when they consider it.
We had significant assistance from the evidence, both written and oral, that we received from witnesses. It is particularly worth noting that in this case we were assisted by the evidence of very senior members of the judiciary—the Master of the Rolls, the president of the family division, and the senior president of tribunals. When they speak, their views ought to carry very considerable weight indeed.
There is no doubt that over the past few years, fees for litigants bringing cases have spread and increased across our civil courts, the family courts and tribunals, and there have been a number of proposals for further increases. When we set up the inquiry, we identified four objectives to be looked into. First, how have the increased court fees and the introduction of employment tribunal fees affected access to justice? How have they affected the volume and the quality of cases brought? Secondly, how has the court fee regime affected the competitiveness of the legal services market in England and Wales, particularly in an international context? Thirdly, we particularly wanted to look at the effect on defendants of the introduction of the criminal courts charge, about which I shall say more. Fourthly, we wanted to examine the impact of the increases in courts and tribunals fees announced in “Court and Tribunal Fees”, Cm 9123, published on 22 July 2015, and subsequent proposals.
I am grateful to the Government for moving swiftly on the criminal courts charge. The evidence was clear that it did not work and was, if anything, counterproductive, arguably costing as much to administer as it would ever bring in. We therefore decoupled the issue from the main part of the report and brought it forward swiftly. I am grateful to the Government for their prompt response and for moving to accept our recommendation and abolish the charge.
In fairness, the Secretary of State for Justice and his ministerial team deserve great credit for that. We should not criticise politicians when they are prepared to change their minds. I think it was John Maynard Keynes who famously said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion.” The Government listened to the evidence and removed the criminal courts charge. I hope they will be as expeditious and responsive on a number of the other matters we raise in the report—as a West Ham supporter, I am always an optimist.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I compliment the hon. Gentleman on an excellent report, but would it not be fairer to say that the Secretary of State changed? I do not know whether that is one of Keynes’s principles. The facts did not change at all; some light was suddenly shone on what was always a mad scheme, and a change came about. However, I do not want to detract from the credit that is owed to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he made his contribution. I am a friend of the current and the former Secretary of State, and giving credit to those who responded to the evidence is perhaps the appropriate and balanced way to deal with the issue.
It is worth looking at a little of the chronology of one of the matters I am going to turn to. As well as having significant witnesses from the judiciary, we heard evidence from the trade unions, the business community, the Bar Council, the Law Society and a number of individuals and interest groups. We had four oral evidence sessions between November 2015 and February 2016, the last of which was on 9 February, when we heard from the legal profession and then from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara).
We then waited, because we were anticipating the promised post-implementation review of the impact of employment tribunal fees, which had formed an important part of the evidence that was put before us. We knew that the review had been commissioned some time back, so we waited—and nothing came forward. In the end, on 25 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who is on the Front Bench and who had taken over responsibility, courteously responded, but he was unable to give any indication of a publication date. I have to say that we do not regard that as satisfactory.
It was against that background that, rather than waiting for the two months the Government normally have to reply to a Select Committee report to lapse, we thought it right to bring our report to the House today in this estimates day debate.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend tell us whether we have yet received that report?
Robert Neill
No, we have not, and I have to say that we used quite strong language about that in our report, because we were, frankly, disappointed. What happened does actually go against the spirit of courtesy, openness and co-operation I have seen from the Ministry of Justice team throughout the year or so I have chaired the Select Committee, and I hope it is an outlier. I hope the Minister will give us an indication of why the review report has taken so long and when we will get it. I know it is sometimes not easy to agree these things across Government, but it is pretty clear that the data required for the analysis were collected a long time ago, and, as we say in our report, there can be no reason why at least that factual material cannot be published forthwith, even if the Government are not yet in a position to respond, because the more informed the House and the public are, the better. That is an area of regret, and that is why today’s debate is important and timely.
Let me touch on some of the principles we are concerned with. The levels of various courts and tribunal fees have been politically controversial. We all need to bear it in mind that a balance must be struck between the cost to the public purse of administering a justice system, which is an integral part of any civilised society and of the rule of law, and how much can reasonably be recovered from litigants. We say that, in principle, we do not object to the idea that there should be some financial discipline on those who choose to go to law—those who choose to litigate—in deciding whether that is a wise decision for them to make. We do not have a problem with the principle of a certain level of a fees. Equally, however, we must bear in mind the comments that have been made consistently ever since Magna Carta but were recently elegantly captured by the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill in his book, “The Rule of Law”—which I always think should be compulsory reading for anyone in the political sphere—in which he says, in essence, that the accessibility of justice is as much a part of the fundamentals of the rule of law as clarity of the law itself. He says that justice is not a commodity—it cannot be commoditised in the way that, perhaps, other services can be. It is important to get the balance right. That is where we have some concerns that I will now turn to.
We accept that there is no problem, in principle, with fees for litigants. We know that there are financial pressures on the Ministry, which is not a protected Department. I understand the pressures that Ministers were under when these decisions were taken. We think it is entirely legitimate to find a number of means of reducing the number of vexatious claims. That could be done as part of the financial discipline we referred to, but it could also be done by changing the substantive law to raise the threshold or by making changes to court procedure. That is a legitimate part of the mix. But—we then have to say a number of “buts”, looking at the evidence —the answer to what is a reasonable charge in striking this balance will vary depending on a number of factors such as the effectiveness of fee remission, the vulnerability or otherwise of the claimants, and the degree of choice that they have. There is a distinction, for example, between someone who chooses to litigate over a commercial contract dispute and someone who is charged by the state with an offence, or someone whose marriage has broken down and has no other recourse, in order to have the marriage dissolved and move on with their life, than to go to the courts. The degree of choice is an important issue that must be considered carefully in each case.
There is an argument for trying to recover, as far as one can within that balance, some of the costs that fall on the public purse. In some cases, it may be possible to recover all the costs, but that cannot be an absolute. We were particularly struck by the fact that in some cases there are fees that exceed the full cost of the operation of the court; they are sometimes referred to as “enhanced fees”. We take the view, consistent with Lord Bingham’s formulation and with a public policy approach that we have had in this country for decades, that making a profit from the justice system, in effect, albeit one that is intended to be used elsewhere, requires particular care and a strong justification.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Surely the Ministry of Justice should not be making a profit out of justice. Getting rid of tribunal fees and having equality of access to justice is about making sure that everybody in this country can be productive, particularly women, who can be discriminated against—it drives up productivity and boosts the economy.
Robert Neill
We do not go so far as to say that it follows that there should never be fees in any particular class of case—that includes employment tribunal fees—but we do say that a balance has to be borne in mind. I suppose that one could conceive of an argument—we did not rehearse it in detail in our report—whereby an enhanced fee might be recycled within the system. If, for example, some of the fees were being used to cross-subsidise, as it were, other elements of the family jurisdiction, then there might be something in that, but we do not have any evidence that that is the case. The hon. Lady makes a fair point, which is consistent with our report, about the undesirability of going down that route.
The situation provides a contrast with the speed with which the Government acted over both the criminal courts charge, quite rightly, and the new proposals for higher fees ever since the employment tribunal fees were introduced, with some controversy. The Department made those proposals with great speed, but it has been remarkably tardy in producing its review of the impact of those employment tribunal fees. That is why we conclude that, although a legitimate balance has to be found in the interests of society, where the objective of achieving cost recovery and the principle of preserving access to justice are in conflict, it is the latter—access to justice—that has to prevail. In a sense, that is a restatement of the point made by the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and I would have thought that most Members saw the logic of that.
Other members of the Select Committee will wish to make particular points, so I will touch on a few of the major matters. I have already referred to the quality of the evidence from the Ministry of Justice, particularly that in relation to employment tribunal fees. Ultimately, the Department may not have the evidence; if that is the case, it should say so, rather than pretend otherwise.
It is worth giving a flavour of some of the comments we received about the evidence base. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, described the Department’s research as “lamentable”. It is pretty serious when the head of civil justice in this country talks in those terms. The chairman of the Bar Council described the research undertaken in relation to the domestic effects of fees as “insignificant”, and the president of the Law Society said it was “poor”.
I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has only just started the job—I do not blame him or any of his colleagues personally—but the truth is that the Government did not produce adequate evidence. On the face of it, it seems to have been a “wet your finger and hold it up in the wind” job, rather than being based on significant research. We do not think that that is satisfactory.
Perhaps things would have been different if the Government had brought forward their review. We might have been less critical if we had seen the evidence that they have collated but not yet made available. As it was, we had to base our conclusions on the evidence that we had, which I am afraid went significantly in another direction. It is ironic that, by not providing that material, the Government have not been the best of advocates of their own cause.
I am not going to say that everybody had difficulties with employment fees. In their evidence to us, the Federation of Small Businesses and Peninsula Business Services said that it was reasonable to have the objective of discouraging weak and vexatious claims. That was certainly the Government’s assertion when they introduced the fees, but hard material to support that view has not yet been forthcoming. We must bear in mind the comments of the senior president of tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, who said that it was simply too soon to say whether that has happened. If that is the case, and if the valuation is not yet available, now is not the time to be rushing similar increases in other parts of the civil and family and immigration jurisdictions, which I will turn to later. I will leave it to others to go into more detail about employment fees, as I know they will.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the distinguished Chair of the Justice Committee for allowing me to intervene on him. If there is very little evidence to suggest that there were vexatious claims in the employment tribunal system and if the number of claims in some regions has dropped by a quantum of about 80%, is it not possible to make the opposite argument that fees are a block to justice and that, to get access to justice, they will have to be lowered? If this is about cost recovery, the number of employment tribunal cases is now so low that no costs are being recovered at all.
Robert Neill
That is why we made the point that we need to have a much better evidence base before we go forward with like increases in other areas. We did not rule out the fact that a fee may be appropriate in some cases, but we need better evidence to know the proper level to pitch it at and whether there are any unintended consequences—whether it will deter not just unworthy claims, but, as we fear, meritorious claims as well. A particular concern raised was that the employer and the employee claimant would get into a war of attrition, depending on who has the deepest pockets. That is not really consistent with the “equality of arms” argument that we have always regarded as being central to our justice system. Funnily enough, it may tend to make cases more protracted than they need to be, when the swiftest and earliest possible settlement would, as a general rule, be in everybody’s interests. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. We were much assisted in our inquiry by evidence on the matter from the Law Society of Scotland, and we are grateful for its assistance.
Against that background, we made all due allowance for the fact that there has been some change in the substantive law, for the improving economic situation, for the previous downward trend in tribunal cases and for the ACAS conciliation schemes. Those things could account for some of the drop, but we were looking at a drop of about 70%, and we found no evidence to suggest that it was accounted for entirely or substantially by those matters, so we were led to the conclusion that the clear majority of the decline was attributable to the level of fee. That is why the matter needs to be looked at seriously and we need the factual information immediately.
We set out certain indicative thoughts about the sorts of changes that might be made; they are indicative because we do not have the evidence to go further than that. We think that this is an important issue, which really cannot be kept back for much longer.
Andy Slaughter
I commend the hon. Gentleman on many of the recommendations in the report, but—as I would, I suppose—I want to highlight one that I think is slightly problematic. The Justice Committee went along with the decision of the independent commission on freedom of information to disallow appeals from the Information Commissioner to the first-tier tribunal, despite the fact that 20% of those appeals are successful. Would the hon. Gentleman like to look at that again? The Select Committee stated in its report:
“We see no reason to disagree with the Commission’s view.”
Has the hon. Gentleman simply gone along with the view of the commission? What is his reason for making that decision?
Robert Neill
Simply that there was no compelling evidence presented to us to the contrary. We followed the evidence, as we did in the other matters. It is not because we are afraid of pulling our punches; as the hon. Gentleman has seen, we have not pulled our punches in some areas. We simply did not find any evidence to suggest that that assessment by the independent body was wrong.
I will move on quickly to some other matters. There has been particular concern about the impact of employment tribunal fees, but certain other matters have also been brought forward. The April 2015 increase in fees for money claims should, in our judgment, be reviewed. That may seem rather remote and arcane, but it is very important, because it affects the international competitiveness of London and the UK as a jurisdiction of choice, especially for commercial litigation. That is a great strength of this country, and some figures released today by the Legal Services Board highlight its significance. Legal services and their related supply chain contribute something like £35 billion towards this country’s GDP. Legal services exports have increased by some 33% over the past eight years, and something like 10% of the legal profession have instructions from overseas clients.
At the same time, there are pressures on the British jurisdiction and threats to its exclusiveness. We have already seen, in places such as Singapore and Dubai, courts operating on the basis of English common law but outside our jurisdiction. It is worth observing that very recently in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, an English-language court was established. We should be very wary of biting off the hand that feeds us—or, to use another metaphor, doing anything to kill the goose that lays the golden egg—by reducing the value of the British legal system and its attractiveness to litigants nationally and internationally.
We think that the Government should review the increase in fees for money claims, and they should certainly not resurrect the proposal to double the £10,000 cap or remove it altogether. They were right not to proceed with that when it was originally proposed, but they did not rule it out for the future. We are saying that they should not think about going anywhere near it, at least until they have had a proper review of what has been done.
Another point, which goes back to an issue that has been raised already, is about the increase in the divorce petition fee from £410 to £550. Given that the cost to the state of the average straightforward divorce petition is about £270, that is a mark-up of about 100%. We find it difficult to see how making a 100% profit out of divorce cases can be justified, when it is an entirely captive audience because there is no other way to get divorced than going to the courts. We say very clearly that the increase should be reversed.
Our view was fortified by the trenchant evidence from the president of the family division, the right hon. Sir James Munby. It is pretty unusual for a senior member of the judiciary to speak in such terms to a parliamentary Committee or any other body. Sir James said, rather tellingly, that he was concerned that the Ministry of Justice was
“battening on to the fact that there is a captive market”
and that it was
“putting up the fees until it becomes another poll tax on wheels”.
That is pretty strong language. I would put it slightly differently. We say that there is a risk that it will become a “divorce tax”. That cannot be just and we strongly urge Ministers to look at it again most urgently.
Immigration and asylum tribunals are another important issue. There are concerns over whether our immigration and asylum system and the appeals system are abused. There must be safeguards to ensure that proper cases are properly heard. Someone with a legitimate claim must have a decent chance of challenging the decisions of the state or of any Executive body. Equally, it is in everybody’s interests that weak and unmeritorious cases are weeded out. Nobody has a problem with that. Our concern is that fees have been brought in with remarkable swiftness, without a significant evidence base.
In July 2015, the Government consulted on doubling the fees in the first-tier tribunal from £80 to £160 for an application for a paper determination and from £140 to £280 for an application for an oral hearing. In December 2015, after the consultation, it was confirmed that that would go ahead. Only a few months later, in April this year, a further consultation was brought out, without any review of the impact of the last set of increases, proposing a sixfold increase in the fees in those jurisdictions, so that there was full cost recovery. It was proposed that an application for a paper decision would cost £490 and an application for an oral hearing would cost £800.
We have the same concern that I have raised more than once: there is no apparent evidence base to support that increase. If there were, we might have taken a different approach to it. Making that increase does not seem justified when the people involved are, by the nature of these cases, vulnerable. That is why we express considerable concern over the proposals.
I am surprised that the Government have adopted that approach, given their experience with employment tribunal fees and the criminal courts charge. The idea is to have full cost recovery. The problem is that we are dealing with people who are by their nature—particularly those in the asylum system, but also those in the immigration system—very unlikely ever to have any means to recover even a decent percentage of the cost against, let alone the full cost. The Government will end up in exactly the same position as with the criminal courts charge. They are setting themselves an objective to raise money that they have no hope of raising because the people they are trying to get it from do not have the means—it is getting blood out of a stone. We think that it is pointless to pursue an unachievable objective. That is why we urge the Government to think again.
I have endeavoured to outline what is a detailed report. I hope that it is useful to the House. Given the nature of its technical but important topic, we make no apology for its detail. These are issues that impact not just on our system, but on individuals, because every piece of litigation involves an individual somewhere. The Government have had ample time to consider the report, so I hope that we will have a substantive response from the Minister in which he says when the information will be published, what they will do about the increase in divorce fees, what they will do about the realism or otherwise of moving to full cost recovery in the immigration and asylum chamber, and what they will do about the other significant pieces of evidence that we have detailed in the report. I am grateful for the House’s indulgence.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the work undertaken by the Justice Committee, of which I am a member. I am also grateful for the chairmanship of the Committee of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has brought us to a consensus on the recommendations in the report. The Government need to reflect very seriously on those recommendations. At the heart of the proposals before us today is access to justice, and that issue is also central to our recommendations.
As the Chair of the Justice Committee has said, we remain concerned first and foremost that the Minister has not yet brought forward the results of the review. That has influenced very strongly how we have been able to present our report, as well as the points we are putting today and the way we are putting them. The Minister could have saved himself a lot of trouble had he brought forward the information requested in the timescale in which we requested it.
As hon. Members will know, during the 2010-2015 Parliament the coalition Government pursued a range of policies aimed at decreasing the net cost of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service through the pursuance and introduction of a range of various fees, including, in particular, charges for employment tribunals. As the Chair of the Justice Committee has said, we looked at whether the increase in court fees and the introduction of fees for employment tribunals had affected access to justice. It is fair to say that the conclusions of all members of the Committee were straightforward, especially in the area I will focus on, namely the recommendations on employment tribunal fees. All the evidence we have had—from the judiciary, the trade union movement and organisations dealing with vulnerable people with especially vulnerable status relating to maternity provisions or other similar issues—has shown that there is a real challenge from the impact of fees on employment tribunals as a whole.
I will make one plea to the Minister. It would be helpful if, before the summer recess, he could meet the commitment that he gave to the Committee to publish the results of his one-year review as soon as possible. Given our concerns, it is important that that information is put into the public domain. This is not something he can avoid. He said that he would deliver that information to the Committee before it reported, yet even after the publication of the report the Committee has still not seen it.
Employment tribunal fees are of particular concern to members of the Committee from across the House—certainly to me. As I have just said, the Committee found it unacceptable that the Government had not reported on their review. There was also some damning evidence about the impact of employment tribunal fees on access to justice.
Let me touch on a couple of statistics so the House can get a flavour of why we have those concerns. The number of employment tribunal cases brought by single individuals declined by 67% to around 4,500 per quarter between October 2014 and June 2015. The number of cases brought by more than one person—multiple claims—declined by 72%, from 1,500 per quarter to around 400 per quarter. That is a major decline. It is important that the Minister reflects on that. Is that decline because there are no injustices in the workplace? Is it because people do not feel aggrieved with their employment position? Has the figure declined because people have decided that applying to the employment tribunal for justice is not worth a candle? To all three questions, the answer is no. The decline is due to the prohibitive fees that the Government have put in place.
Statistics provided to the Committee by the TUC and Unison compare cases brought in the first three months of 2013 and 2015, and they show reductions across the board in areas of key industrial activity. For example, the number of cases brought to employment tribunals under the working time directive fell by 78%. My question, which I hope the House will reflect on, is this: is that because 78% fewer employers are making people work longer than their hours under—dare I say it?—European legislation?
The number of tribunals brought for unauthorised deductions from wages has fallen by 56%. Has some miraculous activity meant that employers stopped unfairly deducting from individuals’ wages during that period? If so, the information that the Minister is supposed to have considered might help us to understand that fall in wage deductions. Cases of unfair dismissal have fallen by 72%, equal pay claims are down by 58%, and those for a breach of contract by 75%. Sex discrimination cases have fallen by 68%. Therefore, one of two things has happened: either employers have dramatically improved their performance over the past two years in those areas, in which case let us see the evidence to show that; or people who have been unfairly discriminated against regarding deductions from wages, breach of contract, sex discrimination, the working time directive, or unfair dismissal, have not taken their claims to courts and employment tribunals because of the fees introduced by the Government.
Several cross-party witnesses to the Committee claimed that on maternity pay and pregnancy, for example, employment tribunal fees were having a profoundly discriminatory effect on pregnant women and new mothers who receive poor treatment at work. Rosalind Bragg of Maternity Action said that fees had led to a 40% drop in claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal. The Fawcett Society—again, not a party political organisation—stated that pregnancy discrimination was widespread in the public and private sectors, but that very few women were able to take action because of the deterrent effect of the fees.
That is particularly true for low-value claims. When people are deciding whether to take a case to a tribunal, they will inevitably weigh the cost of the fee against the likely size of an award. If the likely size of an award is low but the sense of having access to justice and feeling strongly about an issue remains high, the levels of fees are still deterring people from taking claims to employment tribunals. Do not listen to me, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Council of Employment Judges told us that, and said that there had been a
“particularly marked decline in claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, holiday pay and unfair dismissal”.
Those are the types of cases brought by ordinary working people, and those are the words of the Council of Employment Judges, not mine.
That shows that there is a problem that the Minister needs to consider seriously. If his evidence indicates that the problem is not as we think it is, he should bring that evidence forward so that we can consider it. The Council of Employment Judges also stated:
“Many judges reported that they now hear no money claims at all. Prior to the introduction of fees money claims were often brought by low paid workers in sectors such as care, security, hospitality or cleaning and the sums at stake were small in litigation terms but significant to the individual involved. There are few defences to such claims and they often succeeded.”
Now, however, such cases are not being taken forward, which should be a worry to the House.
In written evidence, Unison used figures for the median awards for different types of discrimination claims in 2012-13—ranging from just under £4,500 in age discrimination cases, to £7,500 in disability discrimination cases—to support its contention that fees constituted such a high proportion of probable awards that many claims would not go forward because people found them excessively difficult to pursue. Indeed, a survey by Citizens Advice indicates that 47% of its respondents would have to put aside—wait for this, Madam Deputy Speaker—six months of their discretionary income to be able to afford the £1,200 needed to bring a type B claim. If people on a low income feel aggrieved but have to put away £1,200—six months of their discretionary income—it is self-evident that those who have a just claim will not take it forward because of the fee.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend concur with trade union reports, which have found that women and black and Asian people have been particularly affected by not being able to afford the fees?
Mr Hanson
That is an important point. Women are more likely to be in low-paid jobs and there is employment discrimination in many areas against black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The key point in the case I am putting to the Government is that the Committee heard evidence showing that the fees have a discriminatory effect. The Government have investigated this matter, but have not yet produced their report to say whether they believe that to be the case. There may be other reasons—I do not doubt that there are—but the key point from today’s report is for the Government to provide evidence to the House. The Committee was unanimous in saying that there is a discriminatory effect that deters claims from the poorest, the lowest paid and those in the most insecure employment. It is therefore hitting those who have no other defence than an employment tribunal, which is now out of reach.
This is a matter of access to justice, which we on the Committee, on a cross-party basis, have put on the agenda. We have said that there is a real case to answer. It is for the Minister, both today and in the future, to respond to the report and answer that case.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee. The difficulty for me is that they have already covered all the issues I was going to cover, but let me touch on one highlighted by the right hon. Member for Delyn and the Chairman of the Committee: access to justice.
Access to justice has been the key issue for all of us throughout this process. It was a big issue for the Committee, but it is a big issue for the courts and the senior judiciary. Through an Industry and Parliament Trust Fellowship, I have had the opportunity to talk to members of the judiciary about many of these issues, and I can assure the House that they are very concerned about access to justice.
Without the information from the Ministry of Justice, it is difficult to know what the impact of the changes will be. An enormous number of reforms are taking place; it is not just court and tribunal fees that are being put through at a rapid pace by the MOJ. The Lord Chief Justice is a great reformer, and when talking to him one really gets the feeling that he understands the issues relating to access to justice. At the same time, Lord Justice Briggs is taking forward his views for an online court, which could reduce the costs of justice by taking lawyers out of the equation in bringing a relatively small case to court. A lot of work needs to be done to get the detail of online courts right. Nevertheless, it will be there to provide access to justice.
The Committee’s report highlights the need to consider other means of determining court applications. One of those comes under the term “alternative dispute resolutions”. I happen to be the chairman of the all-party group on alternative dispute resolutions, so it is an area I am aware of. The courts, too, are aware of this. When I sat in the commercial courts, the judges were very keen to ensure that when there was an option of alternative dispute resolution, people took it. Some did and some did not, but it is important that it is offered as an alternative to their carrying on with their day in court. If they do take the option, it is important to ensure that the alternative dispute resolution sector can also keep costs down.
When I sat with judges in the courts, the issue on their minds all the time was how to keep costs down. We went through this with a lot of the cost hearings and cut out quite a lot of the barristers’ fees. It is important to ensure that we can tell whether it is the changes to the courts that are having the effect on tribunal numbers, or whether it is the effect of the fees being charged. I say that because as part of the experience I spent a day with an employment tribunal. There were three members sitting and I asked them how long it would go on for. They said that they had scheduled six days for an employment tribunal that could have lasted one day, so the court fees had not had a significant effect on this individual bringing their case. They had assigned six days to it, because it was a litigant in person and they wanted to bend over backwards to provide the time for that individual to make their case. A much more sensible approach would have been to ensure that the case went on for a lot less time, while still preserving access to justice and ensuring that the litigant in person could still achieve what they wanted to achieve.
The senior judiciary have been pursuing one line of cost reduction, while the Government have been pursuing another. There is nothing wrong with pursuing reductions along a twin track, provided that the two groups work together and talk to each other. The criticism that came back to me from the senior judiciary I sat with was that the Government were not talking to them about the changes they were making. That is a great shame, because without that I do not see how we can make sense of, and really get to the bottom of, access to justice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Committee, has already highlighted the issues around the impact assessment of the changes to court fees and the fact that the information is still not available. He also pointed out that the Master of the Rolls was absolutely scathing about the quality of that evidence. I put that on record again, because it is very important when someone as senior as the Master of the Rolls is critical of the Government’s approach. I have to say that I share his views. The courts and tribunal fee is not a milch cow; it is a real issue of access to justice. Without the information we still have not received, we cannot assess the impact of the fees on access to justice and what impact they will have.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate. I start by declaring an interest: my wife sits as a fee-paid, part-time tribunal judge in the social entitlement tribunal and is a criminal solicitor receiving public money. Prior to my election to this House, I was with Wilberforce barristers chambers in Hull, where I practised criminal law, and recently I have re-enrolled—if that is the right term—as a solicitor.
In my respectful opinion, the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), goes about his business fairly and is entirely impartial and objective. I welcome the Committee’s report and recommendations urging the Government to publish the impact of employment tribunal fees and its proposal that fees must be substantially reduced. It is worth noting—I make a party political point here—that Labour, in opposition, when the fees were being considered and discussed, opposed them absolutely. We opposed them throughout the debate. I remember attempting to speak to Ministers to make submissions directly to them. I cannot remember whether I got a sit-down meeting, but I do recall chasing them through the Lobby, telling them what problems I thought the fees would create and what the consequences would be.
We also opposed and voted against the statutory instrument, because we knew from the evidence from the experts, from people contacting us, from the unions and Citizens Advice briefings, from the Bar Council and the Law Society—from anybody who knew anything about it—that the fees were unlikely to work. The number of tribunals has dropped by a massive 70%. We are talking huge percentages. We cannot begin to pretend—I doubt that the Minister, in good conscience, would get to the Dispatch Box and pretend—that the majority of those cases were unmeritorious. I do not think that the Government would say that. So what does it mean? It means that people are being shut out of accessing justice. I pay tribute to Unison the union for bringing legal challenges in judicial review. The latest case is to be heard by the Supreme Court later this year. I will not predict the outcome, but it seems to me, as a lawyer, pretty favourable to the union.
When the fees were introduced, the Government told us they were to pay for the employment tribunal service’s running costs, but it is not working. In 2014-15, the Ministry of Justice said that the net income from the fees was £9 million, but the expenditure of the service is £71.4 million. Thousands of workers are being shut out of seeking justice. That leads me to think that this is purely ideological. The Justice Secretary has overturned so many of the policies of his predecessor Lord Chancellor that the rumour in this place is that he is considering changing the name of his children. It would not harm anybody, would it, if he just said, “Look, this isn’t working. We didn’t expect this to be the fiasco it has become”? We can do something about this. We should scrap the fees, and we should scrap them now.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Much of the preliminary work on court and tribunal fee reviews was carried out in the early days of the coalition Government, when I had the pleasure of minding those issues at the Ministry of Justice. I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill): the issues are complex and dependent on the differing circumstances. I think, however, there is now a level of understanding that was not generally prevalent back then—first, that it costs money to have, as we do, a decent court service, decent quality courts and an excellent quality of judges; and, secondly, that this cost should not just be for the taxpayer to shoulder.
We invested £300 million in the state-of-the-art Rolls building to hear large international and money cases. This gave the UK the quality of courts required to retain our premier status as the place to seek justice, using English and Welsh jurisdiction clauses, and thereby added greatly to the offering and income of UK plc. I have to ask, however, whether very high-value cases should be subject to a £10,000 fee cap. The first case to be heard in the Rolls building involved two Russian oligarchs and would have cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds per week in lawyers’ costs but, relatively, peanuts to hire the court and judge. I appreciate concerns that fees should not be so high as to impact on international competiveness, but I would appreciate hearing from the Minister whether he feels that we have the balance right.
On employment tribunals, the claim figures may be smaller—most of the time—but the principle remains that the service has to be paid for. Given that an employment contract is a private contract that does not involve the state, except when the state is the employer, why should the taxpayer subsidise the private claim? I think we now have the right formula: so far as possible, and as the starting point, the fees paid by the applicant should cover the cost of the application, but following that, where it is in the interests of justice, people who need help should be individually assisted via a remission scheme.
In that context, I do not agree with the Justice Committee’s suggestion that the overall quantum of fees should be reduced, and I do not believe that its report justifies that in any event, although I accept that the Chairman has just acknowledged that more data are required to make the assessment.
The figures for employment tribunals are material. There were 67% fewer single cases from October 2013 to June 2015, although that still represents tens of thousands of claims per year. The fall in multiple cases by 72% was more expected, as lots of public sector equal pay claims were working their way through the system. There seems to be some debate, however, about the extent to which fees have put people off claiming, and this will always be a hard figure to tie down. The Committee speculated that it could be 13,000 a year, based on 26% of ACAS claimants saying they would not progress their claim because they found the fees off-putting. Of course, a significant proportion might have believed this, but possibly only or mainly because they had weak claims. We would need more research.
The debate around employment tribunal fees often focuses on the questions raised by vexatious or highly risky claims and the impact on business and the economy. I shall come back to these important issues, but they did not form the starting point of our initial review, which was, first, to get those who could pay to do so; secondly, to encourage parties to seek alternative methods of dispute resolution, where possible; and, thirdly, to maintain access to justice. I still maintain that those were sound principles on which to proceed, and I think that this has been justified by the very many judicial reviews, brought mainly by the trade unions, that have to date consistently failed.
I strongly believe that when a claimant could issue a claims form at zero cost to themselves, he or she had every incentive to do so—but, most importantly, every incentive to do whatever the weakness of the claim itself. The Justice Committee report describes a witness who suggested that vexatious claims may be less than 5% of claims, but that still represents a significant number for the unfortunate companies that are subjected to them. Witnesses also stated that fees had deterred claimants who would otherwise have won as the proportion of successful claimants has not increased, despite a fall in the number of cases.
Andy Slaughter
The hon. Gentleman says that 5% is significant, but we are talking about falls of 70%. If he is genuinely concerned about discouraging unmeritorious or frivolous claims, a small charge—not one of £1,200—might be appropriate. Does he not think that that amount is disproportionate, even if he agrees with the principle?
Mr Djanogly
I am coming on to alternative ways of funding. The starting point is to get cost recovery and then to look at individual circumstances, where necessary. I would have liked hon. Members to spend a little more time talking about the remission system rather than fees—perhaps one of my hon. Friends is about to do so. More winnable cases leads to more of them being settled before going to tribunal, but even if this is an access-to-justice issue it should be dealt through the remissions system rather than the fee itself.
I certainly recall personally the significant numbers of businesses complaining that the threat of employment claims alone was enough to put them off employing more people. Interestingly, this was very much more prevalent among small businesses than large ones. Indeed, this is reflected in the Justice Committee’s report, as the Chairman said, which clearly shows the CBI to be more relaxed on the issue than the FSB. This is undoubtedly because it is the larger companies that have the large HR departments that can manage claims as part of their overall business. For small businesses, processing a claim, let alone taking time off to go to tribunal, can take up an impossible amount of the principal’s time.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the employer is given an unfair financial position or advantage over the claimant, ultimately, regardless of whether it is a big or a small firm, the greatest cost will be borne by claimants themselves?
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Lady talks about unfair advantage, but I am not sure how she defines it, particularly if it is a single employer. Most of the FSB’s membership are two-person companies. If the hon. Lady is saying that it is unfair if it is one employer against one employee, I would say it was not. The answer to her question is that it would depend on the circumstances.
There grew a culture of settling claims, even weak claims, so that they would simply go away. The fact remains that there is more to business confidence than statistics. If the indirect impact of fees has been to change this perception among business owners, which I feel it has, fees have made a significant contribution to an economy that is delivering the creation of the highest level of employment the UK has ever enjoyed. We should be cautious about meddling with that.
The big change from when I was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice is the use of ACAS conciliation. I should be interested to hear more from the Minister, but the figure of 83,000 claims being dealt with by ACAS at an early stage sounds very promising indeed. It was the policy of the last Labour Government and then of the coalition Government and this Government that alternative dispute resolution should be promoted as a cheaper, quicker, more consensual and less stressful form of sorting out problems, including employment disputes. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has plans to extend the use of ADR further still.
I note that, on access to justice, the Justice Committee’s report is rather limited to looking at the status quo—fees versus remissions, which seems to have a feeling of trade union influence.
Robert Neill
Will my hon. Friend comment on our specific proposal that there should be an uprating of the remission threshold to take account of inflation? Otherwise, there will be a risk of fiscal drag. That is one of a number of specific points we make about remission.
Mr Djanogly
It is useful to look at that, perhaps along with a wider review of the way in which remissions are working. A new system has been put in place, and I accept that such things need review.
The report totally overlooks the changing nature of the funding of legal claims now and possibly in the future—for instance, the use of loans to fund claims, or the use of no-win, no-fee agreements and insurance to fund claims. It assumes that the burden of risk is simply to be shared between claimant and defendant, which is unreflective of reality. What about the risk of claims being shared between insurers, lenders, lawyers—and, yes, even trade unions? For instance, should we not investigate what level of risk they should all take on board, before the taxpayer has to step in? Neither Opposition party statements so far, nor the Justice Committee report seems to be looking at the broader issues in an area where we need innovative ideas and an assessment of the wider marketplace. I would therefore be grateful to hear the Government’s views.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
This debate is apparently about courts and tribunal fees. It is unfortunate that this Government’s programme of reforming courts and tribunal fees has been pursued as part of a wider Government austerity programme. In practical terms, this means that tribunal fees introduced in 2013 require financial contribution from claimants to have their case heard, and further fees look set to be imposed.
The governance and function of the management and operation of employment tribunals will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 2017, but the First Minister of Scotland has outlined her concerns about this system and expressed her desire to look forward to abolishing fees for employment tribunals. In the interests of justice, access to a fair hearing and fair work should not be the preserve of those who can raise the funds to have their voices heard, and it risks falling foul of the Human Rights Act.
We have heard that part of the reason for introducing such fees for claimants was to discourage weak and vexatious claims that, while costing the employee nothing, could impose significant legal costs on the employer. However, since these fees were introduced, we know there has been a significant drop in the number of claims accepted by the employment tribunal. Is anyone seriously suggesting that the drop can be accounted for by so-called “weak and vexatious claims” no longer being pursued? Surely the drop in claims must mean that many of these employees simply cannot afford to pursue their cases due to the costs involved, so they are effectively being priced out of the justice system.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Lady. Organisations such as citizens advice bureaux or law centres in Coventry tell us that they are inundated with people who cannot secure justice at tribunals because they cannot afford it. The real reason for the cuts in these budgets was very much the Government’s philosophy of making gigantic cuts, but the important point is that people are being denied basic justice.
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point: this is nothing to do with a justice agenda; it is about an ideologically driven motivation towards austerity that effectively hits people who cannot raise the funds for justice. Surely no one can defend that.
Research undertaken by Citizens Advice, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, has demonstrated that an eye-watering 82% of those surveyed who were experiencing problems at work said they would be deterred from bringing a claim due to the fees; and only 29% of respondents were aware that they could apply for a fee remission. We have heard a similar chorus of concern from the Law Society of Scotland and other experts, which shows that genuine cases are not reaching tribunals as a result of the prohibitive fees. The impact on women is particularly damaging and, as a result, unlawful employment practices are undeterred and are going unpunished.
Let us look at still further evidence that such fees are a barrier to justice. On 20 June, the Justice Committee published its review into court and tribunal fees and found that the introduction of fees for claimants in employment tribunals had led to a drop of almost 70%, as we have heard, in the number of cases. It found further that changes are urgently needed to restore an acceptable level of access to the employment tribunal system. That by definition shows that the Justice Committee, after its investigations and deliberations, found that the current level of access to the employment tribunal system is not acceptable. That is why when these powers are devolved to Scotland these fees will be abolished.
Access to justice cannot and must not be limited to those who can afford it. That is not acceptable in any country that seeks to see itself as enlightened and democratic. Despite talk of austerity, politics is about choices, and these choices are based on the shared values of the society in question; it is as simple as that.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who chairs the Justice Committee, says in its report on tribunal fees:
“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving cost-recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter objective must prevail.”
I could not agree more.
Worryingly, as has been pointed out, there has been a lengthy delay in the publication of the Government’s post-implementation review on the impact of employment tribunal fees, which aims to assess their effect against the three main objectives of transferring some of the cost from the taxpayer and towards those who can afford to pay and encouraging parties to seek alternative ways to resolve disputes while maintaining access to justice. Like the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I am deeply concerned that such an implementation review has not taken place.
I crave your indulgence for a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like the House to bear it in mind that it is an estimates day debate. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said the only certainties in life are death and taxation. He was certainly right about the first, but recent events may suggest he is a wee bit off the mark on the second. However, there is another certainty in life that Mr Franklin overlooked: the one thing we may be sure will not be debated during a Westminster debate on estimates are the actual estimates. This issue may not exercise the minds of the general public, but that is because it is not well known outside this place just how little scrutiny there is of the spending plans of Departments. The scrutiny is negligible and it has suited successive Governments of all persuasions that it should be so. If the public knew just how inscrutable this process was, they would rightly be alarmed.
The estimates process is a very technical process by which spending is approved by Parliament. I further crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, for just a few minutes more and ask you to allow me to recall that during the EVEL—English votes for English laws—debates the Leader of the House noted the possibility of a review of this process while seeming to be completely adamant that estimates already allow for affecting the Barnett consequentials. The Procedure Committee, on which I sit, is continuing to review the estimates process and many very distinguished and learned experts—far more distinguished than I am—from all sides have argued while discussing EVEL that the estimates process is simply not fit for purpose.
The way in which this House deals with the supply and estimates process is not sustainable. We need to have proper debate around supply procedure to achieve clarity on Barnett consequentials. The scrutiny of the estimates process is not robust and this Parliament has the least scrutinised spending arrangements in the western world—in this, the so-called “mother of Parliaments.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence for one minute more. Adam Tomkins, who is now a Conservative MSP, told the Procedure Committee on 8 September last year that—I quote him for fear of misrepresenting him—
“whatever we do with English votes for English laws has to be made practicable and operational in the light of and through using the Barnett formula. I think that can happen, but I think it can happen only if there is a clear opportunity for MPs representing constituencies from across the whole of the UK effectively and robustly to engage in deliberation and debate in the supply or Estimates process. At the moment, it seems that there is no such opportunity because…Estimates debates tend to be very wide-ranging—about everything other than the Estimates”.
He concluded:
“The fly in the ointment is to have this current inability or unwillingness to debate robustly and effectively parliamentary Estimates.”
The process is such that these procedures simply do not give MPs the full opportunity to scrutinise any Barnett consequentials of England only or England and Wales only legislation, and that is required in a healthy and mature parliamentary democracy. We need not take my word for it; we have the opinion of an eminent Conservative MSP—an expert in the field, or so I have been told. It should be a consequence of EVEL that the supply process be reformed in the interests of this being a “process of development”, as promised and envisaged by the Leader of the House on 22 October 2015.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for satisfying my craving for your indulgence, and I will return momentarily to employment tribunal fees.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. For clarity, I should tell the House and the hon. Lady that she is perfectly in order. She is talking about estimates and this is an estimates day and, whatever anyone else says, in my judgment the points she is making are perfectly reasonable and ought to be debated.
Patricia Gibson
I thank you enormously, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that supportive comment.
Regarding employment tribunal fees, the SNP Government in Scotland understand, as I fear the UK Government do not yet seem to, that the introduction of these fees is a significant barrier to justice, not least for women facing maternity discrimination who cannot afford to take a rogue employer to a tribunal. Last year a report for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that unlawful maternity and paternity discrimination is now more common in the UK workplace than ever before, with as many as 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers—one in nine—being forced out of their jobs each year.
We in Scotland will listen to the experts. We will abolish these prohibitive and punitive fees. It is the right thing to do and justice must be the guiding principle of all we do. When any state puts a price on justice for its citizens, that is a state in peril. I urge the Minister to reflect on this and reconsider the pernicious effects of such fees on ordinary working people.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and to follow such experienced and learned speakers from across the House. I will concentrate on courts and tribunal fees. I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on the Select Committee that produced this report, and I wholeheartedly endorse the report and its recommendations.
I want to focus not on the more newsworthy aspects of the report such as employment tribunals, but on the structure and remission of fees. It is critical that fees do not impede access to justice. Fees are useful, and indeed necessary, for two reasons. First, they help to pay for the justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) reminded us. Secondly, fees can be used effectively to deter frivolous and vexatious claimants. As ever, as has been said across the House this afternoon, getting the balance right is key. The introduction of fees before employment tribunals has clearly had an enormous impact on the number of cases issued, and it was right that we focused on that.
I know from speaking to many of my fellow barristers that fee increases have had a significant impact in other areas, particularly that of professional negligence. It is not the welfare of my fellow barristers that concerns me; it is the welfare of individuals such as those injured when medical treatment goes wrong and who cannot issue claims. That should be a matter of concern for us today.
The Justice Committee looked closely at fee structure and fee remission during our inquiry and received evidence from senior members of the judiciary, the Bar Council and the Law Society, among others. One suggestion to alleviate the deterrent effect of the increases was to allow fees to be met in a series of staged payments throughout the course of a claim. At first glance, staged fees seemed to be a good idea, but the suggestion was not universally supported by the evidence given to us by senior members of the judiciary. Both Lord Dyson and Sir James Munby were hesitant when questioned by the Committee about the concept of staging fees. Lord Dyson said specifically that it was not a proposal that he had previously thought about. He agreed that it was an interesting idea but voiced serious concerns about how fee staging might be used by respondents to put pressure on claimants at various stages of the litigation.
One solution, suggested by Sir Ernest Ryder, could be to adopt the Scottish civil justice model of requiring a respondent’s fee to be paid alongside sequential fees for claimants. This, he said, would level the playing field and place the risk more fairly on both parties. As the evidence did not point us clearly in one direction or another, the Committee’s proposal in this area is a tentative one. A graduated or sequential schedule of fee payments could be a positive step, but we feel that a pilot scheme should be carried out in the first instance to evaluate the best way to operate such a system.
I turn now to fee remission, and I shall again take employment tribunals as an example. To be successful in an application for remission, a claimant must first pass the disposable capital test and then the gross monthly income test. The claimant has to fill out a separate fee remission application for each court or tribunal fee. While taking evidence, we were given statistics about how many pages claimants had to fill in. The forms are clearly not simple. Thompsons Solicitors pointed out that the guidance booklet itself was 31 pages long. Major changes have been made with the introduction of a new, supposedly user-friendly way to deal with fee remission, which has now been rebranded as “help with fees”. There has clearly been some improvement but complexities remain. This is possibly symptomatic of the much wider problem of litigants in person not having a great deal of understanding of the system in which they have to operate. The situation clearly needs to be kept under review.
The Law Society has spent a considerable amount of time looking at fee remission in general and has called for the Ministry of Justice to introduce a system for regular re-rating of the remission thresholds to take account of inflation. It has also suggested that a further review of the affordability of civil court fees and the remission system should take place and that simplification in all areas should be considered. The Committee endorsed those proposals. Personally, I think that there is a lot of merit in the suggestion of enabling automatic remission for all basic rate taxpayers. That would simplify the system enormously. Fee structure and remission may not seem at first glance to be an obvious cause célèbre for reforming lawyers, but without structural change our justice system becomes less accessible and less affordable for those who need it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I shall start by declaring that I practised as an employment solicitor for many years before I entered this place. My speech will focus primarily on the impact of employment tribunal fees, but I want to start by making a broader point. Many people are still struggling to understand why a majority voted contrary to the mass of economic evidence that leaving the EU would be bad for jobs and growth, and the subject matter of this debate should give us food for thought about why some people voted in the way they did. Messages about risks to the economy will only work if we have an economy that works for the whole population. Therefore, as well as aiming for full employment, we must ensure that the jobs we create are permanent, secure and properly paid. Telling people on zero-hours contracts or in agency work that there was a risk to their jobs from Brexit was not persuasive.
A culture has been created in this country that views employment as a flexible, disposable concept, not as the basic building block needed to create a cohesive and prosperous society. When the few rights that we have are locked away in a system that deliberately prevents people from enforcing them, we should not be surprised that so many voices say they feel disfranchised. For too long, the question of fairness at work has been at the fringes of political debate. I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that opportunity should exist for everyone, that there should be no glass ceilings and that those with different backgrounds should have just as much chance of making it into their chosen job as the next person. Too often, however, lip service is paid to those aims and—crucially, in the context of this debate—little thought appears to be given to the consequences of employment ending. There are workplace rights and protections that this place has deemed a necessary part of the social contract that the Government have with the country, and we must be absolutely sure that those rights can be genuinely be enforced if we are not to have an illusory system of protection. Opportunity, security and sustainability in work should be given as much priority as the creation of the job in the first place.
It is recognised that losing a job is a major cause of extreme pressure and stress in life. Many people who have lost their jobs have no discretionary income to speak of, and keeping a roof over their family’s heads and putting food on the table will always take priority over pursuing a claim, no matter how badly they have been treated. I am aware that there is a fee remission system, but let us not pretend that it is anything more than a fig leaf, because many people do not qualify for it. The average monthly take-home salary in this country is just under £1,800. Remission is not available to people on that salary, yet claimants are being asked to stump up two thirds of that amount to pursue a tribunal claim. It is simply unrealistic to expect them to do that, and I agree with Lord Dyson’s view that
“ordinary people on modest incomes”
will
“inevitably be deterred from litigating.”
We have heard from the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), about the recommendations in his report, so I will not repeat them, but it is quite remarkable that the Committee feels that it has been strung along by Ministers in relation to the outcome of the review of employment tribunal fees. The review was commissioned over a year ago and it has apparently been on the Minister’s desk for nine months. Having heard the Minister previously responsible for this area flounder in a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, I think it is pretty clear that the review has been sat on because the introduction of fees has been a disaster.
We know that this has been a disaster because the number of tribunal claims being lodged fell off a cliff following the introduction of fees in July 2013. Whatever comparisons are used, there has been a drop of around 70% on average in the number of claims lodged. Other Members have already mentioned the fact that the TUC and Unison provided statistics to the Select Committee comparing the number of cases brought in the first three months of 2013 with the number brought in the first three months of 2015. Those statistics showed that claims relating to the working time directive were down 78%, wages claims were down 56%, unfair dismissal claims were down 72%, equal pay claims were down 58%, breach of contract claims were down 75% and sex discrimination claims were down 68%. I am sure that the Government would like to claim that the success of the ACAS early conciliation scheme explains the drop, but that scheme was not in place for the period immediately after fees were introduced, and we know from an ACAS survey that at least 26% of claimants who did not progress their cases said that they did not do so because they found the fees off-putting. Lord Justice Underhill, referring to employment tribunals, has stated in the High Court:
“It is quite clear from the comparison between the number of claims brought in the ET before and after 29 July 2013 that the introduction of fees has had the effect of deterring a very large number of potential claimants.”
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) suggested earlier that the introduction of loans to fund claims might be an option, but who is going to lend money to someone who has just lost their job? That is completely unrealistic. Substantial evidence was put to the Select Committee that fees were encouraging employers not to resolve disputes as they knew that many employees would not be able to find the fee to pursue their claim. This leaves us with unresolved complaints and unenforceable rights because of a Government policy that effectively rewards and encourages bad practice. The Committee reported that many judges say that they now hear no money claims at all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) mentioned, the report states:
“Prior to the introduction of fees money claims were often brought by low paid workers in sectors such as care, security, hospitality or cleaning and the sums at stake were small in litigation terms but significant to the individual involved. There are few defences to such claims and they often succeeded.”
Like my right hon. Friend, I do not buy for a minute the idea that all those employers have suddenly changed their behaviour and everyone is being paid correctly. What is far more likely is that those whose wages are being docked are saying to themselves, “It will cost me more to go to a tribunal to recover the money than the amount that I have lost, so can I actually afford to challenge it?” The rules have a disproportionate impact on those whom employment laws are there to protect, whether those with the least resources or those who have been discriminated against in work. The current system gives employers an incentive not to respect such rights.
Employment tribunals play a vital role in ensuring that basic rights—such as the rights to a minimum wage, paid holidays and maternity leave, and the right not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against—are effective. Valuing those rights, such as they are, is not enough; the ease with which people are able to exercise them is just as important. They are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace. They bring important social and economic benefits to the country. They ensure that more people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income. They help to produce a committed and engaged workforce and encourage the retention of skilled workers, and they allow people to plan their lives and plan for a future, knowing that if they do a good job and their employers run their businesses well, they are likely to stay in work. What we have instead is a “hire and fire” culture, in which workers are seen as disposable commodities—figures on a spreadsheet—rather than people with real lives who actually matter.
It seems to me that the Government are incapable of recognising the importance of employment rights. As we enter a period of tremendous uncertainty with the fallout from Brexit, we need, now more than ever, a Labour Government to protect those whom we represent, and we must all reflect on how best to achieve that. Although I do not doubt that there will be differing views on the way ahead, I sincerely hope that all members of my party will agree that if we cannot unify and present ourselves as a serious Government in waiting, we cannot expect to do a single thing to reverse this contemptible, repugnant race to the bottom.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who knows far more about the issue of employment tribunals than I do. For understandable reasons, that issue has dominated the debate. I practised in the civil and criminal courts before I came here, but that seems some time ago now.
Let me begin by complimenting the Justice Committee, its Chair—the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who spoke very persuasively today—and all its members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). It has produced a good report, which makes our task easier because we can endorse it and agree with its recommendations, many of which do not pull their punches with the Government. I might go further in some respects, but I suspect that it will be sufficient to ask the Minister to respond to the points made by the Committee. I trust that he will not simply say that matters will be dealt with in due course; I have become rather used to his saying that.
I apologise to those on both Front Benches for the fact that I may not be able to stay for the closing speeches. If I cannot, I will of course read the Minister’s comments assiduously tomorrow, as I always do. He has made some interesting speeches recently.
I have another reason for not saying much about the substantive issue. During the five years for which I held the shadow brief—until last year—I probably said everything that I wanted to say about courts and tribunal fees. However, unusually, I want to correct something that was said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I did not take the view that fee increases should always be opposed. On the contrary, given the constraints on the public finances, and the particular pressures on the other parts of the Ministry of Justice budget—which are now coming to fruition in very unpleasant ways that affect the prison service and legal aid—I always took the view that fee increases were appropriate, and that full cost recovery, and in some cases more, could be justified on its merits, provided that it did not interfere detrimentally or substantially with access to justice.
That is where the Government have lost their way. In fact, they have lost their way rather more than that: they eventually began to introduce changes that were self-defeating, such as the criminal courts charge, and had to do a U-turn. The report criticises many elements of fees and charges, not just employment tribunal fees but civil fees, which have risen by up to 600%—that figure alone should have set alarm bells ringing—commercial fees, and the fees for divorce. Now there are proposals for an increase of up to 500% in immigration tribunal fees. Those increases will clearly not be affordable, especially in the light of a remission system that does not appear to function properly.
I think that many Members have concentrated on the issue of employment tribunal fees because we have had more time to experience it, and because there is something particularly insidious about the way in which the fees were introduced. They have led to a 70%—in some cases, an 80%—drop in the number of claims, which must have been the intention, because this does not represent a great saving of public finances. I think that the estimate is about £10 million a year, and although that is a substantial sum, it is not substantial in the context of the overall budget. The aim appears to be to restrict access in a way that some employers may find convenient, but people who are experiencing a time when they are vulnerable, have little money at their disposal, and face having to undergo what is, even at a tribunal, the intimidating process of putting their case forward will be easily put off. They do not need fees, and they certainly do not need fees at this level, to discourage them.
I do not want to take up too much time, so let me return to a point that I raised during the speech of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. It is one of the few points on which I disagree with the Committee. It relates to Freedom of Information Act appeals from the Information Commissioner to the First-tier Tribunal. The Chair of the Committee was very kind in replying to my intervention. The Committee said that, according to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information,
“'considerable resources and judicial time are being taken up by unmeritorious appeals’. It recommended that legislation should be introduced to remove the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against an Information Commissioner decision”,
only allowing an appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law. The report continues:
“This recommendation is under consideration by the Government. We see no reason to disagree with the Commission’s view.”
This is not really a criticism, but it appears that the Committee ticked a box because it had not received submissions. I accept, if that is what the Chair says, that it had not received submissions to the contrary, but the independent commission had certainly received many such submissions. It may well be that the Committee did not receive any because the impression given by the report was that it concerned levels of fees and charging rather than the existence of rights of appeal in themselves.
Let me return to what the commission said, and why the Committee may have been led into error. There appears to have been a simple confusion between unmeritorious appeals, which are weeded out—between January 2014 and March 2015, 10% cases were struck out for being unmeritorious—and unsuccessful appeals, which are very different. The Committee said that 79% of appeals to the First-tier Tribunal against the Information Commissioner were unsuccessful, but that means that more than 20% were successful.
In my experience—including my experience as a litigant: I have been a frequent user of the Freedom of Information Act, and have gone through all those stages, up to the First-tier Tribunal—it is an absolutely necessary safeguard. The Information Commissioner does a good job although he is under-resourced, and, generally speaking, the independent commission did not come up with the horrors that we all thought it was going to come up with, such as charging more, restricting access, or in other ways trying to discourage freedom of information requests. Nevertheless, the appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is an extremely important stage of the process.
Let me exemplify that by referring to some of the cases that have succeeded at that level in the past year. I am grateful to the News Media Association, a combination of the Newspaper Society and the Newspaper Publishers Association, which, understandably and for very good reasons, wishes to see this right of appeal. I am particularly grateful to the Campaign for Freedom of Information, led by the redoubtable Maurice Frankel, who has rung alarm bells on the issue.
Let me give half a dozen examples. The First-tier Tribunal ordered the Cabinet Office to release information about the adoption of the selection criteria for appointing members of the Chilcot inquiry. It told the Ministry of Defence that it was wrong to withhold information about its failure to warn soldiers that they will get a criminal record if convicted of minor disciplinary offences. It ordered the Department for Education to reveal payments to new sponsors taking over failing academy schools. It ordered the Cabinet Office to disclose documentation for the expenses, of up to £115,000 per annum each, claimed by four former Prime Ministers in connection with their public duties. It also ordered—the Minister will appreciate this one—the Ministry of Justice to identify landlords convicted of Housing Act 2004 offences for letting dangerous or grossly substandard accommodation. Those are just some examples from central Government; there are even more examples from the national health service and local government.
I ask the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is a fair and reasonable man, to reconsider the issue. I assure him that the bodies that I have mentioned will be delighted to supply him with a plethora of information, just as they provided such material to the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, albeit in vain.
The Freedom of Information Act was one of the key pieces of legislation of the previous Labour Government. Like anything else, it can be open to abuse, but it is generally used well not only in individual instances, but in promoting good government. It is right that the Information Commissioner’s Office is independent, but the Information Commissioner does not always get everything right. A 20% success on appeal rate is good, and the role of the First-tier Tribunal is materially different from that of the Information Commissioner. It brings a judicial eye to proceedings and, from the results that we have seen, allows for fresh and fuller scrutiny.
I will end on that point so as not to take up any more time, but I hope that that single issue—I apologise for picking out what I think are the errors in the report and do not mean to obscure the many good things in it—will be reconsidered by both the Committee and the Government.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
May I first agree with the deserved compliments to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), made by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)? It has been a pleasure to serve on the Committee, which has been bipartisan and united in its conclusions.
The Government’s case for introducing fees was cost recovery, but with spend at £71.4 million and income at £9 million that has failed, and the goal was to reduce the number of vexatious claims, which I will address in more detail later. The issue for the Committee was whether fees have had an unacceptable impact on access to justice. The introduction of fees has led to an enormous and undisputed drop—approaching 70%—in the number of cases brought. It is well worth repeating what my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said about single individual tribunal cases declining by some 67%, but I will not repeat all the figures. Cases brought by more than one person, or multiple claims, declined by 72%.
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), told the Committee that 83,000 early conciliation cases had been dealt with by ACAS in the year beginning April 2014 and that other factors may account for part of the reduction in the number of cases being brought. The evidence submitted to the Committee was that of the 60,800 early conciliation notifications made in the period from April to December 2014, 15% were settled and only 22% progressed to an employment tribunal. Some 63% of notifications—38,304—dropped off the radar. I put it to the Chamber that that was down to affordability.
Comparing the cases in the first three months of 2013 with those in the same period in 2015, the TUC and Unison, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), found that the most common types of cases where access has been restricted since the introduction of fees were those relating to the working time directive, down 78%; unauthorised deductions from wages, down 56%; unfair dismissal, down 72%; equal pay, down 58%; breach of contract, down 75%; sex discrimination, down 68%; and pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal, down 40%. That is quite shameful in a democracy.
In an ACAS survey, 26% of claimants who did not progress their cases said they did not do so simply because they found the fees off-putting. Tribunal fees have the opposite effect to what the Government are saying. They do not encourage early conciliation because the employer has no incentive to settle in cases in which the claimant may have difficulty raising the tribunal fee. The Senior President of Tribunals said:
“The Council of Employment Judges and the leadership judges would all say that there is clear behavioural material as to the way in which respondents”—
employers—
“are behaving. They are avoiding engagement in conciliation processes and waiting for the next fee to be paid, which means that settlement opportunities are lost.”
Kate Booth, from Eaton Smith LLP, legal representatives of both employers and employees, asked why would employers engage in early conciliation? She said:
“You wait for the employee to pay a fee. Ultimately you want to call their bluff—are they prepared to put their money where their mouth is?—so you sit back and see whether they do it.”
In other words, they want cases to drop off.
The Law Society and the Police Action Lawyers Group claim that there is emerging evidence of people and employers hanging back, waiting to see whether a claim progresses before settling. There is little evidence to suggest that such claims are vexatious. In evidence to the Committee, the charity Working Families said that vexatious claims
“may be less than 5%, even less than 2%”.
The Senior President of Tribunals said that if the aim was to remove vexatious claims, one would have expected the success rate of claims to go up, but, in so far as there is any material available at the moment, the evidence is to the contrary. Not only have the success rate and the appeal rate not significantly changed, but the policy has failed to reduce the number of unmeritorious claims. The timing and scale of the immediate reduction following the introduction of fees leave us in no doubt that the clear majority of the decline is attributable to fees. The drop in tribunals was not predicted by the Government. Even when employment law changes are taken into account, as the Minister said in Committee, the drop was down to tribunal fees putting people off exercising their right. Again, affordability is the main issue. A limit is being placed on access to justice in employment cases for those who are most vulnerable in the system.
In evidence to the Committee, the chief executive of Thompsons Employment Solicitors said that Ministers are not clear about the purpose of the fees. Are they intended to fund the tribunal system? If the tribunal system is to be funded by users, it should be taken into account that employers are also users. If it is to deter claims, fees are not effective. The costs system present in other civil cases is a better method. If someone brings a claim that has no merit and is unsuccessful, the employer can apply for costs. There is simply no evidence that there are loads of vexatious claims in the system. If employers face vexatious claims and are properly advised, they will oppose them. If they succeed, they will apply for costs. That is the appropriate deterrent and it already exists.
Factors that need to be taken into account include: the effectiveness of fee remission, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis); the vulnerability of claimants and their means by comparison with respondents, which may pose particularly problems in respect of inequality of arms when individuals or small businesses are seeking to uphold their rights against the state or major companies; and the degree of choice litigants have in whether to use the courts to resolve their cases and achieve justice. There should be a clear and justifiable relationship in the fee system between those factors and the degree of financial risk litigants are asked to bear.
Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving access to justice, access to justice must prevail. The Select Committee report recommendations are clear. First, the Government should publish the factual information collated as part of their post-implementation review. The goalposts have been moved four times and they should publish now, without further hesitation. Why has this information not been published? Secondly, the overall cost of tribunals must come down. Thirdly, the financial thresholds for fee remission must be increased, and only one application should be required, thereby aiding access to justice. Fourthly, the binary type A/type B distinction should be replaced by a fee system that is fair and does not preclude vulnerable people. Fifthly, further special consideration must be given to the position of women alleging maternity discrimination or pregnancy discrimination. Their savings to support their new born child or soon-to-be-born child might be being used as collateral towards industrial tribunal fees, thus affecting any remission, and that is off-putting.
I recognise that the Committee’s recommendations, put simply by me, would have cost implications for the Ministry of Justice, but we should note that an increase in the number of legitimate claims would in itself bring in additional fee income. I stress again that if there was a choice between income from fees and the preservation of access to justice, the latter must prevail. Indeed, as the Master of the Rolls reminded us in his evidence, the Lord Chancellor is required by statute to have regard to the necessity of maintaining access to justice.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, albeit at the last minute. I rise to speak having heard many of the statistics, which I still find shocking to hear, and I wish to give some personal reflection and context. My grandmother had many tall tales to tell when I was growing up, but one I always remember is the story of how she met my grandfather while working in munitions at the Rolls-Royce factory in Glasgow during the war. After the war, she went back to work to be a seamstress. When she got married and returned to work, she was “given her books”: her employment was terminated and she was unemployed. There were no tribunal fees in those days, and I often reflect on how we have come a long way, although not far enough.
Before I came to this place, I worked in the corporate sector for a number of years, where I managed a small team. A team member went on maternity leave as I started my employment, and just as she was coming back I was advised by the human resources department that if she took longer than nine months, I did not have to give her her job back—I just had to give her any job. I could not believe that. I found it incredible that someone senior—a marketing manager—was not allowed to get her job back. As a manager, I was put in the position of finding her any job.
This debate is about tribunal fees. They play a part here, but how we look at this is as much about company culture and our culture as a society. We also have to look at it in terms of the productivity gap, as I said in my intervention. We want to get people back to work and to encourage them. That is particularly true in the case of women, who are often marginalised, as so many of the reports have said. Having 400,000 women in this country experiencing discrimination in employment is not a mark of a modern or progressive society. Therefore, if we reduce people’s access to justice, it does not take us forward in any regard. The International Labour Organisation said in a 2014 report:
“Fathers undertaking a more active role in caregiving is likely to be one of the most significant social developments of the twenty-first century.”
This is therefore not just about women in the workplace and discrimination against them; it is also about men.
When the Equality and Human Rights Commission came to me a couple of weeks ago and talked me through some of the statistics and the issues relating to tribunal fees, I was staggered. I was told of the 56,000 women being put out of employment—that figure has been mentioned a number of times—and how 10% of mothers say that their employer discouraged them from attending antenatal appointments. We must get tougher. A number of Members from across the Chamber have legal backgrounds. There is a significant gap between people who are being discriminated against and the courts and the lawyers firms, which are undoubtedly making a significant amount of money out of cases.
Our courts are also being clogged up by cases that could be solved in other ways. I recently visited Australia, where I wanted to see how its small business commissioner operated by comparison with the legislation that has been introduced in this House. I found it incredible that Australia had a federal commissioner and individual state commissioners. They had developed a culture across Australia of resolving issues before they got to the courts, and that was very much welcomed by the legal profession. I wonder whether the Minister would consider that as a proposal and as something meriting further discussion: a commission with greater powers, sitting between the judiciary and businesses. There will have to be a carrot-and-stick approach at some point. I think of the number of times I have heard small and medium-sized enterprises saying, or people reporting, how they have had difficulties in supporting women or families through having children. We need to incentive small businesses, and individuals to start and develop their businesses. The fact of the matter is that women have children; we are not at the stage yet in genetics where men can carry children. We have to accept the fact that women are child bearers, and they bring so much to the economy and to our nations when they have children and continue on the next generation.
Some of the recommendations that Maternity Action made in its evidence to the Women and Equalities Commission were particularly interesting. They included having a single website and clear information for women who are going to be going on maternity leave or are thinking about having a family. There was disappointment about the withdrawal of the “Birth to Five” book and on the health and safety issue: the Government’s own research says that 41% of all pregnant women face health and safety risks being not properly managed by their employers. Those are damning statistics. We have to make business believe and understand that it is good for their them and for society for women to have flexible working, and the Government have to support that—it will not happen on its own.
In conclusion, we are a family of modern, progressive nations. Scotland is leading the way, in abolishing fees and giving access to justice. I hope that the Minister has an eye on the north and is taking notes.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to speak as a member of the Justice Committee, whose report we are considering. I wish to add my hearty congratulations to our Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), on his brilliant opening statement; for a while, I thought that there was going to be nothing left for me to say, and I shall be brief as a result.
I also want to congratulate our new shadow Lord Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). [Interruption.] I see that the Lord Chancellor is not here—perhaps his mind is on other matters. What we are considering is far from what he is thinking about at the moment.
It is worth restating that, like all Select Committees, the Justice Committee is a majority Conservative Committee, but we were pretty unanimous in our conclusions on court and tribunal fees. As the Chair pointed out at the start of this debate, our inquiry included the criminal courts charge at the beginning. Our report on that voiced grave misgivings and recommended the abolition of that unfair charge as soon as possible, as it acts as a barrier to justice. Encouragingly, there has been action on that. We welcome the fact that the Government acted swiftly in response to our criticism. We now wish that history would repeat itself with the highly unpopular tribunal fees.
We still await the publication of the Government’s long-awaited post-implementation review of the impact of employment tribunal fees. That was announced in June 2015 and our Committee has called for this to happen urgently. We recommended that fees for employment tribunals be “substantially reduced”. However, the Opposition would go further and recommend abolition. I am proud to have stood on a manifesto at the last general election that urged abolition. I do not know what is in our next manifesto. Four years is a long way off, so I shall not get into Mystic Meg territory.
Ability to pay, or the thickness of the wodge in someone’s wallet, should not determine their access to justice. Fees should not be a barrier to those on low incomes bringing employment tribunal claims. That is what I want to address in this short contribution. It is a cause for concern that women in particular have been hard hit by employment tribunal fees, as shown by the fact that sex discrimination, pregnancy, maternity and equal pay claims have all fallen.
The austerity cuts have hit women hardest—some analyses show that 80% of all cuts hit women. That gives weight to the claim that the Prime Minister—he is still the Prime Minister, isn’t he, though not for that much longer—has a problem with women. It is interesting that the two main runners and riders to replace him are women. Let us see what the future brings.
The Justice Committee interviewed numerous witnesses. We had four evidence sessions, with 23 people appearing before us, and written submissions from 91 stakeholders ranging from pillars of the establishment, such as the Bar Council, to specialist pressure groups, including the self-explanatory Pregnant Then Screwed—that is its name.
Maternity Action gave evidence of maternity discrimination and found that on pregnancy discrimination in particular there has been a fall of 40% in the number of claims in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of fees—40% down. That is nearly half. The group’s figures from 2005 suggest that less than 10% of women suffering pregnancy and maternity discrimination would present themselves anyway, for fear of repercussions.
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is a pleasant chap, and who is here now, told us repeatedly that ACAS has reported an upsurge in people presenting themselves there. The figure of 84,000 extra cases for ACAS was mentioned. That is not a way to bat away the issue. We identified a number of problems. Part of the justification for the introduction of fees was to recover costs, but in both employment tribunals and the immigration and asylum chamber there has been a massive mismatch between costs and recovery. The costs recovered have fallen far short of what was projected. According to the Courts and Tribunals Service’s annual report for 2014-15, the cost recovery target for employment tribunal fees was set at around 33%. Only 17% has been achieved. For the immigration and asylum chamber, recovery was projected to be around 25%, but in reality it has been a measly 9%.
To add insult to injury, the latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15 net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million, whereas expenditure on the service was £71.4 million. That is a poor ratio. The fees make bad business sense. Just 12.5% of the costs were recovered, at a time of fiscal belt-tightening, when we should justify every pound of public expenditure.
We received evidence from the TUC and Thompsons, the trade union solicitors, that fees have decreased employer engagement with early conciliation. Fees act as a disincentive because people wait to see whether the other side can afford them. If not, there is no point in the public policy initiative to settle before the case gets to the courtroom door.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about claims without merit. I will not go into that, as I said I would be brief.
The Government’s policies have impacted on access to justice in a number of ways. Employment tribunal fees were introduced not in a vacuum, but against a background of measures such as the civil court fee increases, legal aid cuts, restrictions on judicial review, the Trade Union Bill, and the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act. Some Ministers have mooted leaving the European convention on human rights. In our opinion, the cumulative effect of all these things is chipping away at access to justice.
I am a member of Unison, which has said:
“Over the last three years tribunal fees have prevented many people who have been wronged at work from taking their employers to court.
Unscrupulous bosses can hardly believe their luck. They can pretty much treat their staff as badly as they choose, safe in the knowledge they are never likely to be taken to a tribunal.”
Unison is mounting a legal challenge, which is due to be heard at the Supreme Court later this year. Other stakeholders have voiced similarly damning criticisms. The Bar Council called it “a shot in the dark”. Citizens Advice highlights the anomaly whereby the fees are higher than the sum claimed, so they make no business sense. The Law Society talks of “treating justice like a commodity”.
Our report says that
“the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced”.
I say they should be completely abolished. In the words of the report,
“further special consideration should be given to the position of women alleging maternity or pregnancy discrimination.”
I would drink to that any day.
I agree with the report’s finding that
“the increase in the divorce petition fee, from £410 to £550, be rescinded”,
and that the review of the employment tribunal fees needs to be published before the Government steam ahead with the hare-brained mistaken aim of full costs recovery in the immigration and asylum chamber. There are more holes in these policies than in a colander—tribunal fees preventing access to justice and trampling on employment rights, the reduction in sex discrimination and equal pay claims at the employment tribunal, and the delayed publication of the review of employment tribunal fees. We should be increasing access to justice, not restricting it, particularly at a time of austerity.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I shall focus on three key points that are essential to this debate—the fundamental principle of access to justice, the clear fact that the introduction of fees is a barrier for women who are pregnant or experiencing maternity discrimination, and the post-implementation review of the introduction of tribunal fees. I am sure the Minister will pay close attention.
Employment tribunal fees have been mentioned by many hon. Members primarily because 54,000 women are forced out of their workplace every day by discrimination. If there was a need for evidence that the tribunal fees system is not working, that is it. Since the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2013, there has been a 76% decline in the number of tribunal fee claims.
I will dispense with statistics for now and highlight some of the reasons employment tribunals exist. They are intended to assist not just women, but any worker who faces unfair dismissal or discrimination in their workplace. Such pressures are compounded by the fact that those people are often the most vulnerable in society. Despite many calls from across the Opposition Benches, I suspect that the Minister is not listening to any of the arguments that have been made thus far about employment tribunal fees being tantamount to a barrier to access to justice. They compound discrimination against women, in particular in maternity discrimination cases, but they can affect all workers.
We have heard from trade unions about when these issues compound the experiences faced by many workers. The trade unions have focused particularly on those on zero-hours contracts, who are offered little or no job security. If they bring a challenge against their employer, they may have no further work and no further hours, so they will not be able to put food on the table to feed their families. Unfair dismissal therefore affects not just women but many workers across the spectrum.
ACAS—the institution the Government proudly highlight as the main arbitrator in this—has indicated that 26% of people simply did not progress a claim, because the tribunal fees put them off. If their own statistics are not enough to tell Ministers the system is not working, I do not know what is.
Working Families has highlighted that there is a growing category of rogue employers—something the Government have not seen fit to address. Siobhan Endean, from the Unite trade union, has indicated that employers are confident that claims will not go to a tribunal, because people cannot afford the basic £1,200 fee that would be imposed on them to implement proceedings in the first place.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has rightly highlighted the severe impact on women. Its review was done in conjunction with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so the Ministers have further statistical evidence that their tribunal fees system is not working.
Some 77% of people have experienced negative or potentially discriminatory practices in their workplace. There has been a 76% decrease in the number of people who have gone to tribunals. As one of my colleagues said earlier, that cannot be attributed merely to vexatious or unmeritorious claims—it is clearly because the fees are a barrier. I cannot emphasise that enough.
The Women and Equalities Committee conducted a review of pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues, and one of our key findings was that the three-month time limit is insufficient. It is probably the furthest thing from a pregnant woman’s mind to start filing a claim against her employer. However, even if the time limit were extended to six months, the bottom line is that it would be completely impractical for any woman who has just had a child or who is pregnant to go through this procedure.
Joeli Brearley, from Pregnant Then Screwed, said she was unable to pursue justice, because she was pregnant and was informed that going ahead would be stressful and have a negative impact on the birth of her child. That is the reality for many women. Why will the Government not understand the simple fact that three months is insufficient for women who are pregnant and who have experienced discrimination in the workplace? They simply cannot access the justice they deserve. I hope the Minister will give that point about the time limits due consideration, because it is absolutely pertinent.
When the Committee visited Portsmouth, women told us they are subject to harassment and bullying and are refused time off for antenatal classes. Maternity Action highlighted the fact that the overwhelming majority of women simply cannot afford tribunal fees. Aside from fully abolishing or hugely reducing fees—I understand that the Justice Committee reports suggests that—simply increasing the time limit would make a sizeable difference to the number of women who can progress claims. I sincerely hope that Ministers will bear that in mind.
The fact is that less than 1% of maternity discrimination claims proceed to tribunal. That means that 99 out of every 100 women who experience discrimination have no legal redress whatever. With the greatest respect, therefore, I am going to quote the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). A few months ago, I asked him whether he would continue to defend the introduction of tribunal fees—I suspect they are a means to eliminate the budget deficit, but they also fail to address the fundamental principle of access to justice. You said we require “a responsible approach” to funding services, so I am going to ask him a few questions. Is it responsible to allow people to be put out of work? Is it responsible to allow rogue employers to act as they wish, regardless of employment law? Does the knock-on impact on economic growth really help to redress or reduce the budget deficit?
I think I have clearly made my three points. One was about the fundamental principle of access to justice. One was about the time limit, and the potential to increase it from three months to six months, as recommended by the Maternity Action Group, Pregnant Then Screwed and many other organisations. I have also outlined to you—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I have let this go a few times. When the hon. Lady says “you”, she is addressing the Chair. Could she refer to “the Minister” or “the hon. Gentleman”?
Angela Crawley
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister addressed each of those points in turn, I would be eternally grateful.
The conclusion I would like to draw is that the introduction of fees is a fundamental barrier to access to justice for not only women but all workers. The simple fact is that the time limit could be extended, and that should readily be considered. I hope the Government will do that. Ultimately, I would call for the outright abolition of tribunal fees, because there is no statistical evidence to suggest that they have decreased the number of vexatious or unmeritorious claims; all they have done is limit the number of women, in particular, who can bring claims. If the Government will not commit to abolishing fees, will they at the very least consider the Justice Committee’s recommendation of a significant reduction? However, I and my SNP colleagues would call for them to consider outright abolition. The First Minister said that when this area of law is devolved to Scotland, we will abolish tribunal fees if it is possible to do so. Will this Government make the same commitment for workers across the UK?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Where will you get the money?
Angela Crawley
The Minister proves my point: budget deficit reduction should never come above access to justice.
With no financial penalty, Scottish women may soon face fewer barriers when they exercise their employment rights and seek access to justice. The same may not be said for other women across the UK. It is time for someone to stand up for hard-working women and other workers across this country and to demand equal access to justice for everyone across the UK. Women have waited three years for the post-implementation review of tribunal fees. Should they have to wait another three years for the Government to clear their debts and to consider this issues seriously? Ultimately, access to justice is the fundamental principle at stake here. I hope the Government will hear my questions and answer them.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition. I am following in the footsteps of a very learned gentleman: Baron Falconer of Thoroton. In terms of my legal career, I am not quite so learned. Before I was elected to represent my constituents, I was a lawyer for 10 years in my home city of Leeds. In eight years as an employment lawyer, I saw—like my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—many changes to employment law. As an employment lawyer, I was angry at what the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011 did to access to justice. Today, I am here at the Dispatch Box to speak up for all those whose access to justice has been deliberately obstructed by this Government and the coalition Government who preceded them.
I want to share with hon. Members my memory of the first time I lodged an employment tribunal claim after the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2011. I was shocked and saddened to see the following words appear on the computer screen: “Customer, please enter your credit card details”. That made me sick to my stomach. Are we saying that people attempting to assert their statutory rights, such as the statutory right to be paid the national minimum wage and the statutory right not to be discriminated against at work on grounds of gender, sexuality, religious belief or disability, are reduced to being consumers or customers?
Richard Burgon
I will not be giving way because there is limited time and I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to answer.
Are we saying that these people are reduced to being customers? In fact, they should be viewed as citizens trying to assert their statutory rights and to seek justice. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is annoyed, but not as annoyed as many across the country who have seen their access to justice so unnecessarily restricted.
The Select Committee’s report, which I commend, recommends that
“the overall quantum of fees charged for bringing cases to employment tribunals should be substantially reduced”
and that
“the Ministry…should introduce a system for regular rerating of remission thresholds to take account of inflation”.
I think, as do plenty of people outside this place, that we need to go further than that, but the report is nevertheless to be commended.
We have heard excellent contributions to this debate from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I particularly welcome the opening speech by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is Chair of the Justice Committee, which, as he explained, unanimously supported the report’s recommendations. In response to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), we do recognise the concerns of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.
How can it be disputed, after what we have heard today, that access to justice has been harmed, not helped, by this Government and their coalition predecessor? Many of us know of this from our own experience as MPs, with our constituency advice sessions overflowing with people who do not know where to turn when they cannot access or afford legal advice or legal representation. Legal aid has been attacked, employment tribunal fees have been introduced, and fees are being increased in divorce proceedings and in immigration and asylum cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) explained, these fees risk dissuading people from litigating at all, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) indicated, they have a discriminatory impact.
The Select Committee is right to be concerned about the effect of court and tribunal fees on women in particular. The increase in the divorce petition fee from £410 to £500 disproportionally hits women, who are the vast majority of divorce petitioners. Why should the Government be increasing what could be termed a “divorce tax” on people, including women, who have suffered domestic violence or emotional abuse? Why are the Government charging more for a divorce petition than it costs to process it? Should the state really be making money from people’s misery? What have people bringing cases in the immigration and asylum chambers done to deserve a proposed 600% increase in fees? This is an attack on some of our society’s most vulnerable people—those seeking asylum. As we heard here last week, this takes place against a backdrop of growing attacks on people who are perceived to be migrants.
Let me turn to the Select Committee’s concerns about employment tribunal fees. The report quotes from the Odysseus Trust, which describes tribunal fees as
“a tax on justice imposed to enable HM Treasury to profit from people seeking to enforce their legal rights”.
The same paragraph quotes the organisation, Working Families, which says that
“these fees imperil the rule of law.”
That is also the view of legal experts. The Select Committee heard from Jonathan Smithers, the president of the Law Society, who said that there was the possibility of
“a two-tier justice system for the rich and the poor”
and that any increase in fees will militate for that rather than against it. Chantal-Aimée Doerries, chair of the Bar Council, said:
“Our members who practise in the employment tribunals have very much formed the conclusion that the challenge at the moment is the level of fees in terms of access.”
The Select Committee concluded, and I hope that the whole House weighs these words very carefully:
“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving cost-recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter objective must prevail.”
I could not agree more.
Employment tribunal fees have cut access to justice. As we have heard, there has been a 70% or so reduction in employment tribunal cases being brought. Cases on unauthorised deductions from wages are down by 56%. Cases on unfair dismissal are down by 72%. Cases on equal pay are down by 58%. Cases on sex discrimination are down by 68%, and cases on race discrimination are down by 60%. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) observed so effectively, is anybody seriously arguing that this drop in the number of claims being brought means that there has been a sudden damascene conversion of all the employers in the country and that bad treatment has been abolished and consigned to the history books? Of course not; it is just that claims are not being brought. We must remember the deterrent factor. Employment tribunal claims do not just help those who bring them; they also help those who would never dream of doing so. The possibility of the claim being brought acts as a deterrent against employers engaging in bad and discriminatory behaviour.
The true nature of the remission system must be discussed. I remember, when I was an employment lawyer, helping people to fill in the remission fees forms and watching them do so, with the amount of humiliating detail they are expected to go into in providing so many bank statements and all their other details. I remember getting documents back from the employment tribunals service where people had highlighted in yellow on someone’s bank statement the fact that they had had £12 transferred into their bank account by a relative and asked them to explain what this money was for, where it had come from, and why. Unison is correct to say that the remission system is not working. Unison argues that the equality impact assessment of July 2012, before the introduction of fees, said that it was expected that 23.9% of claimants would benefit from full remission and 53% of claimants would benefit from the variable discounts on fee rates up to £950, but the actual figures suggest that only 3.87% of claimants benefit from any remission. That is shocking.
With these statistics in mind, I welcome the Select Committee’s criticism of the Ministry for failing to publish the review on the impact of employment tribunal fees. The Select Committee said:
“On the basis of…evidence to us on 9 February, we assumed that the review would be published shortly”.
It also said:
“We have not appreciated being strung along in this fashion”,
and that it is “unacceptable” that it remains unpublished six months later. Who would not agree with that when ordinary people continue to miss out on justice? It is therefore welcome that as well as the pressure brought to bear by the Select Committee’s report we continue to see a legal challenge to employment tribunal fees by the trade union Unison, which has now taken its case to the Supreme Court, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned.
I would like to say more, but I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to address some of the concerns that I and others have outlined today. I reiterate my support for the Select Committee’s request that the Government publish their review on the impact of tribunal fees and reconsider their approach of treating court users as customers.
Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was Attorney General from 1945 to 1951, when we had a fantastic Government who changed things for the better, said about the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in 1948:
“It is a Bill which will open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay…indeed, going back further to the time when Magna Charta decreed that: ‘To no one will we sell, deny, or delay right or justice.’—it is an interesting historical reflection that our legal system, admirable though it is, has always been in many respects open to, and it has received, grave criticisms on account of the fact that its benefits were only fully available to those who had purses sufficiently long to pay for them.”—[Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]
Nobody could put it better or advocate those principles more effectively, but regrettably they are up for debate again.
This is an estimates day debate. I can make it clear now, with no ifs or buts, that a Labour Government, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as Prime Minister, will abolish employment tribunal fees and pursue the principle of access to justice for all. The usual convention is not to vote on estimates day. However, such is the strength of feeling in the parliamentary Labour party that we will vote against this motion on a point of principle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
I congratulate the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), on his new position and welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who held our feet to the fire assiduously over many weeks and who I am sure will continue to do so from the Back Benches.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for his Committee’s important report and work on court and tribunal fees and charges, and hon. Members from across the House for their invaluable contributions to this debate. The Government will respond to the Committee’s report in due course, but I welcome this opportunity to address some of the issues it raised. I will try to respond to as many as is practical in the time allocated.
As hon. Members will appreciate, the principal reason for raising fees is financial—there is no getting away from that. The shadow Justice Secretary said that he would get rid of all the fees. He was a little thin on how he would pay for them, but perhaps that does not matter too much to the Labour party. The raw truth is that the Ministry of Justice is not a protected Department. We have a very challenging financial settlement, so we must reduce its annual spending by 15% in real terms, which means about £1 billion in cash terms by 2019-20.
It is worth remembering that this is not just about cuts; we are also committed to this approach precisely so that we can invest £1.3 billion to modernise our prisons, and more than £700 million to transform our court system. Achieving those dual financial objectives inevitably requires difficult decisions. There is no ducking them. We have to look at every area of the Department’s finances, and I am afraid that there can be no exceptions for the courts.
To ensure that the courts and tribunals are properly funded, and access to justice is properly protected, increases to court fees will be necessary. The cost of our courts and tribunal system to the taxpayer is unsustainably high, and it is only right that those who use the system pay more to balance that burden with the taxpayer.
Robert Neill
In coming to that conclusion, has the Department carried out research into or a survey on the costs to the court system of delays caused by persons appearing unrepresented as litigants? Should not that also be taken into account as part of the equation? What data does the Minister have?
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend raises a perfectly legitimate point. If he is willing to be patient, I will write to him with any precise details that I have.
In its report, the Committee accepts the principle of charging court users a contribution towards the cost of operating our courts. Whatever the specifics, I think that that principle is accepted. It is a question of balance between taxpayer subsidisation and user pay. I welcome the Committee’s finding in that regard.
Under the Treasury’s “Managing public money” rules, fees for public services should usually be set at a level designed to meet the cost of those services. However, Parliament has granted, through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a power that allows the Government to set court and tribunal fees at a level above the cost of the service. The income from those fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. When setting these fees, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to a number of factors, including the need to preserve access to justice. I assure hon. Members that we take that requirement seriously. The idea that somehow a profit is being made is not accurate according to the law, let alone the practice.
I will now turn to the specifics of employment tribunals. I appreciate the concerns expressed both by the Committee and by hon. Members across the aisles. Those who have spoken today have mentioned in particular the impact of fees on employment tribunals. When fees were introduced, there were three main objectives. The first was to transfer a proportion of the cost of the tribunal from the taxpayer to those who use it, where they can afford to pay. The second was to encourage people to consider other ways of resolving disputes, in particular the ACAS conciliation services, which are provided free of charge. There has been virtually no mention of them in this debate. The third objective was to protect access to justice. I do not think that anyone could disagree that those are legitimate aims to pursue.
The main concern about employment tribunal fees has been the large fall in the number of claims immediately after fees were introduced, but it is not that surprising that the volume of claims has fallen. It is obvious that more people will use a service if it is free than if they have to pay to use it. It is also worth reminding hon. Members across the House of a few key facts. First, help is available for those who cannot afford to pay, through fee remissions. Under that scheme, someone who is eligible for help may have the fee waived either in part or in full. We have taken steps to make sure that more people are aware of the help available, and that has led to a marked increase in take-up under the scheme.
Secondly, and crucially, the introduction of the ACAS early mandatory conciliation service has been a success, with more than 83,000 people referring their disputes to ACAS in the first year. As many people are using the ACAS conciliation service now as were previously referring their disputes to the ACAS voluntary service and the employment tribunals combined. That is important, regardless of whether the dispute ends up with a meritorious claim succeeding; it is valuable that potentially divisive disputes can be settled in that way.
Mr Raab
I will come on to that, if the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments, because there are a lot of other points to get through. The point—this has been missed almost entirely in the debate—is that we are seeing the right kind of behavioural change.
Thirdly, the tribunal has the power to order the respondent to reimburse the claimant with his or her fee, if the claim is successful. Finally, on top of that, the Lord Chancellor has an additional power to remit fees where there are exceptional circumstances.
I appreciate that the Committee and hon. Members have not been shy in criticising the delay in completing the review. It is true that when we announced the review in June last year, we had hoped to finalise it by the end of the year. That simply was not possible and it is clearly important that we take time to carefully consider all the relevant material. It is regrettable that it has taken longer than planned, and I am sorry about that. I have looked into the situation and we will get the response published as soon as possible.
In our evidence to the Committee, however, we made it clear that, while we hoped that the review would be completed swiftly, we could not give a firm commitment on timing. I reassure hon. Members and the Chair of the Committee that the review is very close to completion, so I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.
Robert Neill
If the Minister will forgive me for saying so, his predecessor told us in February that he hoped we would have it “sooner rather than later.” What has caused the delay? Has the material been fully assembled in his Department, and why can it not be published?
Mr Raab
I thank the Select Committee Chairman, who is being as tenacious and assiduous as ever. We are in a position to make the announcement in the near future. I do not think it is right to split the evidence and our response to it. Hon. Members in this House and the public expect us, when we produce the evidence, to be able to say what we think about it. If he is patient with us, he will get both in reasonably short order. On top of the apology that I have already given, I want to make it clear that it will be coming as soon as is practicable.
Mr Raab
I am going to make a bit more progress. I have been given some time, and I have given way to hon. Members from across the House. If towards the end I have got time, I would be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
I turn to divorce fees, about which hon. Members have made some important points. The Justice Committee criticised the recent increase in the fee for divorce to £550, primarily because of the risk to vulnerable women. The Government have sought to make sure that vulnerable women are protected within the divorce fees scheme. Although it is true—this point has been made—that more women than men petition for divorce, it is also true, although it was rather neglected in this debate, that women are more likely to qualify for a fee remission. In the circumstances of a divorce or any other matter where the parties have conflicting interests in proceedings, the applicant is assessed on his or her own means, rather than on those of the household. For victims of domestic violence, the first priority is to ensure the victim’s safety. There is no court fee for an application for a non-molestation order or any applications in relation to one.
I turn to money claims. There has been criticism of the introduction of enhanced fees for money claims in March 2015, and some criticism of the quality of the research that supported those increases. We have said all along that we took the decisions that we did based on the best evidence available at the time. As things have turned out, the impact of those fee increases on the volume of claims has been greater than we thought. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, and we are investigating the reasons, but in the meantime we have decided not to implement the further increases we proposed. But given the very challenging financial circumstances, we have been clear—I want to be honest with the Chair of the Select Committee and hon. Members—that we may need to come back to those and look at them again when we have got a better understanding of the specific impacts.
There have been criticisms of our proposals to raise the fee in immigration tribunals to full cost levels. We estimate that those proposals would generate about £35 million a year in additional income. The normal policy over many years has been to charge fees at full cost unless there are good reasons not to. I do not see, given the remissions and the other flexibility, why the taxpayer should foot the bill in this case. We are currently considering in detail the responses to the consultation. Under our proposals, certain types of appeal would continue to be exempt from fees; we are talking about vulnerable people who need such flexibility the most. People receiving means-tested benefits, such as asylum support, would continue to have fees waived. We sought views on further exemptions, and specifically on whether we should exempt people in receipt of a Home Office destitution waiver. We are making sure that, notwithstanding the difficulty of the decisions, the most vulnerable are protected.
Meeting the challenges ahead cannot just be about increasing fees. That is why we recognise the need to invest in the courts and tribunals so that they are lean, efficient and fit to serve a modern, digital society. In the spending review, we announced that we would be investing, as I have said, more than £700 million to transform our courts and tribunals system. The scale of that investment and the ambition of our reform plans will enable us to build a justice system that is simpler, swifter and more efficient, because it takes better advantage of modern technology.
Other points and criticisms have been made. We take them on board, and we will respond to them fully in due course. We also need to have a sense of realism. Given the financial situation that we are still grappling with, fees are a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to meet our spending review challenges.
Mr Raab
My understanding, off the top of my head, is that it was £71 million. I will come back to the hon. Lady if I find out that that is incorrect.
The truth is that we cannot afford to duck these decisions around fees if we want to secure the long-term funding of the courts and the tribunals and deliver on the mandate on which the Government were elected. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that they want to scrap every fee that has been imposed or duck every difficult decision, but unless they can explain to the House how that will be paid for or the impact that it will have on our economy, it is not the responsible thing to do.
Mr Raab
I am going to finish, because of the second debate. Fee increases are never popular, but at every stage we have made it clear that we intend to protect the most vulnerable and make sure that those who cannot pay do not have to do so. We continue to consider carefully all the detailed points and recommendations made by the Select Committee, and we will publish our response later this year.
Robert Neill
With the leave of the House, I will briefly respond to the debate. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I am grateful to Members from all parts of the House who have contributed. There is not time for me to refer to every hon. and right hon. Member who has contributed, but I am especially grateful to members of the Select Committee from both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate for the work that they have done. It is also right for me to say that I am grateful to the Committee staff for the work that they have put into preparing the report. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on his appointment to the post of shadow Justice Secretary, and I wish him a long tenure of office, if that is a wise thing to do, one way or the other.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I may continue to press further, but I take him at his word, because he and his fellow Ministers have always been entirely straight in their dealings with us. I hear his word that we will have the response soon, and I cannot stress enough how important that is. I am grateful that he is not proceeding immediately with the divorce fee increases. I hope that we will be able to persuade him that that should not happen at all, but I will take whatever is available. I appreciate that this is a detailed matter, and I hope that we can go forward with more detail in due course. I must confess that I do not think that this issue will be solved constructively by voting against the estimates in a symbolic fashion, but that is a matter for individual Members to decide. I am grateful for the House’s time and the consideration that Members have given to the report.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Energy Spending Priorities: Investors and Consumers
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 127 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I would first like to thank a number of people for this debate, and particularly for its timing. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—I see that he is still in the Chamber—was very kind indeed to arrange the schedule so that this was the later of the two debates, which enabled me to get down from Barra in time. Had it been the earlier debate, I am afraid I would not have been on time. I would also like to thank the staff of Loganair, who got me an earlier plane that got me down in time; many thanks before I go too far, taking two planes to get down today. [Interruption.] One of my colleagues says that this is like the Oscars. Well, this is the high point. The tears will be starting shortly.
It is a pleasure to introduce this evening’s debate on energy spending priorities. I will discuss this in relation to three reports from my Energy and Climate Change Committee produced in the past few months on investor confidence, carbon capture and storage and home energy efficiency.
We heard a lot in the run-up to the EU referendum about the impact that a vote to leave would have on investor confidence in the UK, and how businesses craved stability, transparency and certainty to plan for their spending on production, research and jobs. That presupposed that prior to the vote to leave the EU, the policy landscape was somehow calm, tranquil and settled. It is certainly not calm, tranquil or settled now, and we know that the Brexiteers deliberately had no plan in order to avoid scrutiny. That is another debate, which is taking place on television in Scotland tonight, and I will leave that where it is.
In relation to energy policy, the landscape was anything but tranquil, calm and settled. There has been considerable upheaval since the Government assumed office last year. Last June, the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced the early closure of the renewables obligation subsidy for onshore wind, citing manifesto commitments. Although it was only one line, a fact check of three pages was required to work out what it meant, so woolly was the wording. Last July, DECC announced cuts to the renewables obligation for solar PV and biomass, and changes to the feed-in tariff accreditation.
That is just a few of the policy changes that took place last summer, but it is what happened between those announcements that exercised many in the sector and contributed to the decision of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, after extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders, whom I thank for their contribution to our work, to launch our inquiry into investor confidence in the UK energy sector. I thank Jenny Bird, the senior Committee specialist, for the hard work and diligence she put into this report, and I wish her well in her new post at the centre on innovation and energy demand at the University of Sussex.
Early last July, the Office for Budget Responsibility published figures relating to the levy control framework: a notional cap on the renewable energy subsidies that consumers pay through their energy bills which covers the renewables obligation, its successor, the contracts for difference, and feed-in tariffs. Part of the Government’s objective, quite rightly, is to put affordability at the heart of energy policy. The OBR projected in its July assessment that there would be a significant increase in levy control spending compared with its March 2015 assessment. Its March 2015 assessment, the figure was £7.6 billion. By July—in the space of four months—it had increased by £1.5 billion to £9.1 billion. It adds much fuel to the fire of claims and counter-claims about the OBR and the accuracy of its work when it produces such wildly different figures over a four-month period. That clearly influenced the energy policies that were announced over the summer.
Some felt that the increase had not been adequately explained by DECC or the OBR. E.ON told my Committee that
“the evidence around cost overruns…is questionable and not transparent; publication of detailed analysis of the status of the LCF should be a priority.”
ScottishPower said that
“it will be important for the industry to have better visibility of the underlying assumptions and calculations under the LCF so as to enable efficient long-term planning.”
The key word there is “efficient”.
Freedom of information requests have been unsuccessful owing to commercial confidentiality, and questions to Ministers have hit the same buffers. I have therefore raised the matter with the National Audit Office. I am pleased that the NAO has announced a new review of the LCF, which will examine, among other things, the reason for the changes in forecast expenditure. The NAO can jump over the iron curtain that is the commercial confidentiality statement.
Two years ago, the NAO looked at how DECC modelled LCF spend and identified weaknesses that prevented it from having the highest degree of confidence in the model forecasts. Further elements of the LCF forecast need unravelling too, because if spend is set to increase by the amount the OBR has forecast, increased spend under the LCF may not automatically result in increased costs to consumers. A recent FOI request revealed that the Government had forecast that consumers would pay more towards subsidies under the LCF in 2020, but that the average total bill would come down because of lower wholesale prices. In part, that is down to the introduction of wind and solar power, which increase generation capacity at a negligible marginal cost and, therefore, lower the overall cost of wholesale electricity—the well-touted merit order effect.
It was noted by the Committee that increased uncertainty may increase premiums, and we raised that with Ministers recently. The cuts to renewable energy might therefore be counterproductive, as they are reckoned to be by many, because of the added costs of investment due to the Government’s sudden lurches in policy.
During the inquiry, we heard many voices in the industry that were disturbed by the rapid and unforeseen changes to feed-in tariffs and the renewables obligation. Concerns about the lack of detail as to when the second round of auctions for the renewables obligation’s successor, the contracts for difference, would take place have added to the uncertainty. The latest we have heard is that it will be in the last quarter of this year.
Returning to increased bills, Roger Harrabin of the BBC asked DECC to deny that the cuts to energy subsidies would put bills up, but it did not. That shows the merit order effect at work. There was an understanding in the past that money spent was an investment, not a cost. Money spent in the present should also be seen as an investment, not a cost.
We now have more clarity on the timing of the auctions—they will be in the fourth quarter of this year —but we need to know when in the fourth quarter they will be, because companies need to plan and to project. The fourth quarter of the year might be any time between 1 October and 31 December. That is simply not good enough when we are in the seventh month of the year.
We heard that subsidy reductions had created challenges for renewable investors, with new projects in early development suffering the most. Mitsubishi bank told us that it was having 95% fewer conversations with onshore wind developers. Perhaps as damaging could be the risk premium that is now attached to the UK’s green economy as a result not of the changes themselves, but of the way they were made, with little notice of consultation. Indeed, the consultation happened after the announcements. It is no surprise that our witnesses hankered for a clear, longer-term steer from the Government on, for example, what form the LCF would take post-2020.
That is encapsulated in the Ernst & Young renewable energy country attractiveness index, which ranks 40 countries according to the attractiveness of renewable energy investments. The UK slipped from eighth place in June 2015 to 11th in September 2015. That was the first time since the index was established in 2003 that the UK had been placed outside the top 10. Since our report was published, the UK has fallen to 13th—unlucky for some and particularly for the investors. Ernst & Young attributed our fall to the Government’s
“non-committal, if not antagonistic, approach to energy policy”.
I am afraid that the idea of an antagonistic approach to energy policy chimes with the frustrations that I hear from many stakeholders in the energy space when they talk to me. Our report noted the root causes of this crisis of confidence. The first was:
“Sudden and numerous policy announcements”.
The second was:
“A lack of transparency in the decision-making process”.
Thirdly, there was
“insufficient consideration of investor impacts”.
The fourth was policy inconsistency, such as
“claiming to want to decarbonise at lowest cost while simultaneously halting onshore wind”
and choosing more expensive forms of renewable generation. Fifthly, there was:
“The lack of a long-term vision”.
The last was what we called the policy “cliff-edge” in 2020.
My Committee recommended that Ministers clarify the assumptions and methodologies behind their levy control framework calculations. It would be advisable to do that before those assumptions and methodologies come out kicking and screaming from the work of our friends at the NAO. We said that Ministers should set out the post-2020 LCF budget in the context of the fourth and fifth carbon budgets to ensure that the available funding was consistent with meeting our longer-term carbon commitments. We recommended that they develop their carbon plan to achieve the fifth carbon budget in full consultation with investors, using transparent methodology and with clarity about how transitions would be managed as new technologies become established, including the intended “glide path” out of subsidies, rather than their being pushed over a cliff edge.
It is usual practice in these debates to refer to the Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations, but I am afraid that I am unable to do so. Initially, I thought that would be because the Government had failed to produce a response, despite our report being published four months ago. It is actually because we decided, as a cross-party Committee, to send the response that we did receive last Tuesday straight back to the Government. Our report contained 14 detailed recommendations, based on extensive evidence from stakeholders and experts, including the estimate from one of our witnesses that Government policies could raise the cost of financing projects by £3.14 billion a year. None of that was responded to. Instead, we were afforded only loose replies to themes set out in the report’s summary. Indeed, it was unclear from the response whether anyone at the Department of Energy and Climate Change had read beyond page 4 of the 47-page report in the four months since its publication—a rate of one page a month.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am a member of the Procedure Committee, and the Government slapped down our report on private Members’ Bills and gave it no detailed consideration whatsoever. Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that the Government appear to be asleep at the wheel on this, as on so many issues?
Mr MacNeil
The evidence might well lead my hon. Friend to take that view. That is happening in tandem with the other trend that is running amok in the southern part of the UK—that of resignations. While resignations are everywhere, the Government’s lack of consideration for Committees and other stakeholders seems to be the order of the day.
No parliamentary Committee should be treated in that way. However, it reinforces the feeling of Stockholm syndrome—or is it Lima syndrome?—when the poor souls in industry come complaining to the members and Chair of the Committee about their difficulties in getting ideas, thoughts and communication straight to the heart of Government. It makes people who are trying to make things better in the energy space wonder just how seriously the Government take them.
We urge the Government to try harder and send us something respectable for a comprehensive assessment before the recess. Investor confidence can then, we hope, begin to be rebuilt.
Carbon capture and storage is another example of the need to rebuild confidence. CCS is a technology in urgent need of development. We often talk about the energy trilemma, but there is a climate change trilemma as well. On current analysis it is difficult to see how we can have fossil fuels but no CCS and still meet our long-term decarbonisation projections at the same time. As the Secretary of State’s reset speech mentioned a dash for gas we know that fossil fuels feature in the Government’s plan. I checked on the GridCarbon app for smartphones—I am sure you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker—for current energy usage in the UK this evening. It is 51.4% gas and 5.3% wind. The key figure is the 295 grams of carbon dioxide produced for every kilowatt-hour. The 2030 target is meant to be 100 grams. It will be interesting to see quite how we are going to get to that, given the current trajectory.
As the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, Lord Deben—from the Lords, obviously—said, not having CCS would cause the UK an issue. I love the brilliantly understated manner of that fine English gentleman’s statement of high alarm about the targets that the Government might have difficulty in meeting. He was quite right, and his delightfully understated way of putting it had far more effect than anyone shouting, running and screaming about the issue. It certainly made people pause on the morning he said it, which was the day of the launch of the fifth carbon budget.
I hope the Government will have more positive noises to make about CCS. People out there are still hanging on by their fingernails to see what the Government will say. They decided to ditch their £1 billion carbon capture and storage competition, on the day of the autumn statement. It was not in the statement itself, but was slipped out, alas, in a notice to the London stock exchange, which was deemed more important than Parliament at the time; we have certainly seen in recent days that it reacts more rapidly than Parliament when the news is bad. I note that Government promised £250 million to Aberdeen to help with the oil downturn, as part of the UK’s broad shoulders, but that one decision on CCS potentially took away £500 million, double that figure.
It is not just that the move on CCS on the day of the autumn statement was announced to the City without Parliament being told; the worst part of it is that there were serious bids in earnest preparation. People were working in good faith towards the Government’s competition. My Committee and the Procedure Committee may feel badly let down, but we are nothing by comparison with those working on the competition, devoting their working days, months and perhaps even years to it. In fact, I was invited by the Foreign Office to go to Alberta in Canada to see a carbon capture and storage project. One arm of Government thought that the UK would become a leader on CCS, but alas, within a month, it seemed that my trip had been wasted. I hope not; I hope that tonight the Secretary of State will give us some positive words on carbon capture and storage, with dates, timelines and the sort of thing that the industry is looking for.
Subsequently, in our report on CCS we criticised DECC’s decision as short-sighted, given that the costs of later projects are expected to fall rapidly, once primary infrastructure is in place. The Institute of Engineering and Technology set that out in a brilliant briefing paper for our Committee, as well. We also said that the Government should devise a new strategy for CCS in conjunction with a new gas strategy. We advised the Department to assess the financial and other benefits of using our North sea infrastructure. Work has shown that there would be enhanced recovery of up to 12% from the North sea oilfields if we used them as a place to store carbon. The work of the Committee put that forward, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Marion Ferrat for her work on the report. We did not send the Government’s response to that report back to them. I have it here with me tonight, as proof. However, the response still failed to address our recommendations in detail. There was no clarity on whether DECC envisages that CCS will be needed at all, on whether any CfDs will be available for CCS or on the proportion of new gas-fired plants will be retrofitted with CCS. Since then, the Committee on Climate Change has reiterated the need for carbon capture and storage, calling for a “strategic approach” to the development of CCS, and stating that the technology is of “critical importance” to the UK’s efforts to decarbonise. Alas, it was not critical enough on the day of the autumn statement last year.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions how critical CCS is to the UK’s decarbonisation, and I for one hope that it makes progress, but other countries burn far more carbon than the UK. Germany burns four times as much coal, but has no interest whatever in CCS. Why does he think that the UK needs, unilaterally, to pursue this so avidly?
Mr MacNeil
It is not simply a unilateral UK issue. CCS is in Canada and Norway. The fact that, unfortunately perhaps, I am not in the German Parliament and so am not scrutinising the German Government possibly explains why I am not talking about the point the hon. Gentleman raises. CCS is certainly not unilateral. Further, we could argue that German Government feel they are off the hook because other Governments feel it is nothing to do with them, either. Someone has to start taking responsibility somewhere. Other countries are. We should play our part. That competition would have helped immensely.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
One of the report’s recommendations is for clarity over the three CfD auctions. I have not seen the Government’s response, so will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House about what details there were on timing, technology and the other questions he raised in the report?
Mr MacNeil
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report. We have had only one response on carbon capture and storage. As for the other reports, I think a response came early today, but we are waiting for the response on the main report on investor confidence.
I will move on to the report on home energy efficiency. All the policies mentioned affect consumers, as they are subsidised through the levy control framework. My Committee also looked at Government changes to spending that affect consumers more directly, namely changes to spending on energy efficiency measures that are levied on consumer bills but sit outside the LCF. As with the report on investor confidence, our energy efficiency inquiry was another piece of work that stakeholders urged us to take on at the roundtable meetings we held early in my time as Chair of the Committee. At this point, I would like to thank Josh Rhodes, the Committee specialist, for his work and help on the report.
We know that improving energy efficiency is a win-win for households and the UK as a whole. It enhances energy security, cuts carbon emissions from housing and reduces costs. For consumers, the benefits include lower energy bills, and, critically, warmer, more comfortable homes—more arguments should be made on that point—and improved health and wellbeing. When we work on the technical energy side, we sometimes forget that these things are for human beings, who have very nuanced and different reasons for wanting to insulate their homes and have warmer homes.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
This comes to the nub of the issue with investment in this area. The Government are completely unwilling to accept that it is investment. Investment in making homes energy efficient is an investment in our society. There are savings to be made. We need to look at things in the round, rather than looking at one part in isolation.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—I have to get used to saying “my hon. Friend”, because for the previous 10 years I have been here I have not had many hon. Friends to say it to. It is a pleasure to say it. He is absolutely correct, however, because the Government have got into a way of thinking that any money spent today is a cost rather than an investment for the future. I hope that they will get away from their austerity cult idea. I often criticise them for being a penny wise and a pound foolish Government, because I think it is a mistake.
Mr MacNeil
I would be delighted to give way to my great friend on the Committee—I do have friends across the Chamber.
Antoinette Sandbach
There clearly was a need for review, which we saw last week when the National Farmers Union gave evidence to the Committee. It suggested that organisations such as the National Trust, which has huge numbers of members and vast access to resources, including massive payments under the single farm payment, should receive subsidy for installing biomass boilers in its country houses. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need to refocus and consider how we best deliver outcomes for fuel efficiency in homes for those who need it the most?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and if she wants to pull the very wealthy out of those schemes that might be an idea. Often, these things start by aiming at certain groups, but unfortunately the target and those who get hit are very different, and the Government often miss that.
Insulating draughty homes can save vulnerable people from fuel poverty—a problem that remains unacceptably prevalent across the UK. My Committee’s recent report concluded that the Government’s latest efforts to improve household energy efficiency had proved inadequate. Although the energy company obligation delivered many improvements, it did so at much lower rates than previous schemes. The green deal did not significantly increase demand for energy efficiency; it fell far short of original ambitions and was too complex and costly, and it also failed to address the hassle factor that can prevent customers from signing up. If anyone should know and understand the hassle factor, it is MPs after their recent dealings with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, as that is an example of hassle and why people do not do things—there is something to be learned there about behavioural economics and desiring a scheme that will work for people. We in this House should have known better when the green deal was coming.
The Government’s new ideas, which include their plans for the energy company obligation in 2017, gave us cause for serious concern, and the decision to use the new obligation to tackle fuel poverty may well be misguided. The UK is the only country in Europe to take such an approach, and a scheme that charges the households it is designed to help appears inherently regressive. Alongside that, given the huge number of homes yet to benefit from energy efficiency measures, the reduced ambition of the new obligation is a major disappointment to me, to the Committee, and to many who gave evidence to the Committee.
There is now no support to help households that wish to install energy efficiency measures but cannot meet the costs upfront. The Government disagreed with our argument in their response, but we still do not know what the reformed scheme will look like. We have asked Ministers to look again at pay-as-you-save mechanisms, as well as at the infrastructure behind the Green Deal Finance Company, when considering how to assist such households. We also need demand drivers such as stamp duty and council tax reductions for efficient homes. I am pleased that the Government agreed in their response that the Green Deal Finance Company could play a role in the future. If the Government take concerted action now they can help to insulate consumers from future energy price rises. That would be money well spent and an investment, and it would prevent the need for large-scale retrofitting in future.
Graham Stuart
Previous efforts have tended to end up being implemented in more urban areas, but those who are poorest and whose homes are the most difficult to insulate often live in rural areas. Does the Committee have any recommendations for the Government to try to ensure that any future programmes reach those on low incomes in rural areas who are particularly vulnerable?
Mr MacNeil
As a rural MP, I am aware of that issue. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) is also assiduously aware of it, and I commend and congratulate her on raising it in Committee on just about every possible occasion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that on several occasions the Scottish Government were praised for their actions and—perhaps tongue in cheek; perhaps not—maybe I could recommend that energy policy in that area be devolved to the Scottish Government who, according to the evidence, seem to be doing a better job of it for the whole UK than other Governments.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does the Chair of the Committee have anything to say about the almost collapse of solid wall insulation in homes that was predicted by the new ECO arrangements, as set against the suggestion by the Committee that by the end of the fourth carbon budget we should have in place 2.2 million solid wall insulation completions? Has the Committee considered that issue?
Mr MacNeil
It is always with certain trepidation that I give way to the hon. Gentleman, because what he does not know about energy, nobody else knows either. He sat on our Committee early on and did a fine job, and he also sat on the Committee in the previous Session, where he was highly regarded. There is some concern about solid wall insulation. If I remember right, the figures expected are far below what is needed and have almost collapsed, which, as he said, would be very worrying.
Let me start approaching a conclusion—that is more often a hope during speeches in the Commons than a statement of full intent. I thank my Committee colleagues for their excellent work on these inquiries, as well as the hundreds of companies and individuals who gave their time and expertise to inform our conclusions. It is appreciated. I Chair the Committee on Energy and Climate Change, but I am not an expert. I can, however, take information from experts, distil it, and hopefully get policy points out of that. Along the way, I will hopefully develop some expertise in those areas.
The Government’s response to our investor confidence report demonstrated disregard for the Select Committee inquiry process, and their response to our CCS report leaves important questions unanswered. Their response to the report on home energy efficiency appeared only this morning—eight weeks late. I hope that when the Secretary of State responds to this debate on the Government’s spending priorities, she will afford the House and my Committee a little more courtesy than her Department has sadly shown so far—I say that with regret because I like the Secretary of State personally. We have raised the issue with Ministers in Committee and several times by letter, and we need more information that businesses and homeowners might use and need to plan their energy futures. That would be an important step.
Finally, it is only right that a Committee should reflect that it is not all about MPs or the Chair, and we are fortunate to have talented people working with us. Last, but by no means least, I thank Dr Farrah Bhatti, the Clerk, Gavin O’Leary, the Second Clerk, Stephen Habberley, the specialist, Jamie Mordue, senior committee assistant, Henry Ayi-Hyde, Committee support assistant, and our ever cheerful Nick Davies, the media officer. For the investor confidence inquiry I thank senior specialist Andrew Buglass, founder of Buglass Energy Advisory, and Kirsty Hamilton, a lady with many jobs—of course she has because, like your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, she has a Scottish background.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I rise to echo the Select Committee Chair’s thanks not only to the Committee staff but to the numerous witnesses who have taken a lot of time and trouble to contribute evidence to the three inquiries we are discussing today.
I want to look briefly at the macro background to those inquiries, which is really one of climate change. We know that climate change is one of the most serious threats the world is facing. We know we need to decarbonise our energy sector and we know that that has to be done in a way whereby UK consumers feel they benefit from the change rather than lose out. All too often, the perception has been that green policies cost them. That is a real danger in the current climate, in particular after the decision last week. I have already received correspondence from constituents who are concerned that the UK may abandon its environmental targets.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change went to Paris and played a part in negotiating very ambitious climate change targets. That matters in relation to these reports, because the investor confidence report deals with the delivery of those targets, and energy is absolutely key in delivering those targets—not just the electricity that powers our homes, but the heat and transport sectors, too. It was in those circumstances and against that backdrop that the inquiries were conducted.
It is a concern that the Committee report found there has been a drop in investor confidence since May 2015, something to which the Chair alluded. In May this year, the UK had fallen from eighth place to thirteenth place in the investor confidence index. I appreciate that some of the fall may have been around the uncertainty over the referendum and that companies may have been holding back investment decisions to see the result, but it is clear that there now needs to be a real signal sent out to the investor community that deals with some of the issues raised in the report. In particular, what startled—if I can put it that way; one thinks of a horse that has been startled away—the investment community were a number of really sudden and quite unexpected policy announcements by the Secretary of State last summer. I understand—I alluded to this in an intervention—that there was a need to look at, for example, solar feed-in tariffs. Some of them gave very high rates of return. Let us not forget that it is the poorest consumers who are paying for the levy control framework in their bills, so it was right for the Government to look at that and assess how effective it was. Nevertheless, there was a very strong theme coming through the evidence we had about the lack of an overall Government strategy on energy.
The Secretary of State speaks very powerfully about the energy trilemma, but the investor community does not feel that a clear direction has been set to say this is where we are going and why. The Secretary of State explained that she wishes to remain technology-neutral. However, to look ahead and take advantage of some of the very best technologies that may come forward and deliver the best results for climate change and reducing the impacts of carbon emissions, there may well need to be some incentivisation, much as we have seen in the onshore wind sector. The Chair rightly referred to the change in Government policy in relation to the onshore wind sector and the switch to offshore. That has led to a decline in investor confidence in onshore wind farm investment, although we have not seen the same results in the offshore sector.
Mr MacNeil
Allied to that—this might sound like a constituency interest, but it does not just affect my constituency—are island contracts for difference. Having been to the European Commission to get it informally passed, the Government seem reluctant to go back to the European Commission to get it formally passed. Let us remember that island CfDs will enable cheaper generation than fully offshore, because the winds in the islands on the west coast can be stronger than those in the sea on the east coast.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am of course aware that the Scottish Government have a great deal of involvement in energy policy, in particular through their renewables obligation certificates. If they want to, they have the levers to incentivise different energy development in Scotland. It is clear that some of the announcements—on feed-in tariffs, the renewables obligation and the climate change levy—and the quick succession in which they came created uncertainty among investors.
Another theme in the report was the lack of transparency around the decision-making process. What the Chair said about the sudden cancelation of the carbon capture and storage project came through very clearly. The manner in which the decision was taken caused concern among companies that had spent many months and years putting together their bids. I understand that the Government need to look at whether they are getting value for money for the taxpayer and whether they are delivering the necessary outcomes, but it is important that we have a clear policy direction. That came through in the investor confidence report.
I appreciate that there have been several reset speeches, but again we are now in a climate where the Brexit vote has happened, yet, judging by some of the quotes used, there has been a lack of long-term vision and concerns that there will be a policy cliff edge in 2020 unless we have clarity around the future of the levy control framework and carbon price floor beyond that year. In the short term, our dropping down the renewable energy country attractiveness index might in fact mask what is really happening. Pipeline projects are still coming through, so the real impact might only be felt in 10 years, when the successor projects to those part way through the process—the ones that have consent but are not built yet—are not there.
It is all change at the moment. Every Department will be looking at our European targets and at what we might do in the future as a nation, so it is really important that the Secretary of State confirms that her civil servants are looking at the direction of UK energy policy in the context of our leaving the EU and the risks for investment, particularly in renewables.
One other item that came through very strongly in our report was the risk premium for developers. It seems that some developers have very high risk premiums and are looking for returns of over 13% or 14%. They cannot get that anywhere else in the market. It is very hard to find such high returns on other investments. I emphasise, however, that my poorest constituents—those least able to afford it—are paying for the green investment through the levy control framework.
Mr MacNeil
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but would she admit that previous spending has led to investment that has reduced wholesale prices and thereby benefitted consumers of the present and that investment today will do the same for consumers in the future?
Antoinette Sandbach
I certainly would, and I will come to that point in touching on the home efficiency section of the report. I am afraid that I have not had a chance to see the Government’s response—the Chair said that it only arrived this morning, but, owing to technical errors and my iPad’s failure to sync, I do not have a copy—so I do not know exactly which recommendations they have adopted. It is absolutely clear, however, that they need to set out a methodology and budget for the levy control framework going beyond 2020.
I very much welcome the fact that the National Audit Office has said that it will look at the levy control framework and “lift the veil”, as the Chair put it, on the funding, on by how much it was exceeded and on the projected spend. It is only by sending out that signal of certainty to the markets that we will encourage the investment to come forward. We need to do that in a way that is responsible to the taxpayer and provides a return to investors, albeit not an excessive one in which the taxpayer or the bill payer loses.
On the macro-level of delivery on the larger scale, I should not forget contracts for difference. We need clear signals on CfD; we need to know when the auctions will happen; we need to look at technologies such as anaerobic digestion, which have been under-adopted in the UK and have huge potential to deliver, particularly in rural areas. As others have highlighted, rural areas face real problems. Many people there have oil-fired boilers and the housing tends to be of older quality. It is vital that CfDs look at how to deliver not just the vast gas projects that are coming forward, although not yet built, but the micro-level projects, which are seen in the section of the report on home efficiency. I shall move swiftly on to that now.
Government policy on home energy efficiency has been stop-start, which has led to policy uncertainty that has damaged consumer confidence with the loss of jobs in the supply chain. I have seen that in my own constituency, where a small business has laid off a number of employees. Over 60 have been lost in this sector as a result of some of the policy changes. That has had a real impact on my constituents. Sixty people out of work is 60 people who have to re-train and learn different skills.
The energy company obligation scheme has not achieved what we wanted it to achieve. I do not praise the Welsh Government very often, but I have to say that the Nest and Arbed schemes in Wales achieved a far greater amount than the ECO did in the UK. Much could be done from the Government looking and learning from over the border. I hear what our Chair says about Scotland, too. It is clear that the ECO will be extended to 2018, but the Select Committee was very concerned that its main policy target was fuel poverty. We have questioned whether it will really deliver on that ambition.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) mentioned what was happening in rural areas on solid-wall insulation. Rural areas are a particular concern, and it is quite clear that we need more data at the level of the individual household, so that ECO measures can be targeted more effectively. One major concern is the lack of data at the individual level, and one of the report’s recommendations is to ensure that we set up the sharing of data, so that home efficiency measures can be far more effectively targeted, particularly in rural areas. The evidence relating to ECO suggests that it has gathered the low-hanging fruit and has concentrated on largely urban areas where whole streets can be done at a time. It has failed to deliver in the rural areas where, as I said, housing is older, tends to be of poorer quality and tends to be solid-wall, built pre-1945.
If we are to make the gains that we need to out of home efficiency, it is key that we look at tackling the harder-to-reach homes; to do so, we need the data. For that reason, the Government clearly need to do much more cross-departmental working and they need to set up a proper database. I suspect smart meters can generate the data that will be able to identify which homes are the least efficient and will give the Government and, indeed, the energy companies the information about who is using the most and potentially who is the least efficient.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about energy efficiency? Many homes use liquid gas or oil, so when we are looking at rural areas, we need a combination of programmes to ensure we can get new forms of heat production, as well as improving the efficiency of homes, to make the sensible and rational investment?
Antoinette Sandbach
I certainly do agree and the Government are reviewing the renewable heat incentive at the moment. I declare an interest on this: I point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, declaring that I have registered for the RHI. There are some highly innovative new products that have been brought forward by companies like Calor, which work in conjunction with air-source heat pumps and which are so efficient that they qualify for the RHI.
We need to divide the response in home efficiency between those able to pay and those not able to pay. At the moment, it is quite clear—this comes through in our report—that the green deal did not deliver for the able-to-pay market. It was too complicated and confusing, and it delivered for very small numbers of households—less than 15,000, I think.
The Government need to look at how they can incentivise and make those gains on home efficiency. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the Chair of the Committee, has highlighted, there are huge gains in health and comfort. These messages are not getting through, however. There are huge gains and it is an investment that radically changes people’s lives. That kind of programme leads to the consumption of less electricity and is a win in terms of investment for the future. In that context, the abandoning of the zero-carbon homes target was a huge shame. I appreciate that building regulations have driven up the standards, but they are still not as high as the zero-carbon homes target was.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady is making a characteristically good speech and raising many points on which I support her. She made a good point earlier on solid-wall insulation, and the price of oil in rural areas is at the moment beneficial in comparison to the past. With so many houses being heated like that, now, when the sun is shining—almost literally—is the time for this work to be done, as the oil price may go up again, in which case these houses will be in desperate times. We should act before the pain that could come later.
On the abandoning of the zero-carbon homes target, the hon. Lady will probably recall that that was a disappointment to many in the supply chain, who had geared up for zero-carbon homes only to be deflated on finding out that the Government had for some reason changed their policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Six Members still wish to speak and we also have two Front-Bench winding-up speeches to come. We must finish by 10 o’clock and the hon. Lady has been speaking for 20 minutes now. If she comes to a conclusion and other Members stick to speaking for 10 minutes, we will get everybody in.
Antoinette Sandbach
You will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that home efficiency is my final point.
I urge the Government to have that cross-departmental working to deliver on home efficiency targets. That is where we will make some wins on climate change. We make wins from the comfort of the people who have had those measures installed. That instils positivity around green changes and the levy control framework because they feel they are getting what they pay for. There is much in the report that I urge the Secretary of State to adopt and look at, because the delivery on the ground matters to people who are paying for it through their bills.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). She has made a very thoughtful contribution, most of which I agree with. I hope that this will set the tone for the rest of the evening’s debate, because there is now a wide consensus that the storm of changes that were made last summer to a whole range of renewables incentives has created enormous problems for investor confidence and substantial uncertainty over the Government’s direction on energy policy overall. The three excellent reports from the Energy and Climate Change Committee that we are also discussing this evening underline how the problems have arisen and what they consist of. However, we have also seen the acceptance by the Government of the fifth carbon budget in the past couple of days. It is great that they have accepted it. It would have been nice to have included shipping in it, but I understand that they are not going to proceed with that. Nevertheless, they have accepted the fifth carbon budget, which describes the onward march of renewables as absolutely essential for the reduction of our emissions.
The fourth carbon budget dealt with the essential nature of carbon capture and storage and the forward march of energy efficiency in homes. I made the point in an intervention earlier that the fourth carbon budget assumed that there would be 2.2 million solid wall treatments in homes, but the changes that have taken place over the past year have all pointed in the opposite direction to the imperatives that the Committee on Climate Change put forward in the carbon budgets. There are therefore real question marks in relation not only to investors but to future policy overall. How can we be on target with those budgets—as I hope we will be—at the same time as undertaking all the recent changes?
The cancellation of the carbon capture and storage programme was thoroughly deplorable. The justification for the changes to the renewables incentives was that this was all about the levy control framework. The framework came in in 2011 and it was supposed to place limits on the levies that were arranged in relation to certain renewables. This would also have an effect on what customers’ bills would look like, as the levies would be passed down to customers’ bills in the end. However, the levy control framework was almost inevitably going to be a car crash, both in terms of how it was conceived and of what it was going to look like by 2020.
There now seems to be some clarity about future auctions relating to contracts for difference under the framework up to 2020, but it does not look as though there will be much money in those auctions. It does not look as though they will be significant, and the levy control framework itself will come to a sharp cliff edge at the end of 2020. That is partly because when the framework was first designed, it was largely based on the renewables obligation, which involved a fixed amount of payment from the Government to those receiving renewables obligation certificates, whereas the change to contracts for difference has resulted in varying sums coming forward. As energy prices go down, so the cost of the payments goes up, resulting in less and less money in the levy control framework. This is a fundamentally badly designed arrangement for dealing with future renewables deployment if we are serious about getting that deployment in line with our carbon budgets.
We need clarification on whether there will be a levy control framework from 2020 onwards. I was interested to discover this morning that a consultation about changes in the 2014 contracts for difference orders had turned into a consultation about whether there should be a levy control framework at all after 2020—not about what it should consist of, or how it should work. I believe the Secretary of State indicated in her “reset” speech that some offshore wind would be auctioned after 2020, in which case there must be a levy control framework, but that is all the information that we managed to obtain. The consultation consists of one question and nine pages, and it does not tell us a great deal about the framework itself.
Mr MacNeil
I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago about the effect of the levy control framework in an environment of low energy prices. Such an environment puts greater demands on the framework, which was probably conceptualised when prices were higher, or even heading in that direction. Another question is posed by the fact that the framework is not being revised to take account of the future capacity market.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman—the Chair of the Committee—is right to raise those questions. The effect on the levy control framework of the change in prices—and it should be noted that the prices of gas, electricity and oil are now below the lowest conceivable scenario in the Department’s energy projections—was simply not anticipated by the Department when it designed the framework. Moreover, the framework only takes into account the expenses to consumers of power. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, it is clear that investment in renewable energy is affected. The change in the merit order and the downward pressure on prices has a real effect on wholesale prices. It is estimated that for every pound that is invested, about 60p comes back. That has not been taken into account in the calculation of the costs of the levy control framework, and I think that it is an argument for another fundamental redesign of the framework after 2020.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned another issue that I consider to be as important as the levy control framework itself: the signals that are given out by the parallel arrangements for the capacity auctions, which have exactly the same effect as the framework on customer bills. The energy companies will pay into a levy, which will eventually land on customers’ doormats in the form of a bill. However, although the Department has said that capacity auctions for the continuation of supply of non-renewables for mineral-based power stations will be within the levy control framework, they have kept the sums involved in those auctions outside the headline total for the limit of the levy control framework up to 2020.
That may not be particularly surprising. It is clear that all the billions of pounds that have been thrown up against the wall in relation to capacity auctions—when it comes to trying to get some new gas-fired capacity power stations on stream, or, failing that, to ensure that gas-fired, coal-fired and, indeed, nuclear power stations can continue to supply energy—bear no relation to the limits that have been set for the levy control framework. Not only do they bear no relation, but the Committee on Climate Change estimates that some £70 of a customer’s bill will fund renewables by 2020. It is currently about £35.
On capacity auctions, a new auction was recently announced for a period preceding those of the two T-4 auctions that have already taken place. The estimated cost to consumers for those capacity auctions will be something like £15 on the bill for the first two auctions and as much as £36 for the most recent auction. If we add the figures together, we find that by about 2020 the cost to the customer of capacity auctions will be about the same as all of the costs rolled up for renewables under the levy control framework, yet one is capped and the other is not. If the Government are prepared to put up £5.5 billion on capacity auctions but not to proceed with the levy control framework, which is actually able to deal with renewables investment over the next few years, that must send a message to renewable and low-carbon investors. That is fundamental and needs to be addressed.
I will bring my remarks to a close, but I hope that the Secretary of State will indicate in her response that the levy control framework will be coming forward after 2020 in a decent form and that it will be reviewed to take into account my points about its operation.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) who, as ever, spoke in great detail. I will speak in less detail, and I think my remarks will be a bit shorter.
I enjoyed all three of the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s reports, and I congratulate the Committee on them. Before I get to my specific points, I will say that the Chairman’s suggestion that we should devolve energy policy to Scotland does have some merit. It is true that Scotland has the lowest carbon emissions per capita of any of the nations of the UK, which it achieved by having a higher proportion of its electricity come from nuclear power than any other region. To that extent, we can all learn from what Scotland has achieved.
Turning to the thrust of the three reports, I want first to talk about investor confidence, because it is valid to say that if investor confidence disappears, there will be an associated cost. If I am in business and my business model is all about Government subsidies, it is reasonable that there will be some discontinuity and I should expect that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) made the point that we have slipped from eighth to 13th in the table for renewables and wondered how that could be compatible with meeting our decarbonisation targets, which are the most challenging of any country. The answer to that is of course that it is not compatible. It would be better if that was improved, but renewables are only one part of how we are going to decarbonise.
In the UK, 9% of our energy comes from renewables. The Chairman of the Select Committee read out some numbers relating to current energy production. In fact, I think he was talking about electricity, because energy includes transport and all that goes with it. It is true that 30% of renewables investment in the EU last year was in the UK, and it is also true that the Government are making a great deal of progress on nuclear power, but they need to do even more on substituting gas for coal, which would make the single biggest difference.
Other people will talk about carbon capture and storage tonight, and I regret that it did not go ahead, but I am uncertain whether there is a clear pathway of how it will work. We talk about Canada and perhaps Norway, but neither of them is yet commercial and there is a lot more work to be done to make that happen. I would defend the Government somewhat on the notice they gave to the stock exchange before Parliament. As others have said, companies such as Shell invested huge sums in this, the announcement was price-sensitive and the stock exchange had to be told before Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman says that CCS is not “commercial”, whatever that means. The point I made was about meeting the climate change targets on grams of carbon dioxide. Nuclear is not commercial either; indeed, a former Energy Minister from his party said a few weeks ago at a breakfast meeting that Hinkley C was not chosen for reasons of economics. The hon. Gentleman cannot therefore make a commercial argument for one thing and then change it for the other.
David Mowat
We can spend a long time talking about the word “commercial” in that context. The former Energy Minister the hon. Gentleman just referred to is the one I am about to talk about in the context of the third report, which was on the green deal, the energy company obligation and some of those things. I am not going to try to defend everything that has happened over the past five or six years in that area, because it has not been good and the Government must do much better. There is a big prize to be gained in energy efficiency, and the one thing we can all agree on, whether or not we agree on nuclear, CCS or anything else, is that we have to do a lot better on energy efficiency. What happened on the green deal was little short of a disaster.
I wish now to discuss market signals, because we have made the biggest market signal over the past week that could be imagined: we have accepted the Committee on Climate Change figure of a 57% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, although that is merely consistent with the Climate Change Act 2008. I am pleased that we have done that, but I wish to make the point I have made previously, which is that I am worried that others around the world are not following us in the way we might have expected or hoped they would. I am talking not about China or India—these economies that must catch up—but about other countries in Europe.
In these debates, we sometimes gloss over the impact on electricity prices, which means fuel poverty or uncompetitive manufacturing. The Department of Energy and Climate Change website this morning showed that our electricity prices are 60% higher than the mean in the EU, and our industry’s electricity prices 90% higher than the EU mean. When the Government talk about rebalancing the economy and the northern powerhouse, I just say this: if we are serious about manufacturing, we should be aware that it is very hard to do that with differentially higher electricity prices. Some of our debates about energy and the need to decarbonise must be seen in that context, notwithstanding the merit order effect, which we have heard about tonight.
It saddens me that our 57% target is approximately double the European target put into the Paris commitment in the INDCs—intended nationally determined contributions. Europe’s target was a 40% reduction over the same timeframe as our 57% reduction, but that includes the UK, and if our contribution is taken out, we are talking about roughly double the rate. But these countries are not even achieving that. This year, 18 of the 28 countries in the EU increased their carbon emissions, whereas the UK managed a 3% reduction. Why is that happening? It is because they continue to burn coal at a rate that is generally very high, although it is coming down in some cases. The Secretary of State made an announcement last November that we would phase out coal by 2025, yet a week later the Germans commissioned their brand new lignite-burning, unabated coal power station. As I said earlier in this debate, Germany burned four times as much coal as the UK. But it is not just Germany; Holland, Ireland and Austria all burn significant amounts of coal. There is an issue here that has to be resolved as we make our progress towards a 57% reduction. We cannot do it on our own. Part of the UK showing leadership involves making sure that other countries come with us. China is doing a lot more than many others.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
In these days of uncertainty, one thing is certain: if we are going to go it alone in the big bad world out there, we need energy policies that are fit for our future requirements, and that means making sure that our spending priorities are targeted properly. Yet already reports suggest that the UK is lagging behind an existing legally binding EU target that 15% of energy should come from renewables by 2020, with the Government bringing an end to subsidies for new onshore wind farms, cutting support for solar power and cancelling the zero carbon homes standard.
Moreover, the Government are failing to provide the investment that we need in energy efficiency to support a low-carbon economy here in the UK, and have ditched support for low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. I know through my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on CCS that, following the decision in last year’s comprehensive spending review to withdraw the £1 billion for the CCS competition, the industry has spent several months considering and developing its thinking on the way forward for the technology in the UK, but industry wants answers from the Government.
Although the EU referendum result has undoubtedly left UK politics in a state of turmoil, the climate change agenda and therefore the CCS agenda must remain a strong priority. Just last Thursday, a mere week after the EU referendum, the UK agreed its fifth carbon budget as part of the Climate Change Act, committing the UK to cut emissions by 57% from 1990 levels by 2032. This is a more rigorous target than the collective EU agreement to cut emissions by 40% before 2030 as part of the Paris accord, and as such was a commitment to be welcomed and embraced. However, there is no doubt that CCS and, I would argue, industrial CCS, must have a significant role to play if we are to meet that goal.
The carbon budgets determine the direction for the UK’s low-carbon transition. Any uncertainty about the status of the target is therefore disruptive at best and catastrophic at worst. The Government have already slashed funding for greener energy options. Further ambiguity will not secure the investment needed, but will lead to increased costs. We need the Government to clarify the status of climate targets in the light of the outcome of the EU referendum, and to clearly prioritise energy spending intentions to ensure that realistic and responsible goals are retained and achieved.
I would argue that following the referendum, it is more important than ever that the Government commit to being a world leader in important areas such as climate change and energy policy, driving innovation and investment, rather than sitting in the passenger seat attempting to give directions.
The importance of carbon capture and storage to meeting the UK’s climate change targets was confirmed when, on the same day as the fifth carbon budget was agreed, the Committee on Climate Change published its 2016 progress report, which specifically recommended that the Government urgently come forward with a new approach to CCS technology.
I know that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), has been busy working for an EU exit and is now preoccupied with becoming the next Tory leader, but she has promised a new plan for CCS for eight months now, and it is time that we saw it. I firmly believe that in the light of what happened less than two weeks ago, the Government’s new approach now promised towards the end of this year is far too late, and Ministers need to come to the House much sooner. I would none the less welcome hearing from the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State, that the events of 23 June will not be allowed to cloud our collective judgment and create a barrier to progress.
The absence of the CCS demonstration projects, which had been expected to contribute towards decarbonisation of power generation by around 2020, is extremely worrying and is something that I know the energy intensive users group has raised previously with the Energy Secretary. I share the group’s view that it is difficult to see how the Government’s absence of policy ambition for CCS can be reconciled with the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change for power sector decarbonisation, or with the Government’s stated desire to enable energy-intensive industries to remain part of the UK economy in the longer term.
The Tees valley, in which my Stockton North constituency falls, represents one of the largest clusters of manufacturing industries in the UK. Industries in the region contribute more than £10 billion to GVA— gross value added—annually, provide more than 25,000 manufacturing jobs in the local area, and produce a significant share of the UK’s manufacturing output, but they also emit some 22% of the UK’s total emissions from manufacturing industries, meaning that industrial CCS has the potential to protect these energy-intensive industries from future high carbon prices, while curtailing CO2 emissions.
We know that CCS is a core component in a number of energy-intensive sector 2050 industrial road maps developed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, alongside industry. However, despite that and the expectation that CO2 abatement costs may be lower for some industrial applications than for power generation, there is no specific support policy for industrial CCS deployment. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could outline what steps her Department is taking to address that disparity.
Some energy-intensive industries have started to benefit from the Government’s carbon compensation package, following approval from the EU. I welcome that, but what is the future for carbon taxes and compensation post EU membership? Will the burden of EU carbon taxes still exist? If so, to what extent? Will the extra costs imposed by the British Government, over and above the EU costs, be removed any time soon?
Importantly, the Committee on Climate Change singled out new CCS transport and storage infrastructure as crucial for meeting future carbon budgets, and it recommended that separate consideration be given to the support needed to enable the development of that infrastructure. Only by developing it in places such as Teesside, which has the capacity and expertise to make such projects work, can the UK even hope to secure a stable future post EU.
Investment in such infrastructure holds the potential to secure thousands of jobs, which are more important now than ever before, in the light of the failures in the Government’s handling of the steel crisis and the subsequent rises in unemployment on Teesside. However, with the UK having stated its intention to vacate its seat at the top table as far as policy making at the EU level is concerned, can the Minister reassure the House that plans are in place to guarantee that DECC officials can continue to collaborate with their EU counterparts as policies for CCS are developed?
I would also welcome the Minister confirming that the industry will not lose out on current or future support as a result of our leaving the EU and that backing for these technologies will be a priority for the Government. She will be aware that EU funds have supported, and continue to support, CCS projects in the UK, such as the Don Valley project, which receives in the region of €180 million from a European economic recovery package. I would be grateful if she could outline how the Government intend to replace those moneys for existing and potential future projects once the UK ceases to be part of the EU.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Government have approved the fifth carbon budget—the framework of all frameworks. That is the why people should be optimistic. That is the message that needs to go out from this place to investors. That is where we are headed—to 2050, with the Climate Change Act 2008 intact and supported by the Government and the Labour party.
It is important that we do not send out a message or a tone from this place that suggests that investors should not be confident. There are quite a number of ways in which we can all boost confidence. We are in a time of change, and I hope we will never again have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who says we do not want to lead in this area. We should lead in this area, not least for the reason pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—inconsistency elsewhere. If there is a Chinese electric bus company, an innovator in California or somebody anywhere in the world working in this area, they should come to Britain, because we are leading the world, we are committed to this issue and we have a law in place that has support across the House.
On the detail, energy reset will happen this year, and the Government are looking at the issue again, now that we have a Conservative majority. Brexit also provides opportunities. What are we going to do when we leave the European Union? We need to make low carbon our own. In doing that, we need to make sure we get the investment and the jobs here, and that we meet the central task.
That also goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South always rightly raises, which is cost. We have to drive that cost curve downwards as quickly as possible. That requires coherent policy making, sound messages and a constant positive tone across the House if we are to make the UK the low-carbon centre of the world. If we do that, we will get costs down and we will lower our energy costs.
Graham Stuart
I do not think there is time for my hon. Friend to come in. With that, I will sit down.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) on securing this debate and on the work of his Committee in probing the Government.
As the Committee makes clear, we seem to have come a long way since the heady days of the promises to lead the “greenest Government ever”. In reality, we have had years of policy chopping and changing, and now an energy policy that seems to be going into reverse. First we had the green deal, ended, in effect, last July after local authorities the length and breadth of the country had wasted a fortune in time and money trying to make it work. In my own area, Birmingham Energy Savers is one such venture, launched at the behest of the Government in 2011 and forced to wind up as the latest shift in Government policy brought its ambitions for energy efficiency to a shuddering halt. No one on the Government Benches wanted to listen to concerns about the green deal in the early days. They ignored warnings about the complicated structure, the expensive bureaucracy, and the sheer cost to homeowners. They insisted that they knew best, but of course they were wrong. With the sure touch that has become the hallmark of Conservative government, they decided to end the scheme, after years in denial, in the very month that it reached its highest level of performance.
It was not just the green deal. The previous Labour Government had a fair degree of success with Warm Front, which was a progressive, taxpayer-supported initiative designed to reduce energy bills and improve insulation, so of course the Government scrapped it and replaced it with the energy company obligation—little more than a hidden Tory energy tax on all consumers, irrespective of their incomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland we have fuel poverty levels of 35%-plus—the highest in all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need—perhaps the Minister will respond to this—a policy and a strategy to make sure that all new builds are efficient, and that for houses that need to be so there is a co-ordinated plan across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland such that every council will try to achieve that?
Steve McCabe
I certainly agree that we need a plan that goes much wider, reaches a lot more homes, and focuses on new build.
The problem is that so successful is the direction of current Government policy that by 2017 about 200,000 homes, as opposed to 1.3 million, will be eligible for some assistance with energy efficiency measures, and the total level of investment in energy efficiency will have halved. In essence, we have ended up with a policy where only those who qualify as fuel poor can get any help to invest in energy efficiency measures. That is no doubt partly why the Committee on Climate Change recently claimed that cutting carbon emissions from the home was now a policy in reverse. Matthew Bell, its chief executive, has made it clear that the best way to reduce consumer bills and tackle climate change is to make sure that more homes are properly insulated, but instead this Government have managed to ensure that the rate of home insulation has fallen by 90%. A recent estimate shows that over the course of the last Parliament and the present one, the number of households receiving help will decline by a staggering 76%. The Government have scrapped ideas for new homes to be zero-carbon, thus, as the Chair of the Committee pointed out, ensuring that we store up additional retro-fit costs for the future.
In terms of energy savings, new technological developments, and a growth in green energy jobs, this Government’s achievement has been not to be the greenest ever but the biggest failure ever. We need a settled Government policy and an environment where businesses and consumers can plan ahead. We need a fair and simple plan that incentivises households and the rented sector to invest in home energy improvements. We would be helped in this by a signal from Government that they intend to support the Leasehold Reform (Energy Efficiency) Bill. Alas, we have a Government bereft of practical policies to meet more than half of the emissions reductions required by 2030, and many of the existing EU-linked initiatives are now in doubt because of the botched referendum. The abandonment of the carbon capture and storage initiative is just the latest in a series of U-turns by a Government who are without direction and any coherent energy policy.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Here we are again: yet another estimates day debate where the one thing that does not actually get discussed is the estimates. The motion authorises a reduction in the expenditure of the Department of Energy and Climate Change to the tune of £2,605,722,000, as outlined in HC 967 of 2015-16 —all 652 pages of it.
The impact that the reduction will have on investors and consumers has been ably investigated by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which is so effectively chaired with flair and panache by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). He is one of only two Scottish National party MPs ever to chair a Select Committee, the other being my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who also has things to say about the estimates process.
Page 238 of the booklet suggests a cut of £184 million to the Department’s budget for managing the UK’s energy legacy safely and responsibly, which I am sure will help all of us sleep at night. Page 241 lists the EU Government grants received. I suppose they will not appear much in future, which I am sure the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), will be happy about—interestingly, she is absent this evening, although I do not know what could possibly be keeping her away—but the 78% of my constituency who voted to remain will probably beg to differ.
Interestingly, the implications of the Barnett consequentials are nowhere to be found in the booklet, even though we were repeatedly told during the English votes for English laws process that estimates days were our opportunity as Scottish MPs to have our say on consequential spending. The reality is that there is no such opportunity. Professor David Heald of the University of Glasgow in my constituency told the Procedure Committee that the estimates process is “completely irrelevant” to Barnett allocations. That has been proven once again during today’s two debates.
It is also clear that estimates days are not very useful in scrutinising the detail of Government policy. Despite the fact that we are considering three Energy and Climate Change reports, my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has outlined how woefully inadequate the Government’s response to them has been. Even though this is supposed to be a chance for Select Committees to have their reports discussed on the Floor of the House, the reality is that time is compressed. There are 30-plus Select Committees and three estimates days a year, which means that, at best, a Committee has a one in 10 chance of actually getting its reports debated on the Floor of the House. It is not just the estimates process that needs to be reformed, but the way in which Select Committees and their reports can be best used to hold the Government to account.
Many of the policy points have already been discussed, including the importance of energy efficiency both for cutting climate change emissions and for improving wellbeing and reducing fuel poverty. I declare an interest, because on Friday I had smart meters installed in my home. I look forward to the impact that will have on my own energy efficiency, as well as on my time efficiency.
Investor confidence is another hugely important aspect of the debate. Of course, the greatest threat to investor confidence has to be the Brexit vote, so it is very disappointing that the Energy Minister, who was so in favour of a leave vote, is not here to tell us what the consequences will be.
As is so often the case in this House, it is the Scottish Government whom we have to look to for the best lessons and examples. On renewable energy, 49.7% of Scotland’s electricity consumption now comes from renewable sources—well on track to meet the Government’s target of 100% by 2020. That has helped us reach our world-leading climate change targets, and the Scottish Government have also committed to investing £103 million to increase the number of warm homes and reduce fuel poverty.
I have highlighted three inadequacies in the very short time I have had, including the inadequate procedure for examining Government supply and expenditure, particularly now that EVEL has been introduced. Even when we are able to scrutinise Government policy, we find that that process is inadequate, and the powers that the Scottish Government have are also inadequate to the task at hand. There is a need to devolve energy policy and so many other policy areas to the Scottish Government.
There will be literally no debate on today’s second item of business. At 10 pm, this House will be asked to authorise £254,040,155,000 of Government expenditure without any opportunity to scrutinise the measure in detail or to table an amendment to it. The system is in urgent need of reform. Perhaps that reform will come while this House still controls the purse strings of Scotland, but perhaps not. Time for that, like mine for this speech, is running out.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I welcome the fact that we are debating these important Energy and Climate Change Committee reports, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has ably demonstrated, it is a pity that we are doing so tonight when we should be discussing how we spend all the money that the Government spend—it is a whopping figure. There is a tinge of irony in the fact that less than three weeks ago, this country apparently voted to take back control to make this Parliament sovereign once again, and yet we cannot even properly debate how we spend our money.
Of the three reports, the investor confidence report is the critical one. It explodes the myth of the so-called long-term economic plan. The point about rhetoric versus reality is very much borne out. To quote the report, in reference to contracts for difference,
“merely stating that there may be three auctions this Parliament does not constitute a ‘plan’”;
In fairness, the absence of a plan around Brexit makes that look like a detailed, well worked out masterplan, but in reality it is not. All joking aside, the report goes on to say:
“We heard that policy uncertainty was weakening the case for investment in energy in the UK. This could mean that projects become more expensive to deliver—as investors demand a greater return on their investment to compensate for increased risk—or that projects simply do not go ahead. Moreover, any hiatus in energy investment could undermine the UK’s ability to meet climate, energy security and affordability objectives.”
In essence, all three sides of the energy trilemma have been undermined by the Government’s incoherent and ad hoc policy decisions. Throw in a dose of Brexit uncertainty, and there is a real requirement for the Government to provide some certainty if we are to meet the challenges of not just affordability of electricity and reducing carbon, but security of supply. All three of those are questionable. They were questionable before the Brexit vote, and the resulting increase in uncertainty has magnified that substantially. It is clear from the report that that has significantly undermined investor confidence, particularly in Scotland.
The undermining of our renewables industry in Scotland has been damaging. The discussions about carbon capture and storage are hugely undermining the Scottish industry. We had the potential in Peterhead to have both the world’s first floating wind farm commercially deployed, and carbon capture and storage in Peterhead power station. That would have given a relatively small part of Scotland a chance to be right at the global cutting edge of the carbon reduction and climate change technological advances. Unfortunately, one part of that is not going ahead, and that is substantially regrettable.
We have heard discussions about the regrettable fixation on one side of the levy control framework and the fact that there is an opaqueness around the levy control framework. I add to the Select Committee’s call for us to be shown the detailed working behind that. We need an understanding from the Government that if investment in low-carbon technology drives down price, thereby increasing the notional overspend on the levy control framework, it does not necessarily lead to greater cost for the consumer. If we are undermining investment in the low-carbon industries based on a desire to protect the consumer—that would be a reasonable position to start from, although not necessarily one that I agree with wholeheartedly—we need to look at what we are doing in the round. The report says that the increase in the cost of the levy control framework from the fall in the wholesale price of conventional electricity will be half a billion pounds, but that is not an additional cost to the consumer. It is certainly not a reason to cut the support—the long-term investment in the future—that investment in renewable energy will bring.
There is huge uncertainty over how we will deal with our European neighbours following the vote two weeks ago. In her reset speech, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change discussed at length the benefits of energy union and how it needs to be worked upon. We have no idea whether that will carry on or whether it will be part of the emissions trading scheme.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend raises a good point. It would be useful if DECC laid out what the three most likely scenarios would mean for energy policy: European economic area membership, European Free Trade Association membership and the third-country option. Given the words of Commissioner Malmström, it seems that if the UK goes for the third-country option, we will have to leave the EU and then negotiate for however many years before we have a deal. It would not happen concurrently with exit, so we need to know what that might mean for energy policy.
Callum McCaig
I would go further than saying that that would be useful; it is absolutely essential. It behoves a responsible Government to do that. These are not contingency plans any more; they are just the plans. There must be some sense of certainty about what is going on.
The reports from my hon. Friend’s Committee have ably demonstrated that uncertainty builds in additional cost. We have to replace a significant proportion of our electricity capacity in the next decade or so. Perhaps the cost will be greater because the pound will be weaker when we are outwith the EU. These things need to be addressed. It would be unfair to expect the Secretary of State to come out with a detailed plan now, but we need an undertaking that her Department will do the necessary work, and in short order, to deliver some form of certainty, otherwise we will be in a real pickle very soon.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said that he was delighted and that the only signal we needed to give to the markets was the welcome announcement that the Government accepted the targets of the fifth carbon budget. I share his enthusiasm that the Government have done that, albeit somewhat later than was expected by many, but as the Committee on Climate Change has suggested, we need a little more of the “how”, as well as the “what”. Again, I hope that the Government will soon deliver a bit more on how we will do it. These are fundamental questions and they cannot go unanswered.
To conclude, the Government have created uncertainty in this field and that uncertainty has since been magnified. That stresses the fundamental importance of having a long-term plan that has cross-party buy-in, and that is not subject to the whims and changes of Government. The climate change legislation provides a model for how we can work collaboratively across parties and across Parliaments and Assemblies. Another model is the National Infrastructure Commission. Following the uncertainty that the Government have created themselves and the uncertainty caused by the Brexit vote, we need a plan that we stick to and deliver.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and his Committee for initiating this debate, for giving the House the opportunity to consider the direction of the Government’s energy and climate change policy, and for their excellent reports.
Like the hon. Gentleman but, I suspect, unlike the Secretary of State, I look forward to the publication of the findings of the National Audit Office’s inquiry into whether the Government will have to pay compensation to carbon capture and storage project developers. That could result in a multimillion pound bill for the taxpayer. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that this might have been an extremely expensive decision indeed. One would be forgiven for imagining that DECC has received instruction from the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) when one looks at the way in which it led the industry on until the very last minute, before finally applying the knife to carbon capture and storage. Well, there we are. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) regretted the decline of the CCS projects. He was quite right to do so. He also spoke very powerfully about the green deal, calling its demise nothing short of a disaster.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) quite rightly praised the Government for agreeing with the Committee on Climate Change on the fifth carbon budget. I agree with him. I just wish that they had actually set it by the statutory limit in accordance with the Climate Change Act 2008. It had to be set and voted on under the affirmative resolution procedure of this House by 30 June. That did not happen. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the legal status of the budget to the House. It is one thing to accept the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change, but simply accepting is not good enough. The Climate Change Act is very clear on that point: it has to be set. So far, it has not been.
The judgment of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) was absolutely impeccable. She spoke at great length, but it was a great speech. She talked about the investor community being startled, but in a way that, I trust, did not scare the horses or make her open to the accusation of talking Britain down. It was a very fine speech indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), despite his sore throat, spoke very powerfully about the need to bring forward the UK carbon plan. He is absolutely right. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness and by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig). It is great to have the ambition of the fifth carbon budget, but, yet again, we look back to 2011, when the fourth carbon budget was set. We know that the statutory obligation is to bring forward, as soon as reasonably practicable, a plan to show how it will be achieved. Five years later, we are still waiting for that. My hon. Friend’s point was a very fair one: it should be brought forward by the end of the year and rolled out immediately, to give confidence to investors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) speaks with such knowledge and authority on these matters. He made a very powerful point about the LCF after 2020, and I hope the Secretary of State will give some clarity on that in her closing remarks.
In its latest report, “Meeting carbon budgets”, which was published last Thursday, the Committee on Climate Change showed that there is a need for
“urgent action to strengthen policies”
without which progress on emissions will not continue. We are in a post-Brexit situation. Investor confidence has been lost through heightened uncertainty, creating a crisis in investment that in turn creates a crisis in energy costs, as greater uncertainty results in higher costs of capital. National Grid has issued a warning that energy bills would rise and energy security be put at risk if, like Switzerland, the UK is excluded from Europe’s internal energy market. The Secretary of State herself cited analysis by Vivid Economics ahead of the referendum that warned that the potential impact of exclusion from the IEM could be up to £500 million a year by the early 2020s.
Given the Secretary of State’s clear view on this, which I agree with, and bearing in mind that the Chancellor has been forced to announce that his fiscal surplus target is being dispensed with, as we will no longer be able to balance the books by 2020 as he had promised, and that growth has been downgraded from 2% to just 0.4%, we must ask her with what certainty she is asking us to consider the estimates for her Department. Her Cabinet colleagues have been very clear that to meet the deficit, they can raise taxes, or cut departmental spending, or borrow. Which is it going to be? For goodness’ sake, the Government are in the midst of a financial crisis. The Chancellor refuses to tell us how he is going to get out of it—he says it is up to a future Chancellor to decide, because he knows that in a few short weeks he will no longer be the occupant of No. 11—
Barry Gardiner
I cannot, I am afraid, because of the time constraints.
The Chancellor will not have to make that decision. The Secretary of State is asking us to approve estimates that have about as much chance of remaining solid as an ice cube in a Jamie Oliver stir-fry. This motion is not responsible financial management; it is government by magic wand—think of a number, close your eyes, and make a wish. Will the Secretary of State give a clear answer about her level of confidence that these estimates will be reflected in the outcomes at year end?
Ministers insist that Britain is open for business but energy companies have halted major investments in the UK. This week the Secretary of State told business that she is certain that investment will continue to flow, yet Siemens has paused clean energy investments in Hull, and according to the Government’s external adviser, a future for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station project is now “extremely unlikely”. That is not Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition “talking Britain down”; that is the Government’s own adviser telling it as it is. Vattenfall is reassessing the risk of working in the UK, which could jeopardise its plans for a £5.5 billion wind farm off England’s east coast. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has warned since the referendum that the uncertainty caused by the result and the upcoming negotiations
“is likely to cause project investors and banks to hesitate about committing new capital, and could cause a drop in renewable energy asset values.”
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which represents more than €30 trillion of assets, said that the aftermath of the vote
“brings considerable uncertainty and market turmoil.”
These are deeply worrying times, but the Government do not seem to recognise the urgency of quashing such uncertainty and instability. Will the Secretary of State’s Department push for access to the internal energy market as a negotiating priority, and how will the Government gain support from EU member states to accept that? SSE has said that collaboration with other European countries on energy matters is important for UK consumers. What calculations or estimates has the Department made of price premiums on loans that will be demanded by investors in UK energy infrastructure to cover the costs of political uncertainty? How much will that add to the cost of building new electricity generating capacity? To reduce that uncertainty, it is imperative that the UK provides a clear direction of travel on domestic policy. Why did the right hon. Lady fail to uphold her statutory obligation under the Climate Change Act 2008, and not take the necessary steps to ensure that the order was set by 30 June?
The European Investment Bank is the UK’s biggest clean energy lender, having invested €31.3 billion into British clean energy projects over the past five years. Will that funding still be available for projects already in progress or agreed, such as the four clean energy projects under assessment by the European Fund for Strategic Investments? What funding sources have been identified to replace the opportunities that we will lose for research and development in clean energy to power the future? Have the Government discussed the future of Hinkley Point with EDF and/or the French Government, as a result of the vote to leave? The Government estimated in 2014 that by 2020 the annual net savings to the UK economy for the European energy standards and labelling ecodesign would be in excess of £850 million per year. Will those potential savings be compromised by the process of leaving the EU? The right hon. Lady must begin to answer those questions.
As the referendum result was causing political and economic chaos, the final results of the two-year Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into why customers are being overcharged by nearly £2 billion a year for their energy were quietly released. The recommendations are nothing to shout about, as they will not deliver the Prime Minister’s promise from four years ago to put all households on the cheaper tariff. How will the Department introduce more transparency over available deals, and provide support to make it easier for customers to switch, thereby putting an end to the big six milking their loyal customers to maintain profits amid falling wholesale prices?
Hundreds of thousands of families cannot afford their energy bills, and in 2014-15 that contributed to 43,900 excess winter deaths. However, Ministers are still letting energy companies off the hook and failing to ensure that the drop in wholesale prices is passed on to people’s bills. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the UK ratifies the Paris agreement before the Prime Minister leaves office?
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I welcome the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to his place. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, in particular the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee for his involvement in today’s debate and for his leadership in the Committee.
The Government welcome the Committee’s continued interest in gaining investor confidence in the UK energy sector, household energy efficiency and demand reduction, as well as the future of carbon capture and storage. All remain high priorities for us, and I believe we have a strong track record in all three areas, which I will set out.
Giving clear, meaningful signals for investment in energy is of course essential. That is what we gave when we became the first country to set out plans to close unabated coal power stations by 2025. Recently, we announced a package of reforms of the capacity market that was widely welcomed by stakeholders. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke with his usual extensive knowledge on the capacity market. I would point out, in answer to part of his question, that the capacity market is technology-neutral and focused on security of supply, while the levy control framework has an entirely different focus, which, as he rightly set out, is on low-carbon electricity. The Government will be setting out more on the future of the LCF in the autumn statement.
The capacity market changes have sent a clear signal to investors that will encourage the secure energy sources we need to come forward, such as gas and interconnectors, as part of our long-term plan to build a system of energy infrastructure that is so needed for the 21st century. We will support over 10 GW of new offshore wind projects in the 2020s, with three auctions during this Parliament if costs come down. In March, it was announced that the world’s largest offshore wind farm would be built off the Yorkshire coast. This will bring jobs and growth to the local community, while powering 1 million homes. We are boosting innovation funding to over £500 million, including £250 million for nuclear innovation and small modular reactors.
The theme that came through again and again during the debate related to the fifth carbon budget, which I am sure the Chair of the Committee intended to welcome in his earlier remarks. I was, however, particularly pleased to hear enthusiasm from my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and I thank him for it. He said it was good and positive news, as well as a clear and important investment signal. The private sector knows the Government are committed to it and will be legally bound by it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for her comments on the private sector. She spoke constructively about the need for investment to help to deliver on these targets. It is encouraging that when we made the announcement last week it was so widely welcomed by the investment community. We will, of course, continue to look at other impacts on the investment community.
On home energy, energy efficiency is rightly seen by many, and certainly by the Government, as an excellent means to not one but several ends. It contributes not only to reducing energy bills, but to reducing carbon emissions and improving the security of our energy supplies. Our manifesto clearly set out how we will help a further 1 million homes this Parliament, as part of our commitment to address fuel poverty.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) gave us a canter through previous home energy efficiency measures. I hope my comments will reassure him about our commitment to deliver on those 1 million homes. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for his comments and hope that his energy usage will indeed be reduced by his new smart meter. We are delighted that the Government programme is on target, so that everybody will be offered the advantages he has by 2020.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just before the debate finishes, the shadow Secretary of State said that investment in Hull by Siemens was “on hold”—I think those were the words—but investment there most definitely is not. He might want to make that clear, unless I misheard what he said. That investment is very important in our local area and that investment is continuing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
That is more of an intervention than a point of order and the Secretary of State may want to address it.
Amber Rudd
I am grateful for the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding that the hon. Member for Brent North may have put out there. We have been told very clearly by Siemens that the investment in Hull, and the 1,000 or so jobs that go with it, is absolutely secure.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way because this is incredibly important. The chief executive of Siemens has said that future investment is on hold, and he was talking about exports. That is an incredibly important point in terms of developing and growing jobs in that key area.
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady. Let us just agree that there is no change to the exciting development taking place there and the job opportunities recently announced.
We have all agreed that carbon capture and storage plays a potentially important role in the long-term de-carbonisation of the UK’s economy, but our view is that it is currently too expensive and that costs must come down. While CCS projects are happening globally, more innovation is needed to reduce costs. That is why we are committed to working with industry to bring forward innovative ideas for reducing CCS costs, having invested more than £130 million in CCS research and development since 2011, and why we continue to work with others to progress the technology collaboratively. In parallel, DECC continues to provide support to the CCS advisory group, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, whose findings and recommendations will inform our thinking on the way forward.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and to hear about their support for CCS. To both I would say that the door is not closed and that we recognise the important role it will play. I urge my hon. Friend, when he draws comparisons with low-carbon targets in other countries, to look also for signs of progress, and not always to point out the negative side in other countries. I am sure that he, like me, will welcome the fact that the French have announced a carbon price floor. I am sure that there will be improvements from other countries as well.
Several Members asked about the impact of leaving the EU on our energy policy. In particular, we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and the hon. Member for Brent North, who raised several points relating to Brexit. We must face up to the fact that it will make some of our targets more difficult. I do not have the answers about what our future relationship will be with the EU on vital elements, such as the emissions trading scheme and the energy union. It will make some of the challenges we already face more difficult, but I will say fairly and squarely to all hon. Members that we are in dialogue with all the large investors and companies supporting our investment in energy. They are working with us to ensure that there is no major change in the area. Specifically on Hinkley Point, I have indeed spoken to EDF, and we have had conversations with the French Government, and we have been told that there is no change; they remain committed to arriving at a final investment decision.
I would like to reassure all hon. Members that we remain committed to delivering clean, secure and affordable energy. It might be that this task has become a little harder, but what remains unchanged is our determination to do that while always thinking of the consumer first.
Mr MacNeil
I would have liked to hear some timings on CCS from the Secretary of State. Many in the industry come to me concerned that, despite her warm words, there are no timelines. I am sure her commitment and that of the Government is sincere, but quite what that means for the industry is something else entirely. Perhaps when the capacity market comes up, she could think of a demand-side response.
This has been a wide-ranging, informed and useful debate, although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that the estimates include more than just energy and justice. The Chair of the Justice Select Committee is a distant cousin; not many will know that his ancestors were from the island of Barra—where I am from myself—and that he is really a MacNeill who dropped the Mac. That being as it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to hold this debate, and I look forward perhaps to some changes arising from it.
I seem to have an extra minute—quite unexpectedly, as I thought we had agreed earlier that I would not, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, it is always fantastic to have the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons and to detain the House for a moment or two so that we might reach 10 o’clock, whereupon I understand we will be having a Division. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you might be indicating that we have reached the point when I can wind up and pass over to you. [Interruption.] I hear the booing, and the viewers at home are hearing the booing. If you want me to carry on, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am more than happy to do so.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is greatly appreciated by me and, more seriously, appreciated by the Committee and especially appreciated by those in the energy community who will be paying great attention to the words uttered here in this Chamber tonight.
Business without Debate
Environmental Audit
Royal Regiment of Artillery/Corps of Royal Engineers
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
This year marks the tercentenary of the formation of my regiment, the Royal Regiment of Artillery, as well as the 90th birthday of our Captain General, Her Majesty the Queen. It also marks the tercentenary of the formation of the Corps of Royal Engineers, with which we Gunners have had a long sibling rivalry. We share much with the Royal Engineers: our mottos, our patron saint, even the red and blue of our rugby kits and regimental ties. I am pleased to say that a Gunner and a Sapper will share tonight’s Adjournment debate. As my hon. Friend the Minister is no doubt more knowledgeable than I am about the history of his corps, I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I focus on my own regiment, and give him an opportunity to fill in any details about the history of the Royal Engineers that I might miss.
The use of artillery pre-dates Roman times, when slings, catapults, ballistas and trebuchets were used to project missiles in times of war. Records indicate that Edward III may have used cannon against the Scots in 1327, but there is no doubt that he used five primitive guns against the French at the Battle of Crécy in 1346. Taking pot shots at the Scots and the French: what a way to start a career! In those days, the guns were fired from fortified gun pits dug by the Sappers and miners who were the forefathers of modern military engineers. I bet those early Gunners and Sappers slated each other back then just as vigorously as their modern counterparts do today.
It was on 26 May 1716 that the first two permanent companies of Royal Artillery were formed by royal warrant in the reign of George I. Those two companies numbered 100 men each, and were headquartered in Tower Place, which later became the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery is still quartered there, maintaining a 300-year unbroken connection with that part of south-east London. The Royal Artillery’s numbers rose to four companies in 1722, when it merged with two independent artillery companies based in Menorca and Gibraltar, once again establishing a long relationship with those islands. The new unit, formed in 1722, was renamed the Royal Regiment of Artillery.
A military academy was established in Woolwich in 1720 to provide training for Artillery and Engineer officers. Initially it was a gathering of “gentlemen cadets”, learning
“gunnery, fortification, mathematics and a little French”.
It produced
“good officers of Artillery and perfect Engineers”.
Perfect Engineers? Well, they may think that they are perfect, but I am yet to be convinced. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister indicates that he is indeed a perfect example of a perfect Engineer.
The Royal Horse Artillery was formed in 1793, and officers of other branches of Artillery have had to keep an eye out for their sisters and girlfriends ever since.
Artillery technology advanced throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, improving accuracy, range, mobility, reliability and lethality. That tradition of innovation is still alive and well today with the Gunners being at the cutting edge of surveillance, drone technology, communication technology and precision munitions. It was during the Napoleonic wars that British gunnery came into its own, and many gunner officers of that era are still famous in the regiment today and include the well-known names of Ramsay, Bull, Lawson, Mercer, and of course Napoleon himself. Napoleon had the great advantage in life of being a gunner but the great disadvantage of ultimately losing the Napoleonic wars—and of being French.
It was an incident in the oft-forgotten conflict between Great Britain and America in 1814, a few years before our centenary, that led to millions of Americans singing about my regiment every day. It is interesting that on 4 July—American independence day—we are reminded of that event. In the first verse of their national anthem “The Star-Spangled Banner” are the following lines, and if you will forgive me, I think it is only fair that I give them my best rendition:
“And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there”.
Now, I have been told that in order to sing in the Chamber one requires a music and entertainment licence, but as that was neither musical nor entertaining I think I got away with it. The rockets that provided the “red glare” immortalised in the American national anthem were the Congreve rockets fired by the Rocket Troop of the Royal Horse Artillery, and I think that is pretty cool.
Until 1855, the Royal Artillery was commanded through the Board of Ordnance rather than via the War Office, which meant that the Gunners had a completely separate chain of command from the gun line itself right up the monarch of the time, who was the Captain General. This separate chain of command led to the Gunners getting a reputation for being rather independent minded, which led to the following quote, attributed to Wellington:
“I despair of my army. I truly do. The infantry do not understand my orders, the cavalry do not obey my orders, and the artillery make up their own orders.”
Unfortunately, the bicentenary of the Gunners and the Sappers was not celebrated properly because it fell in the middle of the first world war. That conflict saw a huge increase in Royal Artillery numbers, and it is estimated that 800,000 men served as Gunners and 48,499 of those Gunners gave their lives in the conflict. The Great War was often known as the Gunners’ war.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as I served in the Royal Artillery for some eleven and a half years. It is good that we are having this debate tonight. In this decade of centenaries when we particularly remember the first world war—we remembered the Somme just last week—we remember the courage and bravery of the men who gave their lives. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate enables the House to recognise the array of roles carried out by the armed forces, by the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers and by many others?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he is right in what he says. It would have been remiss had I not also mentioned that the Irish Artillery had a significant part to play. Even after the Act of Union, when the Irish Artillery and the Royal Artillery became one unit, Irish soldiers serving in the artillery and in cap badges right across the Army had a huge role to play in our success.
Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s reference to the Battle of the Somme, it is worth remembering that in the famous week-long barrage that preceded that battle the Gunners fired in excess of 1.7 million shells.
The second world war saw another great expansion in the Royal Artillery, with more than 1.2 million people serving as Gunners. More people served in the Royal Artillery than in the entire Royal Navy. Since its formation in May 1716, more than 2.5 million men and women have served as Gunners. Some Gunners are famous for being great military leaders, such as Field Marshal Viscount Alanbrooke, who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff and Winston Churchill’s wartime military leader, but many more are famous for other reasons. The great post-war comedians Frankie Howerd, Spike Milligan and Harry Secombe were all Gunners. Perhaps it is because Gunner officers have to be good at maths that five Chancellors of the Exchequer have been Gunner officers: Anthony Barber; Hugh Dalton; Derick Heathcoat-Amory; Roy Jenkins; and Selwyn Lloyd. My regiment also produced that great proto-Thatcherite Keith Joseph, and, of course, Prime Minister Edward Heath. The Gunners currently give this House five hon. Members: my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) and for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and myself. The Gunners have also produced eight Olympic gold medallists, including Captain Heather Stanning, who won rowing gold in the 2012 games.
To celebrate our tercentenary, the Gunners sent our Captain General’s baton from Woolwich to Larkhill, the long way round. This year-long relay, undertaken by every Gunner unit, went via battlefields across the globe where Gunners have fought and died. The baton, commissioned especially for this anniversary, is in the shape of a Napoleonic gun barrel but made of titanium, thus representing both tradition and modernity. The trip culminated with a parade, a march-past and the firing of a feu de joie before our Captain General in Larkhill. I was delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), attended the parade, completing the historic circle and representing centuries of Gunners and Sappers working side by side.
In conclusion, let me make the point that the Gunners do not have flags or guidons like the infantry or cavalry. The guns of the Royal Artillery are the regiment’s colours. They are the tools of our trade, the badge we wear and our rallying point in battle. Our guns are hugely important to us but, ultimately, just like the Royal Engineers, our most valuable asset is our people. Gunners throughout history and of all ranks have a bond. We may be the size of a corps, but we maintain the intimacy and camaraderie of a regiment. I am honoured to have served with such wonderful people in such a glorious regiment, and I wish it well for the next 300 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
I start, of course, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) on securing this debate, which has allowed this House to show its gratitude for the significant contribution that the Royal Regiment of Artillery and the Corps of Royal Engineers have made to the defence of this country over the past 300 years. I welcome the opportunity to express the Government’s appreciation for their gallant service. It is appropriate for me to respond to my hon. Friend, as we both continue to serve in the reserves, he being a Gunner and I a Sapper. I should say that I am only a Sapper because my father was a Gunner—we thought that perhaps I should upgrade.
We have heard of the exploits of the Gunners and Sappers, and I wish to recap on our history. On 26 May 2016, the Royal Regiment of Artillery and the Corps of Royal Engineers celebrated our 300th birthdays. Whereas they had previously been on the same establishment, a royal warrant of 26 May 1716 separated the artillery and the engineers. From that point, the Royal Artillery and Corps of Engineers came into being, but in recognition of our common heritage we share the motto, Ubique, which means “everywhere”. It may mean slightly different things for each regiment, but we share the motto. Let me address each in turn.
Many things define the Royal Artillery’s achievements. In original thought, it was the first regiment to educate its officers and to undertake formal military exercises. In science, a Royal Artillery officer named Shrapnel invented a shell which still bears his name, and General Congreve’s pioneering rocket designs from the 18th century were still recognisable in equipment recently used in Afghanistan. In scale, Woolwich, the home of the regiment from 1716 to 2008, was the first military-industrial complex in the world, and in the second world war, more than a million men and women wore the Royal Artillery badge and saw action on land, sea and air in every theatre.
In non-military pursuits, Gunners have been prominent in music, the film world, mountaineering, ocean sailing, past and current Olympiads and political leadership, as we have heard, though that is probably equally shared by the Sappers. In the outright distinction of the Gunners, the nation’s debt to Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke is perhaps the greatest example. Along the way there has been much gallantry, heroism, sacrifice and service to the nation and mankind. Sixty-two Gunners have won the Victoria Cross, and since 1945 many Gunners have been decorated for gallantry, including Sergeant Bryan, Gunner Gadsby and Lance Bombardier Prout, who were awarded Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses in recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
During the past year, as we have heard, the Gunners carried out a number of commemorative events, centred around a global relay. A unique baton was made, designed to replicate the barrel of a gun dating from 1716. The baton contained a message of loyal greetings to the Queen, their Captain General, written on a vellum scroll—as it happens, manufactured in my own constituency, in Newport Pagnell—and placed inside the barrel of the replicated gun. In keeping with the regiment’s motto, the baton has, as we have heard, travelled around the world during the past 12 months, starting from Woolwich. It has visited 26 countries, including members of the Commonwealth and our principal allies.
At a review of the regiment by Her Majesty on 26 May at Larkhill in Wiltshire, the home of the Royal Artillery, the baton was carried across Salisbury Plain by two mounted soldiers of the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery, before being presented to the Captain General. The royal review was the culmination of the Royal Artillery tercentenary celebrations and was watched by some 5,000 guests, drawn from the serving regiment and including veterans and families. It began with a 21-gun salute fired by the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery. On parade were 40 Royal Artillery weapon systems and armoured vehicles, together with 240 soldiers and the massed bands of the Royal Artillery. After the parade, many Gunners and their families were introduced to Her Majesty. Later the same day, she unveiled the foundation stone of the tercentenary chapel and cloister at the royal garrison church in Larkhill.
The many members of the Royal Artillery celebrating the tercentenary did so in the knowledge that, although they are shaped by their past, they are defined by what they do today and are ready for what is to come in 2016 and beyond. From the highly sophisticated and integrated means of finding adversaries and protecting our own forces to striking hard, with precision and at range, the regiment’s capability comprises a wide variety of weapon systems. The unique ability of the Royal Artillery to integrate and co-ordinate battle-winning effects and activity across all arms and covering the full spectrum of conflict will continue to be needed in the future as military operations grow in complexity.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am not a military person myself, but I have the honour of being an associate member of the Institution of Royal Engineers. I was awarded that honour for the work that I did with the 72 Regiment, which was headquartered in my constituency. I also am a member of the institute of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, with whom I visited the Somme last weekend.
Mark Lancaster
I am delighted to hear that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his continuing support of the Corps of Royal Engineers and our armed forces.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, was a brief summary of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. If you think that was good, it is about to get even better.
The Royal Engineers have had no less of an impact on the Army during their 300 years. From the middle of the 19th century, the Royal Engineers were involved in virtually every scientific development and technical function of the Army, and they were typically in the lead. From the time of the Crimean war, their name has forever been associated with the cry “Follow the Sapper”, reflecting their guiding roles on the battlefield and in technical innovation.
From mapping to construction, transport to communications and diving to flying, the Royal Engineers were at the forefront of nurturing new ideas and capabilities. That included a variety of famous civil endeavours. Lieutenant-Colonel John By played a major role in the early development of Canada, including in the building of the Rideau canal—now a world heritage site—in the 1820s. The Royal Albert hall was designed by two Royal Engineers, Major-General Henry Scott and Captain Francis Fowke. Major-General Edmund Du Cane and Colonel Sir Joshua Jebb directed many of the prison reforms during the Victorian era. Others continued the work of their forebears in the Ordnance Survey by conducting mapping operations across the British empire, and many made names for themselves as colonial governors in the West Indies and Australia.
The roles of the Royal Engineers were many and varied, and they had a critical involvement in scientific change. Over time, some of those roles were relinquished. In 1912, the Air Battalion became the Military Wing of the Royal Flying Corps, and subsequently the Royal Air Force. In 1914, responsibility for mechanical transport was transferred to the newly formed Royal Army Service Corps. In 1920, the Royal Corps of Signals was formed out of the Royal Engineers Signals Service.
It was said that Queen Victoria wept when she heard that Major-General Charles Gordon, a national hero, was killed at Khartoum. One of the Sappers’ other famous forebears was Field Marshal Lord Kitchener, who went on to become the Secretary of State for War in August 1914. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the field marshal’s untimely death at sea.
A total of 32 Victoria Crosses and 14 George Crosses have been awarded to members of the corps for conspicuous bravery not only on the battlefield but in areas away from the direct line of enemy fire. Many of the latter were awarded for explosive ordnance disposal, or bomb disposal, and are in recognition—sadly, too often posthumously—of actions that saved not only countless lives but property, both small and great, including St Paul’s cathedral, which was rescued from an unexploded bomb by a team of ten Sappers commanded by Lieutenant Robert Davies in September 1940. As a Royal Engineer bomb disposal officer, I am fiercely proud to wear my bomb disposal regimental tie this evening, in memory of those who sacrificed their lives.
Celebrations of the tercentenary are being conducted right across the regular and reserve units of the Royal Engineers and the 106 branches of the Royal Engineers Association. These events have included a series of open days across all regiments of the corps and a musical extravaganza in Rochester castle in July. The events will culminate with the corps memorial weekend in September, followed by a visit from Her Majesty, the Colonel-in-Chief, in October.
The Corps of Royal Engineers has an equally proud history, which has seen Sappers take a prominent role in every major campaign and action fought by the British Army over the last 300 years, whether they were building barracks or bridges, constructing fortifications or field works, or delivering power or water—in other words, enabling the Army to live, move and fight.
That set of essential tasks continues to this day. It sees the corps at the forefront of operational deployments, enabling and supporting all elements of the UK armed forces. In addition to counter-improvised explosive device training in Iraq, and training members of the Afghan national army in Kabul, these deployments include a significant construction project in the Falkland Islands. There is also the provision of assistance to Nepal after the earthquake last year, where the corps is assisting with reconstruction in remote areas in support of the Gurkha Welfare Trust.
In both cases, three centuries have forged strong regiments and determined their character. “Once a Sapper, always a Sapper” and “Once a Gunner, always a Gunner” are the proud and justified boasts of the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery. Today, our units are well supported by strong central regimental headquarters, comprising a positive mix of military, civil service and charity staff.
Our common enterprising, can-do character and willingness of spirit will continue to define both corps everywhere they may serve. That professional heritage encompasses a preparedness to embrace technology, a determination to apply it intelligently on the battlefield and an essential competence in all they do.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to express the Government’s appreciation for the service of the Royal Regiment of Artillery and the Corps of Royal Engineers in the year of our tercentenary. As you gather, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been both a fierce rivalry and a common bond between the two regiments for over 300 years. None the less, this evening and in the spirit of the occasion, I am delighted that, as a Sapper, I have the final word.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2016.
Good afternoon, Mr Wilson. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon? I hope this measure will not detain the Committee for too long.
The order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to keeping safeguarding measures in step with developments elsewhere. The amendments contained within it seek to maintain the balance between the rehabilitation of offenders and the need to protect the public.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 seeks to aid the reintegration into society of offenders who put their criminal past behind them. It does so by declaring certain cautions and convictions as spent after a specified period of time. Once a caution or conviction has become spent, an ex-offender is not required to declare it when entering most kinds of employment or applying for insurance, for example, and it cannot be taken into account; that is, ex-offenders are treated as if they had not been charged with or convicted of an offence at all.
Research has consistently shown that obtaining employment is an important factor in reducing the risk of offending. However, there must, of course, be a balance to ensure that members of the public are adequately protected. To that end, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 creates exceptions to the 1974 Act so that in some circumstances all spent as well as unspent convictions and cautions must be disclosed and may be taken into account when assessing a person’s suitability for certain positions. When, for example, a person applies for a job listed in the exceptions order, the employer is entitled to ask about certain spent convictions and cautions as well as those that are unspent.
The areas of activity included in the exceptions order require a high degree of trust and often involve vulnerable persons. It is therefore right that an employer should know a person’s fuller criminal history before an offer of employment is made and that consideration can be given to any necessary safeguards to be put in place. It is the exceptions order that sets out the exceptions to the general protections under the 1974 Act.
The Police Act 1997 is the related legislation that sets out the process for the issue of criminal record certificates, otherwise known as standard disclosure, and of enhanced criminal record certificates. Standard disclosure contains details of a person’s unprotected spent cautions and convictions; enhanced disclosure includes, in addition, any information that the chief officer of police considers relevant to the particular application. Disclosure certificates are issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service.
The 2016 order will introduce three amendments to the exceptions order. The first is designed to align the exceptions order with the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 in relation to certain regulated activities with children; the second creates exceptions for certain roles in the Independent Police Complaints Commission; the third relates to judicial appointments, which are already covered by the exceptions order, to allow for wider disclosure of criminal conviction information.
There is an anomaly between the exceptions order and the connected Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 that needs to be rectified. The 2002 regulations cover both regulated activity relating to children that is unsupervised and carried out on a frequent basis, such as teaching, and any activity that would be defined as a regulated activity relating to children if it were done frequently, such as the provision of health and palliative care to children who are sick or disabled, or childminding on a one-off basis during school holidays. Currently, however, only activity carried out frequently is covered by the exceptions order. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to align the order with the Police Act regulations so that positions involving unsupervised work with children on an infrequent basis are eligible for enhanced criminal records checks.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission was established by the Police Reform Act 2002 and became operational in April 2004. The IPCC’s primary statutory purpose is to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. It makes decisions independently of the police, Government and interest groups. It investigates the most serious complaints and incidents involving the police across England and Wales as well as handles certain appeals from people who are not satisfied with how the police have dealt with their complaints.
The IPCC is currently undertaking a three-year programme of change and expansion, which means that, by the end of 2017, it will independently investigate all serious and sensitive cases. That expansion has increased the number of cases and breadth of matters being investigated, which includes an increased number of allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation and allegations concerning the abuse of vulnerable adults. The amendment to the exceptions order will commit the IPCC to ask for and take into account the unprotected spent convictions and cautions of those staff and commissioners who have contact with vulnerable adults or who have access to sensitive and personal information relating to children and vulnerable adults.
Contact with children by commissioners and other IPCC staff is already covered by other provisions in the exceptions order relating to regulated activity. Similarly, the IPCC will be able to ask for disclosure of such information when recruiting to those roles. It is important that IPCC staff and commissioners undertaking that work should be subject to disclosure of unprotected spent cautions and convictions to assess their suitability for those roles. The amendment to the exceptions order provides for that.
The Judicial Appointments Commission is an independent commission established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates of good character for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Prior to the Act, appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor. Magistrates fall outside the remit of the JAC. They are appointed by the senior presiding judge, but they are assessed for suitability in the same way as judicial appointees. Judicial appointments are already covered by the exceptions order, which means that the JAC is currently entitled to ask candidates for details of their unspent convictions and those spent cautions and convictions that are not protected from disclosure, and it can take that information into account.
I need to explain what we mean by protected cautions and convictions. It used to be the case that where an occupation or activity was listed in the exceptions order, full disclosure of all spent cautions and convictions was required. In May 2013, however, following a Court of Appeal judgment that was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Government amended the exceptions order to provide that certain old and minor spent cautions and convictions were protected from routine disclosure and criminal record certificates—in other words, they are filtered from certificates and they do not have to be disclosed by individuals; nor can they be taken into account by employers.
Since the change in policy, the JAC has therefore been entitled to take into account only unprotected spent cautions and convictions. However, the Lord Chief Justice has asked for the commission to be added to the limited number of roles—for example, the police—for which it is considered necessary and proportionate to be allowed to request the disclosure of all cautions and convictions, including those that are protected. The JAC is clear that disclosure of old and minor cautions and convictions is required to mitigate the risk to the integrity of the judiciary, should details of an appointee’s previous caution or conviction subsequently emerge. That is because of the unique position of the judiciary and magistracy for which the significance of a caution or conviction is considered much greater. It is a requirement that judges be of good character, and were that good character not possessed, there would be potential damage to the public’s confidence in their constitutional function. The amendment will allow full disclosure of spent cautions and convictions by disapplying the provisions of the exceptions order that would otherwise protect certain such cautions and convictions from disclosure.
Before the Government agreed to support such a change, we asked the commission to put in place a clear and transparent recruitment policy for the treatment of old and minor cautions and convictions to ensure that all applications would be treated objectively and fairly. Proper and balanced consideration will be given to any old and minor spent convictions that are disclosed, and they will not automatically preclude an applicant from taking up a judicial appointment. The JAC good character guidance has been updated, and if Parliament approves the amendment, that guidance will be available to candidates once the order comes into force.
The instrument illustrates our commitment to update legislation when necessary to protect the public, in line with the latest analysis of risks. It is focused on maintaining the correct public protection balance. The amendments to the exceptions order are limited in scope but will ensure that employers can request and take into account the convictions and cautions of individuals who work closely with vulnerable people and those investigating child abuse, and will preserve the integrity of the judiciary.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Wilson. I thank the Minister for outlining the order, which will make amendments to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in relation to current regulated activities under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, in that certain members of staff and commissioners of the IPCC, and candidates seeking appointment to judicial office, will have to have an enhanced criminal records check. The Minister outlined a further category in relation to the Police Act 1997.
I understand that there has been no public consultation on the Judicial Appointments Commission amendment but key stakeholders were consulted. I, too, have consulted key stakeholders. Will the Minister explain why there was no public consultation on that amendment and identify the key stakeholders that were consulted about the amendment?
The order extends the number of roles for which employers will be entitled to know about spent convictions. Will the Minister please outline what support and/or guidance the Government will give to employers to ensure that that change does not result in a blanket refusal to employ people with spent convictions who are legitimately seeking to lead law-abiding lives? There are many ways in which risk can be managed; the challenge is knowing about it and dealing with it rather than avoiding it altogether. I am concerned that employers may feel that the best approach is to eliminate risk completely by not employing people who have criminal records.
Although it is extremely important that we do all we can to facilitate the employment of ex-offenders, we know that public safety must always be paramount. Subject to the Minister’s clarification on those issues, the Opposition welcome the amendments, as they ensure that further checks will be carried out into the backgrounds of those who are working with vulnerable people and on extremely sensitive issues to assess their suitability for such roles.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I support entirely the aims of the order and my Front-Bench colleague’s position, not least on the provisions about the protection of children, which I think we would all agree is crucial. However, I have become aware of an unusual case in my constituency that I want to share with the Minister, because it shows that some inconsistencies exist within the current system of sensitive occupations for which convictions may or may not have to be disclosed. If I might put that case to the Minister, perhaps he will come back to me in writing or express his views on it, because I think it is worth looking at.
The case concerns a constituent who has served extensively in the British armed forces, including as a Royal Military Police officer, and has also been on detachment to police forces in other countries around the world. He served with distinction and in fact has been commended for his work both with the RMP and when attached to an overseas police force, but unfortunately, he received a relatively minor conviction as a teenager, I believe involving the theft of a motor vehicle. From what I gather about the case, he is completely reformed and had served with distinction in the forces and in those roles. He wanted to serve in the police force in this country, not least given his experience, but he has been told at various points that that would not be possible because that would involve the disclosure of that relatively minor offence from his teenage years and because of the risk that that may pose.
There does seem to be an inconsistency, however, because although he was allowed to serve as an RMP officer and with a police force in another country, he appears to be barred from joining the police force in this country. Indeed, when I have spoken to police officers who know him, they argue he is exactly the sort of person they would want to recruit, not least given his extensive experience and commitment to the role, but they cannot do that because of those inconsistencies. Interestingly, he applied and got accepted for and now works as a prison officer, which one would argue is an important and sensitive role for which such matters should be disclosed.
I accept that such cases are extremely rare and often extremely unusual, but I would appreciate it if the Minister would look into that and the wider consistency of application. I think my constituent feels that there is at least an inconsistency if not an injustice which means he cannot apply to be a police officer. I say that while fully agreeing with the Minister that this is an important order and I entirely support the principles behind it.
Andrew Selous
I will do my best to respond to the various points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth raised a valid, real-life case from his constituency and I will ask the police Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to respond because, as I am not the policing Minister, I am not qualified to speak about the police’s requirements. However, the point made about the gentleman serving as a Royal Military Police officer and currently being a prison officer is valid, so I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman on that.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cardiff Central as strongly as I can that I am absolutely passionate about ex-offender employment and I am doing everything I possibly can to get employers to realise that there is a good business case for it. We have many successful examples of ex-offenders who have gone on to be extremely valuable members of staff. Indeed, what I hear by and large from employers is very high-quality feedback: people have really appreciated being given that second chance and taken full advantage of it. That tends to benefit employers in terms of the length of time employees stay and the commitment they show. I do not believe that anything in the order will put that in doubt in any way.
The hon. Lady made the valuable point that the order is about giving employers knowledge, but we ask them to assess intelligently the information provided to them. She made a good point about disclosure not automatically leading to a blanket ban. That is very much the case in terms of judicial appointments.
If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady about consultation on the JAC. I know informal consultations took place and that there was wide support. I also know concerns had been raised by the Lord Chief Justice on seeking the changes as far as the Judicial Appointments Commission is concerned. I hope that that has reassured the Committee. As I said, I commit to write back to the hon. Lady on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) Order 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair looking after us, Mr Percy, as always. The draft order establishes a pilot scheme in Birmingham, Ryedale and South Lakeland. The electoral registration officer in each of the specified areas will test new and innovative approaches to canvassing. The Electoral Commission will report on the pilot scheme and provide a copy of its evaluation to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the EROs by the end of June, and the order will cease to have effect in July 2017.
As some members of the Committee might already be aware, the process for household canvass is micromanaged in excruciating detail under the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001. Electoral registration officers are required to send an annual canvass form—household enquiry form or HEF—to every property in their area. The HEF asks residents to set out whether there has been any change in the composition of households since the previous year’s canvass, to identify whether any residents should be added to or removed from the register. When no response is received, as is more often than not the case, EROs have to issue up to two further forms and to carry out at least one home visit.
The aim of the canvass is obviously sensible, but many EROs and electors find the procedure frustrating and confusing. Electors who know themselves to be registered do not understand why, none the less, they might receive three letters and a visit from the local ERO. It is particularly baffling when it happens a matter of weeks after an election. This year, for example, many citizens will have voted in local, devolved, or police and crime commissioner elections in May, the European Union referendum in June, and perhaps even a by-election as well. When the annual canvass takes place between July and December, however, they will solemnly be sent fresh inquiries about their registration status. Only 20% of households will have changed over the course of a year, so the majority of canvass activity is entirely fruitless; 80% of the population will be “no change” on the electoral register.
That heavily bureaucratic process stifles innovation and throttles new and more digital approaches at birth. From knowing the local area or from having access to other local council data, EROs might already know that Mrs Smith, who has been living at Acacia Avenue in Little Dribbling for the past 50 years, has not pulled up sticks since the previous month’s election. Yet if Mrs Smith fails to respond to her first HEF, she will receive two more letters and a visit, because they are legally required. I think we can all agree that that is simply not a good use of EROs’ resources or taxpayers’ money.
In passing, given recent innovations in online registration, electoral events such as the recent EU referendum may drive registration sharply upwards to new heights. Electoral registration officers are therefore telling me that the existing system of canvassing in advance of a poll, or immediately after one in the summer, may not be the best approach for the modern world.
We clearly need to move from an old-fashioned, paper-based, process-driven system to one that is flexible and digital, makes use of local data, and is focused on outcomes rather than outputs. The solution proposed, the impetus for which has come from EROs themselves, is to test alternative methods for conducting the annual canvass that are digital, cost-effective, modern and capable of securing the same or higher results than the existing process.
The pilots will take place in Birmingham, Ryedale and South Lakeland, as I said. In each area the EROs will be operating control groups and pilot groups, so that the results of the approaches may be rigorously evaluated. In Ryedale, which can be characterised as a predominantly rural area with a largely static population, pilot groups will receive household notification letters, rather than the usual household enquiry form. The HNL, sent by post, will list the details of everyone registered to vote in that household and will advise residents to take action only when the details shown are no longer up to date. They may take action to correct them, if necessary, by informing the ERO of changes over the internet or by phone. New residents will be asked to register online or invited to register by their ERO. The issuing of HNLs will be supported by awareness-raising activities in the media, on the council website and on social media.
In Birmingham and South Lakeland, electors’ registration details will first be compared against local data resources. Council data will be checked and when the details are found to match, households will be sent a household notification letter—by email where possible—to which electors will be required to respond only if changes are needed. The same process as in Ryedale will be gone through after that.
We have of course consulted the Electoral Commission on the pilot proposals. It has been very supportive of the plans and has been involved in the early stages of their development. Consultation has also taken place with the Association of Electoral Administrators and Solace—the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers. That is in addition to the work we have been doing directly with interested councils, which have proposed many of the ideas being trialled in the pilots.
As we have discussed with the Electoral Commission, subject to the outcome of these pilots the Government’s intention is to make permanent legislative changes to the annual canvass. It is likely that we will look to launch a second round of canvass pilots in 2017 to trial other ideas too. Although the purpose of the pilots is to give EROs the space to innovate and test alternative, more effective approaches, I underline that the integrity of the register will be maintained throughout the pilots. Electoral registration officers have always had, and will continue to have, a duty under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to maintain the registers, and nothing in the order changes that. With that in mind, the Government believe that this statutory instrument is a crucial step towards improving the annual canvass and wider registration process, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I welcome this opportunity to discuss a pilot scheme that aims to improve the electoral registration process.
Sadly, the Government’s record on this area to date is poor. As a result of the Government’s rushed move to individual voter registration, 1.5 million people went missing from the electoral register from 2014. That is on top of an estimated 7.5 million people who were missing from the register prior to that date. The fact that so many of our citizens are disfranchised is a national scandal.
This debate is particularly timely, given the chaotic scenes we saw last month. In the hours leading up to the voter registration deadline for the EU referendum, so many people attempted to register that they crashed the Government’s website. There could not be a clearer indication of the need to improve the completeness of our electoral registers as a matter of routine. The Government must ensure that in future elections or referendums, individuals are not forced into a last-minute scramble to register.
I note that the Electoral Commission has given the pilot schemes a cautious welcome, with certain conditions. It states:
“The aims and objectives of the schemes must be well-defined and clearly stated, and include clear evaluation criteria to enable a proper assessment of their impact on the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register; the convenience of electoral registration for electors; and the costs of the electoral registration process.”
I am aware that Ministers do not always listen to the advice of the Electoral Commission, particularly when they want to push through individual voter registration ahead of the boundary review, but I hope that they will do so on this occasion. It would be useful if the Minister could provide further information on how he plans to evaluate the effectiveness of these schemes.
In particular, the proposal in article 5 to give electoral registration officers more discretion over how they contact households as part of the annual canvass is interesting. Will the Minister clarify how he will monitor whether the most appropriate method of canvassing a household is chosen by EROs over simply the cheapest? For example, an email or telephone call may end up being more cost-effective than a letter or a visit to an address. However, if the call is made while everyone in a household is at work, or if an email is sent to a defunct email address or simply ends up in a junk folder, some individuals may, in effect, receive no contact at all encouraging them to register.
In addition, how does the Minister plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilots in registering groups who we know are particularly poorly represented on the electoral register? Prior to the EU referendum, Bite the Ballot estimated that about 30% of young people aged 18 to 24 are not on the register. Certain black and minority ethnic groups are also woefully under-represented on it. According to the Electoral Commission, the registration rate for black people is only 76%, and for people of mixed ethnicity the rate is 73.4%. In 2014 the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee found that
“turnout for people from BME groups once they are registered to vote does not differ significantly from turnout for White British residents who are registered to vote.”
Although this is clearly a complex issue, that suggests that if we can find a way of improving registration rates among these BME groups, it would go a long way towards increasing the percentage of people who cast their vote at elections.
The Opposition look forward to monitoring the pilots and will work with the Government in supporting measures that are effective in improving the accuracy and completeness of the annual canvass.
John Penrose
I will endeavour to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I start by saying that I completely agree that the so-called missing millions—people who have never been on the electoral register—is indeed a national scandal. There are some groups that are woefully under-registered and therefore woefully under-represented in our democracy. I hope that we can all agree, on a cross-party basis, that that needs to be put right. In fact, I think it is stronger and better if we can agree on that on a cross-party basis, because it will reassure people, whichever under-represented group they may be in, that this is not something in which one particular party has a party political axe to grind for its electoral advantage; it is something that is right for democracy, no matter what. If we can make common cause—I am pleased to hear that we are—we can make progress.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that some BME groups are woefully under-represented. She mentioned young black males in particular, but there are other groups as well. It is interesting to note that in some areas some BME groups are over-represented—not in terms of there being too many of them, but because their representation is above the national average. That is to be welcomed. There is nothing necessarily linked to being part of the BME community that means they must be under-represented or that they are necessarily hard to reach. Different approaches need to apply to different communities within the BME classification. A tailored approach is needed for each, because the problems are clearly not the same in every case.
The hon. Lady also mentioned other groups. Students are frequently cited, but they are actually an example of a much broader category of people who live in short-term rented accommodation, for which levels of registration are a great deal lower. That is not necessarily because people do not want to register, but because, as a practical matter, it is relatively difficult for the local electoral registration officer to keep up with people who move quite regularly. They may therefore lose track of those people, who will drop off the register at that point.
There is one other group that is by far the largest, in terms of numbers, and also the least well-represented on the register in terms of percentage registration: expatriate voters. We currently have a couple million ex-pats who have been living abroad for less than 15 years. They are legally entitled to vote but only something like 5% of them are currently registered. That is a huge scandal. It is actually far worse than any of the other groups we have been talking about, and in some cases worse than several of them put together. We need to ensure that they are included in any of our calculations.
The hon. Lady specifically asked how we will evaluate the success or failure of some of those canvass pilots. Clearly not all of them will be successful. I mentioned that local authorities will be running control groups as well as pilot groups, so these will be properly controlled experiments that can be used to compare those groups within the same area or within neighbouring areas where the new process has been applied. The outcomes and results will be independently evaluated by the Electoral Commission to ensure that an independent view is taken. It will want to be as rigorous and scientific in its approach as possible, and we will therefore learn a great deal about what does and does not work.
Another idea that we are considering is effectively to set up an online academy where the results of these pilots and others will be published in a transparent fashion, so that everyone can see which bits worked and which did not. That will be of interest not only to us as elected parliamentarians, but to electoral registration officers elsewhere in the country. They will be able to look at what has happened in Birmingham, Ryedale or wherever and see which techniques might be useful and they might want to copy. They will be able to see the detail, the methodology applied and the outcomes, and they will publish their results when they try it, too, therefore creating a virtuous circle of learning.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Minister and I have debated the anomalies in Tower Hamlets before, where there have been accusations of electoral fraud and so on. How will the Electoral Commission accommodate those anomalies into the overall scheme of things to make sure that the results are not skewed and that they provide a result that is of benefit to local authorities in understanding the best way to go forward?
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have debated this in the past, and the only point on which I disagree with his comments is that we are now talking not just about accusations of electoral fraud, but about actual convictions. The situation is a great deal worse than people might otherwise think.
John Penrose
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not defending them at all; he is pursuing the need to improve things. The answer to his question is that, because we are trialling these different ideas with control groups—it is not quite a randomised control trial, but it is the closest we can get to a genuinely scientific method in these situations—we should be able to compare places in which they have and have not been tried. The differences will be readily apparent and will be auditable and accessible to those elsewhere in the country, if we go ahead with the idea of an online academy.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked what would happen if somebody’s email address was out of date, and whether they would get no contact from the local electoral registration officer as a result. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the initial household notification letter in these trials will be sent by post and will land on the doormat at a physical address. Follow-ups can then be done online or in some other way, but the initial contact will still happen by post.
In the two areas where the trials will be backed up by local council data, if there is no follow-up contact and the local electoral registration officer knows, for example, that someone is on the council tax database but is not responding in a particular area, they can then focus their resources and efforts on that address because there is likely to be somebody there who is not responding and is not registered. Incidentally, it may be that somebody is not responding because they are not a legitimate voter—they might be a foreign national and therefore ineligible to vote—but it is important for the electoral registration officer to pursue that point to a satisfactory resolution if they know from other records that somebody is there.
I hope that has answered the points we have been dealing with and reassured everybody, and that we can therefore approve the draft order forthwith.
Question put and agreed to.
Child Support Agency
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
EBacc: Expressive Arts Subjects
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 111731 relating to expressive arts subjects and the EBacc.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As a member of the Petitions Committee and the Select Committee on Education, I am delighted to introduce the debate. The title of the petition, which was signed by more than 102,000 people, is “Include expressive arts subjects in the Ebacc”. It reads:
“The English Baccalaureate, or Ebacc, is a standard which maintains that English, maths, science, a language and a humanity define a good education. The exclusion of art, music, drama and other expressive subjects is limiting, short sighted and cruel. Creativity must be at the heart of our schools.
Sec of State for Education, Nicky Morgan, states that she wants 90% of sixteen year olds to have The Ebacc. Numeracy and literacy are certainly key to future success in life, but it is wrong to say that the arts are not worthy of inclusion in a measure used to grade a school’s success. Our children deserve a broad, creative education, but the Ebacc is giving rise to massive declines in numbers of students able to choose arts subjects, at a time when the CBI demands more creative people.”
The petition was created by Richard Wilson, a drama teacher from Essex, because, as he explained, the
“marginalisation and downgrading of the arts and other creative subjects in state education is a topic which demands a debate in the Houses of Parliament.”
So here we are. Indeed, he says:
“The EBacc will have a dreadful impact on the arts in our schools.”
Mr Wilson’s petition was able to achieve the level of support it has thanks to the work of the Bacc for the Future campaign, and I know a number of people are here today, paying close attention to the debate. There is support from more than 200 organisations from the UK’s cultural sector, including the Design Council, the Creative Industries Federation, the BRIT school, Aardman Animations, the north-east’s Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, trade unions, orchestras, museums, art galleries, theatres, performing arts colleges, festivals, creative industry businesses and many more—all united in the belief that the Government’s education policies and specifically the EBacc risk profoundly damaging Britain’s rich and vibrant history of creativity and cultural achievement.
Those concerns have been passionately reflected in the countless emails and briefing notes that I have received ahead of this afternoon’s debate, and the responses I received to last week’s EBacc Twitter debate, which was kindly facilitated by the Petitions Committee Clerks. I have no doubt that everyone here today shares that passion and recognises the intrinsic value of the arts and arts education for society and the enjoyment and fulfilment they bring to children and adults in all walks of life across the UK. Of course, the opportunity of a creative education must be available to all—a view that appeared to be shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he wrote earlier this year:
“everyone—no matter who they are or where they come from—should have an equal opportunity to fulfil their creative potential.”
In a speech launching the Government’s life chances strategy in January, the Prime Minister pledged that
“culture should never be a privilege; it is a birthright that belongs to us all. But the truth is there are too many young people in Britain who are culturally disenfranchised. And if you believe in publicly funded arts and culture—as I passionately do—then you must also believe in equality of access, attracting all and welcoming all.”
The White Paper published in March by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could not have been clearer, making a commitment that
“All state-funded schools must provide a broad and balanced curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. Experiencing and understanding culture is integral to education. Knowledge of great works of art, great music, great literature and great plays, and of their creators, is an important part of every child’s education. So too is being taught to play a musical instrument, to draw, paint and make things, to dance and to act. These can all lead to lifelong passions and can open doors to careers in the cultural and creative sectors and elsewhere. Without this knowledge and these skills, many children from disadvantaged backgrounds are excluded from meaningful engagement with their culture and heritage.”
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that those subjects are widely available at the moment, with the EBacc in place, and that the premise of the EBacc is to provide a core of academically rigorous subjects? Perhaps our attention should be on the evolution of the EBacc to include such subjects as design and technology, and on enhancing students’ career potential, rather than on including in it every subject currently offered in the curriculum.
Catherine McKinnell
It is helpful that the hon. Lady suggests a solution to the concerns I have outlined. The reality for the organisations, teachers and schools that have expressed concern to me in great numbers is that the take-up of the subjects she mentions is already starting to decline, which is of huge concern. I appreciate that she is trying to make constructive comments, but she cannot wipe out the fact that the concerns are real and must be addressed. I hope that the Minister is listening not only to me but to constructive solutions that may be offered.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredibly insulting to the country’s music and art teachers to give the impression that the subjects in question are not academically rigorous? Does she know how hard it is to pass music and art?
Catherine McKinnell
My right hon. Friend makes a key point, which a number of people have put to me in strong terms; he puts it very well. I do know how hard it is to pass those subjects, partly from personal experience and that of people close to me, but partly from the people, including teachers, I spoke to ahead the debate. Frankly, they feel insulted by the tone of the Government’s proposals.
We are all aware that the education sector is going through a period of significant and seemingly never-ending change and reform, of which the EBacc is a part. It was initially planned as a formal certificate, but that idea was dropped. It was first applied by the coalition Government in 2010 as a
“headline measure of secondary school performance”.
It judges all schools according to the number of pupils who have achieved grades A* to C across English language and literature, maths, double science, history or geography and a language—subjects that, when studied at A-level, are defined by the Russell Group of universities as “facilitating”. In other words, they are the A-levels most commonly required for entry to the UK’s leading universities, which are attended by 11% of young people.
Following a consultation in November 2015, the Government now want at least 90% of students in mainstream secondary schools to be entered for the EBacc by 2020, thereby taking up at least seven of those students’ GCSE options. The Bacc for the Future campaign has raised concerns that, given that the average number of full GCSEs taken by pupils is 8.1,
“a compulsory EBacc will leave little, if any, room for rigorous, challenging creative subjects which have been approved by the Government’s own Wolf Review of vocational education.”
Nobody doubts the importance of young people’s gaining a solid foundation in English, maths and science; that is why those subjects have always been compulsory. However, the petition objects to the exclusion from the EBacc all creative, artistic and technical subjects, which sends a clear message to young people, parents, teachers, school leaders and society at large about the value that the Government place on subjects that help to create expressive, communicative, self-confident and well rounded human beings. For many young people, those may be the only subjects at which they excel.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. Is it not ironic that what we need for the economy of the future and the digital revolution of the future is the breaking down of rather traditional arts and science silos? Creative subjects provide exactly the kind of skills and training that will let young people succeed. We would be mad to strip those subjects out of our education system, not least because we are rather good at them.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point.
The question that has been asked over and over again is: why? I hope the Minister will answer that question today. Why would the Government want to limit opportunities to study subjects such as design and technology? The Edge Foundation commented during last week’s EBacc Twitter debate:
“D&T teaches young people how things are designed, developed, made and improved”.
As the National Society for Education in Art and Design succinctly put it,
“In life ‘knowing how’ is just as important as ‘knowing that’.”
I am quite sure that the Minister will pledge in his response that the Government have no intention of restricting access to these subjects. Indeed, in the culture White Paper, the Education Secretary declared that
“Access to cultural education is a matter of social justice.”
However, warm words are simply not enough. What does the Minister really think will be the result of forcing all schools, which are already hard-pressed, to enter 90% of their pupils for the EBacc? A headteacher and member of the organisation SCHOOLS NorthEast has commented that the EBacc creates a “false hierarchy of subjects”. The National Association of Head Teachers has remarked:
“Given the pressures created by the Ebacc, there will be precious little time left for subjects outside the core.”
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
I did not intend to intervene, but I will do so on that point. The hon. Lady referred to a hierarchy of English, maths and science, so there is already a hierarchy. Does she want to remove that element of compulsion up to 16 in order to eradicate that hierarchy?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for intervening simply because it shows that he is listening to the debate, which is good. However, those were not my words; they were the words of a SCHOOLS NorthEast member, who has said that the EBacc creates not a hierarchy but a false hierarchy. I said at the beginning of my comments that nobody questions the importance of maths, English and science as a foundation of learning, but the restrictive nature of the EBacc leaves no room for artistic subjects. I am pleased the Minister is listening so carefully.
Who could blame headteachers for wanting to focus all of their schools’ energies on delivering the EBacc’s results, whether or not the subjects studied are appropriate for their pupils? They hear repeated warnings, including in the Conservative party manifesto, that their school will not be able to receive the highest rating from Ofsted if they do not meet their EBacc targets. I know the Education Secretary believes that those expressing concerns about the EBacc are “adults writing off children”, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are seeing a Government restricting young people’s life chances by forcing them to focus on a narrow and restrictively defined group of subjects. They are concerned about a Government reducing the ability of schools such as Walbottle Campus in my constituency to deliver a balanced and creative curriculum tailored to each young person’s talents and needs and focusing on the overall experience and wellbeing of their students. Of course, this is a Government who are determined to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to GCSEs at a time when they claim to be introducing autonomy for all headteachers and local schools through academisation.
The Schools Minister has repeatedly claimed that there is no evidence the EBacc is having a negative impact on the arts, substantiating that with the argument that in the past five years there has been a 3% increase in the uptake of at least one arts subject. We may well hear that again in his response today, but the Bacc for the Future campaign has stated that those figures are flawed as they omit various BTEC qualifications, include early entry AS-levels and neglect design and technology, in which exam entries dropped by a staggering 19,000 last year. Indeed, new figures produced just last month show that entries for GCSEs in arts subjects have fallen by 46,000 this year compared with last year—a loss five times the one in 2015, when candidate numbers for arts subjects fell by 9,000. The ArtsProfessional website reported:
“The falling take-up of arts GCSEs has already started to spill over into A levels. There were 4,300 fewer candidates for A level arts subjects this year—a decline three times bigger than the 1,500 recorded in 2015.”
Of most concern is the claim by the Creative Industries Federation that schools with a high proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals have been more than twice as likely to withdraw arts subjects as those with a low proportion. So much for access to cultural education being a matter of social justice. Of course, that decline is taking place even before the EBacc has become compulsory in our schools. The chief executive of the Creative Industries Federation said that the decline is
“alarming and further confirms a longstanding trend that EBacc is clearly exacerbating.”
He went on to comment:
“For a sector already suffering skills shortages, undervaluing and excluding creative subjects has major ramifications. The impact will not only be felt by the creative economy but also by other sectors, such as engineering, that desperately need some of the same skills. Although it is possible to take up jobs in our sector without exam results in creative subjects, it is much harder and potentially more expensive to do so, which obviously further diminishes the chances for young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds. There are many people who are not academic in a traditional sense and who would struggle with the EBacc yet are thriving and excelling today in careers from fashion to video games. If creative subjects are increasingly painted as an ‘optional extra’ to a more traditional core curriculum, these are some of the people who could be lost in future.”
As the Chancellor highlighted in his 2015 autumn statement,
“Britain is not just brilliant at science; it is brilliant at culture too. One of the best investments we can make as a nation is in our extraordinary arts, museums, heritage, media and sport.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1368.]
I agree. The Government’s own figures show that the creative industries are one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, worth more than £84 billion a year or nearly £10 million an hour. According to the CBI, the creative industries employ some 2 million people, with around one in 11 jobs found in the creative economy. Critically, as the Creative Industries Federation highlights, those roles are broadly protected from automation.
This is an area in which Great Britain genuinely leads the world but one in which we have a significant skills shortage, so much so that a range of roles in the creative industries are included in the Home Office’s tier 2 visa shortage occupation list—for example, graphic designers, programmers, software developers, artists, producers, directors, dancers and skilled musicians. Nevertheless, this is the time when the Department for Education is determined to force schools down a path that will inevitably lead to even fewer British students taking up the subjects and developing the skills that the UK’s burgeoning creative industries desperately need. As has been made clear by Artists’ Union England—a relatively new trade union established by my constituent Theresa Easton—
“The new EBacc proposals will leave the creative sector without a future workforce.”
It is absolutely nonsensical.
Of particular concern is the evidence highlighted by the Creative Industries Federation’s higher and further education working group, which shows that many of the courses that need students to have studied art and design at school level also have high levels of students with special educational needs. The group cites remarks by the British Dyslexia Association that
“People with dyslexia are frequently successful in entrepreneurship, sales, art and design, entertainment, acting, engineering, architecture, I.T., computer animation, technical and practical trades and professions.”
It also cites the fact that more than 4,000 students at the University of the Arts London are disabled and/or dyslexic—24%, compared with just 4.7% at Cambridge University.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent introductory speech, which I congratulate her on. I am very pleased that she mentioned special educational needs and dyslexia. As she knows, my son Joseph, who is now 22, is severely dyslexic. He will graduate in the next few weeks from Teesside University with a degree in games art and design; I am thrilled. He could not read until the age of 14 and he would never have passed the EBacc, but he is creative. His brain works in a different way, and he was able to go on through equivalencies to now get a degree.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I know that she not only cares passionately about how well her own son does and has done, but cares and campaigns passionately for all children with special educational needs. This is an issue that the Minister must sit up and take notice of because by insisting on the implementation of EBacc for all or almost all pupils, the Government seriously risk restricting the life chances and future career opportunities of those with special educational needs. Not only does that do those young people out of their potential creative futures, but it does our creative industries out of their special skills and contributions.
Finally, I want to touch on concerns that have been raised with me about the EBacc by Studio West—a studio school established in West Denton in my constituency in September 2014. As Studio West has highlighted, studio schools have been established to bridge the gap between the skills and knowledge that young people need for success and those that the current education system provides. By design, a studio school’s curriculum embraces enterprise initiatives, innovative project-based and work-related approaches to learning and an emphasis on employable skills. Studio West feels very strongly that the EBacc judgment made of all secondary schools is too restrictive if studio schools are to fully embrace their ethos.
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech, and I wanted to intervene in order to demonstrate that I am still listening to her wise words. The EBacc consultation makes the point that there is no proposal—certainly set out in the consultation—to include studio schools in the requirement for the EBacc.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Minister for that intervention because I have already written to him about this issue and have been awaiting a response. I hope that we will receive a fuller response in his reply to the debate, or indeed in writing.
In conclusion, I introduced my remarks this afternoon by talking about the intrinsic value of the arts and arts education for individuals and wider society. Those points are echoed by Studio West in my constituency:
“Expressive arts subjects allow for intensive focus on essential transferable skills such as problem solving, working collaboratively, interpretive analysis, empathy, self-confidence, discipline, dedication and mastery, to name but a few.”
I was contacted by a large number of individuals and organisations ahead of this debate and I am conscious that I have not been able to mention them all; however, there is one that I want to make particular reference to in conclusion this afternoon. Last week, I received an email from Emma, an experienced secondary school teacher in West Yorkshire. Emma got in touch to ask me to raise her concerns about the EBacc not because I am her MP, but because her voice in Parliament was brutally taken away by the shocking death of our late friend and colleague, Jo Cox—sorry; it’s hard to speak about this—whom she had previously asked to attend this debate.
At a time when we know that there has been a significant increase in mental health issues in young people and at a time when we need more, not less, empathy, tolerance and co-operation in society, I strongly urge the Government to look again and consider the impact that the EBacc is having on the subjects that can help us to achieve that.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her very powerful and meaningful speech. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, and to have the opportunity to speak on a subject that is very important to me.
I should start by declaring a bit of an interest. I am lucky enough to come from an arts background, having studied at the Royal College of Music for five years. As a former composer and musician, then a school teacher, and now vice-chair of the all-party group on music and chair of the all-party group for music education, I am extremely worried by the fivefold decline in the uptake of arts subjects at GCSE over the past year.
I share the belief often emphasised by the Minister for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), that academic rigour is essential for social justice—that academic learning and social justice are complementary—but it is important that this does not become a false debate with high academic achievement in core subjects on the one hand and championing of the arts on the other. Both are possible, and indeed both are necessary. Social justice and opportunity must be at the heart of our vision for education and the arts.
With the introduction of the EBacc, as we have heard, schools with a high proportion of free school meals have been more than twice as likely to withdraw arts subjects. That will only exacerbate an already yawning gap between the 50% of students at fee-paying schools who get music tuition and the 15% in state schools. Richard Morris of the Mayor’s Music Fund rightly described this as
“perhaps the greatest single distinction in any aspect of independent/state educational provision.”
I am sure that Members from both sides of the House would want to see such damaging distinctions come to an end.
David Warburton
I am afraid I do not have that figure to hand, although I am sure that the Minister can regale us with it. I am sure that he has it front of him and can come out with it later, and I look forward to that with great interest.
Tristram Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. Does he agree that for fee-paying schools that enjoy charitable status and do not pay business rates—receiving business rates relief based on it—sharing music facilities and music teachers might be one way to justify that charitable status?
David Warburton
I think that sharing music facilities and facilities generally is often a good way forward. That could certainly be considered, but schools need to work individually and to have the right facilities to look after their own pupils without having to look elsewhere—without having to run across the road and make sure that somebody else can help them out.
An EBacc that fails to make room for the arts can only entrench the inequality that I have described. Last week, I chaired a meeting of the all-party group for music education where we heard some very passionate views. We heard about a report from the charity Sound Connections, and Wired4Music, in which young people in London described the transformational impact of music education on their lives and careers. From the report, it is important to highlight the unanimity, strength of feeling and uneasy sense of shrinking opportunities for those in this generation, and succeeding generations, who might otherwise go on to careers in the creative industries.
I have to say, however, that the Government have made significant advances in supporting the arts. We have seen the first culture White Paper for 50 years, the Cultural Citizens Programme and the new heritage action zones. Alongside those headline initiatives, we have seen £15 million-worth of tax breaks for theatres this year and the welcome orchestra tax break, but widening participation in the arts must begin with education.
The debate this afternoon pivots on what a core curriculum is and whether an EBacc without the arts can ever be seen to provide that. The chief executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians said in a recent speech that this
“Government certainly seems to understand the importance of culture and creativity”.
It is because I believe that to be true that I urge them either to include the arts within the EBacc or to define a more balanced curriculum.
I will not quote figures because we have all heard plenty of those, but in 2014 the creative industries grew at twice the rate of the UK economy as a whole. Governments should play their strongest hand. We lead the world in music and the creative industries, but it is not just the utilitarian argument that is important—the arts are also important in themselves. Of course, this is not easy to prove, or even to quantify, but the broadening effect of the arts is very real.
It is not easy to show that people benefit from exposure to the mechanics of the arts, whether that is an understanding of the beautiful mathematical imperatives in four-part harmony or the experience of seeing Brunelleschi’s dome for the first time, in ways that they can take forward into other aspects of their lives. However, research has been done and a highly comprehensive study by the German Socio-Economic Panel in 2013 said:
“Music improves cognitive and non-cognitive skills more than twice as much as sports”.
In addition, it found that children who take music lessons have
“better school grades and are more conscientious, open and ambitious.”
The study of music strengthens the motor cortex—although obviously not in every case. It improves working memory and long-term memory for visual stimuli. It helps people to manage anxiety and enhances self-confidence, self-esteem and social and personal skills. Studying music improves reading and verbal skills, and helps children to get good marks in exams. It raises IQ, encourages listening and helps children to learn languages more quickly. Some studies have even suggested that it slows the effects of ageing, just as being a Member of this House has precisely the opposite effect.
The moral effect of the arts is also critical. Only through art can we emerge from ourselves and know what another person sees. It is testimony to the unifying moral power of music that both the Taliban and ISIS, or Daesh, have banned it, just as one or two past Popes banned polyphony, then the interval of the tritone, and then excessive musical decoration.
I understand the pressure the Minister is under from all sides to add everything from Esperanto to den-building to the national curriculum. As an ex-teacher, I also understand that more of one subject must mean less of another. However, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, warm words butter no parsnips. The Department’s welcome focus on the ways in which education can form character makes it more important than ever that its place at the heart of the curriculum must be protected.
Michelle Donelan
Does my hon. Friend accept that adding creative subjects, such as art and music, would open up the options—for religious education, and for sport—and that the EBacc would be diluted more and more until it was dissolved? Is my hon. Friend in favour of the EBacc? I cannot see a way of having the cake and eating it.
David Warburton
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We can have a larger EBacc, we can manage our subjects more carefully, we can have an EBacc plus, as has been suggested, or we can have a more pick-and-mix, flexible and balanced approach, which might be more sensible. An EBacc without the arts is unthinkable. A core curriculum without the arts will not raise standards, but will lower them. Plato, 2,500 years ago, thought that music stood with arithmetic and geometry as a cornerstone of education, so who are we to chuck that away?
Depriving schoolchildren of the right to learn the pure language of the arts and music—the nuts and bolts—will deprive them of the right to understand, and depriving them of the right to understand is the unkindest and cruellest deprivation. It will confine them to a shrunken view of the world. I will go further. In so doing, we will reduce ourselves and our collective potential. A civilisation that denies its history and stops nurturing its cultural heritage is a dying civilisation. Civilisations die from self-doubt and dwindling confidence, not from enemy assault. Let us keep ourselves alive, play to our history, culture and strengths, and give everyone the chance to take part in that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)
We should be able comfortably to accommodate everyone who wants to speak if they speak for a maximum of 10 minutes.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I apologise to the Minister for not being able to stay to the end of the debate because I am committed to celebrating youth theatre at the National Theatre’s Connections festival this evening.
At the Barbican last week, I saw the first performance of Sir Peter Maxwell Davies’s last opera, “The Hogboon”. Like many of Max’s works, it used the talents of professional and amateur artists, and involved children as performers. Seeing a chorus of London schoolkids perform the role of the monster, Nuckelavee, was an artistic triumph and for the children also a great personal achievement. What did they learn? Not just singing, but self-confidence, teamwork, timing, communication with an audience and the value of practising, rehearsal and listening to others. That is what performance can bring to anyone’s life.
I will never forget a prisoner who had just been in a performance of “Chicago” at Bronzefield prison. He grabbed my collar and said: “I’ve been a thief for years, but doing this is the best thing that’s ever happened to me. I see how I can change now. Every prisoner should get a chance to do this.”
George Kirkham, who runs the Creative Academy in Slough, described to me a conversation he had had with a recruiter from one of the biggest national recruitment agencies who told him that they would rather employ a young person with a performing arts degree than with an economics degree because they know that performing arts students have transferable skills. Thirty-five years ago, Brigid Beattie, who took over failing secondary schools in Wandsworth that had just merged and that had a very poor reputation, told me: “Fiona, I will make this an excellent school and I will do it through the medium of drama.” At the time, I was sceptical, but within a very short time it had become a beacon school with outstanding results.
I started my remarks with these anecdotes to show what expressive arts education can instrumentally bring to a young person’s education. We are in an era when claiming that experiencing creative arts subjects is valuable for its own sake, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) rightly did, risks implying that absolute rigour and high standards of learning are not expected. Well, I do expect that. I was a teacher and I know that ensuring that young people experience creating and making things, as well as learning about what other people have made and developing skills such as numeracy, is vital to their emotional and intellectual development.
The problem at the heart of this debate is that we all know that what counts in public policy is what is measured and if what is measured is only EBacc subjects, only they will count. That is why, if we have a mandatory EBacc, we will betray the young people of Britain if it excludes all the expressive and creative arts.
Britain outperforms most countries in the number of Nobel prizes we have achieved. I am certain that is because our education system has traditionally included an emphasis on both science and creative subjects. If we abandon that combination, we will go backwards. It is disingenuous to claim, as the Secretary of State did in a recent speech, that the arts are
“the birthright of every child”
and that
“a young person’s education cannot be complete unless it includes the arts.”
She assured the arts sector that there is nothing to fear from the English Baccalaureate. I am sure that was her hope, but the evidence shows that she is mistaken.
The introduction of the EBacc coincided with a relative fall in the number of qualified teachers employed in schools to teach such subjects and the number of teaching hours devoted to them. According to a survey by the National Society for Education in Art and Design, 44% of secondary teachers said less time was allocated to art in key stage 3 and 34% of those working with post-16s said that courses had been cut. We have heard from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about the decline in the number of students taking GCSE subjects in art and design, media, music and so on. That fall coincides with a rise in the number of young people studying EBacc subjects. It is not an overall fall in GCSEs. The total number of GCSE entries in all subjects has increased this year by 0.3%, but over the same period the number of exam entries for arts subjects has fallen by 8%. The falling take-up of arts GCSEs is already spilling over into A-levels. There were 4,300 fewer candidates for A-level arts subjects this year—a decline three times bigger than the 1,500 recorded in 2015.
If the Government are determined to continue with an EBacc measure, it would be easy to fix the problem without in any way watering down the emphasis on the other subjects by simply requiring one creative arts subject within the EBacc portfolio. The qualities that almost all these creative subjects nurture are the qualities that companies know they need. The Government’s emphasis on so-called hard subjects, on factual learning, is old-fashioned and fails to recognise or nurture one of the traditional strengths of British education—that creativity has always been at its core. That is a reason why we are a world leader in creative industries, yet the Government’s approach to school education is putting that at risk.
John Kampfner, who leads the Creative Industries Federation, called the decline in students taking GCSEs in creative subjects “alarming” and said that it
“further confirms a longstanding trend that EBacc is clearly exacerbating...The impact will not only be felt by the creative economy but also by other sectors, such as engineering, that desperately need some of the same skills. Although it is possible to take up jobs in our sector without exam results in creative subjects, it is much harder and potentially more expensive…which obviously further diminishes the chances for young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds.”
He went further than that, but I want to deal with the point about disadvantaged backgrounds, because it is those young people who are losing out most. It is in their schools that there has been the fastest decline in qualified teacher numbers, while schools such as Eton, on the border of my constituency, still celebrate and develop excellent teaching in music, drama and art, as Tom Hiddleston, Harry Lloyd, Eddie Redmayne, Henry Faber, Harry Hadden-Paton, Dominic West, Damian Lewis and Hugh Laurie can all attest.
Fiona Mactaggart
My point is not that young people should study these creative subjects instead of the EBacc, but that they should be part of the mandatory experience of young people, which is the case at Eton. Eton has brilliant drama, music and art education. The facilities are extraordinarily wonderful.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Is it not likely that the sort of people who go to Eton and other public schools have the sort of cultural background whereby they get taken to the theatre, they have books at home and they are exposed to classical music? That is precisely the point; that is why it is so much more important to teach these subjects in the sort of schools that I have in my constituency, where people do not have that advantage.
Fiona Mactaggart
Absolutely. Actually, the previous theatre teacher at Eton said:
“For me the importance the work has here in the boys’ lives is the reason they do such good work afterwards. That importance arises from many things. One is that we don’t do drama just for its educational value. We do a play as a work of art, to be explored at its fullest.”
It is rare for children to have that experience of creating, of making a work of art. They can do it if they learn these expressive subjects. The problem is that this Government view them as an optional add-on. When I asked the Prime Minister about this issue and referred to his experience at Eton, he said:
“It is essential that we get more children learning the basic subjects and getting the basic qualifications. It is then more possible to put in place the arts, the dance and the drama that I want my children to enjoy when they go to their schools.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 962.]
I do not see it as a question of the basics and then these frilly add-ons. In my judgment, these subjects are as basic as every other subject in the EBacc. That is why so many people have signed this petition. It is not saying, “Get rid of the EBacc.” It is saying, “Include expressive subjects in every child’s education, because if you fail to do that, you are letting them down.”
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will start on a personal note. Thirty-three years ago, in the wake of Aled Jones, who had just got to No. 1 with “Walking in the Air” and who sang in the choir at Bangor cathedral, some primary school teachers at a small school with an unfortunate name, Downhills, in Tottenham decided that a young black boy could be one of the first black cathedral choristers in the country. I wanted to contribute to this debate, despite all that is going on in our country and in this House at the moment, because I am clear that I would not be here as a Member of Parliament were it not for that opportunity to go to one of the country’s best state—I emphasise “state”—cathedral schools, the King’s School in Peterborough, attached to Peterborough cathedral. There I was able to express myself in the context of a fantastic music education, but I also learned the rigours and discipline of music, which is why I take umbrage at the idea that the performing arts, music or drama—I will come on to that—can be sidelined as somehow less than, not as academic as and not as important as other subjects.
I challenge anyone who has got to grade 8 in any part of the musical repertoire to tell me that it is not fantastically hard and difficult to do. If we have a future king, Prince William, who can go to St Andrews and study art history, why are we suggesting that these disciplines should be denied to so many young people in our country? I am hugely concerned at the direction the Government have taken. It is very important to have had the petition and to be having this debate in the House at this time.
In the Government that I was part of as a Culture Minister, there were intense arguments about the place of the arts and the performing arts—music and drama—in the curriculum. The truth is that there were some serious turf wars between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education, but fortunately we achieved great partnerships. We had something called Creative Partnerships—a fantastic scheme that got musicians, architects and performers of all kinds into schools. It was pioneering and much was learned from that scheme. Of course we had to go into the evidence-based arena and try to explain, defend and demonstrate the benefit, but it was a partnership between the DCMS and the Department for Education.
When we look at what is happening in the DCMS under this Government—the White Paper, policies on heritage and support for museums—we get the impression that that Department gets it. The problem is that the DCMS is losing out in the Whitehall turf war; the Department for Education is riding roughshod over it and saying, “No, we are utilitarian in this Department.” It is interesting because it is almost as though, in order to compete with China and India, we have to ensure that the basics—maths, English and science—are there in the curriculum to the exclusion of other subjects, yet ironically, when we speak to leaders in those countries, there is something missing, and that missing component is the British creativity that means that we have one of the most important creative economies in the world, and the intangible question of how we achieve it. We achieve it because of those fantastic—now I am going to get emotional, thinking of the music teachers who got me here—music, drama and performing arts teachers across our country who are really bringing that into the curriculum. For so many young people, particularly those from more deprived areas, that is sometimes their way through to other parts of the curriculum that feel remote.
I grew up in a home with only two sets of books. We had the “Encyclopedia Britannica”, which took a long time for my mother to buy, on loan, and Mills and Boon. It was my ability to excel at music that enabled me to access other parts of the curriculum. Time after time—we learned this through Creative Partnerships, the scheme we set up in those years of Tony Blair’s Government—the professionals say that that is how it works, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s contribution.
There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that 40% of the jobs that young people who are in primary school today will do when they grow up have not yet been invented, and those jobs will require a degree of creativity. Many of us have an iPhone. The iPhone is nothing as technology alone. Design is at its heart, but those disciplines are dropping out of the curriculum. Design and technology is really losing out in this new horizon.
I recommend the Diamond Fund for Choristers to the Minister, if he does not already know about it. Cathedrals are not struggling to recruit young people from all sorts of backgrounds—things have moved on a lot since I was one of the first working-class choristers, and there are now many across the country—but they do need support, so the Diamond Fund for Choristers has been launched. It is hugely important. Many cathedrals are concerned about what is happening with music.
The Ebacc decision is compounding cuts to local authority support for music across schools. With many schools becoming academies and the Department placing emphasis solely on the more utilitarian subjects, there is not only a collapse because of the EBacc; local authorities are moving away from funding music, local museums and local arts as well.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Will the Minister also inform us what has happened to the provision of individual music lessons for pupils in Sefton?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech on behalf of the creative arts, but I want to challenge him. Given the small percentage of children in private schooling, if the number of GCSE music entries has gone up, it rather belies his central point.
Maths, the sciences and English are not utilitarian subjects. They are fundamental, and too many children from poor communities were not getting access to them when the Labour Government left power. There has been a significant improvement in access to those very courses that help people to get on in life. As much as I sympathise with many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there is a balance to be struck.
Mr Lammy
I do not want to get into the “either/or” debate as it is not helpful. We could also have a discussion in this House—I would certainly be back for this—on the importance of religious studies education. I know some colleagues who would come to that debate as well.
It is depressing that we are having this argument in the country of Shakespeare, the Beatles, so many wonderful actors who pick up awards internationally and domestically every single year, the west-end theatres, and some of the world’s best musicals. I was Minister for Higher Education and I remember that successive Governments made some very poor decisions which resulted in a huge diminution in language learning. There has just been a big national debate on the importance of Europe; the potential for exchanges like those that people of a certain age in this room may have had with young people in Germany and France has been diminished. This debate is so important because there is a sense, in the petition and in the House, that in this fundamental area of our lives, we are taking the wrong course.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a lot of fantastic contributions. One name that should be mentioned is Professor Brian Cox, a physicist who is also a musician. More and more, we see that the creative arts actually help to fuel creativity in other areas such as science.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady is right. Famous scientists say the same thing. When I was an Arts Minister, I gave a speech at the Science Museum on the importance of arts and the relationship between arts and science.
Our debate today is being had in the field of performing arts and is live in universities. I was recently at the London College of Fashion, which with Goldsmiths and all the other art colleges is asking, “Where are the working-class students?” They have disappeared from the system. Of course, they are concerned about fees and the way in which we are forcing young people to make decisions based solely on how much they will earn when they leave education. Excluding expressive arts subjects from the EBacc will compound the problem.
If we want to see the multi-layered complexity of our country played out on our screens, in our music halls and in the charts in the years ahead, it is important that the Minister recognises what hon. Members are saying. Rather than use statistics selectively to defend his corner, he must recognise that people have taken the time to sign the petition and to come here this afternoon because there is a profound problem with the direction that the Government are taking.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is my colleague on the Education Committee. I hope that the Minister takes on board all the wonderful comments and expressions that have been made this afternoon, and recognises the number of people who are listening to the debate—even listening to a Scotswoman, who has no business, some people would say, speaking on English education matters. However, I am a Member of this House.
As a member of the Education Committee, I am privileged to have contact with many people in the field of education. Although many, including Government Ministers, want only what they believe is best for school pupils, I inherently believe that the restricted EBacc system in England does not serve all pupils well. Were I English—and I am not—I could not support the Government’s proposal to make the EBacc, without the inclusion of expressive arts, a compulsory measure for all schools.
The root of the word “education” shows that it means “to be drawn forth.” I believe that that is what education is about. It is at its best when it draws forth from pupils what is inherently there, and enables them to progress and shine in areas that interest and attract them so that we produce well-rounded individuals who are able to take their place and contribute to society as a whole. Of course pupils should have a knowledge of science, technology, engineering and maths, and no one will benefit if they cannot read fluently or do not have a knowledge of the world around them. Tim Peake’s successful space mission has awakened an interest in science subjects across the UK, and many pupils are now enthused and attracted to science matters as never before. A knowledge of the history or geography of our countries in the UK is equally important, but such knowledge is sadly undermined if we do not understand the culture, music and drama that enrich all our histories.
Like others who have spoken in this debate, I have received a briefing from the Royal Shakespeare Company highlighting its good work in bringing Shakespeare to schools across England at all levels. The RSC makes Shakespeare come alive for students, which can lead to an enriching and positive life experience. Art and music can benefit education by helping young people to understand and express themselves in a variety of ways that improve their self-worth and learning. By focusing on English, mathematics, history or geography, sciences and a language—all worthy subjects—many pupils face not achieving an understanding of where they come from or the ability to express themselves in a different way.
Since I was elected to this place and became a member of the Education Committee, I have been struck by the Government’s attitude towards education. As an international observer on the Committee, I worry about what I perceive as a drive to turn education into a tool to turn masses of children into the workers of tomorrow. Although a school education should lead to a meaningful destination, into either further or higher education or a job, the state should not simply see schools as places that benefit businesses by churning out the workers of the future. As Sir Michael Wilshaw, the present chief inspector of schools and head of Ofsted, has said:
“the proposed changes may cause a problem for some students and I can think of youngsters who would have been better suited to English, Maths and Science alongside a range of vocational subjects.”
I would include expressive arts in that list. There is a danger that we will exclude huge numbers of children from an education in the expressive arts by focusing on what is seen by some as more “useful” or “academic” subjects.
The creative industries now account for one in 11 jobs, and the sector is growing. By restricting pupils’ access to the expressive arts by excluding these subjects from the EBacc, we deprive young people of an enriching experience for them and for society as a whole. Arts Council England wholly supports the creative arts being part of the EBacc, as does the CBI, which is looking for creative people. As has been often stated in this debate, the creative industries are a growing sector of business across the United Kingdom.
In Scotland we have always had a wide-ranging education system that is much more tailored to children’s interests and abilities. The introduction of the curriculum for excellence has continued that approach. The Scottish Government’s creative learning plan states:
“We know that creativity is vital in the world of work, with greater opportunities for those who bring a creative approach. The country as a whole stands to benefit significantly from the great wealth of creative talent that our people can bring to bear.”
Expressive arts courses in the curriculum for excellence include art and design, dance, drama and music. The expressive arts can help learners to develop their knowledge, understanding and appreciation of contemporary and historical arts within their own communities in Scotland and beyond. Given Scotland’s vast cultural centre, it is hugely important for children to have an opportunity to learn the expressive arts, which have a huge impact on our economy. Why should children in the rest of the United Kingdom not also have such opportunities?
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a true delight to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I welcome this important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on art, craft and design in education, I wish to make a cross-party case for promoting the creative arts in our schools. I invite other Members present to join our all-party group, if they so desire. We regularly engage with teachers, academics and cultural providers, a number of whom are in the Public Gallery—I thank them for being here. We engage with people from across the country, and most importantly, we engage with young people who wish to see a strengthened art offer in our schools.
I also welcome that a number of my constituents supported the EBacc petition—many of them will be art teachers who are concerned for the future of their subject, about which they are so passionate—and a similar number signed the petition on performing arts subjects at GCSE and A-level.
As we have heard, creativity is vital to the wellbeing of our society, and all of these subjects provide a space for young people to push boundaries, widen their horizons and explore what it means to be human. Only last week I went to the Lyric theatre in Hammersmith to watch the performance of “Treasure Island” by the Federation of Westminster Special Schools. The show was directed by James Rigby, and I saw all the work put in by Paul Morrow, the federation’s lead practitioner of creative arts, and by all the schools’ teachers, staff and pupils in collaboration with the staff of the Lyric theatre—I especially mention John Glancy, the producer. They all came together to put on a wonderful production that showed exactly what allowing children to flourish in the arts can do for their lives and their self-esteem.
Experiencing and engaging in the arts not only helps to nurture quantifiable positives; we can also see tangible evidence of the positive contribution that art education can make to our country. Our creative industries contributed an estimated £84.1 billion to our economy last year, and it is important to remember that our creative industries can thrive even more if we promote high-quality and inclusive art education in our schools to help feed the skills supply for the market. Sadly, the Government’s curriculum reforms, such as the EBacc, have had unintended consequences for creativity in the curriculum. The Department for Education has made the case that its reforms will not stop pupils taking additional non-EBacc subjects, and it claims that uptake in arts subjects has risen because the proportion of pupils with at least one arts GCSE has increased since 2010.
Once again, I acknowledge and thank the Minister for attending a meeting of the all-party group a few months ago. He listened to an extensive presentation on the latest National Society for Education in Art and Design survey, which highlighted the effect of the unintended consequences, and he answered questions from the gathered representatives, artists and teachers for some two hours. I know that must have had an effect on him, and I urge him again to take a closer look at the figures. The EBacc’s narrow-minded approach and prescriptive nature is sadly leaving very little space for creative subjects to flourish.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s speech. Does she agree that part of the problem of providing our children with the opportunity to be creative is the pressure to remain inside the classroom? Pupils have to leave the safe space of the classroom to experience the creative realms in the community.
Mrs Hodgson
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Trips to theatres, cultural sites and museums are becoming increasingly difficult for various reasons, including safeguarding and cost—even though museums are free to visit, the children have to get there, which takes time and organisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said earlier, such trips will be lacking from some of the children’s daily lives, weekends and holidays, so it is important that that shortfall is made up for in school. For more privileged children, no matter whether they go to state or independent schools, it is just a normal part of their existence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.
In May 2014, the Cultural Learning Alliance found that the number of hours of art teaching and of art teachers had fallen in secondary schools since 2010. Design and technology faced the greatest decline, with 11% fewer teachers and less teaching time. The number of art and design teachers had fallen by 4% and the number of teaching hours by 6%, even though the number of pupils in secondary schools has fallen by about 2%. It is clear that provision of arts subjects is declining disproportionately.
As I mentioned earlier, the National Society for Education in Art and Design conducted a survey of teachers working across England in the academic year 2015-16 on the impact of Government policy on art, craft and design education over the past five years. The study found that 33% of art and design teachers at key stage 4, across all sectors, reported a reduction in time dedicated to their subject over the past five years. That figure rises to 44% in responses from academies. Of those teachers, 93% said that the EBacc was directly reducing opportunities to select art and design at GCSE level.
The reduction in provision for vocational creative qualifications is even more illuminating and concerning. Between 2011 and 2015, completions of art, craft and design level 2 vocational qualifications decreased by 43%. Although we are discussing the EBacc, which is only a performance measure at secondary school, it is having clear ramifications for other stages of young people’s education. Figures from the Cultural Learning Alliance show that between 2010 and 2015, dance AS-levels have declined by 24% and dance A-levels have declined by 17%.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on art, craft and design in education, I have heard anecdotally that primary schools are less free to dedicate time to creative education due to unprecedented pressure on the three R’s—reading, writing and arithmetic, which we all agree are extremely important. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, it should not be a case of either/or. Both are vital.
Secondary school teachers now report a fall in artistic skills and confidence when pupils arrive in year 7. Sadly, the ramifications of the curriculum changes are that secondary schools are putting less time and fewer resources into creative education in an understandable bid to climb the league tables. It is having a knock-on effect on other parts of the education pipeline. It means that pupils are being denied the opportunity to develop creative cognitive skills that are useful in other subjects, such as maths or science, and may become less confident and able to choose or pursue artistic GCSEs and A-levels.
A broad and rounded education is paramount to skilling our young people to enter the world of work in the 21st century. An art education can be vital to doing so, but if the Government insist on keeping the EBacc as a performance measure, in order not to weaken arts provision in our schools even further, the only way to maintain quality creative education is to include the creative arts in the EBacc. Excluding the arts subjects from the EBacc—
Mrs Hodgson
It could be left to the young person to choose, as with most subjects. We do not tell young people which language they must study, or which humanity. Let the young person choose; just put a list of creative arts there.
By excluding arts subjects from the EBacc, the Government have told our students that those subjects are not important and are a waste of their time and talent. The situation is simply not good enough. We need to be serious about providing a creative education that ensures that young people from ordinary backgrounds, as others have said, have opportunities to develop their skills so that they can become the next world-famous artist filling art galleries around the world, the next global superstar or actor packing out arenas or theatres or—I must declare an interest again—the next big games artist creating the next global game. The UK has world-leading companies in the games industry.
We should not limit young people’s life chances in this way. We need a forward-looking curriculum that provides a truly rounded education, remembering that subjects do not stand alone. Withdrawing opportunities from young people’s lives to express themselves creatively will not only ruin their chance to broaden their horizons and their understanding of what drives us as humans—our creativity—but affect the fledgling sectors that rely heavily on our nurture of the skills needed to make them soar.
Our human creativity is boundless, and studying creative subjects can harness it. That is why it is important that we ensure that whether or not the EBacc remains, the creative subjects have a place in our curriculum and do not face further and continual diminution by Government reforms. The arts are what we all do in our spare time, in one form or another. Why? They make our hearts soar. We are creative and artistic beings. Since the first caveman drew a buffalo on the first cave wall and danced around the fire singing, the arts have been how we express ourselves. They are intrinsic to being human. I ask the Minister: please do not make our education system a cultural desert for our children, as I fear the unintended consequences.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate.
Educational improvement is an issue close to my heart, as my constituency is among the worst performing educationally in the UK. When I speak about educational attainment, I cite two simple facts, without fail, that speak more than any other about what an uphill struggle my constituents face in remaining competitive in this increasingly fast-moving globalised world. First, in the league table measuring percentage of individuals with level 4 qualifications or higher, out of 650 constituencies in the UK, my constituency appears 609th. Secondly, when measuring those without any qualifications whatever, Bradford South comes in at 74th.
The task is stark. In simple terms, too few of my constituents boast the higher-level qualifications that they need to access professional and technical careers in the modern economy. To compound the problem, too many are making their way with no qualifications at all, destined for a working life in low-skilled roles typically marked by insecurity, low pay, and little to no opportunity for career progression. To face a fighting chance of accessing and forging successful careers in today’s economy, my constituents have to be better skilled with more qualifications under their belts and, just as importantly, their skills and qualifications must be aligned with today’s new industries.
These new industries, which increasingly drive economic growth, demand a highly skilled and creative workforce. Often they occur in the virtual world, facilitated through computers and sophisticated software—the knowledge economy in its rawest form. Front and centre among such new industries are those falling under the creative industries banner. To our credit, the UK’s creative industries are undeniably world-leading and, astonishingly, contribute more than £76 billion to the UK economy. The sector creates more than one in 11 UK jobs. Yet these industries are afforded little recognition, either by design or as an unintended consequence, in the Government’s policy on the introduction of the EBacc. That is what I wish to address in my remarks. Will the EBacc help or hinder my constituents’ ability to attain both a broad and balanced education and the specific skills that are key to careers in the new creative industries?
On the previous coalition Government’s watch, the uptake of creative subjects in our schools fell by 14%, and our creative industries face a skills shortage. Now, with the EBacc, the current Government are finishing the job of all but destroying the arts, culture and creative learning in our schools. Chief among my reasons for saying so is that the Government’s stated policy on the EBacc is unswervingly prescriptive on subjects and will become all but compulsory for our schools.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to make an intervention. I just wanted to correct her hyperbole, because art and design entries in 2010-11 were 162,000 but by 2014-15 they had risen to 176,000; in music, as I have said before, the number of entries rose from 43,157 to 43,654 over the same period; and in the performing arts, the number of entries rose from 2,648 to 5,997 over the same period.
Judith Cummins
I thank the Minister for that intervention; obviously, he has his whole Department’s data at his fingertips. However, I will say that vocational arts qualifications and subjects have dropped.
Ministers’ ambition that 90% of 16-year-olds should take the full EBacc, alongside the Department for Education’s plan to make the EBacc a headline measure for accountability and to increase its prominence in Ofsted inspections, will effectively make the EBacc compulsory for secondary school pupils in England. The EBacc stipulates which subjects must be studied: maths; English literature; English language; double science; a language, ancient and/or modern; and history and/or geography. Where is the room for the new-found self-determination that apparently the brave new world of academisation is designed to offer localities? It is cast aside.
As a result of this prescriptiveness in the EBacc, there will be little or no scope for our children and young people to study creative subjects. Creative subjects are consigned by this new regime, wrongly, to a lesser category of subjects in which arts and creative learning are—by association—considered less worthy than other subjects.
I say to the Minister that that is wrong. Studying creative subjects is not only wholly meaningful and valuable to a broad and balanced education, but equally importantly creative subjects help to position our children and young people for future careers. The very subjects that are key to nurturing the skills critical to knowledge-intensive, highly skilled, well-paid creative industry careers are excluded from the EBacc. Jobs that are destined to become a cornerstone of our future economy are undervalued by the EBacc. That is shameful and short-sighted—negligent, even.
I urge this Government to reconsider their position, as they did with the forced academisation policy, and to do what is right for our future generations. There is no shame in rethinking; it is the mark of a mature democracy. The real shame would be for this Government to plough ahead with a widely discredited policy that is ill-considered to its core and rooted in an outdated educational view that promises to undermine our blossoming creative industries, which promise so much for my constituents and promise to deliver economic prosperity for this country in the coming years and decades.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Ms Buck, for calling me to speak, and I also thank the more than 100,000 teachers, parents, arts enthusiasts and many of my own constituents who signed this petition calling for the English Baccalaureate to include an expressive arts option.
There is an old adage used by the business community: “What gets measured, gets done”. Having served as a school governor myself, I remember all too well that key performance indicators, inspection frameworks and exam results inevitably influenced our resources and our priorities. So I agree with the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in opening this debate that excluding creative subjects from the EBacc will devalue and erode their place in our education system, and subsequently in our society.
The impact of that would be significant and detrimental. It would be detrimental in three main ways—to our economy, our wellbeing and our society. First, let us consider the economic case. As a resident of Greater Manchester, I vividly recall the excitement that all we felt as a city-region when it was announced that the BBC would be relocating to us, with its production facilities moving to MediaCity. I knew what a boost it would be to our growth, our productivity and our young people’s life chances. The BBC pledged to create a
“world-class talent pool in the North”
and in the decade that has followed it genuinely has.
As a result of that move, our schools now place real value on creative learning. Take my own local authority, Tameside, which recently partnered with the Lowry theatre and the National Theatre to introduce pupils to the acclaimed production of “War Horse”. The pupils were encouraged to create their own large-scale puppets, to write their own theatre scripts and ultimately to perform in their own productions. It was inspiring; no child involved in such a project will ever forget it.
The Greater Manchester skills strategy now rightly emphasises the skills required by our creative industries, and Manchester is not alone in doing that. Last week, as a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, I went on a trip to Soho. I stress that it was not for any personal pleasure; it was to visit some of our creative industries. The companies I saw included the BBH creative agency; Ridley Scott Associates, which is a production company; Smoke & Mirrors, which is a visual effects company, although it does so much more than visual effects; and well-known names such as Google and YouTube, which continue to revolutionise media and creativity. These are exciting, visionary companies at the forefront of the creative industries, which are growth industries. It is clear to me that for the sake of the UK’s economic advantage, our young people need more—not fewer—opportunities to achieve high-quality qualifications in these areas, as well as having a desire to work in them when they start their careers.
Secondly, let us consider the health benefits. Investment in the arts is known to improve wellbeing. Studying creative subjects boosts self-esteem, improves emotional intelligence, and reduces depression and anxiety. Many of these benefits were examined in the Government’s own paper, “Arts for health and wellbeing”, which was published earlier this year. I know from first-hand experience that my son Jack, who has autism, finds literacy and numeracy lessons emotionally exhausting, but he finds music classes exhilarating. So, the arts not only keep our NHS bills down, but they offer employers a labour market of happier, more confident and more emotionally resilient individuals.
Finally, we must consider the societal case for retaining an educational focus on the arts, because the arts enhance our regional identities as well as our economy. So much of what makes Greater Manchester great comes from our culture: from the Bridgewater Hall to the Stone Roses; from L.S. Lowry to Jeanette Winterson; from “Coronation Street” to last week’s wonderful street theatre commemorating the Somme; and our tremendous brass band festivals. Frankly, I could go on, Ms Buck, and fill the whole three hours, such is Manchester’s status as a cultural superpower.
Nationally, too, our arts and culture provide so much of what we celebrate about Britain and Britishness. I think I speak for everyone in Westminster Hall today when I say that none of us wish to keep the debate on the EU referendum going, but for me a particularly resonant case for remaining in the European Union was made not by an economist or a politician but by Axel Scheffler, the children’s illustrator, who said that without the freedoms provided by the EU he and Julia Donaldson would never have created “The Gruffalo”. What a loss that would have been to everyone in the European Union and beyond. Art breaks down demographic and socioeconomic divides: chip away at it and we chip away at so much of what I believe makes our society great.
In conclusion, I fear that the exclusion of arts subjects from the English Baccalaureate represents the latest misguided attack on our education system. It is an attempt to hark back to a bygone era of schooling, in which one size was expected to fit all and only one form of ability was valued, because employment options then were far narrower than—thankfully—they are today. For the sake of our economy, our wellbeing and our enriched society, we must not go down this road, and I move that we include expressive arts in the English Baccalaureate.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I think this is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. It is a pleasure to do so.
There have been some excellent speeches so far, and I agree with everyone who has made the case for the importance of arts education and for the need for us to continue to value that education. The narrowing of focus about what constitutes a valid qualification concerns me across the board. Obviously, we are here today to discuss arts education, but we have also seen, for example, life and environmental sciences being scrapped at GCSE and A-level. That seems nonsensical to me, because the best way of getting children interested in science is to link it to their natural environment, to issues such as climate change, and to what they see all around them.
As we have heard, participation in creative subjects and gaining a qualification in them are immensely rewarding for pupils, particularly those pupils who struggle to excel academically. I was talking to a number of senior educationalists at the weekend; we are fortunate in Bristol that several of our new councillors have a background in education in cities such as Bristol and Leicester, which have high levels of deprivation and much ethnic diversity. They could not stress enough how important arts subjects are for some pupils who will never be very good at English, maths or other traditional subjects; the arts get those pupils through the doors of schools. Headteachers have said that to me as well.
[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]
The fact is that all the secondary schools in my constituency were rebuilt under the last Labour Government, through the Building Schools for the Future programme, so they have music studios, art rooms and sprung dancefloors that the children can use not only during school hours but after school as well. The arts get children through the door of the school, and if that means they then enjoy the school experience, feel more confident and make friends with other pupils, they are much more likely to thrive in the academic subjects as well.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It reminds me of when I attended a local school’s opening of its sport centre to the community. Alan Shearer, who was a former pupil, spoke passionately about the difference that having sport—football in particular—available at school made to him, and how that was the only reason he went to school. He got his maths, and he got his English, but it was a sport that brought him through the door. The arts too can be a driver for young people to come to school and enjoy the experience.
Kerry McCarthy
Absolutely, and that is certainly the case with sports in Bristol’s schools as well. Some Conservative Members for neighbouring constituencies are keen on the idea that we take education more seriously, that we should all learn Latin and history—a few years ago one of them wrote about “joke GCSEs”. In a city like Bristol, where 40% of the jobs are in the creative sector, it is a running joke that if you do a Mickey Mouse degree you end up with a job at Aardman and win an Oscar. That is certainly not something we should sneer at.
We also have the BBC’s natural history unit, which combines learning about natural history and the life and environmental sciences with learning the sort of skills that could lead to someone being one of the amazing cameramen who manage to film things that no one has ever caught on film before. Studying these subjects is not something that people do just for their self-fulfilment, although it is important on that front; it is very much part of getting a job and thriving when they leave school.
MPs have been sent a useful briefing by an organisation called MillionPlus for Thursday’s Backbench Business debate on creative industries and the economy—we seem to have several debates about the creative sector this week. The briefing focuses on the role of universities in supporting the creative sector, pointing out, as has been said, that the sector is worth £84.1 billion to the UK economy and is one of its fastest growing areas, providing 2.8 million jobs. MillionPlus says that 70% of people in creative occupations are university educated, but that numbers
“studying many creative subjects at school and university are falling and the talent pool will inevitably decrease”.
It points to the potential sidelining of creative subjects in schools and expresses concern about the narrative that has built up that STEM subjects are somehow far more worthwhile than creative ones. Of course STEM subjects are important, of course our future economic growth depends on people wanting to go into those sectors as well, but one set of subjects should not exclude the other.
MillionPlus’s concern is that with the Department for Education promoting certain “facilitating” subjects that focus on STEM and not on creative courses at GCSE and A-level, as well as the introduction in 2016-17 of the new performance measures based on the eight key subjects, there is a risk that more and more schools will design their curriculums in a way that marginalises creative subjects, as many speakers have already mentioned. We cannot really blame schools if they feel compelled to go down that path. If they are going to be judged on key areas, they do not want to risk being left behind when compared with other schools.
I asked people earlier today on social media if they had any comments on the matter, and one of my constituents got in touch to say that her son was forced to drop all but one arts subject for year 10 because of the league tables for EBacc. She felt that that had very much held him back.
I want to mention two specific areas—I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered. On music in schools, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests that in some areas fewer than 20% of schools offer music beyond key stage 3 and fewer than 5% offer it at sixth form. There was a meeting of all-party parliamentary groups last week, which I think the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), a relatively near neighbour of mine, attended. I could not attend, but my researcher went along. The case was cited at that meeting of a west London borough where out of 15 state-funded schools with secondary age pupils all but one was rated good or outstanding but only six offered music post-key stage 3 and only two offered it post-key stage 4. Just last week, the music hub there learned that two of the secondary schools, both of which are academies, will offer no music at all from year 7, which is a sad state of affairs.
A representative from the music hub said that the impact of the EBacc changes is that music teachers are being used as flexible cover or are leaving and not being replaced, and that the result will be that music drops out of schools completely. That is also something that people involved in music education in Bristol have said to me—that with that casualisation of the profession we will end up losing the skills pool, because people simply cannot make a living from being brought in for the occasional lesson. The music hub representative at the meeting said that that means
“no music for prize day, school fairs, community events; no school musicals/Christmas concerts. What a joyless experience for our pupils, particularly when we remember that for many music is the only thing that will engage them and develop positive attitudes towards learning.”
Is it not rather disingenuous of the Government to say that music is a compulsory subject for five to 14-year-olds when academies do not have to follow the curriculum? How can the Minister provide real reassurance that music will not drop out of some schools entirely? I look forward to hearing from him on that point.
My last point is about social diversity in the arts, which we have already touched on. The actor Ralf Little, of “The Royle Family” fame, was reported in the papers today as saying that Caroline Aherne, who died at the weekend, showed
“that working-class people can be on TV, being ourselves”,
but that her death
“is a reminder how much she and her writing were, and still are, the exception.”
Julie Walters has said previously that she would not have a chance of making it as a working-class actor if she was starting out today, and there is an ongoing debate about why so many of the up-and-coming names on our stage and screen seem to have been educated at public schools. Last year, 92.1% of jobs in the creative industries were being done by people in the more advantaged socioeconomic groups, a figure that is up 20% since 2011. The well known actor James McAvoy has warned:
“I do care about a government that doesn’t prioritise arts in education. It is one of the first things that if you take it away, it’s a signal that the government doesn’t care about upward mobility any more. Art is one the first things you take away from society if you want to keep them down.”
Given how difficult it is for anyone from a normal background to break into acting these days, is the Minister concerned about the impact the changes might have on social mobility? Factors to consider are the enormous fees for drama and art schools, the need for financial support during the phase when someone is not sure whether they will break through and become a professional, the prevalence of unpaid internship, the effects of arts cuts on outreach programmes, and the increasing prevalence of low pay and no pay in the entertainment industries. I know that the previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was very concerned about the need to increase diversity in the arts—I went with a delegation from Equity to meet him when I was chair of the all-party Performers’ Alliance group. It seems, however, that all the work he was looking to do on increasing diversity, which I hope his successor is now taking up, could be jeopardised if we do not get it right at school level.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I want to say first that my sister is learning associate at the Unicorn theatre for children, which works with schoolchildren on drama projects.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on introducing this important debate, which goes to the heart of the question of what education is for. The English baccalaureate is a performance measure for schools, awarded when students secure a grade C or above at GCSE across a core of five academic subjects—English language, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and a language—and English literature at any grade. That sets up a hierarchy of value and suggests that English literature is less important than the other core subjects—something that I as a former English teacher would hotly dispute—and that the expressive arts subjects of art, music, drama and dance are of secondary importance. I believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
Through the arts, pupils can explore ideas in the most imaginative of ways. They can develop their powers of verbal and non-verbal expression through physical theatre, painting, music and dance, and can gain an understanding of and a love for our rich cultural heritage. To deny the arts is to deny what it is to be human. Undermine the arts in the curriculum—for that is what the current EBacc does—and we see a spiral of decline in provision, with the expressive arts becoming something accessible only to those privileged children whose parents can afford to pay for after-school activities, with others being left behind.
The hierarchy of value has implications for school planning and resourcing. Entries for GCSEs in arts subjects have fallen by 46,000 this year according to new figures recording England’s exam entries for 2016. It is not difficult to understand that if fewer pupils are taking a subject, demand dwindles and music, drama and art departments will shed staff, damaging the morale of the staff who remain. The uptake of creative subjects fell by 14% from 2010 to 2015, and our creative industries are facing a skills shortage. The Government’s figures show that the creative industries represent more than 5% of the UK economy—more than £84 billion in 2014—and grew by almost 10% between 2013 and 2014. The sector employs almost 2 million people.
The issue is not only about what arts education can deliver to our economy. We are facing a mental health crisis among our young people. We should be providing them with an education that makes them feel integrated and whole and uses all parts of their creativity, and does not just focus on high academic achievement. We know that developing the arts and creativity is important for mental wellbeing. The stories of actors who have been saved by drama at a young age are legion. One such actor told me that theatre had saved him from getting involved in drugs as a teenager. He grew up on an estate riddled with crime, but there was something about theatrical expression that just clicked for him and gave him a way out. I recently met a senior police officer on Merseyside. He felt our education was too obsessed with high academic achievement and that our neglect of educational activities that develop the whole person is leading to real problems in our society, with young people who do not want to or are unable to follow an academic route not being given the opportunity to acquire a broad education that will help them develop as people. That is quite an indictment.
The Government seem to suggest that the English baccalaureate would not be to the detriment of the arts. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) in 2013, they gave the reassuring words:
“The English Baccalaureate measure…leaves space for pupils to study creative subjects alongside a strong academic core. We believe good school leaders will continue to make time for artistic and cultural education.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 1174W.]
In fact, it has not worked out that way. Taking the example of art and design, we find a worrying picture. A recent survey by the National Society for Education in Art and Design found that exclusion from the EBacc is leading arts and creative subjects in state schools to be less valued and accorded less time in the school curriculum, accentuating an existing trend.
At least a third and up to 44% of teacher responses to the survey indicated that the time allocated for art and design over all key stages had decreased in the last five years. For state schools, where respondents identified that there had been a reduction of time allocated for art and design, 93% of those teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the EBacc had reduced opportunities for students to select their subjects. Those changes are in turn affecting the morale of the teachers of those subjects. Some 56% of respondents reported that the reduced profile and value given to their subject by the Government and by school management had contributed to teachers leaving or wanting to leave the profession. We cannot afford to let that happen.
There is a famous quote from Winston Churchill who, when asked to cut funding for the arts in favour of the war effort, said if not that,
“then what are we fighting for?”
That is a key point, because the arts are vital to our culture. We must guard and nourish them. If we do not have artistic expression, we cannot know ourselves and as people we are diminished. I urge the Minister to pause and take time out to reconsider the value of arts education.
Pupils from Overchurch Junior School in my constituency will be performing a production based on the works of William Shakespeare in conjunction with the Royal Shakespeare Company in 10 Downing Street this Wednesday. I urge the Minister to come along, take a fresh look and see at first hand just what drama and the expressive arts can give to our young people. The idea that there is no rigour comparable to that of the core EBacc subjects in mastering the major roles in the works of Shaw, Beckett or Shakespeare is demonstrably untrue.
Finally, the English baccalaureate has been developed as a performance measure for schools, not as the best possible curriculum offer we can provide for our young people. As such, it is distorting the balance of educational provision, and I urge the Minister to think again about the detrimental impact it is having on arts education in our country.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Chope. You have confused me by not being Ms Buck, but I will carry on. As always in education debates, it is interesting to compare the picture in Scotland with that in England. As a former physics teacher, I never considered physics to be any more or less worthy than any other subject. It seems as though a hierarchy of subjects is developing.
At first glance, the principles behind the EBacc seem laudable enough—a solid grounding in core academic subjects makes sense—but the argument is about the key subjects. We are all individuals—not everyone can excel at maths and science. Likewise, arts subjects do not come easily to others, including me. Scotland had a similar system to the one we are discussing today, but forcing pupils to study subjects in which they have no interest is counterproductive and has implications for pupil behaviour, engagement and attainment.
Carol Monaghan
A pupil will need a certain grounding in maths, but how many pupils need to know how to do complex algebra or calculus? Basic numeracy and literacy are different from studying subjects in great detail.
Carol Monaghan
In Scotland, we are looking at how we can prepare our students for the workplace. Calculus features in only a few, specific jobs, and we need to consider that.
In Scotland, the emphasis is no longer on a suite of specific subjects, but on personalisation and choice. That has led some students to specialise in science and technical subjects, while others enjoy success in music and the arts. Despite concerns that student numbers may drop in some subjects, the overall presentation numbers have not suffered, because students can take multiple subjects in a curricular area, such as three science subjects or three arts subjects. More importantly, pupil behaviour, engagement and attainment have all improved. Because students have opted into particular subjects, they are in charge of their own decisions and are full stakeholders. The current EBacc in England, rather than allowing students to flourish, is setting some up for failure. Surely a free choice of subjects gives students, especially those from a disadvantaged background, a far better chance of success.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) opened the debate by talking about the wide range of organisations supporting the debate, how society is enriched by the arts, and the job opportunities available in the creative industry. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) talked about his experience as a musician and how music improved cognitive skills. I know something about that. In a very tough council estate in Raploch, Stirling, a music programme where primary school students were taught the fiddle saw attainment, attendance and general participation all increase as a result.
The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) talked about her experience as a teacher, the importance of science and the arts and how creativity is at the core of British education. I concur; as a science teacher, I know that science is not always considered to be a creative subject, but our top scientists all have creativity in common. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has left, gave us a wonderful vision of his angelic choirboy past. It was quite hard to imagine. He talked about academic rigour and the benefits of studying the arts for creativity. As a physicist, I know that of the courses that are now developing at universities, including the University of Edinburgh, physics and music is now a joint degree. It is good to see those two subjects coming together as well as the juxtaposition of the two.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) talked about the importance of developing well-rounded individuals who can contribute and enrich society. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) talked about the unintended consequences of the current EBacc and how it could prevent creativity from flourishing. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) talked about the need to align skills to industry’s requirements. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the benefits of the arts to health and wellbeing. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about how we get students through the door and how different school activities can be the hook that draws them in, but she also raised concerns about pupils being forced to drop arts subjects because of the EBacc.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) talked about her experience as a former teacher and how theatrical experience allows some troubled students to express themselves in a different way. The Minister should consider seriously her point that the reduced value of arts subjects can contribute to low staff morale.
Scotland’s curriculum for excellence has eight curricular areas, all with equal status. The expressive arts is one of those areas. The Minister should consider the possibility of different flavours of EBacc, so that some students could have a science specialism while others had a language specialism or an expressive arts specialism, and others could do a general EBacc across a range of subjects. That would allow students both to flourish and to specialise in their chosen area.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. We have had a fantastic debate here this afternoon so far. The contributions from all parties have been, without exception, inspired, passionate and admirable.
I want to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the passion and comprehensiveness with which she put forward the case so well represented by all the people in the audience today. She was absolutely right to do the roll call of organisations that support the petition; she has saved me that job. She was absolutely right to cite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not often cited in these matters. The Minister and his colleagues might wish to take that issue on board if they are revising this particular issue in any shape or form, were it to have financial consequences. She also drew attention to the DCMS report and the culture of disfranchisement, restricting young people’s life chances, one-size-fits-all GCSEs, the Creative Industries Federation’s concerns, and the 46,000 fall in GCSE entries in arts subjects last year. Of significant importance—this point was taken up by other speakers across the divide—is the impact on the disadvantaged and the socially immobile.
In a spirit of cross-partisanship I also want to praise the absolutely excellent and admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) with his focus on music facilities, widening participation and the creative industries. It was a paean to the study of music. As someone who came to my interest in history in a significant fashion via music, I entirely agreed with him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) reminded us, as have others, that what counts is what matters in government, and she talked about the law of unintended consequences and the impact. I was delighted that she quoted Maxwell Davies’s new opera because, again, when I was a teenager, one of the first things that got me passionately interested in medieval history was the setting by Maxwell Davies of “The Fader of Heven”, which comes from one of the English mystery plays. It is appropriate at this time when the Orkney festival is in full swing and when of course we have sadly lost Maxwell Davies that she should have done that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) not only drew on his own history as a distinguished member of the Government, but spoke movingly of his own experience as a black chorister at Peterborough cathedral and about the rigours and the discipline of the music. I can personally endorse what he said about the great partnership between the Department for Education and DCMS during what he described as the Blair years, because I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in that Department at the time that that programme was being taken forward. It was a model of co-operation, with some financial tensions as always, but it was a model of co-operation across those two Departments, and it is a model of co-operation in getting out of silos that the Government would do well to emulate.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She has been a fantastic chair of the all-party group. She and I have had various conversations about the issue of unintended consequences. She was absolutely right to point to the need to get young people out and to get them experiencing things, as did the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), who has now left us. We can all probably remember school trips to theatres or music events that made an impact on us. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly brought us back not only to the aesthetic aspects, but the bread and butter aspects. If I might say so, one of Bradford’s most famous citizens, J. B. Priestley, would have been proud of her. She said that too many of her constituents did not have access to technical qualifications and she linked that to the need to develop new industries. I feel particularly strongly about this matter because it is second-level towns, if I can put it that way, in England and Britain today—the Bradfords, the Prestons, the Blackpools—that need a creative boost in their economies in the same way that our big cities got a creative boost in the early 2000s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the impact of BBC MediaCity on schools and creative learning. Again, when I was first a shadow Minister with responsibility for further education and skills, I went there with my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and saw some of the exciting work that was going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly pointed out that it was investment from the Labour Government in her school arts facilities that had potentiated them academically, and she made the point about how many people in Bristol earn their living in the creative industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) talked about the healing qualities of the arts and also the impact on the morale of the profession. Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), as well as making the very sensible point that strict hierarchies of subjects are not a good idea, also gave evidence of how a mix of subjects could have an impact on overall behaviour and commitment. So there was a string of experiences and arguments that the Minister would do well to ponder.
I want to talk about what some other organisations have said about their concerns in this area. I want to quote the response by the Edge education charity to the EBacc consultation, which some Members here may have had. It made the point that
“there has already been a significant shift away from creative and technical subjects in KS4. Entries for GCSE Design and Technology have fallen by 29% in five years…These trends would be severely exacerbated by imposing the full EBacc on 90% of KS4 students, because they would have to drop non-EBacc subjects to make room for foreign languages, history and/or geography.”
The statistics it cites are alarming:
“To get to 90%, 225,000 students will have to drop one of their current options and take a foreign language GCSE instead. The result will be a sharp fall in the number of students taking technical and creative subjects.”
I have already quoted what Edge said about GCSE design and technology. In the note it sent to colleagues today, it said:
“The 90% EBacc target will limit choices. Harm large numbers of students. Reduce the uptake of technical and creative subjects. Add to the country’s growing skills gap.”
It is that growing skills gap that the Minister needs to focus on in his response.
Mr Marsden
I agree entirely with what the Minister says about languages but, as one of my colleagues said earlier, it is not our job to set up one choice against another. It is for the Minister to navigate that process accurately and correctly. Simply quoting individual statistics is not going to make much of a point for him.
I was about to say that there is a curious disconnect in this debate. When we finally see the much delayed skills plan, I hope we will be able to welcome it. We are told that it will be incorporated into the Minister’s portfolio in the Department for Education, or certainly into the Department generally. The work of the taskforce, which was chaired by Lord Sainsbury and included Baroness Wolf and the head of my own further education college in Blackpool, is crucial to the debate about getting all these things right. It is a question not of having either technical skills or expressive skills but of where we take them. Given that the Government have spoken about the importance of higher-level skills, it seems passing strange that their forthcoming Bill will not be associated with what comes out from the Department. The truth is that it is not a question of developing either technical and professional skills or expressive arts skills.
Catherine Sezen of the Association of Colleges wrote recently in the Times Educational Supplement that
“it is important that in striving to boost technical skills, this is not at the expense of creative skills”.
Many colleagues have made the connection between those two areas today, and I hope the Minister will think very hard about that. Catherine Sezen’s article continues:
“Failure to protect these subjects could leave another skills gap, but one that could be more difficult to fill…This, combined with the introduction of the more rigorous GCSEs graded 9 to 1, means it is more than likely that schools will offer a more limited number of optional subjects. This will have an impact on take-up of creative subjects”.
It should not be forgotten—I am well aware of this, as Member of Parliament for a seaside and coastal town where tourism is really important—that many occupations, including catering, hairdressing and architecture, combine technical and creative skills. It is a question of seeing where the joins are.
In April, I had the privilege of visiting the University of the Arts London’s new campus at King’s Cross, where I met many people who had come to the college as students through a combination of technical expertise and creative interest. As the Minister may know, UAL is the leading educator of talent in the UK’s creative industries, but it is very concerned about not being able to attract sufficient numbers of young people to London, not just because of the high cost but because of the increasing lack of coverage in schools. The danger is that that will also hit the expanding creative industries.
The combination of technical and creative skills in the creative industries is crucial. I will not cite the figures for the amount our economy depends on them, because that has already been done very ably by colleagues. However, I will make the point, further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West said about students with special needs, that those students are often very strongly represented, not just at UAL but at other places. That is another area that should concern the Minister.
Other Members have already talked about MillionPlus’s briefing, so I will not go into it in any great detail, except to mention that it says that the role of modern universities, as a group, in supporting the creative industries is crucial. At a time when we worry in separate areas about the impact on modern universities of some of the proposals in the Government’s new Higher Education and Research Bill, the Minister might want to take that on board as well. We know the figures for the declining take-up of arts subjects at GCSE, and I will not go over them again.
I have two or three questions for the Minister about his progress on the consultation. First, when do the Government intend to respond to it? Will it be under this Government or a future Government? I think most Members present want to see a response from the Government in fairly short order. Secondly, the point about working across silos has been made very strongly, so what internal discussions has he had about the consultation with other Departments—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Treasury? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the equality impact of the EBacc’s implementation? If he has not made one, will he include one in his response to the consultations?
We need to get that spark of creativity that fires up young people. That is particularly true for my own town of Blackpool, where schools have always been strong in creative areas, even as they have aspired to better skills and academic excellence. I think of photography and design at Blackpool and the Fylde College, and of the performances I see month in, month out, of what we might expect in a seaside town. Schools are very good at putting on musicals and things of that nature. Wordpool, the annual festival funded by Blackpool Council, involves schools and helps children to write stories and poems, most recently about their own school giant. We have been able to do that in Blackpool because of the support that local government, which we have not had much chance to talk about today, often gives to these projects, despite the cuts.
All this is summed up by a letter I received literally this morning from the librarian of Thames Primary Academy in South Shore, which the Minister should understand is an area of high transience. She said:
“I am the school librarian at the Thames Primary Academy. I also run an Arts Appreciate Club…But I also know how hard it is for schools to find the time for these subjects…I believe many leaders of the creative community”
are worried about
“how much these subjects are losing students at high schools and in further education, to the detriment of our creative industries…I was struck by the date of this debate. It is my late father’s birthday, he loved and was very knowledgeable about art, classical music and films…He worked in a factory all his adult life but never felt that art was not for him. I wish we could get back to that feeling in this country.”
I echo those sentiments.
As I have said, I am an historian and a medievalist. I got my interest in medieval history not just from the battles and the dates but from listening to the music, from seeing the Wilton diptych and other fabulous things on a day trip to the British Museum, and—stretching the period a little—from seeing as a teenager the fantastic performance of Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I. Glenda Jackson, as hon. Members who heard her on Radio 3 recently might remember, was working in Boots and got her big break by getting a council scholarship to go to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Those are some of the issues that I urge the Minister to consider.
C. P. Snow famously wrote a book in the 1950s about the two cultures and the division between arts and societies. Let us not allow the consequences of the EBacc to perpetuate that division, however unintentionally. Denis Healey famously said that all politicians should have a hinterland. I think that the hon. Members who have spoken today have amply demonstrated their commitment to that hinterland, and I invite the Minister to do the same.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a delight to be debating under your chairmanship today, Mr Chope. I congratulate the organisers of the petition and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on delivering this important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have made very good speeches.
I share the hon. Lady’s commitment to the arts, and I want to reassure her that the Government share it, too, as demonstrated by the quotation from the Chancellor that she cited. We want to ensure that every child has a high-quality arts education throughout their time at school. Like the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), I was a chorister, and equally angelic, although not in a cathedral but a large parish church— St Edmund’s church in Roundhay in Leeds. I regularly go to the theatre—the Donmar, the National and the Chichester Festival theatre—so I am as passionate as anybody here about the importance of arts education.
We are committed to ensuring that such an education is not the preserve of the elite, but the entitlement of every single child. That concern was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) in his excellent and well informed speech. It is for that reason that, in maintained schools, music, art and design are compulsory in key stages 1, 2 and 3 of the national curriculum—between the ages of five and 14. This debate is not about all those years of education; it is about just two years after the end of key stage 3. Pupils must also be taught drama as part of the English curriculum and dance as part of the PE curriculum. Maintained schools also have a duty to offer key stage 4 pupils the chance to study an arts subject if they wish.
We have heard concerns today about the impact of the EBacc. It is important to set out why we are so committed to ensuring that the vast majority of pupils take the core academic curriculum subjects that the EBacc combination provides. Every child deserves to leave school fully literate and numerate, with an understanding of the history, geography and science of the world they inhabit, and a grasp of a language other than their own. Yet in 2010, many pupils—often those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—were denied an education in that academic core. Only 31% of pupils took a GCSE in history and only 26% took a GCSE in geography. Only 43% took a foreign language GCSE—down from 76% in 2000. A flight away from a core academic curriculum was taking place, and the Government had to act.
In 2010, we announced the EBacc as a measure for the school performance tables. The EBacc measures the number of pupils entered for and achieving good GCSEs in a core of academic subjects: English, maths, science, geography or history, and a language. The success of the EBacc so far is clear. The proportion of pupils entering the EBacc combination has risen from just 22% in 2011 to 39% in 2015. Hon. Members talk about arts subjects as an add-on to that core academic curriculum, but only 22% took that core academic curriculum in 2011, and we reached only 39% in 2015.
Schools have made progress, but there is still further to go, not least because pupils who are eligible for free school meals are almost half as likely to be entered for the EBacc as those who are not. It cannot be right that where a child goes to school or the wealth of their parents determines whether they study the core subjects that will help them succeed in higher education and the job market. I wonder how many hon. Members in this debate have GCSEs or—more likely, given our ages— O-levels in all the EBacc subjects.
Last year, we set out our ambition for 90% of pupils in mainstream secondary schools to enter the EBacc. We are clear that the vast majority of pupils deserve to benefit from studying a core academic curriculum up to the age of 16. We will not apologise for having high aspirations for every child, but I would like to reassure hon. Members that that core academic curriculum can safely sit alongside a high-quality education in the arts. We have never said that pupils should study the EBacc subjects and nothing else. All schools will continue to offer a wide range of options outside the EBacc so pupils have the opportunity to study subjects that reflect their individual interests and strengths. The EBacc is limited in size so there is flexibility for pupils to take additional subjects of their choosing.
Catherine McKinnell
One of the key questions that people continue to ask is why the Government have differentiated between history and geography, and some of the arts subjects. Why are those subjects not simply included in the EBacc options? If they are run alongside the EBacc, as the Minister put it, students undertaking the EBacc who do not take subjects in addition to the eight will not get the opportunity to study those arts subjects.
Mr Gibb
Yes, I will come to that.
The issue is that English, maths and science are compulsory until the age of 16. Until 2004, a foreign language was compulsory until the age of 16. It would not be hugely controversial to reintroduce such a compulsion, although we are not doing that. What we are really talking about is one subject—a humanity—for two years in our schools at key stage 4. All this debate seems to be about is whether children should continue to study either history or geography—one subject out of the whole school curriculum—for another two years at school. This debate boils down to that and whether we think it is important for students to study a language.
Our view is that it is important that young people at secondary school study history and geography at key stage 3, take both subjects seriously, and take one or other of them through to GCSE. We took that policy decision because we believe it is important that young people learn the skills of writing essays and that they engage in understanding that part of our history. It is a tiny part of the curriculum. We were also determined to keep the EBacc small to enable pupils to study the arts, a second foreign language or vocational subjects in the one, two or three extra slots that the EBacc allows.
Mrs Hodgson
I think we all agree that the aspiration behind the EBacc is honourable—the Minister cited figures for children in some of our poorer schools who were taking it, as opposed to those who are achieving it now—but why are we seeing the unintended consequences that are highlighted by the NSEAD report, which I cited earlier? Is he prepared to do anything about them?
Mr Gibb
The entries for art and design were 162,000 in 2010-11 and 176,000 in 2014-15—the latest figures that I have. In drama, in 2010-11, there were 74,000 entries; they dropped in 2011 to 70,000 and then 69,000, but they went up to 70,000 and are now 70,800. In media, film and TV, there were 51,000 entries in 2010; they went down to 49,000 and then 48,700, but they went up to 51,000 and are now 51,570. So there is no evidence that the subjects are declining at GCSE.
David Warburton
Is it fair to point out that all the figures just given by the Minister are from before the announcement of the new EBacc and the consultation of November 2015, which is what has seen the drop in entries that we are all talking about?
Mr Gibb
No. Those figures are a consequence of the EBacc measure, which was taken seriously by schools—we have seen an increase in the EBacc performance measure. That is what we have seen—no fall in the figures. My assertion is that there will be no significant fall in the arts subjects as a consequence of the EBacc figure of 90%. The schools cited during the debate—the ones that have the strongest arts subjects, the choirs and the music GCSEs—are all doing the EBacc subjects right through to GCSE. They are not neglecting the arts. In fact, I assert that the schools that have the strongest arts education are also the ones that get the highest level in the EBacc performance measure.
Catherine McKinnell
Will the Minister acknowledge some disagreement about the statistics, the widespread concern that there is already a significant drop in the take-up of subjects and huge concern about a further drop in future take-up? The Government cannot simply reverse this easily, because we will have lost the teachers and the experts in the profession as a result of the drop in numbers. They would be difficult to recover. Will the Minister take on board those concerns and come back with a proper response about what the Government will do to take them into account?
Mr Gibb
I will of course listen carefully to this debate and all the representations made to the consultation, but there is a problem in this country. All the participants in the debate have talked about the arts being in addition. No one said—I listened carefully—that a foreign language is unnecessary for the majority of young people. No one said that taking two or three sciences is unnecessary for most young people. No one said that maths is not important, apart from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan)—
Carol Monaghan
I do not think I said—in fact, I know I did not say—that maths was not important, although I said that basic numeracy was a requirement. What I did say was that advanced algebra and calculus were not necessary for every student to make their way in life.
Mr Gibb
That is where we disagree: young people living in a modern, complex society need to have mathematical skills that go beyond simple numeracy. They need to be able to do maths to the level of GCSE, which is why we have insisted that a GCSE in maths and in English are part of further education studies for students without those GCSEs.
No one in the debate is saying that those subjects should be dropped—in so far as that is concerned, we all agree. Our contention is that there is ample room to study, in addition to the EBacc subjects, the arts, economics or a vocational subject, if that is what interests the young person.
Mr Marsden
I understand the point that the Minister is making, but does he understand the point being made by the Opposition and elsewhere—that what is measured is what is valued? Unless the Minister says that every Ofsted report will look in the same detail at other, non-EBacc subjects, or take them into account in the rankings, as the EBacc subjects will be looked at—or as future employers will do—his argument is on somewhat weak ground.
Mr Gibb
People will look carefully at a school’s EBacc performance measure. We want more young people—90% by 2020—to be taking GCSEs in those core academic subjects, which will provide the widest level of opportunities for them in future. That is what all the evidence suggests, and the policy in China, Finland, the state of Ontario in Canada, the state of Victoria in Australia, Germany and Poland is that all young people study those EBacc subjects. In fact, no one present has disagreed that all those subjects should be compulsory to the age of 14, or that English, maths and science should be compulsory to 16: all the debate is about is whether young people should study a foreign language, or history or geography, for two more years. The policy of the Government is that they should be, because that is what is needed to have a broad and balanced education.
We deliberately kept the EBacc small—we received representations from all quarters asking for a whole range of other subjects, in addition to the arts, to be included in the EBacc. It could well become 10, 11 or 12 subjects if we gave in to those requests, but we deliberately kept it small—to seven or eight subjects—to enable young people to take an eighth, ninth or 10th GCSE, or an equivalent, in addition to the series of core academic subjects. That is what everyone in the Chamber today, I thought, had agreed with—that this is about what is in addition to the core academic subjects, and not instead of them.
On average, pupils in state-funded schools enter nine GCSEs and equivalent qualifications, rising to 10 for more able pupils. For many pupils, the EBacc will mean taking seven GCSEs and, for those taking triple science, it will mean taking eight. That means there will continue to be room to study other subjects, including the arts, as I have just said. If we extended the EBacc by including an arts subject, as proposed by the e-petition, pupil choice would be restricted, not expanded. Such a measure would prevent pupils from taking additional non-arts subjects of their own choosing, be that design and technology, religious education or a second foreign language. They might wish to study both history and geography, or to take a high-quality vocational course.
Mrs Hodgson
Does the Minister not recognise and perhaps agree that that might squeeze out other subjects, but would show that the arts are important? Science, maths, English and a language are important, but including a creative subject would send a vital message.
Mr Gibb
Messaging is one thing—I have said this to those who have been arguing about religious studies—but actually the lobbying itself is the messaging. I have never said, and no one in the Government has said, that arts subjects are any less valuable than the subjects in the EBacc. We have never said that economics is less valuable than any of the EBacc subjects. We have never said that vocational subjects are less valuable. In fact, we have had a whole review of vocational education, so that the remaining vocational qualifications that feature in the performance tables—more than 100—are valuable, deliberately, for that reason. We have never differentiated in our messaging between what is in the EBacc and what is not in the EBacc.
The purpose of the EBacc is to ensure that all young people take the combination of GCSEs that are taken by young people in the most privileged schools in our country and in the best and most high-achieving schools in the state sector. That is what we want and it concerns us that young people from deprived backgrounds who are eligible for free school meals are half as likely to take that combination, compared with their more fortunate peers. Tackling that issue is the core reason why the Government introduced the EBacc measure.
It has been suggested today that arts are not valued in the school accountability system. That is not the case. The EBacc is one of several measures against which school performance is judged. Progress 8, which forms the basis for the school floor standard, measures performance across eight subjects: English, maths, three EBacc subjects and three other approved qualifications. Those other slots can be filled by arts qualifications, if a pupil wishes. In addition, the once sprawling selection of GCSEs that was allowed to develop over the years has been narrowed to ensure that the ones we have are of a high quality—in fact, 28 GCSEs have been discontinued—which will further strengthen the position of core arts qualifications in schools.
There is no reason why the EBacc should imperil the status of arts subjects. Both core academic and creative subjects can, and should, co-exist in any good school. We have seen a dip in provisional arts entries this year, but since the EBacc was first introduced the proportion of pupils in state-funded schools taking at least one GCSE in an arts subject has increased, rising from 46% in 2011 to 50% in 2015. At Whitmore High School in Harrow, where 88% of pupils entered the EBacc in 2015, pupils benefit from opportunities to take part in a wide range of art, music and drama clubs.
GCSEs and A-levels in arts subjects have been reformed to include more rigorous subject content. From September 2016, schools will be teaching new GCSEs in music, dance and drama, and new AS and A-levels in music and in drama and theatre. We are working with exam boards and Ofqual to make sure it is very clear that all students should see live drama in the theatre as part of their drama qualification, and we expect that to be in place from September 2017.
It is worth noting also that one of the distinctive virtues of arts subjects is that pupils can and are very willing to participate in them as a part of their extra-curricular school experience. Pupils can perform in a school orchestra, take part in a dance group or participate on stage or backstage in a school play without necessarily taking music, dance or drama GCSE. It is for that reason that, between 2012 and 2016, we invested over £460 million in a diverse portfolio of music and arts education programmes designed to improve access to the arts for all children, regardless of their background, and to develop talent across the country. That includes support for the network of music education hubs, national youth music organisations, the National Youth Dance Company, a museums and schools programme and support for the Shakespeare Schools Festival. Those programmes are having an impact on pupils across the country. The National Youth Dance Company is in the middle of a national tour, which started on 26 June in Nottingham and takes in Newcastle, Leeds, Ipswich and Falmouth among other locations.
Music education hubs are intended to ensure that every child in England has the opportunity to learn a musical instrument through weekly whole-class ensemble teaching programmes. They are also expected to ensure that clear progression routes are available and affordable, and many hubs subsidise the cost of lessons for pupils. Under that programme, any budding seeds of musical passion that young people have will not remain un-nurtured. We announced in December that funding for music education hubs would remain at £75 million in 2016-17.
Introducing primary school pupils to the arts early on is important and that is why I am so pleased that every primary school in the country now has free access to “Classical 100”, which is a new resource to introduce pupils to classical music. It comprises high quality Decca recordings of 100 pieces of classical music from the 11th century to the 21st century that I hope will stimulate children’s lifelong appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of music. Examples include Beethoven’s fifth symphony and Vaughan Williams’s Fantasia on Greensleeves as well as children’s classics such as Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. That is something I was passionate about getting off the ground.
As well as programmes to ensure that all pupils receive a good arts education, we are continuing to invest in programmes ensuring the most talented can fulfil that talent. The music and dance, and the dance and drama awards schemes provide means-tested support to ensure that talented young people from all backgrounds receive the training they need to succeed in careers in music, dancing and acting. About 3,500 students a year benefit from that support, studying at world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet School, Chetham’s School of Music and the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts.
We have heard today concerns that the EBacc will hurt our creative industries. We absolutely recognise how important the creative industries are to our economy and our identity, but we do not accept that academic subjects at GCSE should prevent pupils from taking arts subjects.
Mr Marsden
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, who is—quite rightly—giving a heart-warming list of Government initiatives. I do not object to those in any shape or form, but can I bring him back to the specific questions I asked him? When do the Government intend to respond to the consultation, what internal discussions has he had and what assessment of the equality impact has been made?
Mr Gibb
The equalities impact will be published alongside the Government response to the consultation. Officials are working with officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The consultation response will be published—here is the date: in due course. I hope the hon. Gentleman is happy with that response.
Mr Gibb
Partly—that will do for now. We believe that for too long pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have been dismissed, missing out on the core academic curriculum that is taken as a given by their more affluent peers. Our EBacc policy will ensure that that is no longer the case.
Catherine McKinnell
I have been listening carefully to the Minister. I appreciate the argument he is making and the Government’s aspiration, but does he recognise that some young people will struggle with maths and English and the EBacc’s core curriculum? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) set out, including a broader range of optional subjects as part of that could keep some of those young people on board by allowing them to take more artistic, expressive and creative subjects, which help them to stay interested and focused on the core subjects in which they also need to achieve. By closing down those opportunities, the Government could be undermining the ability of more students to achieve the EBacc standard.
Mr Gibb
I could not agree more; we do not disagree on this. That is why those creative arts subjects remain compulsory from five right through to 14 and as options that schools are required to offer between the ages of 14 and 16.
We have kept the EBacc deliberately small to enable pupils to have time to study creative subjects. The pupils to whom the hon. Lady refers can and should be encouraged to take those subjects, to ensure that they are engaged. However, we also believe it is important for all young people to study a foreign language and to take sciences, maths, English and at least one humanity from the ages of 14 to 16. We believe they should be able to do that as a core, basic part of their education, in addition to arts subjects that they might want to study between the ages of 14 and 16.
I hope hon. Members are assured that in providing all pupils with a core academic education that will help them to succeed we are in no way preventing pupils from studying the arts. The EBacc is a powerful reform that has already led to more than 91,000 more pupils studying a core academic curriculum at GCSE in 2015 than in 2011. This vital component of the Government’s move towards more rigour in the classroom should not be diluted due to the idea that the arts and a core academic curriculum cannot co-exist within schools. They should, they can and they do.
Catherine McKinnell
Thank you for your patience throughout this debate, Mr Chope. I recently enjoyed a show called “Big and Small” at the Northern Stage in Newcastle. It was produced as a collaboration between a local high school and feeder primary schools. The younger children were selected on the basis that they were a little bit shy. The high school students had an interest in drama and creative arts, and they worked with the children—from creating the ideas to the script, the production and the costumes—to produce their own show, all in a matter of seven weeks. It was clear from seeing the show and meeting the children what a difference that experience made to both the older students and the young children in terms of their confidence, team building, creativity and self-belief.
For me, that was a very practical but powerful example of the difference that the arts can bring to children and young people’s broader educational experience. While I have listened carefully to the Minister, I feel that the Government’s policy and approach at the moment fundamentally risk undermining the benefits that can come from that experience. Many Members have set out powerfully their arguments for including arts in the core curriculum. At the most fundamental level we need these skills for our economy. If we put off children and young people who can flourish in those areas even though they may struggle in some other ones, the evidence shows that that would be a worrying trend.
It is not just a question of pounds and pence, however. For some young people it can be the difference between coming to school and giving up, between thriving in academia, thriving in creativity, thriving in both—or thriving in neither, if the subjects that young people feel passionate about cannot be undertaken as part of the EBacc. It is not an either/or issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) put it, very powerfully, children and young people should be able to choose. The fundamental question of why history and geography are rated differently from some arts subjects and why there is a false hierarchy for those subjects has not been answered.
The Government proclaim a belief in social justice and social mobility, which is hugely important, but that policy and some of the evidence flies in the face of that stated ambition. As MPs we have been through a period of bitter divisiveness in this country; we have been debating the country’s future. Now is the time to come together to reinforce society’s values of diversity, to empower young people to think creatively and inclusively. The drastic reduction in the take-up of arts subjects seems to be a movement in completely the wrong direction. On behalf of everyone who cares about the issue I urge the Government to think again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 111731 relating to expressive arts subjects and the EBacc.
Written Statement
Children's Social Care
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
Today the Government are publishing “Putting Children First: delivering our vision for excellent children’s social care”, a policy paper which sets out our programme of reform to children’s social care for the next four years.
Children’s social care services have an essential and life changing role to play in transforming the life chances of our most vulnerable children and families, stepping in to provide support so that children can stay with their birth family wherever possible. Where this cannot happen, difficult decisions often have to be made to put in place alternative arrangements that are in the best interests of the child, ensuring they have safe, stable and nurturing relationships, whether through adoption, foster care, residential care or family and friends’ care.
In January, we set out our ambitious vision and our reform programme for children’s social care, structured around three key areas:
People and leadership, bringing the best people into the profession, equipping them with the right knowledge and skills for the incredibly challenging but hugely rewarding work we expect them to do, and developing leaders equipped to nurture practice excellence.
Practice and systems, creating the right environment for excellent practice and innovation to flourish and creating a learning culture, drawing on both best practice and the lessons when things go wrong.
Governance and accountability, making sure that what we are doing is working, using data to show the strengths and weaknesses in the system, and developing innovative new organisational models with the potential to radically improve services.
“Putting Children First” sets out—against each of these three pillars—how we will create the conditions to enable Government, local authorities and their local partners, social workers and other professionals such as foster carers to provide consistently excellent children’s social care, where the best interests and voice of the child are at the heart of decision-making, and to enable excellence to flourish and spread.
By 2020 we want all vulnerable children, no matter where they live, to receive the same high quality of care and support. The best outcome for every child will be central to every decision that is made.
Also published today is an independent report on children’s residential care by Sir Martin Narey, former Chief Executive of Barnardo’s and independent social care adviser to the Department for Education.
Sir Martin is clear that, despite challenges, the quality of care provided in homes is generally high and that there is an important ongoing role for residential care as an option for looked after children. We support Sir Martin’s positive vision for the future role of residential care, and are very grateful for his report. The Government accept his analysis and findings and welcome the recommendations he makes. We will be responding more fully to his recommendations in the autumn. However, some immediate actions are clear and we will take them forward now, including:
Introducing a specific funding stream as part of the children’s social care innovation programme to test innovative ideas for using residential care in a more dynamic and creative way to support those children who can benefit; and
Developing a staying close programme for those leaving residential care, an alternative to the staying put arrangements which already exist for children in foster care. We will use the innovation programme to pilot possible models of staying close.
Copies of “Putting Children First” and Sir Martin’s report will be placed in both House Libraries.
[HCWS57]
Grand Committee
Children and Social Work Bill [HL]
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is my duty on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: Corporate parenting principles
Amendment 29
Lord Warner
“( ) In discharging its responsibilities under subsection (1), the responsible local authority must—(a) ensure that all partner bodies responsible for health, housing, police, employment, education and training services are aware of the needs of children and young people for whom they are responsible; and(b) advise the individual children and young people concerned of the availability of services offered by partner bodies which meet their needs and assist them in securing such services.”
Lord Warner (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I want to put Amendment 29 in context. I see it as part of a package relating to Clause 1. In our previous debate on Clause 1, there was a large measure of agreement that the corporate parenting principles needed to be kept tightly drawn and manageable in length. There was also a sense, however, that some important aspects, such as mental health, needed to be specifically incorporated into those principles. We also discussed at some length the importance of requiring the co-operation of other key partners in supporting the corporate parent in living up to those principles. I am sure that on this latter issue we will come back with amendments on Report to place a clear duty on key partner agencies and services to co-operate with the responsible local authority corporate parent.
I wish to raise a point on this, on which the Minister left me, and possibly other Members of the Committee, rather confused. Let me seek clarification from the Minister on what he said about other agencies co-operating with local authorities on the delivery of services linked to the corporate parenting principles. At one point he suggested that this was covered in Clause 10. As I said then, it is not. Then there was some suggestion that what was meant was Section 10 of the Children Act 1989. With a great deal of help from the Library, to which I give thanks, I have checked: it is not there in the 1989 Act. Then I asked the Library to show me the current version of the 1989 Act, as amended subsequently. It is not in the amended version of Section 10. I am struggling to find it elsewhere in any of the legislation. My request to the Minister, therefore, is that he write to me and other Members of the Committee as soon as possible—certainly well before Report—citing the text of the legislation that requires other agencies, and which of those agencies, to co-operate with the responsible local authority in delivering corporate parenting principles. Without that legislative clarity, I am sure many of us will want to press an appropriate amendment on this issue on Report.
I now return to my Amendment 29, which is linked to this issue. Alongside the corporate parenting principles and the co-operation and involvement of other relevant agencies, a third important element is, I suggest, required to make it all work in practice for the young people concerned. That is an obligation to help those young people get the services they need, which is where Amendment 29 comes in.
The amendment does two things. First, it requires the local authority corporate parent to ensure that all the relevant services are aware of the needs of children and young people in care or leaving care. We know that many of these services, some of which were cited in our previous discussion, are not aware of the special needs of those in care or leaving care. History suggests that we should strengthen the obligation on local authorities to bring home to the other agencies the special needs of those for whom they are corporate parents. Because of the unfortunate timetabling of the Bill, I had little time to prepare the amendment. I know that some services have been omitted from it, but this can easily be rectified.
The second part of the amendment places an obligation on the corporate parent to make sure the children and young people for whom it is responsible know about the services available to help them make their way in the world. It also obliges the corporate parent to help these young people secure those services. I regard this second aspect as very important indeed. Public services can be very complex; they can be very siloed—as was said in our last discussion—and pretty inaccessible. Many of us, as experienced and knowledgeable adults, often struggle to penetrate public sector bureaucracies, so why should we expect these young people to do it without help? It is not good enough to await young people coming forward and asking for help, which they often do not even know about. I recognise that I may not have got the wording quite right and this amendment would need to be aligned with the other amendments to Clause 1 that I have mentioned. However, I hope the Minister will see merit in this amendment and will be willing to make an amendment of this kind to the Bill and possibly discuss it with some of us beforehand. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. I do so because it reminds me of my experience of being acquainted with a young woman who left care some time ago. She did get access to mental health support and saw a therapist over a quite considerable period. She is thriving; she is doing well and supporting young people leaving care. When she spoke to me about her experience, she highlighted how important it was for her to have that access to a counsellor. So if this amendment helps her with that, I would definitely like to support it. We will hear from the Minister about the Children Act duties and I hope that will comfort the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
This woman has a younger brother in care and she is concerned about the access that he is getting to therapy. This is a real issue for many young people in care and care leavers, so I am looking for as much reassurance from the Minister as possible in his response.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his amendment and particularly his plea that we should have some meeting to clarify the various amendments that have been tabled. In the next group, I shall refer to some of these amendments and it strikes me again that this is something that ought to be tied up between the Bill team and those of us who are taking part because otherwise we are in danger of having a thoroughly ill-constituted Bill to send forward to the other place.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I also support the noble Lord’s amendment. He said that other bodies might be involved and I would draw particular attention to the position of the justice system in this context. Some of the young people involved will already have been involved in the justice system or may subsequently go into the justice system and, of course, have to emerge from it. It is important that there should be adequate liaison between the local authority and its services and those who have responsibility in the justice system, whether that is a custodial institution or another service. When the noble Lord returns to this—perhaps at a later stage—he might want to consider including that in the ambit of his amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, proposes in this amendment. Before I make the next remarks, I draw Members’ attention to my interests in the register as a member of Kirklees Council. My concern with the amendment, and others we will discuss in the course of this Committee, is the number of proposals that add to the responsibilities of local authorities. As anybody who is associated with local government will be aware, additional responsibilities nearly always require additional spending. I just wanted to draw the attention of Members of this Committee to what is happening to the budget for children’s services in Kirklees Council, which is no doubt repeated across local government. Kirklees Council is a large metropolitan borough serving 420,000 residents, which puts the figures I shall now cite in context. The budget that the council intends to spend on children’s services, which excludes what it spends on schools, was £71.6 million for last year and is £70 million for this year. For next year, the proposed budget is £53.4 million. Despite every effort by members of the council and officers in Kirklees—we have done all we can to protect spending on children’s services—the reduction over the next couple of years will be £18.2 million. As Members of the Committee will quickly calculate, that is a reduction of 25%. Within that reduction, there is a reduction of 10%—more than £3 million—in services specifically for looked-after children.
Will the Minister take into account the dire consequences of the Bill adding to local authorities’ responsibilities? Of course, it is not that local authorities have no wish to have better services for care leavers and looked-after children, but there is a big reduction in the amount that can be spent on them. Consequently, any additional responsibilities will be very difficult to fund.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. We all work with local authorities that have extraordinary constraints on finances. However, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, because it can make things easier rather than more difficult. I need to support it as it relates to what I said both at Second Reading and previously in Committee about the two things that are important.
First, any amendments must be tightly drawn. I am really concerned about the next batch of amendments because they could add considerably to local authorities’ responsibilities. Many people agreed that if you are a director of children’s services, you do not want to have to wade through yet more legislation. We are looking for less legislation but legislation that is clearer and more tightly drawn, to be freed up to get on with the job of looking after children.
The other important item is that we make clear that this is the responsibility of wider services. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, acknowledged that his was not a comprehensive list of those people who could do more to benefit these young people. I know that some of the amendments may be out of the frame. Some of the issues I raised last time in relation to financial services need more refinement. However, if we had these two things—tightly drawn legislation and a wider range of services with the responsibility—it would not add to the responsibilities of local authorities but streamline their work and ensure that others took their part. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I also support this amendment. I apologise for not being here for day one but at Second Reading I explained that I would not be able to be present last week. At Second Reading, there were a number of clauses—this is one of them—where I was concerned that the work of independent fostering agencies, adoption agencies and the voluntary sector as a whole, which provides increasing support to children in care and leaving care, was hardly noticed. We need to keep on top of that. We should not restrict its growth but we should ensure that it is joined up with what is required of statutory authorities and that quality remains high. In supporting the amendment, I hope consideration will be given to that area of work as well in any future redrafting.
The Earl of Listowel
Very briefly, I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. So much money might be saved if the right agencies worked with local authorities. It is hugely expensive to keep a child in a children’s home. If that child could be kept in a foster placement because there was adequate early intervention from health, for instance, the local authority could save a lot of money. There is room for negotiation—perhaps health could pay half the cost and the local authority could pay half the cost of an intervention, or there could be some other variation. But it could save local authorities huge amounts of money if the right intervention was made and the right agency worked in partnership with them.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I can see that the Minister is straining at the leash to answer this amendment. I make only two points, partly from my experience as chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales and partly as a member of the committee of inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into looked-after children in the criminal justice system.
What attracts me to this amendment is that it approaches a very real problem from two directions, both in a constructive way. What has struck me over the past few years in considering the problems of looked-after children and the response of various bodies to their needs is that there is still a silo mentality in the operation of some of those bodies, as well as a chronic lack of exchange of information. Those dealing with a child at any point in its journey through the system should have the most comprehensive picture possible of that child’s vulnerabilities and needs. In the best of practices, that happens but, all too often, it does not happen.
On the other side of the same penny, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, deals with the lack of awareness of the children themselves, and those who care for them, of their full range of entitlements. Having a responsibility to make children, or those with responsibility for them, aware of those entitlements, can do nothing but good in getting them the care they need at any particular point in their lives.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I am happy to signify my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, which is a common-sense amendment. Let me just express the hope at the outset that the Minister will find it in him to make a clean sweep of all our contributions—we shall see.
In moving Amendment 4 in Committee last week, I mentioned some of the arguments in favour of broadening the scope of the corporate parenting principles outlined in Clause 1. It is logical to adopt as comprehensive an approach as possible to corporate parenting and ensure that all those who can improve outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers have a role to play in parenting those children. In his reply on day one, the Minister stressed that the principles applied to all local authorities in England and that they apply to all parts of the local authority and not just to children’s services. That is important. He went on to highlight the fact that other bodies—such as central government, the National Health Service or housing organisations—are not corporate parents and therefore do not fall within the remit of the Bill, or this part of the Bill. He pointed out that NHS clinical commissioning groups had specific responsibilities for looked-after children, who were also specifically mentioned in NHS England’s mandate. That was certainly welcome to those who were unaware of it.
This amendment goes rather wider and includes the police but, given the proportion of looked-after children and recently looked-after children who have become involved with the youth justice system, that also has some relevance. That being the case, I hope the Government will accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, which seeks only to formalise the relationship between local authorities and other organisations, not least housing services, which increasingly are not found within the responsibilities of local authorities. What is of paramount importance is that there is joined-up thinking and working, leading to an outcome whereby all agencies, to use that umbrella term, ensure the most productive relationships on behalf of looked-after children.
Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 includes a duty on local authorities to co-operate with “relevant parties”. However, if that mechanism were working effectively, noble Lords would not have been contacted by various organisations working with or for looked-after children seeking to have the relationship tightened up to provide better outcomes across all agencies. They clearly believe that more needs to be done and we should listen to them, as they are involved on a day-to-day basis with the children the Bill is designed to help.
The Minister mentioned last week that the Government would look at the lessons that might be learned from Scotland. I hope he will note that there the widest possible range of organisations is given the role of corporate parents. Whatever potential obstacles appeared north of the border were clearly overcome. The Minister also stated:
“I would expect partners such as police and health bodies to consider how they can contribute to supporting care leavers. I also hope that many organisations in the private and voluntary sectors will commit to supporting young people leaving care through the care-leaver covenant”.—[Official Report, 29/6/16; col. GC 52.].
I submit that expecting and hoping sounds more like a recipe for disappointment than anything else. Such sentiments are by no means firm enough and the Minister should look to the Bill as a means of ensuring that those things happen. That is what young people leaving care, as well as those assisting them in doing so, have a right to expect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, before I respond, I am sure noble Lords will be interested in the documents that my department has published today relating to children in the social care system. The first is a policy paper entitled, Putting Children First: Delivering Our Vision for Excellent Children’s Social Care. It sets out our programme of reform to children’s social care for the next four years. The second is an independent report on children’s residential care by Sir Martin Narey, the former chief executive of Barnardo’s, who is an independent social care adviser to the Department for Education. Sir Martin paints a positive vision for the future role of residential care and we are grateful for his report. I am sure noble Lords will be interested in both publications, which we have today emailed to all noble Lords who were present on the first day in Committee. They will be available in the Library of the House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for this amendment. I fully appreciate the intention behind it. However, what he seeks to achieve is already encompassed within the corporate parenting principles and existing legislation, which I will explain.
The fourth corporate parenting principle is designed to ensure that the local authority, as a whole, acts as a corporate parent, and helps looked-after children and care leavers to gain access to the services and support they need, including those provided by other relevant partners—to avoid the silo mentality that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, to ensure that all those who can help are involved. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about Section 10, I apologise for the confusion. I am sorry to have created so much homework for him. Perhaps in future he can send me a short note and I could save him some time. After all, that is what officials are for. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, we are talking about the Children Act 2004, and I will write to the noble Lord with the relevant section and an explanation.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to make this section and duty more effective, for the first time we are bringing in the principle of corporate parenting. I am happy to discuss that with him further and, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to hold a meeting to clarify amendments and ensure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, says, that we get a sensible Bill without imposing too many new duties that are not really necessary on local authorities.
Local authorities are already under a duty under Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 to make arrangements to promote co-operation between the local authority and each of its relevant partners, including health bodies, schools, local policing bodies, probation boards and youth offending teams, as well as the voluntary and community sector. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I know she would always like to have more money, but this does not impose any more responsibilities on local authorities. The intention of the existing duty is to improve the well-being of children in the local area and the corporate parenting principles are matters that the local authority must consider under the existing legislation. They do not add further functions.
Therefore, it seems inconceivable that under the existing legal framework relevant local agencies would not be aware of the needs of looked-after children and care leavers in the area. If that is the case, the issue must be with how well the local authority is putting its existing responsibilities into practice rather than it being a problem with the law. Therefore, I see no need to add to the seven principles in the way the noble Lord suggests.
The approach used in the existing legislation is broadly similar to the way the duty to co-operate works in the Care Act 2014, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to during the Committee’s first sitting. The local offer for care leavers will take us further than ever before in helping to ensure that the needs of care leavers are in the minds of services related to health, housing, education, police and employment. In developing their local offer, local authorities will need to talk to those services about what they intend to bring to the table based on what care leavers have told them they need.
For too long care leavers have told us that they do not always have the information they need about the services they need to access and about what they are entitled to. We expect the local offer to set out in one place the full range of relevant services, any additional facilities or entitlements that are on offer, and information about how to access them.
The care leaver covenant, which I have mentioned previously, provides a truly exciting opportunity to build the offer of services and support from a wide range of agencies and individuals. There is no reason why there should be a limit on this. We would like local communities to be as inventive as possible in finding ways of supporting and helping their children in care and care leavers.
I appreciate the very positive intentions behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. However, I do not think it is necessary, given the requirements of the existing legislation and the enhanced focus on children in care and care leavers which the corporate parenting principles and the covenant will bring about. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister. Before responding, perhaps I may say that he offered to write to me. When I did not receive a letter, I went to the Library.
With this approach of simply asking local authorities to find different obligations in different bits of legislation, the Minister is undermining the strengths of Clause 1 and the corporate parenting principles. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has given me some interesting information about the Children Act, so technology is giving us instant access to some of these bits of information. However, they do not cover some of the issues that were raised in the debate about the corporate parenting principles; they are narrower in scope where the partners are asked to intervene. We have been having a debate about the full range of services and agencies that need to co-operate with the local authority to enable the corporate parenting principles to be delivered to children. The Minister did not really deal with the issue in the second part of my amendment, which is about the local authority taking the initiative and showing children and young people what services are available.
I looked very carefully at Clause 1(1)(d). It is a pretty general proposition about helping young people, and it does not define who the “relevant partners”—the wording in the legislation—are. If the Minister wants to get the best out of this well-intended set of corporate parenting principles, we have to beef up the Bill in terms of the duty to co-operate placed on the full range of services, and we may need to specify them in the Bill with something along the lines of my Amendment 29. I will certainly come back to this, as I suspect will other Members, on Report. In the meantime—
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, casting back to the Children Act 2004, one agency that was excluded was the Immigration Service. On the duty for all agencies to work together to secure the welfare of children, I am not sure that the Act was successful by excluding that service. In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, perhaps the Minister can make clear whether that is the case.
Lord Ramsbotham
“( ) A local authority in England must, in carrying out functions in relation to the children and young people mentioned in subsection (2)—(a) undertake a screening of the children and young people’s speech, language and communication needs;(b) to ensure those working with the children and young people are trained in awareness of speech, language and communication needs;(c) ensure appropriate support is provided for those children and young people with speech, language and communication needs.”
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, in moving Amendment 30 I shall also speak to Amendments 32, 44, 57, 63, 65, 67 and 69, which continue the discussion on Clause 1 and refer to the local offers covered in Clauses 2 and 3. I must declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, which three years ago published a report on the link between social disadvantage and speech, language and communication needs, or SLCN. I am conscious of the caveats about local authority resources made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lady Howarth of Breckland but I believe it is better to set out the total of what is required and then decide what cannot be done, rather than leave anything which is not in the Bill.
The inability of children to communicate is the scourge of the 21st century, fuelled by the use of the social media and a whole host of electronic gadgets to which too many of them devote far too much time. Someone has described the language that young people use to speak to each other, if they do so at all, as binary grunts. At Second Reading both I and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed that unless their SLCNs were assessed and treated, the children who are the subject of the Bill would be prevented from understanding or engaging with any of the changes proposed in it. The noble Baroness also made this point to the Grand Committee last Wednesday. To explain my case, and in acknowledging the risk of boring the Committee, perhaps I may repeat how I came to appreciate the fundamental importance of this issue.
In 1997, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, I visited Polmont, the young offender institution in Scotland, while researching for a thematic review that was being conducted of the treatment of and conditions for young people in prison. As its excellent governor and I walked round the institution, he suddenly said that if he had by some mischance to get rid of all his staff the last one out of the gate would be his speech and language therapist. Not having come across such a person on the staff of any young offender institution in England I asked why, to which he replied that too many young people could not communicate either with each other or with staff and that, until and unless they could, it was impossible to discover what problems they had and plan what help they needed. His speech and language therapist assessed every young person on reception and advised the discipline, education and healthcare staff on which identified SLCNs should be included in individual sentence plans.
To cut a long story short, I have been campaigning unsuccessfully for a speech and language therapist to be on the staff of every young offender institution ever since. Proof of their value was provided by the governors of the two institutions in which therapists were funded for two years as a pilot by the Helen Hamlyn Trust. Each said to me within a month of their therapist’s arrival that they could not think how they had managed without them. The all-party group has campaigned for every child in the country to have their speech, language and communication ability assessed by the age of two by a health visitor trained by a speech and language therapist to identify potential problem areas, so that individual SLCNs can be treated before a child starts primary school, with the aim of enabling them to engage with their teachers and therefore with education. We would therefore like to see regular SLCN reassessment throughout a child’s school career, including pre-employment assessment on leaving, to ensure that they are able to communicate during each stage of their schooling. I have seen outstanding work during secondary schooling in Walsall, for example, that picked up problems that had been missed during the primary phase, saving children from possible truancy and/or exclusion.
Amendment 30 includes three requirements of local authorities: that they ensure, first, that the SLCN of every child and young person subject to the provisions of the Bill is assessed by someone such as a health visitor who, secondly, has been trained to identify potential problems; and, thirdly, that they ensure that appropriate support is then provided to treat identified needs. More widely, every child should have what is now called an education health and care plan, which are currently made only for those with special educational needs. For most children, the default plan will be the normal educational system. Recent legislation has laid down that home local authorities have responsibility for ensuring that such plans apply to those in custody as well, as the Minister will remember.
As for an assessment tool, I recommend that developed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for use by the Youth Justice Board in its AssetPlus programme, which provides an excellent model that could be followed with advantage. Amendment 32 requires that the Secretary of State include those three requirements in any guidance that is sent to local authorities. Amendment 44 includes the provision of speech, language and communication support in all local offers. Amendment 57 requires personal advisers of former relevant children to be trained in SLCN awareness, and Amendment 63 includes SLCN in the subjects to be assessed and included in pathway plans made by local authorities for such children.
The aim of Amendment 65 is slightly different, in that it is tabled in the same spirit as the amendments I tabled to Clause 1. As many noble Lords have said in relation to other duties required of local authorities, there should be no ambiguity about their duty to inform relevant children of their right to request advice and support. The word “must” says it all. The background to this amendment is that prison staff working with care leavers in custody have reported considerable difficulty in identifying local authority leaving-care managers, particularly for home local authorities nowhere near their prison. Some local authorities go so far as to record care leavers as not in education, employment or training, and therefore outside their responsibility. The aim of my amendment is to ensure that local authorities establish links with prisons and other justice agencies, in which children and young people for whom they are responsible are held, and institute effective joint working methods. This seems entirely in line with the Government’s care leaver strategy and by linking regional and NOMS care leavers’ champions, should ensure that there is a framework on which planning and support for relevant children can be based.
Bearing in mind the high proportion of care leavers with SLCNs, Amendment 67 seeks to ensure that both advice and support are given to former relevant children in a language that they understand, which must include the avoidance of bureaucratic gobbledegook. Amendment 69 may seem like a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but even though they may have been informed of their right to make a request—if Amendment 65 is agreed—many of these children have not the slightest idea of to whom to go to make one, let alone how to make it, even supposing that they can read and write. Civil servants, who may not understand this, must be reminded of their responsibility for providing clear and transparent information, set out in straightforward terms, which will enable care leavers and former care leavers to access what is on offer to them.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 38, is completely different in concept but is also designed to improve local offers and is based on pathway plans, as outlined in the Children Act 1989. A report by the Children’s Society, The Cost of Being Care Free, found that too many people leaving care with no family to support them were falling into debt and financial difficulty, which suggested a lack of sufficient financial education. Again, we are up against inconsistency because the report also found that other than encouraging advice by personal advisers, nearly half of local authorities do not commission additional financial support. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has drawn attention to accumulation of debt, threats to their tenancies and their inability to avoid this through careful budgeting being issues of continuing concern to care leavers. Hence Amendment 38 and the proposal that “financial education” be included in the list of supported services included in local offers. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 30, 32, 40, 44, 46, 57 and 63, to which I have added my name. I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who has, I think, given all the detail that the Committee needs. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading.
It is important for government and all who have responsibility for looked-after children to recognise that they could have unidentified or unmet communication needs. This unidentified or unmet need could prevent children and young people understanding and engaging with the changes to their lives that are being proposed and therefore they could struggle to have a meaningful input into those decisions. A lack of identification and consequent intervention for those with communication needs could lead to a range of negative outcomes in relation to their health and well-being, education and training, employment and participation in society. In addition, as shown in the statistics given at Second Reading, it could lead to their involvement in the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already told us.
Those of us debating this issue today have good communication skills. Most of us cannot imagine what it is like not only not to understand what is being proposed for our lives but to be totally unable to respond in a way that adequately reflects the turmoil and uncertainty that we feel inside. Looking into the eyes of a child while explaining the processes and outcomes for them may assist those dealing with the child to tell whether the information has been understood. However, it is not a very scientific test, and it will certainly not assist the child or young person to respond if they have communication problems. Access to properly trained speech and language therapists is essential to ensuring that these extremely vulnerable members of our society are able to have a voice. Unless such help is provided, I fear that we will see statistics showing an increase, not a decrease, in the number of care leavers suffering from poor mental health and becoming prevalent in the criminal justice system.
Listening to the voice of the child is paramount. Children have a right to express an opinion on their care. Those providing help for young people about to leave the care system must be able to assess their ability to read and digest the written word, as well as the financial implications for them. As we discussed last week, this is essential in ensuring that they are able to budget and manage their money so that they do not fall into debt or find themselves facing sanctioning from the jobcentre or eviction from their accommodation.
I hesitated to use the word “illiterate” in Amendment 40, as labels, once attached to people, are often very difficult to shake off. Care leavers do not need this added stigma. They need help to overcome their difficulties, with information provided in a format that they can access, whatever that may be.
Personal advisers for care leavers up to the age of 25 should be properly trained in identifying and helping to overcome the communication difficulties of the young people they advise. Without this, there will be a huge gap in the support they are able to provide. Will it be up to local government to ensure that adequate trained support is provided? This should not be a charge on the local council tax payer; it should be properly resourced and funded by central government via the NHS. If the Government are serious about assisting care leavers to make the best of their lives, they will ensure that the funding is made available to cover the costs. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a positive response on this group of amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 35 in this group but I also support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, which refer to speech and language issues, and I have added my name to them. As I said in the debate on an earlier group, these issues are vital and must not be ignored.
My Amendment 35 seeks to ensure that information about the local offer for care leavers is provided in a form that is accessible to all children. We must not assume that all young people leaving care are fully abled. There are children leaving care who have sensory impairments, although such young people may stay in care a little longer than others. There are those with physical disabilities that might make it hard for them to use the internet easily. They, too, want to lead independent lives with the right support. There are those with learning disabilities who may be quite capable of living independently with the right support but need someone with an understanding of their problems to interpret the information for them so that they can express their wishes about what they need or want to access.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39 in this group, tabled in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Our amendment remedies a serious omission in the list of the areas of support that councils are required to include in their local offer. It stipulates that information and services that will help young people to develop and maintain healthy and supportive relationships should be available alongside the other five areas of health and well-being, education and training, employment, accommodation, and participation in society.
When parental care fails, for whatever reason, and children and young people are taken into the care of the local authority, it is easy for us as legislators to treat this primarily as a legal problem. Obviously, it is essential that a minor’s legal status be clear and established. However, first and foremost, we should be aware that these circumstances typically create a relationship problem because of the profound long-term effects of losing parental attachments and the often taken-for-granted bonds with siblings and others in the extended family.
At birth, every child comes into that little unit, their family, where relationships are, ideally, formed and nurtured. Relationships are foundational to all human societies and what human existence is all about; without them, that existence can feel precarious, fraught with fear and difficulties and even fundamentally unwelcome. This is especially the case when making the transition from dependence into independent adulthood, a difficult and protracted shift for every human being, even when they have the back-up of good enough parents.
Although I welcome the inclusion in Clause 1 of the corporate parenting principle that children should have stability in their home lives and relationships, this is the only place where the word “relationship” is mentioned in relation to care leavers. Others noted this infrequency at Second Reading, such as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who mentioned a lack in this area. Three-quarters of young people leaving care admit to difficulties due to loneliness and isolation. Almost half found these very difficult to cope with, and those numbers could easily be higher, as admitting to such feelings is still stigmatised in our society.
Information about and provision to assist young people to build relationships should be included in the local offer laid out in the clause because it is highly likely to be another area of lack, given that they have not been able to learn such “habits of the heart” in their birth home. The Government might consider that this is covered by subsection (2)(a), on health and well-being, but we simply cannot take that for granted. Relationships are not yet embedded as a priority for public bodies. The best example of that is found in Public Health England, whose mission statement says:
“We protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities”.
However, both its annual plan and the public health outcomes framework are relationship-free zones, something that the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships and others have been challenging for several years on the grounds that at least three-quarters of the indicators contained in the public health outcomes framework are directly or indirectly influenced by the quality of people’s couple relationships. It is stated rather narrowly, but noble Lords will take the point.
The inability to form and maintain relationships is a root cause behind poor health and well-being. It undermines educational attainment, employment prospects, the ability to maintain a tenancy and have otherwise stable accommodation, societal participation, and all the other itemised aspects of the local offer. This is not just because of the lack of self-esteem, self-confidence and other internal factors that can put lonely and rootless young people at such a disadvantage. Relationships have instrumental value. The deficit in social capital, when a young person has no family members to open their contact books to get them work experience and almost no settings in which they can acquire soft skills, can have devastating effects. Services do exist for young people to help address these relational difficulties. I have talked before about Love4Life in Loughborough, and Oasis College was recently established to ensure excellence in the many organisations that work in this and other related areas. They will not, however, be automatically commissioned without some indication from the Government that they are indispensable to a comprehensive and effective local offer.
I also gave concrete examples at Second Reading of the kind of services that local authorities can provide and commission. Northern Ireland’s model of person-specific personal advisers enables local authorities to draft in people who already get on with and are trusted by the young person leaving care. At present, care leavers are matched up with someone they may never have met before who usually has a couple of dozen or more vulnerable youngsters on their books. There is also a lot of staff churn, which makes a mockery of relationship stability.
I also recommended consideration of the family finding and engagement model in California and other parts of the United States. That name is slightly misleading in our system and not to be confused with the family-finding process to locate good potential adoptive parents. US family finding makes the most of blood connections with extended family and other supportive relationships that children entering or in the care system have already developed with adults, such as teachers, youth workers or the parents of friends. Instead of allowing them to lapse, local authorities treat these relationships as potential lifelong links and draw on this resource to build intentionally a network of support around young people before they leave care. What they are looking for is a small number of adults who are reliable and willing to be involved in the young person’s life and will keep in touch with them whatever happens, inviting them for Sunday lunch or to spend Christmas Day with them, for example. As I said, a highly suitable personal adviser could emerge from that process. If the Department for Education were able to furnish local authorities with model contracts, this would help them greatly.
I conclude by saying that this is a probing amendment. If my noble friend does not feel that this clause is the right one in which to place the necessary emphasis on relationships, I am open to the legislation being strengthened in this way elsewhere. Otherwise, the legislation will not, I fear, boost vulnerable young people’s life chances as much as might otherwise have been possible.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 39, to which my name has been added. It says it all that we are discussing this important issue about relationships in a hugely important group with some hugely important amendments but, frankly, the two do not sit very happily together.
At Second Reading and last week I talked about mental and emotional health, including how the love and support of foster parents can make all the difference. That is because of the relationship involved. I also stated that very little notice appears to have been taken in the family test, which was part of the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, of children’s wishes and feelings, particularly about relationships that they value or may want to preserve. It is not an exaggeration to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, did, that the Bill at the moment is almost devoid of reference to relationships. I am very pleased to see that other noble Lords are trying to ensure that this emphasis comes through more strongly in other amendments in other groups. I fear that that this lack of emphasis on relationships threatens to undermine the admirable intent of a good chunk of the Bill, which is obviously to ensure that we improve outcomes for care leavers.
There is an absolute wealth of research reports, including those from the Centre for Social Justice, concluding that if we do not put strong, healthy relationships at the heart of the care system, we will never see the improvement in life chances that we are all ambitious for. At Second Reading, I talked about the need for ambition—for setting ourselves a higher standard. We simply cannot treat the presence of strong relationships in the lives of children who have been in care and are leaving care as a “nice to have”. That is just not good enough. Strong relationships are of fundamental importance to any young person in their transition to adulthood. Without someone who will provide unconditional love and acceptance, the challenges that the world presents can sometimes seem insurmountable. Such relationships must be a fundamental element of young people’s care-leaving packages. Those young people need to know how to draw on the resources inherent in good-quality relationships; for example, how to handle misunderstandings and perceived slights, and the constant need for compromise—give and take, if you like.
Finally, there are good relationship support services available for young people. Indeed, there is evidence of their effectiveness—they work. They are provided by a broad range of providers, mainly in the voluntary sector. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my declared interest as vice-president of the charity Relate. If local authorities were required to provide information—not the service itself, just information—about relationships and these services, we would begin to see far greater take-up of what is on offer. Those benefits would then go into adult life and adult family relationships.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke effectively about the fundamental importance of relationships to us all but particularly to young people whose first relationship is often so flawed and damaging. That made me think of the example that some of our senior politicians currently set about what a good relationship is. One lesson we might learn from current experience is that our political culture needs some reform. We need to think about how we make our culture one where the best rise to the top, and where we have confidence that they are shining examples to us all of how one should behave. I say that with all my own faults and probably hubristically; I apologise for that.
I shall concentrate on two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 30 from my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, which is on screening. As a child, I had a speech impediment. I was teased by other boys because of it. I saw a speech therapist, did some exercises and no longer have my speech impediment. I was no longer teased by the other boys and I felt better about myself for that. We know that many young people in care can feel stigmatised, different or abnormal, as was mentioned earlier, so to provide them with these services and enable them to recover—to speak normally, as others do—is particularly important from that aspect.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, in speaking to their amendments the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and other noble Lords have outlined the importance of recognising that looked-after children may have unidentified or unmet communication needs, which could prevent children and young people understanding and engaging with the changes that the Bill proposes. For those with communication needs to fully benefit from the Bill’s changes, it is essential that any accompanying regulations and guidance stipulate that, as noble Lords outlined in last week’s Committee session, on entry to the care system the initial health assessment that local authorities are responsible for undertaking should include a mandatory screening for speech, language and communication needs.
The document Putting Children First, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, a few minutes ago and which dropped into our email inboxes about lunchtime today may well meet those concerns. It is a weighty document; not perhaps Chilcot-esque but there is quite a bit in there and it has not yet been possible to examine it in detail. I hope that that document, which I am sure is important, has some of the answers that have been asked for within this debate.
Amendment 32 would at least ensure that speech, language and communication needs are covered appropriately. To ensure that this is as effective as possible, it seems obvious and perhaps logical that people working with, supporting and caring for looked-after and previously looked-after children should receive training in awareness and communication needs, including knowing when to refer someone for speech and language therapy. It would surely be a matter of great concern if such referrals were not made due to the inability of the individual who comes into contact with them when they enter care. In the longer term, looked-after and previously looked-after children should have continuing access to speech and language therapy to help them address their communication needs as their lives progress.
I was surprised to learn that at present many children diagnosed as having speech, language and communication needs receive just one hour of direct intervention from a speech therapist each week and that at the age of seven, in all but the most extreme cases, that help often ends due to financial restrictions. Most then receive no further intervention until they enter secondary school three years later. That gap can surely have an extremely damaging effect on children with speech, language and communication needs. If that is so serious among the school population as a whole, how much more serious it is for children who are in care.
The fact that communication needs to be referenced so often in the various amendments we are considering today, not just in this group, highlights the importance of ensuring that such needs are identified when children and young people enter care and for those already in care to have any such needs identified when they are about to leave it. The importance of providing proper specialist support extends to the need for financial information and to understand relationships. So often, we have heard of young people leaving care being given their own accommodation without any proper planning or experience and with little ability to care for themselves. Debt soon follows, which can lead to accommodation being lost and benefits sanctions contributing to a terrible downward spiral. The difficulties of relationships ought to be another obvious area in which every step is taken to prepare young people as fully as possible for leaving care. Under some of the amendments we will deal with later, we will describe what can happen when people enter relationships without adequate preparation and support.
The amendments span both the corporate parenting principle and the local care offer. They strengthen the Bill and are worthy of our support.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 30, 32, 38 and 57. I wonder why the issue of personal advisers being trained in speech, language and communication awareness is in this group when we will be discussing their role under a later amendment; however, we are where we are. A number of issues need to be brought together and understood, perhaps after Committee.
I shall give your Lordships a flavour of what I mean. First, let us deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who rightly said that poor speech, language and communication limit not only children in care but young people generally. Eighty-eight per cent of unemployed men have speech, language and communication needs. They limit employment opportunities, affect their social and emotional well-being and contribute to literacy, behavioural and other social problems. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, “Let’s have mandatory screening”. What do we do in schools? Are we not screening there all the time? We are continually assessing and testing, so why do we need another form of mandatory screening? We need to ensure that that information gets passed to the relevant people.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord McNally has been unable to stay. A year ago, I went to award the local youth offending team a dyslexia awareness certificate, which means that they can identify young offenders who have dyslexia problems. I was horrified to learn that no information is passed to that team on the academic, literacy or communication skills of those young offenders. Is that because of data protection issues? If we are to provide the necessary support for those young people in care, that information needs to be made available. If there is a body of information in schools, it needs to be passed on.
On personal advisers, your Lordships probably remember from Second Reading that I went through as many job adverts as I could find for personal advisers. I was concerned that there was no standard requirement; it was all over the place. Nowhere in any of those advertisements did I see any mention of speech, language and communication skills. The two are linked. If personal advisers are as important as they should be, part of their qualification or awareness must be in this area. How do we make that happen? Currently, there is no legal requirement on what personal advisers do, only suggestions. We need to spend time understanding that so that these people are the best who can be provided.
Finally, the key to this is making sure that the information is available in schools. By the way, this is not just an issue for children in care or care leavers, it is an issue for all children. I am glad that the Government, both in the coalition years and now, are addressing those issues in schools, through the pupil premium. I am a bit concerned—perhaps the Minister in replying could correct me on this—that we say that the pupil premium particularly should go to looked-after children. My experience in many schools is that it just goes into the common pot and the looked-after children, to use the vernacular, do not get a look-in. I want to be sure that perhaps Ofsted, when it is carrying out inspections of schools, makes sure that this pupil premium—where there are looked-after children—is particularly linked to the needs of the looked-after child.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, before I say a word on Amendment 32, it is extremely interesting how, as on the first day in Committee, fascinating bits of information from people’s background and knowledge of the whole of this area comes out, all of which is enormously valuable to those who are responsible for these Bills and this Bill in particular.
I support Amendment 32 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, because it states that the,
“guidance given by the Secretary of State must stipulate … the need to screen children … the need for those who work with … children … to receive training in awareness of speech, language and communication needs”,
and refers to,
“the need for appropriate support to be provided for those children and young people with speech, language and communication needs”.
Above all, I stress that there is a need to update regularly all those people who are in this position and working with these children in need. Although I agree that all children need attention and need us to be aware of how they are developing and of what particular skills that will be essential in their future lives they are lacking, nevertheless, it is those who are in this very important position who need to be updated and know exactly what is happening in this area. I am very much in support of everything that has been said on this group and I look forward to what the Minister will say.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and start by addressing Amendments 30 and 32. Comprehensive legislation in this area is already in place and the local offer and support of personal advisers will strengthen existing arrangements. Under Section 22 of the Children and Families Act 2014, local authorities must identify all the children or young people in their area who have special educational needs or a disability. If needs are identified, a series of legal obligations will result in the local authority securing the necessary special educational provision. The statutory SEND code of practice sets out the detailed requirements on local authorities in relation to identifying and meeting special educational needs, including speech, language and communication. In addition, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we expect details of services to meet speech, language and education needs—including how they can be accessed—to be included in the local offer, which every local authority is required to publish in consultation with children, parents and young people.
The department also funds a consortium of more than 40 voluntary and community sector organisations to support practitioners working in the field of speech, language and communication. The department recently extended the contract, awarding a total of £650,000 in 2016-17 to extend and strengthen the evidence base around SLCN, increase awareness of speech, language and communication needs, and build capacity in the sector so that it can indeed provide the support that all noble Lords feel is so important. Virtual school heads, working with designated teachers and special educational needs co-ordinators, should also identify the support that looked-after children need in speech, language and communication. I know that under further groups of amendments today we will discuss in more detail the role of virtual school heads.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a quick question about SEN thresholds. I understand that recent legislation has raised the threshold for an SEN statement, the idea being that schools will have better capacity to meet the lower-level issues. I had a fairly low-level speech impediment and I am not sure that I would have qualified for a statement. I should like to be told whether that threshold has been raised and whether we are getting evidence that schools are able to meet the lower levels which are no longer being statemented. Perhaps the Minister would write to me or we could just have a conversation about it afterwards.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, as I am to all those who have taken part in the debate on this group. I must admit that I am always nervous when I hear the phrase “comprehensive legislation is in place” because it reminds me that we are serving under what has been called the “management complex”. It may be all very well for people in Whitehall to lay things down and think that it is comprehensive, but a word that came up over and over again at Second Reading, as it is doing during Committee, is “consistency”. It is not a matter of laying stuff down; it is a matter of seeing that it is delivered consistently everywhere.
What worries me about much of this—about Section 22 and SEN and so on—is that it is all very well as seen from here but it will not be good enough unless it is reflected on the ground. I have taken note of what the Minister has said and I will come back on Report with some examples of inconsistency—that is, where it is not happening on the ground. It is very important that officials realise that rather than merely issue the instructions.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned relationships. In young offender institutions where speech, language and communication therapists were introduced, the first thing that was noticed was an improvement in relationships. With that improvement, the whole atmosphere and the way that things were conducted in the institution improved. Somebody described it by saying that they were communicating with each other using the mouth rather than the fist. That was a pretty good basic description.
Had my noble friend Lord Northbourne been here, he would yet again express the concern he expressed to me that we hear an awful lot about corporate parenting but there is nothing about parenting skills themselves in this Bill. Those are hugely important, and at the basis of all the social work we are talking about. I am surprised that there is no mention of that in the Bill. I very much hope that may be rectified in government amendments that will install in the Bill some of the things the Government have assured us are in place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Wheeler
“(2A) A local authority in England must conduct an assessment of the services required to meet the needs of care leavers in relation to—(a) health and well-being;(b) education and training;(c) employment;(d) accommodation;(e) participation in society.(2B) The results of the assessment must be published online.(2C) A local authority in England must provide services that meet the needs identified in the assessment carried out under subsection (2A) and which also meet the national minimum standard.”
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendments 41, 42 and 45 to Clause 2 and Amendment 54 to Clause 3 aim to make the local authority offer to care leavers a firm, proactive commitment to support rather than the you-approach-us emphasis currently in the Bill. We strongly agree with the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers that the Bill does not go far enough to make a real difference to young people’s lives and that strengthening the local offer to all care leavers up to the age of 25 is a key opportunity to transform the standard of support that care leavers can expect. Our Amendments 47 and 74A deal with this important entitlement issue.
Noble Lords underlined the need to ensure the high standards of support for children in care and care leavers, as well as the best opportunities and access to the services that can help reduce the inequalities they face and set them on a positive path to the future. Amendment 41 places a statutory duty on the local authority to carry out an assessment of the services to meet care leavers’ health, well-being, education, training, job, housing and social participation needs, backed up by the duty to provide those services.
Together with other noble Lords, we stressed the need for a national minimum standard of care for the quality and extent of services which should be offered to care leavers. Amendments 41 and 43 emphasise this. The Bill currently requires local authorities simply to publish a list of the services they provide. This will not address the need for proactive support for care leavers or ensure that they have the information and advice underlined in previous amendments. What is needed is a national offer to serve both as a framework and as an undertaking about the availability of services across the country.
As part of these considerations on the importance of minimum service standards, I briefly for the record draw on the experience and findings of a recent major project, New Belongings, in which I was privileged to take part. It was a three-year project funded by the Department for Education and overseen by the Care Leavers’ Foundation. It involved both elected and staff leadership, practitioners from local authorities and care leavers. Its vision was to work with local authorities to improve outcomes for care leavers by using the care leavers’ experience and wisdom to shape and make decisions about the services that should be provided.
The project’s second phase ended in April. The finishing touches are currently being made to its final report, and it is being independently evaluated. Some 28 local authorities in England took part, covering 90% of all care leavers aged 19 to 21. They worked mostly in clusters, which was invaluable in developing local plans and in sharing and learning from each other. Key requisites and criteria from the outset were that the project had the personal and active support of the chief executive and the council leader. That was crucial. They signed up to the care leavers’ charter and undertook to work with local businesses to offer opportunities and support to care leavers.
Local authorities listening actively to care leavers through regular surveys and engagement through a care leavers’ forum was also at the heart of the project. Care leavers need to be central to decisions about services—decisions about them as individuals and about overall services to care leavers. This ability to listen, the quality of engagement with the care leavers’ forum and the real commitment of senior council leadership to corporate parenting were, together with the effectiveness of personal advisers, the three main factors contributing to improved outcomes for care leavers in the majority of the project clusters.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 98A in this group in my name. This is about the universal credit standard allowance for single claimants under the age of 25, for care leavers and lone parents. It ties in with much of what my noble friend has just said.
I thank the Family Rights Group for its advice on this amendment, which is rather complex, but clear. Under the current system of income support and income-based jobseeker’s allowance, the rate of personal allowance payable to a claimant depends on the claimant’s age and whether the claimant has children. Those under 25 year-olds who are not parents receive a lower rate of personal allowance than those aged over 25. A lone parent aged 18 or over will receive the same higher rate of personal allowance that those aged over 25 are entitled to. Lone parents receive a sum of £73.10 per week, which equates to £316.77 a month.
Under universal credit, the Government have introduced different rates of standard allowance for single claimants regardless of whether they are a parent, depending on whether the claimant is aged under or over 25. Therefore, in universal credit, the standard allowance for a single parent under 25 years of age is £251.77 per month, almost £65 less per month or nearly £780 less over the course of a year than lone parents of that age receive under the current regime.
Many young parents under the age of 25 who are care leavers are entirely reliant on welfare benefits and tax credits to support themselves and their children. The reduced rate of universal credit is likely to push this group of parents, who are already vulnerable, into severe financial hardship and debt. That may result in their having to move home, away from the formal support networks and services that are an integral part of their own pathway plans as well as the plans in place to support them in caring safely for their children. If their ability to meet their children’s needs is compromised, that risks children being denied the chance of being raised by their parents, thus impacting on the child and the parent’s right to respect for family life. It could also increase the number of children in care, which would not be in the best interests of children and would lead to a considerably greater cost to the Government.
The payment of a lower personal allowance undermines those provisions that aim to support care leavers, including those provided for in the Bill. It undermines the Government’s commitment under the leaving care strategy to ensure,
“that care leavers are adequately supported financially in their transition from care to adulthood to enable young people leaving care to have the same opportunities to fulfil their potential as their peers”.
These are important considerations and I hope that the Government will look on them favourably and give some explanation as to the discrepancies.
The Earl of Listowel
I will speak to Amendment 47 in this group. Many noble Lords will recognise that adolescence is a difficult time for many young people. Anna Freud, the founder of the Anna Freud Institute, wrote three times on adolescence. Her final paper was entitled Adolescence as a Developmental Disturbance. Adolescence—the transition from childhood to adulthood—can often be a difficult time, but if one is a child in care, has experienced trauma before entering care and then may well have experienced further trauma on entering care—the process of being taken into care is traumatic in itself—one may find oneself with a protracted adolescence. Anna Freud describes the process of adolescence as the detachment of a child from their parent and the gradual process of moving to become an independent adult individual. I paraphrase, but that is roughly how she would describe adolescence.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that adolescence is about the detachment from the parent. The child has a close attachment to the parent; adolescence sunders that relationship. When we talk about continuing support of such young people up to the age of 25 by local authorities, it is very important to recognise that the developmental drive for those young people is to push themselves away from their corporate parent, the local authority, particularly because of their early experience. Just like any other good parent, the corporate parent, the local authority, has to make very clear to their child or young person: “We are here for you. You may not like us—you may hate us or despise us; that is normal for adolescents—but we are still here for you, we still care for you and we still want to see you and support you. We are here for you when you need us”. That is what I hope the amendment covers. It puts more of an onus than the Bill currently does on local authorities to say to those young people: “We want to support you. This is the offer we have for you”, and, for instance, to send Christmas cards and postcards, to do everything in their power to keep in touch and to treat them, in this regard, just as they would younger people aged under 21.
I recall Ashley Williamson, a care leaver I have known for a while. He did not get back into contact with his personal adviser until he was perhaps 20. He was just on the edge of losing the right to a personal adviser, but very fortunately he got back in contact. It made a huge difference to his life, because he and his personal adviser clicked. She supported him to get stable housing for himself. Following that, his life improved and he became a very effective lobbyist in Parliament, coming to parliamentary groups to talk about what needs to be done for care leavers and expressing concerns about the sexual abuse and exploitation of young people in care.
We have heard eloquent words about the treatment of young mothers, in particular, coming out of care. I remind your Lordships that young people and teenagers in care are far more likely to become pregnant than those in the general population. Very sadly, the number of children taken away from young people who have grown up in care is also far higher as a proportion than in the general population. If anything can be done to ensure that the financial environment for those families is as beneficial and supportive as possible, that would be a very good thing, as I hope your Lordships will agree. We need to do all we can to support these families. We know from the statistics that they are highly vulnerable, so the measures described here are very welcome and I hope the Minister can give a positive response.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 74A, to which I have added my name. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests about my involvement in a voluntary project for care leavers. I support everything that my noble friend said in support of this group of amendments. As she suggested, I want to put forward a set of arguments in favour of Amendment 74A, which is about the need to acquire better data about outcomes for care leavers.
As I said at Second Reading, delivering the Bill’s undoubted good intentions will be challenging. In particular, it is crucial that the individual circumstances of each young person must be considered if real progress is to be made. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, these young people face all the challenges that all young people face, but the particular challenges from their specific circumstances are especially demanding. Therefore, their problems are unusually difficult and complex and they require tailored help to meet them. If we are to do so, we must overcome all the problems that public services have traditionally found in personalising delivery to the individual.
Adequate data on outcomes will be crucial if we are to use the Bill’s framework to devise effective strategies, but it is simply unavailable at the moment. For example, as I said at Second Reading, it is known that 5% of care leavers are in higher education at the age of 19; we do not know how many of those will graduate; nor do we know how many care leavers enter higher education in later life, although we know that many of them do so when they feel more ready to take advantage of that opportunity. Such data will be crucial if we are to assess the effectiveness of support for those young people. Requiring local authorities to keep in touch with their care leavers until they are at least 25 will, among all its other virtues, enable better data to be compiled about outcomes for them, which is a vital building block for the success of the Bill in the long term. For that reason, and for all the others that we have already heard, I hope the Government will consider the amendment sympathetically.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the strong case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for the amendments and agree with much, if not all, of what she said. I repeat, however, that they would place additional duties, and therefore inevitably extra costs, on local authorities. That must be recognised. Can the Minister give the Committee before the end of this stage an estimate of the additional costs imposed on local authorities by the Bill? In response to my earlier point, the Minister claimed that I was asking for additional funding. Actually, I was making a plea for cuts not to be made. A 25% cut in children’s services spending is bound to have a significant impact on what local authorities can do for children in care and care leavers. I make a plea for having not so large a cut in local government funding.
Lord Wills
The noble Baroness will understand how sympathetic I am, sitting on this side of the Committee. We have now officially ditched austerity as part of the Tory leadership campaign, so circumstances are clearly different. However, I am also conscious that we are living in very difficult times and there is not likely to be much more money. She makes understandable pleas, but does she accept that a lot of this funding will prevent spending being incurred later? If we cannot support those most vulnerable young people at the most difficult times of their lives, they will run into problems and, sooner or later, that will involve more spending by the state when it would be tragic to have to do so. When she pleads for funding, I ask her to accept that this funding has a prophylactic effect, so the extra demand on resources may not be as severe as she suggests.
Baroness Pinnock
When I spoke at Second Reading, I made a plea for the Government to consider shifting money to early intervention and prevention so that we would not have to address issues of looked-after children and care leavers. The idea would be to put effort and funding into family support at an early stage so that children can remain safely with their families and not have to enter the care system. That would be the best outcome for the child and for the state, which is funding children in care. The thrust of my argument is that this is all focused on looked-after children and care leavers. I urge the Government to put the focus on family intervention and prevention of family issues that lead to children going into the care system. The difficulty with that is that we know across the country that children’s centres, which are the focus for early intervention and prevention, are closing. Only at the end of last week, Hampshire County Council made a decision to close all but 11 of its 53 children’s centres. That is the thrust of my argument. I would much rather that we did not have to debate support for care leavers because we had prevented all those children going into care.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I urge the Minister not to make this provision too prescriptive. Good local authorities like flexibility and support. What is important here is the outcome for young people. Yes, I understand about early intervention and prevention work, which is very important, but the reality is that we will still have children in our care, for many reasons. The importance of the Bill is that it gives local authorities the flexibility to give that support in the way that is right for that young person. The noble Earl was quite right in saying that some young people get to the age of 16 and the last person on earth that they want to speak to again is their PA or social worker. We need the flexibility to use family friends or members to whom they may be close and to give them support to support that young people. They may be volunteers or mentors, but we need that flexibility to look at different ways of doing it.
As for money, it is important that every local authority makes every member of that local authority understand the importance of being a corporate parent. In Wiltshire, where I am the leader, every single member of that council has to sign up to agree that they are a corporate parent and have a day’s induction to understand what that really means. When it comes to budgets and prioritising budgets, the whole council then really understands the importance of that position. It is important to have flexibility and not be too prescriptive—and that we can look at each young person as an individual, as we would our own children, and give them the support that they need into the future.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I shall speak to the group that includes Amendments 41, 43, 45, 47, 51, retabled as Amendment 74A, Amendment 54 and the proposed new clause in Amendment 98A. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to them. All these amendments are concerned with the continuing support that care leavers receive.
First, I address Amendments 41, 43 and 45. Clause 2 requires local authorities to publish information about the services that they offer to care leavers, based on an understanding of their individual needs, as well as other services that they offer to help care leavers to prepare for adulthood. In preparing those local offers, local authorities must consult care leavers and relevant representative groups of care leavers, including children in care councils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, talked about what the local offer should cover. The clause already includes a duty to publish information about services relating to health and well-being, education and training, employment, accommodation and participation in society. That is a non-exclusive list; the local authority may include other matters as it sees fit. Given the work that local authorities will already be undertaking, an additional requirement to assess the services required to meet the needs of care leavers would be overly prescriptive. Rather, these matters will be detailed in the guidance that my department will produce to inform the practical application of the corporate parenting principles, to which I have already referred several times during this debate.
With regard to the national minimum standard proposed in these amendments, the Government’s intention in legislating for the local offer is to raise the bar for services provided to care leavers. We want local authorities to aim much higher than a minimum standard when it comes to what they offer. We want to enable comparisons of the offer between local authorities so that there is upward pressure for them to do more. Ultimately, Ofsted will be the arbiters of how good a local offer is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred to New Belongings. We eagerly await the evaluation results of the New Belongings programme at its dissemination event this Friday. That will inform our thinking. The care leavers strategy will support programmes that empower care leavers to drive change locally, such as New Belongings. I will come back to the noble Baroness on the care leavers fora and the other points that she made. In light of this, I hope noble Lords are sufficiently reassured not to move their amendments.
I now address Amendments 47, 51—retabled as Amendment 74A—and 54, which all concern the support that care leavers receive up to the age of 25. No care leaver will be left to fend for themselves when they reach 21. Through Clause 3, a care leaver aged up to 25 will know of their right to request support, including access to a personal adviser. If a particular service provided under the local offer is appropriate and meets a particular need, of course the young person should be able to access it. That is the purpose of the local offer, and personal advisers are responsible for identifying and co-ordinating the provision of services for the care leaver.
However, mandating a personal adviser for every care leaver, regardless of their wishes, and a requirement to provide such services would be disproportionate. To do so raises several obvious practical issues. Some care leavers want independence at the earliest opportunity and to sever any ties with their corporate parent. Some move away from the area and become hard to trace. Even those still known to the local authority will be in very different circumstances, with different needs and aspirations. Some will value the help of a personal adviser and some will look for guidance and support elsewhere, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said. Often, this will reflect how well the relationship with the personal adviser has worked, how helpful they have been or might be, and their relationships with others.
If we were to impose the support of a personal adviser on every care leaver, there is a real risk that that would divert support from care-leaving teams away from those who really need it. Rather than impose a personal adviser service, it is better to make the personal adviser service optional for those who want it so that resources can be effectively targeted—as is done successfully in Trafford. However, we want to make sure that all those who want the support of a personal adviser can access it.
There are two important issues here. The first is whether and how care leavers are made aware of the offer of support from a personal adviser. I suggest that the obvious place for that is the local offer. The second is whether a care leaver who has lost contact with their personal adviser should be able to resume this if and when they feel the need to do so at a later date. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to an example of this. I can certainly confirm that that would be possible through the existing legislation and Clause 3 for care leavers up to the age of 25. The guidance we are producing will encourage local authorities to carry out this new entitlement clearly, proactively and positively so that care leavers are encouraged to take it up.
We need to set an expectation that local authorities should attempt to remind care leavers of their entitlement to this support so that a young person refusing support at age 22 does not feel that they should be barred from accessing it later. I accept that this is an important point. I should like to reflect further on this in discussion with local authorities and over the next few months before we return on Report.
Lord Wills
I understand the force of what the Minister is saying and the Committee will be grateful for his offer to keep looking at these points. Could he also take into account my point about data and the importance of keeping some sort of better check on what happens at least until the age of 25? What he has said so far does not really address that point. Perhaps he could reflect on that and come back to us either with a letter or on Report.
Lord Nash
I was about to say something about data which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord. If it does not, I shall be very happy to discuss it with him further. Local authorities are required to provide data on care leavers aged 19, 20 and 21. From October this year, we will also publish data on care leavers aged 17 and 18. We are also now able to link with datasets held by the MoJ and HMRC, which will allow us to track care leavers’ longer-term outcomes. However, I shall be happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about funding. We do not believe that Clauses 1 and 2 represent new burdens on local authorities. However, as I have already said, we recognise that extending personal advisers to all care leavers up to the age of 25 will have financial consequences, and we have made a commitment to provide new burden funding to meet these extra costs. Our initial estimates are based on our experience in Trafford, which is a very high-performing local authority, and we will publish the figures shortly.
My understanding is that Amendment 98A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, would extend the higher rate of universal credit to single-parent care leavers. The benefits system recognises the special needs of care leavers. However, in the current system there is considerable complexity around the rates for young people, with some differences between benefits. The structure of age-related rates in universal credit is much simpler than the benefits it replaces, with just four rates of the standard allowance compared with, for example, 15 in employment and support allowance. These age-related standard allowance rates are now established in universal credit.
Making changes such as those set out in this amendment would replicate some of the complexity that we are seeking to remove. Rather than handing out money to young people and expecting them to fend for themselves, universal credit seeks to support vulnerable young people and parents to stabilise their lives and find work. For this reason, the DWP extended second-chance learning from age 19 to 21. This allows care leavers to claim income support and housing benefit if returning to full-time, non-advanced education to make up for missed qualifications. In addition, single-parent care leavers who are working will be able to access help with 85% of their childcare costs up to the cap.
With that information, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that care leavers will receive and be able to access the support they need, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and particularly for what he said about keeping an open mind and thinking further about the degree of the burden on local authorities from keeping in touch with and being proactive towards young people up to the age of 25. What he said about guidance on being proactive was very welcome. Are there currently issues regarding those up to the age of 21? Under the current duty, do local authorities express concern that the duty sometimes causes them to expend resources unnecessarily? Do young people feel a bit harassed by the current system? Otherwise, I am not clear why one should treat those over the age of 21 any differently from those under 21. If there are no current issues, I am not sure why it should be an issue to transfer the provision to under-25s. However, I am sure that that can be answered in subsequent discussions and, as I said, I am grateful to the Minister for his response.
Lord Ramsbotham
I noticed that the Minister has kindly arranged a meeting with Mr Brokenshire, the Minister in the Home Office responsible for immigration. Will the provisions in Clause 2 apply to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children until the moment they lose the right to remain and have to leave, with them then appealing?
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for undertaking to look at the New Belongings project. He is right: there is a dissemination event for the project on Friday. It is very widely subscribed, I look forward to it and I am sure that a number of noble Lords and others here will be attending.
I am disappointed that the Government do not consider the need for a statement of minimum standards. Many local authorities do not have the support or resources to work out what is needed, so national standards and national guidance are very important. I understand what the Minister says about raising the bar and aiming high, but the reality is that many authorities struggle to reach the bar at all. This goes back to the issue of consistency of approach and avoiding variations in standards across the country that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others have referred to.
The introduction of the local offer arrangements in themselves do not necessarily lead to a step change in improvements. Detailed consideration needs to be given to how they will operate in practice, what impact they will have and how we can ensure that the offer is there for all and not just for some, depending on where they live. Minimum standards for services and the important issue of extending offers to care leavers up to the age of 25 are important, and I am grateful that the Minister said that he would look at this again. I shall read his comments very carefully but we will certainly return to these matters on Report.
Lord Wills
Lord Wills
My Lords, all the amendments in my name in this group aim to fulfil the ambitions of the Bill by extending support for care leavers. The reasons for most of them were extensively debated at Second Reading, when widespread concern was expressed about the onus being placed on young people to request a personal adviser, and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments now. They seem self-evident. If the Bill is to deliver on its objective of better support for care leavers, the duties under Clause 3 should not be dependent in this way. In response to those concerns, the Minister said at Second Reading:
“This is an extremely good point which I would like to go away and reflect on”.—[Official Report, 14/6/16; col. 1204.]
I hope that he has now done so and will feel able to accept these amendments, which address that point.
I also speak briefly to Amendments 60, 72 and 74 in my name. Amendment 60 provides that all care leavers with a personal adviser should have a full needs assessment to ensure that they receive all the support they need. A young person may seek help from their local authority for a small problem, which can easily be resolved, but may also have more complex problems that only a full needs assessment will identify, so it is important that their needs continue to be monitored throughout their pathway plan and they retain their personal adviser even if the care leaver is referred to external services for their needs to be met. The amendment would secure that.
Amendment 72 is a probing amendment. As the role of the personal adviser is so critical to the content of Part 1—we have already heard noble Lords discuss this at some length and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, earlier talked about the need for them to deliver services of an appropriately professional standard—it is clearly important that there should be clarity about what exactly that role is. The amendment is designed to encourage the Government to make clear whether they have any plans to change the role of the personal adviser and, if so, what they might be.
Finally, Amendment 74 would extend the duty on virtual school heads to care leavers. The creation of this role is a potentially valuable innovation, but those who have left care before their 18th birthday are not covered. Moreover, the role excludes a focus on care leavers over the age of 18, while local authorities have continuing duties to support care leavers in education up to the age of 25. There is clearly a need for better joint working between local authorities and further and higher education providers. The amendment would extend the role to cover further education and higher education providers. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on all those amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, the Bill as drafted places responsibility on the young person to request advice and support. No one in this Room or reading the Bill would be in any doubt that we are talking about vulnerable young people, so the question has to be asked: what support will be offered so that young people know about all their entitlements; and what systems will be in place to help a child make that request, remembering that many of these children will have literacy difficulties? It is one thing for a young person to turn down advice and support that they have been offered. There are two ways of looking at that if it happens. One is that that the individual does not lack a certain amount of confidence, which is a good thing. The other is that they may not have thought the thing through or may lack the requisite amount of common sense, turning away from what is clearly valuable and important information.
Confidence is a big issue for many children who are leaving—or young people who have recently left—care. That lack of confidence is simply because of their life experiences up to that point. They are moving into a world of their own, taking many important steps in a way not experienced by children fortunate enough to live within a family, who have that family as a safety net after they have left home, should things not go entirely to plan. A young person leaving care may not have been informed that they can ask for advice and support. Even if they have been informed and have had that support, it could depend on how that was done. The young person may not always grasp what is available to them.
The question must be asked: why take that risk? Why leave it up to the young person? Much better surely that the duty falls directly on the local authority, not the person himself or herself. We have to have a sense, as we debate issues like this, that we have a duty of care in terms of framing legislation that affords the maximum amount of support to young people. I think Amendments 52 and 53, to which I am speaking at the moment, do that. I mentioned earlier—as did the Minister—that his department has today published the policy paper entitled, Putting Children First: Our Vision for Children’s Social Care. If that means anything at all, I suggest the Minister should live up to it by accepting Amendments 52 and 53 and making sure that the onus is firmly on the local authority to be proactive rather than reactive.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I briefly support Amendments 52, 53 and 54. These have echoes of the debate we had on my Amendment 29, in which I argued—with support from other Members of the Committee—that the onus should be on the local authority to take the initiative in offering help. I ask the Minister to think about the circumstances in which many of us are placed as parents, where the Government are trying to get the principles of corporate parenting as close as they can to the responsibilities of parents looking after children who are not part of the responsibility of a local authority. We as parents—I can speak from personal experience—do not watch our children walking over a cliff and wait for them to request us to do something. If we see that they do not understand something or they are going to take some ill-advised action, we do not wait for them to ask us: we intervene. We try to intervene in a sensitive manner but we do try to intervene to give them the information they require to make better decisions. Why are the Government asking a group of people who, on their own acknowledgement, are vulnerable, who often find it difficult to interact with public bureaucracies, to make a well-informed request for help? Indeed, if they are capable of making that well-informed request for help, there is a large chance that they do not need it in the first place. What the Minster has set up looks like a gesture, but the “on request” totally minimises the effectiveness of that gesture. I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position on this, in the light of the moderate way that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and others have argued for the amendments.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I add one sentence because I clearly heard the Minister say that there would be young people who would not need personal advisers or would not wish to have this sort of help. I understand that absolutely, but all the amendments are suggesting is that we move out “on request” so that the local authority has to take responsibility to ensure that information is given so that a refusal could be made. If we do not ensure that the young people have the knowledge of what is available, they can walk into difficulties.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I came to this Committee looking at the amendment thinking “No”. Young people themselves should be able to say “No”. Actually, listening to noble Lords, I now think it is absolutely right. These are the most vulnerable young people. For them to try and cut through the bureaucratic enjoyments of social services does not come easily. The onus should be on us to provide that support. This shows the value of a Committee, does it not? You listen to arguments and might change your mind.
The Earl of Listowel
I support Amendments 52, 53 and 74A. I was most grateful for the Minister’s encouraging reply on the previous group, which is relevant to this discussion, and for his sympathetic stance towards this. The current discussions about the pressures on local authorities, and the huge and diverse burdens they carry, might be one further reason why the onus should be put more firmly on them in primary legislation. Also, I am a little puzzled why one would wish to treat over-21 year-olds any differently to under-21 year-olds. My puzzlement is that if we are agreed that we should in this Bill make sure that over-21 year-olds receive the same entitlements that under-21 year-olds leaving care have had up till now, why should we not treat them in exactly the same way? I would appreciate some help with that question. If we can, and there is no legal impediment to do so, would we not want to give them exactly the same offer as that for under-21 year-olds?
On the personal adviser role, which was also discussed, I recognise absolutely the wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in talking about some flexibility in how that role is provided. One of the great successes in policy in this area in reason years has been the introduction by the coalition Government of Staying Put. More and more young people are now choosing to stay with their foster carers past the age of 18. We heard eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the importance of relationships and the continuity of them. Thanks to Staying Put and the Government’s work, more and more children are choosing to stay, from a position where in the past we were not able to encourage them to do that or make it possible. Enabling foster parents to become their young person’s personal adviser may be a very good and appropriate thing. This is someone they already have a relationship with.
My concern is that there also needs to be rigidity in certain ways. My concern about the whole issue of children found in social care is that we have allowed too much flexibility in the social work profession. Until very recently, it was not a requirement that social workers should have a degree to practise what they do. Indeed, later parts of the Bill address this very fact of the overflexibility and a lack of specification of what social workers should do. This personal adviser role is important as well. Reports from right-wing think tanks such as the Centre for Social Justice highlighted the failure to have a consistent personal adviser workforce. There needs to be both flexibility and rigidity in the system. I suggest that there can be assessments and processes to decide whether it is appropriate to devolve responsibility to a foster carer or some extended family, or whether to keep it with a personal adviser. However, we need some rigidity.
It is very much an Anglo-Saxon approach to have a flexible workforce and it has many advantages to it, while the continentals face great challenges because they have a rather rigid way of approaching their workforce. I would argue that for vulnerable children, there have been advantages in the continentals’ rigid approach. It is well documented that they have far higher requirements for social workers. In staff at children’s homes, they have pedagogues who normally have a degree-level qualification and have had very substantial training, which I would argue is very appropriate to working in residential care. I recognise the noble Baroness’s concerns but I share the concerns around the Committee that the personal adviser role needs to be more clearly spelt out and specified. I hope that the Minister can help us with that in his response.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I want to say a word about personal advisers. The first thing we have to look at is who these children are and what their needs are. I have heard recently in the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and in the European Union sub-committee which is discussing a report on unaccompanied asylum seekers just how vulnerable these children are—and how, in that vulnerability, they may find it difficult to make decisions and have the confidence to choose or request a personal adviser. Their relationships have suffered so much by their experiences that they may not trust anybody. We need to look at the children first. They may of course not wish to have a personal adviser, while some of them may not know exactly what they want so might try out various support systems before they decide. Personal advisers should not be available on request but should be there automatically for those children who are so vulnerable.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wills, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, for tabling this group of amendments. Let me begin with those amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, which would replace “former relevant child” with “care leaver” throughout Clause 3. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to apply provisions to all care leavers. I offer reassurance that the issue is already addressed in existing legislation. Different groups of care leavers and looked-after children are defined in legislation and I will set out how Clause 3 applies to them.
“Eligible children” are looked-after children aged 16 to 17 who are subject to the care planning process and the regular review that this brings. They are entitled to receive advice and support from a local authority personal adviser. “Relevant children” are aged 16 to 17 and have ceased to be looked after. They too are entitled to receive support and advice from a personal adviser. “Former relevant children” currently receive support from a local authority personal adviser up to the age of 21. If they pursue education or training they can retain that support until they are 25. Clause 3 will now address the gap and provide a personal adviser to all “former relevant children” up to the age of 25, where they want one. Whether they are in education will no longer be a qualifying factor.
In Amendment 52 the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, propose that personal adviser support should be provided whether requested or not. I have already spoken at some length on an earlier group about the practical issues involved in providing support up to age 25 even if care leavers no longer want a service. I will therefore not repeat the arguments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, referred to my reflecting on certain matters in relation to the role of personal advisers. I was going to come to this later in group 6, in relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but I will deal with it now.
We want to learn from those areas where the personal adviser service is provided effectively and make sure that that becomes the standard of support that care leavers across the country can expect. We also need to make sure that the purpose of the role is clear, that the right people are recruited to take on the role and that they have the right opportunities to learn and develop so that they can better respond to new challenges that care leavers face. That is why we are reviewing the personal adviser role. The first phase of that review is already under way. My officials are carrying out a series of eight deep-dive reviews to local authorities. They are meeting with leaving care managers, personal advisers and care leavers so they can better understand: first, what support personal advisers currently provide; secondly, which issues care leavers most need support on; and, thirdly, how personal advisers provide the mentoring and befriending support which can be so critical to care leavers’ well-being and which we know they value so highly.
The second phase of the review will build on and be informed by the first phase, but will focus on wider issues such as: whether we have done enough to articulate the key purpose of the personal adviser role, as currently articulated in secondary legislation in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010; how we can best raise the status of the role; and what opportunities exist for personal advisers to access continuing professional development. In conducting this review, I would like to offer reassurance that we will consult all relevant parties. I will also ensure that noble Lords have the opportunity to comment and contribute.
On Amendment 60, I can provide reassurance that local authorities will continue to develop and review pathway plans. As corporate parents, they will do this irrespective of other partners and the support that they bring. Local authority-appointed personal advisers will work with the care leavers to review plans on a regular basis. Local authorities are already required by law to manage these obligations as the corporate parent. Amendment 72 is unnecessary, as the functions of the personal adviser role are set out not in statute but in secondary legislation—the Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. If any changes are made to the functions of personal advisers, an amending statutory instrument would need to be laid before Parliament, which would provide an opportunity, through the negative resolution procedure, to make any objections if needed.
To turn to Amendment 74, let me clarify why the Bill extends the role of the virtual school head to children who leave care through adoption, child arrangements or special guardianship orders but not to older children. In practice, virtual school heads and designated teachers do not suddenly turn a blind eye to the children in care whom they have been looking out for and supporting just because they have reached the age of 18. The arrangements in place will continue up to the time they leave school unless, of course, their circumstances have changed. In many local authorities, the virtual head plays a role in relation to care leavers. For example, in Hertfordshire, the virtual school head has included within it the post of a personal adviser for students at university. For care leavers, the main support in relation to education is from the personal adviser.
For older care leavers, a range of alternative support is already in place. Pathway plans for care leavers should include information about support for education and career aspirations. Care leavers are also a priority for the 16 to 19 bursary, worth £1,200 annually, and they receive a one-off bursary of £2,000 if they progress to higher education. I hope that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance not to press their amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The Minister rather peremptorily dismissed the arguments advanced by other noble Lords and me on Amendments 52 and 53. He said that he had answered them in respect of some other amendment, but he uttered the words so quickly that I could not identify what he was talking about. Is he quite content that what he is proposing—he talked of practicalities—means that no young person who would benefit from the information and support that he or she needs will slip through the net simply because they either did not know or did not understand that they could ask for that information? Would it not be far better to ensure that people who do not need the information have it rather than that those who need the information do not have it?
Lord Nash
I do not think that we are arguing about anything here. It seems to me obvious that, to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, we cannot just leave young people to ask for help; they have to know about it. The minimal expectations in the local offer from the local authority have to be absolutely clear, including, in my view, that children should have some financial education training and some domestic skills and that they should know what they are entitled to once they leave care.
That should be absolutely clearly spelt out in the local offer. As has been said, it seems to me that although a child or young person has rejected the need for a personal adviser at the age of 21, by the age of 23 they may well have changed their mind. They should be regularly reminded by the local authority of this right. I do not argue with that and we will set out our expectations of local authorities in relation to the local offer and what they will do to make care leavers aware of their rights and entitlements not just once but regularly until they are 25.
Lord Warner
The Minister seems to be praying me in aid as somehow opposed to the amendment advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Watson. I am not; I was supporting what they are saying. I am sorry if I was not clear but I want to put it beyond peradventure to the Minister that I support their amendment to delete “on request”.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part in what I thought was a useful short discussion on all the amendments. On the one which has taken up the most time, the question of reversing the onus of requesting continuation of support in this way, I will read and reflect carefully on what the Minister said. I understand that the Bill is full of good intentions and I know that he is personally. I worry, however, that, as other noble Lords have said much more powerfully than I, we are still placing an unrealistic burden on very vulnerable young people who do not suddenly stop being vulnerable when they pass a particular age. At least until 25, many of them will be in very difficult circumstances and not all of them will be capable of making these informed, rational decisions, as the Minister said, however accurately informed they are of their entitlements. I will look at the Hansard record of what he said, but, given the widespread support for a change to this part of the Bill, we may return to it at Report.
My only other comment is about the role of the virtual school head. I thought I heard the Minister say that in many cases, they do not just turn a blind eye but go on being involved. That is precisely the point: it is in many cases, not necessarily in all. Again, I am not altogether reassured by what he said but will read what he said in Hansard and reflect, but we may return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, those of you who have heard me speak on previous Bills will know that this is something that I keep coming back to. It comes out of working with kinship carers and learning of some of their experiences, but is particularly about the needs of care leavers as young parents. One tragedy is that far too many young women who have been in the care system become young parents themselves. I and other colleagues here tried to do something about that when we were in government. We introduced various programmes that did an enormous amount both to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies and to care for and support young people significantly when that happened.
We know the reality from the social justice commission: that about one in 10 girls leaving care aged between 16 and 21 are either single parents when they leave or very quickly afterwards become single parents. I ended up specialising in adolescent girls when I was working in Newcastle all those moons ago—most of them will now be grandmothers, or great-grandmothers. I remember one young woman in particular, who had been in care all the time since she was a baby. By the time she had a baby herself, I had finished, but she rang me absolutely delighted to tell me that she was now pregnant. She was 16, and everybody knew that she would have enormous difficulty in caring for that child. But she needed something to love—it was as awful and plain as that. Now I work with women with complex needs, many of whom have come through the care system and certainly come through abuse, and so on. Many of them have child after child, who are taken into care. Nobody works with them because they have removed the child, so they go and get pregnant again and that child ends up in care. We simply should not see this.
It goes back to what I talked about the other day in Committee: that we need to do much more work with parents when the child is taken into care. These amendments are essentially about recognising that those leaving care—many of them are still children—and who are pregnant or have a young child demand a specific responsibility on our part, even if they have left care. I remind the Minister that the staying-on provisions do not relate to children who have technically just gone home to their parents or who are in residential care, but they are still children leaving care. As I say, they do not get the additional time or support that we were all so pleased about in the staying-on relationships, which essentially relate to children in foster care.
All these amendments really say is that this is a specific category to which the Government will have to pay attention. It can become a vicious circle if we are not careful. We know that they will need additional support in parenting, although that is not to say that some of them will not in the long term make good parents. As the Minister who introduced the family nurse partnership, I know that even the most vulnerable teenage parents can, with the right sort of support, become good parents. The amendments address the fact that, if you are a child who has spent significant periods in care, you will need extra support. That is sort of self-evident but it is not taken into account in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to take specific account of it.
I have not tabled an amendment on this aspect, but these clauses also deal with adoption support being extended to special guardians who are raising looked-after children. I am really pleased about that but why have the Government not extended that support to special guardians per se? Kinship carers in particular often step in to make sure that the kids do not go into care or become looked-after children. As I have said—too many times, I feel—kinship carers frequently do that not because they have sought to become a carer but because they do not want their daughter’s or sister’s children to go into the system. They end up having quite good outcomes even though they are impoverished, frequently.
I meet kinship carers in the north-east—because we have a higher proportion of kinship carers than in most regions of the country—who have gone through things that you and I would absolutely not want to do to look after the children. They get no support at all. They are not going to get the mental health support for the children or the other support that the children frequently need because they are special guardians, but their child has not technically been in care or looked after. It tells you how old I am when I keep saying “in care” instead of “looked after”, does it not, but because that is not the case, they are not going to get that additional support. I have not put an amendment down about it at this stage but I will come back to it. I want to make sure that the Government think about these sorts of things a little more. In the Bill, we are in the business—I hope—of trying to make sure that we create less vulnerability and less cost to the public purse. I believe that in the long term, addressing these amendments and my question will assist that objective.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Armstrong, particularly on Amendment 61A, but also in what she said about kinship care. I know that the outcomes of children in kinship care are better, in health and academically, than other forms of care. I also know that there are vicious circles which, unless there is intervention, go on being vicious circles generation after generation. The Family Rights Group report on the young parents project has out significant things about young people who are young parents and care leavers. We know that these young parents have multiple challenges—there is also a figure that one in 10 care leavers aged 16 to 21 have a child taken into care—but they are alienated by negative experience of state services. They are judged by their youth and background and have suffered abuse often,
“being in care, mental health problems, exclusion from school and/or involvement in youth justice”,
and so on. The support given often ignores their roles as parents or helps them to safely raise and keep a child. They often have less developed support networks, as compared to older parents, and fewer established systems in place as they move into adulthood. Despite their vulnerability, the particular needs and circumstances of young parents who are care leavers—whose children are not subject to child protection inquiries—are not sufficiently identified. They need a clear pathway plan, which includes all that a pathway plan should include, and certain sorts of information should be drawn upon in formulating these pathway plans.
My Amendments 98AA and 98AB are long and fairly self-evident. They repeat many concerns already expressed about the importance of pathway plans or assessments of need. One other thing that is important in pathway plans is the co-ordination of plans, and of assessments in relation to them, along with the setting up of advice, assistance and support. Again, I would state that these young people are extremely vulnerable, as my noble friend said, and need all the support that we can give. She also said that giving support early can avoid pain to them and also cost to the state, if we avoid these vicious circles that we all know exist.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am sure the Grand Committee is very grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these important amendments and bringing this issue back to us. I pay tribute to her and her colleagues for introducing the teenage pregnancy strategy while they were in government. After many years, it brought down the level of teenage pregnancies. It is not equivalent to that of the continent but at least it is moving in that direction. It has been a most important success.
Listening to the noble Baroness, I was reminded of a 24 year-old woman who, some time ago, attended the all-party parliamentary group for young people. The group was discussing mental health and she bewailed the fact that she had not been able to access mental health services. She had two young children whom she was really struggling with. I very much welcomed the earlier amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to extend mental health support to the age of 25. At the APPG the 24 year-old bewailed the fact that, even if that was changed, she would be too old to benefit from it by the time it came into effect.
Last year the Maternal Mental Health Alliance launched a very important report into perinatal mental health, identifying the extent of perinatal mental health issues and the cost to the nation of failing to meet them. This group of young women is particularly at risk of perinatal mental health issues. The charity Best Beginnings does much work in this area and published a video that looked at a young woman as she was suffering from postnatal depression. It covered her experience of having a poor relationship with her mother because of her boyfriend, who did not understand her situation, and a GP who just did not have time to talk to her. She suffered a gradual spiral into depression and lost any patience with her children. She was not a young woman in care but one could easily see the same situation arising for such a person. She desperately needed help but she did not know how to ask for it. I hope that the amendments will make us think more about what we can do to reach out to these young women and ensure that they get the right help.
There is increasing support for women during pregnancy. The Government have invested more in perinatal mental health, and in particular there are models of what I call “caseload midwifery”—one-to-one midwifery, where the midwife makes a relationship with the parents early in the pregnancy, maintains that relationship and ideally is there at the birth. That model of service could be very helpful to these young mothers.
There has been a lot of recent research into neurodevelopment. Some of it has looked at the neurodevelopmental plasticity of infants, and it has been found that adolescents go through a further major neurodevelopmental change. There is also evidence that women show some plasticity in their neurodevelopment in childbirth because of the powerful relationship with their infant. However, there is a great risk that becoming a mother at an early stage will be too much of an experience for some women to manage. Their early experiences in infancy may prevent them being able to mother their children adequately, but there is also the opportunity for it to be a key turning point in their lives, where they learn to love and be loved for the first time. We need to be there for them as far as we can to make sure that that is the outcome—that it is a turning point in their lives and a positive experience for them and their child. Therefore, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I feel that I could already write the Minister’s response by saying that of course these needs are already met in Clause 3(5)(a) or (b), as the subsection refers to meeting “his or her needs”. However, when, year after year, report after report notes that these needs are not dealt with, surely we reach the point where they need to be specified—hence I support the noble Baroness’s amendments. The needs of these young parents have so consistently not been adequately met that we now need to specify them so that they are.
I would also comment that, on occasions, young men may also find becoming a parent a positive turning point. There is a need to support young men who are looked after and become parents who recognise that they have now come to a point of responsibility and they would like to step up to it. They also need support. I invite the Minister’s comments on that.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I, too, support Amendments 61A and 71A in particular and draw the Minister’s attention to a Select Committee report produced by your Lordships’ House on post-legislative scrutiny of adoption legislation. Somewhere in the Department for Education archives, there will no doubt be copies of that report and the oral evidence given to the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was on it, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong.
Among those who gave oral evidence was a remarkable judge, Nicholas Crichton, from one of the London family courts. He was so fed up with a procession of the same young women coming before the family court and having their children taken away. The women would reappear 12, 15 or 18 months later and would continue through their 20s with the same judges in the same court taking away their children and putting them into care. He got so fed up with that that he found some charitable funding to produce some support for the young mothers to whom it was happening because he was trying to stop this escalator of producing more children to be taken into local authority care.
That judge was doing the job that we could argue is the responsibility of the local authority because the great majority of these young women had been in care. We had a bizarre situation where an energetic and innovative judge was trying to do the job of a local authority that was not able to provide these kinds of services to young women who had been in care and who had repeat pregnancies. I would ask the Minister to look at that before he rejects fully these amendments, because there is a lot to be said, in the public interest as well as the interests of these young women, for moving down this path.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for being unavoidably unable to come to the first day of Committee. I should like to add some comments in support of Amendments 61A and 71A. We should see these amendments as being very much about early intervention and prevention. The Bill, welcome though it is, is a little light on early intervention and prevention. The amendments point to situations from the point of view of the babies born to young people who have been in care. Unless there is specific early intervention with a great deal of support provided, we may not be preventing those babies at some point coming into care or being subject to serious difficulties.
I say that for two reasons. We know from the statistics that, generally, babies of young parents—right across the board, not just those who been in care—do not fare as well on any number of developmental indicators, despite the ability of some individual young parents to be outstanding. Those babies suffer a series of stresses from that situation that impair their development, in many instances irrevocably. The vulnerabilities suffered by a young parent who has been in care can only add further stress and difficulty to that situation. It is really important from the point of view of early intervention and prevention for children born to young people who have been in care that there is a specific focus that points the statutory services to make sure that they intervene early and prevent adverse consequences further down the line to another generation of children. I hope the Minister will take these amendments seriously.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, we have had a very interesting and informative debate on this subject. I do not wish to add anything because everything I might say has already largely been said. All I would say is that this is focused on the principle that I and others raised at Second Reading and earlier today: the fundamental importance of early intervention and prevention if we are to break the cycle of children going into care and the consequent implications for the rest of their lives, and for the costs on local authorities and the state. Everything we know points to the fact that a focus on funding for early intervention and prevention does more than address the issues once children and young people are in the care system. I very much welcome this informative debate and thoroughly support the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a persuasive debate. We have already had the evidence that my noble friend Lady Armstrong described from the social justice commission, which is all too depressingly clear on the plight of care leavers who become young carers. My noble friend Lady Massey referred to the Family Rights Group, which produced an excellent briefing detailing some of the challenges that young parents covered by these amendments have to face. I was particularly struck by the evidence that young parents often feel judged by their youth and background rather than their parenting abilities, and particularly that, where support has been provided to them, it has often been done in their capacity as young people leaving care and has rather ignored their roles as parents. This will be a very telling point when we come to the Minister’s arguments.
The amendments seem comprehensive. Amendment 61A would insert into the assessment of the needs of a former relevant child a reference to young parents, while Amendment 71A expands helpfully on the definition of young parents. Amendment 98AA would insert into the Bill a requirement for pathway plans to be provided for,
“looked after children and care leavers who are young parents”,
and Amendment 98AB would amend the Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 to incorporate support for young parents, so my noble friend has tabled a comprehensive package of amendments.
Rather like the right reverend prelate, the Minister may say that young parents are implicitly covered in the Bill. However, to come back to the point raised in the evidence we received from the Family Rights Group, is not one of the problems here that in these legislative terms care leavers are thought of as care leavers rather than as young parents? It seems that although the Minister may say that the provisions can be seen to apply to young parents, the fact is that sometimes there is a need to be explicit. There is sometimes an advantage in putting a specific requirement into the Bill. The point I put to the Ministers is that the case has been made today for such an explicit provision, and I am sure that we will need to return to this.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Although I see the intention behind these amendments and the important issues that noble Lords have raised, we are not persuaded that they require prescription in primary legislation. I am reminded of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, earlier today and in our previous session that we should not overburden the Bill with matters best addressed by other means, particularly guidance.
As we have discussed at length, local authorities will appoint a personal adviser to those care leavers who want one, up to their 25th birthday. This brings with it the responsibility for the corporate parent to assess a young person’s needs and to prepare a pathway plan. This means that a wider group of care leavers will have their needs identified and responded to for a longer period, including those needs linked to parenthood.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her careful and thoughtful response, but I have a couple of questions for her. With regard to health visitors, I acknowledge the immense investment that the Government have made in the regeneration of the profession. However, is she aware that until recently central government has been funding health visitors and many more have successfully been recruited, but that has recently moved to local government responsibility. There has been concern that some local authorities may choose not to fund the service or to fund it less. One issue is how frequently health visitors can visit. I should like an assurance from the Minister that so far the news of that transition to local government funding is that health visiting services are continuing as they have before. She can write to me but I would appreciate reassurance on that point. There might be room for improved guidance in this area. There is clearly a struggle in prioritising how health visitor services should be used in this climate and how many visits can be made to families. I would appreciate an assurance that the guidance is explicit that a young care leaver should have at least four visits—I think the standard may be three or two at the moment. Something like that might be helpful.
Although I welcome the family nurse partnership model and the benefits that it brings through having a professional team around the family and not just the health visitor on her own, I believe that that is a fairly short intervention. Perhaps the Minister can let me know how long it lasts. Given the issues of continuity of care for this group of young people, I would appreciate more information about the duration of the family nurse partnership model and what provision is made to ensure a smooth transition to other services. Reassurance on that matter would be welcome.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to write to the noble Earl with more detail and will circulate the letter to other Peers who have been here today.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She talked about the intent of the amendments being covered in guidance. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage but, in doing so, I would like to be confident that the Minister will ensure that the House is able to consider the guidance before Third Reading.
Lord Warner
“( ) In making available personal advisers under this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to provide—(a) performance standards and training for personal advisers;(b) arrangements for vetting as to their suitability before taking up posts; and(c) a publicly available register of approved personal advisers.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, this is a probing amendment on an issue of great concern to me: safeguarding young people from predatory adults. Clause 3 is the first place in the Bill where I could find the term “personal advisers”, so I have grafted the amendment on to the clause to seek support in principle for the idea that personal adviser is the kind of job that could conceivably attract people with predatory intentions towards vulnerable young people.
Many of those young people over the age of 21 may themselves, despite their chronological age, be rather immature and vulnerable, so reaching the magic age of 21 does not necessarily produce a lack of vulnerability. That is why I drafted the amendment, which requires the Secretary of State to make regulations on three matters relating to personal advisers, irrespective of age. The Minister has to some extent tried to deal with that in his previous answers about a review and the rather mysterious deep dives that seem to be taking place in the Department for Education. However, I am not sure that we should miss this opportunity in legislation to put safeguards relating to personal advisers in the Bill: first, a provision for performance standards and training for personal advisers to be set out in regulations; secondly, arrangements for vetting them as to suitability before they take up posts; and, thirdly, a publicly available register of approved personal advisers. Those are the minimum safeguards that are required before we proceed with the introduction on a national basis of personal advisers, whatever reviews the DfE may be carrying out.
I shall say a few words about my personal experience, which causes me to feel so strongly about this amendment. First, some of the experiences I had as a director of social services brought home to me the vulnerability of young people with low self-esteem, a lack of love in their lives and bad experiences at the hands of adults. If a person in a position of trust abuses that trust, often after a period of grooming, many young care leavers are very vulnerable to damaging overtures. I have a few examples that I have had to deal with—and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has had not dissimilar examples. A foster father sexually abused a teenage girl; a Catholic priest abused young people in an adoption agency; a care home manager was caught in a teenaged girl’s bed in his own care home, in the middle of the night; and care home staff practised so-called regression therapy by encouraging children to sit on their laps. These are just a few of the people who find themselves able to get near vulnerable young people. Incidentally, the care home manager caught in flagrante took me to an employment tribunal for wrongful dismissal. These are real-world examples of what corporate parents may have to deal with.
It was that experience that led to Virginia Bottomley, the then Health Secretary, appointing me to chair an inquiry in the early 1990s after a series of scandals into how we recruited, vetted and trained staff working in children’s homes. Our report, Choosing with Care, led to some strengthening of the safeguards against predatory adults. But with the passage of time, we are in danger of assuming that some of those problems have been dealt with. As the Jimmy Savile and other examples have shown, we have to be ever vigilant. If we introduce a new group of people with easy access to vulnerable young people, we need to do all we can to safeguard those young people. The predators will always be around, and we are failing young people if we do not do our utmost to put in place protective procedures.
That was brought home to me very graphically when, a couple of months ago, I saw a play by Phil Davies called “Firebird”, at the Trafalgar Studios—I am not doing a commercial because it is no longer running there. This shows how a predator, seemingly someone who works with young people, grooms a lonely, vulnerable, young person into prostitution. I am sure that the wording of my hastily produced amendment could be improved, but I hope that the Minister will accept in principle that, if we are going for a national system of personal advisers, we should put in the Bill some safeguards for young people against potentially predatory personal advisers.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I obviously support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, although I am not going to go through the long list of experiences that I have experienced as a director of social services, as an assistant director and a social worker, and even more so, working with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which dealt with predatory grooming adults and how they got in touch with children.
I am concerned about how we work through two parts of this. One is how we make absolutely sure that the vetting is solid and absolutely reliable for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said—and how we set performance standards—but also, at the same time, as having some flexibility in who the young person might see as the person who is going to be their personal adviser. I think this is more complex than it looks on the surface. I think we could set standards of training—we have all done that in our time; we could have a vetting system and place it on a register, although I would say 130 days to get a vetting back from the Met police at the moment seems to me a scandal, and is interfering with the recruitment of appropriate social workers right across the piece. But we have to look at how we have both of those things together, with the young person having some choice about who they want to be their mentor. There may be people in their lives, such as a teacher who stuck with them right through their school or a foster parent who struck right with them. Are they seen as different from personal advisers, who are a sort of profession apart? I have not yet conceptualised who those people are in relation to all the other people who are supporting the young person, and where the standard is set. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that whoever they are, they must be vetted. In my day, we had people called children’s homes visitors, and we learned the hard way what happened if you did not vet appropriately those visitors, when young people disappeared on to the street. I would underline that—it is quite a complex question.
Lord Storey
My Lords, this is an important probing amendment. I now understand why it is in this grouping and not in the other groupings, and I apologise to whoever is responsible for that. As the British Association of Social Workers rightly said, it will be important to clarify what qualifications and capabilities will be required for the new personal advisers. Throughout our Committee discussions, we have shown how important personal advisers are and will be, in terms of speech and language and literacy, financial matters, and in putting the pathways plan together. It also is important that these are the right people for that and currently, there is no prescribed professional or occupational qualification determining which person should carry out the personal adviser’s function for any individual care leaver. There are suggestions of what a PA should normally possess. They should,
“be working towards a professional qualification … good practice …for the young person to maintain the same PA from the age of 16”,
et cetera. Presumably, the current personal advisers are DBS-compliant. If they are not, why not? I would have thought that was something that happened straightaway. They are working in a very intimate situation with young and vulnerable children, so if that is not the case, we need to know that straightaway. If it is the case, we need to look at the other suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has made. We also need to ensure that the line management of personal advisers is not something that is just put on paper and does not happen but that somebody line-manages those personal advisers and sees them on a regular basis. There is another issue—that if we are not careful, sometimes young people who are emotionally vulnerable can make allegations against personal advisers, and that personal adviser is in a very difficult situation. If an allegation is made against a teacher, at least the teacher is in a setting where there are people around who can support and advise, whereas a personal adviser is acting entirely on their own. As well as any register and making sure that correct procedures have been gone through, there also has to be proper and effective line management of personal advisers.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to express not dissimilar concerns to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I firmly support the tenor of what is proposed, but at the same time I go back to Second Reading when the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, raised the question of foster carers. Some foster carers will rail against the professionalisation of advice. If we believe that there needs to be flexibility in the range of personal advisers, we need to beware of the Bill being so constraining that we lose that flexibility. They have to be securely and safely recruited and vetted, and we must ensure that there is ongoing support. The concern just expressed about the vulnerability of an individual personal adviser also needs to be heeded. I wanted to place on record a concern that this is something that must still be wrestled with. We have not got to the bottom of the right answer yet, either with what is in the Bill or in the guidance. This will be another example of where the guidance needs to be seen before Third Reading.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I very much appreciated the 1992 report of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, Choosing with Care. I have referred to it many times during my career in this House. I find it extremely helpful and illuminating, and in visiting children’s homes, I know how helpful they have found it. There is even something called the Warner interview in which they are instructed to look back over the CV of the applicant to see if there are ever any gaps and probe the applicant on what they were doing in those gaps. It was very influential and important.
I also emphasise what noble Lords have said about the first line manager or supervisor. Recently at a conference, I heard from the chief executive of Frontline, which trains social workers. He produced evidence that where there was an excellent supervisor and manager, even in a poorly functioning local authority, newly qualified social workers could do well and be resilient. Dame Claire Tickell was commissioned to produce a White Paper for social work and she emphasised the need to train first line managers strongly. I welcome what the Minister has said so far about how he sees the Government helping to develop this personal adviser role. I hope that he will also look at their supervision and their first line managers and how those need to be developed.
Finally, on the issue of flexibility versus rigidity, there are strengths to both sides of the argument. I hope that we can find a marriage between the two. My concern is that there are huge burdens on local authorities’ resources at the moment, and unless one is very specific in terms of the personal adviser profession, we may find huge disparity in quality and that our young people may not get delivery of what they need. At the same time, there needs to be flexibility where someone knows that young person and they have a relationship. We want continuity of relationships and we want foster carers, teachers or friends to be supported to be able to deliver that. We want to allow that role to be given to the foster carer or whoever. This issue is complex. This is a helpful debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wills
My Lords, as we have heard, this is a complex and difficult issue. I have huge sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the right reverend Prelate, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about the need for flexibility. These young people are very vulnerable. They have a wide range of needs and they will respond differently to different people. It is not a question of having one professional group that will deal with every young person in the same way. We must be very careful about this because everything that I have learned about this complex subject suggests that one of the most crucial things is stability in the lives of these young people. The more difficult and restricting we make the area in which we can recruit these personal advisers, the more difficult it will be to provide stability, so there is clearly a huge problem here.
Having said that, we should not let all those difficulties dissuade or deflect us from the fundamental importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said. There is always a temptation in government—I remember it very well from all my years as the Minister—that when things come complicated and difficult, particularly in such sensitive areas, to push it aside, kick it down the road a little bit and have a review which, in the circumstances, will not necessarily produce anything very valuable. We have heard the experience of all those people with a lot more experience than I have in these matters of how these problems come to light only after the damage has been done.
I urge the Minister to grapple with those difficulties, not lose sight of the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Warner said, and to produce a substantive response today.
Lord Nash
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his amendment and the points that he, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Wills, made about the importance of safeguarding young people from predatory adults and the qualifications, training and management of personal advisers. These are of crucial and, in the case of safeguarding, paramount importance, and I will ensure that these points are covered in our review of personal advisers, to which I have already referred in some detail. This will inform what we say on Report, although I recognise the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about flexibility and stability and will look at the worrying delays to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred in relation to vetting.
I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our review by accepting his amendment now, and I hope that he will therefore consent to withdraw it, but I assure him that I recognise the importance of the points he makes.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and everyone else who has spoken in this debate. I could really identify with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I recognise how complex this issue is, certainly do not want to go into bat for the particular wording of the amendment and I accept that the Minister needs to carry out a review.
However, given what we have learned about predatory adults and vulnerable people over a long period, I ask the Minister and his department to reflect whether we should signal the issue of vetting in some brief way in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made the important point that there are two sides to this: the vulnerability of young person but also that of the personal adviser if they are isolated without adequate supervision. This is a difficult area and it is not easy to find solutions, but it behoves all public bodies and Governments, particularly with the Goddard inquiry going on, to recognise upfront that this is a real 21st-century issue which has to be wrestled with. Signalling in the Bill not the detail but a willingness to grapple with the issue is very important. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
“Duty of the Secretary of State
(1) The Secretary of State must promote the rights and well-being of children and young people in England mentioned in section 1(2).(2) In this section—“rights” means—(a) the Convention rights within the meaning given by section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998;(b) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and(c) other human rights;“well-being” means—(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;(b) protection from harm and neglect;(c) education, training and recreation;(d) the contribution made by a person to society;(e) social and economic well-being.”
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 75 and shall speak to Amendment 135 in my name. Amendment 75 puts a general duty on the Secretary of State to promote the rights and well-being of looked-after children and care leavers. The state’s care of children unable to live with their families carries enormous legal, moral and financial responsibilities. Although local authorities are of course directly responsible for individual children, central government supports the care system through policy development and sourcing, as well as public awareness-raising to ensure public support for this serious duty.
That is why I believe that it warrants a general duty on the Secretary of State akin to those which exist in relation to health and education. While those two elements of service provision to looked-after children are really important, factors affecting where they are looked after and by whom, what therapies are provided, how they are involved with decisions relating to their care and how it is all paid for are also important enough to require a general duty on the Secretary of State in charge.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 76, which is a probing amendment. Given the hour and the closeness to our target time, I will be brief.
I believe that the Bill should introduce a social justice premium—a grant that would be payable to local authorities and services and to care leavers. The social justice premium would provide funding to raise the life chances of care leavers and close the gap with their peers who are not, or have never been, in the care system.
The premium would be based on the calculation of harm over a care leaver’s lifetime. It would qualify those affected for proportionately favourable funding in terms of both payments and services. One practical application would be a government top-up for savings accounts to ensure that looked-after young people accumulated assets at least at the median rate for their peers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in favour of Amendments 75 and 135. It would be very helpful if there were a duty on the Secretary of State to address the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the way that the amendment describes. It would be helpful if there were child rights impact assessments for every piece of legislation—for instance, on the housing legislation that we have debated recently. Low-income families have suffered most in the recent years of austerity. We heard earlier about the closure of children’s centres, which are a vital tool in transforming the lives of these young people. It would be very helpful if central government were more aware of the impact of every piece of legislation on children and families, particularly poorer families. There was hardly any mention in the housing Bill of the impact of homelessness. There was some mention of families in temporary accommodation but I suggest that not nearly enough attention was paid to their needs.
Moving to Amendment 135, I was very interested to hear from the Leeds deputy director of children’s services four or five weeks ago. Leeds had been a struggling local authority in terms of children’s services but that was turned around, and he described the process. First and foremost, the foundation of the change was to consider the UNCRC—it was the very basis upon which the change was made. Leeds recognised that to improve children’s services it was necessary to look at all the children in the city and to think about how to improve their lives, listening to their needs and wishes to understand them better. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 135, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already quoted from the 2016 report by the observers from the UN Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was very damning. I want to draw attention to the fact that in 2008 there was an earlier damning report and the Government’s response to that in 2010 was to say that they would give due consideration to the rights of the child in all new legislation and policy. I have to say that there has been precious little sign of that, which worries me.
The other thing that worries me about this is the comment made by the noble Baroness about the inequality that exists in the observance of the rights of the child in the various parts of the United Kingdom, with England consistently lagging behind. I really think that this Bill is an opportunity to do something about this, and we ought to seize it.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I omitted to say that there seems to be a real issue in the United States, France and this country about a large section of the population feeling left out. The success of globalisation has in many ways simply left them behind. This would be one helpful measure to ensure that those at the bottom of the heap are better treated and feel better treated.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, Amendments 75 and 135 have been comprehensively argued and we have a great deal of sympathy with the intention to include in the Bill reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to promote the rights and well-being of children in care and care leavers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, general duties on the Secretary of State exist in relation to health and education, so it is important to consider this issue in the Bill.
Specifically on the UNCRC’s latest report, the Minister underlined at Second Reading that the Government fully recognised the importance of the committee’s work and were looking closely at the report. The report has again warned, as we heard, of the growing and disproportionate impact of austerity and spending cuts on disadvantaged children. It would be helpful if the Minister explained further his thinking on the report and what are the Government’s plans for responding to it.
We recognise the importance of upholding the rights of children in care and care leavers and on ensuring their well-being. Establishing at the end of Clause 3 a duty for the Secretary of State to promote the rights of children and young people covered by the Bill in accordance with the convention and other relevant legislation reinforces the commitment to provide the services that care leavers need. It also defines well-being, which we asked for, and to include physical, mental health and emotional well-being; the skills needed to contribute to society; and the importance of social and economic well-being, for which we have all recognised the need.
The provisions in Amendment 135 would be particularly important if Clauses 15 to 19 remain in the Bill. The Minister knows that there are deep concerns at the wide-ranging scope of these clauses, which we will debate on later amendments. This amendment would place a duty on public bodies and any person providing children’s services of a public nature to have due regard to the UN convention, particularly in functions relating to safeguarding or promoting the welfare of children—it is vital for this protection to be included if the scope of Clause 15 is as wide-ranging as is currently feared—and for regular reports to be published on how the requirement is being met.
Importantly, the amendment refers to this report as needing to be in a format “accessible to children”. In this context, I commend the valuable programme of work currently being undertaken by Coram Voice to find out from young people in care themselves what well-being being actually means to them. Its survey of children in care, Your Life, Your Care, began last year and aims at measuring the quality of their care experience and their own sense of well-being under what it calls the four Rs—relationships, recovery, resilience-building and rights, which very much resonate with the issues and approaches that have come up under the Bill. It can be used to help local authorities demonstrate how they are meeting Ofsted requirements, for example: what they are doing well and what they could improve.
Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and supporting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation call for the Secretary of State to have power to introduce a social justice premium grant to local authorities for services or grants for care leavers, reflects the need to find responses to the huge funding pressures faced by local authorities and the impact of the scale of the cuts in recent years. The overall aim of improving care leavers’ life chances and closing the gap between them and children who have not been in care is certainly one we all fully support. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation underlined that this policy is in the early stages of development ahead of the application of its anti-poverty strategy later this year and we look forward to seeing further work on this. The aim of basing the grant and calculations of harm over the care leaver’s lifetime is also laudable but a very challenging proposition.
Overall, it is worth emphasising that further premiums or special funding at the Secretary of State’s discretion, however welcome in the current context, are not the answer to medium or long-term funding problems. Local authorities must be adequately resourced to undertake the work and responsibilities placed on them, and Labour is strongly committed to achieving that. If we listen to care leavers themselves to help shape their services to them, as we all advocate, we know that worrying about money, fear of not being able to pay the bills and getting into debt that can never be paid off is at the heart of a lot of the problems they face.
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for these amendments and their comments, and for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I am grateful for their brevity. In that regard and without wishing to be rude, I know we are debating important matters but if we are to get through this Bill in four days in Committee I would be grateful if noble Lords could come back on Wednesday in that vein.
First, I will respond to Amendment 135, on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I offer my reassurance that the Government remain fully committed to this important convention. The recent report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on the UK recognised the progress made by the Government in protecting and enhancing children’s rights over recent years. The Government are unconvinced that putting a statutory duty to pay due regard to the convention on Secretaries of State or other bodies would have a real impact on children’s lives. In 2010, the coalition Government made a Statement to Parliament stating that the Government would give due consideration to the UNCRC when making new policies and legislation. This Government maintain that commitment.
Legislation is already assessed to ensure compatibility with the UNCRC. A rigorous child rights impact assessment was conducted on this Bill, for example, and shared with the Children’s Commissioner and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Similarly, at a local level we believe that putting additional duties on public bodies is not the right approach to either raise awareness of the UNCRC or to change the way decisions are made. More targeted approaches through guidance and support to specific professionals or related to specific aspects of children’s rights are more effective. In 2013, for example, we issued statutory guidance to DCSs to have regard to the general principles of the UNCRC and to ensure that children are involved in development and delivery of local services. The Children’s Commissioner’s primary function is to promote and protect children’s rights and ensure that they are properly understood, including by children themselves. She raises awareness and ensures that their views are brought to the attention of decision-makers at both local and national levels.
Turning to reporting mechanisms, under the UNCRC process we are required to provide a full UK report on a five-yearly cycle. The reports are publicly available on the UN website. Any additional requirement would risk duplicating our existing obligation. I recognise the value of impact assessments carried out on legislative proposals where they affect children, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. We carried out a very full analysis of the Bill’s impacts on children’s rights, interests and families. The Government are committed to giving due consideration to children’s rights on matters such as this, as I said. Of course, there are aspects of children’s rights where we can and should do more. I assure noble Lords that we are considering the recommendations of the UN Committee, published earlier this month. We will respond to the concluding observations this year.
Amendment 75 proposes that a similar duty is put on the Secretary of State to promote the rights and well-being of children and young people who are looked after or care leavers. We believe that introducing such a duty is unnecessary. This is due to the duties which the Secretary of State already owes and the commitments that the Government have already made. The Children Act 1989 sets out the legal principle that the child’s welfare shall be the paramount consideration in decisions regarding children in the social care system. The guiding principle of any decision taken in relation to looked-after children will be to have their well-being as the primary consideration.
Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 obliges the Secretary of State to promote the well-being of all children in England and empowers her to take action to promote the well-being of care leavers. Clause 1 introduces the corporate parenting principles. The first principle sets out that a local authority must, in carrying out functions in relation to looked-after children and young people, act in their best interests and promote their health and well-being. We hope that this will reassure the noble Baronesses.
Turning to the social justice premium grant, the Government fully support the principle behind Amendment 76. As a Government, we are committed to improving the life chances of care leavers. Our forthcoming care leaver strategy will set out our ambition that care leavers should have the same opportunities, experiences and life chances as other young people. The best local authorities, such as Trafford, already provide additional support to care leavers to improve their life chances and to narrow the gap between them and their peers. Trafford ring-fences apprenticeship opportunities for care leavers and gives them free access to leisure centres.
Our goal is to see more local authorities providing excellent services that improve the life chances of all care leavers. This Government are committed to an all-out assault on poverty and improving chances for all children, regardless of their background and past experiences. Our forthcoming life chances strategy will set out our plan for transforming the life chances of disadvantaged children and their families and for tackling deep-rooted social problems so that no one is held back or prevented from making the most of their lives. In view of the measures that we have already taken to promote and protect children’s rights, particularly for children in care and care leavers, I hope that noble Lords will feel sufficiently reassured not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for what he said about child impact assessments on child-related Bills. But is it not even more important in Bills about housing and welfare that there are such child impact assessments? Those Bills have a huge impact on children and their families and one does not get the sense that the impact on children is really thought through. American academics who come to this country talk about how important housing is to children and bewail the fact that there does not seem to be awareness at senior levels of government of that necessary connection.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group. I will not say much because I need to be in the Chamber for the dinner break business. I thank the Minister for his reply. This is not the first time that I have tried to get some incorporation of the UNCRC into UK law and I am sure that it will not be the last. We made progress under the coalition Government when Sarah Teather announced that all government policies would be scrutinised to make sure that they were compliant with the UNCRC. That is why I wonder why, on the front of the Bill, we have a compliance statement about the UN Convention on Human Rights, but no statement about compliance with the UNCRC. That would be a step forward. After Sarah Teather made that statement, I went to talk to civil servants in the Department for Education to ask them what was the procedure to make sure that every policy was compliant. They did not have one. I would be interested to know what the procedure is now, because that was five or six years ago. Let us hope that we have moved forward in that respect because unless we have a proper procedure for doing this, it will not always happen and we things will fall through the gaps. However, I said that I would not say much, so I will sit down and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, these amendments, in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Hunt, are to the clause relating to educational achievement. It is surely self-evident that educational achievement is absolutely crucial to the hopes of young people in or leaving care in building a life that offers opportunities to raise their own family and pursue a career. So everything that can be done should be done to maximise those educational opportunities.
Amendment 77 would expand the provision that states that the advice and information should be available to the child’s parents for the purpose of promoting the child’s educational achievements. The term “parent” is unnecessarily narrow because, by definition, many of the young people we are talking about will not have parents. Perhaps the Minister will come back and say that it is a legal term and it is not necessary, but children could be with foster carers, they could be under special guardianship orders or they could be in care homes. The main point is to make sure that they are provided with the necessary advice that they need and to which they are entitled.
Could the Minister clarify whether the provision of information about education is to be provided to the child’s parents alone? It is obvious, as I have said before, that it has to be broader than that. There is not a lot more to say on that amendment, and I hope that I can get a fairly straight response.
On Amendment 79, there is an issue here with simply saying that a local authority,
“must appoint at least one person for the purpose of discharging the duty imposed by subsection (1)”.
I hope that it would be more than one person—but even if it is only one person it is important to ensure that that person, whoever he or she may be, allocates not just the resources but the time to do the job properly. There are many examples in schools, obviously at a more local level—for instance, the special educational needs co-ordinator. In my experience, that person is in some cases just the person who is willing to come forward and take it on; they may or may not have the training initially—they may be the only person willing to do it, on top of his or her other duties. On a bigger scale, within a local authority, it is important that the person who is appointed to look after the educational achievements of children in care is not just given another duty to add to his or her job description and is expected to do that within the time available to them. Can the Minister clarify that the people given the job will be able to do that?
It has already emerged as a recurring theme, even in the two Committee days that we have had on this Bill, that more and more duties are being given to local authorities. In some cases, that is quite appropriate, if they have been properly resourced. I shall not rehearse the arguments about the stresses and strains on the finances of local authorities, because everyone is only too well aware of that but if more and more duties are laid on them, local authorities must have commensurate resources transferred to them to enable them to carry out the duties properly. I accept that that is a small aspect, but it is an important part of the Bill. As I said earlier, the educational achievements of looked-after children and children leaving care is crucial to their adult lives. I ask the Minister for those kinds of assurances and whether we can look with confidence at this part of the Bill, so that the person appointed to fill the post will have the ability, time and resources to do the job properly. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 86, which seeks to ensure that formerly looked-after children receive in their school,
“appropriate education in personal, social, health and economic skills, and citizenship”.
I find it really not that surprising that so many noble Lords have referred today to issues such as relationships, financial education, independent living, self-confidence and self-esteem. The amendment just backs up the need for us to consider those really very essential skills. All children should receive such personal development and economic education, as well as citizenship skills. Amendment 86 seeks to take account of the trauma and vulnerability that some children have experienced. Again, I include migrant children, although I am very aware that other children will have experienced varying degrees of loss, trauma and pain.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 78, which relates to Clause 4, which inserts, under the heading “Educational achievement of previously looked after children”, a new section into the Children Act 1989 in order to provide information and advice to previously looked-after young people and their parents.
In particular, my amendment affects subsection (3) of the new section, which provides local authorities with a power to do,
“anything else that they consider appropriate”,
to promote the educational achievement of these young people. This is potentially radical wording—whether that is intentional I am not sure—but, as I said at Second Reading, that ambition is very welcome. It is not quite on a par with the power to innovate described in Clauses 15 to 19 but I certainly think that it acts in that direction.
Without wanting to presage the debate that will take place around that part of the Bill, it is already clear that noble Lords will demand that any such powers to innovate will need to be very carefully designed to avoid negative and unintended consequences. It is that spirit which informs this amendment. I am concerned that the subsection does not include the necessary safeguards to avoid negative and unintended consequences for some young people.
Local authorities have a number of duties to several categories of vulnerable children—not simply looked-after children but, for example, children with special educational needs and disabilities. Even as we move towards an academy-led system, local authorities retain direct responsibility for placing children with special educational needs and disabilities who have educational health and care plans. I am sorry for the continued jargon. My worry is that as currently constituted, the subsection gives local authorities permission to provide extraordinary support to previously looked-after children, which is of course welcome on one level, but even if that is at the cost of pupils with SEND, for example, who are much more numerous and may have more challenging needs.
My amendment would add a simple caveat to make it clear that local authorities must take into account the impact of their actions on other children for whom they have a responsibility when considering how to raise attainment for previously looked-after children. I am perfectly willing to accept that it may be unnecessary if I can get the reassurances that I seek from Ministers that it is not intended or that other safeguards exist, perhaps in other legislation.
I turn quickly to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I strongly support the sentiment on the delivery of high-quality PSHE in schools. That is what we do through our character programme in the Floreat schools that I set up. I am also involved in the “Developing Healthy Minds in Teenagers” programme, which is trying to do something similar in secondary schools. I very much support the spirit of the amendment but I am concerned that it might tip us into a statutory PSHE curriculum which, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not ready to support because, as Ofsted has said, PSHE teaching in too many schools is not yet good enough. We need to fix that problem before considering whether it should become a statutory subject.
Lord Storey
I shall speak to Amendment 86. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has been a worthy champion of PSHE ever since I joined the House of Lords. I thought that the battle was over when in reply to her question the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said that yes, she thought that it was important that all schools taught PSHE. I raised my hand in the air thinking, “Great, we’ve got that”.
I was interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. There is always this debate about whether we have to slim down the curriculum. It is said, “We don’t want to have statutory PSHE; we want schools—academies—to have freedoms”. Yes, I can subscribe to some of that but children are more important than them just having freedoms for curriculum development. There are really important things that need to be taught to all children and we have just heard a catalogue of them. It is hugely important that children have sex and relationship education and that they have financial education, and so on and so forth. I was fascinated by the noble Lord’s comments about the sort of work that he does in his schools. I pay tribute to that, but it should be for all schools.
I am not sure whether saying, “Let’s get the PSHE model right before we make it statutory” is the right approach. It should be the other way round. We should be saying that we will make it statutory for all schools—including free schools as well, incidentally, which I notice that the amendment does not mention—and then we make the resources, drive and determination to make that happen. That is probably one of the most important things that we can do for all children, but particularly for vulnerable and looked-after children.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, Amendments 77 to 79 and 86 concern educational support for formerly looked-after children. The trauma and experiences of children who have suffered from abuse and neglect can have a long-term impact on outcomes and life chances, even once they have left care through a permanence order. The Bill seeks to ensure that everything possible is done to help these children and young people overcome the difficulties that they have faced and to realise their ambitions.
Our intention is to place a duty on local authorities to extend the duties of virtual school heads to support looked-after children who have left care under an adoption, special guardianship or child arrangement order. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we will consider his Amendment 77. We will be talking to government lawyers about whether the current drafting fully captures special guardianship or child arrangement orders. We think that it does for adopted children but if it does not and the current drafting of the Bill does not achieve that aim, we will consider a government amendment to Clause 4. I thank him for raising that issue.
While I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy in his Amendment 78, I am not convinced that it is necessary to place a duty on local authorities to consider the impact of what they will do on other groups of children. Local authorities will need to ensure that they do not spend disproportionate time supporting one child or group of children at the expense of others. Virtual school heads must do this now as some looked-after children will require more intensive support than others. I reassure my noble friend that the new duties in the Bill are deliberately light-touch—just providing information and advice—to allow virtual school heads to effectively prioritise their workload.
The role of the virtual school head for formerly looked-after children will be different from their current role. They will not have to monitor each child’s progress as they do for children in care for instance, as the child’s parents and carers will do this. We are confident that with the other specific duties on local authorities to support looked-after children, previously looked-after children will not be disproportionately supported at the expense of others.
On Amendment 79, again I do not think it appropriate to specify in primary legislation that local authorities must ensure virtual school heads have the resources to do the job. Clearly, we will expect all local authorities to do this and we will, via Ofsted inspections, check the quality of the service provided by virtual school heads. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that a virtual school head will not be an add-on to other duties. Their sole focus will be vulnerable children. Many virtual school heads already respond to requests for advice and information from parents and schools in respect of children who have left care through, for example, adoption. Clause 4 seeks to ensure that all authorities offer this service. However, I have asked officials to ensure that resources for virtual school heads are covered in the statutory guidance we will issue to clarify their role.
Finally, Amendment 86 covers personal, social, health and economic education for formerly looked-after children. We agree that all young people should leave school prepared for life in modern Britain. The Minister and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that high-quality PSHE has a vital role to play in giving young people a better understanding of society and supporting them to make informed choices and to stay safe. The majority of schools and teachers already recognise the importance of good-quality PSHE education.
However, as I am afraid the noble Baroness has heard me say before, we believe it is not the availability but the quality of PSHE teaching that is the most pressing issue, as my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy highlighted. I say again: we will continue to keep the status of PSHE under review but in the short term we will prioritise working with experts to identify further action we can take to ensure that all pupils receive high-quality, age-appropriate PSHE and sex and relationships education. I am sure that the noble Baroness will continue to push us on this matter and that we will have many further discussions. I hope, on that basis, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am sorry to prolong the sitting. I am very reassured by what my noble friend said about looked-after children not suffering as a consequence but my specific question was about children with special educational needs and disabilities. I wonder whether she could write to me to provide that reassurance that local authorities’ duty of care to them is dealt with in other legislation so that there is that balance.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very happy to write to my noble friend on that.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in the debate and the Minister for her largely positive response. I certainly welcome that she is considering what we said in Amendment 77 and will come back on that. I welcome also the fact that virtual school heads will have a sole responsibility, so presumably other resources will have to be made available to make sure nothing is taken away from existing budgets. I want to make sure that the individual appointed—mentioned in Clause 4(4)—is not being taken away from doing anything else that he or she was doing, as has often been the case with other new appointments. This is not the time to discuss the PSHE argument and I would say only one other thing to the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. I do not know him well enough to make this accusation to him personally, but there always will be some people who will say we are not yet ready for PSHE being a statutory requirement in schools. Some of the statistics on young people’s exposure, particularly to sexual activity, be it in real life or virtually—online or whatever—suggest that they have to get as much information as early as possible, and we need to find ways of doing that. There is nothing more for me to say on that. Again, I welcome the Minister’s response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
European Union
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what role they see for the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
Following the decision by the British people to leave the European Union, the Prime Minister has been clear that the nature of the relationship we secure with the EU will be determined by the next Government, but we must not turn our back on Europe nor on the rest of the world. While we are still a member of the EU, we will continue to engage with EU business and decision-making in the usual way.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Can we now focus on process? We will presumably have to start talks with individual countries, but also with the European Union centrally. First, how will that be structured, and what is the European Union going to do in response? Secondly, and very importantly, how will we ensure that our well-known diplomatic skills are still engaged with the European Union to deal with the wider world in the interests of both the European Union and Britain? At the end of the day, both of us must end up being winners in this process, not losers.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Indeed, my Lords, the fact that there is a formal process does not exclude the possibility of informal talks. One talks to colleagues around Europe: it has already happened and it will continue to happen. The European Council has appointed a Belgian diplomat, Didier Seeuws, to lead a Brexit taskforce, which will negotiate the terms and conditions of withdrawal with UK Government officials. That has been announced by the European Council, but Seeuws’s appointment is reported to have created what I might call some tension between the Council and the Commission over who should lead the withdrawal negotiations.
The noble Lord draws attention to the importance of diplomatic skills. I can assure him that on the Friday the result was known, our Permanent Under-Secretary called an all-staff meeting to impress on them exactly that point, and to reinforce the undertaking that we would continue to develop diplomatic skills and the strength of the Diplomatic Academy to take account of the decision by the British people.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not crucial that we have a British Government who are effective in office as soon as possible, and should not the members of the Conservative Party in the country bear that in mind?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister announced his intention to stand down, he suggested that, pending the election of his successor, he would do everything to “steady the ship” over the coming weeks and months. Does this commitment mean that every Minister has to come to the Dispatch Box with the same ministerial briefing—that this is a matter for the next Prime Minister or the next Government—and if so, is this really steadying the ship, or has the ship run aground with the Prime Minister as the first leader overboard?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
As a maritime nation with a proud history in international relations and trade, this ship is not only afloat but is avoiding the Dogger Bank and negotiating a way forward. It will of course be a matter for the next Prime Minister and the next Government to agree on the details, but this Government are putting in place the processes by which information can be gathered to inform the next Government and ensure the success of this great country.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, do not the actions of the leaders of the leave campaign demonstrate that now, they have no idea how to take Britain forward?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is important that we listen to the views of all. The people decided that they wished to leave the European Union. When we have our two-day debate tomorrow and Wednesday, I and my officials will be listening very carefully to the views of all Peers on all sides of the argument. That will inform our way forward, just as constituents can inform the way forward of their Members of Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Ely
Whatever happens in the long term, in the meantime will the Government speak up trenchantly against the ugly and unseemly behaviour of some of our fellow citizens in the way they speak to and are violent towards citizens from the EU who are resident here, and who are productive citizens in our midst?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The right reverend Prelate is of course not only right but clearly has the complete agreement of this House. This country has proved throughout its history that it not only tolerates but welcomes those who come here to contribute to our society. I deplore attacks upon them.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness stressed the role of the Government in the negotiations, but she has failed to mention the role of this sovereign Parliament in that process. Will she indicate just how Parliament will be involved in the process of negotiations?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, last week the Leader of the House repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement, in which he said that,
“we have now got to look at all the detailed arrangements, and Parliament will clearly have a role in that in making sure that we find the best way forward”,
and that, as we move ahead towards leaving the EU, it will be important to,
“ensure that the interests of all parts of our United Kingdom are protected and advanced”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/16; cols. 23-27.]
That still stands.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, to what extent will the Ponsonby rule or its successor arrangements under the constitutional change brought in in 2010 be applicable to this process?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, apart from the vote to leave, how do we ascertain what the British people—or, at least, the 36% of the electorate who voted to leave—really want? We cannot negotiate with the people.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in a democracy the people negotiate with government when they express their view at the ballot box, which they have done. It is then the duty of the Government to take into account the security and interests of the whole of the British people when putting together proposals for negotiation. I suspect that we will have an opportunity in this Chamber further to discuss these matters. It will of course be a matter for the usual channels to determine how that happens, both within the Chamber and outside it in a more informal way.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend indicated that informal talks can go on with the EU. Is she happy that that can happen without our triggering Article 50?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. In any event we have discussions with the other 27 countries outside the European Council; that will not only happen but has already started. I hope that that will continue to ensure that our relationships are firm and good, which will help when we come to the formal negotiations.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reminding the House that we are a maritime nation, and I ask her to remind the Treasury and the MoD that perhaps we should buy some ships. However, my question relates to the important role we play as the bridge between the North American and European parts of NATO. Does she agree that we still absolutely have to carry out that role for the security of our part of the world?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That is a crucial point and I feel sure it will be very much in the mind of the Foreign Secretary when he attends the NATO summit this weekend.
Landfill: Textile Waste
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to reduce the amount of textile waste sent to landfill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we are working with the Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—and organisations from across the clothing life cycle to reduce of amount of textile waste sent to landfill and minimise environmental impacts. This includes action with designers and manufacturers to increase clothing durability, work to promote greater reuse and recycling of textiles and action to influence consumer behaviour through the Love Your Clothes campaign.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, we can all do more to make our clothes last longer and look at innovative ways to do so. To that end, all noble Lords are invited to a swishing event tomorrow in Committee Room G, 5 pm to 7 pm, hosted by the APPG on Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion. I declare an interest as a trustee of WRAP, which leads the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan—SCAP—which is focused on diverting textiles from landfill. Can my noble friend inform the House what progress SCAP is making?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend’s initiative sounds very interesting and noble Lords, including those who are not in the Chamber, may well want to go. So far as SCAP is concerned, I am very pleased to say that only last week Primark, one of the UK’s largest clothing retailers, became the latest business to sign up to SCAP. This means that SCAP now represents 65% of clothes sold in the UK by volume. This clearly shows the enormous potential for this agreement.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, lower prices and reduced demand are lessening incentives to collect used textiles. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to introduce extended producer responsibility, as they have done in France, to stimulate demand for sustainable markets?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I certainly will look into what the noble Baroness has said in greater detail, but what we are seeking to do through SCAP is to ensure that there is a greater reduction in textiles going to landfill. Obviously, clothing is the most important area but there are a number of innovative initiatives with the use of textiles, for instance carpets, going into roofing, road surfaces, equestrian surfaces and engineering plastics. So there is a lot going on in both the clothing and non-clothing textile sectors.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of research that suggests that synthetic fleeces, when they are washed, are responsible for a significant proportion of the microplastics that end up in the sea and inside the bodies of mussels and other things such as that?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think I am safe in saying that wool is a very good alternative to synthetic products and also that we are very keen indeed to ensure that microbeads and marine litter are much reduced. On that subject, the United Kingdom will consider acting separately if we need to, but I am pleased to say that many of the manufacturers of UK cosmetics are no longer using microbeads and I hope that that will increase dramatically.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of companies belonging to the Textile Recycling Association have gone out of business recently? This is the result partly of a lack of sustainable markets for used clothing and partly of downward pressure on prices. Given that it is in all our interests to help this market thrive and to avoid clothing going into landfill, should the Government not be doing more to work with this sector to create new markets, including putting more money into investment and innovation where that would make sense?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is very clear that this is an innovative area where we need to do more and where as we increase the capability of recycling there will be some great and continuing successes. I understand that, with the issues particularly in east Africa and Ukraine, where there has been a reduction in the reuse of clothing and also a reduction in prices, this is a challenge that we need to work on, and it is one of the things I very much hope we can work with WRAP on.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, to follow up the question from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the mix of artificial and natural fibres is a real problem for recycling in the textile industry. I am old enough to remember when we had a thriving shoddy industry in Yorkshire—but that was wool, not wool mixed with polypropylene and all sorts of other things. Will the Government in this deregulatory age consider the virtue of some regulation of mixtures between artificial and natural fibres to assist in recycling?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
What the noble Lord has said is very interesting. Just as anaerobic digestion is one of the issues with energy, the problem with many textiles is the non-biodegradable nature of the material. So although what the noble Lord suggested may present some complications, this is an area where we need to think much more freshly and in an innovative manner.
Immigration Officers
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Afshar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the qualifications of those whose job it is to assess and review applications for non-European Union citizens seeking leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, while there are no formal qualification requirements, the recruitment and selection of staff to these roles follows a standard process based on the Civil Service core competency framework. A comprehensive training and mentoring programme is in place for all staff recruited to these roles.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
I thank the Minister. Given the serious shortage of expertise in academe and in the health and care sectors, will the Minister consider revising the provisions that prevent graduates in this country who are from abroad working in these sectors to help out? Even if such graduates offer their work free of charge, they are limited to a number of hours of service, which deprives communities of freely available and badly needed help. Will the Government reconsider this provision?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to the issue of students working here. The main purpose of the tier 4 visa, the arrangements under which she refers to, is that students should be able to maintain themselves for the duration of their course without resorting to employment in the UK. However, as noble Lords will know, students are permitted to supplement their income and can work for up to 20 hours a week.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, whatever the outcome of the EU negotiations on immigration referred to earlier, does my noble friend agree that it is the skills of migrants, from Commonwealth countries particularly, on which we heavily depend and that these should be encouraged rather than penalised in the new situation which we are moving into? Does he further agree that, if the 183,000 students who are classified as migrants were looked at slightly differently from the overall migrant figures, it might clarify and ease what is otherwise a very misunderstood situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises two important points. On the first, the UK is committed as a member of the European Union until the decision is taken formally to invoke the appropriate articles, but in our future negotiations with our European partners and with the world in general it will be important that we look at the skills requirements of the nation to ensure that we fulfil them. On my noble friend’s second question, it would be remiss of me at this point to start changing immigration policy, but, as I always do, I have listened to him with interest and will take back his comments.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Can my noble friend say what help can be given to British citizens living in Europe? I have a daughter and two grandchildren living in Spain; they have been there 22 years.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The advice is very clear. We remain members of the European Union and nothing changes. I know that this issue has come up in your Lordships’ House previously and I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question on it later today. It is important to remember in the new world that we find ourselves in that Britain always has been, and will remain, a nation which is compassionate in welcoming people from around the world. Certainly, that will be the basis of any discussions with European partners and nations beyond Europe.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Is either the number of applications seeking leave to remain in the UK from non-EU citizens or the percentage of such applications that are accepted projected to increase or decrease between 2015 and 2020? If so, to what extent are they projected to increase or decrease?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am not going to speculate on what will happen over the next five years. The important thing to remember, when it comes to immigration and applications for leave to remain, is that we look at the best interests of our country, but also at the best interests in regard to what we are on the global stage. We are a welcoming nation to people from all around the globe, and long may that remain so, to ensure that Britain continues to prosper and grow on the global stage.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, while I would like to encourage the noble Lord to change immigration policy from the Dispatch Box, I will restrain myself. With regard to the officials who are the subject of this Question, I understand that there is a difficulty with retention. Is that correct, and if it is, are the Government aware why there is a problem with retaining the officers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We currently have 1,280 full-time equivalent staff who are undertaking this casework. The noble Baroness talks about retention; there is normal turnover of staff. We are also enhancing some of the requirements, particularly on English language, for such staff, which will come into play in this area, and across the public sector, from October 2016. It is important in any role undertaken within government and the public sector that career paths are pointed out to people—the mentoring scheme we deploy for such staff is a valuable asset in this regard.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have several friends from different parts of the EU who have indefinite leave to remain and have lived in this country for many years. They are now asking me whether they are safe to stay here in the future. Will the Minister make it clear, through the Government, that those people will be able to remain, regardless of what the details regarding the EU are?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As we have previously heard from this Dispatch Box, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister as well as others, the position of EU nationals within the United Kingdom who have indefinite leave to remain does not change. In any future discussions we have with our European partners, the important thing is the need to reflect that fact and also—as my noble friend raised in an earlier question—the needs and requirements of those UK citizens who have made their home in the member states of the European Union.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said is significantly at odds with what his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said today on the “Today” programme? Could he clarify, between the two of them, who is right?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I do not think there is an inconsistency. The important thing in this issue, which the Government have made clear, is that first and foremost we remain members of the European Union. The position of those citizens of the European Union who are residing in the UK does not change until such time as negotiations begin. I say that because it is important to have a factual reality check as to what the situation is. However, I would add that the position of European Union nationals here who have indefinite leave to remain, much akin to those from other parts of the world who have indefinite leave to remain, remains a vital part of the discussions we will have with our European Union partners. Prevailing within that is the importance of recognising that this is about providing stability and security to all citizens who chose to make the UK their home.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I know my noble friend will be ashamed at the racist and ethnic bullying that has resulted from the referendum vote. Should we not also be ashamed that nobody in government seems to be able to reassure those victims in the way that they require? People who are already settled here, legally and responsibly, are our friends and neighbours and should not be used as bargaining chips in the Brexit negotiations. Will the Minister please make sure to remember that any Government who come back from Brexit negotiations with a result saying these people will have to be forcibly removed from this country would very soon be out of time and out of a majority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend has made a valid point very well. Let me assure him that no Government moving forward in the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in would in any sense be looking at any citizen in the way that has been suggested by some. The important thing is to provide reassurances at this juncture because there is uncertainty and to ensure that to deal with the attacks we have seen up and down the country being perpetrated by those who are using this opportunity to divide us, we send a simple and straightforward message: those who incite hatred against any community or person for whatever reason will be dealt with using the force of the law.
Let me provide once again some comfort to my noble friend because this is an important point. As we move forward in what as I have said is an unprecedented situation, we must ensure that the rights, security and safety of all citizens who have made Britain their home are fully protected. They make Britain what it is and I am sure that they will be at the forefront of the mind of whoever emerges as the Prime Minister and the new Government of our great country as they lead on the negotiations.
Health: HIV
(8 years, 3 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 will instruct NHS England to commission the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for patients with HIV.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, after taking legal advice, NHS England has concluded that it has no legal power to commission pre-exposure prophylaxis. NHS England’s decision is currently subject to judicial review by the National AIDS Trust and we are therefore unable to comment further on the legal position. We will consider the options available following the outcome of the legal review.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is a perverse decision on a ground-breaking drug that could save many people’s lives. Essentially, NHS England is hiding behind the responsibilities of local authorities in relation to sexual health services. How long must we wait before the public get the use of this drug, which is widely available in other countries? The Government should instruct NHS England to get on and make it available.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the judicial review is being held next Wednesday, which is only 10 days from now, at which point we will know the exact legal position. I really cannot comment further on it today. As far as this drug being widely available as a prophylaxis, it is widely available only in some countries for very specific groups of people. If we commission it in the future, it is important that we are clear about where we can get the most benefit from it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the PROUD study reported in the Lancet last year showed that the PrEP use of Truvada in high-risk groups reached nearly 100%. Are there any other preventive treatments for life-threatening diseases which are 100% effective but for which NHS England is refusing to take responsibility?
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is true that in the control group used in the PROUD trial there was a very high level of success—85% or 87%, I think—but it is critical to identify the right group of people. That is why NHS England is providing £2 million to test Truvada as a prophylactic among a wider group of people to see whether it is equally efficient.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS and as a patron of many HIV organisations. Further to the Minister’s last reply and to the fact that trials are going to take place, will he indicate what action the Government are taking to ensure that there is no gap in the provision of Truvada—PrEP—for those who are on the PROUD trial? Those people will be in great difficulty if they have to stop taking the drug. Will they be included in the trial, how are the trials going to be determined and who is going to decide how the money is going to be spent? Lastly, we think the trial will be a two-year process, so it will be 2019 before we get a decision. Will the Minister say how the decision is ultimately going to be taken?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I can confirm that all the people who are receiving PrEP as part of the PROUD trial will continue to receive it going forward, which I think answers the main point made by the noble Baroness. In terms of the conduct of the trials that I referred to earlier, they will largely be organised and shaped by Public Health England.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I have to declare an interest because my husband chaired the Medical Research Council committee that oversaw the original trial on this. The trial was suspended because it was so successful. It was suspended on ethical grounds because it was thought that the people in the control group must receive the drug. Do the Government agree that it is unethical, whatever the legal or financial situation, not to make the drug more available now, particularly given the alarming rise in new cases of HIV in gay men?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am not an expert in this area, but having thought and read about this issue a lot over the past few days, it seems to me that the number of people who have not been diagnosed with HIV is a critical issue. As those people are not aware that they have HIV, their behaviour is not adjusted and because they are not taking treatment, they have a greater amount of the HIV virus. It is estimated that 18,000 people have not been diagnosed so, if one had to make a choice, increasing our rate of diagnosis must be crucial. However, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness that the evidence around PrEP as a prophylaxis is strong.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I have a simple question. Does the Minister agree that we cannot afford not to provide PrEP on the NHS, given that it saves lives and prevents HIV infection?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The critical issue is: to whom do we provide it? The whole purpose of the trials that NHS England is now funding is to ensure that when we provide PrEP, we do so for those who can most benefit from it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Do the Government recognise that the number of new cases in London is not falling, despite all the public health measures, and that there is therefore an urgent need to address the continuing at-risk behaviours? Will the Government also consider a trial of PrEP in the prostitute population, in which heterosexual transmission can occur and who are often not spoken about in relation to HIV, partly because all their activities are underground?
Lord Prior of Brampton
That is a good point. I am sure that Public Health England is aware of the risks to sex workers and that it will factor them into the trials it is devising over the next two years.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendments 21, 38, 39 and 40 go to the heart of the concerns that we raised at Second Reading about the restrictions on local authorities being able to access the new franchising model set out in the Bill. As it stands, a mayoral combined authority can automatically opt for a franchise scheme if it feels that it is right for its locality. However, all other categories of single or combined authorities must first seek the permission of the Secretary of State. Their decision would then need to be endorsed by affirmative regulation. Our amendments simplify and streamline that process, taking the Secretary of State out of the equation and creating a level playing field for local authorities.
We share a common purpose in wanting to improve the number of passenger journeys and drive up standards. We know that the franchising model works; the statistics for bus use in London are testament to that. No doubt this is part of the reason that the Government have finally embraced it as appropriate for mayoral authorities. However, no one has satisfactorily explained why, if it is good for one model of local authority leadership, it should not work equally well in other areas. It is not at all clear what the unique wisdom of mayoral authorities is. As I said at Second Reading, there is a wider game of politics going on here. Clearly, the Government are scratching around to find incentives for local authorities to adopt their preferred model of local leadership. This has been alighted upon as a bargaining chip; it has nothing to do with improving bus provision.
The threat of Secretary of State interference in local authority decisions, as set out in this Bill, surely runs counter to the shared aspiration of both the Government and the Opposition to devolve more power to localities and let local communities shape the services that are right for them. Our view is shared by the Local Government Association, which has endorsed our amendments. It takes the view that all areas should be given automatic rights to bus franchising powers, with the decision taken locally, based on robust evidence and taking into account the needs of passengers, local residents and other circumstances such as the performance of local bus markets. Its view is shared by many other smaller bus operators. For example, Dai Powell, the chief executive of HCT, which provides more than 20 million passenger journeys a year said:
“The power for Local Authorities to franchise their local bus services has the ability to revolutionise the UK bus industry. It’s pretty clear that franchising has the capability to bring significant benefits to the travelling public through enabling network development that meets the needs of communities”.
The only group that seems to be lukewarm about the franchising model and our proposals to streamline and extend the model are the existing local large bus operators. However—being realistic—they would say that, wouldn’t they? The existing arrangements have, of course, served them well. They may result in a poorer bus service, but they have also delivered large profits for them. A recent Competition Commission investigation concluded that bus operator profits are higher than in any other business sector deploying comparable levels of capital at equivalent risk. Across Britain, bus companies’ average operating profit in the 10 years to 2013 was £297 million a year. Bus companies in the unregulated big cities made average profits of 8%, whereas profits in London are less than 4%. So we can see why they may be reluctant to embrace change and support the franchising model. However, we do not accept that position. It cannot be right that around 10% of public money going into bus subsidies is ending up being paid out in profit dividends rather than improving the local bus service. Our amendments would make it clearer for local authorities as a whole to do what is in the best interests of their local community, without bureaucratic, costly and lengthy interference from the Minister.
Meanwhile, as the noble Lord the Minister has been made aware, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also raised its own concerns about this clause. It has flagged up the inadequate explanation in the Explanatory Notes as to why different rules are being applied to mayoral and non-mayoral authorities. It says:
“We have therefore found it difficult to assess, on the basis of the explanation in the memorandum, whether it is appropriate to delegate to the Secretary of State a power to allow the authorities referred to in section 123A(4)(b) to (f) to become franchising authorities, instead of this arising immediately upon the commencement of clause 4. The House may therefore wish to ask the Minister to provide a fuller rationale for the power in new section 123A(4)”.
I think that we would all like to have an explanation for the Government’s discrimination against the non-mayoral authorities in the Bill. The noble Lord has said that he intends to respond to that committee. We would all be interested in that response, so perhaps the noble Lord can let the Committee know when it will be available. In the meantime, regardless of that, we believe that these amendments are crucial to making the Bill a success. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, while it is clearly right to explore these issues, I strongly urge the Minister to resist these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned London, but she will know that London is almost a city state. The circumstances are very different, and with very different funding arrangements. She mentioned the lower profit available to operators in London, but the reason for that is that they are taking less risk than in a non-regulated service.
This is all about accountability. If we are not careful, we might well find ourselves hurtling down the same avenues as we did during the debates on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill last year. Combined authorities with elected mayors, or any other local authority with an elected mayor, are very different beasts from local authorities that have not gone down the route of having an elected mayor. The appointment of a directly elected mayor provides those authorities with a considerable battalion of powers where they have agreed devolution deals with the Government. That of course includes the power to franchise local bus services.
Authorities with agreed devolution deals already have the necessary consent to pursue their new bus franchising powers and will be allowed to do so when the relevant parts of this Bill are brought into operation. However, I do not believe that that should be the case for other local authorities. They have not been through the process of acquiring what could be said to be a higher status in terms of local accountability. It is a fact that those authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have the powers by virtue of that process. We know that the process is not necessarily straightforward and requires hard-fought agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Earl emphasised mayoral combined authorities and mayoral powers. Why, then, has Cornwall—which is not going for a mayoral model—been promised franchising powers?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not know that, but I expect the Minister will tell us.
The agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas is hard fought. Some tough battles are still extant where devolution deals just could not be worked through. Through their earlier legislation, the Government have established a process for a new kind of local authority, which has wide-ranging powers but first has to satisfy the Government that the right kind of structures and accountability are in place. The amendments would give the same wide-ranging powers to local authorities that have not taken those brave and often difficult political steps.
I am afraid therefore that I disagree with those noble Lords who say that this Bill treats local authorities without elected mayors or an agreed devolution deal differently from those who have. There is no unfairness here. It is a simple fact that authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have government approval to introduce bus franchising; other local authorities do not. What would be unfair, I believe, is allowing any local authority access to bus franchising powers without having gone through the democratic process of electing a mayor and acquiring government agreement to a devolution deal. I am not at all convinced by the arguments put forward for these amendments and the Minister has my full support should he ask the Committee to resist them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the amendment to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide what other local authorities, along with mayoral authorities, may have franchising powers. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that it is,
“puzzled by the implication in the memorandum that mayoral combined authorities have expressed an interest in pursuing a franchising approach, given that there are currently no combined authorities with a mayor”.
Although an order has been made preparing Greater Manchester for this situation, its mayor will not be elected until 2017. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on exactly what the provision in the Explanatory Memorandum refers to. Does it refer to Manchester or other areas? Even more fundamentally, why should a mayor be any better at running bus services than a designated executive member within a transport authority? After all, the previous Mayor of London did not have a glorious record when running the buses. A great deal of resources were wasted on the “Boris bus”, and the fact that London buses run very well is down to the experience and expertise built up over many years by Transport for London. Compare the record to which I have just referred with that of Reading, which has an excellent municipal bus service run on a traditional civic structure, and has had the wisdom to invest well in its bus services over the years and maintain its municipal service operating at arm’s length from the council.
I give another example: the Mayor of Liverpool, in his wisdom, shut all the bus lanes. I do not think those are examples of mayors’ wonderful wisdom trumping other forms of local government organisation. I am puzzled about the position in which this Bill puts Cornwall, because, as the noble Lord said, Cornwall was promised franchising as part of its devolution deal but now, according to the Bill, has to get the Secretary of State’s permission to go ahead with franchising. Previously in Committee, My noble friend Lady Scott referred to Jersey as an excellent example of how franchising can work, even with small authorities. Jersey has 80 buses and a population of 100,000, but has increased bus passenger usage by 32% since it had franchising, saved more than £1 million a year in public subsidy, added five routes and increased the frequency of its buses. That is an example of franchising working in a very small locality. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will accept our arguments, agree to look at this issue and consider whether the need for the Secretary of State to intervene can be removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister can give us hope in this regard.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I strongly disagree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Attlee and strongly support the principle of Amendment 21. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading. I declare an interest as an elected leader of a local authority. I suggest to my noble friend that if I were suddenly told that I had to become an elected mayor overnight, I would be no better or no worse at my job than I am now. I do not understand why this obsession—and it is an obsession—with mayoral authority continues.
I venture to suggest that, in the light of recent events, whatever else has happened—and one does not know from hour to hour what is going to happen next—it is the idea of imposing mayors that many of us object to. If local authorities wish to come together, have combined arrangements and do things together, that is fine; we have recently agreed a shared staffing arrangement with our neighbouring authority in Wandsworth. But it is a denial of local democracy in any place to insist, from the centre, for whatever reason, that a local authority, or group of authorities, may only have something on the condition that they do the bidding of central government and have a mayor whom nobody wants. This had led us to the absurdity of a Conservative Government proposing and requiring that there should be a mayor of East Anglia. Not even Mr Edward Heath suggested that. It may be that the local authorities in East Anglia will come together and say that it is a great idea and that they want it. That is fine; let them do so.
However, this is just a small example of a wider policy. Let us not beat about the bush: this policy is coming down from Her Majesty’s Treasury, where it is being actively encouraged by my noble friend Lord Heseltine. In the light of changed circumstances—in the next few months we will have a new Prime Minister and many other new Ministers—I hope that the next Government team will take a look at this policy of imposing mayors. I concentrate on the word “imposing”. It has been done by a form of blackmail from the centre: you can have more money if you do what we want. I dislike that: we want dispersed power in this country, dispersed choice and dispersed opportunity, not single models handed down from above.
This is a small example of a policy which I believe to be wrong democratically and in principle. I could not sign the amendment because the Marshalled List was full, but unless I get some assurances from the Front Bench that the Government will think again about this principle, I might be tempted to support such an amendment on Report. I see absolutely no reason why competent authorities that come together should not be treated in the same way as competent authorities that come together with a mayor on top. The first version might actually be rather cheaper than the second, given all the stuff that comes with a mayor.
I am very sorry to speak in these terms; they are addressed not to my noble friend on the Front Bench, but to rather more senior people in government than him or me. This is one stage too far in the policy of imposing mayors on unwilling communities and authorities. I suggest that the policy should be paused, then stopped.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments and am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones for setting out the arguments so clearly as to why we do not need the Secretary of State’s approval for any authority that does not have a mayor. Let us be clear about Cornwall. It is not mentioned by name in the Bill, but we have heard lots of statements from Ministers that this one authority—which does not have a mayor and probably never will—will be allowed to have a franchising service. This is quite surprising. Devolution for Cornwall has involved a lot of proposed changes in health and social security. There is no money there, but they are going along with it. However, as I mentioned on the first day in Committee, they are going ahead now as if they had a franchise, but on a voluntary basis. The bus companies concerned are fully supportive—I talked about integrated ticketing, timetabling, routes and so on—but they are doing it without the need to apply for franchising because it is going to happen anyway. That is the impression I get. So why do the Government believe that they have to impose this ridiculous approval process, as the noble Lord, Lord True, outlined, for authorities that do not have mayors? It seems a complete waste of time. Since it is being done on a voluntary basis, at least in one county, to achieve what I believe will be a very successful outcome, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why mayors are good and everybody else is bad. It is a bit like Animal Farm in the early days but I will not go on about that.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I agree that there is no distinction, really, in accountability terms between a mayor and a councillor who is considering these matters. I strongly agreed with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about London and London franchising. I live in London and I can certainly attest that what she said about that is entirely correct. London buses are, frankly, marvellous. Whether you congratulate Boris—poor chap, he is receiving rather a bad press at the moment so I might as well praise him for his new buses—or Thomas Heatherwick, who actually designed them, they are absolutely superb. Whether you praise Thomas Heatherwick, Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone, London really works from a bus point of view. In fact, my wife said to me the other day, “You’re becoming a bus junkie”. I actually took a bus to go one stage because the bus routes give you priority over cars, et cetera, so it really does work. Therefore, I am emphatically in favour of the Bill, which tries to extend franchising to the rest of the country, which I think badly needs it.
However, I am, frankly, horrified by Clause 4, which submits everything—apart from the one aspect of mayors with combined authorities—to the requirement that the Secretary of State should process it. It means that a council which wants to put on a new bus service from, let us say, Little Dribbling to Nether Wallop has to take it to the Secretary of State. That is absolute nonsense. I was a Minister of Transport in a Labour Government a long time ago and this system does not work. You need to get somebody who knows the situation locally, understands it well and can take a decision. Okay, there are always a few problems and occasionally things go wrong, but pushing it up to a civil servant and then to a Minister, who probably has no knowledge of the situation you are talking about, does not work. All it does is congest the Government at the top level.
I saw the other day that Prime Minister David Cameron was complaining that in comparison with Angela Merkel, he had much more to do because he had to take decisions about education, transport, the NHS and so forth and she did not; in Germany it was all farmed out to the Länder. This is why. We are taking all these absurdly detailed decisions at government level. Although my experience is quite different from that of the noble Lord, Lord True—his is extensively in local government, mine is not—from the point of view of a government Minister, it is nonsense, frankly. It simply does not work.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, tried his best to give a reason, which was about accountability. There is no difference between the accountability of an elected mayor and that of an elected councillor. It is a simple fact. They are both elected; they are both responsible to the local electorate. There is no distinction that I can see. I am not surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee said that there was no adequate explanation. I looked through the Explanatory Notes, hoping to find some rationale for this procedure, and there is none. Therefore, we have a real problem here and the Government really have to think again.
Another difficulty is that quite apart from overcentralisation, the British Civil Service seems to go in for too much complexity. If we raise the bar too high, either because things have to be processed up or because we put in a lot of regulations, which are sometimes unnecessary—they are no doubt sensible in some ways and no doubt advisable; none the less there is more and more regulation—it becomes likely that lots of local authorities which could use these powers will simply say, “Oh, it’s too much trouble. We don’t want to bother with all that. We won’t do it”. There are easy ways to get out of it and then blame the Government. When people ask, “Why isn’t there a decent bus service here?” they can say, “Because the Government made it so complicated”. It is an easy way out for them.
Therefore, while, like my noble friend Lord True, I am in no way criticising my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has his job to do and who does it extremely well, I believe that between now and Report in September the Government should look at this and extensively modernise it. If they do not, I do not think, frankly, that they have much chance of getting it through this House.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend Lord Horam observed that the Explanatory Notes do not justify the policy, but my understanding is that that is not the purpose of Explanatory Notes. Explanatory Notes, as I understand it, tell us what the Bill does and how it works and do not seek to justify the policy.
Lord Horam
It is not just that the Explanatory Notes, which should explain what each clause does, do not explain why this does what it does; the overview, which we also get, does not explain it either.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am not getting involved in the squabble between noble Lords opposite, because I want to start one of my own, on this side. The fact is that I have never been in favour of franchising and I do not think that the proposals for franchising in the Bill are particularly sensible either.
I listened with interest to the view of the noble Lord, Lord True. I know that he is enormously talented, but I am not sure that he is qualified to run a bus company—although, obviously, as the leader of a council, he feels that he should. I share his view that elected mayors are not capable of running bus companies either, but we all know why they are being given that responsibility. Having created these large authorities against the wishes of the electors in cities such as Birmingham and Manchester, they have to give them something to do—and I am sure that letting them run the buses seemed to the Treasury to have been a good idea at the time.
I have asked Ministers about this and, indeed, the Minister here today indicated that the extra money needed to run those bus services in our large cities will be provided by the Treasury. That is not normally the way that the Treasury goes about things and it seems to me that these responsibilities are being passed on to big-city level without the resources to deliver them adequately.
Again, I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I do not share her view of the bus industry as it used to be. It is a bit like British Rail: everybody tells me how wonderful it was. Actually, I used to work for it and I did not think that it was particularly wonderful at the time. Now it is implied that the bus industry, when it was under municipal control, was a picture of tranquil harmony, with lots of satisfied passengers. I have bored your Lordships before with my own career, such as it was, in the bus industry, but, when I worked for Travel West Midlands, it was a group of municipal undertakings that were put together as a result of the 1968 Act, semi-privatised by the Conservative Government of the 1980s and actually acquired by its employees.
When I became a director of the company I did not think for a moment that it was due to my talent: I was told afterwards that I was the one person who both management and staff could agree on at the time. I am not sure whether that was praise or condemnation, but I became a director of the company in 1992. Many of its buses were quite ancient. The average age of the bus fleet of Travel West Midlands in 1992 was nine and a half years. After we, the employees, voted in 1997 to join the National Express Group, the age of the bus fleet when I stepped down as chairman in 2000 was just over six years. That was a quite dramatic reduction and indicates the amount of investment that was put into new vehicles during that period.
If bus services are franchised, what will happen to that investment? I have to say to my noble friend that, because we were a subsidiary of the National Express Group, it was my job and the job of the other directors to make a case for investment to the main board. We actually invested around £30 million during the time I was directly involved, in tranches of around £10 million each time. We had to convince the board of the National Express Group that it was sensible to invest that sort of money in bus services in Birmingham.
Does my noble friend think for a moment we would have got the go-ahead from the National Express Group if the idea of franchising was being held over the company’s head at that time? I will answer my own question: the fact is that we would not have got the go-ahead, because the view of the National Express board would have been, “We are not prepared to spend £10 million of our assets on buses when someone else—whether it is the noble Lord, Lord True, or someone else—will tell us where to run them, when to run them and how much to charge”.
Again, reverting to those so-called halcyon days of municipal control, my noble friend talked about the amount of profit that was made by the five major bus operators. As I have indicated, many of them operate new fleets. As far as wages are concerned, I will confine my remarks to Travel West Midlands, where I was chairman of the board. We paid our drivers the best rates in the United Kingdom, so those profits were not made off the sweat of the brow of our employees, although of course some went to shareholders. I know that we have some disagreements at the moment about the leadership of my party, to say the least, but I do not think that we are entirely anti-profit-making yet. We will have to see what happens in the next few days and weeks, but I do not think we object to companies paying their shareholders a dividend and paying their staff an adequate wage.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I have been listening to my noble friend’s rant, and I have to say that he is completely misrepresenting the point that I was making. I am not advocating a return to the old days, and he is rehearsing the history of things that were probably before my time. First, municipal services, as it happens, now have some of the highest satisfaction levels, so I am not saying that there is anything wrong with municipal services. That is a debate for another day, and we will return to it. Secondly, we are here today because, having allowed the free market that he is advocating to thrive, passenger numbers and satisfaction levels are going down. That is why the Government brought this Bill forward in the first place. To be absolutely honest, I am not sure that my noble friend has addressed that. We are considering options such as franchising because it is considered that it will drive standards up again, which is what we all need.
Lord Snape
Passenger numbers are indeed going down—they are going down in London, as a matter of fact—as is passenger satisfaction. I do wish that my noble friend, instead of relying entirely on the Local Government Association and what used to be called the Passenger Transport Executive Group, would actually look at the facts. Passenger satisfaction in London, according to the most accurate survey, by Passenger Focus, is currently less than that in Birmingham, for example. Passenger numbers are also going down in London, and they are going down for one simple reason: it is nothing to do with franchising, private ownership or whatever but because of congestion. We all know how bad congestion is in London, and it is getting worse, which is impacting on passenger carryings at present.
I have been trying to find out how many staff are employed in Transport for London exclusively on franchising matters. I am told that it is some hundreds, but I cannot get anything more accurate than that. This is not going to be a cheap operation if the noble Lord, Lord True, and his colleagues are going to run the buses in his part of the world. Despite his talent, he is not going to do it on his own; presumably there will be a director of franchising, perhaps a couple of assistant directors and other staff. Lots of money that perhaps could and should be spent on improving bus services will be spent on the bureaucracy that is necessary—I am not complaining; it is a fact—to run a franchising operation. I have to say to my noble friend that it is not just in London where the operation is run like that; Belfast has a franchising system, and, of course, due to congestion in Belfast, passenger carryings are falling there too.
If my noble friend had stood at that Dispatch Box and advocated the rest of the London experience such as sensible traffic control, the proper maintenance and policing of bus lanes, and perhaps even a congestion charge—or car park charges, as introduced in Nottingham—there would be some sense in that, but we are getting none of that. We are told that if we go to franchising, somehow the situation for the bus passenger, who rarely gets a mention when we discuss these matters, will magically improve. I do not believe a word of it.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, before I turn to the detailed issues that I want to raise with the Minister, I will say a word or two in response to my noble friend Lord Snape. The Bill does not insist that local authorities introduce franchising; it gives them the option. My noble friend’s arguments to your Lordships appear to be that if they are given the powers they will use them. It will be a matter for individual authorities to assess the risks, the benefits and so on, and the Bill itself spells out a considerable number of assessments that they would need to make. So here we are really talking about whether franchising is an option that should be available if a local authority wished it. I have heard nothing from my noble friend, other than the feeling that he was against franchising in any circumstance, that would gainsay that.
I turn to the details in this clause and its subsections. I will seek clarification from the Minister and conclude with some observations about the amendments. First, new Section 123A(4)(b) to (f) refers to the range of different types of local authorities, which is the subject of my noble friend’s amendment. It is not clear from the wording in the Bill whether it is a category as a group or individuals that might fall within that category. Paragraph (f), for example, refers to,
“a combined authority which is not a mayoral combined authority”.
Does that mean that the Secretary of State would need to consider whether any combined authorities that are not mayoral should be a franchising authority, or could the Secretary of State authorise or approve one individual one? That is really rather important.
The wording is very vague. The only time one sees wording that appears to make that clear is in the memorandum on delegated powers, where it appears to make it clear that new Section 123A(4) relates to categories of local authorities. If that is the case, how could the Secretary of State provide regulations that would enable every authority that fell within the category to become a franchising authority? It might not make sense for some of them. What if it made a lot of sense for one out of five? Would that individual authority not be able to be a franchising authority because the Secretary of State felt that four others should not?
This is a very confusing part of the Bill, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could make it clear and, if need be, clarify in due course with his own amendments whether the categories in new Section 123A(4)(b) to (f) relate to individual authorities that fall within a category or to a whole category. This is relevant because, in order to authorise an individual or a category to become a franchising authority, the Secretary of State has to provide regulations. Will those regulations apply to all parties in the category—that is, even if not all of them have asked to be franchising authorities, they will get it because someone did—or would the Minister refuse to authorise one individual authority on the grounds that some others in that category did not meet whatever his criteria were?
That leads me to the question of criteria. What criteria would the Minister apply in considering whether any of these categories—or individual authorities within the categories, because I am not clear on that—could become a franchising authority? It is extremely important for transparency purposes that local authorities know what the criteria are. Will the regulations include the criteria, or will they be set out in some kind of advice or guidance? Will the House have the benefit of the draft regulations before Committee, and will the criteria be set out before then? If not, we will have no idea what the Secretary of State’s intentions are, which would be very unhealthy—effectively, your Lordships’ House would be giving the Secretary of State carte blanche.
If an individual authority within a category wished to obtain franchising powers—should they so wish to use them, and they may not wish to in the event—does it have to get all the other authorities in that category to put in a joint proposal that that category be approved, or could it alone make a proposal? In which case, would the Secretary of State be judging the individual authority’s proposal to become a franchising authority, rather than the group as a whole? If so, what criteria would the Secretary of State apply to an individual authority?
Noble Lords can readily see the problem for an authority—in my case, the West Yorkshire combined authority, which is not a mayoral authority. If it wishes to have franchising powers, should it wish to use them, how does it get them? It cannot apply to have them because its group has not been approved as a category that can have franchising powers. What would West Yorkshire do? How would it proceed? That is very puzzling and it would be certainly be very helpful to me to understand it. The Secretary of State might say, “Well, West Yorkshire, you might have a good case but actually we don’t want this whole category to be approved because too many are being granted franchising powers”. There is a hint in some of the clauses and subsections that they are about spinning this out. I forecast now that no franchising powers will be granted to any authority outside mayoral authorities this side of the next general election.
As with HS2, HS3 and the northern powerhouse, I have to say that we in the north of England are slightly fed up with hearing Governments announce not that they may do something but that they will do it, just as they announced that local authorities will get franchising powers. People think they are going to get such powers, but the Bill does not say that at all. It says, “Well, if you are in a certain category, you probably won’t get them. If you do, we are not sure what the criteria are, so you’ll have to wait for others to want them as well, and then we’ll consider it. We will have to get regulations through, and that will take time.”
On the evidence of the Bill, I am pretty sure that that is the case, which is a great disappointment to me. When I first looked at it I was encouraged to see that it was giving powers to local authorities, but the proposed new sections in effect set out the detail of the obstacles and the unknown difficulties being placed in front of local authorities wishing to seek franchising powers.
If a category of authority or an individual authority within a category—the Minister will enlighten the House about that—becomes a franchising authority, that does not mean it will be able to have a franchise. To have a franchise, the individual authority putting forward proposals will of course have to do all its homework and, if it wishes to go forward, it will have to make various assessments and so on, as set out in the Bill. Under proposed new Section 123C, the Secretary of State has to consent to a franchising authority even preparing a proposed assessment. The authority would have the power in principle, but if it wanted to develop a proposal, it would need the Secretary of State’s consent. That is the second consent. Will that consent fall within regulations, where is the power to grant consent and what criteria would the Secretary of State apply in deciding whether to give consent?
It would be ironic if the criteria for an individual authority to have the power to develop a proposal were exactly the same as those applied to becoming a franchising authority under proposed new Section 123A. That would mean going through exactly the same hoop twice, which is nonsense. However, if the criteria are not the same, why are they different? Why does an authority have to prove that it can have a franchise, and then have to meet different criteria if it wants to bring forward a proposal? I would be grateful to the Secretary of State if he expanded on that.
To conclude on the details of the Bill, it would be helpful to me, at least, and I hope to your Lordships, if the Secretary of State set out his understanding of the process by which a non-mayoral authority can acquire franchising powers and seek to implement them. What is the process, and what is his reasonable estimate at the moment of how long it would take? He must have some idea of how many authorities are interested in having franchises, and he must have thought through how long each of these of steps will take—the process of setting out regulations, and of developing and defining the criteria in the two cases—so how long will it take?
To come back to my earlier point, as I have examined the Bill in more and more detail, I have gained the distinct impression that obstacles are being put in front of local authorities. I think the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would be delighted, because the obstacles seem to me to protect large bus companies from having to compete for franchises. I fear that he may be able to reassure his colleagues that this will not happen this side of a general election, and then goodness knows what will happen.
The Minister—unless he surprises me—has disappointed me badly so far on the detail of the Bill. I look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I will respond to one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Snape, who implied—I think my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds also pointed it out—that the big bus companies do not like franchises because they involve competition. However, I think that most of us think that competition is quite a good thing. Apart from anything else, if you have a free-for-all in London like there used to be in Manchester, you have even worse traffic jams and probably less investment, although that is a different issue. However, I again point out that in Cornwall one of the bus companies, which is without competition, is voluntarily introducing a new set of double-deck buses on the main spine route. They are very smart buses, as they even have tables on the top deck, so that you can get your laptop out, as well as chargers for your laptop and wi-fi. The bus company sees this as a good investment which will attract more passengers. If this can be done voluntarily, I suggest that it could also be done in a franchise, if franchise terms are set out to encourage quality as well as the most important thing of the lot, which is the timetable to link with other services—trains, ferries, planes and whatever—which you will not get in a free-for-all around the country. Sometimes the bus companies seem to do it on purpose so that you do not make a connection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions. Several times in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred to me—I am flattered by the suggestion—as the Secretary of State. I know that there are certain unpredictabilities in government as we move forward into what I said earlier today in answer to a PQ are unpredictable times, but perhaps he is party to something I am not.
I shall respond to a number of issues which noble Lords have raised. I thank the noble Baroness for laying down a series of amendments. As she illustrated, her amendment would enable all authorities listed at proposed new Section 123A(4), rather than just mayoral combined authorities, to access franchising powers without the need for regulations or for the Secretary of State’s consent to be given. Several noble Lords spoke in favour of this, but I also recognise that some voices were not in favour of the amendment. I know from previous meetings with noble Lords that queries have been raised regarding the Government’s stance on mayoral combined authorities and the policy that such authorities should be given automatic access to franchising powers while others would require regulations and the consent of the Secretary of State. It may be helpful if I say a bit more about the Government’s rationale for favouring the mayoral combined authority model, then I will answer some of the specific questions and issues that have been raised.
As I have said before, moving to a model of franchising is a big decision which is likely to have implications for passengers, bus operators and the local authority itself. Our view is that strong governance and accountability are key to making franchising a success, together with a commitment to improving transport and a coherent economic geography. Mayoral combined authorities, when established, will provide centralised decision-making for transport across a relatively wide local geography, be that city areas such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield or regions such as East Anglia. The mayor will be the individual responsible for deciding whether to implement franchising and can be held accountable for that decision. Those factors, together with the fact that transport will be considered at a strategic level, mean that the mayoral combined authority model is well suited to making franchising a success.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted at Second Reading, the Government do not want to preclude other types of authority becoming franchising authorities in future if there is a compelling case for doing so—I will come on to Cornwall in a moment. The Bill enables other authorities to access franchising powers if regulations so provide and the Secretary of State provides his consent.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, rightly raised the impact on the bus industry. We are concerned about the impact of uncertainty on the bus industry and want to ensure that bus operators continue to invest and develop services to the benefit of passengers. There were some suggestions during the debate that by establishing the mayoral combined authority model as the preferred model and limiting access in the first instance—I stress that—somehow we are excluding all other authorities. We are not. By limiting access in the first instance to the category of authorities, the bus industry will have greater certainty as to the areas that will have access to franchising powers and will be able to take commercial decisions accordingly.
In addition, as noble Lords have noted, the Secretary of State will also need to provide his consent before any individual authority can access franchising powers. Franchising is a big step which will have implications for local passengers, bus operators and the authority itself, so we want to ensure that franchising is pursued only where it makes sense to do so.
I shall answer some of the specific questions and then come back to any other issues I wish to raise at this juncture.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
Before the Minister moves on, will he clarify something for me? I am struggling to understand why the question of certainty for the bus industry has been raised in this context. It seems to me that if we have the situation as pertains in this Bill there will be a raft of local authorities around the country which may at some point have access to these powers, but only if the Secretary of State says so. I am not sure how that adds to certainty. Would it not be more certain if all local authorities had the potential powers to bring this in?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is not just about local authorities. I have already alluded to other factors. I state again that the geographical nature of the authority applying for franchising powers is important. The noble Baroness’s important point about the Secretary of State approving access to the powers was perhaps not covered in the debate. There would, of course, be instruments introduced in both Houses to allow for discussions on the particular models. I stress that this is an enabling Bill that allows all authorities to have access. It is the Government’s view—noble Lords have expressed views to the contrary—that mayoral authorities are best suited in terms of their governance models and their geography for franchising, which, as I have said, is a big step. At the same time, we have to balance that with the nature of the bus operators. That is the Government’s view. I am not saying that all noble Lords will immediately subscribe to it. That is why we are pursuing the mayoral combined authorities model, but not to the exclusion of others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the response to the Delegated Powers Committee. It is fresh off the press. I know my honourable friend in the other place has today written to the committee outlining the Government’s proposals and I will ensure that full details are made available to all noble Lords. To avoid prolonging this debate if there are specific questions on the letter, I will be pleased to answer either later in Committee or through correspondence, but I think that what I will say will deal with some of the issues and concerns that the DPRRC’s letter raised. The Government’s response from my honourable friend sets out the issues around access to franchising. It also goes further and mentions that the Government are looking to accept the proposals raised by the committee on open data. I am sure the detail is in the letter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also mentioned the memo about mayoral combined authorities and said that they have expressed interest. She raised a very valid point about whether they actually exist. The noble Baroness and the Committee were right to pick this up, but I am sure that she will accept that we have been referring to areas which have agreed deals—I referred to Manchester and Liverpool as two examples. We have made it clear in response to previous questions raised by the noble Lord that the deals would be issued in time for those new governance procedures to come on board. Cornwall, where devolution deals are being discussed, illustrates the Government’s willingness to allow the devolution debate to take account of what we are looking to do in terms of bus services. In our discussions to date with Cornwall, franchising is something that it has indicated it would seek to pursue. That is why the Cornwall example has come to the fore, although it would still need to go through the same process that we have illustrated for non-mayoral authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to London. As several noble Lords acknowledged, London is very different, and the local government role has been defined for the past 30 years in terms of devolution of powers and financial and investment risks. These have been the major differences between London and other parts of the country.
The noble Baroness talked about the concerns raised by the LGA about the franchising model and whether it makes sense locally. As I have already said, we need to address the concerns. This is about providing access to all authorities, but we need to balance that against the need to provide certainty to the bus industry and to ensure continued investment. I stress again that the Bill provides the ability for other local authorities to access the powers if there is a strong case for doing so.
I have already said that we are in discussions with Cornwall on its devolution deal. The noble Lords, Lord Woolmer and Lord Berkeley, both raised issues pertaining to Cornwall. Cornwall is committed to improve local transport in the wider area, and it has made a strong case for having access to franchising powers. If Cornwall decides that it wishes to pursue franchising, the regulations will be brought forward for discussion via the affirmative procedure. As I have already said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, it is important to note that in laying out the intent behind the proposals in the Bill the Government have been very clear that they believe that mayoral combined authorities provide a model which is able to take forward the proposals around franchising. However, that does not preclude others doing so. By making the provisions subject to the affirmative procedure, with applications subsequently made to the Secretary of State, we are providing the locks, the vehicles and the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the best deal is done for all local authorities. I shall respond shortly to questions relating to specific procedures relating to the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord True asked why competent authorities cannot come together when they have franchising powers. I assure him that nothing in the Bill prevents this. They can make their case, and the Government will listen. Whether it is me or Ministers at a more senior level, we want to ensure that the competence powers needed are in place to make franchising accessible to whatever type of authority. I stress again that the economic geography of the authorities coming together is an important and attractive part of this. I assure noble Lords that we have no intention of excluding any particular local authority in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked what would happen to investment under franchising. I have already talked about the concerns of bus companies. When franchising is implemented, authorities will be able to specify things such as vehicle age, but they will need to ensure that a scheme remains affordable. The noble Lord also asked about the Competition and Markets Authority. We have received several recommendations from the CMA. We are considering them and will respond shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, asked about the regulations to allow certain categories of authority. I have answered this in part already. We want to make franchising powers available only where there is a real desire to use them. Regulations will be made only if at least one authority from that category makes its case to government. The Secretary of State will then need to give consent to individual authorities which want to use the powers.
We have talked, to some degree, about criteria, and I am conscious that in response, to the noble Baroness’s question, and I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who also asked about this, I gave a commitment at Second Reading to publish the criteria which the Government and the Secretary of State will use. We will make the detailed criteria available before Report. At this juncture, I can share some of the headlines. There will be, in essence, four key factors that the Secretary of State will consider: first, the powers the authority has; secondly, the governance arrangements which are in place; thirdly, the economic geography of the area; and fourthly, the track record and ability of the area to deliver upon this. There is further detail to follow and, as I have said, I will seek to ensure that that is published before Report.
During this debate, I have talked about a number of factors, including the importance of powers of governance, the arrangements the authority has in place, the economic geography of the area and the track record which I have just alluded to. I hope that, in part, this has helped reassure noble Lords that the Government’s policy has been determined with the interests of passengers and the continued health of the bus industry in mind. It is about balancing and ensuring that local authorities that we believe have the governance arrangements in place and are able to take forward franchising are able to do so, but not to the exclusion of others. I believe that with the measures we have in place, the affirmative procedures of debate in this House about other authorities that seek to apply and the criteria that the Secretary of State will apply in decisions, I have been able to reassure some noble Lords that the Government’s policy has been determined with the interests of passengers in mind. With those reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord True
My Lords, I am, of course, grateful for what my noble friend has said about competent authorities. I know that he has a great knowledge of, and esteem for, local government. My problem remains, although I have studied carefully what he said. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that I have no vested interest in this, because my council is a London area council and we come within the London arrangements, although I will have some points to make on Clause 21. In his opening remarks, my noble friend talked about the advantage of mayoral arrangements; there is a centralised decision-making element—I think that probably came in guidance or advice he had received. This is the problem, because, as I said in my previous intervention, this is a small part of a wider policy; there are certain people inside government who wish to create centralising models. It is an idea of managing the country by larger functions, which are responsible to, and look upwards to the Treasury and the Government for guidance—we see it in education, with the emergence of regional schools commissioners. That is not the philosophy I believe in, as a Conservative; I believe, as I said earlier, that we need more dispersed authority.
My noble friend is right that it is clearly open to any sort of authority to go ahead; however, there are more obstacles put it in the way of other authorities, whereas the mayoral authority can leap forward. My noble friend Lord Horam must be right: the Government cannot keep taking on these functions to take all these decisions. I do not want to stray into education, I know we are in Committee, but can the Government and their institutions make every decision for every school or group of academies around the country? We do not have enough civil servants to do that. We do not have enough civil servants with the competence to take decisions about transport in different counties all over the country. Devolution is a marvellous idea, which I strongly support, but what creeps into legislation time and again is not devolution but control masquerading as devolution. So when I hear talk of centralised decision-making, I believe that I am looking at the tip of the iceberg of a philosophy of government which is not one I share.
Although I am extremely grateful for what are in many ways the reassuring and typically courteous remarks of my noble friend, I would still find it very difficult to support any legislation that gives an advantage to a putative mayoral authority, not just an existing one, above any other form of authority. It would mean that someone in a department somewhere can say, “Look, you guys. You can have what you want if you do what we say”. Power should come from the people through local government and through local authorities coming together. I give notice to my noble friend that I am still uneasy about these proposals.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Of course I will reflect on the thoughtful remarks made by my noble friend, but let me reassure him that from my perspective and indeed of those within the Department for Transport, the view is very much based on all authorities having access if they have not only the governance models but, as I said, the other criteria on geographical coverage as well to ensure that they can make franchising a success. Ultimately the Government’s intent behind this enabling Bill is to ensure that bus services work for local people.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
Let me give a specific example. If West Yorkshire Combined Authority agreed tomorrow to have a mayoral structure, presumably that would immediately parachute it from one part of this Bill into another. I agree with the noble Lord in his remarks that that is bizarre. It would be very welcome, but as I say it is bizarre. That is not transport policy, it is a political policy on mayoral authorities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps I may respond to that. As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, every devolution deal involves detailed discussions between the Government and those proposing the deal. No doubt if a particular area, wherever it may be, wishes to go down that route, it would be subject to discussions around the devolution deal.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for his response and I thank noble Lords around the Chamber for their support, particularly that of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Horam, which I welcome. The noble Lord, Lord True, has done half of my summing up of the debate for me which I would otherwise have done. I want to look carefully at the Hansard report of this debate because I am still not clear about what is so special about mayors. I was really hoping that the Minister would explain what is so unique about that particular model. My noble friend Lord Woolmer made the point that you could have two adjoining authorities with the same geography, the same population and income, but one of them would have a fast track to automatic franchising purely because of the fact that it has a mayoral system rather than another one while the other would have to go through a very convoluted process.
I do not understand what it is about the mayoral model that is so important. It is not just about the geography and economics or even the strategic role, as the Minister has suggested; there is something much more singular about a particular local government structure. The fact is that we trust local authorities with making very serious decisions already. We entrust social services issues to them where they make life-or-death decisions about child protection. We trust them to take serious decisions in the commissioning of all sorts of services. It is not as if they do not already commission services and of course they have the expertise to do so. Running a bus service does not require particularly special skills which authorities do not already have. Some might not choose a franchising model, which is perfectly understandable, while others may want to have it. I do not quite understand what is so special about having a mayor in charge that would qualify them in this way.
Lord Snape
My noble friend mentioned the special skills of local authorities, which certainly exist. But, with respect, they do not have any franchising skills because that is not the way we operate bus services at present. Does she agree that setting up franchising in a big-city area would be an expensive and bureaucratic process? I have no idea how many people it would take, but it could not be done by one person or even a small department, could it?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Of course, the provisions in the Bill allow for all that, and that is one factor that needs to be taken into account. But the local authority would not do it unless it thought that the outcome would be better than the current provision. If the authority did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the cost outweighed the benefits, it simply would not do it. All that we are asking for is for authorities to have the flexibility to do that analysis and then decide whether it is in their interest to go ahead.
Another thing that I was going to pick up on was what the noble Lord said about providing certainty to the bus operators. Franchising also provides some certainty; the operators’ profits may not be as high but they would certainly have a guaranteed long-term contract. That outweighs the higher-risk, more market-driven decisions that the operators would otherwise take.
I think that everyone in the Committee knows that the Minister cannot make a decision on this today. We have all talked about the current political uncertainty. We all know where this is coming from and I do not expect for one minute that the noble Lord will say today that he will overturn the decisions of the higher authorities in the Conservative Party on this. But perhaps at some point before Report he could take back a message to whoever is calling the shots and say that there is a strong feeling in the Committee on this and that there should be an opportunity for a rethink. On that basis, I do not wish to say any more and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Snape
“(3) In making an assessment of the proposed scheme, a franchising authority or authorities must be satisfied that—”
Lord Snape
My Lords, the Committee will be relieved to know that I will spend considerably less time on this group of amendments than I did on the previous one. These amendments are designed simply to ensure that any franchising arrangement is brought in only after other avenues have been explored and that it would be for the benefit of passengers in a particular area.
In the debate on the previous group of amendments, my noble friend on the Front Bench said that she did not know why big companies were against franchising. I declare a non-interest—I have no shares in any bus company, nor am I paid by any. I base my prejudices entirely on my own experiences, rightly or wrongly. But I have to say to my noble friend that what she said was not quite true, was it? It is all very well to say that a franchise operation would mean continuity. Of course it would, for the length of time laid down in the franchise, for the company chosen as the franchisee, but there would be no guarantee.
Let us take Birmingham, the area where I worked in the bus industry and where, incidentally, it has been made plain by the local authority that it is not interested in franchising because it has a good partnership arrangement. But suppose that Stagecoach won the franchise in Birmingham. From memory, it does not have any garages nearer than Coventry. Would Travel West Midlands be expected to hand over the keys to one of its garages, take its bus fleet elsewhere and bid for another franchise? The issue is not as simple as my noble friend makes out. She said in her previous speech that local authorities would not seek franchising arrangements if they were happy with the current standard of service—and that is true as far as Birmingham is concerned. But who judges the happiness?
One of the problems of local government being offered services is that it finds it very difficult to turn them down. In my 40 years in local and national politics, I have known few democratic organisations that would refuse powers offered to them. If they are offered the opportunity of franchising, I should think that many local authorities would say, “That sounds like a good idea. Let’s give it a try”. It would be understandable if they did, but to suggest that we could move towards a system of franchising comparatively painlessly and that it would be in the interests of the franchisee is a mistake.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, my noble friend yet again sets up a straw man. I am simply in favour of local authorities having the power to have franchising, not that they must use it. It should be an option available to them. My noble friends talks as if I am saying that they must. That would be silly. If bus services can be adequately provided in the way in which a local area wants without franchising, I am sure that no one would disturb it. I am certainly in favour of having that option, but not that it would be compulsory to use it.
Lord Snape
I am grateful to my noble friend for that definition of his view. However, that view would pertain only between reasonable people. We have to bear in mind that not all people—some of them elected—are necessarily reasonable.
In Tyne and Wear, for example, the passenger transport authority went to court to try to get what was called a quality contract under the previous legislation. A considerable amount of public money was spent, and eventually the people appointed to rule on these matters said that the existing service should be continued and denied the PTA the right to a quality contract. As I said, Tyne and Wear PTA went to court, and spent a considerable amount of public money, despite satisfaction ratings of more than 80% with the current services, as set out by Passenger Focus, of thousands of bus passengers countrywide, including in the north-east. We are not dealing entirely with completely reasonable people. I hope that I can convince my noble friend. I repeat that the temptation for any democratic body when being offered extra powers is not to turn them down.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the question of a franchising agreement is a last resort rather than a first one. The consequential amendments follow on from that. I hope that the Minister will feel that they are both sensible and reasonable and will be inclined to accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will be brief. I have listened carefully to the contribution of my noble friend. As he indicated, he is making these proposals in the context of being against franchising. On that basis, we are not convinced that these amendments are necessary.
As it stands, the Bill requires those considering a franchise scheme to prepare an assessment that considers the merits of franchising weighed against other options. My noble friend is suggesting that they would just steam ahead regardless, but the checks and balances in the Bill make that unlikely and, indeed, impossible. We would expect there to be a detailed, thoughtful piece of work by the local authority that genuinely balances the different options in the context of what is in the best interest of the local community.
As it stands, the Bill requires the assessment to consider affordability, value for money and how it would apply to wider authority policies. We believe that that is the right tone to adopt when making an assessment. My noble friend’s proposals would go further than that and require greater certainty that all the conditions are met at that stage. We believe that that would go too far and discourage authorities from going through that appraisal and assessment process before making any decisions, which is the important point.
Therefore, we believe that the checks and balances in the Bill are the right way to go forward. There are many stages in the assessment process that would allow the proposal to be fully scrutinised, including a full audit, which we are going to talk about later. We want authorities to consider all that in an open and thoughtful way and go through what is in the best interests of the locality, taking into account all the factors and complexities of moving to a franchise situation, which my noble friend has identified—but it must be done in a balanced way. We believe that the provisions in the Bill should be supported.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling his amendment. He proposes a series of amendments that would change the nature of the assessment that franchising authorities must prepare for their proposed franchising scheme before determining whether to introduce franchising.
In thanking the noble Lord, let me assure him that we recognise the importance of ensuring that decisions to move to a model of franchising are taken on the back of a robust assessment. In developing the Bill we have been keen to move away from the processes set out in the Transport Act 2000 that must be followed before a quality contract scheme can be established. That legislation required authorities to be satisfied that a number of tests had been met before introducing such a scheme. As was touched on at Second Reading, only one authority ever attempted to use the quality contract scheme legislation to introduce a quality contract scheme. In part I think this was because the “must pass” tests proved to be too restrictive.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord that authorities looking to franchise must consider whether the scheme is affordable, represents value for money and contributes to the implementation of relevant policies. But I think that devolved decision-making must be respected, with the mayor or authority considering the issues listed in Section 123B and any other relevant issues when assessing their scheme, and then taking reasonable decisions with their eyes wide open. I do not want to repeat the failings of the quality contract scheme legislation, and I want to ensure that franchising is a realistic option where it makes sense locally. I am concerned that the amendments as proposed would unnecessarily restrict mayors and authorities by requiring them to be satisfied about a number of issues, rather than requiring them to set out their thinking and rationale. I agree entirely, though, that I would expect authorities to proceed with franchising only where there is a strong case to do so. However, I do not want to rule out, for example, an authority proceeding with franchising where a scheme contributes hugely to its transport policies but not necessarily to its other published policies affecting local services.
The noble Lord raised a specific issue about operators having assets such as bus garages being taken away or awarded to winning bidders. It is important to note that the Bill does not give authorities powers to acquire bus operators’ assets. Authorities could potentially come to agreements with operators or lease new depots or garages to those winning businesses.
I trust that this short debate has helped to assure the noble Lord that the Bill as drafted will ensure that authorities consider a number of specific factors in their assessment of whether to move to a franchising model and allow decisions to be taken in the light of local circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured to the extent that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Snape
Of course, I listened with care to what both Front Benches said but was not entirely surprised at the contribution from either side. I can envisage a situation where a company based in a city loses a franchise. The Minister said that there is no power for the local authority to commandeer a particular garage or vehicles. However, they are not much use based in the middle of Birmingham if, for example, there is no franchise to operate in the middle of Birmingham. Presumably, we could build another tower block in the centre of Birmingham and move the buses elsewhere. Again, that rather places a darker cloud on the somewhat optimistic view from my own Front Bench that all these matters can be agreed by civilised discourse between two people, and that everything in the garden can be rosy, if I may mix my metaphors.
However, having listened to what the Minister had to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(g) how the operators of the franchise will seek to increase passenger representation through the life of the plan.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in today’s Committee debate, I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.
The two amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As regards franchises and enhanced partnerships respectively, they would require operators to set out how they will seek to increase passenger representation. As I said in previous debates, this Bill is very technical in parts but the issues we are talking about today, and that of buses in general, are about people and delivering a reasonably priced local service which delivers for them and their local communities, and keeps places alive and vibrant by connecting communities with other communities and enabling people to travel to work, go to school and enjoy leisure activities. For all that to happen in a responsive manner, we need mechanisms in place to hear the voice of the passenger at a local level. I am fully aware that we have a body—Passenger Focus—which provides a voice for England outside London, but I am talking about what happens at a very local level. It is important that people and communities are able to discuss their experiences face to face and say what they want. That can include working with Passenger Focus at a local level or perhaps other arrangements.
Operators and local transport authorities often carry out surveys and other work and meet local councillors and MPs. That is always very welcome. However, what is proposed in these amendments is the need to ensure that the views of passengers are taken into account, and to make provision in the Bill for the planning of these services. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall try to be brief. These amendments are what are often termed “no-brainers”. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure greater participation and involvement with passenger groups in the process for developing a franchise scheme and the consultation and throughout the life of an enhanced partnership scheme. During Second Reading, a number of noble Lords commented that there was little mention of passengers in the Bill, so these amendments address that point.
I know that bus operators do a huge amount of work to ensure that they engage with the people who actually use their services. After all, who are they providing their services for? They are for passengers. On what basis would bus operators, and local authorities for that matter, not want to seek the views and opinions of the people who will be using their services?
Organisations such as Bus Users UK exist for the very purpose of giving passengers a voice, and do great work with operators, including holding local bus surgeries where passengers can engage directly with operators. Together with operator and local authority open days, these events are invaluable. Passengers are able to give solid feedback to those actually running the services, and in turn operators can inform and explain their decisions. Those decisions may not always be popular, but to my mind people are much more likely to accept a decision if the reasons for it are helpfully and properly explained.
I hope that my noble friend has a piece of paper in front of him marked: “Agree to consider”, or something similar. Even if he cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendments in the form that we see them today, I hope he will agree with the sentiment and spirit in which they have been brought forward so that we might see some government amendment which would achieve the same effect, at a later stage.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I support Amendment 33. I have tabled other amendments which will make a similar point. I also raised the issue in our previous sitting. It amazes me that the Bill specifies bus operators and a number of other organisations for consultation on a regular basis, but not bus users. Bus users are specified in that way in one place; the rest of the Bill refers to “such other persons” as local authorities think fit. That is not good enough for a Bill which purports to put the passenger at its heart. The point of the Bill is supposed to be to increase the number of passengers and improve bus services. You will not, of course, improve bus services if you cannot increase the number of passengers. To be able to do that, bus services have to be more sensitive to the needs of passengers. The difference between a good, effective bus service and one which is trotting along almost empty is how much you have consulted people about where and when they need the service.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the latest report from Passenger Focus. As a result of its survey, it makes the point:
“At present, passengers believe they have no involvement in determining how bus services are provided; few could think of any examples where they had been given the opportunity to be consulted, and therefore even fewer where they had been actively engaged”.
It goes on to say that they could all “recall significant changes” to bus services but had no recollection of being asked about them. Many years ago, I was a local councillor. I clearly recall how important it was to get the details of bus services right: where the bus stops were, the timing so they fitted in with local trains, and so on. Those are crucial decisions which passengers—who are, after all, the ones doing the journeys—are able to advise on.
I urge the Minister to listen to this plea, which has already gone out in previous debates and will go out again on a number of other amendments: please specify bus users; be precise about this; and enshrine in the Bill a role for bus passengers and their representatives at whatever level. Even down at the lowest and most informal level, bus passengers need a voice. The amendment talks about an increasing voice for bus passengers. We need a good, strong voice there right from the very start.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I too have a later amendment which deals with this subject, so I will be brief. I agree with what my noble friend and the noble Baroness have said. What ought to be in the mind of the Government is the kind of bus service and its relationship, not only with those who currently use buses, but with those who might do so if the service was significantly better and integrated with other means of transport. My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke about plans in Cornwall to link together the train and bus timetables more effectively. I have to tell him that in my area of Dorset they are not integrated at all. Quite frequently, even in the main part of the day, you get off the London train and there are no buses for another hour and a half.
It ought to be a precept from the word go for these new and enhanced arrangements that there is effective passenger representation in the decision-making process. I quibble slightly with the noble Baroness in that I think that probably has to build up over time. You need an organisation in there right at the beginning, but the way in which my noble friend has phrased the amendment puts an obligation in the new contract or the new franchise for the operator to make part of that improved performance be an improvement in taking into account the views of passengers. As Transport Focus—as it is now called—surveys have shown, there is a pretty pathetic level of trust and appreciation among bus passengers about services at present. So we are starting in most parts of the country, outside London, at a pretty poor low. It is therefore important that this is there in the Bill and that it underlines the whole philosophy of the management approach of the new operator, and that ought to be specified at this early stage of the Bill.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving Amendment 33. My noble friend Lord Attlee behind me referred to summary sheets that may or may not exist on the Front Bench. I am becoming increasingly conscious that telepathy is at work.
Moving on to the amendments, as I have said before—and I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate—improving bus services for passengers is one of the key aims of the Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, relates to increasing passenger representation through the life of franchising and enhanced partnership schemes. I sympathise with his aims and agree that one of the issues that authorities and bus operators should be considering is how passenger representation can be increased. Hearing from passengers helps authorities and operators understand the needs of their local communities and encourages meaningful engagement in the future.
Many noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in particular—spoke about passenger representation at Second Reading and in earlier Committee debates, particularly the need for passenger groups and representatives to be fully consulted on any proposed changes to bus services in their area. I too would like greater passenger representation across the board—I share the intent behind the amendment—particularly in areas where partnerships are established or where the status quo remains, as well as where franchising is implemented. I encourage bus operators and authorities to work with local people and community groups to design services that are attractive to users.
However, the amendment as drafted—and I am sure this was not the intent of the noble Lord when he tabled it—may not fully address those aims in particular circumstances. It addresses the issue of considering passenger representation in the context of franchising and enhanced partnerships, rather than where other partnership proposals are put in place or where the status quo is felt to be the most sensible way to deliver local bus services. It also refers to operators increasing passenger representation during the life of the franchise or the enhanced partnership plan, rather than the authority involved engaging with passenger groups directly as the schemes and plans are developed.
I assure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the Government are committed to ensuring that passengers have a say as plans for bus services are developed, and we welcome further debate and thought on this matter as we consider how we can best deliver this through the Bill.
Baroness Randerson
Is the Minister willing to give a commitment that the Government will consider bringing forward amendments that actually place the phrases “bus users” or “passenger groups” within the Bill, to counteract the balance of power whereby it mentions operators and local authorities but not passengers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have already said that I am open to discussing how we move this matter forward. I hope that I am indicating that I believe we should proceed in a collaborative way on the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report. I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, how we can develop this amendment to reflect the intent behind it, which I share and which I am sure she shares, and also incorporate the issues raised by the noble Baroness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful response. When we tabled the amendments we should have included the advanced partnerships and the current arrangement, as the noble Lord mentioned, but is he saying that, through the discussions that will take place over the coming days and weeks, we will seek to agree an amendment that will deal with the issues raised here?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is certainly my intention to discuss with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness how best to take this forward. Yes, if it needs to be in the Bill, that is something we can discuss. I am sure we can overcome the drafting issues and it is important to reflect the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in any amendment that comes forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That is very helpful. I am very happy to get involved in discussions on an amendment that we are all happy with and can work with, and which delivers the aim expressed across the Committee today of making sure that passengers are properly involved. However, what I do not want to see at the end of those discussions is a note in guidance, because, importantly, that does not have the same strength as something in the Bill.
Earl Attlee
Will the Minister take great care to make sure that everyone who has an interest in the Bill is included in these discussions? Sometimes it is possible for people to fall out of the loop and not be fully involved.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I give my noble friend that assurance. I will go further and say that I never forget my noble friend when it comes to such discussions. He has made a very valid contribution throughout this debate and I am sure he will continue to do so in debates going forward. Any noble Lord has an open invitation to meetings, as I have said, as we look to strengthen the provisions of the Bill and the services it provides.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for those very helpful responses. I am very pleased to have received support from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is beneficial that local transport authorities and operators seek the views of their passengers, who are, in fact, their customers. Being sensitive to the needs of your customers is usually good practice for any business or public service and benefits everybody concerned, particularly the providers of the service. A role for bus passengers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, is important and needs to be in the Bill. I am very pleased with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and look forward to our discussions. I hope that we can agree an amendment we can all be happy with during Report.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Before the noble Lord sits down, let me assure him that that is the Government’s intention with all the provisions we have discussed. Putting passengers at the heart of what we seek to do is a key part of delivering either the franchising model or the partnership model. Importantly, as I said, the current amendment does not incorporate, for example, the issues around the status quo.
I know the noble Lord is working with me to ensure that that is what we do. That is certainly the intention—one that is resonating around the Chamber. Given that assurance and the positive nature of the debate, I think the noble Lord is moving towards formally withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord again for his very helpful comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
EU Nationals: Legal Status
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my right honourable friend.
“EU nationals make an invaluable contribution to our economy, our society and our daily lives. They should be assured that, as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have repeatedly said, there will be no immediate change in their status in the UK. The Prime Minister has been clear that decisions on issues relating to the UK’s exit will be for a new Prime Minister. I am therefore not in a position to make new policy announcements in this area.
The discussions that we have with the EU to agree the arrangements of the UK’s exit will undoubtedly reflect the immense contribution made by EU citizens to our economy, to our NHS, to our schools and in so many other ways. But they must also secure the interests of the 1.2 million British citizens living and working elsewhere in the EU. The Home Secretary was clear yesterday when she said we seek to guarantee that the rights of both groups are protected, and that this is best done through reciprocal discussions with the European Union as part of the negotiations to leave the EU.
It has been suggested that the Government could now fully guarantee EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay. This would be unwise without a parallel assurance from European Governments regarding British nationals living in their countries. Such a step might also have the unintended consequence of prompting EU immigration to the UK. It is in the best interests of all that the Government conduct detailed work on this issue, and that the new Prime Minister decides the best way forward as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, I would like to stress that EU nationals continue to be welcome here. We have seen some truly abhorrent hate crimes perpetrated against EU nationals in the past week or so. We will not stand for these kinds of attacks. They must be, and will be, tackled in the strongest possible terms.
EU nationals can have our full and unreserved reassurance that that their right to enter, work in, study in and live in the UK remains unchanged. But to pre-empt future discussions at this point risks undermining our ability to protect the interests of EU and British citizens alike and to get the best possible outcome for both”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest in that my husband is Spanish and I have just returned from a brief weekend to visit our family in Spain.
In the debate on your Lordships’ EU Committee report, I asked the Minister what plan B was if the UK voted to leave. The committee highlighted the acquired rights of the 2 million or so UK citizens living in other members states and, equally, those of EU citizens living in the UK. Bearing in mind the importance to our economy, as the noble Lord said, and to our health service, I am shocked that no contingency plans appear to have been made.
The Minister, and of course the Minister in the other place, say that the Government’s position must be seen in the round and that their interest is to protect all citizens. Well, I fear that by putting in doubt the rights of EU citizens here, it will have the complete opposite effect from protecting UK citizens in the EU. As I say, I have just come back from Spain; Rajoy’s recent statement and those of the Spanish Foreign Minister are not giving people much comfort either; they repeat the same sort of statement the Government are making. Rajoy says, “Don’t worry, nothing will happen, at least for the next two years”. Two years is an incredibly short period when people have made their lives, bought homes, got jobs, and contributed to the economy. Earlier the Minister explained—as did the Minister in the other place—that there are existing rights, such as the right to remain after five years. But how are people made aware of this? They have never needed to exercise it. So how will the Minister explain that that right exists and people need not worry as they have that protection? How are people going to follow through? Would it not be better, both in terms of protecting our own citizens abroad and our economy, if we removed the uncertainty now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. The Government, of course, are listening carefully. As I have done on a couple of occasions from this Dispatch Box, let me reassure noble Lords that it is the Government’s intent to provide reassurance to all our citizens. It is right that we protect the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom and provide them with the security of knowing that they can continue to practise, work, live and study in the UK. The issue now arising is one of great uncertainty. As I said earlier this afternoon, we are going through unprecedented circumstances. As we reflect on the situation in which the country has now voted—in the referendum the country voted by a majority to proceed to leave the European Union—it is important that in the discussions we are taking forward with our European partners we protect the interests of British citizens who are working and living, and have done so for many years, in the European Union, and at the same time, put at the forefront the very valid discussion and concern that the noble Lord has just raised again about EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK and who contribute to the UK and its progress.
I can give the reassurance that exactly those sentiments, thoughts and principles are very much in our minds. It is not for me to speak about the future Prime Minister specifically, but I am sure that all those candidates putting themselves forward for Prime Minister, and indeed the new Government, will reflect very strongly about this, because it is central to our future relationship. We may choose to leave the European Union—the people have elected to leave it—but we have not left Europe. Our relationship with Europe will continue.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it would appear that the people of the United Kingdom have rejected the Kantian ideal of perpetual peace and the European Union. Are Her Majesty’s Government determined also to walk away from the categorical imperative that people be treated as ends in themselves, not as means? The idea that EU nationals resident in this country should be used as pawns in the negotiation seems to be wholly wrong. Can the Government not commit to assuring those EU nationals who were here at least at the time of the referendum that they can have their rights assured? Surely it is right to respect the dignity of EU nationals resident here and the benefits that they have brought to this country.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness. Let me assure her that the Government are looking at this situation. It would not be appropriate to put down a particular marker as to which point, but there are legal considerations to take on board. Of course, the noble Baroness makes a very valid point. We will continue to put the concerns about the security of EU citizens here and UK citizens in the European Union at the centre of discussions as we move forward.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, for the second time in a week I say to my noble friend that while his credentials are beyond question, it is possible for us to come to some basic agreements before we invoke Article 50, and this should be one. I urge him to talk to the Home Secretary after this Statement and say, “Can we not agree a reciprocal arrangement with our European friends and neighbours that will not threaten the security of those who are living here and those of our citizens who are living there?”.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I will certainly take that back. My noble friend has spoken about this before. I assure him and indeed all noble Lords on this point, which has been raised before: before invoking that particular article, it is important that the terms of negotiation are determined and we know exactly what position we are negotiating from. One important thing to retain in all this is that it is clear that the citizens of the United Kingdom as one nation voted to leave the European Union. That is a fact. We need to ensure that we secure the best possible arrangements across the board. I am sure that the protection of the rights of those who live in the UK as EU nationals and those British nationals who live in the EU will be at the heart of those discussions, both from our perspective and from those of our European partners.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister was speaking a moment ago, he said we must get the agreement of member Governments. I am slightly worried as to whether the negotiation—because that is what it is going to be—about EU citizens living here and our citizens living in the EU can take place at a European level, or whether we are not going to have to negotiate with each member state of the EU separately about their arrangements for continuing to receive our citizens and for our citizens to continue to live there. In other words, will we not have to have separate negotiations with Spain, France and each other country individually, and are we not likely to get different receptions depending on which country we are negotiating with? If so, how on earth are the Government going to do it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My understanding, and I think I am clear on this, is that the negotiations we will have across the range of different areas regarding the single market, trading arrangements and so on will be with the EU. We continue to be part of the EU and will continue to have those discussions once we have established our negotiating criteria with the EU.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I suspect we are going around in circles, but is not a perfectly reasonable solution to this whole problem, for those who are properly registered in individual countries of the EU and may well be taxpayers, to have the uncertainty removed and, possibly prior to a certain date, have permission just to remain where they are and get on with it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Viscount talked about those who are properly registered and who pay tax. Those phrases underline some of the important discussions that we need to have, without putting down some markers just for the sake of clarifying one point or the other. The central point that must be at the heart of all the negotiations, which I clarify again will be between the UK and the EU, will be ensuring and protecting the rights of all EU nationals here and UK nationals in the EU.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench talked about someone who was very close to him. Is the Minister aware that there are staff in this House who are now questioning all the time what is going to happen to them? There are Italians and Portuguese, for example, who look after us so well. There is uncertainty surrounding their children who have been born here, while they themselves came here from European countries. This is totally unacceptable. These people are really worried while trying very hard to make our lives as easy as they can.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I reiterate that I respect the sentiments and facts that have been presented today in your Lordships’ House, and I shall of course share them with colleagues across government.
I shall end on this point because I am conscious that we have reached our time: this country has always been compassionate in dealing with people irrespective of whether they are from the EU or outside it. Those are guiding principles that define us as a nation and I believe they will be what define us as a country. I am reminded of what Archbishop Desmond Tutu said:
“My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together”.
Surplus Target: Corporation Tax
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley)
My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question made by the Chancellor in the other place.
“Mr Speaker, I have always sought to level with the British people about the economic challenges we now face, but to mix that realism with reassurance that we can rise to those challenges. The financial contingency plans that the Governor of the Bank of England and I put in place have proved effective to date. Financial markets have adjusted, but I can report today that they have shown no signs of disorder.
The next task is to be ready to respond to the developments in the real economy. This will require a supreme national effort. Here are the five steps we should now take. First, we need to look to support demand and make sure credit flows freely in our economy. The governor said on Friday that,
“some monetary policy easing will likely be required over the summer”.
Thanks to the reforms that I have introduced, the independent Bank has the tools it needs to act against the cycle and support lending in the economy. The Financial Policy Committee will publish its decisions tomorrow, and we stand ready in the Treasury to act in concert with the Bank should more need to be done to support funding for lending.
The second part of our national effort must be to maintain Britain’s fiscal credibility. Eight years ago, people questioned Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world. Eight years later, British gilts are seen as a safe haven and funding costs have fallen to record lows. We should maintain the fiscal consolidation measures we have announced, but our rules were always explicit that in the face of what the charter calls a “significant negative shock”, we should allow the automatic stabilisers to operate. With the consensus of economic forecasters now lowering the forecast growth for the UK next year from close to 2% to 0.4%, that we will do. We have to be realistic that the target for a surplus is unlikely to be achieved in 2019-20. The OBR will conduct a formal assessment when it produces a new independent forecast in the autumn, and then we will have a clear idea of what additional measures are required to maintain fiscal credibility.
Thirdly, we should broadcast loud and clear the message that Britain remains the best place in the world to do business. Over the past six years, I have reduced Britain’s corporation tax from 28% to 20% today and 17% in the future. I did that at the same time as taking difficult decisions elsewhere to balance the books. In my view, the strongest signal we could send to the world that Britain, after this referendum, is open to the world and ready to do business would be to cut corporation tax still further. We should aim for a rate of 15%, and preferably lower, because if you are pro-business, you are pro-jobs, pro-living standards and pro-working people.
Fourthly, the referendum result revealed a deep-seated feeling of disfranchisement in too many of our communities, especially in the Midlands and the north of England. As I said in Manchester on Friday, devolving power and building a northern powerhouse is the right response, and we need to double down on those efforts. We will have new elected mayors, and new transport and science investments, and projects such as HS2 and HS3 are more necessary than ever. Once both parties have determined who their new leaders will be, we should take the decision quickly on where to build a new runway in the south-east. Britain cannot be open to the world if we cannot fly there.
Fifthly and finally, while we must seek the best possible terms of trade in goods and services, including financial services, with our European neighbours, now is the time also to redouble our efforts to promote trade with the rest of the world. I have already spoken to my US counterparts. Later this month I will travel to China to build on our important new partnership.
This is a blueprint to meet our economic challenge. Nothing positive will come from looking back in anger. We must lift our eyes to the horizon ahead and make the best of what is to come”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will make four quick points. Does this announcement not show a woeful lack of contingency planning? How could any reasonable man who threatened a £30 billion punishment Budget a few weeks ago turn round today and say that what is needed is a corporation tax giveaway? Why was this announcement not made to Parliament and accompanied by a proper OBR appraisal? Given last week’s abandonment of the 2020 surplus, of which we approve, how can the Chancellor claim to be maintaining the UK’s financial credibility? Has a single target he has set since 2010 been met? Why has the Chancellor started a negotiation with the EU by declaring a tax dumping war? As the former World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy said,
“if you want a proper balanced, win-win relationship in the future, starting with tax competition is not the right way psychologically to prepare this negotiation”.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, in the interests of time, I shall try to be brief. In the framework that has existed over the past six years there has been a well-identified escape clause in the event that GDP is foreseen to go below 1% for four consecutive quarters. That is the circumstance in which our decision within the country last week has left us, hence the Chancellor’s Statement. On corporation tax, it is intended and recommended that that is an appropriate response to show to the world at large that Britain remains open for business.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I will pursue the response the noble Lord just gave. First, the week before the referendum result the Chancellor talked about an emergency Budget; now he is talking about a tax giveaway. Are any fiscal rules still in place? Secondly, the aim is to reduce corporation tax to at least 15%. Current government plans are to reduce it to 17% by 2020. By what year does the Chancellor intend that a 15% rate might be introduced? Finally, does the Minister accept that there will now be immediate problems for many small and medium-sized businesses, which will see many of their purchasers’ decisions put on hold while we have this tremendous uncertainty in the economy? Will he therefore ask the Chancellor to provide a line of funding to the British Business Bank to provide lending, overdraft facilities and other support to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly innovative companies, which, frankly, simply will not be around to receive any corporation tax benefits in years to come unless they are given support now?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, in repeating the Chancellor’s Statement I clearly said that tomorrow the Financial Policy Committee will report on its recommendations and the Treasury remains in a position to act on whatever advice is given with respect to support for whatever area of business—small, large or otherwise—that may or may not require additional help. On corporation tax, as I also said, that is a recommendation of an appropriate policy response in the event of the decision we have made to send a message to the world that Britain remains open for business. I imagine that a specific policy will be put in place in line with the Autumn Statement plan as envisaged previously, once we have a new Prime Minister in place.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, it is fortunate that the Chancellor has remained in post, since it would have created enormous trauma in financial markets if not only the Prime Minister but the Chancellor had decided that he would not continue to deal with the immense problems we face. Can I ask two simple questions? First, as far as the corporation tax cut is concerned, will my noble friend tell us—I am sure he ought to do so—whether the Treasury estimates that this will increase or decrease revenue in the immediate future? Secondly, as far as the abandonment—I think that is the right word—of the target on the deficit reduction is concerned, that is clearly necessary to have greater flexibility in fiscal policy, but does he agree that it is essential that none the less the long-term objective of reducing the deficit is maintained?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, in response to my noble friend’s question, let me repeat that the fiscal charter, including all its rules, allowed specifically that if an external shock—in this case one that we essentially brought upon ourselves—would result in a four-quarter basis GDP forecast of less than 1% the framework could be adjusted. That is the environment in which the Chancellor made his comments in the other place, and that is what I am repeating here. With respect to the comments on corporation tax that are receiving so much attention, the Treasury will—as it always does—indicate what any cost or benefits revenue-wise or otherwise might be as and when a specific policy proposal is brought to Parliament.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
May I correct the noble Lord? Brexit was not an external shock. It was an internal shock. It was a policy shock. Does the noble Lord think it is serious that we have lost our AAA credit rating? What is his estimate of the increase in borrowing costs we will face as a result of that?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I notice to my right some noble Lords with strong views on and experience of these kinds of events. Let me just reflect on my own judgments, including some from my past life. Let me also quickly state that in the last week our long-term borrowing costs have gone down. It is the job in terms of policy to focus on doing what is right in the circumstances. I do not believe that we should react to or be excessively focused on what a rating agency may say one way or another. It is important that we do the right thing.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend help those people in the country who might be a bit puzzled as to why the Chancellor said a few days before the referendum that if we voted to leave the European Union interest rates and taxes would have to go up? Now we are faced with the proposition that taxes should be cut and interest rates might go down. Why did that strange transformation take place over such a short time in the Treasury?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, forecasts are forecasts and I have spent a considerable part of my life having that dubious challenge. We are dealing with an outcome as opposed to a forecast. From what I remember of the specifics, I do not remember a statement that interest rates “will” rise, I thought it was more that they “could” rise. Importantly, while the Chancellor has responded with the appropriate flexibility for the new circumstances we may find ourselves in, based on what the OBR comes up with in its new forecasts for the Autumn Statement, it may well be that there are still difficult choices to be made.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, is it not clear that the Government are not going to meet their borrowing targets? The Chancellor has said that. Is it not ludicrous against that background to be announcing today that there is going to be a cut in corporation tax costing £4 billion to the Exchequer? Can the Minister tell us what the position is going to be in the autumn? We will have a new Prime Minister, a new Chancellor of the Exchequer and a new OBR forecast. Can he guarantee that this announcement today will ever be carried out?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I could give a very brief answer and say, “No, I can’t tell you what is going to happen in the autumn”. It is pretty hard these days to tell people what is going to happen next week.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
Or tomorrow even. The process by which the Government’s fiscal position is influenced by the forecasts of the independent OBR is one of the few things that do not appear to have changed in the past week or so. That will set out the circumstances in which fiscal policy choices will be made by a new Prime Minister and the team under them.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, the Chancellor mentioned in his Answer disenfranchised people in the north and elsewhere. Will he give some thought to the idea that now is not the time to cut taxes, which may lead to loss of revenue, but to increase expenditure inasmuch as the fiscal charter allows us to break rules as long as we break them in the right way?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear the Chancellor refer to that. We will indeed endeavour to put even more effort into rebalancing the economy of this country, including in the north, in the Midlands and possibly in other parts of the country as well.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(g) the extent to which not-for-profit bus operators can be integrated into a proposed scheme in order to contribute to the long term sustainability of the scheme.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34 is proposed by me and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would require the franchising authority or authorities to give consideration when drawing up a scheme to how the not-for-profit sector could be involved, the purpose being to contribute to the long-term sustainability of the franchising scheme, which, one hopes, will give local people a better bus service than they enjoy at present. The not-for-profit sector is thriving in a variety of areas. Expanding this model in the delivery of bus services is one way to contribute to ending the decline in bus services and routes that we have seen over many years, especially outside London, and which has been the subject of discussion during consideration of this Bill. It can complement other providers and deliver on a smaller scale bus routes that really benefit local communities and that can boost the local economy, connecting people with jobs, shops, schools and other services that they may not have had access to in recent years. Our amendment would require any assessment to include such proposals.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, does not have “resist” in his notes against this amendment. He has been very responsive today and in our previous day in Committee, and I hope he continues in that vein. Perhaps he will say to us that the amendment is not necessary, or suggest that it might be included in guidance. Of course, it could be in guidance, but as I hope he can see, that would not have the weight of its being clearly in the Bill.
We all want to see better bus services, and this Bill is a very positive step forward, but we need to go a little further to strengthen the proposals in some areas, as this amendment would certainly do. It would make it easier for different models of service to come into play and give a better bus service for all. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, not-for-profit bus services, or community transport, cover a wide spectrum of services, including those operated by charities. I am the first to praise the extraordinary work the sector does for people who need a lot of support in their daily lives—drivers who walk users to their door to make sure they have not lost their keys and then carry their shopping into the hall are local heroes. The sector can also plug a few gaps in services for the general public where there are not enough passengers to make a route a commercial proposition and the hard-pushed local authority does not have sufficient resources to fund a standard bus service.
However, I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist the amendment. Community transport services are not subject to the same regulatory regime as local bus services. Their drivers are not subject to the same stringent training regime as those driving registered services, nor do they need to satisfy many of the other compliance requirements set down by the traffic commissioner.
Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985—it is mainly this type of service we are talking about with this amendment—are exempt from many safety and fair competition rules so long as they are not provided to the general public. So how on earth can they contribute to the success or otherwise of a franchise?
The whole issue of services operated under Section 19 and indeed Section 22, permits has been a bone of contention for many years with the EU. If community transport operators were required to enter the local bus market and operate under the same rules as operators of registered services, it would be a different matter, but they are not. There is no level playing field and, at the moment, community transport operators are able to operate more cheaply but without the regulatory safeguards in place for other operators. I therefore urge my noble friend to resist the amendment as gently as he can.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in contrast, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, because I believe strongly that there is a valuable role for community transport and not-for-profit operators. That role is particularly important in rural areas. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the very useful letter that I received today, which gives great detail about the Government’s approach to rural areas. I regret that the information is not in the formal impact assessment; nevertheless, it is now publicly available and useful to us all.
It is important not just that not-for-profit operators work in rural areas but that we look at the widest possible range of community-based schemes in urban areas as well. I give as an example Hackney Community Transport, which operates commercial services for Transport for London, and Ealing Community Transport, which runs buses in Dorset with Go-Ahead. Those are urban examples that have spread out from the area where they started, but the point I am making is that community-based and not-for-profit transport services are part of a flexible mix. If we are truly to improve bus services, we must have more variety: we must have an alternative to the big five bus companies which effectively run the vast majority of bus services outside London. Although they compete, in most cases they do not do so on the ground—they rarely compete against each other service to service. We need an alternative to that if we are to have a flourishing bus service throughout Britain.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend. I had not intended to speak, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, slightly provoked me into it when he commented that not-for-profit services “plug a few gaps”. I can tell him that in areas such as mine, in Suffolk, they are the service. Almost all rural areas in Suffolk now have no bus service.
I agree with the noble Earl that I would not want community transport schemes to be tied up in a whole plethora of red tape, but nor would I want emerging franchising models to ignore the opportunities provided, in the way that my noble friend Lady Randerson has described, or inadvertently to disadvantage smaller community services. It is easy to see how you could do that—by cherry picking parts of their routes and not linking with others, you can affect their viability. Whether it is an urban or a rural area, but particularly in the rural area I know, it is important to understand and get the ecology of the bus industry right: to understand that something you do to one part is going to impact on another.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I can stimulate a contribution from the noble Baroness, I have done the Committee a great service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider, as part of the assessment of their proposed franchising scheme, the extent to which not-for-profit bus operators can be integrated into a franchising scheme to contribute to its sustainability. Let me say at the outset that I sympathise with the aims of his amendment. I recognise the good services that community bus service operators and other not-for-profit bus operators deliver to our communities across the country and know that they often provide flexible and bespoke services which act as a lifeline to many. The intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, underlined that element.
The Bill recognises the important role that community transport operators play in providing local public transport. Provisions have been included in the Bill to ensure that services operated under community bus permits will not be affected by the introduction of franchising or enhanced partnerships. This will enable them to continue to run their services unaffected by these schemes. I hope noble Lords will agree that these provisions are sensible and that they will help ensure that community bus providers can continue to deliver their valuable services to our local communities.
Even with these protective provisions in the Bill, I recognise the valid point the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises, and agree that authorities looking to improve local bus services should consider how services provided by community transport operators can be best integrated to deliver a better overall network of services for passengers.
Let me assure noble Lords that the Bill does not preclude authorities, as they develop their franchising or enhanced partnership proposals, working with community transport and not-for-profit operators to determine how they can best be integrated into the wider network of services, but I agree with the noble Lord that this approach should be encouraged. I am, therefore, of the view that these issues are best covered through further guidance that will be published to complement the provisions of the Bill. I hope the assurances I have given in this contribution enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Will the Minister say a little more about why he thinks that this should be in guidance? He says that authorities can do this, and that is all well and good. Why then is it not going to be in the Bill? Why should it be in guidance? My worry is that guidance is not legislation. Guidance is forgotten over time, things get moved on and revised, and all of a sudden it is not there and gets forgotten about. Why is guidance better than the Bill?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already said that there are provisions within the Bill that protect that element of community transport and not-for-profit operators. While the noble Lord feels that the guidance is not sufficient, it forms part and parcel of the guidance in support of the Bill, on which these new proposals go forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am not sure the Minister answered the point I was making there. I am thinking of organisations such as Hackney Community Transport. If it wants want to provide services elsewhere in the country, like it currently does for TfL, why should that not be in the Bill, rather than in guidance?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I do not think I can add any more. If the noble Lord feels that the strength of what the Government are presenting does not meet what he is suggesting, I suggest we discuss this issue. At the moment, we are minded that existing provisions within the Bill, with the assurance of including such provisions in the guidance, provide the necessary safeguards alluded to by the noble Lord. I hope, with this assurance and the continuing discussions we are having on various aspects of the Bill, that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for that contribution. I will take up his kind offer to have a discussion outside the House. He has been very generous with his contribution today and with his time. I appreciate that very much. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as I want to see the not-for-profit sector being able to provide bus services, as elsewhere. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott, for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was spot on in speaking about the needs of rural areas and the widest range of schemes available to deliver those services. As she said, Hackney Community Transport delivers services for TfL, so why cannot it, or other providers in the not-for-profit sector, deliver bus routes elsewhere, in urban or rural areas? This Bill is about improving bus services and my amendment helps in that respect, improving the Bill further and giving further options for the provision of bus services. I will leave it there and look forward to talking it over outside the Chamber, but I may well bring the amendment back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee
“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this amendment is all about compensation for loss of business, and its purpose is to make it a requirement on a franchising authority to factor in the cost of compensating bus operators as part of the assessment of a proposed franchise scheme.
I can anticipate the Minister’s response, but I would still like to explain my concerns. If the state needs to remove something from a person for the public good, then the state should compensate that person. It is quite simple: if land is purchased under compulsory purchase power, the owner of that land gets paid for it. I am fully aware that compensation would not have been payable under a quality contract scheme, although the days of quality contracts are severely numbered, and that when toes were dipped in that particular pool of water it ended rather badly, but it does not make it right, which is why my party was not keen on it.
The cost of compensating a bus operator who has to close his business, having failed to win a contract bid, could well run into millions of pounds, taking into account the physical assets—vehicles, depots and land—and the good will that the business enjoys. In one of our previous debates, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked what would happen to garage premises in the city centre, and would they be redeveloped and lost, and about all sorts of complications. I will speak about good will again when we reach Clause 5.
If that is not bad enough for the large plcs which would have to redeploy—hopefully—their staff and assets, we should consider the position of SME operators. These businesses will have been established on the back of solid hard work and with considerable financial risk and energy on the part of private individuals, who will have invested their life savings to see their company grow. They stand to lose all that not because they have performed badly, not because they are bad companies and not because their passengers have decided they no longer want to use their services. They stand to lose it all simply because they lost out on a bidding process for the franchise. Apparently, all their endeavours are worth nothing.
The Bill is currently silent on the matter of compensation, which I believe is wrong. I was really quite alarmed by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham at Second Reading, when he said that foreign owners of bus companies, but not British ones, might be entitled to compensation under the TTIP agreement, currently being negotiated at European level. I suggest that the whole issue of compensation needs to be revisited. Is it right that a foreign company could be paid millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, because its local authority has decided to take control of its local bus services, while a British company is left high and dry with no business and no compensation? The Minister will have to answer this point. I hate to say it, but this all sounds rather unconservative.
It is vital that when a local authority pursues a bus franchising scheme, the process, including a detailed assessment of the scheme, must be as robust as possible. The assessment must look at every single aspect of the proposed scheme, including whether the franchise scheme stacks up financially and represents good value for money because whose money will it be? It will be local taxpayers’ money, so the compensation to bus operators who are put out of business must be an important part of the mix. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am interested in the noble Earl’s comments about the poor small investor who has put their life savings into a bus company which is then put out of business because exactly the same thing happens on the railways, where most passenger services are franchised. I suppose the difference is that it is usually large bus companies making the bid. Some of them are owned by foreign state-owned enterprises, which means that the Government allow foreign state-owned enterprises to bid and operate train franchises but they do not allow British state-owned franchises to do the same. However, that is a slightly different matter.
Surely this is a question of which end of the telescope you are looking at. If it is question of small shareholders running a bus company in an area, they may well be worthy of sympathy in a different way from what might be called the big multinationals, but either way, experience on the railways shows that while the top management does not usually remain when a franchise changes, everyone else generally retains their job if they want it. In some cases there may be TUPE arrangements in place, but they may not be appropriate here. However, I am not convinced that the arguments for and against franchises are particularly affected by this because in practical terms many members of the workforce of a franchise of, say, a small bus company might think that they are losing their jobs, but they might well be taken on by the people running the franchise because they have local knowledge, they live locally and so on.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I have great sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I have also listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He commented when speaking to an earlier amendment that there is not a great deal of competition in the bus world. There was competition immediately after deregulation when there were lots of small companies, many of which were perfectly reputable but some not quite as much. My noble friend mentioned the difference between franchising on the railways and franchising for buses. The difference between them is quite simple: we are against one and in favour of the other. I am not quite sure why or how, but that is the situation we find ourselves in as a party.
Lord Berkeley
I think that my noble friend is speaking for himself; he is not speaking for me.
Lord Snape
I suspect that when we come to debate the future of the railway industry I will be speaking for my party, which is against franchising. And, as I currently understand it, the party wishes to see the railways back in some degree of public ownership. However, let us not get bogged down in the differences within our party between the two industries otherwise we could be on this amendment for a lot longer than we should be.
On the previous amendment, we talked about not-for-profit companies making a bid for franchises. The problem with that reflects directly on Amendment 35. If a successful franchise bid depends on a lower bid, and there is every chance it will given the shortage of cash in local government and the cutbacks that have been made so far as support for bus services is concerned, obviously some of the smaller and perhaps less reputable companies will start out with an advantage. If you are running a major operation that recognises trade unions, pays trade union rates, provides proper canteen facilities, uniforms and so on, you are not in a particularly advantageous position when bidding for a franchise against a smaller company that does none of those things.
Again I remind the Minister that over the years a lot of these companies have come and gone. The bus industry has rather settled down, and although we deplore the lack of competition, when we had lots of it, it was often denounced as wasteful and unnecessary. Speaking specifically to this amendment, if a company large or small loses its assets as a result of measures inherent in the Bill, surely it is only fair that it deserves to be properly compensated.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that of course the arguments he makes about less reputable companies fortify my argument that a lot of these things need to be set out in the Bill, so that we can ensure that only the more reputable companies—those that observe those aspects important to passengers and indeed to our environment—are able to win a franchise.
I say in response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I cannot understand why bus companies should be immune to the usual rules of business in this country. Increasingly local government services are run through commercial companies in various forms. Many commercial organisations are involved in the provision of a range of local authority services right down, for example, to care for children, the elderly and so on. Local authorities franchise services or commission them and from time to time they will change the companies they are working with; someone loses the contract. There are well-known procedures throughout our public life which account for that to happen, thus enabling a service to be handed over from one organisation to another. I cannot see why bus companies should be exempt from that general run of business.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 35, which has been proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not one that I can support today. As we have heard, the amendment puts a requirement into the Bill that would require the taking into account of any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses are wholly or partly expropriated by the scheme. I do not think that there are any plans in the Bill to expropriate anyone’s business. The franchising model will work on similar terms to those which presently operate in London, where private bus operators happily deliver services on routes laid down by TfL. They make profits and the service works well.
I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked why the bus industry cannot be aligned with the rest of the public sector in terms of contracts being tendered for and then won or lost. People move on and things change. That works in the whole of the rest of the public sector and is certainly the case in local government; I have said before that I am a councillor in Lewisham. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will advise the Committee, but I think I am correct in saying that the Government do not anticipate any compensation being required if a franchising authority follows the process as set out in the Bill. For me, the Bill is about improving bus services for passengers and increasing the number of bus journeys being taken by people, thus halting the decline in bus routes and journeys over recent years, and that should be embraced by bus operators. Indeed, they may find that they actually make more money if they increase their routes and more people use them.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that he will allay the concerns raised by the noble Earl and thus demonstrate to the Committee that the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider as part of the assessment of their franchising scheme whether it will be,
“more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme”.
I recognise my noble friend’s desire to ensure that impacts on bus operators are fully considered as franchising schemes are developed. The Bill already addresses many of his concerns, and it may be useful at this point to provide a fuller explanation of proposed new Section 123B, which requires franchising authorities to conduct an assessment of their proposed franchising scheme. I fully acknowledge that moving to a model of franchising is a big decision that will impact on bus operators in the area. That is why the Bill requires authorities that are considering franchising to conduct a thorough assessment of their proposed scheme, including comparing their proposals with other options, which could include partnership proposals and the status quo.
The Bill also requires franchising authorities to think about the effects of the proposed scheme and whether it represents value for money. This will include, of course, consideration of the impacts of the proposal on passengers and bus operators, together with any wider impacts. I hope my noble friend agrees that the provisions in the Bill will require authorities to think carefully about their franchising proposals, compare them to other options and then take a well-reasoned and well-evidenced decision.
I turn to the issue of compensation payable to bus operators that my noble friend referred to. I fully recognise the years of hard work that many bus operators have put into growing and operating their businesses and their concerns about the future. As I have said, the Bill requires authorities to consider both the benefits that franchising could bring for local people, as well as the potential impacts, including those on bus operators. If franchising authorities follow the processes set out in the Bill, local bus operators will have plenty of notice that a franchising scheme is being considered, will be aware of a decision to introduce franchising, and will have more than six months’ notice that services are to be provided under local service contracts. This will enable operators to take any action they think appropriate and to plan ahead in the light of the decision to make a franchising scheme. Incumbent operators will, of course, be able to bid for contracts in any area that decides to move to franchising, and I should reflect that those operators’ knowledge of the local area and local customers is likely to stand them in good stead. In addition, the Bill does not provide franchising authorities with the power to take over the property of any bus operator if a scheme is made—a point made in an earlier debate.
In summary, I am therefore of the view that the Bill already addresses many of my noble friend’s concerns regarding the assessment of the franchising scheme and the need to compare it with other options. He raised the issue of compensation being available to those who do not win contracts, and referred to other schemes, not just franchising. While he makes a valid point, I note that authorities have been able to introduce quality contracts since 2000. This potential risk and impact on bus operators has been around for a significant period. I hope that he has been assured and reassured by some of my comments on the existing provisions in the Bill. I disagree that consideration of compensation should form part of franchising assessments—a point made by other noble Lords—but I hope that this debate has assured him that the Bill includes a thorough and comprehensive assessment process, and that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister say more about something I find hard to understand about the amendment? I am a councillor in a London borough and services are tendered for all the time, whether in relation to road repairs, street lighting, refuse collection and so on. People bid for contracts, win them and lose them. If they lose them, the new company takes them on and we do not have debates about paying companies compensation because they have lost their contract. They bid for a price, the council assesses it and a number of factors and makes what it believes is the best decision. I do not see why we are having this dispute or debate. If a company loses a bus route, I do not see why it should be paid compensation. It must have tendered for that route but has lost out in the process to another company that has been deemed to offer better value for money. This is a strange debate.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend tabled an amendment and it is right that we have a discussion in Committee. I hope that through the provisions in the Bill that I have highlighted—for example, the requirement to give ample notice—his fears are allayed as regards compensating a business franchise that goes out of operation. The Bill contains proper provisions in relation to, for example, giving notice. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I are on the same page on this.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I have brought both Front Benches together, I have achieved something. Some noble Lords talked about disreputable operators. If, as a result of a franchising scheme, a disreputable operator goes out of business, no one would be happier than me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, picked up on the fact that local authorities are currently putting services out for bid and that operators are either successful or unsuccessful. Noble Lords are right but the difference here is that an operator can be sure that, so long as he has a good commercial model and keeps his customers happy, he can stay in business. However, if he gets hit by franchising, he will be out of business through no fault of his own.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made an interesting comparison with the railway industry, but he will know that that is on a different scale and people in the railway industry know that that is the name of the game. They will bid for the franchise and amortise all the costs of their investment over the length of the franchise, whereas the operators that I am concerned about at the moment have no risk of being put out of business by franchising because that simply cannot be done. It is therefore a new situation that they could not have planned for.
No noble Lord has explained away my TTIP problem. Regarding facilities for operators, franchising may well provide efficiencies because perhaps fewer workshops and garages are needed. The problem is that someone ends up holding redundant facilities that they used to have a commercial use for. I am not convinced by the response of my noble friend but I will read Hansard carefully and, subject to the usual caveats, I will come back on this. Oh, the Minister wants to have another go at me.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I would never dream of having a go at my noble friend; I am merely thankful that he has given way. It was remiss of me not to mention the TTIP issue. I understand that investor-state dispute settlement does not prevent a current or future Government who act in accordance with due process changing their laws or policies. My noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Young referred to this point and it is my understanding that this element is still being negotiated between the European Union and the US.
Earl Attlee
I thank my noble friend for that response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lord Shipley.
It really does not matter which side of the great debate noble Lords are on—whether they favour franchising, as I do, or whether they are fundamentally opposed to it, as we have heard. Both sides agree that the proposal represents a significant risk of a transfer of risk from the bus operators to the local authority. That risk will be carried by local council taxpayers and, in the new regime, local business ratepayers. I should say from the outset that I am perfectly confident in the ability of local government to manage these processes. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, is right to say that this will not come cheap. Local authorities will need sufficient expertise in order to carry out the proposals, and I think that they will be able to, should they choose to invest that expertise. My concerns are about the mayoral model in this regard. It seems to me that what the Government see as the strengths of the mayoral model—a single point of centralised decision-making and a single point of accountability—can also very quickly turn into a disadvantage. Strong leadership can very quickly turn into headstrong leadership. Therefore, it seems to me that robust oversight is key.
In the past few years the LGA—I declare an interest as a vice-president—the Institute for Government and the Centre for Public Scrutiny have all done quite a lot of work on this. The amendment is in line with that sentiment and seeks to ensure that there is independence in terms of the information that is given out and against which a local mayor can be accountable.
I would be the first to admit that I am a bit of a governance geek. That probably comes back to having served on the Audit Commission. However, just to make it clear that this is not just some odd preoccupation of mine, on Friday the Public Accounts Committee in another place published its document about cities and local growth. It is going through these devolution proposals and its intention is to contribute to the public debate and to government thinking at this early stage. Its report raises many of the same concerns that I have just raised. I shall read out a few lines from one of the recommendations because they are important. It states:
“We are not confident that existing arrangements for scrutiny at local level of devolved functions are either robust enough or well supported. Robust and independent scrutiny of the value for money of devolved activities is essential to safeguarding taxpayers’ money, particularly given the abolition of the Audit Commission. Local scrutiny committees are an important mechanism; however, given resource constraints and the absence of independent support”,
there is a limit to what they can do. It then goes on to talk about the absence of “independent institutional scrutiny”, and recommends that by November 2016 the Government should come forward with plans to ensure that local scrutiny of devolved functions will take place and will be robust.
While I confidently expect the Minister to resist this amendment, I hope that he will commit at least to making sure that this report of the Public Accounts Committee is read, understood, and, more importantly, taken into account as this Bill progresses. It is always easier to get it right at the beginning that to retrofit these things into something once it is passed into law. I beg to move.
Lord Snape
I rise to speak to Amendment 43 in this group, which seems to do something similar to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Like the noble Baroness, I am not quite as sanguine about a local authority deciding to set up a franchise scheme, appointing someone to look at it, and then having the ability, regardless of what he says, to go ahead. That smacks a bit of the people’s courts in Germany towards the end of the Second World War. Surely we ought to have something more democratic than that on these somewhat controversial matters. The traffic commissioners, who are widely regarded throughout the transport industry—although under successive Governments, they have been sadly underresourced—ought to be the people who appoint a proper independent arbiter to look at any such proposal. It seems to me to offend natural justice for a local authority wishing to have a franchise scheme to appoint a referee to decide on the merits of that scheme and, regardless of his or her conclusion, to go ahead anyway. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at these amendments and think about toughening up the Bill considerably.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I understand that the amendment may not be perfectly drafted—it may be more appropriate to have “of” rather than “and to”, but we can deal with that when the Minister gives me comfort that he accepts its basic direction of travel.
The amendment’s purpose is to look at the role of the auditor. It would ensure that that role is restricted to areas that are both within the auditor’s competence and entirely focused on the matters set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), which states:
“The auditor’s report must state whether, in the opinion of the auditor … the information relied on by the authority or authorities in considering”,
whether the authority or authorities would be able to afford, make and operate the scheme and whether the proposed scheme would represent value for money, is of sufficient quality and that the analysis of the information is also of sufficient quality.
Without this amendment, proposed new Section 123D(2) could be interpreted as giving the auditor a wider remit, given that, as drafted, the auditor must give an opinion on whether the authority,
“had due regard to guidance under Section 123B”.
This guidance covers a much wider range of topics than those set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), including the effects of the scheme, comparison of the proposed scheme to one or more courses of action and the scheme’s contribution to the implementation of wider plans and policies. As such, the current drafting risks giving the auditor a role which is beyond their professional expertise as well as creating conditions whereby a third party is second-guessing a locally accountable authority’s assessment. This in turn could introduce the kind of hurdle that led to the failure of the 2000 and 2008 Acts in creating a simpler route to franchising for those authorities that wish to pursue—I stress those that wish to pursue—this option.
The Government have committed to introducing a practical and efficient method of introducing bus franchising and this amendment, as redrafted, looks to assist them in that process.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I should first declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. In principle, I am in favour of the right of local authorities to franchise bus services. However, I expressed concern at Second Reading that the audit and scrutiny of proposed franchises needed to be tightened up, and I remain of that view.
I also said at Second Reading that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill required substantial amendment to improve the effectiveness of audit and scrutiny to ensure public confidence in the financial robustness of franchising arrangements. Now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has pointed out, on Friday the Public Accounts Committee in its sixth report of this Session expressed some serious concerns about the extent to which consideration by central government of the local scrutiny arrangements had been adequate.
I quote, in particular, from its summary, which states:
“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.
I have absolutely no doubt that local government may have the required capacity and capability—certainly in a number of places with which I am familiar. That is not to say that it cannot gain the capacity and capability to undertake successful franchising. However, I subscribe to the view that there has been insufficient consideration of this issue by central government and it really does matter.
In consideration of previous amendments, I noted that the Minister said that mayoral combined authorities were appropriate for taking forward the policies in this Bill and would have the necessary checks and balances in place. These amendments improve the checks and balances that the Government seek. If the Government listen very carefully to what is being said across your Lordships’ House, it is much more likely that franchising will succeed, and I am very keen that it should do so.
There are three amendments in this group. The one to which my name is attached tries simply to make it clear that the auditor should be independent of a local authority or a combination of local authorities. The other two amendments are in the same area, but address issues around affordability, value for money and the role of traffic commissioners. There are various ways in which that could be progressed. The Minister may say that this can all be addressed in regulation. However that is done, I hope that the Minister will be able to come back on Report—if he is not able to do so now—to explain that there is an understanding of the issue that the auditors’ scrutiny function in this case must be robust and seen to be robust and how the Government plan to take this forward to ensure that the public can have confidence in franchising arrangements.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, on the amendments that we have discussed in Committee, many noble Lords have said how important it is for devolution to happen and for local authorities around the country to be able to operate franchises without too many controls from central government. Whether that happens or not, the importance of independence in the audit is vital, as other noble Lords have said. It would be so easy for some local authorities in the future to get it wrong and then for a rather nasty article to appear in Private Eye, suggesting that the leader’s brother-in-law was the auditor. I am sure that would never happen, but we do need independent checks. My noble friend Lord Snape’s suggestion of traffic commissioners appointing the auditor has enormous merit. The two issues in Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and myself, about the affordability of the scheme and whether it represents value for money, are the two most important ones that should be focused on by the auditor. Then we would all feel comfortable that it would probably work very well.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, we very much support the intent of the first amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and of Amendment 42, which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Bradley. It is important that the audit process is properly independent and provides a trustworthy external scrutiny—that makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense to ensure that the proposals are properly costed and that we can have confidence that they are affordable.
However, regrettably, we do not feel able to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Snape—we seem to be making a habit of that. We believe that his amendment is too specific and restraining and we hope that, on reflection, he will feel able to support Amendments 41 and 42, which we believe would achieve the additional reassurance he seeks and ensure that a fair, independent assessment process takes place. I hope that my noble friend will reconsider and that the Minister will feel able to support the first two amendments.
Lord Snape
Before my noble friend sits down—I am sorry that she finds herself unable to support what is, in my view, a well-intentioned and well-meaning amendment—perhaps she can tell us why she objects to the traffic commissioner and why that is too specific. After all, by the very nature of his or her job, the traffic commissioner knows the business inside out and is widely trusted by all sides in the industry. Surely to have someone like that appointing an auditor is a very sensible way forward.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Without wishing to get into a dialogue, I think that we felt that as long the role was prescribed to be independent, different authorities will have different arrangements for appointing independent auditors. We do not feel that we need to be that prescriptive in this piece of legislation. I would not go any further than that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group, all related to the audit function required as part of the franchising provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, proposes an amendment to state explicitly that the auditor, whose role is to issue a report to the franchising authority on certain aspects of the assessment of the proposed franchising scheme, must be independent. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, proposes an amendment that would require the auditor to be appointed by a traffic commissioner. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, proposes an amendment that would require the auditor to consider matters relating to an authority’s consideration of affordability and value for money. I thank all noble Lords for their amendments, and will turn to each one.
Before I go into those details, the noble Baroness rightly talked about the Public Accounts Committee’s report on local scrutiny, and I thank her for bringing that to the Committee’s deliberations. We are of course ensuring that we consider its recommendations very carefully as the Bill moves through Parliament, and we will respond during the course of the Bill.
Turning to the amendments, I recognise the importance of ensuring that decisions to move to a model of franchising are taken on the back of quality information and robust analysis. As I have explained previously, in developing this Bill we have been keen to move away from the quality contract scheme processes set out in the Transport Act 2000, which, in particular, included the need for independent scrutiny by a “Quality Contract Scheme Board”. While I agree entirely that there is a need for a level of independent assurance, I do not think that devolved decisions should be second-guessed by an independent panel. We introduced the role of the auditor to ensure that an independent third party provides assurance that certain information used in the assessment is of sufficient quality, that the analysis of that information is robust and that relevant guidance has been followed. It is not the auditor’s role to take a view on the decisions taken by the franchising authority. As I am sure that noble Lords agree, its role is to provide a quality check.
The Bill requires any auditor to have a “recognised professional qualification” and to be eligible to act as the local auditor of the authority’s accounts. As such, we would expect any auditor to be suitably qualified and able to provide independent assurance.
Baroness Randerson
Does the noble Lord accept that it is not just a case of qualifications but of perceptions? It is only too easy for a situation to arise within a public body where an auditor’s assurance has been given but is not seen as good enough or independent enough by critics of the scheme. Therefore, the arm’s-length rule is the safe way of going forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Baroness inasmuch as it is important that it is not just the process, but the perception—and the perception in the mind of the public, too—that there is scrutiny, and effective independence in the auditor role. However, I believe that any auditor, on the basis of what we have suggested of having professional capacity, would be able to show that level of competence and, indeed, address the issues of perception. As such, it would be reasonable for the franchising authority to appoint such an auditor. That applies as much to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that it should be the auditor rather than the traffic commissioner, particularly as it would be the franchising authority that paid for the services of the auditor.
Coming back to the point raised by the noble Baroness and also by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I do understand that an auditor could be perceived as more independent if they are appointed by a third party—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, used the example of a traffic commissioner—or if the Bill specifically stated that they must be independent. However, I would argue, again, that any auditor with an established reputation would be mindful to protect their own role and independence in any report they provided.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this set of amendments, and to the Minister for his customary care and courtesy. However, I am afraid that I am not entirely reassured, as I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes being independent. I recognise that you would, of course, go to a reputable firm of auditors. However, the person who sets the contract and pays the bill for the audit retains ultimate control. That is always the way. Anyone who has worked in this area knows that there are all sorts of ways in which the process can be subverted. This is a very important issue and involves great risk for the taxpayer, particularly in these mayoral models, where we know that the oversight of the mayoral function is not as strong as it used to be in the old days when people like me had committees which spent a lot of time going through these things. Given particularly the concerns expressed in the Public Accounts Committee report published on Friday, I think there is a need to return to this question, at least informally.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness again raises a very valid point. Once we have established our full response to the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee, we will be in a better position. As I said, I welcome further discussions in this respect, because I do not think that we disagree; to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, this is a matter of perception which can be addressed. Once we have responded more formally, I am happy to have those discussions with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
It is certainly an issue of our time that perception is pretty much everything.
With that, I look forward to future discussions and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this is a slightly odd group, although all the amendments in it deal with consultation after a franchising notice has been agreed. The first amendment deals with an issue which the Minister may feel we have flogged to death at early stages, and relates to the engagement of representatives of users of the services. That is referred to in the relevant new paragraph (c), although I agree with the earlier comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the term “as they think fit” somewhat prejudices the possibility of effective consumer representation in this field if the authority is rather resistant to any organisation purporting to represent the users.
The additional point in this amendment is that not only would I expect authorities and operators in the new franchising situation to encourage, engage with and help develop organisations representing users in the area covered by the new franchise, and go on to develop that further during the course of the franchise, but there is also an issue of how—at least in the initial stages—these franchises develop in different parts of the country and how they relate to passenger concerns across the country. Across England we have an organisation—Transport Focus—which is based in statute and has recently enlarged its role in relation to road users of all sorts as a result of the Infrastructure Bill which passed through this House a few months ago. With Highways England it is responsible for looking after all the interests—commercial and individual—of road users; that is, cars, buses, freight, et cetera. It also has a national perspective. In the railway sector it compares the performance of franchises in the different railway franchise areas, and has done so a number of times. It conducts surveys and gathers feedback. There is a crossover of things that are appreciated by passengers in one area into other areas of rail provision. The same must apply in relation to buses. As we are just starting a new system in relation to buses, the first two or three franchises will set the tone for the way in which the system will operate. It will be important for a national passenger organisation to have at least the ability to comment on those developments and on what passengers find good or negative about them and where they would like to see improvements. As the system develops, the franchising system in large parts of England would benefit from having an overall view from Transport Focus on how a new franchise is perceived by passengers using the system.
When setting the franchise, the authorities will wish to look at the way it has operated in areas where they have already established a franchising system. As time goes on, cross-comparison is important. The organisation, already in place, which would give this perspective is Transport Focus. There is no mention of Transport Focus in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that a role is given in the Bill to that organisation in providing a cross-reference of how the system is working for those who ultimately will be the beneficiaries of what I hope will be an improved service. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I have four minor amendments in this group and wish to say a word or two about each of them. My Amendment 45 would include the Competition and Markets Authority in the list of consultees. This goes back to a point I made on Second Reading and in the private meeting organised with the Minister from another place.
In the days when I had much more to do with transport, the Competition and Markets Authority writ large across the operation of the bus industry, to the extent that, when I tried to deal with buses in Suffolk, I could not get two operators to sit in the same room with me because they had been told by their lawyers that that could be regarded as collusion and therefore anti-competitive. As noble Lords can imagine, that made trying to run a coherent bus network in Suffolk very difficult. We have dealt with that very effectively now—because we have very few buses. We need to really think about the point at which the Competition and Markets Authority is involved with this. The last thing we want is a very lengthy and expensive process of tendering, consultation and agreement, only to find at that point that the authority has a problem with it.
Amendment 49 tidies up the question of modification. At the moment, it is not at all clear what a modification means. You would not need to re-consult for a relatively minor one, but it is possible to imagine fairly major modifications to a franchising scheme where reconsulting would be a good idea. Amendment 52 comes back to the question of oversight. The Bill mentions “a summary of” the consultations. Given the questions about oversight and robustness, it is really important that we have all the information required. It is not going to be favoured reading among large sectors of the general public, but it is important that those involved in oversight have full information. The same goes for Amendment 53, which is about publishing all the responses so that everyone can see what everyone else has said. That is an important part of good governance and robust oversight.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is very difficult to find anything to argue about with these amendments on consultation, particularly Amendment 48. As noble Lords have said, they are very much in the vein of ensuring that all those likely to be affected by either a franchise scheme or enhanced partnership scheme are consulted in a timely fashion and that the documentation—which I am sure will be quite lengthy—will be in accessible formats. It stands to reason that there is no point in consulting if you do not allow adequate time, or provide the material in a way that people can easily access it.
We have already debated similar amendments about passenger representation at an earlier stage. However, I can see one potential problem, which is how long the timescale should be for people to comment. I suspect it is impossible to answer: as human beings we always tend to leave things to the last minute—just look at the mad rush to register to vote in the recent referendum. No matter how much time you give people to do something, it will never be enough. I suspect that, like me, many noble Lords get briefings for Committee on the day it takes place, long after we have drafted our notes and determined our position.
Can my noble friend assure the Committee that there are strict guidelines that public authorities have to follow when it comes to the format et cetera of consultation documents? These amendments may not be necessary—although the point is desirable—and the issues that they seek to address may already be an established and well-known requirement, but it does no harm to reinforce the point.
I turn to Amendment 51. The bus industry was shocked and, quite frankly, appalled when the Chancellor first gave oxygen to the idea of local bus franchising some 18 months ago. Bus operators, from the large plcs to small family-run businesses, feared for their livelihoods. Time has moved on and the industry has, of course, regrouped—dare I even say, calmed down?—and engaged constructively and helpfully with the Government in developing the policy that we now see enshrined in this Bill. I sympathise with all bus operators and recognise their very real concerns. The large plcs have much to lose and need their eyes on market share and their corporate standing. They will be battered and bruised by the franchising process and we must not underestimate the effect this will have. However, small and medium-sized operators are in a different position. As I have already explained, if they lose a franchise, assuming they have the resources to bid in the first place, their business is gone. They will not be able to tread water for a few years and be in a position to bid when the franchise comes up for renewal. Their business will no longer exist, their depots and vehicles will be sold and their staff quite possibly lost to the industry or to competitors.
I know that the plight of SME operators has weighed heavily on the minds of Ministers. More than once I have heard the Secretary of State commend the work of the SME operators and say how he is keen to help protect their enterprises, so this amendment may well find favour with my noble friend. “Fairness” and “level playing field” are terms I hear used frequently in our deliberations and I am in no doubt that I will use them again before we send the Bill on its way. The processes put in place by the Bill must be fair to all operators regardless of their size.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48 and 51 in my name. I very much support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty. Amendment 48 takes a similar position—that as part of the consultation process, passenger organisations and trade union and employee organisations must be involved. We believe that proper time should be allocated to make this a meaningful consultation and an effort made to explain the changes in a clear and accessible form to those who may be affected. As my noble friend said, we have debated these issues in relation to previous amendments and received a positive response from the Minister. I hope a similar response will be forthcoming today.
I hope that Amendment 51 is an area where the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I are able to agree for once; I am pleased that some commonality is coming out of this debate. One of the problems with bus provision in this country is that the market is dominated by a small number of large bus operators. This makes the procurement process more difficult for local authorities and does not always result in the best passenger experience. It is difficult for new entrants to enter the sector, even though they often provide more responsive, quality services with high customer satisfaction. Reference has previously been made to the social enterprise company HCT, which runs highly successful services in parts of London, Yorkshire and Bristol. It also has the contract for providing bus services in Jersey. Since it took over that service, passenger usage has increased by 32%, the level of subsidy has reduced by £800,000 a year and customer satisfaction has increased by 5%. Somewhat uniquely, the contract also has a profit-sharing element and it is now giving money back to the local authority.
We need opportunities for innovative providers like HCT to enter the market and win new contracts, but the rules are stacked against them and the regulatory burden is far too onerous for the small providers to navigate. There is a danger that the proposals in the Bill will entrench local monopolies, at best replacing an unresponsive private sector monopoly with a publicly commissioned one. When it comes to enhanced partnerships, we need to be clearer about the process for opening up partnership lists to competition to allow new entrants to join. As it stands, the Bill acknowledges this problem in new Section 123F (1)(i). It requires the consultation document for authorities going down the franchising route to include a statement on how they propose to facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators. We obviously welcome that.
Our amendment takes this one step further and requires the consultation document to consider how the franchise could be divided into smaller units. This would help to break down the local monopolies and encourage new entrants into the market. I hope the Minister understands and shares these objectives: I look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, this group contains a number of amendments to the consultation process that a franchising authority must complete before it can implement a franchising scheme. Before going any further, my noble friend Lord Attlee asked about “small and medium-sized operators” and whether in the context of the Bill that meant small and medium-sized companies. The short answer is yes. It is judged by the size of the company rather than the nature of its operation. In the interests of clarity, which is always important, I will write to him formally in that respect.
Turning to the amendments which relate to the persons or bodies to be consulted and the form the consultation should take, Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require franchising authorities to consult Transport Focus when consulting on their proposed franchising schemes. Once again, I am delighted to say that I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that organisations that represent passenger needs have an opportunity to respond to a consultation on a proposed franchising scheme. Transport Focus already works closely with local authorities and bus operators with a view to securing improvements to bus services for passengers, and I will consider how best to ensure that the Bill gives Transport Focus an opportunity to express views on franchising scheme proposals. I hope that this provides assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that respect.
Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require franchising authorities to consult the Competition and Markets Authority on their proposed franchising schemes. As I said at Second Reading, competition does not disappear when franchising is introduced; it merely moves from “on the road”, where bus operators compete at bus stops for passengers, to “off the road”, where bus operators compete for contracts to operate services. Franchising authorities will be able to design a franchising system which suits their local area and local needs, whether that be through gross-cost or net-cost contracts, or with large or small bundles of routes, bearing in mind the need to involve small and medium-sized bus operators.
However, I agree that any fundamental change to the bus market that is being considered by a local area should take account of the potential effects on competition and the benefits or impacts this could have for bus operators and local people. I further agree that it may be helpful for franchising authorities to work with the Competition and Markets Authority as they develop their proposals, and for the authority to be consulted. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness that I am with her in ensuring that we look at how to fit that into the Bill.
Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would add some additional requirements to the consultation provisions in relation to franchising, including requiring passenger interest groups to be consulted on franchising proposals. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, and agree that it is vital that passenger groups and others that may be affected are consulted fully on proposals to improve local bus services. I recognise that many noble Lords spoke about passenger representation and accessibility of bus services at Second Reading and in earlier Committee debates, and I fully understand that there is a wide spectrum of views and needs to be considered when planning local bus services.
The franchising provisions already include requirements for the authority to consult organisations that represent users of local bus services. Therefore, I encourage any authorities thinking of using the new tools in the Bill to engage fully with interested parties as proposals are developed. I hope this goes some way to addressing the noble Baroness’s concerns about the interests of passenger groups and reassures her that the Bill requires authorities to consult fully with those groups on franchising proposals.
Turning to the form that consultations on franchising and enhanced partnership proposals should take, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised an important issue about accessibility and the need for consultations to be conducted in a manner and over a time period that is accessible to all. I agree that any consultation must give local people due time to consider and respond, particularly as proposals about local bus services are likely to have a large impact on local communities. I will therefore give further consideration to how best to ensure that consultation exercises relating to franchising proposals are accessible to all.
Turning to the amendments on the consultation materials that franchising authorities must prepare, Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would reinforce the need for authorities considering franchising to give due consideration to small and medium-sized operators, given the important role they play in the delivery of local bus services. I sympathise with the aims of the amendment and I think we can all agree that small and medium-sized bus operators across the country deliver vital services to our local communities. Many of these smaller operators deliver tailored and bespoke services to suit local needs, and we want to see these small businesses continue to thrive, regardless of the model of bus service delivery that is employed.
The Bill requires franchising authorities, both as part of their consultation exercise and in issuing their response to that consultation, to set out how, in conducting the procurement process, they intend to facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators in the provision of local bus services once franchising has been introduced. I agree entirely with the principle in the amendment that in reality, this provision will require the authority to consider in practical terms how it intends to facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators, which may well include the division of local service contracts into smaller lots. However, there may be other ways to achieve that aim—for example, through subcontracting—and I do not want to prejudge the procurement strategy that an authority may employ. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that small and medium-sized operators continue to have a place in the market regardless of the model of delivery, and that the provisions in the Bill already address this issue.
Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require franchising authorities to include in their consultation document their assessment of their proposed franchising scheme, conducted under new Section 123B, rather than a summary of their assessment. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that franchising authorities are already required to publish their assessment of their proposed scheme. The Bill also requires that a summary of the assessment of the proposed franchising scheme should be included in the consultation document itself, with the aim of ensuring that the consultation document contains sufficient information for the lay person to consider, without necessarily having to refer to the full assessment. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that these proposals are sensible and that the Bill as drafted already achieves her aims.
Amendment 53 would require franchising authorities to publish all the responses to their consultation on their proposed franchising scheme. I agree that it is important for those reading the response to the consultation to be informed of the views that have been expressed in responses to that consultation. I fully expect any authority to set out in its response to the consultation the views expressed by those consulted, subject to any disclosure issues, and the authority’s response to those views.
However, I do not want to be too prescriptive about how the authority should respond to the consultation and the exact form the response should take. For example, the authority may receive many responses on the same issue and may choose to summarise those responses and list the number of responses received. Again, that is common practice in local government. But I will consider how best to ensure that franchising authorities set out a summary of the responses they receive to their consultation, and hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness in this respect.
Government Amendment 50 removes the requirement for the franchising consultation document to include a description of how it is proposed persons are to be invited to tender for the provision of services. The Government believe that it is proper to remove this reference as the Bill does not make provisions anywhere else as to how the procurement process will work. This will be a decision of the authorities involved, in the context of procurement law, and guidance will be provided on procurement approaches.
Finally, Amendment 49, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would require franchising authorities to have an auditor reassess their proposed franchising scheme if it is modified following consultation. I sympathise with the aims of this amendment, and agree it is vital that franchising authorities have the assurance of an auditor in relation to certain aspects of their assessment. We have already spoken about the audit function at length today so I do not want to go into further detail. I have agreed to sit down with noble Lords to discuss this further.
The section of the Bill to which the noble Baroness refers ensures that authorities are able to take account of the views expressed in the consultation and modify their franchising scheme appropriately. I also expect authorities to use their good sense and judgment. If the consultation unearths new data or causes the authority to radically rethink its approach, then of course I would expect the authority to take a view on whether it should choose to seek the auditor’s opinion on the new data or the revised analysis, and whether it should consult again on the revised scheme. I do not, however, want to force authorities to go through these processes again when a franchising scheme is modified. It may be that an authority makes a small tweak to its proposed scheme which does not materially affect it, when it would seem unreasonable for the authority to have another assessment by the auditor.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I congratulate the Department for Transport on being so forthcoming on this group of amendments, both mine and those of other noble Lords. In opposition and in government I have found previous manifestations of the Department for Transport to be slightly more resistant to the good sense of amendments put forward in this House. I am glad that a culture change seems to have taken place, epitomised in the Minister. Of course, the Bill does have a further, Report stage, when I certainly hope we will have amendments reflecting at least some of the positions taken in this group. The noble Lord agreed the other night on the one part of my noble friend’s amendment he did not refer to—on trade unions and employee representatives. He has already committed on that front so I hope that, before Report, we will see many of the principles embodied in the amendments in this group in government amendments. If not, I shall be disappointed but at the moment I am feeling pretty pleased with the department.
My point about Transport Focus being referred to in the Bill is an important and newish one, and I am very glad that the Minister responded positively to it. I thank him and the department—keep up the good work. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to a group of amendments to Clause 4 and Schedule 2. Amendments 54 to 64 and Amendment 75 relate to the period which must expire before services can be provided under local service contracts. The Bill as introduced provides that at least six months must expire between a contract being awarded and provision of the relevant service, with the aim of providing a suitable period of transition for bus operators. These amendments do not change the policy but merely tidy up the Bill to ensure that this provision is clear.
Amendment 65 makes it clear that where a franchising scheme is varied to add an area which relates to another local authority, that authority must play an active part in the variation processes. This corrects the drafting of the Bill but does not change the policy intention. It has always been the Government’s intention that authorities that will have a franchising scheme covering the whole or part of their combined area should play a part in making or varying the scheme.
Amendment 76 amends the Local Transport Act 2008 to remove provisions relating to quality contract schemes for areas in England which were inserted into the Transport Act 2000. My noble friend Lord Ahmad wrote to noble Lords on 16 June providing notice of the government amendments he would be bringing forward in Committee. That note provides a fuller explanation of the precise changes to the Bill. My noble friend and I are of course happy to discuss these amendments further with colleagues if there are any concerns. I beg to move Amendment 54.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I have no problem with the amendment but I want some further clarification. As I said in our previous discussion on our first day in Committee, we have a whole raft of government amendments and I do not understand why this issue was not sorted out before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House. Yes, the amendment adds the word “minimum”—Amendment 55 is similar—but these are tidying-up amendments and we are at the start of the Bill, not the end. It has been nowhere other than with the department and in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord listens to what all noble Lords say in this House, but it seems that a bit more work should have been done with Ministers before the Bill ever appeared here. Why we are getting these Bills so early, and why was this issue not sorted out before the Bill arrived here?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is a very reasonable comment. My noble friend Lord Ahmad was asked a similar question during consideration of a previous amendment, and I recall his answer. I will give the same answer, which I hope will be accepted: this Bill has been work in progress. A lot of the time, Bills are not absolutely perfect when they are presented. I will be quite open and honest in saying that it is simply a tidying-up process. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept that it is a tidying-up exercise, but my point is that I am surprised that this could not have been sorted out in advance, given that, as we have heard, this Bill has been a long time coming and in preparation in the department. These are not major issues that have been found during our debates: it is just a question of missing words, for example. I could go through the whole raft of government amendments—none is anything major. So I do not understand why we are finding within a matter of days that odd words and phrases that should have been included in the first place are missing from a Bill that, we are told, has been months in preparation, and was due last year.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not sure that my follow-up is going to give any further clarity. I simply point out that the Bill as introduced was not sufficiently clear on these points, and these amendments help to bring clarity. It is more fine-tuning and tweaking than anything particularly major.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That is fine. I will not pursue the point further, but for the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Bill was not sufficiently clear, when it has been at least months in preparation, is not the best way to introduce legislation. I will leave it there.
“(3A) A scheme may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”
“(4A) If the franchising scheme relates to an area to which a relevant scheme or plan also relates, the franchising scheme must include—(a) in a case where the relevant scheme or plan relates only to the area to which the franchising scheme relates or a part of that area, provision revoking the relevant scheme or plan, or(b) in any other case, provision varying the relevant scheme or plan so that it ceases to relate to any part of the area to which the franchising scheme relates.(4B) A franchising scheme may not otherwise vary a relevant scheme or plan.(4C) In subsections (4A) and (4B)—“relevant plan” means an enhanced partnership plan, and “relevant scheme” means an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”
“(4D) If provision is made under subsection (4A)(b) to vary an enhanced partnership plan or scheme so that it ceases to relate to an area, the local transport authority or authorities to whose area or combined area the plan or, in the case of a scheme, the related plan continues to relate may vary the plan or, as the case may be, the scheme in such manner as they consider appropriate in consequence of the provision made under subsection (4A)(b).(4E) Section 138K(3) applies, and section 138K(4), (5) and (8) do not apply, to a variation under subsection (4D).”
“(8) The scheme must specify whether consideration has been given to the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of the scheme, in accordance with the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendments 58A and 99ZA call upon commissioners of bus services under franchise, and those developing enhanced partnership schemes, to apply the principles of the social value Act 2012 in specifying the service required.
The social value Act, brought in by this Government, recognises that many public services can have a wider role than a simple cost-benefit analysis would identify. It requires those procuring services to consider the economic, social and environmental benefits of each bid. It allows local authorities to think about public services in a more coherent way with wider benefits and encourages those bidding for contracts to be more imaginative about the community benefits their service could bring. Often this can result in better-designed services, with other benefits and efficiencies.
In the case of bus services, it could include, for example, a commitment to train and employ a number of long-term unemployed people to work on a contract. It could include a number of apprenticeships and work experience places for young people. It could include a commitment to support an existing community bus service—perhaps with some shared facilities. It could include an environmental plan with targets for green energy and reduced CO2.
These are just examples, but the point of social value is to encourage providers to commit to their own added-value measures without costing any more money. It is essentially supplier neutral, in that it can apply to all operators, whether commercial, social enterprise or municipal. It allows local authorities to be as specific as they choose—either specifying the expected wider benefits at the outset of the bidding scheme or encouraging bids to offer up more creative service solutions at a later stage of the process.
Implementing the social value Act would appear to be an excellent tool for achieving many of the community benefits which we have been seeking in other amendments to the Bill so far. I am sure the Minister is aware that the operation of the social value Act was reviewed last year by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He concluded that, where it was used effectively, it resulted in commissioners being much more innovative and delivering much more responsive public services. However, the noble Lord also concluded that the opportunities and advantages were simply not widely enough understood and therefore take-up of the model was low.
This is the Minister’s opportunity to put this matter right by embracing this model as it applies to bus services in the future and putting social value at the heart of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I am very pleased to see that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. I raised the question of the social value Act in a group of amendments when the Committee met last week. In doing so, I was trying to get at the point that the noble Baroness has made, which is really about extending the ambition of the Bill in terms of understanding the broader context, whether it is environmental or social. Because the inspiration of using the social value Act only came to me very late in the day, when it was too late to table an amendment, I raised it in debate rather than tabling an amendment. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness has rather more ingenuity than I have and has found another place in which to put it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support this amendment, and will also speak to the others in the group—Amendments 58B, 99ZA and 99B. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, hit the nail on the head when she talked about extended ambitions, and my noble friend Lady Jones gave a really inspirational description of what one might be looking for. All these amendments basically cover the same thing, which is to do with creativity. When people are looking at whether it is right to have a franchise, partnerships or whatever, I hope that the Government will, through these amendments or something similar, realise the benefits from bidders having more freedom to be creative—whether in terms of different types of bus, different types of service, frequency and timetables, fitting in with other services such as railways or opening times for hospitals and doctors’ surgeries, and things like that.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that these are sensible and valuable amendments for the Committee to consider. However, they are “Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List”. That means that they must have been tabled on Friday, which means that there is no time for officials to consider a response for the Minister and no time for the Minister to consider the advice of officials. It is a little bit rich for the Opposition Front Bench to tease the Ministers for tabling their late government amendments when it tabled its amendments on Friday.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The point I was making was the government amendments that were tabled seemed to be making little drafting corrections, inserting odd words. For a Bill that has been in the planning for nearly a year, that seems to me to be remiss.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, late or not, one has to look at the potential and the value of the particular amendment. I am greatly cheered by this amendment. It seems to me that we are in danger of totally losing sight of the ideal of community and the rest. A well co-ordinated, integrated bus service can play a tremendous part in furthering community activity. We just compound the problem of our individualistic society in which community is breaking down because people resort to their cars, go and do their shopping, go back home and watch the television, put on their computer or whatever it is. The fact is that, if we are to have a life worth living, we have got to have community. The bus can potentially be central to that community. I applaud the amendment.
Lord Bradley
My Lords, very briefly, I also strongly support these amendments—late or not. We hear under the devolution deal a lot about the integration of health and social care and the integration of physical and mental health. Part of that is the integration of the transport system to enable people, particularly in the conurbations and city of Manchester—a poor and often elderly population who rely exclusively on public transport. We are developing a very effective integrated public transport system—buses, light rail, heavy rail—but we need to ensure that it benefits all the communities across Greater Manchester. This amendment enables that consideration effectively to be brought to the table to ensure that we have the best services possible to meet the real needs of local people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, just to pick up on a couple of points, whenever you see something that can be improved, at whatever time, improve it. It is as simple as that, and better early than late, as long as time lines are met. We have heard about the inspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Indeed, this issue came up during the previous discussion. I am not sure whether the noble Baronesses received my letter in that respect—
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
Yes, I received a letter on the questions about rural public transport, which I raised at Second Reading, and a positive response on this issue. I did not mention it because I thought I would leave the noble Lord to take the glory.
Lord Berkeley
I received a lovely letter from the Minister, but only this morning.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As long as it was lovely, that is the important point to bear in mind. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling their amendments, and acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for bringing this issue to the fore. The amendments aim to ensure that authorities think about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of establishing a franchising or enhanced partnership scheme and remind authorities of their obligations relating to educational and socially necessary bus services.
Amendments 58A and 99ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, refer to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, mentioned in a previous Committee debate. As I have already indicated, and as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, I have written to her on this matter. My understanding is that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires authorities which commission certain public services to think about matters relating to securing wider social, economic and environmental benefits in the context of procurement.
I believe that it would be useful to use the guidance that will accompany the Bus Services Bill to remind local authorities of the duty that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 places on them in certain circumstances and to give some guidance on the approach to be taken in relation to procurement activities not covered by the Act. I assure noble Lords that, on the contribution of the noble Baroness, I immediately set the ball in motion. Work is in hand in the Department for Transport to consider how best we achieve this and it is getting some accolades. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his place, but it is becoming a fast favourite of the noble Lord.
I also agree that any authority looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme should think carefully about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits that such a scheme could bring. The Bill includes requirements for authorities looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership to think about whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the achievement of relevant policies and to consider the impacts of such a scheme. I hope this has reassured noble Lords that the social, environmental and economic issues will be considered as schemes are developed and that references will be made quite specifically in the guidance that accompanies the Bill to ensure authorities are aware of their obligations under the Public Services (Social Values) Act 2012.
Amendments 58B and 99B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, relate to educational and socially necessary services. Authorities have certain duties to consider whether to provide socially necessary services, and they also have certain duties with respect to providing home-to-school transport. I agree entirely that authorities should consider these obligations as they develop franchising or enhanced partnership schemes as co-ordinated commissioning of public transport for the whole area can lead to real efficiencies. This is one of the core principles of total transport, and I support it wholeheartedly.
The obligations on local authorities with respect to socially necessary and home-to-school services remain in place regardless of whether franchising, enhanced partnerships, or any other model is employed and I do not think it is necessary to restate these requirements in the Bill. I do however recognise that we can continue to do more to ensure that authorities are reminded of their obligations through the guidance that I have mentioned already.
The other issue raised by the noble Lord’s amendment is that of an authority subsidising certain services which would not otherwise be provided. Authorities already have the ability to do this, and the Bill does not change that. I fully expect that authorities will subsidise certain services in a franchised model for example and confirm that this will be possible under any of the new models proposed through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about ferries. There is nothing to stop local authorities working with local operators to integrate ferries locally. Merseytravel’s multi-operator ticket already does this. It is unlikely that including a reference to ferries and the 2012 Act in this Bill would fall within the permitted scope, but I will consider the point and will write to the noble Lord if I am not correct in this respect. I hope that the assurances I have given have gone some way to addressing the issues that noble Lords have raised and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I know the Minister is trying to be very helpful today and we are very grateful to him for that. He has asked my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch to withdraw the amendment. Is he saying that he is going to go away and think about this? I am not clear whether he said that. The amendment that my noble friend moved is important. I am not quite clear what he is saying in asking her to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In the interests of time, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not mind I shall share the letter I wrote to her with all noble Lords. That should have been done as a matter of course. It will perhaps highlight the Government’s position, but to be clear, the Government are considering the provisions raised in the amendment, but within the guidance which will be in support of the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think I got the letter, but I am afraid I not have actually read it yet. It arrived this morning in my email inbox. I just wanted to be clear what the Minister meant.
Lord Berkeley
On that point, has the Minister told the Committee when the guidance might be published in draft form? Will we be able to see it before Report, for example?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Apparently I did not get the letter after all. I certainly got a letter from the Minister this morning, but it may not be the one that we are talking about.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have reflected on before, while we are in the holy month of Ramadan, noble Lords should be thankful that they are not getting emails from me because they would be arriving at about 3 am. If I am writing them, I hope noble Lords are reading them. I will of course confirm when the guidance is due to be published, but I hope I have provided clarity and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I think the Minister for his response and I thank all noble Lords who contributed. For a little while there, we had a sense of what is possible in the Bill. If we were not careful, we were going to get bogged down in the technical detail of franchising but, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, it is about building community and using the real advantages that you get with a Bill like this that comes along only once every 20 or 30 years. This is a chance to build in that ambition and to have some excitement about the possibility that bus services can provide in terms of community assets. We have had a glimmer today of some of those opportunities.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley showed not only that you can have some innovation and excitement but that you can actually save money by pooling all those services. It seems foolish that social services pay for one set of transport while education pays for another, and no one ever thinks that they could pull that together into one complicated yet coherent grid.
I am pleased that the Minister spoke positively in response. I am slightly sad that he thinks this should go in guidance. I know we debate this over and over again, but guidance does not have the same weight as legislation. From our perspective, the social value Act is worth specifying in the Bill because it brings very specific requirements. I look forward to receiving the letter, when it eventually comes to us, but we need to explore how much more we can enforce this within the Bill rather than leaving it within the guidance. Perhaps that can be part of the wider discussion for us to have outside. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:00 - Division on Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s amendment. - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 91 - Amendment disagreed.
Lord Callanan
That this House regrets that the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 place restrictions on product choice and advertising of vaping devices, were devised before evidence had accumulated that vaping was enabling many people to quit smoking, run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and are so severe that they could force vapers back to smoking and create a black market with harmful products; and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw them (SI 2016/507).
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the issue of vaping and the tobacco products directive gives me a curious sense of déjà vu. Before I arrived in this House I was a Member of the European Parliament where, alongside a number of other MEPs from many varied parties and nations, I also opposed these restrictions. We made some improvements to the text but we were unsuccessful in our aim of removing vaping devices from the directive altogether. I never imagined at the time that I would have an opportunity to return to the issue in this House.
Eight weeks ago a number of us gathered in the Moses Room to debate a Motion on this subject tabled by my noble friend Lord Ridley. Everyone who spoke in that debate—including, to his enormous credit, the Minister—expressed considerable concern about these regulations. Since it was self-evident that neither the Government nor the Opposition thought this was a helpful package of measures, I put down a Motion for a Prayer for annulment. No one likes these rules, so why implement them? I quickly realised that I was straying into controversial constitutional territory—although, given recent events, a mere fatal Motion in this House now looks like a rather inconsequential intrusion on the constitutional landscape of this country.
E-cigarettes are by far the most popular gateway out of tobacco for our nation’s 9 million smokers. Some 100,000 of us die every year from smoking; that is a Hillsborough every eight hours. As my scientifically literate friends will no doubt explain, it is the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. There is now emphatic evidence of how much safer vaping is than smoking. Numerous studies have shown that vaping is 95% safer than tobacco smoking. In the UK, 2.8 million people have either stopped smoking or reduced their smoking significantly as a direct result of vaping. Yet, given all that evidence, these regulations will reduce by 95% the number of products on the market, ban the stronger liquids favoured by many vapers and ban virtually all forms of advertising to prevent suppliers from recruiting new smokers to the vaping cause.
So how have we ended up with this crazy state of affairs? The Department of Health prides itself on being a “global thought leader” on tobacco, to use its words, and while the department has played a strong game on pure control measures, by which I mean the ban on public place smoking and the taxation of smoking, it has been little short of appalling on its approach to tobacco harm reduction, by which I refer to the development of much less harmful substitutes to smoking.
There are two particularly egregious failures on the policy treatment of these smoking substitutes. The first occurred when the Minister of Public Health was one Edwina Currie. In 1988, in a moment of unhelpful decisiveness, she pushed through a ban on a product commonly called snus. This is an oral tobacco product which is a bit like sucking a teabag of tobacco leaves, and if noble Lords have not tried it I would not recommend it. Four years later, the EU decided also to adopt a ban. The only exception to the ban is Sweden, which negotiated an opt-out in the run-up to its referendum on joining the EU. Being permitted in one EU country but banned everywhere else provides us with a perfect case study of harm reduction measures. Because of the widespread use of snus, Sweden has by far the lowest smoking rate in Europe: 11% compared with the EU average of 26%. All the major forms of cancer are far lower, with the lowest disease rates correlating with the highest use of snus. The European Journal of Epidemiology has estimated that 200,000 lives could be saved every year if the EU had the same male smoking prevalence as Sweden, yet the product is banned because of us.
A second major blunder has been of course with the much more modern substitute of e-cigarettes. Here the Department of Health’s medicines agency, the MHRA, tried to ban them outright in 2010. It failed, so it tried again in 2013, declaring that they should all be medicines. Despite its opposition to commercially regulated e-cigarettes, the MHRA has failed to get even one medicinally regulated e-cigarette on to the market during the past three years, whereas the commercial market has so far managed to produce about 25,000 product varieties.
The 2.8 million vapers using those products are not smoking literally billions of deadly tobacco cigarettes. Displaying a marvellous gift for understatement, the Royal College of Physicians this year declared that the MHRA’s policy had been “counterproductive to public health”. However, in 2013 the Department of Health lobbied vigorously in Brussels for a Europe-wide policy of compulsory medicinal regulation. While I and my former colleagues in the European Parliament were able to ameliorate the policy, there was only a limited amount of change we could get through, hence the very flawed package that we are reviewing today. Economic modelling suggests that just one of the measures in it, the ban on stronger e-cigarettes, will cost more than 100,000 lives a year around the EU.
Not only was it a disastrous policy, it was also a disastrous policy process. In 2013 the then Public Health Minister, Anna Soubry, appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee to explain why she had decided to use a scrutiny override without informing other departments when she voted for this directive on behalf of the UK Government. The Minister told the committee in her evidence that e-cigarettes had in fact been excluded from the directive. They had not. If noble Lords can cope with viewing that cringe-making performance, it is, as they might imagine, widely available on YouTube. That level of competence was not just available at ministerial level. The Chief Medical Officer declared to the New Scientist a few months later that e-cigarettes were one of the three biggest health threats to the UK, along with obesity and binge drinking. It would be funny if the issue were not so serious.
What are the lessons of these two major policy errors by the Department of Health, which are costing us thousands of lives in this country? The first is the need for strong political leadership in the department. It is no good for the Secretary of State, who has presided over this latest debacle, to keep his head down. The new Prime Minister needs to recruit a real talent for the role of Minister for Public Health.
The other issue that needs to be looked at very hard is the role of the MHRA in policy development. It is a fact that this agency derives most of its revenue from the pharmaceutical industry. It is also clear that it has lobbied very hard for a land grab on e-cigarettes, yet has signally failed to deliver with any product available for consumers. Ministers should be extremely cautious about listening to its lobbying.
Let me give the House my favourite example of the way in which the MHRA is implementing the regulations. Many suppliers sell refillable e-cigarettes that are sold empty, ready for consumers to use their own e-liquid in them. A number of retailers told me that the MHRA had instructed them to affix warning labels to these products saying that they contain nicotine, which of course they do not at the point of sale. I assumed my correspondents were exaggerating and had got their facts wrong, so I obtained a copy of the official MHRA guidance. Let me quote from the section headed “Labelling your Product”:
“If your product does not contain nicotine when sold, but can be used to contain nicotine, the warning statement ‘This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance’ must still be applied”.
It helpfully goes on to state:
“To provide clarity for consumers, we recommend adjacent wording (not part of the boxed warning) to the effect that the warning applies when the product is used as designed and … filled with nicotine-containing liquid”.
In other words, first, they must falsely label the product as containing nicotine when it does not, and then they must clarify for consumers that the product will contain nicotine as soon as they put some nicotine liquid in it. I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the MHRA, but in my view passing such regulations brings the law into serious disrepute.
Bizarrely, while the department is doing its best to restrict sales of one tobacco substitute, which costs taxpayers nothing, we are heavily subsidising nicotine-containing gum and patches, because they are given out on prescription. The difference, of course, is that these products are made by the big pharmaceutical companies, which appear to have the Department of Health as a sort of wholly owned subsidiary. These companies stand to lose large amounts of money as sales of their nicotine substitutes have collapsed with the advent of e-cigarettes. The pharmaceutical industry uses its massive spending power to manipulate the harm reduction debate. It funds conferences, so-called medical charities and quasi-academic research to justify its position. If the Department of Health is to improve its performance on tobacco harm reduction, it needs to be just as cautious in its dealings with pharmaceutical companies and their allies as it is with the tobacco industry.
This poverty of performance by the Department of Health led my noble friend Lord Prior to confess to the House that, if it had not been for the moderating effect of Brussels, the new regulations could have been “far worse”. This is a very difficult issue for a Brexiteer such as me to confront. Certainly, and somewhat unjustly, the EU has been on the receiving end of anger over the e-cigarette regulations. One poll found a very large majority for Brexit among vapers, who said they were angry with the regulations because of what they perceived to be the excessive influence of the big companies. Some of my noble friends might even wonder whether Anna Soubry in her role as Minister for Public Health was a sleeper agent for Vote Leave.
Where should policy go now? Although contrition from the Minister would be welcome, the key is to take concrete steps to improve the situation. Critical issues to which I ask the Minister to respond this evening include measures to rebuild consumer confidence in e-cigarettes. Smokers who do not currently vape perceive e-cigarettes to be much more dangerous than scientists say they in fact are. We need serious action, not just a few warm words. We also need a clear plan to put into production medicinal supplies of the stronger e-liquid used by a quarter of a million vapers, including my noble friend Lord Cathcart. It would be unconscionable if the MHRA were to fail on this once again. The need is simple: several suppliers of base e-liquid should be approved by the MHRA before Christmas.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out “and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to withdraw them” and insert “and further regrets that the Regulations are not to be accompanied by a public information campaign to reassure smokers that electronic cigarettes are less harmful than normal smoking; that smoking cessation services are being cut back at the same time as the Regulations are being introduced; and that the Regulations are due for implementation before the Government have published their tobacco strategy.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for allowing us to have a further go, since we have already debated it in Grand Committee. I am sure the Minister is looking forward to winding up at the end of the debate.
I should declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for Public Health, which has pronounced on e-cigarettes. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who was a mite critical of the organisation, that as a Minister I established the MHRA, and I am glad to see that it is doing so well in relation to this matter. I liked his rousing endorsement of the record of Ministers in his Government on this matter. When he mentioned Edwina Currie, I thought he was going to talk about eggs—he will recall that she had a bit of a downer on egg production—but she did not quite take it to Europe in the way he suggested.
I have moved an amendment to the Motion because, although I share some of the noble Lord’s concerns about the regulations in relation to e-cigarettes, my problem with his Motion is that he calls on the Government to withdraw the entire set of regulations. The regulations cover e-cigarettes, but there are also a lot of useful measures that will discourage smoking in general. That is why I cannot support the noble Lord’s Motion, although I share some of his concerns.
It is pretty clear from the work of my own organisation, the Royal Society for Public Health, as well as from that of the Royal College of Physicians and other health bodies, that e-cigarettes can actually be an incredibly useful tool in encouraging smokers to give up smoking. The core of people who have already taken advantage of e-cigarettes are often those whom traditional public health measures have not touched. That is why I am particularly concerned about whether the regulations will have a negative impact on that group.
Equally, I know that noble Lords will quote the report of the Royal College of Physicians. It is worth reading because it says that there is a case for some regulatory provisions, and the Minister will no doubt refer to that. However, my main concern is the point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that RSPH research has revealed that 90% of the public have the impression that e-cigarettes are at least as harmful as tobacco. That is not helped by the fact that some organisations have notices prohibiting not just smoking, but vaping. Because some elements in the public health field—how can I put this kindly?—perhaps got the wrong end of the stick when e-cigarettes were first produced, they have given the impression that e-cigarettes are much more harmful than they are. The problem with the regulations is that they colour the context, and the public may be confused about the positive effect that e-cigarettes can have. Therefore my amendment to the Motion—I do not intend to delay the House very long—seeks to draw attention to some of the concerns that we have about the regulations on e-cigarettes, although we wish to see the regulations introduced as a package.
However, I also draw attention to the other problem that we have with the Government’s current policies on smoking cessation, which is that budgets, particularly those which go to local authorities, have been drastically reduced, and we have seen a drastic reduction in smoking cessation services. As an example, the amount of money that has been spent on smoking cessation media campaigns has been drastically reduced. Some £24.91 million was spent in 2009-10, which has become £5.3 million in 2016. Of course, I understand budgetary constraints, but I would also say that because of the risk of confusion by the public over e-cigarettes, some Department of Health-sponsored public campaigning is necessary to get the right facts across to the public.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord said that he could not support my noble friend’s Motion because it referred to all the regulations. Why, then, does his amendment not seek simply to delete Parts 6, 7 and 8 of the regulations? Which parts of the regulations as they stand does he not agree with?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I thought that my amendment elegantly dealt with the broad principles rather than going into technical details such as which paragraph I do not like. I am disappointed by the noble Lord’s intervention on that matter. No doubt he is stunned by his noble friend’s remarks that in fact the EU came to the rescue of the UK. We know that if the EU had not legislated in this area, the Government would certainly have brought in legislation much earlier which would have been much more draconian than the regulations that are before the House tonight.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
No doubt we will of course be able to see in the future what a Government would do in the event of Brexit. However, to be fair, at the moment we are debating these regulations, which have come into force. I have attempted to signal some of my concerns that this would have a negative impact on the use of e-cigarettes without detracting from the overall regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I was most interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and in particular his gallant admiration of his colleague the Public Health Minister, who in my experience has usually been quite on top of her brief. I venture to warn the noble Lord never to make a mistake in your Lordships’ House, because I suspect that Facebook might be watching. I was also very moved by his defence—in fact it was quite tear-jerking—of the discrimination against the multi billion pound tobacco companies compared with the multi billion pound pharmaceutical companies.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about the desirability of encouraging smokers to give up smoking. There is no doubt that vaping devices have an enormous role to play in this campaign, as many former smokers have managed to give up through using them. However, the regulations are not just about vaping devices but include, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, standardised packaging regulations, which are essential for ensuring the effectiveness of the health information and warnings on cigarette packs. They also help to enable the UK to meet its obligations as a party to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control with respect to tobacco packaging and labelling, and product regulation.
There is no doubt that vaping devices have already been an enormous benefit to public health—although I fail to see why we need 25,000 different kinds of them—and have saved the NHS a great deal of money. When the directive to which these regulations give effect was first discussed in the European Parliament, as has been said, the Liberal group, which contained at that time several Liberal Democrat MEPs, worked hard to ensure that while the regulation of tobacco packaging continued to be robust, the regulations about vaping devices would be proportionate. Given that the original proposals followed the World Health Organization’s recommendation that these products should be licensed as medicines and would therefore be extremely tightly regulated, the Liberal group had some considerable success in making them a bit more proportionate, resulting in the directive as it is now. However, one of the things on which the group was not successful was the prohibition of commercial advertising of vaping products. This is the major item contained in my regret Motion.
According to the Royal College of Physicians, vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking and half of all smokers die from diseases that result from smoking. That is why it is vital that smokers can get information about these products and their benefits, and I regret very much that publicity about them is to be restricted. However, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his call for a new public information programme to inform smokers of the benefits of switching to e-cigarettes. It may surprise your Lordships to know that half of smokers are not aware of how much safer for their health e-cigarettes are. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in regretting the cutting of smoking cessation services—one of the many results of the public health funding cuts which I have condemned many times in your Lordships’ House.
I suppose that one of the reasons for the advertising ban is the fear that advertising will attract young people to vaping even though they have never smoked. This is of course undesirable, because nicotine vapour is very addictive, and I would not want to see children being attracted to spending their money on something so addictive and with no known benefits to their health. Indeed, more research needs to be done on the effect of nicotine inhalation combined with the various flavouring chemicals used in e-cigarettes. Some evidence is emerging that if inhaled, some of the flavourings may be harmful to the delicate cells lining the lungs. But although e-cigarettes have been around for years, there is no significant evidence that they are attracting non-smokers to take them up. On the other hand, we now have a large and growing cohort of people who use vaping devices, which is why I call on the Government to fund research on the benefits and—if there are any—the dangers of vaping.
Everything should be done to encourage smokers to switch to vaping, which is why my Motion also regrets that little attention has been paid to those vapers who claim that they need the higher-end concentration of nicotine products, which would be banned by some of these regulations, to help them give up smoking. Only time will tell whether that is the case. That is why the Government need to monitor and report on the implementation of these regulations and their impact on public health. While the further regulations on cigarette packaging are likely to be good, those on vaping devices could turn out to be bad.
Therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I do not support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that the Government should withdraw these regulations—because we need the ones that affect tobacco. However, although I sincerely regret the Government’s current intention to withdraw from the European Union in the fullness of time and hope very much that it never happens, the current situation does give us an opportunity. As things stand we are not able to keep the good tobacco regulations and ditch the undesirable ones, but the forthcoming negotiations do give us an opportunity to do a bit of cherry picking.
I therefore ask the Minister, what is the Government’s intention with regard to these and other EU regulations? Do they plan to adopt them all and then repeal the ones they do not like? If so, I call on the Government to consider carefully any deterrent to smokers switching that might result from these regulations, and to repeal the ones that deter them as soon as possible. Of course, that would require careful monitoring and publication of the results. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that the Government plan to repeal all EU regulations and then adopt new UK ones, I call on them to replace only the ones that affect tobacco packaging and marketing to further decrease the public health burden of tobacco and the terrible effects on the health of individuals and the NHS.
Given that all these regret Motions are non-fatal, I do not intend to vote on mine, although if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, votes on his, my colleagues and I will vote against it. We are where we are. What matters now is what the Government do in future. Lives depend on it.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, in February 1996 I found myself under the surgeon’s knife, on the slab at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, having a tumour on my lung removed, an operation in which I lost half of my lung capacity, making it impossible for me now to walk upstairs or walk any great distance. The reason for all this was that for 25 years I smoked cigarettes.
I only wish that these new inventions that now exist had been available to me. I tried hypnosis on Harley Street. I tried patches of different forms. I could not quite do cold turkey but I tried everything possible to stop smoking, and it was utterly impossible. Indeed, I had my last cigarette the night before they took out the tumour. That is how addicted I was to tobacco.
With that in mind and knowing of my particular difficulties, a gentleman in the north of England wrote me a letter. I want to bring the salient points of his correspondence to the attention of the House, because he manufactures the product in question. He says:
“we … have 3 Shops and 6 employees … we are manufacturing the eliquid that is used in the devices. We have sold thousands of these devices locally”—
that is to say, in the north of England—
“and helped so many people make the switch. This has been such a rewarding and positive part of the business for myself and staff who still love helping people to remove a lifelong use of tobacco and improve their health”.
If those listening to my contribution this evening can hear my heavy breathing, that is the result of the operation that took place as a result of smoking all those years ago.
In his letter, that gentleman says that the two millilitre tank size restriction is pointless and restricts future product development. I wonder if the Minister might deal with these matters in the wind-up, if he is able, because some of this is technical. Perhaps he could write to me with a greater explanation.
The manufacturer says that limiting nicotine strength to 20 milligrams per millilitre is counterproductive as it removes the 24 milligram strength which is essential to lots of new switchers. He says the restriction of bottle size to 10 millilitres is pointless as much more hazardous household products are available in much bigger sizes. The popular size for cost-effectiveness and suitability is 30 millilitres, and bottles of 100 millilitres are available too. People can average, he tells me, 10 millilitres per day liquid usage, so a restriction on supply there is again counterproductive.
There will be a restrictive cost in introducing new products to the market. Remember, this man is a manufacturer. He says he will be classed as a producer when importing goods from outside the European Union, with MHRA notification and testing costs implications to bear. Therefore, a lot of suitable and effective products will be removed from the market. He says:
“We are looking at having to find the Cost of Emissions & Toxicology data requested per flavour SKU for our own manufactured liquids. This is estimated at £5,000 each per flavour, of which we have 20, plus Notification & data submissions for any variables of strength would also be required. Our business model could be changed from a manufacturer to a retailer with loss of jobs & future investment stifled if we are unable to bear the cost of this directive’s implementation. We can already see a burgeoning black market which the TPD (Article 20) will encourage. Individuals are now making eliquid at home & selling to whoever they please, with no testing done or age restrictions adhered to or tax paid”.
I would have thought that that is particularly relevant in this debate. He says:
“This is not a tobacco product and should not be classed as such. Doing so is disingenuous & misleading with implications for people’s health. We hope you can recognize the huge potential to save millions of lives & the health revolution this presents … to governments the world over”.
I hope the Government will find a way of re-examining these regulations. Potentially, we could do a lot of damage to a lot of people.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, perhaps particularly that until last month I was chair of the board of science for the British Medical Association.
The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, states that the regulations,
“run counter to advice from the Royal College of Physicians to promote vaping and … that they could force vapers back to smoking”.
Noble Lords should be aware that the Royal College of Physicians does not support the Motion. The Royal College of Physicians, together with ASH, the BMA, Cancer UK, the Royal Society for Public Health and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies all support the TRPR, including the regulation of e-cigarettes. Yes, medical organisations such as the RCP and the BMA recognise the substantial harm reduction offered by e-cigarettes, but they also conclude that they are not harmless—both identify the need for regulation of e-cigarettes to protect the public.
Noble Lords may have received some very inaccurate briefings, making some assertions that are just not substantiated by the evidence. For example, “nicotine itself is not dangerous”. It is just not true. It is both toxic and addictive. Although vaping using electronic cigarettes is much less harmful than smoking, nicotine is toxic. It is also not helpful if you are going to have surgery. It is not helpful when it is swallowed. It is harmful when it is in contact with the skin, and its addictive properties, for me as a psychiatrist, are particularly of concern.
It is just not true that the limits of 20 milligrams per millilitre will force many vapers to return to smoking. Use of high-strength nicotine is not the norm, and vapers who need more nicotine can get it by vaping more frequently.
It is not true that the regulations mean no advertising. Substantial forms of advertising would still be permitted under the regulations—at point of sale, on billboards, on buses, as inserts in printed media and as product information on websites. Furthermore, the ASH/YouGov results show that more than 90% of smokers are now aware of e-cigarettes, so existing smokers already know about vaping. It is the non-smokers, whom we do not want to become addicted to nicotine, who are not so aware.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can the noble Baroness explain why it is okay to advertise on the side of a bus but not in a newspaper?
Baroness Hollins
I do not have an explanation for the kinds of advertising that have been approved, but some advertising is still permitted. The information that is being put out is that no advertising is allowed.
There are particular concerns for people with serious mental illness, given that about one-third of all tobacco consumption is by people with current mental health problems. I could go into some of the complications of smoking and the relationship between nicotine and some of the psychotropic medications that are used. The Royal College of Psychiatrists states that e-cigarettes,
“seem to be fairly effective in helping smokers stop or control their smoking”,
but it goes on to say:
“Although they seem to be safe, we aren’t yet clear about longer-term health risks”.
Any benefits or disadvantages to public health are not yet well established. This reflects concerns over e-cigarettes’ effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid, the variability of the components of e-cigarette vapour and the absence of the significant health benefit associated with the dual use of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. The BMA strongly believes that a regulatory framework is essential. I hope that noble Lords will agree with the medical experts who have supported these regulations.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far; it has been good-humoured and full of humour. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, talk about the seriousness of this situation.
I and at least two other people whom I see in the Chamber at the moment fought like tigers to make sure that smoking was banned in public places. We did it because all the evidence suggested that it was a terrible scourge on people who were addicted to tobacco and smoking and just could not break the link. From a personal point of view, I come from a family of five, of whom four died prematurely from either smoking or the effects of tobacco. I know of friends who have similarly died and those have not been very pleasant deaths either. I am not saying that vaping will cause that problem, but why do we need it? They say, “Okay, it’s part of a smoking cessation thing”. I really do not believe it; I think that e-cigarettes should be banned totally and more money put into helping smoking cessation programmes. Such programmes have worked, so why not carry on with them?
I should not say this, but I am going to: nobody knows just how manipulative the tobacco industry was during the period when we were fighting it. It was quite disgraceful—I see my fellow in arms, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, looking at me and agreeing. I am concerned that, with our having gone through all this and now reducing the amount of money spent on smoking cessation programmes, we will find in another 20 or 30 years—well, I will not be around—that we are doing it all again and people will be smoking. So I just say: please take care.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to me and the part that a number of us played in making the United Kingdom a leader in attempting to reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking. As your Lordships will recall, it was this House which passed the amendments to the then Children and Families Bill which led to the UK being the first country in Europe to introduce standardised packaging in 2014. Incidentally, it is my understanding that, if the regulations being debated today were annulled, that legislation on standardised packaging would be badly damaged. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, the regulations are an important part of the way in which the United Kingdom should meet its obligations to the international tobacco treaty, one requirement of which is that we take continuing action to cut smoking prevalence through “comprehensive tobacco control” strategies. The regulations include other important measures such as the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes, including menthol, designed to attract young people to start to smoke. There are new reporting obligations on the tobacco industry, and rules on notifying new tobacco products. These provisions are important and should not be lost by way of some attempt to make the climate easier for vaping.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Surely the tobacco industry looked around the world and saw—like Kodak looking at digital photography coming along—a huge threat to it. Of course it is now trying to muscle in on the act, but this is a good thing. If it starts making electronic cigarettes and becoming more profitable, it will give up on other cigarettes. The reason it got into this industry was because it saw it as a threat.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I would be a little more convinced if the tobacco industry took its responsibilities seriously in countries where the restrictions on smoking were not the same as in the western democracies. The attempt to promote, advertise and sponsor tobacco smoking, particularly in the Far East, is utterly deplorable. The industry views the whole tobacco and vaping market in a very cynical way, so I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Viscount.
Viscount Ridley
In South America, vaping is banned altogether. Why? Because the tobacco industry is big and powerful in that part of the world.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
It is very interesting, because in countries which take tobacco cessation seriously, the tobacco industry is switching to vaping, as it knows its traditional market is largely lost. Only last month, in this country, it attempted to undermine public health by trying to overturn the standardised packaging regulations. It cannot be trusted.
Finally, I share my noble friend Lord Hunt’s call for continued funding for stop smoking services, making them accessible and available to all smokers, and for such services to work with electronic cigarettes. It is wrong that these services are being cut back while the regulations are being introduced.
Our aim must be to be as ambitious as the most committed nations are in achieving a tobacco-free society over the next few decades. Over the last 10 years, we have already come a huge distance in changing public attitudes towards smoking, which is now largely seen as a socially unacceptable behaviour. My concern over vaping is that it must not in any way renormalise the smoking habit.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, from my point of view, my noble friend Lord Callanan chose to talk very selectively about the record of the Conservative Party and the coalition Government in relation to tobacco control. I think he should bear in mind that Conservatives—myself, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—worked hard from the Opposition Benches in another place, and succeeded in securing the ban on smoking in public places. When we came into the coalition Government together, we implemented the ban on sales through vending machines and a progressive ban on displays in shops. I also initiated the consultation on standardised packaging, following discussions with Nicola Roxon, who was then Health Minister in Australia, which my successors have taken forward. The product of all that is that we have not only secured continuing reductions in the overall prevalence of smoking—albeit I could wish this rate was faster—but we secured, I think three years ago, recognition that we had among the toughest tobacco-control regimes anywhere in the world. That is right and we should strive to make that the case.
I know it would not be the effect of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, but were it passed it would indicate your Lordships’ desire to withdraw the regulations if they could. That would be an entirely retrograde step. I will not go through all the ways in which the tobacco products directive helps to strengthen the tobacco control regime other than in relation to e-cigarettes, but it certainly does.
I will isolate one important point which has not yet been mentioned. Much of what we have done in recent years, from my point of view and that of my colleagues—Anne Milton when she was Public Health Minister, and I believe it was among Anna Soubry’s and Jane Ellison’s objectives subsequently—was to focus on reducing the initiation of smoking among young people. We have some 200,000 young people a year initiating smoking. That is what we have to bring down. We want to arrive at the point where the initiation of smoking is minimised. As part of that, we have to look frankly and critically at how electronic cigarettes and vaping can contribute to the reduction of smoking, through access to smoking cessation services. It is absolutely right and I do not have any brief against e-cigarettes in that respect. But, to pick up the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, we have to understand what the social and behavioural impacts of large numbers of people continuing to smoke e-cigarettes in the long term look like. I am not sure that promoting it through advertising is necessarily the right way to go.
We should enable smokers to access e-cigarettes and vaping, and do everything we can through the public health budget. Noble Lords will know—I will go into it on another day when more time allows—that my objective in creating a separate public health budget with local authorities was to maximise and protect our preventive activity, not to see it subsequently reduced. I deplore that fact because we were making considerable progress with smoking cessation services, as we should. But we also have to ensure, in addition to the use of e-cigarettes in a way that reduces smoking, that we do not create a new mechanism which might entrench in young people an expectation that they should initiate any kind of smoking, be it through vaping and using e-cigarettes or, even worse, through smoking tobacco. For that reason I agree entirely with many other speakers that it would be undesirable to support my noble friend’s Motion, and I hope that the Minister will agree that we should reject it.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is to be greatly congratulated on his tremendous record of achievement in this area, and his advice this evening should be followed very carefully. I must declare my interest as a former director of Action on Smoking and Health. There is a consensus in the debate that using e-cigarettes is much safer than smoking. Together with other clean nicotine products, they have an important role to play in cutting tobacco consumption and improving public health, but I do not agree with the e-cigarette trade body brief which has been circulated. It claims that nicotine is not itself dangerous. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, pointed out so effectively, we have to recognise that nicotine is a known toxin that is poisonous when swallowed and is also addictive.
I do not want to see e-cigarettes subject to more regulation than is necessary, but I do want to see them subject to all the appropriate regulation necessary to support public health objectives. We know that the best chance of success for people seeking to quit smoking is to use smoking cessation services as well as alternative nicotine products in order to help reduce withdrawal symptoms. The regulatory regime required for e-cigarettes and related products must be one that supports their use by smokers trying to quit. It is also right to discourage their use by children and young people who have never smoked. Both these objectives are supported by the regulations being introduced.
I agree with the many noble Lords who have said that we need a public information campaign to reassure smokers that electronic cigarettes are less harmful than normal smoking but, as the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, points out, there have been major cuts to the media campaigns to persuade smokers to quit. That is very regrettable because such campaigns can be highly cost effective in supporting quitting. We know that alternative nicotine products for smokers have most public benefit when they are used together with expert behavioural support. That is one reason why we need to make sure that such products can be available on prescription for people seeking help to quit tobacco products. Our approach to e-cigarettes, therefore, must be to treat them not as an exciting new social drug or as a cash cow for e-cigarette companies, many of which are owned by the tobacco industry, but as a potentially important means of improving public health and reducing the toll of death and disease caused by smoking.
The regulations under discussion are not perfect, but they include important steps in tobacco control that must not be lost and must be part of a tobacco control strategy that must be properly resourced to produce real public health dividends.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I find these regulations bizarre as far as vaping goes. They defy both logic and the evidence. Brussels believes that vaping could provide a gateway to smoking and that these tough new laws are necessary to protect non-smokers, particularly children, from using e-cigarettes. The evidence does not support that view. The Office for National Statistics has stated:
“E-cigarettes are almost exclusively used by smokers and ex-smokers. Almost none of those who had never smoked cigarettes were e-cigarette users”.
Cancer Research UK found that smokers who vape are 60% more likely to quit than those who use willpower or over-the-counter nicotine replacement products. Its statistics demonstrate that vaping is used almost entirely—99%—by current and former smokers, more than 60% of whom say that the sole reason for vaping is to stop using traditional tobacco. Interestingly, only 0.2% of non-smokers aged under 18 have tried vaping and continued use is negligible. So the evidence does not support Brussels’s reasons for these regulations.
Public Health England has stated:
“There is a need to publicise the current best estimate that using EC is around 95% safer than smoking”.
Professor John Britton, of the Royal College of Physicians, says:
“If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today. It’s a massive potential public health prize”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, first I congratulate my noble friend Lord Callanan on the very excellent case that he put. I shall not proceed by repeating any of the arguments. I have looked at the regulations, but some people who have spoken in the debate clearly have not.
If someone wanted to sabotage a product, add to the costs of producing that product, limit the scope for competition with that product, and drive out of business small producers, it is hard to see how a more effective job could be done than in respect of the regulations that apply to electronic cigarettes. As far as noble Lords who argued that this is all a plot by the tobacco companies are concerned, one way of ensuring that all of this ends up in the hands of large businesses will be by pursuing exactly these regulations—by limiting choice and, of course, by creating a black market, which will be accessed through the internet, as we have seen occur over and over again in respect of medicinal products.
There seems to be no logic in the regulations. We have already touched on why some advertising is allowed but not others. I find it extraordinary that a Government should want to ban advertising when the evidence that we had from ASH—the noble Lord referred to that—states:
“Perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes have grown with only 15% of the public accurately believing in 2016 that electronic cigarettes are a lot less harmful than smoking”.
If most people do not realise the benefits of it, what on earth is the logic of preventing people advertising it? How does the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, explain that she wants a public information campaign? How can we have a public information campaign without advertising the benefits of electronic cigarettes? Therefore, why is she against the advertising of electronic cigarettes? There is no logic in that.
I hope that noble Lords do not mind me mentioning the fact that my son is 37 years old. He has smoked cigarettes since he was 16, to the best of my knowledge, and probably earlier. He smoked very heavily, but three Christmases ago—I should declare an interest—I bought him an electronic cigarette. As a result, he has reduced the levels of nicotine and of all the things that we have tried—blackmail, bullying, nicotine patches, and everything under the sun—it has worked. The figures show that one-third of the 2.8 million adults who are vaping in this country are ex-smokers. The arguments being put for the public health benefits are overwhelming.
It pains me to say this, but this is a classic example of gold-plating of European regulations by the UK health department. The point is that, because the regulations are gold-plated, there is nothing we can do about them. They are EU regulations and we are required to implement them. I wonder what on earth was going on in the Department of Health that made it do this.
When we see something absurd happening, we should ask, “Cui bono?”. Who benefits from this? Certainly the Government benefit from it because people who are continuing to smoke cigarettes will pay a very considerable amount in tax to the Exchequer. I do not know how much a packet of cigarettes costs, as I have never smoked my life, but I am told it is about £9 for 20 cigarettes. People who start vaping will not spend that in a week. Families on low incomes—and many of the people who smoke heavily are among the lowest- income families—will benefit from something which enables them to deal with the addiction that they have to nicotine and remove themselves from it. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the people who are among the poorest in our country who are smokers. The Exchequer benefits—the Treasury benefits—if people are still smoking cigarettes because it gets its tax on the cigarettes, which is very considerable. Of course, the pharmaceutical companies, which sell the nicotine patches, benefit. The tobacco companies benefit because people are not switching away.
So what on earth are the Government doing, promoting the interests of the tobacco companies and the large pharmaceuticals—because that is the effect of this? The detail in the regulations is unbelievable. They even spell out which typeface—Helvetica—appears on the warnings, and whether it should be bold or italic. That is North Korean stuff: it is utterly absurd regulation. We may laugh at it, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, pointed out, it means that small businesses up and down the country will have to comply with these regulations, work out what they mean, change all their literature and everything else, and, as a result, be driven out of business.
We are in a bit of a quandary here, because there is much in these regulations that is quite desirable. When we have left the European Union, we will be in a position where we can hold our Ministers to account, hold votes and actually make these things happen. I had not realised that this is a very clever operation by the Department of Health. This is what you do: you have some absurd regulations, which you know you are not going to get through the House of Commons. So you persuade Brussels to include them in an EU directive; and heigh-ho, they have to sail through both Houses, because there is nothing we can do. We all take part in this pantomime, where we explain all the reasons why they should be changed, knowing full well that there is very little we can do about it until we leave the European Union.
So I congratulate my noble friend on his efforts and hope that, when the Government are free to do so, they will rethink these absurd regulations, which will undoubtedly cost lives. They are a classic example of how big business is able to use Brussels, together with lobbying organisations, to the disadvantage—and, in this case, life-threatening disadvantage—of the citizens of this country.
Baroness Walmsley
May I correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said? He suggested that there was an inconsistency in my remarks. I point out to him that my regret Motion regrets the advertising ban. If there were no advertising ban, it would be perfectly possible to have a public information campaign.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, after the excursion by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, into Europe bashing, may I bring the House back to the subject in hand, which is these regulations?
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, hit the nail on the head. Why are the major tobacco companies all piling into these products and their manufacture, distribution and promotion globally? It is not because, in a spirit of public protection, they want to see smokers take up these products rather than the main part of their activities, which will continue to be the pushing of tobacco globally.
We have to ask ourselves why there is a need for regulation in this area. The reality is that electronic cigarettes are effective in reducing, in the case of smokers, their reliance on tobacco, but this needs to be associated with a wider tobacco control strategy and some good, targeted, mass promotion—not of individual products in the vaping field but with the concept that, if you are a smoker, vaping may be one of the things, among others, that can help you. That must include psychological support as well as simply a change of product. I hope, too, that the Government will ponder on further increases in the price of tobacco; at the end of the day, that is the most effective way of reducing demand. Perhaps we can hear from the Minister what the Government are planning to do to ensure that there is public promotion of vaping as an alternative for smokers, access to good-quality, evidence-based stop smoking services and changes in costs.
We should not delude ourselves that tobacco manufacturers are getting into vaping products simply to allow people who are smoking currently to reduce their risk. They are getting into it because that, in their view, is the double whammy: an alternative product that can run alongside their very damaging products, which will continue, and a little bit of what in the environment movement used to be called “greenwashing”—I do not know what one would call it in the public health movement—in order to make their image more acceptable publicly. Therefore, I would not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, I will be extremely brief, because we need to press on to what the Minister will say. However, it is very important to point out that this is smack in the tradition of harm reduction, which was pioneered in this country with needle exchanges for HIV addicts. We did not go round saying, “That’s a bad policy because needles are dangerous things”. We said, “Let’s look at the relative risks”. We now know that there is a motorway out of smoking by vaping, and on the other carriageway there are virtually no cars at all. We have heard the data from my noble friend Lord Cathcart.
One final very quick suggestion is: if we want to get public information out there, why do we not insist that cigarette packets, which already carry a warning label, carry a label which says, “Have you tried vaping instead? There is very good evidence that it is much safer”? That would be factual and targeted at smokers. It would be beneficial, save lives and cost nothing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, before this debate started I had feared that it would be a bit like Groundhog Day in relation to what happened in the Grand Committee Room earlier. However, it has been a fascinating and excellent debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for tabling their various Motions and amendments. This has been a very good debate.
I start from the premise that all my instincts are always against regulation. In my view, there is normally a presumption against regulation. I should also make it absolutely clear that there is no doubt that vaping is far better for you than smoking. If, as a result of these regulations, more people were to carry on smoking, we would indeed have shot ourselves in the foot. To pick up the analogy that my noble friend Lord Ridley used about needle exchanges, the point is that they should at least be clean needles. I agree with his argument but we need some regulation to ensure that vaping is not abused, if I can put it that way.
I wish to make a small number of important points which have been raised by noble Lords. First, we have fought long and hard to denormalise smoking behaviours, and Members of this House have been at the forefront of that. It is right to take a precautionary approach to managing any risk that e-cigarettes renormalise smoking behaviours, particularly by restricting children’s exposure to e-cigarette marketing and imagery. Glamorising these products, with adverts reminiscent of those from the tobacco industry many years ago, can only make them more attractive to children. Recent research by the Cambridge behaviour research unit also suggests that exposure to e-cigarette adverts influences children’s perception of smoking tobacco. It reduces their belief in the harm of occasional smoking. This has the potential to undermine some of the great progress we have made over the last six decades in controlling the smoking of tobacco.
I know that there are calls for a return to self-regulation, but just last week we saw the Advertising Standards Authority rule on a glamorous advert. I do not think that props are allowed in this House, but this is a four-page advert on the front and back of the Evening Standard. On the front, there is a very attractive young woman looking out over London while smoking a cigarette. On the back, there is a James Bond lookalike jumping out of a helicopter. That is not aimed at people who are smoking but at young people who might then think about smoking. Figures have been put about showing that there is no evidence that young people are influenced by this kind of advertising. However, that is not the case everywhere. The US is seeing an upward trend in children who have never smoked cigarettes using e-cigarettes, and data from Poland show that 30% of children surveyed use e-cigarettes. The Government have therefore taken a precautionary approach to any possible risk of the renormalisation of smoking behaviours.
Some 96% of smokers are already aware of e-cigarettes, so I am clear that promotion is not about raising consumer awareness, which already accounts for 96% of that market. While businesses’ ability to communicate about their products may have been curtailed in the interests of protecting children, they have not been banned outright. The regulations will not prohibit information being provided to customers either online or in physical retail outlets. Nor will they ban independent reviews of these products or discussion in e-forums. Some advertising will be allowed, such as point-of-sale, billboards and leaflets. Essentially, these are the information routes that were used when e-cigarette sales and use were growing the fastest. My noble friend made a point about billboards, buses and the like. The reason for the distinction between outlets is to try to minimise the impact on young people. That is what lies behind the differentiation between advertising media.
Secondly, the regulations provide minimum product standards and reporting of ingredients and emissions. This should reassure smokers who are looking to quit that e-cigarettes are safe and high quality, and give the Government and health professionals such as GPs confidence in recommending them to smokers. The product standards in the regulations are a result of balancing user needs and risk of accidental exposure to children. Of the reported poisoning incidents, running at some 250 a year, one-third relate to young children under the age of four. The regulations require child-resistant packaging, and the 20 milligrams per millilitre limit for nicotine, combined with the size restrictions on tanks, ensures a maximum exposure of 40 milligrams of nicotine, which is below the level of 50 milligrams that the European Chemical Agency assesses would cause acute toxic effects for toddlers. ASH recently published data indicating that only 9% of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19 milligrams per millilitre or more of nicotine. I know that my noble friend Lord Cathcart is a heavy user of this particular substance, but he is among only 9%. Moreover, the changes in technology will make it increasingly possible for users to get high levels of nicotine uptake for any given strength. Producers can of course get a higher strength approved by the MHRA.
My third main argument in favour of these regulations is that the UK’s approach to the regulation of e-cigarettes has, and will remain, pragmatic and evidence-based. We have one of the most liberal approaches to e-cigarette regulation in the world. We have implemented domestic age-of-sale legislation, preventing sale to under-18s, but we have not banned flavours in e-liquids or cross-border distance sales, nor have we restricted vaping in public places. I remind noble Lords that the latter two measures have been introduced in around two-thirds of all other EU member states and are also common in other parts of the world. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is right when he talks about gold-plating in this context.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am contemplating the Minister’s argument about children being exposed to dangerous quantities of nicotine—which obviously one wants to avoid—and how there is therefore a need to reduce the packaging. Is he planning to do the same for other household products such as domestic bleach and dishwasher liquid? We cannot approach that kind of problem through regulation: surely it is about encouraging parents to behave responsibly.
Lord Prior of Brampton
There are of course many products which do have tamper-proof packaging and we cannot debate all the ones the noble Lord mentioned. It seems to me entirely reasonable that this particular product should be tamper-proof. If a child were to swallow nicotine in these kinds of volumes it would have a very serious impact. It is entirely reasonable to have tamper-proof packaging.
The Government have asked the MHRA, local authorities and others involved in the enforcement of these regulations to develop a compliance regime together with the businesses which are currently in this industry. We will take a pragmatic approach to implementing the new notification system. Notification fees are low—£150 per product and £60 annually as a top-up—and are set to recover costs only. The MHRA has also developed guidance that minimises the burden on business.
E-cigarettes are not harmless. Nicotine is both toxic and addictive and there are unanswered questions about the effects of longer-term use. It is better to vape than to smoke but it is far better to do neither. These regulations reduce the risk of harm to children and protect against the renormalisation of tobacco use. They provide assurance on relative safety for users and legal certainty for businesses that wish to sell these products across the EU. I also underline that the regulations have the full support of the four nations of the UK, as well as many of those in the health community that have been involved in tobacco reduction, including ASH, Cancer Research UK and the British Medical Association. The Royal College of Physicians agrees in its report on the need for regulation of e-cigarettes to protect the public, and states that although e-cigarettes are estimated to be in the order of 95% less harmful than smoked tobacco, they are not harmless.
Moving forward, the Government are committed to a full review of the functioning of the regulations, including—
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is possible. There is always a possibility when there is a regulation that a black market will develop, and for the very high-strength products, which had to be regulated by the MHRA—the ones above 20 milligrams—there is a risk that there will be a black market. I think I recall that the noble Lord said earlier that a black market had already developed in this product. We are trying to bring some minimum quality standards, at least, into this market so that people who are thinking of moving from smoking to using e-cigarettes can have confidence that the product they use is regulated to a minimum standard.
I remind noble Lords that new and important tobacco control measures are also contained in these regulations. I have not talked about them specifically because they are slightly off the main point of this debate. The regulations will be reviewed within five years of entering into force. I also commit, here and now, to commissioning Public Health England to update its evidence report on e-cigarettes annually until the end of this Parliament and to include within its quit-smoking campaigns consistent messaging about the safety of e-cigarettes.
Clearly, there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate. As I said, I am not an instinctive regulator by any means but I feel that these regulations are proportionate. They do not go over the top, are entirely sensible and are backed by the RCP and all the major charities in this area. I hope that my noble friend Lord Callanan will not wish to push this to a vote, but of course that is entirely his decision.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his wind-up, which I think was very fair. I agree with him that this has been an excellent debate and various views have been put forward. I understand why some noble Lords have concerns about e-cigarettes, particularly in relation to young people. I understand that there are still some uncertainties. I accept that there is a need for some regulation in relation to e-cigarettes.
The Royal College of Physicians produced an excellent and dispassionate report but in the end it concluded that, while not absolutely safe,
“the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco”.
That is a pretty powerful statistic. The royal college supports the regulations—I understand that. We have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, that 2.8 million people currently use e-cigarettes. We know that often it is the poorest people in society whom many of the traditional approaches to giving up smoking have not touched. Equally, we know that there is a problem with smokers who think that e-cigarettes may be much more harmful than they actually are.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, rightly said that smokers are aware of e-cigarettes: I take that point. However, there is this worrying statistic that many smokers feel that e-cigarettes are very harmful—almost as harmful as smoking cigarettes. That worries me. I worry that the regulations may make that worse. This is where the absence of cohesive, strongly financed public health programmes comes in. That is why I believe that my amendment finds a delicate way through the morass that we have been debating today and why I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, first I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this evening. It has been a fascinating and instructive debate. If nothing else, it has given me the opportunity to go into the Content Lobby for the first time in my parliamentary career in this House. I am normally quite a loyal government Back-Bencher. It has been an interesting debate. I do not agree with many of the conclusions given by the Minister that these regulations are proportionate and not over the top. They are totally disproportionate and totally over the top.
Let me clear up a couple of confusions that have arisen. First, I have no problem with the vast majority of these regulations. All of the regulations relating to the regulation of normal tobacco products I completely support. It is only the sections on e-cigarettes which I think are wrong. The clue is in the name. E-cigarettes are not tobacco products. They should not be in this directive in the first place. I argued this when it was originally proposed in Brussels. Of course, given the nature of regulations, it is not possible to amend them just to take out the electronic cigarette part without regretting the whole thing. In response to people who have made points about the main parts of the regulations, I agree. I support them, and as far as I know all of my colleagues who supported me also support those bits of the regulations.
Secondly, a number of arguments have been made about the big tobacco companies. I am entirely convinced that the big tobacco companies would support these regulations as they are for the simple reason that at the moment the e-cigarette vaping market is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises. The costs of regulation that are going to be imposed by this directive are considerable. The big pharmaceutical companies and the big tobacco companies will be able to bear the costs of that regulation. They will buy up, as they are indeed starting to do, a lot of the little companies, and they will be able to bear the costs of regulation.
It was a great revelation to me when I first arrived in the European Parliament. I had naively assumed that business would be opposed to regulation. Actually, most big business thinks that regulation is a great thing. The chairman of a big pharmaceutical company once told me that it enables it to get rid of what he called “free riders”, in other words, small companies that were taking his market share, but did not have big corporate compliance departments and big lobbying and PR operations. I am entirely convinced that approving this regulation is to the benefit of big pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. Given all that, and given the indications from many Members of this House that they will not support the remainder of my Motion, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016
Baroness Walmsley
That, in the light of the prohibition of commercial advertising of vaping devices in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the proven public health benefit to former smokers of switching to vaping devices, confirmed by the advice from the Royal College of Physicians that vaping is 95 per cent less harmful than smoking tobacco, and that half of all tobacco smokers die from smoking-related causes, this House regrets that the advertising ban would hinder e-cigarettes from being promoted as a way of assisting smokers to stop smoking tobacco, and that concerns regarding the restriction of the nicotine concentration of the vapour have not been properly addressed (SI 2016/507).
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, the buses are running very late this evening, and I have made my views about these regulations very clear. Since this is a non-fatal regret Motion, I see no reason to waste the time of the House by voting upon it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 60. My two amendments would make a rather significant change to new Section 123I of the Transport Act 2000: they would prevent a franchising authority from revisiting a failed franchise proposal for a period of five years.
One of the things that any business dreads is uncertainty. Consider the current situation in the UK: it adversely affects investment plans, recruitment decisions and the conduct of everyday activities. Bus operators are understandably concerned that through the measures in the Bill they could find their businesses under threat and, in the worst-case scenario, eliminated.
I will avoid rehearsing the arguments against franchising. My amendments seek to ensure that if a franchise proposal fails, for whatever reason, or if the franchising authority decides not to progress its plans—again, for whatever reason—the franchising authority must wait for five years before revisiting the issue and seeking to bring forward a new scheme. I am not necessarily wedded to the five-year period but the point I am making is that there must be a sensible gap before the process can start again, and five years seemed as appropriate a period as any other, particularly when the kind of investment decisions and long-term planning that transport providers make is taken into account. Most authorities do not change their political complexion very regularly but, in those areas that do, it is important that bus operators’ commercial decisions are not adversely affected.
The amendments would give some certainty to bus operators, and would allow them to continue to develop and improve their services, invest in new technology, innovate and react to changing and growing passenger needs. While quality contracts have been possible for the best part of 16 years, the process for bringing forward a franchise will be less onerous, and we know that these powers could be used as soon as they are brought into operation. So the threat would be very real and would be a constant dark cloud hovering above operators’ heads, even if a proposal had just been found to be unviable.
It may also be that authorities in scope might secretly welcome the amendments. The burden on local authorities grows and they are under huge pressure to deliver an enormous range of local services, from bin collection to care for the elderly to keeping the street lights on, with ever-dwindling financial resources. Having spent considerable time, energy and money on a franchise scheme that in the end was not progressed, authorities may value a legal reason that they can offer for why they cannot revisit the issue despite pressure to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 61A in my name and to Amendment 66 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. On Amendment 61A, although the franchising authority should seek to enforce breaches of registration requirements by reference to the traffic commissioner, there are circumstances where that will not provide a swift, effective remedy. The right to request a court to exercise its discretion to grant an injunction is a more appropriate and proportionate measure for use in urgent cases to prevent serious breaches of the registration requirements.
The amendment is based on a similar provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A reference to the traffic commissioner would result in an investigation, followed by the possible imposition of sanctions, including a financial penalty and compensation. However, the process might require weeks to complete, during which an operator could continue to run services in breach of the registration requirements. The ability to apply for injunctive relief would allow the franchising authority to safeguard the franchise scheme in critical circumstances. It is anticipated that it would be used only in rare and specific circumstances, but it would give the franchise extra protection.
The purpose of Amendment 66 is to ensure that the franchising authority should not be obliged to issue a service permit where it would have an adverse effect on the financial and economic viability of the wider bus franchising scheme. It should not have to provide one if, for example, it would adversely affect tram, light rail or heavy rail services within the area. The service permit regime in the Bill is the way in which, first, cross-boundary services can be provided—in other words, services that go in and out of a franchised area—and, secondly, services can be provided where no service has been provided for in the franchise contract. The franchising authority has to grant permission for such permits, but the Bill prevents operators using these provisions to cherry pick and, in doing so, to undermine the wider franchise by enabling the franchise authority to refuse a permit where it would have an adverse effect on any service provided in the franchise.
Amendment 66 would extend the safeguard explicitly to include consideration of any impacts on the wider economic and financial viability of the bus franchise scheme. It would also enable consideration of wider public transport services. There would otherwise be a loophole whereby an operator could undermine other forms of public transport by, for example, running a bus service in parallel with and in competition with a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system, both of which currently operate within the Greater Manchester footprint. This could undermine the wider integrated public transport network, of which the bus franchise forms a part, by undermining its economic position and its fully integrated nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these points.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 67 raises in relation to bus users the same issue of principle that was raised earlier. Before I briefly explain in detail, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the assurances he gave earlier today? We are very grateful to him for the progress we have made on this issue.
In the case of franchising, before an authority publishes or withdraws a franchising notice, the Bill specifies that, quite reasonably, it has to consult
“persons operating local services in the area to which the scheme relates”.
According to the Bill, it also has to consult,
“other persons whom, in their opinion, it would be appropriate to consult”.
What is wrong with saying that it is right to consult bus users? It is obviously right to consult bus operators and it is clearly right to consult bus users. Greater prominence and guarantees simply must be given to the views of bus users, whether they choose to make their views known either locally, through small and informal groups, or nationally—for example, through Transport Focus. I urge the Minister to encompass this amendment with the other amendments which relate to bus users.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Baroness in this grouping. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has a point about why franchises should be postponed or cancelled. It brings to mind the situation in which a franchise is advertised and several companies respond, spending quite a lot of money in the process. If it is then cancelled for no particular reason, they could probably reasonably ask for their tendering costs to be reimbursed, although that will probably never happen. However, it behoves the franchising authority to produce a franchising document against which companies will bid, and if nobody bids, it will not have achieved anything. Therefore it is not all one-way. My gut feeling is that if it makes a mess of it and then issues it again within six months or so, that is much too short a time, but on the other hand five years is too long. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made some good points in his amendments, but I would reduce the time to two years or so, which is a more reasonable time in which to do this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 59 and 60 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which specify that any decision to postpone or cancel a franchising scheme cannot be revisited for five years.
There are many legitimate reasons why these decisions are postponed, and we believe that there is a danger that this amendment would have the converse effect of forcing imperfect schemes to proceed, to avoid the five-year moratorium. On the other hand, we believe that there are enough checks and balances in the Bill to allow decision-makers to reflect and rethink their proposals, so a ban for five years on revisiting the option is unnecessary and we would not support it.
Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bradley seems to provide a safety net for franchise providers to ensure that service permits which are issued do not undermine the viability of franchise schemes as a whole. This seems sensible, so we support the amendment.
Finally, we support the concept in Amendment 67 that any franchise service permit issued should first be subject to consultation, not only with the service providers but with the service users. This theme has run through a number of our amendments and we support it in this context. I therefore hope the noble Lord will agree with the sense of that amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 59 and 60.
Amendment 59 would enable franchising authorities to cancel the date on which local service contracts may first be entered into for a franchising area or sub-area. I admit to being unclear as to the purpose of this amendment and would welcome further clarification from my noble friend. The amendment that my noble friend proposes is to the section in the Bill which enables franchising authorities to postpone the date on which local service contracts can first be entered into, for example to deal with a situation in which the procurement exercise takes longer than anticipated.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for all contributions from noble Lords. I said that I was not wedded to the five-year period, but noble Lords may have drafted their comments before they had heard what I had to say. Amendment 59 might be defective, but it was intended as a precursor to Amendment 60. I can understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but the five-year period—or whatever period it was—would encourage local authorities considering franchising to make sure that they got it right first time rather than have a half-hearted attempt at it.
I am grateful for the positive response of the Minister both to my amendments and to those from other noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“(7) The effective time, in relation to a local service contract, is the beginning of the day on which a local service may first be provided under the contract (see sections 123K(4) and 123L).”
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
(a) the expiry of the period that, under the scheme, must expire between the making of the contract and the provision of the local service under the contract (see section 123H(2)(d) and (3)(c)), or(b) such later time as may be specified in the contract.( ) Subsection (4) is subject to section 123L.”
“(6A) The references in subsections (1) to (6) to the franchising authority or authorities in relation to a franchising scheme include a reference to a franchising authority who are not operating the scheme but would do so under a proposed variation.”
Lord Bradley
Lord Bradley
My Lords, I shall be brief on this amendment, which pertains to new Section 123X, which is headed:
“Local service contracts: application of TUPE”.
The explanation for the amendment is that it should be possible to ensure that responses to requests for information under this section are provided within a specified timeframe. To ensure that the overall process is achievable in a timely way, the amendment would ensure that an authority could set a timeframe for the provision of such information. It would also reduce the scope for gaming or playing for time to frustrate the development of a franchising scheme. Information under this section of the Bill is essential for the effective introduction of franchising. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the timescale appropriate for the provision of this essential information on TUPE arrangements. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief in saying that we fully support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bradley. As he said, it aims to ensure that responses are received in a specified time and to reduce the scope to drag things out to play for time. He has the full support of these Benches.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling his amendment, and I appreciate his intentions in bringing it forward. It is important that information on employees is provided in a timely way, so that informed decisions can be taken by the franchising authority.
However, I am not sure whether there is a need for this amendment because subsection (7) sets out the provisions that may be made by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 123X(7)(c), into which this text would be inserted, already makes it clear that the regulations may prescribe the time at which information is to be provided. This would, in effect, set out the timescale within which information must be provided.
Noble Lords will be aware of the policy scoping notes that I circulated on 16 June. These notes summarise our intentions for the use of the regulation-making powers in the Bill. Let me assure noble Lords that on page 22 of that document we confirm our intention that the regulations to which this amendment would apply,
“will also set out the time periods within which operators must comply”,
with the requests made for employee information. Therefore, while appreciating the intent behind this amendment, I trust that with the clarification and reassurance that I have provided to the noble Lord that this matter is already addressed in the Bill and in our plans for secondary legislation, he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bradley
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I will look carefully at the sections he has identified to reaffirm the assurances he has given. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 72A, 72B, 73 and 73A. I do not think I need to detain the Committee very long on this because it is the same issue of timescale that my noble friend Lord Bradley spoke to on Amendment 69. It would be good to hear some comfort from the Minister that all these issues could be addressed and responded to in a suitable timescale, and it would be good to see some of these amendments, if not all of them, in the Bill.
My only other comment is on Amendment 70, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Information about environmental impact and air quality data is essential, not only linking them to vehicle emissions but also to the surrounding air quality, which we have spoken about in Committee before, as well as to the safety records of bus operators. That is an essential part of providing the evidence that they are of quality and intend to maintain that quality, if and when they run the franchise. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley
I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 73. I will not repeat the arguments I made for the previous amendment, but this amendment suggests an upper limit of 30 days, which is reasonable and justifiable in the context of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s further comments on that proposal.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 71 and 72 in this group. Amendment 71 is fairly simple but none the less deals with an important matter. Its purpose is to ensure that local authorities which have acquired what will doubtless be highly sensitive company information for the purposes of preparing a franchise scheme may use that information only for the sole purpose for which it was provided. At Second Reading I expressed my concerns about the provision of this type of information to local authorities. I am not convinced that it is right that bus operators should be under a legal obligation to provide what could be highly sensitive information about such things as revenue received from the running of a particular service, employment, staff details and so on. It is quite a list.
I am certain that it is important that, having been given the information, local authorities be restricted from using it for any purpose other than that for which it was intended. They should not be able to use it willy-nilly. They should not be able to dip in and out or, even more important, to pass that information on to a third party. In that case, who knows where the information would end up? It is not inconceivable that it could end up in the hands of a competitor, and that simply cannot be allowed to happen. This is a serious issue and my amendment is intended to give some assurance to bus operators that, having provided the information, it will be protected and used for one purpose only.
The purpose of Amendment 72 is to require local authorities to pay local bus operators for the information that they must provide to assist in the assessment of a franchise scheme. This follows up on a point I made at Second Reading. I find it unacceptable that bus operators should be under a legal obligation to provide what could be highly sensitive information absolutely free of charge. Information of the type sought is part of the good will of the company, and anyone in business knows that good will is built up over many years and is hard fought for. Operators work extremely hard to develop their services and to provide the best possible journey experience for their passengers. That is what they do and it is why they are in business: to provide a decent product that people want and that they will buy. It is the same with a bus service. So to expect operators to hand over all the operating details to the very organisation that is looking to take the business off them—thank you very much—seems quite odd. It simply would not happen in any other business transaction.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Earl is asking that bidders be paid by the franchising authority for submitting information in preparing a bid. Is that what happens with London buses? Does TfL pay bidders in order for them to produce a decent bid? I am asking the question because I do not know the answer.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord will know that London bus operations have been regulated for some time, so the issue does not arise in London. It is a new situation.
Under any other circumstances this practice would be prohibited under the provisions of the Competition Act, so why is it okay in this case?
I remind the Committee that when the passenger transport executives sold their bus operations after deregulation in the mid-1980s, such data were a huge factor in the price they sold those businesses for in the private sector. That slightly answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, 30 years on, such data appear to have no value and local authorities can get back for nothing what they originally sold for rather a lot of money, with operators providing the means to determine their own execution.
My amendment does not put a monetary value on the data simply because they will be different in each case; I am suggesting that operators and the authority should come to an agreement on their worth. I am under no illusion—such agreement is not likely to be easy and may not actually be achievable at all. In that vein, I hope that my noble friend the Minister does not regard this as a wrecking amendment. That is certainly not my intention and I will not be seeking to test the views of noble Lords on this point at any stage. However, I hope that he will be able to give some words of comfort to bus operators. Intellectual property must surely have a value, as does good will.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74 tabled in my name. Before I address it specifically, I will say that we are supportive of Amendment 70. It deals with air quality data, which I have addressed on several occasions in discussions on previous amendments. However, we would certainly not be supportive of the noble Earl’s Amendment 72. For a start, it is about information that any reasonably good operator will have at their fingertips. We are not asking operators to do a great deal of work to find these data; they are all easily available. Secondly, the noble Earl states that this is a reasonable request but this information is publicly available as regards the railways, for example, and there is no reason why we should have this level of information about the railways but not about bus services.
Earl Attlee
Does the noble Baroness agree that if, without the benefit of the legislation, one operator shared this information with another operator, it would be in serious difficulties with the competition authorities?
Baroness Randerson
That is a separate issue. The issue here is enabling local authorities to make a reasonable judgment in order to produce a good franchising scheme. I accept that there are separate issues to be addressed in relation to competition.
I turn to Amendment 74, on the power to obtain information about local services and franchising, and the handling of that information. This is purely a probing amendment designed to investigate the unevenness within the Bill. I have referred to the uneven approach to the three types of schemes and simply wish to point out to the Minister that on page 58 of the Bill appear identical words to those in my amendment, which set out the circumstances in which information could be disclosed in the case of enhanced partnerships. However, in the case of franchising, on page 33 there are no such caveats or restrictions on the use of the information. I am interested to find out from the Minister the legal reason behind this—or is it just chance that there is a long list of things that one can and cannot do with that information in the case of enhanced partnerships, but which are not included in the list on franchising?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 70, which requires bus operators to publish data. A number of noble Lords have commented on this already. Data on the environmental impact of operators’ fleets, including the impact on air quality, the level of CO2 emissions and their safety record, should be available to local authorities and passenger organisations alike. It would be our intention that this information could be independently verified. These amendments build on our earlier debates on the need for buses to play their part in making our towns and cities healthier places to live and work. We believe that the bus operators have an obligation to deliver higher environmental standards and meet the requirements of low-emission buses. To be held to account for these commitments, the data have to be available to those who can best judge operators’ performance. The same arguments apply to safety standards, so that all passengers can be assured that their provider is working towards zero tolerance on safety failures.
I, too, disagree with Amendments 71 and 72 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Amendment 71 aims to restrict the information provided to a franchising authority. We accept that some information needs to be identified as commercially sensitive but we do not accept that most of the information listed falls into that category. We need to be clear what is commercially sensitive and what is not. However, in most other comparable public services, the sorts of information we are talking about would be made public and shared. It would go beyond just giving it on a private basis to the local authority, and would be made more public. That is what we would expect in this instance.
Meanwhile, Amendment 72 requires bus companies to be paid for providing that core service information which, of course, would be crucial to a franchising bid, such as journeys taken, passenger numbers and fares. The point has already been made that operators will already have this information, so there is no additional cost involved. We contend that local authorities should have the right to this information and it would be standard practice to provide this service information in other contract bids.
We also believe that there should be more open sharing of data so that passengers and communities can have a greater input into the types of services they would like, and can have that input on an informed basis. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the principles of openness set out in our amendment and oppose those attempts to have a more closed and secretive regime.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group—I will take them in turn—which relate to enabling franchising authorities to request information from local bus operators in connection with their franchising functions.
My noble friend Lord Attlee made some important points on Amendment 71 in relation to the purpose for which authorities may use information. The powers given to franchising authorities in this clause are designed to ensure that they can obtain the information they need to take informed decisions about franchising schemes. We want the elected mayors and local transport authorities who take these decisions to have an appropriate understanding of the local bus market and robust information to inform their views of potential benefits, costs and risks.
Franchising authorities are able to request relevant information in connection with their functions only in relation to franchising schemes. They are not able to request the information for any other purpose under this section and would not be able to use this section to require information in the context of developing an enhanced or advanced partnership or an advanced ticketing scheme.
I can see that the industry might have concerns if this power were used regularly by authorities which were repeatedly contemplating high-level options—perhaps even without the agreement of elected members, or if the information, once obtained, was used for a different purpose. I also recognise that there are some potentially significant commercial risks for operators in providing this information.
It may be helpful if I clarify that the Bill ensures that franchising authorities are not obliged to publish information if they could refuse to disclose such information under freedom of information or environmental information legislation. There is nothing to prevent a bus operator informing a franchising authority of any concerns it may have about the impact of releasing certain information on its commercial interests. Let me assure the House that I expect all franchising authorities to consider such concerns before deciding how to use the information provided. I hope that reassures my noble friend that I have sympathy with the spirit of his amendment. I do, however, have some concerns about how the change he proposes would work in practice.
First, the amendment would prevent the use of information in a franchising context after a scheme has been developed or made, such as at the procurement stage, which could have a material impact on the ability to implement a franchising scheme in practice. Secondly, the amendment could prevent appropriate information being included in the published consultation document or provided to third parties, such as the auditor of the scheme, who has an integral role in the process. I would therefore like to reflect on the helpful contribution from my noble friend on this issue and take time to consider how his points could best be addressed.
Amendment 72 in my noble friend’s name would require franchising authorities to pay a fee to local bus service operators from which they have required information in connection with their franchising functions. I know that my noble friend spoke very eloquently on this subject at Second Reading, and I understand that he is concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the data, and value of those data. I also know that bus operators across the country have put years of hard work into developing their businesses, and have built up strong reputations and good will with customers and local people. I sympathise with the concerns that my noble friend expresses on behalf of the bus industry, but I need to balance those concerns against a desire to see well-informed decisions being made.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my Amendment 71, which he obviously understands. I admit that Amendment 72 was slightly tongue in cheek. I said that I would never press it to a vote. However, it is important that the Committee understands that operators will be giving valuable commercial information to the authority.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to Amendment 69A and the other amendments in my name. I recall that he said that he would write to my noble friend Lord Bradley in connection with Amendment 69. Given that Amendments 69A, 72A, 72B, 73 and 74 all have time-related issues, I wonder whether he could extend his letter to cover those as well. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“Local Transport Act 2008 (c. 26)
24 The Local Transport Act 2008 is amended as follows.25 Omit sections 22 to 25 (QCS boards in England).26 Omit section 27 (appeals against making of quality contract schemes in England).27 Omit section 33 (continuation of quality contract schemes for areas in England).28 Omit section 36 (appeals where proposed continuation of scheme considered non-exempt).”
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I will be brief as I am very conscious of the hour. This amendment is another of those which seeks to replace “may” with “must”, this time in relation to advanced ticketing as part of franchise schemes.
Research by Greener Journeys shows that smart ticketing across all services would improve bus journey times by 10% at a time when congestion is a very serious problem on our roads. Some 90% of buses on our roads nowadays have smart ticket readers, so there is very little practical reason why schemes such as this should not be part of franchising. We want to encourage advanced ticketing in all arrangements for the provision of bus services. I believe it is a reasonable expectation that it should be required above all in franchising services.
The Bill makes some very admirable attempts at future-proofing in certain respects, for example, in relation to information. We live in a time when I can order a theatre ticket online and take my phone along to the theatre as proof that I have bought the ticket. My Oyster card is rapidly being overtaken by the ability to use a credit card or a smartphone. Tickets for flights, trains or whatever you mention are rapidly being converted to smart applications. In that respect, the Bill is downright unimaginative and unambitious because it does not maximise the potential that is growing, literally by the month, for advance ticketing schemes. On that basis, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall be even briefer. I fully support Amendment 77. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is absolutely right. We have talked about ticketing before and the word “shall” should go in there. It is an excellent amendment.
Amendment 78 would require the ticketing system to be extended to demand-responsive transport and flexible bus services, assuming that the operators agree. I am sure they will but, as the noble Baroness said, if we do not put something like this in, they could argue that it should never be and we will be left for the next 30 years without a flexible bus ticket that you can interchange. That is why I tabled this amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, this is an enabling Bill. It will make powers available that local authorities may adopt to improve bus services in their area. Noble Lords will know that this Bill also forms part of our approach to devolution, giving local authorities the tools for local decision-making on these important issues. I believe and, indeed, expect that local authorities will give full consideration to these new powers and adopt them where they can show that they will make a clear improvement to bus services.
Based on these contributions, I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill as proposed. As it stands, the Bill provides the carrot in the form of practical powers while local interests provide the stick. I would argue that this is the right balance for local decision-making. I am also confident that local authorities will implement advanced ticketing schemes where they conclude that such schemes would both be in the interests of the public and contribute to the implementation of their local transport policies. I assure all noble Lords that we have taken ticketing seriously across the whole of the Bill, not just by making changes to the existing ticketing provisions but also through the powers available under two new types of partnership and franchising schemes. I fully expect to see some significant developments across the country in the next few years, in part enabled by this Bill.
Ultimately, however, I believe that decisions about new local ticketing arrangements should be taken locally. On that basis, and given the undertaking I have given, I hope the noble Baroness is minded to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling Amendment 78. I know he has a close personal connection to Cornwall, where community transport delivered under Section 22 of the Transport Act has done much to improve connectivity for rural communities. I understand that the aim of this amendment is to extend the proposed powers to make advanced ticketing schemes, so that such schemes may also cover tickets for journeys on services operated by educational and other bodies, and on vehicles used under a community bus permit, where operators of such services agree to be part of such a scheme. This is an issue I would like to consider further. I can see some merit in bringing community bus services operated under Section 22 of the Transport Act 1985 into advanced ticketing schemes. It could generate additional income for operators of such services and help integrate community transport into the wider network. Noble Lords will note, however, that services operated under Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act are not classified as local services and, as such, are exempt from the franchising and partnership provisions of the Bill. It is right that these services remain outside the scope of franchises and partnerships, as they are particularly focused on the needs of the local community.
Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985 are those operated by bodies concerned with education, religion, social welfare and other activities of benefit to the community. Therefore, apart from the issue of extending the scope of ticketing schemes, the noble Lord’s amendment would require a change to existing legislation, given that vehicles used under a Section 19 permit cannot carry members of the general public. Any change to the way services are provided under Section 19 would require consultation and careful consideration.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has some merit in enabling community transport to be part of a ticketing scheme; it raises important issues regarding services operated by educational and other bodies; and edges towards the area of total transport, in which the Government have a growing interest. As such I would like to consider it further.
I turn briefly to government Amendments 79 to 82 and Clause 7. These amendments concern the procedures for varying or revoking an advanced ticketing scheme, so that the consultation requirements for variation and revocation mirror those for making a scheme. This corrects the drafting of the Bill—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy will not suddenly rush to his feet and ask me to give way at this late hour—but I assure the noble Lord that it does not change the policy intention. It was always the Government’s intention that variation and revocation of an advanced ticketing scheme should be subject to these procedures, and as such I beg to move the amendments in my name.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, as ever, I appreciate the understanding of the Minister, but I hope that he will give serious consideration to a more even approach towards advanced ticketing throughout the Bill. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“(6A) If the proposed variation would result in the scheme relating to all or part of the area of another local transport authority, the reference in subsection (6) to the authority or authorities includes that other authority.”
“(7) The variation or revocation is subject to the same procedure as the making of the scheme and in the application of that procedure—(a) a reference in sections 134C(1) to (9) and 134D and subsections (1) to (5) to making a scheme is to be treated as a reference to varying or revoking a scheme,(b) a reference in those provisions to the proposed scheme is to be treated as a reference to the scheme as proposed to be varied or to the proposed revocation of the scheme, and(c) a reference in those provisions to the date on which a scheme comes into operation is to be treated as a reference to the date on which the scheme as varied comes into operation or the date on which the scheme comes to an end.”