House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
The Government support those who aspire to be their own boss. The number of self-employed people in the UK labour market has increased by nearly 800,000 since 2010 and by 129,000 in the last year alone. We continue to monitor and review the impact of self-employment on the wider labour market and benefits system.
Peter Dowd
A Citizens Advice report in August 2015 said that there were as many as 460,000 people in bogus self-employment, with a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State, rather than hounding disabled people, started tackling exploitative companies, many of which have lucrative public sector contracts, that are forcing people down the self-employment route?
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman is right that there should be no exploitation of workers, particularly through forced self-employment, but he will have noticed that the Government are on the case, having set up the Matthew Taylor review specifically to explore alternative employment structures and to consider how employment rules need to be altered to keep pace with changes in how people work in the modern economy. If, however, he is characterising the growth of self-employment as harmful to the jobs market, I would disagree. The new enterprise allowance is proving very successful at making sure that people who want to can work for themselves. I am sure that he, like me, welcomes the fact that in his own constituency self-employment is up by 7% since 2015, and that the claimant count in the last year has fallen by 12%.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than denigrating people who become self-employed, we ought to be celebrating the fact that they are prepared to take a risk that many others are not? Will he make it as easy as possible for them to take on new employees and become employers themselves?
Damian Green
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have already mentioned the new enterprise allowance, which is designed specifically to help people to stop claiming benefits, set up their own businesses, and then carry on and employ others in a way that I hope everyone on both sides of the House would welcome. This scheme is proving extremely successful. A survey published last year showed that 80% of businesses that started with the new enterprise allowance were still trading, which makes it more than twice as effective as the old jobseeker’s allowance in terms of keeping people off benefits, so it is doing good work.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is much closer co-operation between the single fraud investigation service and local authorities on the prosecution of abuse, including on self-employment status, so that councils can be confident that when they report possible scams, including by employers, they are properly followed up?
Damian Green
I am happy to pass on the right hon. Lady’s message to the relevant bodies—councils and the fraud investigation service. Of course, while self-employment is a good thing, fraud involving any kind of employment is wrong, so clearly we must get ever more effective at combatting it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that online opportunities are giving many people the chance to set up a microbusiness. Does he agree that schemes such as the pop-up shop initiative that Torbay Council ran to help internet micro-retailers to take their first step on to the high street are the kind of thing we should be looking at in terms of self-employment, rather than some of the negative impressions we hear from the Opposition?
Damian Green
I very much agree, and I particularly welcome Torbay’s pop-up shop experiment. I had such a scheme in my constituency a couple of years ago, and it did indeed prove successful in allowing microbusinesses to start and to develop into larger businesses, thereby creating more employment and wealth, so I am delighted to hear what is happening in Torbay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Many self-employed people do not earn a great deal of money and will be losing out from cuts to tax credits and the introduction of universal credit. Should not the Government be supporting those who become self-employed?
Damian Green
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that I have not yet wished you happy new year publicly—I have done so only privately—as clearly that is becoming a compulsory part of this question session. I now wish you happy new year publicly.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of self-employed earners and universal credit. Universal credit reduces poverty by making work pay. It supports claimants to enter work, and then to be able to keep some of their benefits while they are at work if they are not receiving or earning very much money. Universal credit actually does the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says—it helps people who are getting into work for the first time.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But is not the biggest trend in self-employment the massive increase in women who are self-employed, with 70% of those newly self-employed in 2014 being women? Yet self-employment is the area where the wage gap is biggest. According to the OECD, self-employed men earn an average of £17,000 a year, but average earnings for self-employed women stand at £9,800. We know from the Department’s figures that women are less likely to access loans and so forth for self-employment. What is the Secretary of State doing to deal with gender inequality in self-employment?
Damian Green
I agree with right hon. Lady that gender inequality and pay generally are issues that we need to do more about, and self-employment is one part of that. That is why we have introduced measures such as the new enterprise allowance—
Damian Green
The right hon. Lady says that only men take it up, but that is patently not true.
Damian Green
If the right hon. Lady is saying that it is disproportionately men who take the allowance up, I would urge more potential women entrepreneurs to take it up. We are improving the new enterprise allowance later this year to make sure that the mentoring and advice goes on for longer so that more people—men and women—will be able to benefit from the freedom of being able to start, set up and run their own business, which millions of people want to do.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone.
Resolution Foundation data show that self-employment accounts for 81% of the net change in employment since 2008. The Government’s plans to abolish class 2 national insurance contributions could leave low-income, self-employed women paying five times as much to access maternity allowance. Given that nearly 2 million self-employed workers earn less than the national living wage, why have the Government decided to make social security support harder to access for so many of Britain’s entrepreneurs?
Damian Green
They have not. Let me update the hon. Lady’s figures, which I know she has quoted before. Since 2010, 29% of the increase has been in self-employment, and in the last 12 months—
Damian Green
I know about 2008; I am giving more up-to-date figures, as I said.
Over the past year, 38% of the increase in employment has been in self-employment, so the figures are not as the hon. Lady suggests. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), the whole point of universal credit is that people, whether it be through self-employment or employment, are able to keep their income. We have reduced the taper so that less of their income is lost when they go up the earnings scale and get into work. I am afraid that the hon. Lady simply misunderstands what is happening in the welfare system.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
This year we are due to spend nearly £1.9 billion on supporting ill and disabled children through disability living allowance. We have special rules in place to grant immediate access to the benefit for those who are terminally ill.
Amanda Milling
May I also wish you a happy new year, Mr Speaker?
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. The DWP family resources survey that was published last year showed that there were nearly 1 million disabled children—a 20% increase over the past 10 years. Will she outline what measures the Government are implementing to take account of that increase so that these children can access the support and the specialist equipment that they require?
Penny Mordaunt
Local authorities and clinical commissioning groups have a requirement to meet the needs of children with a special educational need or disability, including by providing specialist equipment. In the past few months, my Department has set up a children and young person’s forum so that we can better understand the unmet need that is out there. My hon. Friend will know from the work that I have done with one of the organisations with which she is involved that we are looking to support charities, social enterprises and businesses that are providing these much-needed services.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us who liked some of the elements of the big society when we first heard about it now quite like some of the utterances about the shared society. However, if the programme is to work for children, and not just for those who are terminally ill but people with disabilities—some disabilities are abilities; I am thinking here of autism—it must have teeth, leadership and resources.
Penny Mordaunt
Absolutely. The measures announced by the Prime Minister today will be accompanied by additional funding, and every age range in society will be taken into account. There will, for instance, be measures to help children and young people—I have just described what my Department is doing to ensure that their needs are considered—as well as new provision for those in the workplace.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Some children with disabilities receive disabled students allowances. Given that a number of them are not eligible for personal independence payments or disability living allowance, why are the Government cutting DSA?
Penny Mordaunt
We are very conscious of the needs of children and young people in particular, which is why we have set up an additional forum. Obviously we are concerned about people in the workplace, but if we get this right for children and young people, including students, we will avoid problems for future ministerial teams. I shall be happy to look into any particular case that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Michael Fabricant
Can you issue a papal bull, Mr Speaker, stating that we do not have to say happy new year—but happy new year anyway?
Mr Speaker
That is very welcome. We do not need to take up unnecessary time, but I appreciate the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
I shall not say happy new year again, Mr Speaker.
Evidence shows that being in the right work is good for health, and that being out of work can have a detrimental effect on health. That was why I launched the “Work, health and disability” Green Paper jointly with the Secretary of State for Health. The Green Paper expresses our intention of working with healthcare professionals to help people into employment, and our current consultations ask how we can best achieve that goal.
Michael Fabricant
Helen Stokes-Lampard, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has rightly spoken about the burden of work on GPs. Notwithstanding that, what analysis has my right hon. Friend carried out of the effectiveness of fit notes in getting people back to work?
Damian Green
I am keen to improve their effectiveness in that regard, and I also take my hon. Friend’s point about the pressure on GPs. In the consultation document we consider the possibility of extending the issuing of fit notes to other healthcare professionals, and I shall be interested to see what response we receive, not just from those who receive the fit notes but from the professionals involved.
James Cartlidge
I strongly support my right hon. Friend in respect of this specific policy. Does he agree, however, that as the consultants—as it were—to whom patients are referred will be work coaches, it is critical that those people receive training that will enable them to deal with the hardest cases among those who are unemployed, particularly those with pressing mental health problems?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for his support. I am happy to reassure him that all work coaches will complete specific training for their role, including a course that combines the knowledge, skills and behaviour that they will need to deal with the people with whom they work, particularly those with mental health conditions. Obviously, work coaches will need specific skills to handle the many issues that will arise from such conditions.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Damian Green
Obviously I do not know the details of the individual case, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me or the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, we will look at it. I can assure him, however, that in the vast majority of cases, work coaches do their best and work very hard to help people to make the most of their lives, and to get into employment. That is at the heart of what we do.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
After the big cut in employment and support allowance takes place in April and the new Work and Health programme is established, will the Department be spending more or less on employment support for ESA claimants than is currently the case under the Work programme and Work Choice?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman that as part of the changes there is an extra £330 million support programme for those in that group. We will target support more effectively to ensure that as many of them as possible can get back into work.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
There is a huge premium on helping ex-offenders into work for them, their families and their children’s life chances, and for reducing costs to society. Jobcentre Plus now has a dedicated resource of 150 prison work coaches who are helping to support prisoners nationwide.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will know from his own experience, and from the excellent report on supporting offenders by the Work and Pensions Committee, which my own Select Committee would endorse, that getting a job is one of the best means of preventing reoffending. As well as the work that is being done, will he consider what can be done jointly with the Ministry of Justice to ensure there is better collaboration between job centres and community rehabilitation companies so that they are joined up, given that people currently risk the cliff edge to which the report refers?
Damian Hinds
We work closely with the Ministry of Justice on numerous joint initiatives locally and nationally, and we are supporting the development of the MOJ’s new offender employment strategy, but I recognise that we need to improve opportunities for ex-offenders, so I welcome the continued attention of my hon. Friend and his Committee, as well as the Work and Pensions Committee report, to which we will respond in due course.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Her Majesty’s inspectorates of prisons and probation found that not a single prisoner had been helped into employment by the Through the Gate provision, which is the Government’s flagship programme for achieving a step change in rehabilitation. Did that surprise the Minister, and what is his response?
Damian Hinds
First of all, my response is that this has been a challenge for successive Governments for many years. We do need to do better, but there is good work going on. Ultimately, to improve the situation, we need more prisoners to be work-ready, and we need more employers to be willing to take the plunge and take on a prisoner. Having governors controlling skills provision in prisons will have a beneficial effect on work-readiness, but we all need to encourage more employers to step forward. Initiatives such as the See Potential programme can play an important part in that, as can Ban the Box and the Employers’ Forum for Reducing Re-offending, but of course we need to do more.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that people on the autistic spectrum are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and that people with autism have great difficulty in finding jobs. Can he reassure me that when he looks at the consultation on the health and disability Green Paper, he will look specifically at people with autism and ex-offenders with autism, as only 16% of people with autism are currently in employment?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend highlights an important point. I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will be looking very closely at the issue of people with autism. This also highlights that one of the key determinants for post-release employment is what happened with the individual before they were convicted, and it highlights again the importance of making sure nobody is left behind. In our work, we pay particular attention to all these groups who face particularly difficult barriers in getting into work.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Our Work and Pensions Committee report found that reoffending costs £15 billion to the public purse, yet fewer than one in four ex-offenders goes on to find work. Alarmingly, Westminster Council’s report on rough sleeping that was published before Christmas found that one in three of its rough sleepers had come directly from prison. Why is the Department unable to provide proper transitional support for people leaving prison to make sure that they are not on the streets and that they are assisted into employment?
Damian Hinds
It is vital that ex-offenders and people on release from prison have help with finances, employment and housing. Among the things we have done to help on housing is to ensure that there are no waiting days in relation to universal credit and to keep the housing element in universal credit open for 26 weeks rather than 13 for certain types of prisoner in order to ensure that we can enhance their support.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
Mr Speaker, were I allowed to wish you a happy new year, you can be assured that I would do so.
Pension Wise provides guidance to people aged 50 and over with a defined contribution pension pot on their options under the pension flexibilities. We are consulting on a single financial guidance body to provide debt advice and guidance on money and pensions.
Henry Smith
In thanking the Minister for his reply, I cannot resist wishing him, and indeed the whole House, a happy new year. Can he tell me what information the Government are providing to let people know about their entitlement to the state pension?
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend for his salutations and for his question. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to run a multi-channel communication campaign that includes radio, press and social media to raise awareness of the new state pension. As well as directing people to information on gov.uk and working with stakeholders to deliver key information, our priority has been to provide personalised information to individuals so that they know how much state pension they are likely to get, and from when. Since February 2016, the online Check your State Pension service has had more than 2.1 million views.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Minister’s warm words will do nothing to reassure the women in my constituency for whom the Government’s advice on pensions has a terrible reputation because of the injustices highlighted by the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. The one thing the Government could do to persuade the public to believe their pronouncements on pension entitlements would be to give justice to the WASPI women by looking again at the 2011 changes.
Richard Harrington
The hon. Lady will be aware, because the WASPI women have been discussed in the House and I have discussed this matter personally with her on many occasions, that the changes affecting them were in the Pensions Act 1995, and that a lot of time and resources were devoted to informing them of the situation, including millions of letters being sent out from 2011.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
A happy new year to you and everyone in the House, Mr Speaker, and particularly to the WASPI women. I hope that they have a better year this year.
The leaflet entitled “Ways to save in 2017” recently published by the Treasury mentioned the junior ISA, the help to buy ISA, premium bonds, cash and stocks and shares ISAs and the new lifetime ISA, but it completely omitted to mention pensions. That is an absolute disgrace, and it confirms my fears that the Government have downgraded the role of pensions and are using the gimmick of ISAs to distract attention from pensionable savings. Does the Minister agree that pensionable saving is the best form of saving for retirement? Will he establish a pensions and savings commission to ensure that dignity in retirement is promoted and protected?
Richard Harrington
I must totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the importance that the Government place on pensions. A lot of effort goes into communicating with people, on television and elsewhere, about auto-enrolment. The auto-enrolment of so many people has been one of the great successes of this Government and of the coalition, and I hope that that continues.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I know that the Minister agrees with me on the need for greater transparency in the pensions world, particularly around costs. He will therefore be keen to address the widespread criticism of the Government’s failing to act to ensure that people get the best possible returns. The Financial Conduct Authority’s interim report in November highlighted a number of failures in the asset management industry relating to the transparency of costs and charges applied to pension investments, stating that “weak price competition” was having a “material impact” on investment returns. Labour is committed to implementing all the FCA’s recommendations. Are the Government?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
There are 100,000 fewer children in relative poverty than in 2010 and 557,000 fewer children living in workless households. The forthcoming Green Paper on social justice will identify and address the root causes of poverty, building on the two statutory indicators set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016—namely, worklessness and educational attainment.
Stella Creasy
I note that the Minister uses the figures for relative poverty, and I am a little surprised. We know that absolute poverty in this country has been in decline for the past 10 years, except among children. We know that 500,000 more children in this country are living in absolute poverty than was the case in 2010. What responsibility does he think this Government and the previous Government have for that?
Damian Green
The Government have a responsibility to make sure that as many households as possible have work, particularly households with children. Working-age adults in non-working families are almost four times more likely to be living on a low income. The “Child Poverty Transitions” report of June 2015 found that 74% of poor children in workless families who moved into full employment exited poverty. That is what we can do, and are doing, for children who have been in poverty.
The hon. Lady neglected to say it, but there are now 500,000 fewer people living in absolute poverty than in 2010. The key point is about getting people into work. As a reasonable Opposition Member, I hope she would acknowledge that achieving historically low levels of unemployment is actually the best thing we can do for children—it is the best way to get children and the households they live in out of poverty. I am happy to tell her that, in her constituency, the claimant count is down by 47% since 2010 and the youth claimant count has fallen by 2% in the past year.
Mr Speaker
All of us in the Chamber can learn about the merits of brevity from the right hon. Member for New Forest West, who will not disappoint me.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
However the problem presents in my surgeries, scratch the surface and, nine times out of 10, the swiftest cause of poverty is family breakdown, which will be a much harder nut to crack.
Damian Green
Absolutely. That is precisely why this Government, and previously the coalition Government, have decided that having a simple income-based measure and target is not the right way. We need to look at the root causes of child poverty, and having a range of indicators and targets—one of which is on family breakdown—is the best way to make sure that we have as few children as possible living in poverty and that more and more children are able to emerge from it.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
A good new year to you, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State has focused so far on the value of work in tackling child poverty, but the reality is that the average working family in receipt of universal credit will be more than £1,000 a year worse off by 2020. According to the Resolution Foundation, some working parents will be more than £2,500 a year worse off. With child poverty projected to rise dramatically over the next three years, why do the Government continue to downplay the role of income poverty in determining children’s future health, job prospects and even life expectancy, in spite of all the evidence?
Damian Green
I am not downplaying the role. I am talking about the underlying causes and about making sure that we take a range of measures across the board that help to eradicate child poverty. That is the only sensible way to do it. Simply focusing on individual incomes or, indeed, individual benefits does not represent the whole realistic picture. We need to be much more wide-ranging in our approach.
Dr Whiteford
The Prime Minister has been talking over the weekend about the pressures faced by people who are just getting by on low and average incomes and about our shared responsibilities to them. Those are fine sentiments, but does the Secretary of State not accept that they sound utterly hollow when the Government’s planned cuts to work allowances will slash the incomes of exactly those families who are just getting by? Does he accept that the Government have a responsibility to support parents who are working hard in average and low-paid jobs, rather than cutting their already stretched, precarious incomes?
Damian Green
No. Indeed, I would point out to the hon. Lady that this Government’s introduction of the national living wage last year gave the lowest earners their biggest pay rise in 20 years—an increase of 6%. That is an example of a Government measure introduced by employers. I cannot think of a better early example of the shared society.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of how many more children will be pushed into poverty given the cuts to the work allowance under universal credit?
Damian Green
As I have said to a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the solution lies in a wider range of issues, and that is what we are introducing. We have the social justice Green Paper, about which I am sure we will have many discussions in this House and elsewhere. The root is making sure that as many people as possible can earn a salary and work. I am sure that the hon. Lady, like me, will welcome the fact that unemployment has come down by 53% in her constituency since 2010. That means thousands of families who are able to work and control their own lives, possibly working their way out of poverty. She ought to welcome that.
Margaret Greenwood
It is a poor Government who fail to understand the value of the nation’s children. In addition to the universal credit work allowance cuts, this Government have abolished the child poverty unit and frozen social security payments, and are removing tax credits from third and subsequent children. Does the Minister think child poverty will go up or down as a result of those measures?
Damian Green
I have already given the hon. Lady a number of figures relating both to adult poverty and child poverty—
Damian Green
Well, the fact is that since 2010 there are 100,000 fewer children in relative poverty. I would hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that and the fact that the child poverty unit is now covering a much wider range of policies and is based inside the Department for Work and Pensions.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
This Government are committed to supporting new enterprises. We are building on the success of the new enterprise allowance, which has already supported 96,000 claimants to start a new business. From this year, eligibility for NEA support will be extended to include universal credit claimants who are already self-employed.
Sir David Amess
Will my right hon. Friend look again at the regulations requiring small businesses and the self-employed to use online systems for their tax affairs? Does he recognise that these people often do not have the equipment, knowledge or broadband capacity to download the complex forms, and that the process often costs time and money?
Damian Green
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that tax affairs are not my direct responsibility, but the Treasury will have heard what he had to say. What I can say is that Jobcentre Plus is always keen to help small businesses with individual problems they may have, such as with the use of online forms, and I hope that businesses in his constituency would find the jobcentre a helpful place to consult.
Scott Mann
In Cornwall, unemployment has continued to fall year on year to record low levels, and the county now has 61,000 self-employed people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only under a Conservative Government can we continue to increase employment in Cornwall and further improve the creation of small businesses in those communities?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I know that in his constituency self-employment has increased by 7.6% since 2010. As I said in answer to previous questions, the UK labour market is in its strongest position for years. Clearly, the best way to promote new growth in jobs is to promote growth in small businesses, and I am delighted to hear it is going so well in Cornwall.
David Morris
Does my right hon. Friend agree that universal credit can help the self-employed, along with the other forms of benefit the Government are putting forward for them, because it can help people who are working as well as trying to set up on their own?
Damian Green
One difference between universal credit and the previous benefits it is replacing is that people can and do continue to receive it when they are still in work. It is particularly good at coping with people who may have fluctuating earnings, as many self-employed people do, because it can be flexible enough to adjust to that. The introduction of universal credit is another brick of the edifice of helping people to set up their own businesses.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
What is the Secretary of State going to do about people who are classified as self-employed because of their contract of employment? They are classified as such not because they have set up their own small business, but because their employer requires them to sign a contract saying that they are self-employed, which means that they get no sick pay and no annual leave. How is he going to help them?
Damian Green
I agree that that is an issue, which is precisely why we have set up the Matthew Taylor review. It is investigating precisely the new types of employment structures that have been set up in recent years and making sure that employment laws keep up with new types of employment.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The number of people in employment in the north of England has increased by 112,000 over the past year. The national living wage has already given 1 million people a pay rise, helping to build an economy that works for all.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his reply, but has he considered the implications of the national living wage coming in so quickly for small and medium-sized businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing sector? What would he say to those businesses that will not be able to adjust in time, or that simply will not be profitable because the national living wage is being introduced so quickly?
Damian Hinds
Everybody should benefit from a strong economy, but as well as introducing the national living wage the Government have announced plans to reduce corporation tax further to 17% and to increase the employment allowance, which could be worth up to £3,000 a year.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Is it not perverse of the Government to have reduced work allowances and universal credit at the same time as we have seen increases in the national living wage, meaning that the overall benefit to individuals in work is actually reduced?
Damian Hinds
The Government have done a range of things. Universal credit is completely different from the legacy benefits it replaced, so it does not make sense to make a direct comparison with tax credits. We have to see it in the context of greater help with childcare and the introduction of the national living wage. Of course, the increased income tax personal allowance also means that people get to keep more of what they earn.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) introduced the national living wage, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it would cost 60,000 jobs. Does the Minister think that that is a price worth paying, or is that another forecast from expert economists that we should ignore?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is entirely correct about the OBR’s projection at that time, but he will have noticed that that came in the context of considerably larger projected employment growth.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
We are investing significant resources, including increasing coverage of Talking Therapy services by 600,000 people a year by 2020. Mental health is a key feature of our Green Paper “Improving Lives”, on which we are currently consulting. I thank Members on both sides of the House who came to our drop-in event on the Green Paper and who are helping with the consultation.
Huw Merriman
I welcome the Minister’s response and the Prime Minister’s intervention today on mental health. Does the Minister agree that in order better to support those with mental health conditions into the workplace, we need to transform the way we deliver mental health services for young people before they reach working age?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely. When I ask healthcare professionals who work in Department for Work and Pensions services what the single most significant transformative healthcare intervention would be, they say mental health support services for young people. The Prime Minister’s announcement on that was very welcome.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”, which was published a year ago, contained two specific recommendations for the Department for Work and Pensions, one of which was on employment support. Will the Minister update the House on the progress on that specific recommendation?
Penny Mordaunt
There were two targets, but the Department has set out a range of initiatives. Good progress has been made on all fronts, including the development of specific mental health support for the services we run, such as Access to Work. Considerable work has been going on, as the Prime Minister referred to earlier today, but she also said that we need to pick up the pace on this issue, and I agree with her absolutely.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The proposed closure of eight Glasgow job centres will result in increased travel times and introduce further barriers for people with mental health conditions who are seeking help to get into work. How will the Minister ensure that people with mental health conditions continue to receive the help that they need?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment has met all the MPs who are concerned about those locations across Glasgow, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform has met Scottish Ministers to discuss the issue. We are aware of the concerns that Members have raised. If the hon. Lady has any subsequent comments to make, she is more than welcome to have meetings with either me or my colleagues.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
People with mental health conditions are more likely to fail the work capability assessment and more likely to be sanctioned. At the same time, we know from independent research how damaging work capability assessments and sanctions are for people’s mental health. The Prime Minister made her announcements today, but when will the Government take responsibility for the impact of their policies on mental health and ensure that timely, evidence-based support from trained mental health professionals is available for claimants with mental health conditions? Will the Secretary of State commit to scrapping the work capability assessment and punitive sanctions, as Labour has?
Penny Mordaunt
I refer the hon. Lady to three things: the Secretary of State’s reform speech in which he announced that his focus was on the particular issue of sanctions for people with mental health conditions; obviously, the Prime Minister’s statement today; and the Green Paper, a major tenet of which is that we are consulting on the work capability assessment—a Labour policy that is not delivering. I am very pleased that enormous numbers of Labour MPs came to our drop-in on this and will be helping us with the consultation. This is an important issue, and we should get it right.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Over 93.5% of assessments for personal independence payment and over 90% of work capability assessments for ESA are deemed of acceptable quality through independent audit. Those that are not deemed acceptable are returned to the provider to be reworked. The Department closely monitors all elements of providers’ performance and holds those providers to account through their contracts.
Christina Rees
Will the Minister consider introducing and funding the mandatory use of body-worn cameras by all contracted-out assessment providers, which will improve the accuracy and efficiency of the much-disputed health assessment reports and safeguard claimants and assessors, and which is proving to be very successful when used by emergency services across the UK?
Penny Mordaunt
There are detailed improvement plans for both PIP and ESA. Another thing that is being considered is how assessments are recorded. If the hon. Lady wants to write to me with any specific suggestions, I will be very happy to look at them.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The vast majority of successful appeals are due to additional late submitted evidence. What more can be done to access and share medical evidence between health professionals and assessors ahead of the appeals decision?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that the Department has carried out a number of pilots to look at being more lenient at the early stages of assessment to give people time to get that health care information in front of assessors. That move is paying dividends, and we hope that it will be rolled out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On this question, I would call on the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) if she were standing, but as she is not, I cannot.
Corri Wilson
Penny Mordaunt
Although we are consulting on ESA, the Green Paper consultation affords us the ability to look at PIP assessments in the round and at a person’s whole journey. I have previously said that we are looking at what more we can do in recording assessments. If the hon. Lady knows of cases where people need home assessments and they are not getting them, I urge her to flag them up with me.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
In my own constituency of Rossendale and Darwen, those who are waiting for their PIP appeal to go through are having to wait three, six or, in some cases, nine months to have that appeal heard. Given that they receive no benefit during this period and can lose their vital Motability car, will the Minister tell us what efforts the Department will make to speed up the appeal process?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that that is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is a very unusual length of time to be waiting for an appeal. If he would like to give me the details of those cases, I would be happy to look at them.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Motability is an independent charity responsible for its own management information, including what data it publishes. There are 70,000 more people with a Motability car than there were in 2010.
Ms Eagle
My constituent Evelyn Campbell had her Motability car removed on 20 December following a PIP assessment, leaving her housebound and distressed over Christmas. It will take months for her appeal to be heard. In the meantime, her car has been sold. Is this not another cruel policy from this Government? Given that 60% of PIP appeals are successful and that the cars have to be reprovided, is it not also a totally false economy?
Penny Mordaunt
Those who lose their vehicle receive transitional support through Motability, including the right to buy the vehicle and a £2,000 lump sum. Although only a small proportion of PIP decisions are appealed and overturned—
Penny Mordaunt
That is of those going to appeal, not the case load. I am exploring a range of options to support claimants pending appeal, and I will be working closely with Motability on this.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am encouraged by what the excellent Minister has just said. The key point is that I do not think the car should be withdrawn until the appeal process has finished. As it is only a small number, as the Minister has said, could she be encouraged to look at that route?
Penny Mordaunt
We are looking at this issue. We are also looking at those who might wish to travel overseas, for whatever reason, whether for work or a travel option, and we are working very closely with Motability to see what can be done in those instances.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
As part of the comprehensive package of reforms to improve mental health support announced by the Prime Minister this morning, my Department will be undertaking an expert-led review on how best to ensure that employees with mental health problems can be supported. That will involve practical help, including promoting best practice among employers and making available free tools to businesses to assist with employee wellbeing. We will also be conducting an internal review of discrimination in the workplace against people with mental health conditions. Those reviews will build on our Green Paper consultation to help to establish the evidence base around mental health and employment.
Scott Mann
I welcome the news that 95,000 businesses have been helped by the new enterprise allowance. Can the Minister tell me how many of those are in North Cornwall, or in Cornwall as a whole?
Damian Green
I too welcome those figures. I can tell my hon. Friend that the new enterprise allowance has helped to create nearly 100 new businesses in North Cornwall since it began. We are moving to a second phase, beginning this April, with an improved NEA. Since it began, over one in five businesses supported by the NEA have been started by disabled entrepreneurs, which is an extremely encouraging development.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It was great to hear earlier that there is consensus on the need to implement in full the Financial Conduct Authority’s recommendations on transparency in pension scheme costs. We hope that that will be soon, and we will hold the Government and the Minister to account on that.
Let us try another subject. Labour is committed to the state pension triple lock. Are the Government?
Damian Green
The Government are committed to the triple lock for the whole of this Parliament.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Damian Green
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He and I have exchanged correspondence on this—he may not yet have received a letter from me offering a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment. We absolutely want to work through any teething issues with local councils.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
PIP is slightly different. For example, someone’s needs might increase and they need a reassessment to receive more support under PIP. The Green Paper affords us the opportunity to look at all these things together. I think there are opportunities for PIP perhaps to have a lighter assessment, but we need to get the whole process right.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
I would be delighted to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend and her constituent.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Richard Harrington
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have given £1.1 billion of transitional relief for WASPI women. The issue has been discussed in this House very many times and the Government have no plans to do anything further in that respect.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those reassurances. We are absolutely committed to closing the disability employment gap. We are picking up the pace on the programmes we are running, and asking businesses and employers to do more.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the disability employment gap has been closing under both this Government and the coalition Government. We recognise that we need to do more, and I think the public sector can do more. Part of that is identifying particular roles that individuals can take up. The Government are picking up the pace on the issue and we are in a much better situation than the one that existed under the previous Labour Government.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I welcome the fact that more than 1 million more women are in employment now than in 2010, but will the Minister confirm what the Government are doing to support women with children who might find it difficult to return to work because of childcare responsibilities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
Our aim is to help parents to get into a job that fits around their caring responsibilities, which is why we are doubling the amount of free childcare offered to working parents to 30 hours a week. Last year, we spent a record £5 billion supporting parents with the costs of childcare and the figure will rise to more than £6 billion by 2020.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Damian Green
As I understand it, the Finnish scheme is a small pilot in a local area. I have read a lot of the literature—it is clearly an interesting idea—all of which suggests that that kind of scheme is fantastically expensive and that some of the losers from it are those who are on the lowest incomes at the moment. The polite response is that I am unconvinced by the proposal.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Seasonal agricultural workers have benefited from auto-enrolment into pensions, but many accrue only very small pension pots. What can the Government do to ensure that the bureaucratic burden does not fall disproportionately on the employers of these vital workers?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend brings up a very good point. The Government have to find a balance between wanting as many people as possible to have pensions, and economic sense when there is an impact on employers. My officials have discussed the issue with the National Farmers Union. We understand it and it will be looked into in the course of the 2017 review.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Penny Mordaunt
I think the hon. Gentleman is confused: we are actually putting more resources into these initiatives, and also asking others to do more. Obviously, we are consulting in the Green Paper, but even some of the announcements the Prime Minister made today included additional resource. We very much want to meet that target, and we are putting the resources and the policies in place to do that.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Last month, I asked the Government to introduce mandatory video recording of all DWP employment and support allowance assessments because a constituent of mine in Twickenham was treated with less respect than the character in the fictional film “I, Daniel Blake”. When will mandatory video recording commence?
Penny Mordaunt
We are looking at a range of issues to improve the assessment process for PIP and ESA and the person’s experience of it. The recording of assessments is one of those things, so we are looking at that issue.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
For many young people, staying in the family home is not an option, so housing benefit is a lifeline not a lifestyle choice. When will the Government finally clarify how their scheme will not see these people lose vital support?
Caroline Nokes
The regulations regarding the removal of housing benefit from 18 to 21-year-olds have yet to be published. We will provide full details, particularly of the exemptions that will be involved, in March.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I would like to say thank you to the scores of businesses in Corby and east Northamptonshire that provide important work experience opportunities for our young people. These introductions to the world of work are crucial, so will Ministers continue to make sure they remain at the forefront of cross-departmental discussions?
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
We know that one of the most important things in being able to get a job is to have had a job and to have demonstrated employability skills. Specifically on the work experience placements we do through Jobcentre Plus, people spend 49 days longer on average in employment as a result of having done one, so the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I urge the Secretary of State personally to review what is happening to the Motability scheme? Some 41,000 people have had their cars taken away as a result of PIP assessments, including a severely disabled Castleford constituent who now cannot get to work and may be about to lose her job, and a Pontefract constituent with metal rods in her joints who now cannot get out of the house and is at risk of slipping into depression as a result. On the day when the Prime Minister rightly raised the issue of mental health injustice, will he take seriously the serious impact on people’s mental health of being isolated in this way?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that we are looking very closely at the whole Motability scheme, which, as she knows, is an independent charity. We have formed a working group to look at the various issues that gave rise to it, so we are looking at this very carefully.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my constituent Ms Brookes, who has limited mobility because of a stroke, received a Motability car last year, and that car was a lifeline. Last week, the car was removed from her, and she is now struggling to get her children to school and then to get to work. She is appealing the decision, and I hope she will win, but in the meantime she is finding it incredibly hard to manage her disability as well as her responsibilities as an employee and, more importantly, a mother. Will the Minister look at this case as a matter of urgency to ensure that my constituent gets the help and support she needs?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to look at the particular case the hon. Lady raises. We are looking at that issue in the Motability scheme, but also at other issues that mean that people are perhaps not able to take up work or travel opportunities. We recently met Motability on these issues and have formed a working group with it to work through them. We hope to be able to make some announcements very soon.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Indicators of child poverty are important, as the Secretary of State said earlier, but so are targets. Will he therefore agree to adopt the provisions in the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), which would establish statutory targets for the reduction of child poverty?
Damian Green
That old-fashioned approach is not necessarily the best way forward. Having the whole range of issues that can give rise to child poverty addressed by Government policy is the best way to do it. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s response to the social justice Green Paper that we will publish in the coming months.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
In the London borough of Wandsworth that houses my constituency, last year there was a 25% increase in food bank use. Shockingly, almost 50% of these users are children. Do the Government agree that this is an absolute disgrace, and what will they do to assure us in this House today that the children and adults of Tooting shall no longer have to rely on food bank use?
Damian Green
As I said in response to previous questions, the best route out of poverty is work, and one of the great successes of the economic policy of this Government has been that more people are in work, more women are in work, and fewer children are growing up in workless households than ever before. I just wish that Labour Members would accept that getting more people into work and reducing unemployment is the best attack on poverty that any Government can make.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is now four weeks since the Employment Minister promised Members of Parliament from Glasgow data on the new boundaries by which he wants to close half the city’s jobcentres—so where is that information?
Damian Hinds
I met the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and we had a Westminster Hall debate as well. I committed to a number of things, one of which was that we would have an online consultation, and that is indeed proceeding. As I said to him and his colleagues when we met, if there is other information that they want to bring forward, I am absolutely sure that they will do so.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There are 13,000 children in my constituency living in poverty—almost a third of the total poverty figure for the whole district—so will the Minister explain to my constituents his decision to close the child poverty unit?
Damian Green
The main function of the child poverty unit was to support Ministers in meeting the Child Poverty Act 2010, which has now been superseded by the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, whereby the response specifically to poverty is being led by my Department, so the unit is now working inside the Department for Work and Pensions. That is the straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State have any new year’s resolutions? If not, perhaps I can help him out: he could resolve to make sure that no one is sanctioned at Christmas. Will he review the operations of his Department, as I asked him before Christmas, to make sure that nobody goes without over the festive period?
Damian Green
My new year’s resolution is, as ever, to make sure that my Department continues its successful work in getting ever more people into work, and to make sure that we have a benefits system that helps people to get into work and a pensions system that provides security and dignity in old age.
Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination
(7 years, 11 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
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement on the emergency review to determine how to ban perpetrators of domestic violence from directly cross-examining their victims within the family court.
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for the chance to update the House on an important issue. To put this in context, the issues at stake in family proceedings are always sensitive and often complex, and the decisions of the court can have far-reaching implications for the individuals involved. The presence of domestic abuse only exacerbates an already traumatic situation, so the Government have already taken steps to make sure that victims in the family justice system have support and protection. We have protected legal aid for individuals seeking protection from abusers. We continue to invest in the court estate to improve the physical security of family courts and the emotional support available for users. We have placed particular emphasis on training for those who work in the family justice system, making sure they understand the nature and impact of domestic abuse and that they act appropriately when they come across it.
However, we know that there is more to do. As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), made clear when this was debated in Parliament on 15 September, the Government are determined to improve the family justice response to domestic abuse, and we have worked closely with judges and others to consider what additional protections may be necessary. We are particularly concerned about the fact that unrepresented perpetrators of abuse can directly cross-examine their victims in family proceedings. I want to make family court processes safer for victims so they can themselves advocate effectively and for the safety of their children. This cannot happen while a quarter of domestic violence victims face cross-examination by their abusers.
The Lord Chancellor has requested urgent advice on how to put an end to this practice. This sort of cross-examination is illegal in the criminal courts, and I am determined to see it banned in family courts, too. We are considering the most effective and efficient way of making that happen. That will help family courts to concentrate on the key concerns for the family and always to put the children’s interests first, which is what they are supposed to do. This work, which is being fast-tracked within the Department, is looking in particular at the provisions in the criminal law that prevent alleged perpetrators from cross-examining their alleged victims in criminal proceedings, and we are considering how we might apply similar provisions in the slightly different circumstances of family proceedings.
Members will appreciate that such a proposal requires thought, but we want to resolve the matter as soon as possible. We will make further details available shortly, once the work is complete. I want to thank the president of the family division, Sir James Munby, who has argued passionately that this practice should be outlawed for good.
Peter Kyle
This issue has been wreaking untold devastation on victims of domestic violence. I have now spoken to numerous survivors of abuse whose accounts of torment under cross-examination in the family court—often by convicted rapists—are devastating to hear, but impossible for most of us even to imagine.
I have spoken to a woman who was cross-examined by the man who was in jail for numerous counts of rape and abuse that had left her unconscious and hospitalised. As a result of the family court process, this extremely vulnerable woman needed weeks of medication and months of counselling to recover. She has now suffered such an ordeal three times. I have spoken to the sister of a woman who was abused so grievously that the abuse resulted in her death. The convicted murderer then sued for custody of their child from the prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder. He directly cross-examined the sister of the woman he murdered, even having the grotesque nerve to ask, “What makes you think you can be a parent to my child?” Abuse is being continued and perpetuated right under the noses of judges and the police, the very institutions that should be protecting the vulnerable with every sinew of state power.
On 15 September 2016, in response to speeches by Members on both sides of the House in a Back-Bench debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said that this is a
“scourge, which blights our society.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1119.]
Yet he made no commitment to review or to change policy. Sadly, it took the excellent coverage in The Guardian during the Christmas break for such a commitment to emerge from the Ministry of Justice.
The source was anonymous, so will the Minister provide clarity in these areas? Lord Justice Munby, the president of the family division, supports measures to outlaw the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators, and he has said that this will require primary legislation. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and if so, will he make the drafting and introduction of any such legislation a priority? The anonymous source told The Guardian that this was a matter of urgency for the Secretary of State. Will the Minister tell the House when she started the review, and more importantly, precisely when it will be completed? Victims of abuse need to have precision and clarity at this moment of great importance for them. Speed is of the essence, but so is consultation—we need to get this right—so will the Minister tell us what process is in place to enable victims, campaigners and support organisations to feed in their essential experiences and views so that the review is at all times carried out with, not done to, survivors of domestic abuse?
Finally, as I told the House back in September, it is a source of shame to me personally that I got to the age I am today without being aware that such barbarism is being practised within our own legal system. In addition to my lack of inquisitiveness, which I regret profoundly, the secrecy imposed by law on the family court process allowed this to continue without journalistic oversight. Will the Minister consider longer term assessment of the wider operational activity in the family court system? Such assessment should look, in a considered and detailed way, at the overall operation of family courts with a view to ensuring, where appropriate, greater transparency and oversight of the family court process is introduced.
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed, let me just say this. The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely serious matter on the back of very considerable knowledge and research, and he has aired it in this House with great sensitivity. I did not wish to interrupt him—not least for that obvious reason—but perhaps I can announce to the House a new year’s resolution: from now on we must, without fail, stick to the established time limits for urgent questions. The hon. Gentleman was notified of the two-minute limit and he took over three minutes. That is the first point. A lot of more experienced Members will be well aware of my second point, but perhaps I can just underline it. The briefest preamble of description is fine, but an urgent question is supposed to be just that: neither a speech nor a contribution to debate, but a series of questions. I know the hon. Gentleman well and he will not, I am sure, take offence. He has raised very important matters. In future, however, doing so must be done in accordance with the proper form and time.
Sir Oliver Heald
I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Judges have always had wide discretion on family proceedings to try to get to the truth of matters, and to protect the interests of the family and so on. Judges have discretion to ask the questions themselves to try to avoid situations arising that are against the interests of justice. In recent years, judges have become more concerned—as the hon. Gentleman has—about situations where abuse is being perpetrated through the proceedings. That is why Sir James Munby has spoken out, why I have made the comments I have made today, and why the Department is treating this as something that should be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Is it necessary to change the law? The answer is yes it is. Primary legislation would be necessary to ban cross-examination. I also think there are related ancillary matters that would require primary legislation. Clauses, therefore, are required. Is work being done? Yes, work is being done at a great pace to ensure that all these matters are dealt with in a comprehensive and effective way—the urgency is there. I became the Minister responsible for these matters in October, and I have chaired the Family Justice Board, which has become very concerned about this issue over that period. The Lord Chancellor shares that concern, which is why we are moving at speed to try to tackle it.
The extent to which consultation is necessary is something I will consider in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and perhaps discuss with him privately if he wishes. My feeling is that what is required is pretty straightforward: a ban, and then the necessary ancillary measures to allow cross-examination without the perpetrator doing it. I would question, therefore, the extent to which a wide consultation is needed, but I will discuss that with him.
On transparency in the courts, journalists are now able to attend court and report the proceedings, although there are obvious restrictions to protect children and so on.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister of State and the Lord Chancellor are to be congratulated on moving promptly on this matter. The president of the family division is also to be congratulated on his frankness in relation to the deficiencies he finds within the family jurisdiction. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the simple solution is to adopt, more or less lock, stock and barrel, the criminal procedures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999; to use the forthcoming courts and prison reform Bill to put that into primary law; and accept that the very modest public expenditure of a court-appointed advocate to do the cross-examination where justice so requires would be a drop in the ocean compared with the benefits, in the interests of justice, to individuals who are the victims of abuse?
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee for those comments and agree with a good many of them. There are some differences from criminal proceedings, for example in a case in which an injunction is sought and there is no charge, or a case in which money is being considered but there is a background of abuse. There is a range of issues. For legal aid in cases of domestic abuse in family proceedings, there is a wider list than is available for criminal proceedings, but his basic point is right.
I am not able to give a commitment on the Bill. It depends on how quickly the work is concluded, and I am working on it very quickly.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for asking the urgent question and the Minister for his response. I recognise that this issue unites the House.
The practice of unrepresented parties against whom domestic violence is either proved or alleged questioning victims in court has been raised repeatedly in the House and in the media. Many Members on both sides of the House have constituents who have been left devastated by the experience. That the Government are doing something to end that practice is welcome, but there is a clear admission that their legal aid cuts have caused this situation. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 removed much family law from eligibility. Victims of domestic violence struggle to provide evidence of their abuse because they are frequently not believed, and in some cases because medical evidence is difficult to obtain. Their experience is made worse still because their abuser, who is also unable to get representation, is allowed to question them, even when they would be prevented from contacting the person in any other situation. The abuse therefore continues.
It need not be that way. In the criminal courts, cross-examination by an unrepresented party accused of domestic violence is not allowed. Is the Ministry of Justice counting the number of litigants in person in the family courts? How many of those are victims of domestic violence? How many are convicted or alleged to have committed domestic violence? Will the Minister look at the practice in criminal courts? Along with prohibiting cross-examination, will he introduce the greater use of more sensitive procedures? When will the LASPO review finally begin?
Sir Oliver Heald
On the hon. Lady’s final point, as she knows, the LASPO review has to be concluded by April 2018. It is not overdue, but it is something that the Government have very much in mind, and that we will have to start fairly shortly.
On the hon. Lady’s other points, legal aid is available in cases of domestic abuse. That is why the Government concentrated efforts in legal aid on situations where life or liberty are at stake, and on domestic abuse and housing when homes are at risk. That is not an issue, but I accept that the evidence criteria are important. That is why the Government have allowed a longer period and a wider range of evidence to be used, which has been welcomed.
Cross-examination by litigants in person takes place too much. The hon. Lady asked what the exact number is. It is not clear, but it is certainly a considerable number, which is why the Government consider this to be an important issue to tackle.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome everything he has said on the Government’s attitude to this long-standing problem. May I urge him please to look at the rules on legal aid? There is certainly strong anecdotal evidence from former colleagues of mine at the family bar and the judiciary that there is a direct consequence and link between the rise in litigants in person and the changes to legal aid, which was begun under the Labour Government. That link between litigants in person and legal aid is causing so much of the problem. If he at least looks at it, he could provide some of the solution.
Sir Oliver Heald
As my right hon. Friend rightly says, this is a long-standing issue but one that has now become urgent—the cries for help from judges and others have become more urgent—and that is why the Government are tackling it. It is necessary to find a way to prevent litigants in person from using proceedings to continue the abuse, and that is what we aim to do.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I welcome the Justice Secretary’s emergency review and stress how important it is that we all focus, across the UK, on how to prevent the perpetrators of domestic abuse from using the processes of the justice system to re-victimise the survivors of domestic abuse? In Scotland, the Government are engaged in a significant overhaul of the justice system, ahead of the introduction of new legislation on an all-encompassing offence of domestic abuse that will include all forms of coercive behaviour, but in Scotland legal aid is widely available in both criminal and civil cases. In England and Wales, cuts to legal aid mean that 80% of family cases now see at least one party without a lawyer, while in 60% of cases in the family courts neither party has one. In addition, victims of domestic abuse can only access legal aid in England and Wales if they cross a threshold test that has already been found to be too restrictive in a judicial review case. In addition to this important review, we therefore need a review of the criteria for access to legal aid for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. When will the Government commit to such a review?
Mr Speaker
Splendid! The hon. and learned Lady elided into a question just in time.
Sir Oliver Heald
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that and for her news from Scotland. On legal aid in England and Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) deliberately decided to concentrate the effort on cases involving people’s life, liberty, home or, as in this case, domestic abuse. Given that it was a period of austerity and decisions had to be made, I believe he got that judgment right. On the criteria for legal aid and the evidence that needs to be provided, it is not as though the Government have said, “This is set in stone”; where criticisms have been made, we have changed the rules to tackle those criticisms. My overall point is that the Government are responding when we should be.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcements today and his work with the Lord Chancellor, but may I draw his attention to a report published last April by the all-party group on domestic violence, chaired by myself and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), that not only picked up on this issue of cross-examination but considered special measures in courts to make it is easier for some of the most vulnerable victims to give evidence without feeling intimidated?
Sir Oliver Heald
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work in this area and for the important work of the all-party group, of which the Government and the ministerial committee on violence against women and girls take particular note. On special measures, the family courts have always had available to them a wider set of tools than the criminal courts and their judges have a wide discretion. Such measures as cross-examination by video, which in the criminal courts is provided for under section 28 of the 1999 Act, can be taken in family cases. Family courts can take evidence in a wide variety of ways, so there is a lot of protection. As I said in response to the urgent question, however, we are going further. Measures to do with the court estate, such as ensuring separate waiting rooms, screens and all those sorts of physical aspects, are being covered, as is staff training, through the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and so on. That is very important, too.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the discretion already available, but given that primary legislation might take some time, what steps is he taking now to remind the judiciary of the discretion they have and how they can apply it?
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Lady makes an important point. As she will know, there are practice directions in the family division, and one is being prepared at the moment, so I will make sure that her comments are taken well on board. We do not make the practice directions, but we can certainly pass on her comments.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I and my staff have been struck in my constituency surgeries by the clear feedback on this anomaly around cross-examination. One of my constituents who complained about it was a former police officer. May I urge the Minister to take every step and use every tool possible to get the matter resolved as soon as possible?
Sir Oliver Heald
We all have examples—I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to get her example on the record—of cases where some form of abuse has occurred in the courts. That is unconscionable and it needs to stop. We are going to tackle this issue very urgently.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On who should be involved and consulted in the review, will the Minister bear in mind that party litigants cross-examining their victims is just one species of the controlling behaviour that lies at the heart of domestic abuse and that, for that reason, there is a real and important role for organisations such as Women’s Aid to have their voices heard in this process?
Sir Oliver Heald
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and the Department does, of course, listen to what is said by Women’s Aid. It does seem to me that this is a fairly discrete issue—an issue about banning cross-examination by alleged perpetrators and making arrangements to ensure that cross-examination can take place in a suitable way. I would not want to sacrifice speed in tackling that for anything.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Last week, the country was shocked and saddened by the death of my constituent, Jill Saward, who campaigned tirelessly on behalf of victims of rape and sexual violence, following her own horrific personal ordeal. Jill was instrumental in the campaign to change the law, so that accused rapists are barred from cross-examining victims. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in paying tribute to Jill and expressing our sincere condolences to her family, and does he agree that it is absolutely right to extend this law to the victims of domestic violence?
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly believe it important to pay tribute to Jill Saward, who suffered the most vile ordeal, yet showed through the rest of her life what a wonderful person she was, by campaigning for others and doing a tremendous amount of charity work. She was a model, and someone who set an example of being good. Yes, I would like to pass on the law that applies to criminal cases into family cases, so that we can tackle the sort of abuse that has been described.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Wilberforce barrister chambers in Hull, although I am not currently practising. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s position to bring forward a review on this important issue, but the Minister will know that this was created as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The truth is that the vast majority of people today are refused legal representation in family proceedings unless they can prove domestic violence, which is virtually impossible to prove. The Government should bring forward a review of LASPO, which is not working. They should do something about it.
Sir Oliver Heald
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there will be a review of LASPO. It is something that we have promised, and the date by which it has to be completed is April 2018. We are committed to that. As for family proceedings, I think it right that families can come together in many cases and reach agreements, so we do not have the problem that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Where abuse is present for a significant number of individuals, it is important that in those cases the individual who is the victim should not be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator. That is what we want to solve.
Jake Berry
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Minister and the Lord Chancellor on taking action regarding the travesty of litigants in person being able to cross-examine their victims. In his statement, the Minister referred to the problem as urgent and said that it has the utmost priority. When the review is complete, will he commit to bring this forward as emergency legislation? I think that would gain support from both sides of the House, and we could pass the legislation in one day, ensuring that we can bring about the change as quickly as possible.
Sir Oliver Heald
I think that the importance of that issue is accepted throughout the House. Whether or not my hon. Friend’s suggestion is an appropriate way to deal with it, one thing is clear: it should be dealt with as a matter of urgency, and that is what I am committed to doing.
Perhaps I should have said earlier that there were instances in which this problem arose before LASPO. It is not a new problem, and many people were refused legal aid representation under the Labour Government.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister has said seven times that he is “dealing with it urgently”. When will we see the result?
Sir Oliver Heald
The answer that Members receive from the Dispatch Box is, of course, “shortly”, and that is what I have said, but it does mean shortly.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Government’s reforms of the family courts were designed to keep some of these antagonistic cases out of court altogether, but the legal aid changes have undoubtedly led to the involvement of more litigants in person in very sensitive cases. Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the problems that litigants in person are causing in relation to court resources? They often spin out the time that cases take, with judges themselves requiring constant advice on legal procedures. We really need to do something about that, because it is messing up the family courts.
Sir Oliver Heald
I fully accept that how litigants in person are helped with court proceedings is important, and the Government are spending £3.5 million on helping them. Let me make another point with which my hon. Friend may agree. Not every case needs to be decided in court; I am a strong supporter of mediation, and I should like to see more of that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The emergency review is welcome, but cross-examination is not the only way in which perpetrators exploit family court processes to perpetuate their abuse. Will the review consider the ways in which abusers can, for example, string out judicial process in the family courts to continue to abuse former partners and their children?
Sir Oliver Heald
I should be happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Lady, and to look into it in due course. This, however, is a discrete matter and an important one. I should like it to be tackled swiftly, and I do not intend to widen what we are doing at present, because I want to get on with that.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Women’s Aid has raised this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in its important and hard-hitting report “Nineteen Child Homicides”, which revealed that 25% of women interviewed had been cross-examined and that one woman who had been raped, beaten and abused for six years was cross-examined for three hours. Notwithstanding the need to get it right in the review, will my right hon. and learned Friend introduce legislation as soon as possible to ensure that that can never happen again?
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend has highlighted an important case, as well as the work done by Women’s Aid. He is right to say that that issue needs to be tackled urgently.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The need for training of the judiciary goes beyond the family courts. A constituent came to see me because her ex-partner had taken a case about the management of family property to the civil court, and the judge had said it was irrelevant that he had been imprisoned for raping her daughter. That cannot be right. Judges need to be trained as well.
Sir Oliver Heald
It would not, of course, have been a family justice case; it would have been a civil case. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is an important consideration, and I will look into it.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said today and his commitment to legislation, but in the meantime will he ensure that the best support is available to vulnerable victims before, during and after the proceedings?
Sir Oliver Heald
As I said in my initial response, a great deal of effort has gone into training both CAFCASS and court staff to provide the emotional support that is needed.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I think that we all welcome the tone of what the Minister has said today, but this is supposed to be an urgent review, and many women are going through cases of this kind right now. Will the Minister make it clear that the review will be concluded by Easter at the latest and that we can then hope to see improvements in our courts?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the Minister’s remarks so far. Does he agree that the point about legal aid misses the fact that some of these perpetrators are almost certainly using the ability to cross-examine their victims as a tactic in the courts? As that is motivating what they are doing, it is even more important that this plug in the law is made to stop this practice continuing.
Sir Oliver Heald
My hon. Friend and a number of other colleagues are saying that cross-examining the victim in these circumstances is a form of abuse in itself. I agree, which is why we are keen to conclude this review on a short timetable, as I said to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for the terms in which he has replied to the urgent question. He has talked this afternoon about the urgency of this issue and I think that he has accepted the words of the president of the family division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, that primary legislation would be needed. What commitment can the Minister give to the survivors of domestic violence and abuse that change to primary legislation will be brought forward urgently?
Sir Oliver Heald
I can certainly give the assurance I have already given, which is that we are tackling this as a matter of urgency. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a busy legislative timetable with all sorts of matters to do with Europe and the like, and we will have to see what exactly can be achieved in terms of the legislative timetable, but I want to tackle this urgently.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituent Claire Throssell, whose two children were murdered by her ex-husband, I welcome this review, but in the debate in September that I co-sponsored, the Under-Secretary at the Minister’s side, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), made a clear commitment to overhauling the culture of the family courts and in particular to a review of practice direction 12. Are the Government still committed to that broader set of changes, which we so urgently need?
Sir Oliver Heald
I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Lady has done on this issue. I chair the Family Justice Board with the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families. We are committed to improving the overall way in which the courts work and are in the process of introducing a new practice direction in the area of victims. This is certainly a point we are very much alive to.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Everyone who has spoken today, including the Minister, has said the situation is urgent. In view of that and the fact that he said primary legislation will be needed, is there any reason why he cannot commit to the Government presenting that within three or four months?
Sir Oliver Heald
As I have said, we are keen to complete this review as a matter of urgency. The legislative programme is a complex matter at the moment for reasons I have hinted at, so we will have to see what is possible, but we would like to tackle this urgently.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The focus of questions has understandably been on domestic violence, but can the Minister confirm he is also seeking to implement this protection for victims of emotional and financial control and other forms of non-violent abuse, which the Government have, to their great credit, sought to criminalise in recent months?
Sir Oliver Heald
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a cross-governmental approach to abuse that has its own definitions and so on, but the areas of abuse covered in terms of applications for legal aid are far wider than just physical violence and include sex abuse cases and the like, and we are alive to the need to cover a wider area than simply domestic violence.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
While I appreciate the urgency and scope of the investigation, will the Minister give consideration to cases where the Department for Work and Pensions is sharing domestic abuse victims’ information with the perpetrators of the crime when making decisions about benefits claimants? The anonymity of a constituent of mine was taken away from her and the information was passed on by the DWP.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am sure that the hon. Lady is making an important point. If she wants to write to me or speak to me about it, I would be more than happy to look at it, but this is not what we are doing in this exercise of looking at the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators or alleged perpetrators. We are tackling a discrete, narrow area, and we want to do this urgently. Her point is important, but it concerns a different matter.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Survivors of domestic abuse tell us that they feel re-victimised and re-traumatised by their experiences in the family courts. Will the Minister please give us more clarity on how the voices and views of survivors of domestic abuse will be considered in this emergency review?
Sir Oliver Heald
My view is that this is a narrow issue involving banning perpetrators or alleged perpetrators from cross-examining victims, as we do in criminal cases. That is a narrow issue on which I think we all agree. The sort of arrangements that will need to be put in place have already been tried in the criminal courts. If the hon. Lady has any particular ideas or concerns, I would obviously be happy to discuss them with her, but I do not think that this is a complicated matter. It is a simple one that needs urgent action.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am aware that this focuses on the adult victims of domestic abuse, but research from Safelives has shown that an estimated 130,000 children in the UK live in households with a high risk of domestic abuse and a significant risk of harm or death. Thousands more live with other levels of domestic abuse every day. Will the Minister please clarify that, as recommended by Women’s Aid, there should not be an assumption of shared parenting in child contact cases where domestic abuse is a feature?
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and the courts are clearly alive to this matter. We have to give some discretion, however, because family cases involve a wide range of factors. I think that the judges do a good job. I want to put on record that these are not easy cases and that our judges have to have an element of discretion. I would like to ensure that that remains the case, although I acknowledge that she makes a good point.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
A constituent who came to see me was extremely distressed because her husband was repeatedly taking her back to the family court over access issues. She was not only undergoing cross-examination but being driven into financial poverty through constantly having to fund her own defence. Will the Minister look at how the courts can deal with the vexatious, repeated requests relating to access that are behind a lot of coercive behaviour and at the financial poverty that families find themselves in as a result?
Sir Oliver Heald
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I should like to pay tribute to the work that she does in this area. I am more than happy to raise that point in the Family Justice Board and to look at the matter, but it is not part of the important work that we are doing to deal urgently with the question of cross-examination. Her point bears on that work, but it is not the focus of what we are doing at the moment. We will, however, look into it.
Mental Health and NHS Performance
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on mental health and NHS performance. This Government are committed to a shared society in which public services work to the highest standards for everyone. This includes plans announced by the Prime Minister this morning on mental health. I am proud that, under this Government, 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day compared with in 2010 and that we are investing more in mental health than ever before, with plans for 1 million more people with mental health conditions to access services by 2020.
But we recognise that there is more to do, so we will proceed with plans to further improve mental health provision, including: formally accepting the recommendations of the independent taskforce on mental health, which will see mental health spend increase by £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament; a Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health to be published before the end of the year; enabling every secondary school to train someone in mental health first aid; a new partnership with employers to support mental health in the workplace; up to £15 million extra invested in places of safety for those in crisis, following the highly successful start to the programme in the last Parliament; an ambitious expansion of digital mental health provision; and an updated and more comprehensive suicide prevention strategy. Further details of these plans are contained in the written ministerial statement laid before the House this morning.
I turn now to the winter. As our most precious public service, the NHS has been under sustained pressure for a number of years. In just six years the number of people aged over 80 has risen by 340,000, and life expectancy has risen by 12 months. As a result, demand is unprecedented. The Tuesday after Christmas was the busiest day in the history of the NHS, and some hospitals are reporting that A&E attendances are up to 30% higher than last year. I therefore want to set out how we intend to protect the service through an extremely challenging period and sustain it for the future.
First, I pay tribute to staff on the frontline. The 1.3 million NHS staff, alongside another 1.4 million in the social care system, do an incredible job, which is frankly humbling for all of us in this House. An estimated 150,000 medical staff, and many more non-medical staff, worked on Christmas day and new year’s day. They have never worked harder to keep patients safe, and the whole country is in their debt.
This winter, the NHS has made more extensive preparations than ever before. We started the run-up to the winter period with over 1,600 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses than just a year ago, bringing the total increase since 2010 to 11,400 more doctors and 11,200 more hospital nurses. The NHS allocated £400 million to local health systems for winter preparedness; it nationally assured the winter plans of every trust; it launched the largest ever flu vaccination programme, with more than 13 million people already vaccinated; and it bolstered support outside A&Es, with 12,000 additional GP sessions offered over the festive period.
The result has been that this winter has already seen days when A&Es have treated a record number of people within four hours, and there have been fewer serious incidents declared than many expected. As Chris Hopson, head of NHS Providers, said, although there have been serious problems at some trusts, the system as a whole is doing slightly better than last year.
However, there are indeed a number of trusts where the situation has been extremely fragile. All of last week’s A&E diverts happened in 19 trusts, of which four are in special measures. The most recent statistics show that nearly three quarters of trolley waits occurred in just two trusts. In Worcestershire, in particular, there have been a number of unacceptably long trolley waits, and the media have reported two deaths of patients in A&E. We are also aware of ongoing problems in North Midlands, with extremely high numbers of 12-hour trolley waits. Nationally, the NHS has taken urgent action to support those trusts, including working intensively with leadership and brokering conversations with social care partners to generate a joined-up approach across systems of concern.
As of this weekend, there are some signs that pressure is easing both in the most distressed trusts and across the system. However, with further cold weather on the way this weekend, a spike in respiratory infections and a rise in flu, there will be further challenges ahead. NHS England and NHS Improvement will also consider a series of further measures that may be taken in particularly distressed systems on a temporary basis at the discretion of local clinical leaders. These may include: temporarily releasing time for GPs to support urgent care work; clinically triaging non-urgent calls to the ambulance service for residents of nursing and residential homes before they are taken to hospital; continuing to suspend elective care, including, where appropriate, suspension of non-urgent outpatient appointments; working with the Care Quality Commission on rapid re-inspection where this has the potential to re-open community health and social care bed capacity; and working with community trusts and community nursing teams to speed up discharge. Taken together, these actions will give the NHS the flexibility to take further measures as and when appropriate at a local level.
However, looking to the future, it is clear we need to have an honest discussion with the public about the purpose of A&E departments. Nowhere outside the UK commits to all patients to sort out any urgent health need within four hours. Only four other countries—New Zealand, Sweden, Australia and Canada—have similar national standards, which are generally less stringent than ours. This Government are committed to maintaining and delivering that vital four-hour commitment to patients, but since it was announced in 2000, there are nearly 9 million more visits to our A&Es, up to 30% of which NHS England estimates do not need to be made, and the tide is continuing to rise. If we are going to protect our four-hour standard, we need to be clear that it is a promise to sort out all urgent health problems within four hours, but not all health problems, however minor. As Professor Keith Willett, NHS England’s medical director for acute care, has said, no country in the world has a standard for all health problems, however small, and if we are to protect services for the most vulnerable, nor can we.
NHS England and NHS Improvement will continue to explore ways to ensure that at least some of the patients who do not need to be in our A&Es can be given good, alternative options, building on progress under way with a streaming policy in the NHS England A&E plan. In this way, we will be able to improve the patient experience for those with more minor conditions who are currently not seen within four hours, as well as protect the four-hour promise for those who actually need it.
Taken together, what I have announced today are plans to support the NHS in a difficult period; and plans for a Government who are ambitious for our NHS, quite simply, to offer the safest, highest-quality care available anywhere, for both mental and physical health. But they will take time to come to fruition, and in the meantime all our thoughts are with NHS and social care staff who are working extremely hard over the winter, and throughout the year, both inside and outside our hospitals. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, begin by paying tribute to all the NHS staff who are working day in, day out to provide the best possible care to patients during this busy period. Of course we welcome measures to improve mental health services in this country, as indeed we welcomed such announcements exactly 12 months ago, when the then Prime Minister made similar promises. But does the Secretary of State not agree that if this Prime Minister wants to shine a light on mental health provision, she should aim her torch at the Government’s record: 6,600 fewer nurses working in mental health; a reduction in mental health beds; 400 fewer doctors working in mental health; and, perhaps most disgracefully of all, the raiding of children’s local mental health budgets in order to plug funding gaps in the wider NHS? Could he therefore tell us why the Prime Minister was unable to confirm this morning that money for mental health would be ring-fenced to prevent this raiding of budgets from happening in the future? We welcome measures to improve mental health support in schools. Will the Government offer more resources to local authority education psychologists? What provision will be in place to give teachers suitable training for doing this work?
On the winter crisis, this morning the Secretary of State said that things have only been “falling over in a couple of places”. Let us look at the facts: a third of hospitals declared last month that they needed urgent help to deal with the number of patients coming through the doors; A&E departments have turned patients away more than 140 times; 15 hospitals ran out of beds in one day in December; several hospitals have warned that they cannot offer comprehensive care; and elderly patients have been left languishing on hospital trolleys in corridors, sometimes for more than 24 hours. And he says that care is only falling over in a couple of places! I know that “La La Land” did well at the Golden Globes last night, but I did not realise the Secretary of State was living there—perhaps that is where he has been all weekend. Will he confirm that the NHS is facing a winter crisis, and that the blame lies at the doors of No. 10 Downing Street?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it was a monumental error to ignore the pleas for extra support for social care to be included in the autumn statement only weeks ago? Will he support calls to bring forward now the extra £700 million that is allocated for 2019, to help social care? Will he urge the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to announce a new funding settlement for the NHS and social care in the March Budget so that a crisis like this year’s never happens again?
I press the Secretary of State further on the announcement he has just made on the four-hour A&E target. Is he really telling patients that rather than trying to hit that four-hour target, the Government are now in fact rewriting and downgrading it? If so, does NHS England support that move? What guidance has he had from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to say that that is an appropriate change to the waiting-time standard?
The Secretary of State has made patient safety an absolute priority; in that, he has our unswerving support. I am sure he will agree that one of the most upsetting reports to come out of hospitals last week was that on the death of two patients at Worcestershire Royal hospital who had been waiting on trolleys. Will he commit to personally lead an inquiry into those deaths? Does he know whether they were isolated incidents? When does the trust intend to report back on its investigation? Will he undertake to keep the House updated on those matters?
There is no doubt that the current crisis could have been averted. Hospital bosses, council leaders, patients groups and MPs from both sides of the House urged the Chancellor to give the NHS and social care extra money in the autumn statement. Those requests fell on deaf ears and we are now seeing the dismal consequences. NHS staff deserve better. Patients deserve better. The Government need to do better. I urge the Health Secretary to get a grip.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comments and, indeed, to the comments of all Members, but I shall first say this about the tone of what he said. He speaks as if the NHS never had any problems over winters when Labour was in power. The one thing NHS staff do not want right now is for any party to start weaponising the NHS for party political purposes. I remind him that when his party runs the NHS, the number of people on waiting lists for treatments doubles, A&E performance is 10% lower and people wait twice as long to have their hips replaced. Whatever the problems are in the NHS, Labour is not the solution.
The hon. Gentleman talked about mental health, so let me tell him what is happening on that. Thanks to the efforts of this Government and the Conservative-led coalition, we now have some of the highest dementia diagnosis rates in the world. Our talking therapies programme—one of the most popular programmes for the treatment of depression and anxiety—is treating 750,000 more people every year and is being copied in Sweden. Every day, we are treating 1,400 more people with mental health conditions and we have record numbers of psychiatrists. The hon. Gentleman mentioned mental health nurses: in this Parliament we are training 8,000 more, which is a 22% increase.
All that is backed up by what we are confirming today, which has not been done before: the Government are accepting the report of the independent taskforce review—led by Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind—which commits us to spending £1 billion more a year on mental health by the end of the Parliament. That would not be possible with the spending commitments that Labour was prepared to make for the NHS in the previous Parliament. It is because of this Government’s funding that we are able to make such commitments on mental health.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the NHS and gave completely the wrong impression of what I said this morning. I was completely clear that all NHS hospitals are operating under greater pressure than they ever have. He should listen to independent voices, such as that of Chris Hopson—no friend of the Government when it comes to NHS policy—who is clear that in the vast majority of trusts people are actually coping slightly better than last year. However, we have some very serious problems in a few trusts, including in Worcestershire and a number of others. I can commit to him that we will follow closely the investigations into the two reported deaths at Worcestershire and keep the House updated.
The hon. Gentleman talked about social care, which is where, I think, his politicising goes wrong. Last year, spending on social care went up by around £600 million. At the last election, he stood on a platform of not a penny more to local authorities for social care, so to stand here as a defender of social care is, frankly, an insult to vulnerable people up and down the country, particularly to those living under Labour councils such as Hounslow, Merton and Ealing, which are refusing to raise the social care precept, but complaining about social care funding.
The hon. Gentleman talked more generally about NHS funding, but in the last Parliament it was not the Conservatives who wanted to cut funding for the NHS—it was his party. It was not the Conservatives who said that funding the five-year forward view was impossible—it was his party. Labour said that the cheque would bounce. Well, it has not bounced, and we are putting in that money.
In conclusion, it is tough on the NHS frontline. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise this issue in this House, but wrong to raise it in the way that he did. Under this Government, the NHS has record numbers of doctors and nurses and record funding. Despite the pressures of winter, care is safer, of higher quality and reaching more people than ever before. It is time to support those on the frontline, and not try to use them for party political points.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the Prime Minister’s focus on mental health in her speech today. She spoke of holding the NHS leadership to account for the extra £1 billion that we will be investing in mental health. Will the Secretary of State set out in further detail how clinical commissioning groups will be held to account for ensuring that that money gets to the frontline so that we can deliver progress on parity of esteem?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I can do that. It is a very important point. We have had a patchy record in the NHS of ensuring that money promised for mental health actually reaches the frontline. The way that we intend to address this is by creating independently compiled Ofsted-style ratings for every CCG in the country that highlight where mental health provision is inadequate. Those ratings are decided by an independent committee chaired by Paul Farmer, who is responsible for the independent taskforce report, so he is able to check up on progress towards his recommendations. I am confident that, by doing that, we will be able to shine a light on those areas that are not delivering on the promises that this Government have made to the country.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
After the Health Committee’s recent inquiry into suicide, I absolutely welcome the extra funding for mental health. I am sure that the Secretary of State remembers some of the discussions that we had in that room.
I also pay tribute to the staff. Obviously, with my background, I know exactly what it is like when A&E is swamped and there is nowhere to put people. The staff across NHS England are not afraid of us discussing this topic and weaponising it. They are in tears; they are exhausted; and they are demoralised. They have never experienced a winter like this. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why his figures suggest 19 diverts and only two trusts in serious problems, whereas we are hearing from the Nuffield Trust that that 42 or 50 trusts are diverting, which is a third. That means that the problem is widespread.
I totally agree with the point about people going to A&E when they do not need to be there, but they are not the people who are three-deep on trolleys waiting for a bed for 36 hours—those are people who need a bed and who are there because they are ill. We have discussed sustainability and transformation plans and NHS sustainability on several occasions. The concern that people have is that, because there is not the money for a redesign, there will be A&E closures and bed cuts. I hope that this incident will show that that is simply not possible. It is not possible for the UK, particularly NHS England, to lose any more beds. In Scotland, we face the same problem of increased demand and shortage of doctors, yet 93.5% of our patients were seen within four hours in Christmas week. The president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimates that in areas of England the figure is between 50% and 60%. That difference is down to how it is organised. It is the fragmentation and the lack of integration. There are things that can be done. We can use community pharmacies and GPs, and try to bring the NHS back together.
Mr Speaker
I hope that the hon. Lady will not take offence—she has vast experience in this field—if I say that her questions must be judged to be rhetorical, because I did not observe any question marks, although I am sure we will in future.
Mr Speaker
Yes, but that was then, and this is now. That was when I was a badly behaved Back Bencher like the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Hunt
I will try to interpret the questions in what the hon. Lady said. If she was asking whether the problems in England are similar to those in Scotland, I think that we share problems, particularly across the busy winter period. She has observed that Scotland is also failing to meet the target. She is right to say that bed capacity is absolutely critical, and that is something we have not always got right in England. There have been times when beds have been decommissioned and the alternative provision that was promised has not been made, which has big knock-on effects. When it comes to what happens in Scotland and England, I think that Scotland has gone further than England in the use of community pharmacy, which is to be commended, but England has gone further in our plans to reform and increase investment into general practice. That was what the president of the Royal College of General Practitioners was talking about over Christmas when she said that she was keen for Scotland to match the package that we have in England.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement. Of course, we all know the work that is done in our local areas by all those working in the NHS at such a difficult time. In relation to mental health, will he confirm that the Prime Minister’s very welcome speech this morning also emphasised the importance of perinatal mental health, and that some of the extra resource will continue the great work on that? Will he also emphasise the point about transparency, because knowing what CCGs are doing assists Members of Parliament not only in calling for extra resource, but in ensuring that our areas do the best they can compared with others, rather than simply making a general point about resources, which is always the easiest point to make?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend did a huge amount of good work on mental health when he was a colleague in the Department of Health. On perinatal mental health, we know that 20% of mothers suffer some form of pre or post-natal depression, which has a huge impact on the child, with lifetime costs of around £10,000 for every birth in this country, caused by lack of proper mental health provision. The plan announced today means that we will be able to treat an extra 30,000 women better—we think that is the number who need to be treated. He makes an important point about transparency. I would put it like this: funding matters, and we have some of the best mental health provision in the world, but it is not consistent. The only way that we can make it consistent is by shining a light on the relative performance of different parts of the country, so that we can bring all areas up to the standard of the best.
Mr Skinner
The Minister says that there are 9 million more patient visits now than there were in 2000. Is he aware that in that climate, shutting hospitals such as the Bolsover community hospital, led by the Hardwick clinical commissioning group, makes no sense at all? He turns a blind eye to it. Will he look at this question, because when those hospitals are shut, the beds are gone forever? Get stuck in.
Mr Hunt
I actually think that broadly the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not just about decisions to downgrade or close A&E departments when there is no alternative provision; it is also about community hospitals, which are very important places for A&E departments and hospitals to step people down to. He is right to say that the NHS—[Interruption.] I am getting comments from a sedentary position. With the greatest respect, this process has been going on in the NHS for decades, and I do not think that we always got it right under both parties, but I think that he is right to say that when there are changes in provision in community hospitals, we need to ensure that we have good alternative plans.
Mr Speaker
In wishing the hon. Members for Morley and Outwood and for Filton and Bradley Stoke all the best in the weeks and months ahead, I call Andrea Jenkyns.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I echo some of the points made by the Secretary of State regarding mental health support for expectant mothers. As one myself, I have to say that the midwives have been fantastic. Right from the very first appointments at grassroots level, they mention mental health, so we are feeling the support on the ground.
I welcome today’s statement, which shows the Government’s commitment to mental health by making it a centrepiece of the agenda. One in 50 young people in Yorkshire receive care for mental health. How will the new approach address the concerns of the young people and their parents, and what measures are in place to reduce the waiting list for child and adolescent mental health services?
Mr Hunt
I add to Mr Speaker’s comments my very good wishes and confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) will get superb care from the NHS. I thank her for campaigning on patient safety. I am sure she will be pleased to hear that our principal safety campaign this year is on maternity safety.
In bald numbers, the plan will mean that we will treat 1 million more people with mental health conditions a year by the end of this Parliament. Of course, many of those will be in Yorkshire. An additional 70,000 young people will get treatment every single year and I hope that will bring down the CAMHS waiting times. We also want to do work in schools to prevent people from getting on the CAMHS waiting list in the first place.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The YoungMinds survey published before Christmas showed a failure in 50% of clinical commissioning group areas to spend the full amount of extra investment allocated to children and young people’s mental health. That is scandalous. I note the Secretary of State’s point about Ofsted-style ratings, but does he not need to introduce a system that guarantees that the money the Government promised for children’s mental health is actually spent as intended?
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Gentleman is right to want to ensure that we live up to those promises. He was a Minister when some of those promises were made and they are very important. I would say that we are delivering what he wants. We are on track this year to spend around £1 billion more, compared with two years ago when he was Minister for mental health. It has taken time for the NHS to get the message on mental health, but it is getting through loud and clear.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
As a frequent user and admirer of the Red Cross, I regard its claims as being grossly over the top. I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the wonderful work of the frontline staff of the NHS at a very difficult time. Does he agree that the pressures are not going to go away, and that there must be a continuing drive for reform and to do these things better? What exactly are the impediments in the NHS to the sharing of best practice, and what steps is he taking to create a more experienced and better trained leadership who are more prepared for the exceptional medical and management challenges that the NHS now faces?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. I, too, think that we have to be very careful about the language we use in these situations because many vulnerable people can be frightened if we get the tone wrong. The vast majority of NHS services are performing extremely well under a great deal of pressure. His point about leadership is extremely important and one to which I have given a lot of thought. At the heart of the problem is that we do not have enough hospitals being run by doctors and nurses. Around 56% of our managers have a clinical background, compared with 76% in Canada and 96% in Sweden. To put it bluntly, doctors like to be given instructions by other doctors. Exceptional people from a non-clinical background can do it, but it is hard because doctors have many years of training and are highly experienced people. I have put in place measures to try to make it easier for more clinicians to become our managers of the future.
Mr Speaker
In wishing the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree all the best in the period ahead, I call Luciana Berger.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
In her speech today, the Prime Minister made a number of hard-hitting observations. She said:
“there is no escaping the fact that people with mental health problems are still not treated the same as if they have a physical ailment”.
She reported on the increase in self-harm among young people, and she told us about the shocking reality that, on average, 13 people take their life every single day in England. Given that the Conservative party has been in government for almost seven years, and that the Secretary of State has been Health Secretary for almost four of those years, who does he think is responsible for the terrible failures highlighted by the Prime Minister today?
Mr Hunt
With great respect to the hon. Lady—she campaigns tirelessly on mental health, and she deserves great credit for that—that is the same as saying that the last Labour Government should have sorted out every single problem in mental health by 2010, and I am not standing here saying that. The truth is that we have made good progress; if she thinks that it is trivial that we are treating 1,400 more people every day for mental health conditions, she should go and talk to some of her own constituents who are getting access to mental health provision, who would not have been getting that access under the policies of the last Labour Government. We have made big strides in our mental health provision, but there is much more to do, and we are determined to do what it takes.
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Recognising that the supply of extra resources for the NHS will be a vital and continuing issue, is my right hon. Friend not exactly right when he says that equal attention has to be given to controlling demand so that people do not simply instinctively make calls on GPs’ surgeries and A&E departments, which doctors themselves believe are avoidable and which could be dealt with in other ways?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. At the heart of it, we have a good commitment—the four-hour commitment, which was introduced by a Labour Government. I think it is one of the best things the NHS does: the promise that if someone is ill and needs urgent help, we will do something about it and get them under proper medical care within four hours. However, if we have the situation that NHS England now describes, where up to 30% of the people in A&E departments do not actually need to be there, we risk not being able to deliver that promise for the people who really do need it. That is why looking at how we can control demand from the people who do not need to be in A&Es, such as through the significant increase in investment in general practice and other measures, is going to be vital if we are going to crack this.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Secretary of State seems to be blaming the public for overwhelming A&E departments, when he well knows that the reason they go to A&E is that they cannot get to see their GP and social care is in crisis. Will he confirm that he has just announced another significant watering-down of the four-hour A&E target, following the watering-down by the coalition in their first year in office back in 2010? What is he personally doing to address the chronic long-term underperformance of hospitals, such as that at Worcester, where two people died on trolleys, and Plymouth, which is one of the hospitals that had to call in the Red Cross over the Christmas period?
Mr Hunt
I think—probably because of the forum we are in now—the right hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting what I have said, and it needs to be put right. Far from watering down the four-hour target, I have today recommitted the Government to that four-hour target. In just the answer before he spoke—maybe he was not listening—I actually said I thought it was one of the best things about the NHS that we have this four-hour promise. But the public will go to the place where it is easiest to get in front of a doctor quickly, and if we do not recognise that there is an issue with the fact that a number of people who do not need to go to A&Es are using them, and we do not try to address that problem, we will not make A&Es better for his constituents and mine. If he asks what we are doing to turn around hospitals in difficulty, we have introduced the new Care Quality Commission inspection regime and a chief inspector of hospitals—the most rigorous inspection regime in the world, which the Labour party tried to vote down.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement and the Secretary of State’s confirmation of extra support for mental health. I particularly welcome the review to be led by Lord Stevenson and Paul Farmer. As they carry out that review on improving businesses’ ability to support people with mental health problems, will they particularly look at how we can help smaller businesses—those that perhaps do not have the human resource expertise that larger businesses may have—to make sure that people with mental health problems stay in work and are able to get back into work when they fall out of it? They are the biggest single category of disabled people not currently working, and we could make a huge difference.
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend will of course know that from his distinguished time as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. He is right. The central problem we are trying to address is that if someone, for example, stops going to work and is signed off work because of severe depression, that is bad for the individual and also bad for the business. Too often, what happens at the moment is that it then becomes entirely the NHS’s responsibility to get that person back to work; the business says, “Well, it’s not our responsibility anymore because they’re not turning up.” With a little bit of help from the business, we could get the person back to work much more quickly, meaning that they recovered more quickly and the business would not lose someone important. That is what Dennis Stevenson and Paul Farmer will be looking into.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
We will never solve the challenges facing the NHS and social care until there is a long-term settlement for funding both. Does the Secretary of State understand that the social care precept is completely inadequate to fill the gap and will increase inequality, because the areas that most need publicly funded care will be least able to raise that money? Will he speak to the Chancellor and the Communities and Local Government Secretary to look again at this issue and get the funding that social care desperately needs?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Lady that there are serious funding pressures in social care. We need a long-term solution to this, and we are doing important work on that. The precept is part of the solution. The local government settlement has been adjusted to take account of the different spending powers, or revenue-raising powers, of wealthier counties and wealthier local authority areas compared with other areas. We have to take into account the equality issue, and she is absolutely right to do that. However, if she is saying, “Have we solved the whole problem?”, the answer is no—there is more work to do.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend. May I pay huge tribute to everybody working at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, especially in A&E, and especially over the nine days between Christmas and 2 January? Admissions almost doubled. At one point in the Queen’s medical centre A&E department there were 180 people seeking treatment—that is a record. There were 395 more admissions than discharges in that nine-day period. I pay huge tribute to everybody who is working in our NHS. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will continue to work with our hospital trusts, like NUHT, as they bring forward plans to change schemes —it is not just simply about money—and do everything that he can to support them in these unprecedented times?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do that. I echo my right hon. Friend’s praise for the staff at NUHT, which was particularly pressured over Christmas. They have made particular efforts to improve patient safety and quality of care over recent years. She is absolutely right, and of course I will continue to work closely with her trust and others.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
At 9.30 am today I received an email from a constituent in Coventry who asked me to bring it to the Secretary of State’s attention; I am delighted to do so. She writes as follows:
“I am a nurse with 26 years’ experience who has always worked full time and has paid my tax and national insurance without ever having to burden the government, social services or the NHS in my lifetime but have gladly served and given 100%”
to it. She continues:
“Unfortunately, my 18 year old daughter has recently become unwell mentally and attempted suicide twice in a 3 week period…I am really sad to say—
this comes from a nurse of 23 years’ experience—
“that the care she has been given has been dreadful. I am somebody who works in the NHS so I understand the strains the service is under but I also expect that as a family who give so much to society that when it is our time of need that we can expect a service that meets our needs.”
I ask the Secretary of State whether he will kindly agree to meet Mrs Hardy and me—Sarah Hardy is the lady’s name—or arrange for her to meet somebody who can give her some sort of reassurance. She continues that she has been waiting six months without any mental health assessment or support from the NHS—six months for a daughter of 18 years of age. Will he agree to do that so that it is not just a case of more hollow words?
Mr Hunt
I am more than happy to meet Mrs Hardy, but ahead of that I would like to look at the particular issue of why she has had to wait for so long. The hon. Gentleman put it very eloquently, and she put it very eloquently, and we owe a huge debt to such people. What she has described with her 19-year-old daughter’s treatment is just not satisfactory: it is not good enough. That is why the Prime Minister talked this morning about the injustice of having to wait so long for treatment, and that is exactly what we are trying to put right.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The House of Commons Library has calculated that the real-terms increase in health-related spending between 2010 and 2016 was 9.4% in England, yet it was zero in Wales. Not only are A&E waiting times consistently longer in Wales than in England, but waiting times for routine procedures can be as much as two and a half times longer in Wales. I regularly see constituents in tears who are waiting well in excess of a year for hip operations. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Labour party must start to acknowledge the challenges facing the NHS in Wales and accept responsibility for them? [Interruption.]
Mr Hunt
I think my hon. Friend’s constituents in Wales would be appalled by the reaction we have just had. Labour Members stand on their high horse in complaining about NHS care in England, but when he brings up poor NHS care in Wales, they tut and make noises as though they do not want to hear about it. If they care about NHS patients, they should care about them throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that that just shows the party political agenda. Yes, my hon. Friend is right: NHS care in Wales is worse, and Labour needs to do something about it.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I have been contacted by several constituents who have spent 14 hours in A&E waiting for a bed. As well as by social care cuts, we have been hampered by a shortage of A&E doctors. The Department of Health was warned that that would become a growing problem over five years ago, and the Health Committee warned about it again last year. When will this shortage of A&E doctors be ended by the Government—by the summer, by next year, by the following year? The Secretary of State has had seven years. When will he deal with the shortage of A&E doctors?
Mr Hunt
Let me tell the right hon. Lady what we have done about A&E doctors. Their number has gone up by 1,200 since 2010, which is an increase of over 50%. The number of A&E consultants has gone up by 500, which is an increase of over 20%. At the same time, we have recruited 2,000 more paramedics. As a result of those changes, our emergency departments are seeing—within the four-hour target—2,500 more people every single day compared with 2010. That is not to minimise the pressures in the NHS we have had over the winter or to say that there is not more that needs to be done, which is why I outlined a number of things in my statement.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Secretary of State kindly came to see the plans for the emergency room at Worthing hospital and came back six years later to see how it is working and to admire it in operation. I hope that the next time he comes he can look at the Zachary Merton community hospital and the Swandean mental health services as well.
On child mental health care, may I put it to him that a quarter of the 700,000 teenagers going through each stage each year will have bumps and need resilience, and that their parents and teachers need help? Will he make sure that the Green Paper covers advice to parents and teachers so that they know what is in the normal range of behaviours and what is outside that range?
Mr Hunt
I commend my hon. Friend for his one-man campaign, which I continue to admire on many occasions, against the misinformation put out by 38 Degrees. I thank the staff at Worthing hospital for their fantastic work over the busy Christmas period. As usual, he puts his finger on a very important issue, which is that as we seek to raise the profile of mental health treatment for children and young people, we must not medicalise every single moment of stress. For example, worries before exams are not cause to talk to an NHS psychiatrist. A lot of work on the Green Paper will be looking at how we can promote self-help and at how we can help schools to support people through difficult patches, but we will also look at how we can make sure people get NHS care quickly when it is needed.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is great to see the Secretary of State here today in the Chamber after enjoying his Christmas recess. While he was away staff on the NHS frontline had to work double shifts, the London ambulance service computer system crashed and we found out that the Red Cross needed to be drafted into our hospitals. Will the Secretary of State tell us which hospitals he visited during the Christmas recess?
Mr Hunt
I was in touch with what was happening in the NHS every single day throughout the Christmas recess. As someone who has worked in a hospital, the hon. Lady might question whether it is particularly helpful for NHS hospitals to have visits by high-profile politicians right at their busiest periods. I have been very closely in touch. She talks about the problem at London ambulance service. That was a problem staff have been trained to deal with. The staff of her own hospital worked extremely well, but they do not welcome attempts—she is making one this afternoon—to politicise the problems the NHS faces.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the changes to the four-hour standard that the Secretary of State heralded, what can be done to incentivise and upskill GPs who may wish to take a closer interest in minor and moderate illnesses, including the use of nurse-led minor injury units?
Mr Hunt
They have a very important role. Some of the most successful and best-performing trusts, such as Luton and Dunstable, have a very good streaming process at the A&E front door, with good alternatives when it is not appropriate for people to go to an A&E department. We need to learn from that. Nurse-led units can be very important. GP-led units can make a big difference, too. It will not be the same everywhere, for reasons of space if nothing else, but there is a solution that everywhere can adopt.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
In the past few weeks, we have seen pressures in the NHS that, to a certain extent, the Secretary of State has acknowledged. Given that we are not yet in the midst of a very desperate cold spell, and given that we are not in the throes of a flu epidemic, how can he come here today and complacently suggest he has a grip on our NHS services? Why was he not on top of those trusts he knew were weak? He knew they would be under threat if there was any pressure. What is he going to do when we hit a cold snap and people are suffering from flu in large numbers?
Mr Hunt
I am afraid that I reject that suggestion. The right hon. Lady wants to know what we have been doing over the course of the year. As I said in the statement, we have 1,600 more doctors than we had just a year ago, over 3,000 more nurses, the biggest flu vaccination programme in our history and 12,000 additional GP sessions booked over the festive period. A huge amount of work has been done, with a particular focus on distressed areas. Many of those distressed areas coped extremely well—not all of them, which is why there is more work to do.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
When the Health Committee in the previous Parliament looked at children and adolescent mental health services, one of the main concerns was the distance travelled by patients—sometimes halfway across the country—to get treatment. Will the Secretary of State expand on his plans to reduce attendance at A&E? Does he envisage a new form of gatekeeper and does he intend to try to keep drunks out of A&E?
Mr Hunt
I would probably use the word “streaming”, rather than gatekeeper, to ensure that we have good, alternative offers for people who do not need to be in A&E. Frankly, it is not safe for an A&E department to have people there for six, seven or eight hours with a minor injury and no urgent health need. It is distracting for staff and can make it more difficult for them to deal with people who have more immediate needs.
On distances travelled, as the Prime Minister said this morning it is completely unacceptable for people to have to go 400 miles for a mental health bed. What is the solution? We are commissioning more beds, but the actual solution is to intervene earlier so that people do not get to that stage in treatment where they need in-patient care. We know that if we intervene earlier we can in many cases head off that need and help people to get better more quickly.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
This afternoon, patients at Nottingham’s Queen’s Medical Centre emergency department are waiting on average for more than four hours. In the last month for which figures are available, 3,500 people had to wait for more than four hours in the emergency department. We cannot go on like this, so will the Secretary of State agree to fast-track the capital we need to increase capacity at Nottingham’s emergency department?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State has acknowledged that there is a shortage of acute mental health beds. That arises from the decision by many health trusts to close beds in favour of putting resources into services in the community. One effect is that people approaching a mental health crisis find it harder to know where to turn for help. Will he explain more about the crisis provision in which we are investing the extra £15 million? Is there a common way of knowing how one can easily access those vital services?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to supply more details. The £15 million is for places of safety—it is very specifically focused on support for the police service so that we can ensure that we live up to our legal commitment from this year not to send young people into police cells when they actually need mental health support.
More broadly, my right hon. Friend is right that there is a policy change—most people think it is the right thing—to treat more people in the community where we can. What is not working is the system that divides people up into four tiers, which means that we sometimes say to people, “We can’t treat you because you are tier 3.” People get sent away, which is not acceptable. That is why we are producing a Green Paper. We want to look at a better way forward.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the deepening crisis in the NHS is not solely down to an ageing society, and that failure to provide sufficient funding is the key to the crisis, and therefore that it is possible to address it? What will he do about it?
Mr Hunt
If the hon. Lady is worried about funding, she might explain why funding for the NHS in England went up by double the rate of funding for the NHS in Scotland over the last Parliament—[Interruption.] I will get her the figures on Northern Ireland, but I say that by way of reference. I apologise for my error.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is not just about the ageing society; it is about changing consumer expectations and the fact that people want access to healthcare 24/7 today in a way that was not the case 10 or 20 years ago. That in itself is the cause of a lot of the additional pressure.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement on mental health. It is absolutely clear that the Government are serious about improving mental health treatment and prevention. The challenge is to translate ambitions into action. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will put in place mechanisms to ensure that the proposals and those in the five-year forward view for mental health become reality? Specifically, will he look at ensuring that no sustainability and transformation plan is signed off without clear plans and funding for improving mental healthcare?
Mr Hunt
I can assure my hon. Friend that that is happening. Indeed, one of the key metrics by which we will judge STPs is their progress on delivering our mental health targets. She is absolutely right to say that ambitions need to turn into action, but she will find that, because of the comments that she and many other hon. Members have made over the past few years, there is much more understanding in the NHS that mental healthcare is a big priority, and more understanding that we need to stop resources constantly being sucked into the acute sector, as has happened over many years.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently announced that the Government were pressing ahead with significant cuts to the community pharmacy budget in the Department of Health in the face of huge opposition from Members on both sides of the House, members of the public and healthcare professionals. Given the evidence that one in five people who would usually see a pharmacist for medical advice say that they will make a GP appointment if their local pharmacist is closed—in areas of higher deprivation such as mine, it is four in five—and with the risk that many of those people in desperation will turn up at the local hospital, are the Government in danger of making an appalling crisis in the NHS even worse?
Mr Hunt
As with all parts of the NHS, we have to ask the pharmacy sector to make efficiency savings. Some 40% of pharmacies are clustered in groups of three or more, and it does not make sense for the NHS to continue to subsidise pharmacies that are very close to other pharmacies. Our reforms are designed to ensure, however, that where there is only one local pharmacy that people can access, that pharmacy is protected.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the damaging effect that loneliness can have on mental health, and will he join me in welcoming the launch of the Jo Cox loneliness commission at the end of this month?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do that and to acknowledge the importance of this issue. The latest figures I have seen are that 5 million older people say that their main form of company is the television, which is not acceptable, and we all have a responsibility to do better. It is not just a moral but a practical issue, as loneliness makes people more likely to need hospital treatment, which is of course expensive and challenging for the NHS.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has talked a great deal about preventing people from needing to go to A&E by intervening much earlier, yet surely he must recognise that the cuts to local authorities and social care make it much more likely that people will not be picked up earlier in the progress of an illness but will have to resort to the health service in a much more difficult situation. Can he not now have a discussion with his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Chancellor, and tell them that they have got this wrong and that we have to invest in preventive services? That means more funding for local authorities, rather than the 57% cut my authority has had, and investing now in proper social care, not the £5 billion of cuts in social care since 2010, otherwise the pressure on our NHS will just continue.
Mr Hunt
I actually agree with the hon. Lady’s broad point about the importance of the social care system and its interconnectedness with the NHS. As she well knows—her party’s manifesto reflected this as well—in 2010 we faced a very challenging economic situation, and both parties recognised the need for cuts in public spending. What changed in 2015, however, at least in the Conservative party’s manifesto, was the recognition that we needed to increase funding for the social care system, and with the changes announced by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in December, all local authorities can now increase funding for social care in real terms. I hope that we can start to turn things around.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
With the recent Education Committee report on children in care in mind, I welcome the Prime Minister’s refocus on mental health and the Secretary of State’s continued support for action. What practical steps does he have in mind, given our finding that local integration, effective relationships and the teaching of personal, social and health and economic education all help to produce good outcomes?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—obviously his role on the Select Committee gives him a particular insight—but we do not want to rush to a solution, which is why we have said that we will produce a Green Paper before the end of the year. It is a complex area. Other hon. Members have alluded to the risk of medicalising problems, given that, as we know, all young people at school experience periods of stress, anxiety and worry that are not necessarily diagnosable mental health conditions and which we would not want to make out to be such. This is about thinking through a smart way to improve resilience training and self-help and to educate schools so that they can spot when something is just a temporary thing in the run-up to exams, or whatever, and when it could be something a lot more serious, such as obsessive compulsive disorder, an eating disorder or something else that needs more immediate help. We have today started a big education programme with schools, but we want to go further.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I welcome the extra investment, if that is what it turns out to be, in mental health, but I want to press the Secretary of State on the question asked from the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) about educational psychology and how it will work. I speak as a mother of a child with SEN issues who has relied on clinical and educational psychology in schools. The school that my children currently attend is increasing class sizes from 30 to 33 and reducing the teaching staff—specifically those who engage with SEN children—because of changes to education funding. How does the Secretary of State think that will affect the mental health of pupils in my children’s school?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. Like her, I have had constituents who found it difficult to access educational psychologists and they have not been able to get approval for the plan that they need. We will consider these issues in the build-up to the Green Paper, and I encourage the hon. Lady to participate in that process.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Will the Health Secretary please get the message out there loud and clear to health bosses up and down the country that we need more capacity in our A&Es, so that when my CCG goes to NHS England with a request for £285 million for its appalling plan to downgrade my local A&E, bulldoze Huddersfield royal infirmary and replace it with a small planned care unit with fewer beds, it will realise that that money would be better spent on frontline A&E care in one of the country’s biggest towns.
Mr Hunt
I take seriously, of course, everything my hon. Friend says. I will say that the NHS does not always get these things right. I led a campaign against an A&E closure in my constituency when I was a Back Bencher—[Interruption]—and the Labour party was in power and about to take a wholly mistaken decision, which I was luckily able to persuade the Government not to take in the interests of my constituents. We will look carefully into these issues. On the broader point that my hon. Friend makes, we have to understand across the NHS that capacity matters, but in the long run, we will not solve the problem solely by increasing capacity in A&Es for ever. We need alternative forms of provision. Demand is growing, so we need to find different ways to offer treatment to people who do not need to be in an A&E. That is what we are exploring.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest in that my husband is an A&E consultant. If the Secretary of State were to speak to him, he would be told that, as we have already heard, the extra pressures on A&E are the result of the almost disappearance of preventive care, social care and other services. The problem is not individuals arriving in A&E who should not be there; it is other services that are referring people to A&E when they should not. Will the Secretary of State take responsibility for his Government’s decisions over the past six years that have now turned out to have been a false economy, because cutting all these vital services back to the bone is what is putting A&E on the brink of breakdown?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the broader principle that preventive care is vital, but with respect, I disagree with the suggestion that services have been cut to the bone. We have 1,600 more GPs—an increase of 5%—and the NHS was protected in the last Parliament. We recognise that there are problems in the social care system, which we are now in the process of putting right. Both at the last election, when the hon. Lady put a lot of input into Labour’s policies, and the one before it, the party promising the most resources for the NHS was the Conservative party, not the Labour party.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Everyone knows that the Secretary of State has an impossible job, which he does with humanity and energy. One part of his impossible job relates to the two-tier system, whereby much depends on where people live. In rural north Lincolnshire, people can wait more than three weeks to see a doctor and can wait two hours for an ambulance to come—[Interruption.] Yes, people have waited two hours, lying in the street, in places such as Market Rasen, while they wait for an ambulance. That is not acceptable, and it can be even worse on occasions. This comes on top of long-term lack of investment, which means we lack a psychiatric unit at the Peter Hodgkinson centre in Lincoln. I wonder whether we now need to start an honest discussion with the people about how we are going to devote more resources to health in this country. It could be through social insurance models or even—God forbid, and I know people will not agree with this—charging people who do not turn up for appointments.
Mr Hunt
While I do not agree with moving to a social insurance model, I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said about the broader issue of resourcing healthcare. If there are to be a million more over-65s in the next five years, we shall have to find a way to continue to invest more in our health and social care systems over the decades ahead. We are doing that this year in providing an extra £3.8 billion, and Governments will need to continue to do it in the coming decades.
My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted a specific problem. I do not have a solution to it now, but I want him to know that I understand that, in rural areas, people can wait too long for ambulances. Our system of targets gives ambulance services an incentive to prioritise the calls to which they can respond quickly in nearby towns, but I shall look into the issue.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State tells us that he has a plan and a strategy, so I assume that he is on top of all the facts, but will he assure us that he understands the scale of the problem by answering this question? As of the latest count this week, how many hospital beds were being blocked by people who could not be discharged because no facilities for their care were available in the community?
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
More than a third of A&E attendances at peak times are caused by drunkenness. Behaviour on such a scale is as unacceptable as it is irresponsible. What more can be done to reduce that proportion hugely by this time next year?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has raised an issue of public accountability. These are our national health services, and we need to treat them in a responsible way. It is selfish to behave irresponsibly and impose pressure on an A&E department, because someone else who needs help may not be able to get it.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
First, may I ask whether the Secretary of State is accusing the Red Cross of weaponising the national health service? Secondly, let me point out that when the NHS makes cuts, the services that suffer time and again are the so-called Cinderella services: mental health services. The only way to prevent that is to ring-fence the funds and force local commissioners to demonstrate to local populations that the extra money is genuinely being spent on improving mental health services. Finally, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), when local authority services are cut to the bone, they can only provide statutory services and all the preventive services go—never mind the cuts in social care. What is preventing the Secretary of State from commissioning an all-party group to seek a sustainable, long-term funding model for social care?
Mr Hunt
The Prime Minister has said that we need to find a long-term solution to the problem of funding social care, and that work is ongoing. We recognise the urgency of the situation.
As for the evidence of whether mental health services are reaching the frontline, we need to establish whether more money is being spent on mental health provision than in previous years, and, as I said earlier, about £1 billion more is being spent than two years ago.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, the A&E departments at the Worcestershire royal hospital and the Alexandra hospital in Redditch have been under huge pressure over the past few weeks. Can he reassure patients at both our hospitals that everything possible is being done to alleviate the problem? While I am grateful for the measures that have been introduced, what our trust really needs is agreement on a £29 million bid to increase capacity, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that as a matter of urgency.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her interest—on behalf of her constituents—in what has been happening. Subject to staffing, a new ward will be opened at the trust next week, and a new chief executive will arrive in the spring. We recognise the need for capital spending to increase capacity at both the Alex and the royal, and we will consider that bid sympathetically.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State could not resist making his customary political attack on the Welsh NHS. This weekend, I had cause to visit my local hospital A&E department with a family member, and we received a brilliant, speedy and expert service. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the staff at the Royal Glamorgan hospital? Will he also congratulate the Welsh Labour Government on not having to call the Red Cross to any hospital in Wales, and will he further congratulate them on their long-standing emphasis on mental health? Wales spends more on mental health provision per capita than England or, indeed, any part of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the £2 billion that he has cut from the Welsh budget in the past six years.
Mr Hunt
In the hon. Gentleman’s long list of statistics, what he was not prepared to say is that people wait twice as long for a hip replacement in Wales, more than double the proportion of the population is on a waiting list for NHS care—that is one in seven people in Wales, compared with one in 15 in England—and those in Wales are 40 times more likely than those in England to be waiting too long for a diagnostic test result.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Torbay, like many other places, has been under pressure owing to the demographics of an ageing population in the bay area, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is encouraging to hear of work being done in places such as the Chelston Hall practice, which I visited on Friday, to make sure doctors can be available on the day for those who need them and people are sent on to specialists who can help them better, such as a physiotherapist, rather than just taking up vital GP appointments?
Mr Hunt
Yes, indeed, and I congratulate all the NHS and social care staff in Torbay on doing a fantastic job. I also congratulate them on the pioneering work they have done on health and social care integration, which has made a huge difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Over the new year, East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust saw life-threatening calls up 42% on last year, and the chair of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust described its emergency department as pushed to the limit, with, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, almost double the normal number of hospital admissions, so clearly these were necessary attendances, but surely many of them could have been prevented. The Secretary of State has already acknowledged the connection between inadequate social care and this entirely foreseeable crisis, so I ask again: will he commit his Government to fund this properly?
Mr Hunt
I find these questions about funding curious coming from members of the Labour party, as, had we followed its plans, we would be spending £1.3 billion less on the NHS this year than what the NHS is actually getting, and I just say to them that the reason why we are able to spend that extra money on the NHS is that we know how to run the economy.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
All too often, mental health patients have wondered whether this issue has enough leadership, and I am incredibly pleased that the Prime Minister made one of her earlier speeches on this issue, but while no one in this House would oppose an extra £1.4 billion being invested over the course of this Parliament, may I echo the words of the chief executive of Mind that the proof will be in the impact this investment has on patients’ day-to-day experiences? So will the Secretary of State ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss plans to build a new psychiatric and dementia care unit at Bath, to service the whole of the south-west?
Mr Hunt
I am happy, on my hon. Friend’s behalf, to ask the Minister responsible to meet him to discuss that psychiatric unit. Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but this is the first time that I can remember that a Prime Minister has made her first major speech on the NHS about mental health and indeed talked, on the steps of Downing Street as she arrived, about the importance of sorting out mental health. That is a sign of the commitment coming right from the top.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The fabulous team at Imperial, St Mary’s in west London are featuring in a television programme this week, and the chief of service for emergency care is reported as saying:
“We’ve just had our worst 10 days on record. There’s nowhere in the hospital to move anybody. What’s happened in the last two years is the whole system, countrywide, has ground to a halt.”
That is partly because there is more than the equivalent of a ward of patients at any time who cannot move out of the hospital because there is nowhere for them to go. Does the Secretary of State accept that his Government have gone too far in the destruction of local government finance, including for social care, and does he accept that next year, despite all the rhetoric, local government finance will go down, not up?
Mr Hunt
First, I would like to thank the staff at Imperial, who, alongside other NHS staff, have done a fantastic job over a very difficult period. I would say to the hon. Lady that 50% of councils have no delayed discharges of care. It is a problem in many hospitals, but there are many areas that are managing to deal with it. I suggest that the local authorities that serve her constituency should look at the other parts of the country that are dealing with this problem.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I welcome the provision of mental health facilities and services for schools, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the type of first aid that he is proposing will also be made available to MPs and their staff, given the number of people with mental health problems that we deal with during our surgeries?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The problems in A&E that we have been hearing about this afternoon are symptomatic of problems elsewhere in the system. At Aintree hospital, whose staff are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, there are 130 patients who are medically fit for discharge today but social services are unable to support them to go home or to go into care elsewhere. The Secretary of State needs to accept that the cut of £4.6 billion to social services was a mistake. He also needs to accept that the better care fund is simply not delivering. It involves money being recycled from elsewhere in the system. Let us look at the figures for Sefton, which was promised £9 million but has received less than £1 million. If he is serious about sorting out the problems in social care in the long term, he needs to get the funding right. He needs to reinstate all the cuts that have been made.
Mr Hunt
I accept that more funding needs to go into social care, and that is why we are putting an extra £3.5 billion per annum into social care by the end of the Parliament. Despite the very real pressures in social care, however, there are many local authority areas and hospitals that have no delayed discharges at all. Half of all delayed discharges are in just 20 local authorities. As we wait for that funding to come on stream—it is not all coming on stream at the start of the Parliament—there is lots that can be done.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for paying tribute to frontline staff. I declare an interest as someone who worked in the NHS over the Christmas period and who saw at first hand some of the pressures that staff are facing, but I know from my 20 years’ experience working as a nurse that these are winter pressures that are faced every year. On mental health, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the mental health care nurses in Sussex and to Sussex police? Through their joint working, they have reduced the number of patients being placed in prison cells as a place of safety by 50%. That is a huge achievement in the county that contains Birling Gap and Beachy Head.
Mr Hunt
I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution as a practising nurse; it adds greatly to the House. I am more than happy to pay tribute to our brilliant mental health nurses. They have one of the most stressful jobs anyone can have, and I pay particular tribute to the ones in Sussex, which has those tragic suicide hotspots.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Given that the cold weather is coming, I want to return to the risk of a flu epidemic. A desperate doctor wrote to me last night to say:
“Sooner or later, there will be an epidemic and let me tell you: we cannot cope. Another shift, another full hospital. Another gridlocked A&E, more desperate but often implausibly understanding patients. Another 13 or 14 hour shift with one 10 or 15 minute break. Some patients and relatives get angry, some despair, most watch us and realise we can’t physically do anything more.”
Please help me, as her MP, to represent her, and please help us to have more staff.
Mr Hunt
That doctor speaks for many doctors who are working incredibly hard, particularly in our emergency departments. I would say to that doctor that we recognise the need for more doctors and we are recruiting more doctors, not just across the NHS but in emergency departments in particular. We also recognise that we need to find a different way to deal with some of the patients who come to the hospital front door, so that we can alleviate the pressure. That is what we are looking at.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I recently visited Bridewell organic gardens, an award-winning charity in my constituency that improves the mental wellbeing of those suffering from a range of mental health conditions. I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this morning raising awareness of the ongoing stigma regarding mental health, as well as the £1 billion investment and the commitment to improving services, but is the Secretary of State prepared to investigate schemes such as the one I mentioned to ensure that treatment of those suffering from mental health conditions is not simply limited to the provision of medication?
Mr Hunt
I am absolutely prepared to do that. We need to be open-minded about the fact that mental health, in some ways, is a relatively new field, and research on what works best is continuing to uncover many new things—much of that research is happening in this country. There has been a big move away from thinking that medication is always the best way forward. We have seen a huge expansion in talking therapies in the past few years in this country, and I am sure that trend will continue.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Despite the best efforts of dedicated NHS staff, patients attending one of my local A&Es were told that they would routinely have to wait 11 hours just to be seen. People were routinely on hospital trolleys for up to 20 hours. Mental health patients were sent to Colchester because it had the nearest available in-patient beds for 17-year-olds. Somebody I know waited six hours for a 999 ambulance, despite calling 999 three times. We can do better than that. To that end, I implore the Secretary of State—in fact, I plead with him—to intervene and suspend the needless downgrades of Dewsbury and Huddersfield hospitals, which will cost lives.
Mr Hunt
None of those examples of poor care is remotely acceptable. On my watch and under this Government we will see no return to the bad old days when people were routinely waiting far too long. [Interruption.] We recognise the problems that we have just had, and we are absolutely determined to make sure that we sort them out. If the hon. Lady’s local hospital reconfiguration ends up on my desk because it is referred by the local health scrutiny committee, I will look at the matter carefully and consider whether to refer it to the independent reconfiguration panel.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the Prime Minister’s focus on mental health, particularly the suicide prevention strategy and the £1 billion funding commitment to improving services. Mental health often not only affects the patient but affects their family and those closest and dearest to them—those who care for the patient. Does he agree that raising awareness and addressing the ongoing stigma of mental health is a vital part of our work on mental health?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention that. We can approach this area with some optimism about the potential for change. If she looks at our progress on dementia over the past four years, she will see that not a day goes past without something in the newspapers about dementia. The understanding of dementia has changed dramatically. We can change attitudes, and we absolutely need to do so because the only way to get help to people in mental health crisis is if they talk about it openly. That is a vital thing to change.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I entirely agree with the comments about the pressures on GP services, preventive health and social care, but I particularly want to ask about mental health services for students. There were three suspected suicides in the first few weeks of term this year at Bristol University, and I know from speaking to Dr Dominique Thompson, who runs the student health services there, that the number of students presenting with mental health issues has grown exponentially over recent years. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure us that students leaving home for the first time to go to university will be in safe hands?
Mr Hunt
I had an interesting afternoon visiting the suicide prevention unit at Bristol Royal infirmary, where I had a good discussion about its pioneering work. I learned a great deal from that visit. We have a particular concern about the very significant growth in mental ill health among women aged 18 to 24. Today, the Prime Minister announced that we have updated the suicide prevention strategy to make sure that all parts of the country can learn from best practice, including places like Bristol.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement on mental health, where excellent work is being done, led by Paul Farmer of Mind. Often, the key challenge is to identify those who need help and support, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet the Department for Work and Pensions to look at ways in which we can help to signpost those identified through the personal independence payments process to the additional support and help available?
Mr Hunt
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that those meetings are already happening; we have a health and work Green Paper, and we are particularly trying to speed up access to mental health services for people on benefits whom we can help to be more independent if we address their mental health problem more quickly.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I wish to pick up on a point the Secretary of State made about the right sort of patient arriving at A&E. Pat, a frail, elderly constituent of mine who had pneumonia-like symptoms, did not want to go to A&E and put pressure on hard-working staff, so she rang NHS Direct, only to be told there were 100 people in front of her for a doctor’s visit. Of course she thought she was going to die if she was left in her house, so she went to A&E, where she waited 20 hours for a bed. As the Secretary of State knows, that is unacceptable, so does he agree that there is urgent and immediate demand for out-of-hours doctors? If so, what is he going to do about it?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is right to say that we need better alternatives to A&E for people such as her constituent. Sometimes those do not exist, but one thing we need to do is make sure that people who call 111 and need to speak to a clinician can do so quickly. One thing we have piloted successfully in other parts of the country is better GP supervision of people in care homes, who are sometimes the most vulnerable patients. We are looking at all these things, but on the broad direction of travel she is right to say that we need to find a better way forward for people such as her constituent.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
In sparsely populated rural Lincolnshire, vital reforms of health and social care risk being undermined by the performance of East Midlands ambulance service. Our police and crime commissioner says that his officers are routinely acting, in effect, as ambulance drivers. I know the Secretary of State understands the problems we face in rural Lincolnshire, but does he agree that, as currently constituted, East Midlands ambulance service is not serving the rural parts of its area as well as its staff want to and as well as my constituents need it to?
Mr Hunt
As we discussed earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke, there are places where the service that the ambulance service provides to rural areas is not as good as it should be, sometimes because of the perverse incentives relating to how the targets work. I have been nervous about changing the targets, because that can sometimes be taken as a signal to relax and I am absolutely determined that we should meet the current targets, but I did make a commitment to him that I would look into this issue and I will do so.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last year, just 67% of category red 1 ambulance calls in Sheffield were answered within eight minutes. Last week, I met a constituent whose husband died while he waited for an ambulance for two hours and 40 minutes. Can the Secretary of State continue to stand at that Dispatch Box and say that there is no link between the underfunding of our NHS and these irresponsible and completely unacceptable response times?
Mr Hunt
First, of course what happened in that situation is totally unacceptable, but the hon. Lady makes a mistake to continually bring this back to funding, as it is also about demand pressures and models of care. Let me reassure her about the extra funding that has gone into ambulance services. We have about 200 more ambulances and about 2,000 more paramedics, and every day the ambulance service is doing about 3,400 more blue-light calls than it was six years ago. Significant investment has been made, but clearly more needs to happen.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The number of mental health patients in police cells is, rightly, down by 80%. People have bravely come to my surgery to talk about when they and their families have been struggling with mental health provision for those between the ages of 18 and 24. I pay tribute to Solent Mind and Southern Health, which are doing their level best to deal with this issue. One issue directly affecting that age group is the tier system, and people not being “sick enough” and not being sure where they should be going. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that he will focus on recruiting specialists in this area, because it is not about funding in my local clinical commissioning group—it is about finding the people to help those in need?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right on both counts. We need to look carefully at where the tier system is not working, and that should be part of our work on the Green Paper that the Prime Minister announced this morning. It is unacceptable for people to be told that they are not sick enough to get the care they urgently need. All the things we have announced and intend to announce to improve mental health will fail if we do not get the recruitment and training of new staff right. Along with the commitment we are making today to invest more in mental health must come some important strategic workforce planning, which I hope will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State referred to temporary assistance being given to distressed trusts, but is there not a more fundamental ticking time bomb in the form of the sustainability and transformation plans? I draw his attention to the debate I led on 16 December on the north-east London plan, which envisages a deficit of £578 million by 2021 and says that on a “business as usual” case model, with normal-type reductions and savings, there will still be a £240 million gap. That will mean poorer services. There is no capital provision for the closure of the King George hospital A&E and its re-provisioning at Queen’s hospital. Will he look into this matter urgently? There is going to be a massive crisis in my area unless urgent steps are taken to provide more resources.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to look into that issue. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of both Queen’s and King George hospital, who have not only done very well over the winter but have made great progress in turning around the trust, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is in special measures. We are hopeful that it might be able to come out of special measures at some stage this year under its new leadership, but that is obviously a decision for the CQC.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Kettering general hospital, which serves my constituency, has a significant problem with delayed discharges. Whatever the issues relating to money, perhaps the problem with social care is the model. Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition were to give a genuine commitment to try to work together to find a social care system for the future?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to have these discussions in a less politically charged way, because we need to find a solution that will survive changes of Government and be fit for the long term. We miss a trick when we say that the problem is primarily about funding. We have a huge variation in provision, and there are many local authorities where there are no delayed discharges of care, as we discussed earlier. What does not happen enough in the NHS and the social care system is people learning from best practice in other parts of the country. That is what we to change.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has spoken a lot today about trying to avoid unnecessary admissions to A&E. Will he tell me why admissions to A&E on Teesside as a result of chronic malnutrition have trebled under the Conservative Government? Does he think that is any reflection on their broader approach to public policy and tackling poverty in this country?
Mr Hunt
The way to deal with those kinds of terrible problems is to have a strong economy that allows us to support people through difficult periods in their life. We have one of the strongest economies—in fact, I think we will be the strongest economy in the G7 this year. That allows us to do things such as invest in our health and social care system. It is the Conservative party that can deliver that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I have spoken before about the staggering rise in the number of patients presenting at A&E at Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, and the hospital confirmed to me this morning that it continues to see more than 300 people each day, with high levels of delayed transfers of care. The impact was brought home to me by a constituent, Ann, who told me that on Thursday last week the facilities were so overcrowded that an adjacent seminar room was pressed into use. Bloods were being taken in the room, and she was treated there behind a makeshift curtain, reclining on a standard chair. Those are awful conditions in which to be treated, and in which to have to work. The Secretary of State says that it is not about funding; if it is not, will he come to Cambridgeshire and sit down with his Conservative colleagues on the county council and tell them where they are going wrong?
Mr Hunt
I went to Addenbrooke’s in the autumn and saw at first hand how hard the staff there are working. That is another trust that is in special measures, but it has made huge progress in trying to turn things around. I met several staff in the emergency department as well, and I pay tribute to them for their very hard work. I have never said that it is not about funding; what I say is that it is not just about funding. There is huge variation. In parts of the country, emergency departments avoid precisely the kind of overcrowding that the hon. Gentleman described at Addenbrooke’s. Hospitals that do that very successfully include Luton and Dunstable. We need all hospitals to adopt what the best hospitals do.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I welcome the publication of the new suicide prevention strategy, and I welcome the fact that it includes self-harm. I am also grateful for the mention of the work of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, which I chair. Will the Secretary of State meet Dr Robert Colgate? He has set out a triaging system for mental health, which means that people do not have to wait six to nine months to see a consultant. With the support of frontline staff, they can get an immediate triage assessment and assistance for their condition. Will the Secretary of State meet urgently Dr Colgate, whose work is being peer reviewed by the University of Manchester, to look at how his system, which is being rolled out throughout England, can help us to tackle the problems we have?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her work on the all-party group. I am more than happy to meet Dr Colgate. The purpose of the refreshed suicide prevention strategy is to try to ensure that we adopt best practice throughout the country. Some areas of the country are doing a very good job in suicide prevention, particularly in co-opting the public so that they understand that they can make a difference, too, but I am happy to explore with the hon. Lady what more can be done.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly pays tribute to NHS staff, but the reality is that many of our NHS workers are now at breaking point. They continue to perform their work with care and compassion in spite of, rather than because of, any action taken by the Health Secretary. It is now time for him to act. What commitment will he give to investing properly in NHS staff, and to reversing the process of the deskilling, demoralisation and downgrading of NHS staff that he and his Government have presided over since 2010?
Mr Hunt
With respect to the hon. Lady, who I know cares passionately about the NHS and often asks me questions about it, we now have 11,400 more doctors and 11,200 more nurses in the NHS than in 2010. We protected the NHS budget in 2010, when her party wanted to cut it, and we promised £5.5 billion more for the NHS than her party was prepared to promise at the most recent election. Her characterisation of this Government as not being prepared to back NHS staff is utterly absurd.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister’s focus on mental health today is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that we will achieve parity of esteem only if we are prepared to accept how far we currently are from it? It is not a recent problem: the lack of recognition for mental health dates back to the inception of the national health service and is driven by our culture and choices as a country, rather than by any particular Government. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that even the measures set out today, each of which is welcome in and of itself, will only really provide a sticking plaster for the problem? As it stands, on current progress, we are looking at having to wait decades before we achieve parity of esteem for mental health conditions.
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in that issue. Sometimes, this is a challenging area. We legislated for parity of esteem, with cross-party support, in 2012. The danger is that such a concept can be nebulous, which is why we asked Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, to look independently at what would be reasonable, fair and sensible progress towards parity of esteem by 2020. He said that he thought it would be a 10-year process, but that this was the right ambition for 2020. It was his report that the Prime Minister accepted this morning. We are making progress against benchmarks that independent people have looked at. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we will not get there by 2020, but we must make sure that we deliver on that commitment while he and I are both MPs.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Very seriously mentally ill people rely on support from a whole range of services, including—obviously—mental health services, but also housing, social services, sometimes the criminal justice system and, crucially, family support services. What is being done to ensure a whole-Government strategy to raise the standard of care, particularly for very severely ill people who need protection from harm both to themselves and, sadly, sometimes to others in society?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One example where that is particularly true is in addiction services. Highly vulnerable people whom we are trying to help kick a drugs habit may also have a housing problem, a debt problem or a work problem. Unless we solve those problems holistically, we are unlikely to be able to address the health problem that sits at the heart of those challenges. In essence, that is what the STP process is trying to address—I am talking about providing more joined-up integrated services. I am happy to have further discussions with her as to how we can make more progress in that area.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
In his statement, the Secretary of State promised a Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health before the end of the year. That could be 11 and a half months away. One in four people have a mental health disorder, and the Government’s own research says that young people are disproportionately affected. We have all heard stories—I certainly have in my constituency—of young people waiting more than a year for support, including those who have been victims of domestic violence. Schools and parents are picking up the pieces. Young people deserve better. Will he clarify the reasons for what appears to be quite a long delay and commit to bringing forward the Green Paper so that action can be taken more quickly and that this pressing issue is not kicked into the long grass?
Mr Hunt
May I reassure the hon. Lady that we will not be kicking the issue into the long grass? The Prime Minister has made a statement that we will have a Green Paper. There is a very specific reason why we need a bit of time: we want to ensure that the changes that we make—[Interruption.] We are getting a bit of chuntering from the Labour Front-Bench team. They might want to listen to the answer. The reason why we need to take some time is that a number of pilots concerning the improvement of mental health provision are taking place in schools at the moment, and we want to see them go through and evaluate them to inform what we do in the Green Paper. That will take a bit of time, but, at the end of it, we will get a better evidence base for the right way forward.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Young people in Sheffield have for some time now been telling me that they are waiting 25 weeks for an appointment with CAMHS after referral. Headteachers are telling me that they are digging into their budgets to buy in support for pupils in crisis, because they cannot access NHS services. Is it not deeply cynical for the Prime Minister to be raising hopes that we will be tackling the mental health crisis of our young people when the measures and the money that have been announced fall so desperately short of what we need?
Mr Hunt
It would be cynical if we raised hopes and had no intention of doing anything about the matter. What the Prime Minister said this morning in her speech was that this was the start of a process. She pointed to those problems and said that we will have a Green Paper to look at how we deal with them in detail, which does take some time. I hope that we will get to a position when we can deal with those problems. The hon. Gentleman is lucky to have Professor Tim Kendall working in Sheffield, as he is the NHS lead mental health psychiatrist and a specialist in homelessness, and he is helping us to shape the strategy.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues across the House.
Points of Order
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you been informed whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has any intention of making a statement to the House on the resignation of the Deputy First Minister and the implications for the Assembly?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have not received any indication of an impending statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the matter to which he refers. I appreciate that it will of course be of great interest to many Members of the House. The fairest thing I can say is that we must await the development of events. I am conscious that there is a Westminster Hall debate tomorrow afternoon. The possibility of an oral statement by the Government must clearly exist.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the past number of weeks in Northern Ireland, we have witnessed continuing political instability, which has been characterised by a scandal of immense proportions in relation to the renewable heat incentive and the continuing failure of the First Minister to step aside while an investigation, which my party had called for, takes place. As a consequence, we see the Deputy First Minister resigning today, which means that the house of cards will fall. As a consequence of that, what other avenues are available to hon. Members to discuss this particular political instability and difficulty, which will probably result in further Assembly elections or new negotiations?
Mr Speaker
This is an extremely sensitive situation, and I do not want to say anything that adds to that sensitivity. Suffice it to say that the hon. Lady inquired as to what other avenues are open to ensure discussion of this matter. In using the word “other”, I assume that she is referring to other avenues beyond the possibility of a Government statement, which, of course, it would be for the Government to decide whether to make. She is well familiar with the mechanisms available for scrutiny of the Executive in this place. The fairest thing I can say is that I would be extremely surprised if this matter were not fully aired in the next few days in this Chamber. As Speaker, I would want to facilitate the House if that is what is desired. My senses are that it will be desired and that it will happen.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Many will be alarmed by the recent reports of attempts by a foreign Government to “take down” Members of this House, including a senior Minister. Given the very serious implications of this matter, what measures will you take to investigate it, not least because one party to the discussions, according to the press coverage, was, or is, at least partially a paid employee of this House?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. At this stage, in direct response to his inquiry, I am not aware of anything that has happened that is a matter for the Chair. If it transpires that something has happened that is a matter for the Chair, I will of course consider what action to take. The matter of concern is serious—I do not dispute that for one moment—but it is important to be accurate in the use of terms and language. To the best of my knowledge and belief—I do not doubt the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman—the individual to whom he has indirectly referred has not been an employee of this House. The individual concerned was an employee of a number of institutions and people. My understanding is that she has resigned from one full-time post and from another part-time post. The part-time post, which had caused her to work administratively with a Member of the House, has ended and the pass that was available to her is being returned. I think that is a pretty full answer to the right hon. Gentleman, which it is intended to be, and I hope that it is helpful, but I do not think that it would be helpful further to dwell on the matter now. I thank him for raising the matter, which is obviously of concern to him.
I do not want to invite trouble, but the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is a very senior Member of the House—I know that he would not take liberties—is looking at me in a state of great perturbation. If he really wants to raise a point of order, I am not going to stop him.
Mr Speaker
He does not. What a remarkable display of self-restraint by the hon. Gentleman. It might catch on—you never know. I think that colleagues would probably say to me, “Good luck with that one.”
Technical and Further Education Bill
Monday 9th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 January 2017 - (9 Jan 2017)
20:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Representative panels—
‘(1) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education shall establish—
(a) a panel of persons undertaking approved English apprenticeships; and
(b) a panel of persons undertaking study towards approved technical education qualifications.
(2) A panel under subsection (1)(a) shall be established by 1 April 2017 and shall advise the Board of the Institute on all matters concerning approved English apprenticeships.
(3) A panel under subsection (1)(b) shall be established by 1 April 2018 and shall advise the Board of the Institute on all matters concerning technical education qualifications.’
This new clause would establish representative panels of apprentices and of learners in technical education who are not doing apprenticeships.
New clause 4—Careers education: duty to publish strategy—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a strategy for the purposes of improving careers education for persons receiving education or training—
(a) in the course of an approved English apprenticeship;
(b) for the purposes of an approved technical education qualification; or
(c) for the purposes of approved steps towards occupational competence.
(2) The strategy shall be laid before Parliament.
(3) The strategy shall specify provisions under which the Secretary of State will seek to—
(a) ensure that persons receiving education or training under subsection (1) receive information, advice and guidance relating to their future careers, and that such information, advice and guidance is delivered in a way which meets each person’s needs and is impartial;
(b) ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas;
(c) ensure parity of esteem between technical, further and higher education; and
(d) monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.
(4) The provisions specified in subsection (3) shall have specific regard to particular needs of different groups of persons receiving education or training under subsection (1), including—
(a) persons with special educational needs;
(b) care leavers;
(c) persons of different ethnicities;
(d) carers, carers of children, or young carers, as defined by the Care Act 2014; and
(e) persons who have other particular needs that may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) The strategy shall include guidance for the purposes of improving careers education, to which the following bodies shall have regard—
(a) the Office for Standards in Education, Children‘s Services and Skills;
(b) the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and
(c) the Office for Students.
(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations designate relevant authorities and partners for the purposes of subsection (3)(b).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) further groups of persons under subsection (4)(e); and
(b) further national authorities or bodies under subsection (5).
(8) Regulations made under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) For the purposes of this section, “careers education” means education about different careers and occupations and potential courses or qualifications to attain those careers and occupations.’
This new clause would establish a statutory requirement for the Government to produce a strategy on careers education, which shall be taken to be the “Careers Strategy”.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
‘(4) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in performing its functions must have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to, and participation in, education or training provided in a form specified in subsection (6).’
This amendment would ensure that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education must have due regard for widening access and participation.
Amendment 5, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
‘(4) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in performing its functions must co-operate with the Apprenticeship Delivery Board on progression into, and delivery of, apprenticeships.’
This amendment would ensure that the Institute has a duty to co-operate with the Apprenticeship Delivery Board.
Amendment 6, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
‘2A After section ZA2 (general duties) insert—
“ZA2A Expenditure by the Institute
In the discharge of its duties and functions under this Chapter, the Institute shall in any one year expend a sum no less than the sum projected to be raised under the Apprenticeship Levy in that year.”’
Amendment 7, page 22, line 2, after “to” insert “state-funded”.
Amendment 8, page 22, line 23, at end insert—
‘(1A) In making determinations under subsection (1)(a) on occupations relating to apprenticeships, the Institute shall attach particular importance to the needs of apprentices aged between 16 and 24.’.
This amendment would ensure the mapping of occupation groups has particular regard for people aged 16-24 taking apprenticeships.
Amendment 9, page 23, line 2, at end insert—
‘(2A) Outcomes under subsection (2)(b) shall include recognised technical qualifications.’.
This amendment would ensure that all apprenticeship standards include a recognised technical qualification.
Amendment 10, page 28, line 6, leave out “course document” and insert
“standard or technical assessment design specification”.
Amendment 11, page 28, line 9, leave out “another person” and insert “other persons”.
Amendment 12, page 28, line 10, leave out “another person” and insert “other persons”.
Amendment 13, page 28, line 12, leave out section A2IA(4).
Amendment 14, page 28, line 17, after “education” insert “route”.
Amendment 15, page 28, line 28, after “education” insert “route”.
Amendment 17, page 28, line 30, leave out section A3A(2)(c).
Amendment 16, page 28, line 32, after “education” insert “route”.
Amendment 18, page 28, line 39, after “Ofsted” insert “, the QAA”.
Amendment 19, page 29, line 1, after “Ofsted” insert “, the QAA”.
Amendment 20, page 29, line 3, after “England,” insert
“including those offered by Higher Education Institutions,”.
Amendment 21, page 29, line 13, at end insert—
‘“QAA” means the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.’
Amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 would ensure that the QAA would be included in the list of organisations required to share information and that degree apprenticeships were fully covered by this requirement.
Gordon Marsden
Mr Speaker, may I, on behalf of everybody in the Chamber, wish you, the Deputy Speakers—one of them is taking your place as I speak—and all your officials a very happy new year, and the same to all Members of the House?
The issue we are pursuing this evening is whether this will be a happier new year for apprentices and the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The Government will know that the Opposition have been broadly supportive of the process that they are bringing forward, although it was somewhat forced upon them when their original mechanism, which was to get many of these things through in the academies Bill, was shipwrecked—the academies Bill mark 2 proved to be no more popular with some of their Back Benchers than the academies Bill mark 1. We therefore got a fairly rapid notice of the Technical and Further Education Bill before Christmas.
Having said that, we had a good Committee stage and I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his conviviality and the constructive way in which he responded to us. Of course, as the old saying goes, fine words butter no parsnips, but I hope that by the end of this evening we will have at least a few parsnips buttered.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I, and indeed other Members, tabled a number of amendments in Committee that the Government do not appear to have taken on board. They were not pressed at the time, but we had hoped that the Government would bring some of them forward as their own amendments. Is he somewhat disappointed by that?
Gordon Marsden
I am always slightly disappointed when intimations of progress in Committee are not met with specifics on Report. Of course, the Government have the opportunity this evening, in commenting on our amendments, to do something about it, and indeed to accept some of them in principle. If they think that the amendments are defective but the basic principle is fine, they should take them on board.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I know the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the subject, but does he not also agree with the fact that the Government have an overarching approach to careers advice, notwithstanding the Careers & Enterprise Company? It could be difficult to put arrangements that only apply to technical education into this Bill when there is a much broader issue at stake that the Government are tackling at a strategic level.
Gordon Marsden
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is true, of course—but this is outwith the discussion that we are able to have this evening—that careers advice and education in this Bill does not start at 16 or at the remit of the DFE. It starts much earlier. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is an argument for doing nothing within the limited scope of the Bill, I do not agree. We need to do something. I would like to see the overarching structures that he mentioned but, unfortunately, at the moment I would be quite happy to see a limited overarching structure for the area that we are discussing. The challenge for the Minister is to talk about the £90 million that the Government have allocated to the Careers & Enterprise Company over the course of this Parliament, how it will be spent, how it is being distributed and whether it is adequate.
There are some damning statistics in the report produced by the Institute for Apprenticeships under the aegis of Semta. As the Minister knows, the proportion of respondents saying that their careers advice and guidance was poor or very poor has remained high across all sectors in all surveys from 2014 to 2016. The report says:
“Worryingly, this year 94 survey respondents, 6% of the total, said they had not received any careers IAG at all.”
When we discussed the matter in Committee, those were the sorts of statistics that were available to us. I said—perfectly fairly, I thought—that, although the Careers & Enterprise Company was beginning to make progress, I did not believe that it was yet able to do the necessary coverage because it is heavily reliant on volunteers. Early in December, we learnt that the company does not cater to every college in the country, including the whole of London. There are not just a few cold spots, but whole cold areas. There is a postcode lottery for FE coverage, with 15 local enterprise partnerships not covered and London completely absent.
The chief executive of the CEC, Claudia Harris, confirmed that the company did not work with any of the capital’s 44 FE and sixth-form colleges. During an interview with FE Week, she blamed the lack of coverage on “ramp-up”—I think that is what lesser mortals would call the rolling out of pilots, but I await a definition from the Minister. Now, I am not laying the blame at the door of the Careers & Enterprise Company; the Government are expecting it to do too much with too little, and they should probably also think again about having a company that is so heavily reliant on volunteers to carry out these tasks.
Rob Marris
I apologise somewhat for interrupting my hon. Friend’s magnificent speech. Part of the problem with the apprenticeship levy is that the Government are all over the place on it. I talked to a major supermarket chain that has employees in Scotland and whose payroll is of sufficient magnitude that it will have to pay the apprenticeship levy, but because of devolution there is no guarantee that, in Scotland, its apprenticeship levy funding will in fact be used for apprenticeships. That may be the case in Wales and Northern Ireland as well—I know not. This may go some way towards explaining the gap that my hon. Friend has put his finger on very acutely about where the money is going. The reason is that it is matter for the Treasury, which has not yet got to grips with devolution.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a very interesting and succinct point. If I were not constrained by talking about this amendment, we could have some very interesting conversations about how the devolution situation is panning out, but I need to stick to my last.
The other point that is germane to this amendment is the coming Budget. We now know that the Budget will be in the first week of March, so issues about what the rate and the threshold of the apprenticeship levy might be after its first year obviously come to mind. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, after much prompting and questioning during the previous Administration of David Cameron, said that
“the government will keep the apprenticeship levy under review.”
So, as we all know, it could go up and of course, theoretically, go down. The level at which it is set, and how much companies get back from it, will be crucial in deciding whether it is a success or a flop. Given that it is only eight weeks until Budget day, what conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury to make sure that it gets the balance right? The more we hear—I said this in May and say it again today—about how the levy will now need to fund the top-up, the devolved Administrations, English and maths at level 2, disadvantaged learners, incentive payments and non-levy payers, the more it seems inevitable that the Government will end up increasing it.
Rob Marris
I am a little bemused by this amendment, although I think I understand it. It seems to me that it would be desirable, certainly within England, if not within the United Kingdom, to have a national framework of standards such that the framework should not simply apply to qualifications that were obtained through a state-funded institution but be spread more broadly. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say a little more about his approach.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of a national framework. Various research reports over many years indicate that the privately funded training market has been exceeding the publicly funded one by considerable amounts, and that includes specialist management training, IT vendor qualifications, and project and programme management. The Government may need to look a bit more carefully at how this process is going to move forward. I absolutely agree about the need to have an overarching national framework, which we do not currently have.
Amendment 8 would ensure that the mapping of occupation groups had particular regard to people aged 16 to 24. This is crucial, because many apprenticeship training providers are reporting that, under the new levy system, employers are deciding to choose apprentices aged over 19 rather than 16 to 18-year-olds, particularly with regard to the new standards. Employers say that there is very little incentive left for them to take on younger learners, especially in the higher funding bands where a £1,000 employer incentive is a small fraction of the overall funding available. As the Minister will know, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which has, up until now, predominantly delivered apprenticeships to 16 to 18-year-olds, is seeing the majority of its business switch from this age group to older individuals.
If one looks at Lord Sainsbury’s comments and the skills plan commentary in relation to the changes in funding giving parity to older learners, one can see that the majority of apprentices in this age band are already 18, with little effort to change that through careers support. Perhaps that is the Government’s plan. If so, the Government need to be honest and to tell us that; if not, something needs to change as otherwise we are in danger of ending up with fewer apprenticeship opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds.
I want to quote to the Minister some recent remarks of JTL, a training provider. About the new system, it says:
“Our employers say that under the new system when the traditional age differentials in funding rates are removed, they would sooner employ young people aged 19 and over. Some 16- and 17-year-olds aren’t allowed on site due to health and safety rules, and many of them have yet to pass their driving test, but the present funding makes it still worthwhile to take them on. Remove the incentive and employers will switch back to recruiting older apprentices.”
It went on to say—I hope the Minister will give this point careful thought, given the emphasis on STEM—that the
“so-called £1,000 incentive for employers to recruit 16- to 18-year-olds simply doesn’t work for STEM sectors. Our level three apprenticeships typically last four years, meaning the incentive equates to a mere £5 per week, which is of no interest to employers given the additional challenges of younger employees.”
That is a timely new year reminder to the Minister that the concessions he made after the Save Our Apprenticeships campaign, with which our party was very pleased to be involved—as he knows, the campaign involved a very broad range of people, whom he met and to whom promised changes—have not solved the problem. The concessions applied a temporary sticking plaster to the problem, and it remains to be seen how long it will stick. Coming on top of the continued lack of certainties about the new structures for apprenticeships and the delayed consultation, there must be concern about the fragility of the Government’s performance in the 16-to-18 area. In FE sectors, such as mine in Blackpool, we desperately need to get such young people skilled apprenticeships, which means looking for them now.
As I am sure the Minister knows, the AELP has raised the issue that a framework of only 15 routes across technical education might create an elitist system of education that denies many young people a work-based route to level 2 or 3. We remain concerned about that, given that so many young people in the service sector are not likely to be automatically covered. I know that there have been conversations saying that this is not really about apprenticeships, but about technical education. Whether it is about apprenticeships or technical education, however, young people in Blackpool and everywhere else need good training, whether from the service sector or the manufacturing sector. I would have thought that focusing on that would make a major contribution to this Government’s social justice agenda and even, arguably, to anticipating the impact of Brexit if controls on migrant labour are introduced. It is important to have a skills strategy that is inclusive, and this is a perfect opportunity to create such a coherent, inclusive strategy that covers a wide range of different abilities and aptitudes and that strives for excellence. That is what amendment 8 intends to do.
I want to talk briefly to amendment 9, which is about all apprenticeship standards needing to include a recognised technical qualification. As the Minister will know, it is not only we who have been concerned about this; a range of organisations—most recently, AELP—has been concerned about the omission of qualifications from some of the new standards. The investment in time and resource is leading to employer fatigue in some areas, and there is a lack of engagement. According to AELP, just under 50% of the current standards released still do not include a mandatory qualification. One alternative solution is our proposed amendment, which would make the whole apprenticeship, rather than simply its components, into a recognised qualification.
I want to move on to amendment 10, which I will group with amendments 11 to 16 and, indeed, amendments 18 to 21. Amendment 10 is about the need to change the title of “course document” to
“standard or technical assessment design specification”.
That would ensure that copyright was acquired only at a level equivalent to apprenticeships. It is argued that underpinning occupational standards and technical assessment design specifications that are the equivalent of assessment plans is all that is needed for Crown copyright. City and Guilds has specifically raised with us the issue of the imposition of acquired copyright in evidence, as have other groups.
We have tabled the amendments because there is concern that imposing acquired copyright is one of the most significant risks to the future vitality of the technical education market in the UK. I accept that this is a complex and technical area, but the Minister needs to look at it carefully. It is not simply a question of existing providers wanting to set in stone a form of protectionism; it is about intellectual property, and where intellectual property starts and ends. The concern of many providers is that there has been a degree of mission creep in that respect in the way in which the Bill has been drafted. From a pragmatic point of view, I must say that if the broader definition of what the institute has to do on copyright remains in the Bill, even more resources may be required to police it, and I have already mentioned that there is a lack of such support. We need to look at these important issues.
The concern that each technical level will have only one awarding organisation has been raised by both the Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Education and NCFE. NCFE has said that, as currently set out, with some of the technical levels going to only one awarding organisation, having one would be unfortunate, but—to misquote Oscar Wilde—to have two might be beneficial. That would provide competition and enable providers to switch quickly in the event of problems, without the multiplication issues that have caused problems and difficulties elsewhere. NCFE has said, more in sorrow than in anger, that the
“current proposals do not seem to recognise the great expertise in designing and assessing Technical and Professional Education qualifications that already exists within Awarding Organisations.”
Our amendments 11 to 16 are consequential on amendment 9. Under an exclusive licensing model, the licence holder for a particular qualification may assume a quasi-monopoly position for the duration of the contracts. That is one of the reasons why the proposals are designed to move away from that principle. It seems to us that the principle should be that there needs to be a rationalisation of the operations of awarding organisations, but not necessarily to the point of having single operators on a licence, given the monopoly and single point of failure issues alongside all the intellectual property rights and Crown copyright ones. I repeat to the Minister that this is a complicated area and I appreciate that it is not easy to get the balance right, but I urge him to think very carefully about some of the representations that have been made and, if he is not able to do anything about them tonight, to at least bring forward solutions in the other place.
The final area on which I want to comment briefly—I have talked about routes and all the rest—is the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Amendments 18 to 21 would ensure that the QAA was included in the list of organisations required to share information, and that degree apprenticeships were fully covered by such a requirement. Ofsted should have the authority to inspect every apprenticeship. We welcome the growth in degree apprenticeships and expect many more under the levy, but some are not genuinely work-based learning and are a rebranding of more vocationally biased degrees. Stricter monitoring is therefore needed. We argue that the involvement of the QAA is very important in this respect. It is vital that apprenticeships are just that: proper apprenticeships, with which Ofsted and Ofqual need to be well and properly engaged.
I am aware that the Opposition amendments have had to be discussed in considerable detail and some are technical, but the broad thrust of what we are trying to do is: first, to ask the Government to act on their commitments in Committee; and, secondly, to go further than that and make the rhetoric around social mobility and widening participation a reality. The only way to do that is to improve the Bill with the amendments we have tabled this evening.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
I think this is the first time that a lapel microphone has been used in this way—I appreciate that. I wish the House, and the many apprentices who worked over Christmas and the new year, a very happy new year. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for chairing the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) for his amendments—as ever, very thoughtful.
I will start by discussing new clause 1, but I just want to make the point that the hon. Gentleman talked about the completion of apprenticeships. Some 70% of apprentices complete and 90% get either employment or further training. We have nearly 900,000 apprentices, an all-time high and a record in our nation’s history, so we are making good progress. He talked about NEETs. He will know that between 2014 and 2015 the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education or work-based learning increased to 90%, which is the highest on record. The percentage of NEETs fell to 6.5%, the lowest rate since records began. He talked about the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education appointments and went on, yet again, about Christmas. I have to say that IFATE is not just for Christmas, it is for life and we want to get it right. We want to ensure that the appointments we make are the right ones and are not made in haste. He sometimes says that we are doing things too quickly and at other times he says that we are doing things too slowly.
On new clause 1, as I explained in Committee, the institute will be required to report on its activities annually under schedule 4 to the Enterprise Act 2016, and the report must be placed before Parliament. That provision will also allow the Secretary of State to ask the institute to report on anything else she thinks appropriate, such as the information requested in the amendment. We think it would be an unnecessary and significant duplication of effort, as the information is already collected and published by the Secretary of State on the performance of the FE sector, which includes apprentices—I gave the hon. Gentleman some of the figures only a moment ago.
Much of that information goes far beyond the role of the institute. The institute’s core role from April 2017 is to oversee and quality assure the development of standards and assessment plans for use in delivering apprenticeships. Under the reforms in the Bill, college-based technical education cannot be held wholly responsible for, for example, job outcomes and wage rates of apprentices once they complete their apprenticeships. It is essential that the institute is aware of the impact it is making. We would expect it to make good use of the data on the outcomes made available to it through these public data sources and surveys, and to explain in its annual report how it has deployed them.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the Minister for the work he does. He is very committed—whenever I see him he is wearing an “A” on his lapel to show his support for apprenticeships. Will he clarify one point in relation to new clause 1(2)(e), which would include in the report the satisfaction rates of employers? He will be aware that there is some concern that to reach the 3 million target there will be dilution. I am not saying there will be, but that there is concern that there might be. Is the satisfaction rate of employers currently collected —not for every employer, but through sampling—and published? If it is not, it would be very important for it to be published, so that the concerns about a dilution of standards could be somewhat allayed.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. It is published. I think, if I am not mistaken, employer satisfaction is near 90%; it might be 88% or 85% or something like that. I am very happy to provide him with the information if he so requires.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool South that the institute needs to consider the views of those who take an apprenticeship or a course in technical education. I am confident that it will do that. He will know—he pointed it out—that last week we published draft strategic guidance for the institute. In this document, which is now open for consultation, we set out that we expect the institute to establish an apprentice panel that will report directly to the board. I am pleased to say to the hon. Gentleman that it will be ready by April 2017, but the wider point is that we should not rush things. We need to get it right. The apprentice panel will be made up of apprentices from different occupations and experience. The panel will decide for itself which issues to focus on, and will challenge and make recommendations to the board. I am sure it will be a success. It will ensure that the views of apprentices are fed directly into the institute’s governance. It might not be exactly the right model in practice. I want to see how it works. I believe that the institute, particularly in its infancy, should have the flexibility and the freedom to decide the best way of gathering the views of an apprenticeship on an ongoing basis. Whatever model it adopts, I would expect the institute to do something similar for technical education students when it takes on this responsibility, but I want to see how the apprentice panel pans out.
Gordon Marsden
I thank the Minister for giving way with his customary courtesy. I just want to be absolutely clear about the implications of the wording of the document. Is he giving an assurance on the Floor of the House that the panel will be set up by April, that he will review the panel’s progress and whether it has the right form and structure, and that if he thinks it does not have the right form or structure he will replace it with something equally valuable in representing the views of apprenticeships to the board of the institute?
Robert Halfon
I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee. The panel will be set up by April. I believe it would be pointless to have an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education without proper apprentice representation, but I want to see what the best format is. I am sure it will work and be a success, but I just want, as I said, to see how it pans out. We expect the institute then to do something similar for technical education students.
I agree with the motivation behind the amendment, but I am concerned about enshrining the establishment of panels in legislation. I do not want to put the institute in a constant straitjacket of legislative red tape that reflects every good idea there may be on how best to fulfil its responsibilities. I therefore think the amendment is unnecessary and would undermine the institute’s power to regulate its own governance and perform its duty.
On new clause 4, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) made a remarkable speech in Committee on a careers strategy. She cares passionately about this, as I do, but I think we do have meat on the bones. It is not just words. The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about budgets. We are spending £90 million, which includes the work of the Careers & Enterprise Company. A separate £77 million is being spent on National Careers Service guidance just this year. I am going further. I am looking at a careers strategy from the beginning to ensure that we address our skills needs, and to look at how we can help the most disadvantaged. I am looking at how we can ensure widespread and quality provision, and how that leads to jobs and security. I will set out my plans on careers over the coming weeks.
On the investment in the Careers & Enterprise Company, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there was no activity in London. I have been to a school in east London supported by the Careers & Enterprise Company and the local enterprise partnership. It is doing remarkable work. Some 1,300 advisers are connecting schools and colleges. They are slowly creating a way to connect with 250,000 students in 75% of the cold spots around the country. There is also money for mentoring. He talked about a famine. I would not say there is a feast, but substantive and serious funds are going in. I could spend a lot of time listing the different moneys, but if he looks at this carefully and fairly, he will see the work that the Careers & Enterprise Company is doing.
We will monitor carefully the impact of our work. In January 2017, destination data will be included in national performance tables for the first time, ensuring an even sharper focus on the success of schools and colleges in supporting their students. Before my time, we legislated to ensure that schools gave independent careers advice on skills and apprenticeships—that was done by my predecessor. Work is being done in schools. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtfulness in proposing the new clause, but it is my view that it is not necessary because of the action we are taking, the careers plans I am developing and the money that is being spent, which I have highlighted.
As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment 4 would require the institute to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I welcome the opportunity to debate that. I know why he tabled the amendment and why it is important. It is crucial to widen access and participation, and to ensure that apprenticeships and technical education are accessible to all, which is why I was glad that, for this year, we have our £60 million fund to help to encourage apprenticeships in the most deprived areas of our country.
I reassure the House that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will have to have due regard to widening access and participation. We carried out an equalities impact assessment before publishing the post-16 skills plan, which concluded that the reforms are likely to have a positive impact on individuals with protected characteristics, in particular those with special educational needs or disability, those with prior attainment and those who are economically disadvantaged. The economic assessment concluded that all learners would benefit from the proposed technical education reforms, which will give people access to high-quality technical education courses.
I believe that the need to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation in further and technical education already exists in legislation under sections 149 and 150 of the Equality Act 2010. It is expressly set out in section ZA2 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 that the institute must have regard to
“the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within”
its “remit”. The Secretary of State has the power to provide the institute with further guidance under that section. I hope that that explanation gives the hon. Gentleman confidence. I am committed to ensuring that people of all backgrounds have equal opportunities. As he will know, over Christmas we removed the need for apprentices who have serious hearing difficulties to do functional English—they can do sign language instead. That is an example my commitment, as is the extra funding we are giving to employers and providers to get more apprentices who are disabled.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that bringing together oversight of apprenticeships and technical education in one place will bring coherence into the system, which will ensure and protect diversity and equal opportunity because there will be clearer guidance on all opportunities for career progression?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend, who campaigns a lot on diversity and equality, is absolutely right. The proposal will benefit the people who need it most. Many people from disadvantaged backgrounds and with disabilities are prominent in further and technical education.
Amendment 5 addresses the Apprenticeship Delivery Board. The hon. Member for Blackpool South was a little unkind about the board. The board’s representatives include the chief executive of Channel 4, the Compass Group, the City of London, Barclays bank, Sunmart Ltd, Fujitsu, Wates construction, the Ministry of Defence and a significant retail sector member. As he said, there are three women on the board. They are doing important work. They advise the Government and work with businesses to encourage them to have apprentices. As far as I am aware, those people are not being paid. They do not have to do it; they do it because they want to serve our country. They have helped the Apprentice Ambassador Network. The chair, David Meller, is doing important work on that and running the board. I pay tribute to the board. I mean this kindly, but I would not be obsessed with whether or not the Prime Minister has an apprenticeship adviser. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister’s advisers are the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, which is me, and my boss the Secretary of State. A new adviser for the Prime Minister will not change the course of history for apprentices in our country.
Rob Marris
Most of us would see the Minister as a journeyman or time-served Minister rather than as the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills. He will forgive me for not researching this earlier, but I did not notice in the list he read out any trade union representation. Unusually for Conservative Members, he is an active trade unionist—or he was. Does he agree that it would be desirable to have trade union representation on that board to get buy-in from the workforce side?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am still a trade unionist. That is a good idea. The board is independent, but I will suggest it. I am very impressed and supportive of the work that Unionlearn does, which is why we have agreed to fund it by £12 million. It works to promote training and apprenticeships.
The institute will consult the Apprenticeship Delivery Board and other bodies but, as I have said, we do not need to straitjacket the institute with so much red tape that we stop it from being independent. The delivery board is not intended to have any special legislative standing or corporate identity. It would be unusual to name it in legislation, but the institute will consult the board along with others.
Amendment 6 would require the institute’s expenditure in any one year to exceed that raised by the levy. It is important to clarify that the institute will not have responsibility for the apprenticeship budget, which resides with the Secretary of State for Education. Although the institute is not a funding body, it will be asked to advise on the pricing of apprenticeship standards and allocation to funding bands. The institute’s operations will be funded by my Department and not from the levy funds. It follows that the institute should not be obliged to spend funds raised under the levy.
On devolution, which the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned, it will be up to the devolved authorities how they spend the money. If we were to tie the spending explicitly to the levy receipts, there could be adverse funding consequences for the programme as a whole. The budget for spending on apprenticeships in 2019-20 for England and the devolved Administrations totals in excess of £2.9 billion, whereas the projected levy income is £2.8 billion. Having certainty over the funding for apprenticeship training is preferable to linking the funding on a year-by-year basis directly to the wider performance of the economy.
Mims Davies
Eastleigh College, which is the third-largest college providing apprenticeships in England and trains over 9,000 apprentices, is particularly interested in how the funding formula for the institute will work and how that will support its work with communities, so the Minister’s clarity today around the levy, the funding criteria and how it will be delivered is very welcome.
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend. It is brilliant that her college is providing such training, and I would be pleased to come and see its training programme when I am next in the area. That it is doing this means that it will also be receiving significant funds. I congratulate the college on the work it is doing on apprenticeships.
Amendment 7 would limit the power to confer new functions on the institute to “state funded” apprenticeships and technical education. All the institute’s current functions in part 4 of, and schedule 4 to, the Enterprise Act 2016 and in schedule 1 to the Bill apply to all reformed apprenticeships and technical education qualifications, not just those that are state funded. We would therefore expect that any new functions the institute is required to carry out should also apply in the same way, to ensure that they are fully effective and do not treat some apprenticeships and technical education courses differently in accordance with how they are paid for. We want to ensure that as many people as possible can undertake an apprenticeship or technical education course, and we would not want this to be restricted to those that are state funded purely because the institute’s functions have been limited.
On amendment 8, it is important that the institute considers what apprenticeships might be appropriate for 16 to 24-year-olds. We know that apprenticeships are incredibly important to school leavers and are making sure that anyone from the age of 16 will have an offering of either an academic or technical education or an apprenticeship. The occupational maps that the institute will put together and which will guide apprenticeships and technical education qualifications will be based on information about the skills needs of the country. They will focus on occupations that can help to increase the UK’s productivity and meet the needs of employers. Putting any constraint around the development of the maps and the occupations included, such as by focusing on a particular group of the population, could damage this overall aim.
My Department runs a number of highly successfully promotional and advice services to help to ensure that young people access the right apprenticeship for them. A significant number of 16 to 18-year-olds take up STEM subjects.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On STEM subjects and the advice given to young people, successive Governments have tried to effect change, and the Bill, which is well meaning, will make a positive difference in many respects, but is not the real problem the fact that successive Governments have failed to persuade people that the vocational route is as good as the academic route? Is this not a cultural problem that has bedevilled our country for decades?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is completely right. When I talk about my priorities for skills and education, one of the first things I mention is transforming the prestige and the culture. As he says, this is regardless of what party is in government, and it is not just about Governments either; businesses have also underinvested. Vocational training has always been seen as a so-called—I hate the term—Cinderella sector. The whole purpose of the Sainsbury reforms and the levy is to change behaviours and give apprenticeships and skills and technical education the prestige they deserve.
Vernon Coaker
The question for the Minister, as it was for me and others here when we were schools Ministers, be we Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, is this: why will it be different this time? The Minister is absolutely right in what he has said, but why will it be different this time from all the times that have gone before?
Robert Halfon
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not around for all the other times that have gone before. We have our differences, of course, but there is much cross-party consensus on the Sainsbury reforms, for example. Moreover, the apprenticeship levy is a fundamental reform to change behaviours—it is not just about raising money; it also changes behaviours. I believe that there is a new national conversation about apprenticeships and that things are changing, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I think we are on the tip of something special, but a lot more work needs to be done.
Because of time, I will speak only briefly on some of the other amendments. On amendment 9, the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised some important points, but we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. The important feature of approved English apprenticeship standards is the move away from a reliance on a series of small and pre-existing qualifications making up an apprenticeship and towards a single end-point assessment. By not mandating qualifications in standards unless they meet one of these criteria, we are ensuring that individual employers have the freedom and flexibility to determine how to train their own apprentices to ensure they gain full competency. It is expected that the institute will continue with this approach.
The provisions on education copyright are very complicated, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised them, but we do not think that the proposed provisions are necessary. Some of the concerns are covered by existing legislation, but we believe that the institute should have the right of copyright, and the bodies working with the institute will know that. We do not agree with the word “route” either because it could be confusing for employers. I want this form of training to be prestigious, and so I want the words “technical education”. I do not like the term “tech levels” either because it dumbs down a very important qualification.
Amendment 17 is on the power to charge for technical education certificates, and I should say that we also have a duty of care to the taxpayer. The institute will not make money out of this provision. It is all about giving it the power to do so if it so chooses and about having a duty of care to the taxpayer. It is for that important reason that we do not support the amendment.
On the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and amendments 18 to 21, the organisations named in the provisions will all have an important role. The omission of the QAA reflects in part the changes being introduced in the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is currently in the other place. Amendment 20, which specifies that the term “apprenticeships” should include those offered by higher education institutions, is not required. I am clear that the term “apprenticeships” includes all apprenticeships offered at all levels, regardless of the training provider.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South for his thoughtful new clauses and amendments on technical education and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that my responses have reassured the hon. Gentleman and the House on their underlying concerns. I therefore ask that he withdraw new clause 1 and not press his other amendments.
Rob Marris
If you will allow me a little latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place my remarks on the amendments in context. I was recently speaking to someone who made a very good point about who is fitting all the kitchens and bathrooms in Poland. This person had experienced very good electricians from Romania working in this country. Our conversation was about Brexit and the skills shortage in the United Kingdom. Whichever side of the debate hon. Members supported, Brexit provides our country with an opportunity to try to address the skills shortages that we have had for decades and have relied for filling on importing workers.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is making very thoughtful points. He may be aware that there is now a fairly successful political party in Lithuania that is against emigration, not immigration, for that very reason.
Rob Marris
I am not surprised about that. In the last Parliament but one, I had the joy of visiting Lithuania with what was then the Trade and Industry Committee, and that was the sort of issue we talked about. In those days, Lithuania was already starting to import labour from Moldova—outside the European Union—because so many Lithuanians had come with their skills particularly to the United Kingdom and Ireland to ply their respective trades, and I specifically mean trades.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) has sought to do from the Labour Front Bench is to beef up the Bill in two ways. One is to introduce even greater confidence in the new system that we will have, and part of that confidence building means moving towards national standards. This partly addresses the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about parity of esteem. We talked earlier this afternoon about parity between mental and physical health, but in this case, we are talking about parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic.
Having been a semi-skilled worker for a number of years as a professional driver and a bus driver, I faced a fork in the road. Was I going to go down the vocational route—I had my eye on being a plumber—or was I going to go down the academic route with an eye to being a lawyer? I went down the academic route and I became a lawyer. I do not regret that at all. One reason I did so related to esteem or lack thereof, and another reason was that lawyers get to work indoors whereas plumbers sometimes have to work on building sites outdoors—and I do not like the cold. I am talking about quite a while ago, and the money was better in law than it was in plumbing. I am not sure whether that remains the case nowadays.
We live in a capitalist society. Part of what needs to be done to move towards parity of esteem in a cultural sense is the sort of thing that the Minister has attempted to do during his tenure of office and through this Bill; and, frankly, in a capitalist society, part of it is about paying people more. If we want parity of esteem, we should start paying people equal amounts of money—and pay plumbers as much as lawyers. Given that we live under capitalism, we are moving towards that because of skills shortages.
On new clause 1, I quite understand the Minister’s point that some of the information is already published as a result of the Enterprise Act 2016, but I believe that building this into the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has proposed, would be helpful for sending out the right message about confidence. It is the same with new clause 2, so that the representative panels can become more representative when they are put in place. I welcome the Minister’s assurance this afternoon that those panels will be in place by April, and I hope they will have a breadth of representation that should, I think, be built into the Bill. I asked the Minister a similar question in a slightly different context about the involvement of trade unions. This is not just a tit-for-tat along the lines of “You have the bosses there, so we have to have the workers there,” although that is important; it more about getting buy-in to the new regime from all sections of our society to build towards addressing the skills shortages that we will face, as I have said, under Brexit.
Under Brexit, there is no mistake about it: the price for staying in the single market would be free movement of labour and people; and the UK population has said that it is not up for that and does not want free movement of people or labour. We will therefore not be in the single market, but we will not have free movement either, because there will be restrictions—whether Members like it or not. We should use these circumstances in a positive way, so that local people can train up for jobs and so that we do not keep poaching skilled people from abroad—whether from Lithuania, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned, or elsewhere. For that, we need national standards.
When it comes to confidence, we need proper advice. Careers advice in England has certainly been, to say the least, patchy over the years. I remember when my Government set up Connexions, which was not exactly a resounding success—certainly not in the west midlands. I urge the Minister to think again about new clause 4, which is all to do with building confidence. That is particularly clear in paragraphs (b) and (d) of new clause 4(3). These highlight the fact that the Secretary of State should seek to
“ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas”
and to
“monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.”
It is part of confidence building that we have a regime that is sensitive to local labour markets, which will change greatly from April 2019 when we are out of the European Union.
This Bill is part of the Government—surprisingly, given what is not happening in other areas—showing a bit of foresight, on which I congratulate the Minister. If only we had such foresight about Brexit ramifications for other areas of public endeavour; we do not, but this Bill is a step forward and part of that jigsaw. I am not saying that this is why the Minister has sought to introduce the Bill, but I do think we should look on it positively in that way, and I think that new clause 4 would help to build confidence in the new system, by ensuring that it would be reflective and flexible.
In referring to amendment 9 and others that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said were in a sense under its umbrella—amendments 10 to 16—the Minister talked about employers having freedom and flexibility. Amendment 9 deals with “recognised technical qualifications” and these are connected, certainly for England as I said, with national standards. We need those standards as part of the confidence-building measures, but also to make sure that we get the right people with the right skills—in a sense, workforce planning.
This country is pretty poor at workforce planning. The one area where we could have excellent workforce planning because the number of employees is so enormous and they almost all work for the state is in healthcare delivery, yet it is absolutely appalling. We do not have enough doctors trained here; we do not have enough dentists trained here; we certainly do not have enough nurses trained here; we do not have enough professions allied to medicine—whether radiographers or phlebotomists and so forth—trained here. Yet this is the one area of workforce planning that the Government could get right. I do not mean that only this Government have singularly failed. Under the coalition Government, things went backwards when some nurse training places were shut down. Figures on the number of employees working in the NHS in England alone are so huge that we could take social trends into account and do some pretty good workforce planning on the kind of skills that will be needed in five years or the 10 years that it takes to train a doctor, and so forth.
Arguably, we have been absolute rubbish at this since 1948. Having national standards is important not just for confidence, but for workforce planning. That is why I again urge the Minister to have another think about the import of amendment 9, if not its wording. It is all very well having flexibility and freedom for employers. These were the sort of words that the Minister used—he will correct me if I am wrong—when he explained why he thought amendment 9 was unnecessary and invited my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South to withdraw it. In my view, however, the Minister should have another think about that, because I believe that national standards are important. Again, I draw on my own experience. When I qualified as a lawyer, I took a national exam that had to be taken by all those seeking to become solicitors in England and Wales. For most of us, if we passed, that led to what was, in a sense, the equivalent of an apprenticeship. It was called “articles of clerkship”, and it involved two years in a solicitor’s office. What had been a national exam taken by everyone who wished to be a solicitor in England and Wales then became a moderated Law Society final exam. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) will remind me what it was called. [Hon. Members: “Legal practice course.”] Yes. It became a legal practice course, and standards went down. I say that having talked to people in post-secondary institutions at the time and having trained articled clerks who had experienced the later system when national standards no longer existed.
National standards are not, of course, a guarantee of quality output, but they can be used by any Government, legitimately and properly, to ensure that we have confidence in the system and to ensure that those who undergo an apprenticeship process and emerge from it fully qualified have a qualification that is worth their having as individuals, and worth our society having.
Robert Halfon
Qualifications may be mandatory in an apprenticeship standard if that is a mandatory requirement set by the regulator. They include qualifications that are recognised as a legal requirement—that is, licence to practise—that are required for professional registration, or that are used in a hard sift when apprentices are applying for jobs in the occupation related to the standard and would be disadvantaged in the job market without them.
Rob Marris
I thank the Minister for that clarification. In a sense, he has made my point for me. There will be some national standards in certain fields of endeavour, which he has helpfully specified. However, I think that there is a contradiction in his position, a contradiction from which I do not think I suffer.
Amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, would insert the words “state-funded”. I found the Minister’s argument persuasive when he explained why he thought that the amendment should not be passed. I may have misunderstood what he said, but he seemed to be saying that he wanted a more overarching model that would encompass privately obtained qualifications. I agree with him. I merely suggest that, if amendment 7 is not accepted, it would be logical to accept something along the lines of amendment 9, which would not limit the requirement to state funding but would provide for national standards, not just in the broad but restricted field defined by what the Minister helpfully read out a moment ago, but more widely. I think that that would be better for confidence, better for our economy and better for the people—many of whom will be young—who will acquire those qualifications. I therefore ask the Minister to think again.
A similar issue is raised by amendments 18 to 21, which relate to the involvement of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. They, too, seem to me to relate to the ability of employers and prospective apprentices—and, in the case of young apprentices, their families—to feel confident that the system will deliver a qualification that our country needs and that involves enough training to ensure that those apprentices are likely not only to end up with jobs but to contribute to society as we would like them to. That returns me to the workforce planning issue to which I adverted earlier.
The Minister and the Government ought to think again about those amendments. They may not want to accept the exact wording, but I should like them to include the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the list of agencies that will have a role to play in the planning, the maintenance and perhaps even the raising of standards. That would be desirable.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I was a member of the Bill Committee, which was very constructive and involved much cross-party support. The Minister has a real passion for, and depth of knowledge about, this issue, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), also demonstrated a genuine interest.
I want to focus on a specific issue raised by the shadow Minister in connection with his desire to promote equality of opportunity. I think that that should include people with disabilities, and specifically those with learning disabilities. The Government have made great progress—they have helped some 600,000 more disabled people to obtain work in the last three years, which is fantastic—but those with learning disabilities still find it extremely difficult to benefit from the opportunities of work. The proportion is about 6%.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he did as Minister for disabled people. Does he agree that we also need to help employers? Does not dealing with people with learning difficulties or mental health issues, about which the Prime Minister has talked today, require a great deal of support for the employer as well as the apprentice?
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely. That is at the heart of the points that I am going to make. People need time to develop the necessary skills, and employers need to be able to provide suitable opportunities for individuals with learning disabilities. All Governments, in all generations, have tried their best to give opportunities to people with learning disabilities. The proportion has stayed rigidly at about 6%, which is the worst percentage involved in any disability and therefore presents us with the largest challenge.
When I was Minister for disabled people, I visited Foxes working hotel in Bridgwater. I was incredibly impressed by the fact that it had managed to get 80% of its young students into work. Its three-year course involved two years in a working hotel, where the students learned how to acquire independent living skills and how to work towards obtaining jobs once they had finished. They were acquiring skills that were needed for their local towns, involving restaurants, hotels and care homes. We all have our own skills gaps in our constituencies, so the skills would be adapted accordingly.
The students spent their final year continuing their learning directly in the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) mentioned employers. That final year gave employers an opportunity to receive support. Foxes academy provided training and advice for employers, and for the staff with whom they would be working. Young lads and ladies were able to learn their skills patiently over the year, which seemed to me to constitute an apprenticeship: they were learning skills on the job.
I invited the team to my Department. I said, “This is amazing: why can we not increase numbers?” I was told, “We could increase numbers, but that final year is so expensive, because we have to support the employer, that we have to cap them.” I think that if we could rebadge the system as an apprenticeship, we could access the funding that is being created through the apprenticeship levy, and bring about a huge number of additional opportunities. I met the then Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who agreed with me, and we set up the Maynard review. I am delighted that the Government have accepted every one of its recommendations, and I pay tribute to both Mencap and Scope for the huge amount of proactive work that they did, as part of the review, in helping to shape real, tangible opportunities.
Having spoken personally to the Minister, I know of his passionate desire to see all that through. We touched on the issue in the Bill Committee, but let me urge him now to crack on with those pilots. Every young adult will seize the opportunities which—as I know, having met hundreds of young people with learning disabilities—they are desperate to be offered. I ask the Minister to continue to make this a priority, and, in his summing-up, to explain where we are, what is the timetable, and what more we can all do to raise the issue with local employers.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. I, too, was a member of the Bill Committee, and I am somewhat disappointed that Government amendments have not been introduced at this stage reflecting some of the points made in Committee, especially as they seemed to be accepted at the time, in broad terms, by the Minister. I therefore hope that amendments will even now be brought forward in another place to reflect some of the discussions we had in Committee, and, indeed, some of the points made this evening, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) on the Front Bench, who made a tour de force speech introducing all his amendments. It is surprising that there are no Government amendments or new clauses on Report; that is very unusual.
All the amendments and new clauses have been introduced by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Labour Opposition—and they are all splendid and I support them all. The lack of Government amendments is disappointing, even though there is a degree of agreement on the value of this legislation, and we all know we have to do something about improving apprenticeships and training our young people for the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) said, we have to train our own rather than just poach people from abroad.
New clause 1, requiring the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to report annually, is specifically about the outcomes of completed apprenticeships; it is about the quality of apprenticeships, not just other, broader measures of success. The quality of apprenticeships is vital, to ensure that they lead to the development of skills for quality, long-term jobs after their completion. Young people who complete their apprenticeships must be desirable to their own and to other employers; they must be able to command good jobs for the long term and to look forward to relatively high pay and advancement in those jobs. It is very important to make sure that apprenticeships are high quality not just in words, and that apprentices can do the things they are required to do after they have qualified.
I remember the days, many decades ago now, when we had full employment. I taught in further education during that era, and in many ways it was a better and happier period than we are in now. Everybody who wanted a job got a job, and teaching in further education was a sheer joy. It has been more painful and stressful since then, I have to say, and less well paid, and the conditions of employment are less good than when I was teaching. But that was several decades ago, back in the early 1970s. We also had large companies, mainly in the manufacturing sector, and the giant public utilities, which were then in public ownership, employing thousands of apprentices every year. They had to train their own and they wanted to make sure they were good. Some of those they trained moved off to other jobs, of course, but it was nevertheless beneficial to those doing the apprenticeships and to wider society.
Our society did well because we were training our own, but we have failed to do that in recent times; we have left things to the market, and the market does not always work well in these matters. A degree of Government intervention is required, and it is significant that the Prime Minister has used a phrase not used by any Government for a long time: she has talked about the need for an industrial strategy. I absolutely support that, and we had a debate on industrial strategy just a few weeks ago, which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) led very well.
The subject we are discussing now is part of that industrial strategy. We have to train these people, to make sure we rebuild industry. We do not produce enough any longer, particularly in the manufacturing sector; we do well in services, but not in manufacturing. We have a gigantic trade deficit because we cannot produce enough and we have to buy in from abroad. We must rebuild the manufacturing sector, not so that it becomes the dominant force necessarily, but at least so that it produces sufficient to have a sensible trade balance, which we do not have at present.
Apprenticeships have always been insecure in recent times because companies are much smaller now than they were and they are less secure because of economic crises. I have many anecdotes from my own experience. Just after the 2008 crisis, I was being driven to Heathrow for a parliamentary visit and the driver had an apprenticeship in the construction sector, but the company he had been with had collapsed and he finished up being a cab driver, which he could have done without doing an apprenticeship.
I have heard of fears, too, such as small companies training apprentices who are then poached by larger, more financially lucrative companies. That is particularly the case in the motor trade, where there are skilled small companies training their own people who are then poached by large companies that do lucrative insurance repair work, which can pay a lot more.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for, yet again, making a thoughtful speech. I do not have the figures to hand, but the evidence suggests that apprentices in companies are more loyal to that company than those on any other training scheme or in work experience or doing early-career jobs, and that they tend to stay with the companies they do their apprenticeships in.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am sure the Minister is right in the majority of cases, but for some there is pressure to move on—for instance as a result of what is happening with house prices at the moment, as one can imagine. Certainly in Luton I know of companies, such as small motor repair firms, that employ apprentices who are under pressure to get a home, and if they can earn a few thousand pounds more at a larger company nearby to help them get on the housing ladder, they will do that. I agree that loyalty is important and many of them want to be loyal, but if the financial pressures on their lives are such that they have to move, they will in the end move.
I particularly want to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South about the need for a strategy for improving career education and new clause 4. We must ensure that when young people are at school or in further education they are aware of the enormous range of opportunities out there and they do not just look at a narrow field. In Luton too high a proportion of students want to get into the legal profession, for example; they want to be professionals and do not appreciate that there are highly paid, highly skilled jobs in manufacturing industry.
Vauxhall Motors still has a plant in Luton, and almost all its senior executives started as apprentices, leaving school, doing apprenticeships and going up the ladder, eventually doing higher qualifications such as higher national certificates and higher national diplomas and becoming highly paid senior executives in the company. Those opportunities are out there, and young people must be made aware of them. We must have a careers strategy making sure that every young person knows about all the thousands of different roles they could assume in life, rather than just going into the professions, or, indeed, just going into a local company; there are lots of things young people can do.
Life can be very exciting, and it is important that all of us do something we enjoy. I am very fortunate in that I was fascinated by politics in my early life and I finished up in Parliament where I wanted to be; I do not regret a moment of it. But sometimes people are not aware of the enormous range of possibilities in life. Having a powerful careers advice strategy is vital not just for young people’s lives, but for the economy. If people are happy in their work, they will work better and the economy will work better, and the world will be a much better place.
I have one more story that explains something tragic that has happened in Luton. We were a town that trained thousands of apprentices, and I know many of them personally. Recently I visited a small manufacturing company that makes components for Formula 1 and Jaguar. It could not find one toolmaker; it wanted one toolmaker from a town of over 200,000 people that used to be dominated by manufacturing, but could not find one. It is a disgrace that we have failed to train sufficient numbers of people in these areas.
There are many other things I would like to say—I could speak for an hour unaided, I am sure—but as others want to contribute, I will leave it there. I hope the points I have made are of interest.
Vernon Coaker
I was not a member of the Committee, but I know that the Technical and Further Education Bill has generated a lot of really good debate and positive views on how we might achieve what we all want, which is an improvement in the technical and vocational education in this country and in apprenticeships. The fact that there is no division between us on that was illustrated by the contributions from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), among others.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
New clause 4 deals with careers education provision in technical and further education, and I want to build on the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). As the Minister knows from our time spent together on the Bill Committee, this issue is of particular interest to me, and I would like to thank him for the courtesy that he has extended in explaining what the Department is doing in this area, and for introducing me to the Careers & Enterprise Company. I also thank him for his keen interest in improving careers education. After due consideration, however, I feel that the new clause is necessary and that it will complement the work that is already under way. There have been a lot of warm words and verbal support, but not including careers education provision in this legislation is an enormous missed opportunity.
The Bill will shake up the technical and further education sector considerably, and accepting the new clause would show how important career planning is to the House and to the Government. During private meetings before the Bill went into Committee, real concerns were raised with me about the lack of careers education provision in our colleges. It has been stressed that the lack of advice available is such that, without explicit legislation on careers guidance, the matter will be nudged even further towards the back of the priorities queue. Resources in our colleges are overstretched, and I was disappointed to hear that in one institution a receptionist with no specialist qualifications or training had been asked to give careers guidance. The problem of a lack of careers guidance is stark. It has been brought to the attention of the Department by the co-Chairs of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy. In its report, the Sub-Committee states:
“Ministers appear to be burying their heads in the sand while careers guidance fails young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and exacerbates the country’s skills gap.”
It is clear that we cannot rely on warm words and reassurances alone. We must have provisions in writing and in legislation, because we have an obligation to our learners. As we know, the world of work that our young people are entering is changing really fast. The sector in which an apprentice starts their learning will have transformed enormously by the time they reach their last year. Access to guidance and advice should not be left behind when they step into a career. It should be more agile and responsive to the skills and experience they are picking up. It is those opportunities that new clause 4 would seize, including an opportunity for a strategy to be laid before the House that was specialised for further and technical education, that was ongoing, and that provided parity of esteem between technical, further and higher education, using the expertise of the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. This is a huge opportunity that is too good to miss.
Gordon Marsden
I thank all those who have spoken. I particularly thank the Minister for confirming that the implications of what we asked for in new clause 2 will be satisfied by the Government, which is an important concession or confirmation, depending on how he wishes to look at it. Whatever it is, we thank him for it.
I will withdraw new clause 1 but, as shown not least by the powerful speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) and others, it is a huge missed opportunity that the Government are not including the strategy in the Bill. I mean no disrespect to the Minister and his personal qualities, but we believe that the strategy needs to be embodied for the foreseeable future in the Bill. On that basis, we will be pressing new clause 4 to a vote.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Careers education: duty to publish strategy
“‘(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a strategy for the purposes of improving careers education for persons receiving education or training—
(a) in the course of an approved English apprenticeship;
(b) for the purposes of an approved technical education qualification; or
(c) for the purposes of approved steps towards occupational competence.
(2) The strategy shall be laid before Parliament.
(3) The strategy shall specify provisions under which the Secretary of State will seek to—
(a) ensure that persons receiving education or training under subsection (1) receive information, advice and guidance relating to their future careers, and that such information, advice and guidance is delivered in a way which meets each person’s needs and is impartial;
(b) ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas;
(c) ensure parity of esteem between technical, further and higher education; and
(d) monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.
(4) The provisions specified in subsection (3) shall have specific regard to particular needs of different groups of persons receiving education or training under subsection (1), including—
(a) persons with special educational needs;
(b) care leavers;
(c) persons of different ethnicities;
(d) carers, carers of children, or young carers, as defined by the Care Act 2014; and
(e) persons who have other particular needs that may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(5) The strategy shall include guidance for the purposes of improving careers education, to which the following bodies shall have regard—
(a) the Office for Standards in Education, Children‘s Services and Skills;
(b) the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and
(c) the Office for Students.
(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations designate relevant authorities and partners for the purposes of subsection (3)(b).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) further groups of persons under subsection (4)(e); and
(b) further national authorities or bodies under subsection (5).
(8) Regulations made under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) For the purposes of this section, “careers education” means education about different careers and occupations and potential courses or qualifications to attain those careers and occupations.’” —(Gordon Marsden.)
This new clause would establish a statutory requirement for the Government to produce a strategy on careers education, which shall be taken to be the “Careers Strategy”.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gordon Marsden
I beg to move amendment 1, page 8, line 4, at end add—
‘(3) Before an education administrator may perform functions specified in subsection (2), they must ensure an appropriate assessment is made and published of the impact of performing such functions, including, but not restricted, to—
(a) the impact on the quality of education provided to existing students of the further education body;
(b) the capacity of another body or institution to undertake any additional functions or provide education to additional students;
(c) the infrastructure of the local area, in particular transport;
(d) the ability of students to travel to another body or institution; and
(e) any financial impact on those students, including the cost of travel by students to attend another body or institution, and steps to mitigate those impacts.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to specify suitable bodies for making the assessments at subsection (3).
(5) Regulations made under subsection (4)—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure that an appropriate assessment is made of any potential impacts on students and their education, if an education administrator puts a further education body into “special administration” and takes action such as transferring students to another institution or keeps an insolvent institution open for existing students. This amendment would also require the Secretary of State to specify suitable bodies to perform such assessments.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 18, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) suspend the Office for Students protection action for students.”
This amendment would give the court the power to suspend Office for Students’ student protection action for the period of insolvency in which the education administrator has responsibility for the management of an FE body .
Amendment 3, in clause 28, page 13, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) Sums guaranteed under subsection (1) shall include statutory pension obligations payable to staff employed by a further education body subject to an education administration order.”
This amendment would ensure that staff employed by an FE college continue to accrue statutory Teachers Pension Scheme and Local Government Pension Scheme pension obligations? during an education administration.
Amendment 22, in schedule 2, page 30, line 39, at end insert—
“3A The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a for-profit private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds.”
This amendment would ensure further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly, could not be transferred to a for-profit private company.
Gordon Marsden
May I wish you a happy new year, Mr Deputy Speaker?
We turn to the extremely important part of the Bill, which is one of the reasons why the Bill is in the form it is. I shall deal with that in a moment or two when discussing amendments 2 and 3. First, I wish to focus on the importance of clause 14 and of the Government’s welcome introduction into the Bill of the role of the education administrator. Although we welcome that, we want to probe, as we did in Committee, just how it is going to work in practice, and that is the purpose of amendment 1. It is extremely important to remember the end product we are all aiming at. We hope—and I believe, as I am sure the Minister does—that the number of occasions when the detailed insolvency provisions laid out in the second part of the Bill will be required will be as few as possible. Shortly, I will suggest why I think they are particularly necessary and deal with some of the related issues.
This amendment would ensure that an appropriate assessment is made of any potential impact on students and their education if an education administrator puts a further education body into special administration and takes action such as transferring students to another institution or keeps an insolvent institution open for existing students. It would also require the Secretary of State to specify suitable bodies to perform such assessments. The amendment has been tabled at the urging of the National Society of Apprentices and it touches on an area where the Minister and I have common ground: the importance of understanding what the end product of this new education administrator is all about. He or she is there to provide protections and support that would not be available in a traditional insolvency process. That is extremely important in terms of the position of young people, particularly those who might be at college as part of their apprenticeship or of other training.
I wish to speak particularly to the proposed new subsections 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) set out in our amendment. One thing that the NSOA’s research has shown—this was in 2014 and the figure may well have increased since—is that apprentices spend, on average, about £24 a week on travel, which equates to a quarter of the salary of an apprentice earning the apprentice national minimum wage. Additional research has indicated that some young people were choosing the apprenticeships they could afford to get to, rather than those they were keen to do. In the light of the area review process in England and the creation of fewer, more resilient colleges, we are concerned about the impact on those potential apprentices in terms of their travel time between provider, employer and home. We have had our disagreements with the Government over that review process and will doubtless continue to probe them strongly on it.
The Opposition believe it is important that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education takes a clear and early lead role in encouraging local authorities and transport companies to ensure that all young people, including apprentices, are covered by travel concessions. Without a high-profile champion for their needs, apprentices can too often be excluded from such concessions, because apprenticeships are perceived as employment rather than education and are excluded from the relevant definitions. The crux of the amendment is to ensure that the entitlement that the Bill gives to students to continue their education works in practice. The ambitions of the provisions on special administration are noble; the amendment is intended to be a safeguard against any unintended consequences.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is much more familiar with the Bill than I am. On the clarity that he seeks to introduce by this amendment, does he share my concern—perhaps he does not, because he knows the Bill better—that it is not clear in the Bill what an education administrator is? I know that he or she will be an officer of the court and that they will carry out certain functions. Training is central to what we are talking about on the Bill, yet I cannot see anything that says there has to be certain qualifications for an education administrator. It is a bit fuzzy.
Gordon Marsden
As usual, my hon. Friend is perceptive. If we had the time and if it was within the scope of this amendment, I would acquaint him with the debates in Committee during which we discussed that matter at some length. Although we have not moved any more specific amendments in that area—obviously, this is something for the other place—the Minister needs to reflect further on what, if anything, needs to be put in the Bill to answer perfectly legitimate and important questions such as the one my hon. Friend has just asked.
There are a number of effects that the invocation of these education administration powers may have on students, but that is precisely the point of the amendment: to ensure that whatever impacts these powers have in practice, they are assessed within the local circumstances of the colleges in which those changes are needed.
Let me turn now to amendment 2, with which I hope the Minister will have some sympathy. Again, if he not happy with its structure, perhaps we can juggle with it. The amendment would give the court the power to suspend student protection action by the office for students for the period of insolvency in which the education administrator has responsibility for the management of an FE body.
The Association of Colleges is particularly keen to see amendment 2 addressed. It is concerned that the insolvency regime is being introduced at the same time as a separate protection regime takes place in higher education under the control of the new office for students—that Bill has entered its Committee stage in the other place only today. We have some sympathy with its belief that the Government have missed an opportunity to introduce a joint legal regime, covering both further and higher education corporations. However, we are where we are, and that is the basis on which this proposal is being put tonight, so this Bill needs to be amended to remove duplication between the HE intervention regime and the FE regime. This affects colleges that want to maintain or develop their HE provision, which is an important part of the system and which involves up to 150,000 students. I feel strongly about this because it affects my local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which has up to 1,000 students.
We have two Government Bills creating two separate control systems with two sets of obligations on colleges. Ministers will say that special administration and the OFS powers will be used only in exceptional cases, but, inevitably, colleges will have to prepare for the worst. If they have higher education provision, they will need to boilerplate—double insulate—their finances to satisfy the organisations with which they deal. This could make it a lot more expensive to run HE provision than it needs to be. The purpose of the amendment is to confirm that the OFS regime will be suspended during a special administration.
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 3, which addresses the need to ensure that staff who are employed by an FE college continue to accrue statutory teachers’ pension scheme and local government pension scheme obligations during an education administration. This issue has been raised not just by the Association of Colleges, but by the University and College Union. Colleges employ large numbers of staff and not all of them are teachers. In addition to caretakers, catering staff and cleaners, they employ learning support assistants, IT technicians and administrators. On Second Reading, we made a point of emphasising that, just as with universities, it is not simply teachers, administrators and bureaucrats who keep these institutions going. The same is true of FE colleges. We would be appalled if, as a result of any of these issues, people’s pension rights or their potential pension rights were affected.
We believe that there are more than 70,000 people in colleges who are not teachers and who are eligible in law to membership of the local government pension scheme. There is some evidence that the Bill has raised concern among those running local government pension schemes and that it is already resulting in additional financial demands on colleges. We do not think that it is the Government’s intention to use the process to renege on debts to the LGPS, because that would simply pass on the costs to all the other employers, including councils themselves, but colleges have no choice in law about whether to offer LGPS membership. The fact is that they do provide access to decent pensions for 70,000 people, and the purpose of the amendment is simply to clarify that staff employed by an FE college continue to accrue those obligations and that the Government will ensure that any additional debt accrued is covered. That would ensure that statutory TPS and LGPS pension obligations are suspended but that employed staff can continue to accrue entitlements, but that that does not result in penalty interest, which is written into TPS and LGPS rules once they recommence.
In case the Minister thinks that this is only a hypothetical issue, it is worth making the point—the UCU has done so—that there are already real concerns about pension scheme deficits in certain colleges, and that the regulation, if the issue is not addressed, could cause alarm with lenders and raise interest rates, which could of course negate the stated aim for the introduction of insolvency regulations and preclude the increased confidence in the insolvency scenario that the Government and we are very keen to see.
Rob Marris
May I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister is well aware of that scenario, because my local college, the City of Wolverhampton College, has a big pension problem, and when I have discussed it with him he has been extremely helpful in trying to resolve it?
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he has provided a specific example of precisely the issue that has led us to table the amendment.
Amendment 22—I give notice that we will be pressing it to a vote—would ensure that further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly could not be transferred to a for-profit private company. We had a significant discussion about that in Committee. For the benefit of those who were not in Committee, and indeed those who were, I will try to summarise it as briefly as possible, because I think that the principle is extraordinarily important.
The current situation raises some significant questions about what would happen to the transfer of assets. The information states that assets should be transferred only to charitable bodies, and it is on that point that I wish to focus my remarks. Where the bodies are not charities, assets must be transferred in accordance with the charitable purpose of the trust. It then links to a list of prescribed bodies to which assets could be transferred, including sixth-form colleges and governing bodies. The point that I am making is that it is expected that all transfers should be made to charitable bodies, but that is not the same as saying that that is required.
When colleges were incorporated in 1992, it took them formally outside the aegis of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke eloquently about that in Committee. We have to take into account that the asset base in many cases was built up with local authority support and funding over 20 or 30 years. I reminded the Minister in Committee about my own local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which he has visited. He went to the Bispham campus, which has buildings and elements that go right back to the 1950s and ’60s. When the Building Colleges for the Future process took place in 2000, we did not get the new college that we hoped we would for a variety of reasons to do with where we were in the food chain. Nevertheless, I am illustrating that the estates of many buildings we are talking about have been accrued either on an active financial basis or by the ceding of land by local authorities and other organisations.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular issue in higher value areas, where it may be tempting to build some more flats on public land that should actually be used for the common good?
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend has a double qualification to speak on the subject: as the Member of Parliament for the constituency she represents and through her previous career as a distinguished local government leader in London. She knows whereof she speaks and she is absolutely right that the problem is accentuated in those areas.
Money has come in over the years including pre-1992 and in the major Building Colleges for the Future programme that the Labour Government introduced in the 2000s. Then, of course, significant sums of money were put in by regional development agencies and sometimes through regional growth fund developments and offshoots of European structural funding. As I said, FE colleges deliver not just FE, but higher education. If 10% to 12% of total HE provision is being delivered by FE colleges, it is really important that we do not lose that position.
I do not want to rehearse—indeed, we do not have time to tonight—the arguments that were made in 2011 about the private for-profit sector training coming in and being involved with various equity funds whose investment platforms were very much focused on a broad area. However, I would say, as many in the sector would, that although the private equity funding sector can be extremely profitable and useful, it is based on a relatively short-term view of providing management and initial capital to buy other companies and then taking them off the public share markets. It is entirely reasonable for us to be concerned about the possible disposal of lands with significant amounts of public assets. The question is not simply whether it is a good thing to transfer a significant number of public sector assets to a private provider, but what the financial guarantees are. More importantly, there are issues regarding the nature of the body and the guarantees to the students and the people employed there if such organisations use the insolvency to take on those colleges.
Ministers may talk about guarantees for staff under TUPE, but I am sure that hon. Members realise that TUPE does not offer protection forever and a day. I have had significant experience of that in my constituency in Blackpool over the years with people who have been outsourced from the civil service and TUPE-ed into other organisations that have then passed on to someone else, at which point those people’s automatic rights and security of tenure have almost become extinguished. Those are our concerns and they are not irrelevant. They are concerns of pragmatics and of principle. It is not as though there have not been concerns in the area previously.
In December 2014, the Public Accounts Committee severely quizzed officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which then had responsibility for the matter, about why private providers were allowed to engage in untrammelled expansion without proper quality checks. In February 2015, the Committee published a report that said that BIS has repeatedly ignored advice from the Higher Education Funding Council for England about vast sums of public money going to for-profit colleges without due process and consideration. There is the potential, as Martin Doel, the former chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said, for private organisations to
“asset strip colleges’ buildings and facilities”
or “pick” assets.
So, for the avoidance of doubt, we are not saying that we would oppose any private sector takeover of a college in any circumstances; we are saying that the education administrator will have to make a judgment. We are also saying that, without the protection in this amendment, the potential for the things I have described to happen would be very high, and that is why we are determined to press the amendment this evening.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) again for his amendments. I will begin by discussing amendment 1, which affects clause 14. I have to stress that, in the unlikely event that an FE body becomes insolvent, we want to ensure that any disruption to students’ studies is avoided or minimised as far as possible. It will be for the education administrator to deal with that, and according to the relevant clause in the Bill, they will be an insolvency practitioner—they are likely to come from one of the bigger companies and to have education experience. It will be the same system as with insolvent companies.
The education administrator will decide how the special objective will best be achieved. Clause 14(2) does no more than suggest ways in which that might be done. The education administrator will need to consider the specific circumstances of any insolvency and then determine the most appropriate approach. It is inconceivable that they would draw up proposals for achieving the special objective without having had discussions with a wide range of stakeholders, such as the Further Education Commissioner, student bodies and others, and without considering a wide range of pertinent issues.
Our expectation is that that will include discussions with the key stakeholders, local authorities and others. Where appropriate, it may also involve—I brought this up in Committee—a conversation with the care leaver’s personal adviser. We discussed in Committee the additional personal and pastoral support that care leavers might need. I undertook to consider the matter further, and I hope the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) will be pleased that we are keeping the promise we made in Committee. We will ensure that the guidance to local authorities on their corporate parenting responsibilities, being introduced through the Children and Social Work Bill, includes advice on the role of personal advisers in the event of a college insolvency affecting a young person for whom they are responsible.
We expect the education administrator, in developing their proposals, to take account of the quality of alternative provision and, if it is necessary for students to complete their studies in other locations, to consider the impact of travel distances. The hon. Member for Blackpool South will be aware that we provide funding to colleges to support disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. In addition to the disadvantage funding for post-16 places—£550 million in 2016-17—which can be used to subsidise college buses, there is also the 16-to-19 bursary fund and the fund for the particularly vulnerable. Colleges will be able to offer this funding to eligible students who transfer to them under a special administrative regime. There may be scope for the education administrator to set up a scheme to cover some or all of the additional travel costs if students do have to travel to another location.
In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said:
“We do not want this to become”
a
“long-winded, time-consuming process”—[Official Report, Technical and Further Education Public Bill Committee, 1 December 2016; c. 174.]
I share that view. It is in the interests of students and staff to have certainty as soon as possible about what will happen. Requiring formal assessments to be carried out in the way proposed by the amendment would lengthen the process and reduce the education administrator’s discretion to find the best way of achieving the special objective. That is not to say that we do not agree that these issues are important, but I have shown that they are at the front of the education administrator’s mind.
On amendment 2, I understand the issue about double protection and why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary because the court, on hearing an education administration application, already has the discretion to make any interim order it thinks appropriate. If it is necessary or appropriate to make an order relating to an existing student protection plan, the court has the power to do that under the Bill.
On pensions, we have followed as far as possible the provisions of the ordinary administration regime that exists for company insolvencies. We propose to adopt similar provisions for college insolvencies, which, as I say, will be very rare indeed. As with any administration, once the administrator has adopted the employment contracts of the staff they decide to keep on, they are personally liable for the costs of those individuals, such as their salary and their pension contributions. They would take on the appointment only if they were confident that sufficient funds were available to meet the costs. Some pension contributions will continue to be made and benefits accrue. Some staff may be made redundant, whether at the start of the education administration or subsequently, but this will of course be in accordance with statutory employment rights. For these staff, contributions to the pension fund will end once they are no longer employed by the body, but this is no different from the position of any other person leaving their employer’s pension scheme. It is important to be clear, however, that the benefits individuals have accrued in the scheme prior to the end of their employment will not be lost.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman feels very strongly about the transfer issue. FE colleges are statutory corporations with very significant freedoms to deal with their own assets. A solvent college is free to transfer property to any person or organisation it chooses. In order to benefit, the college would of course expect to receive value when transferring an asset to a third party, and in general this would mean transferring at market value, although this depends on the nature of the transaction as a whole. In this case, however, we are talking only about a situation where a college has failed financially and is insolvent—an extreme case.
I need to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that there are four vital protections that act as a quadruple lock to safeguard assets that belong to the college, which may well have been paid for with money from the public purse but have to be dealt with because the college is insolvent. First, unlike solvent, operational colleges that wish to transfer property, if the education administrator decides to make a transfer scheme, they are restricted as to whom they can transfer the assets. These bodies are prescribed in the secondary legislation made under section 27B of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. They are public sector bodies with educational functions. In addition, transfers can be made to private companies, but the company must be established for purposes that include the provision of educational facilities.
Secondly, just as with any other action of the education administrator, any transfer scheme must be for the purposes of achieving the special objective of avoiding or minimising disruption to students’ studies. Thirdly, creditors have a general right to challenge should they consider that the education administrator is selling things “on the cheap”, for example. Finally, the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers must approve the proposed transfer scheme. Any approval will include, among other matters, consideration of whether it is for the purposes of achieving the special objective. I believe that the quadruple lock answers the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments, and thank other hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I hope that my response has reassured him, and the House, on his underlying concerns. I therefore ask that the amendments are not pressed to a Division.
Gordon Marsden
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and taken note of his views and the proposals he has made. On that basis, we are prepared to withdraw amendment 1.
On amendments 2 and 3, I heard the reassurances that the Minister has given, but when the Bill reaches the other place there needs to be a further examination of the very important issues around the pension schemes. I am not entirely convinced that the assurances, which I am sure have been made in good faith, will actually do the business.
As regards amendment 22, I thank the Minister for his explanation of what he described as the quadruple lock, but I am afraid, not least because of seeing past practice, that we have to plan in this Bill not for the best circumstances but for the worst. This is also a really important issue of public policy that we should establish within the Bill. On that basis, we wish to press amendment 22 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2
Education administration: transfer schemes
Amendment proposed: 22, page 30, line 39, at end insert—
“3A The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a for-profit private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds.”—(Gordon Marsden.)
This amendment would ensure further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly, could not be transferred to a for-profit private company.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision on certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be shortly available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by the Doorkeepers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified clauses 2 to 38 of, and schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence, and clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Bill as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
Robert Halfon
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 2 to 38 of, and Schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)
Question agreed to.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House was greatly entertained by the farce that we have just witnessed. I hope that during the adjournment, you had the opportunity to take advantage of the facilities here and even make yourself a nice cup of tea, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it was a completely and utterly pointless waste of time.
Because of the way in which the programme motion has been designed and because of the lack of time available, it has not been possible for the Legislative Grand Committee to consider all these important English-only measures. Given that English votes for English laws is supposed to be of paramount importance and one of the main innovations of this Parliament, is it not disappointing that English Members have not had the opportunity to lend an English—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman and I both know, first, that that is not a point of order and, secondly, that an important debate took place today, and it was regarded as important to have a special debate on health as well. The fact is, however, that time has gone. The House agreed to the rules and they have now been applied. Going over all that is not going to change anything. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order and he has now put his point on the record. The bottom line is, however, that these are the rules that the House has chosen, as he well knows. That is the end of it. We move on to Third Reading. Perhaps time for a cup of tea. [Interruption.] Order. If you have a problem, Mr Wishart, you should pursue it through the usual and proper channels. The fact is that you did not raise a point of order, as you well know. I know it was not a point of order and you know it was not, which was why you raised it. The bottom line is this: if you do not like it, go and get your cup of tea while the House gets on with the business.
Robert Halfon
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to give my special thanks to all the individuals who have shared their time and knowledge during the Bill’s passage through the House, to the officials who have worked so hard to bring it before Parliament and to those providing written and oral evidence. I would like to thank members of the Committee for their diligent approach and careful consideration of the practical implications of the Bill, and Members who have already spoken today.
I am clear about the priorities that we want to see in apprenticeships, further education and skills, creating a ladder of opportunity for all. These include a transformation of prestige and culture; widespread, high-quality provision; a system that addresses our skills needs; social justice; and job security and prosperity. The Bill seeks to build those priorities into our system, bringing to life the fundamental reforms needed to ensure that we have a skills and education system that rivals the best in the world.
For too long, technical education has been overly complex, overlooked and undervalued. Putting employers at the heart of these changes, as demonstrated through the current apprenticeship reforms and as recommended by Lord Sainsbury’s independent report, we can provide a clear route to employment for our young people. The changes in the Bill will support the achievements of those young people from difficult backgrounds, such as those with special educational needs or disability. In response to what my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said earlier, we are doing a lot to implement the Maynard reforms, we are spending £2 million to help apprentices with mental health difficulties, and we announced over Christmas that apprentices with severe hearing problems will be able to do sign language instead of English as a functional skill.
We expect individuals with SEND to be over-represented on technical education routes: 23% of those who access technical education routes will have some form of special educational need compared with 7% of those taking level 3 academic qualifications, and 20% of those in the cohort as a whole.
The measures in the Bill will drive up the productivity of our country, turning us into an apprenticeship nation and providing the skills we need for our country to thrive. That is why the CBI has said:
“Businesses have long called for a vocational route…so today’s proposals are a real step forward.”
David Rutley
I thank my right hon. Friend for the incredible work he has done in taking the Bill forward and I commend him for his efforts. Does he agree that one of the most important factors is engaging businesses in these apprenticeships and making the route to skills more relevant for business so that this will not only help to address the productivity challenges that he has mentioned, but improve life chances for the young people involved, too?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend, whom I thank for his work on the Committee, is absolutely right. We introduced the apprenticeship levy to change behaviour and involve businesses in supporting apprenticeships, we have created the institute and the employer panels, and we are giving huge financial incentives to businesses, especially small businesses, to ensure that they hire apprentices.
The Bill also introduces an insolvency regime for the further education sector that will, in the unlikely event of a college insolvency, provide clear-cut protections for learners to minimise disruption to their studies as far as possible, while offering certainty to creditors. During oral evidence, we heard from representatives of the Association of Colleges, Collab and others, who supported the insolvency regime and the protections that it includes for learners. Although there were issues about which the banks had questions, many spoke in support of the clarity provided by the proposed measures. Santander told us that it was keen to lend more to the further education sector, and said:
“On the Bill and the proposed insolvency regime, we are actually supportive of the clarity that they provide.”––[Official Report, Technical and Further Education Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2016; c. 38, Q41.]
Kelvin Hopkins
As the Minister will remember, I suggested in Committee that all colleges should have professionally qualified members with financial skills in both management and governorship, so that skilled eyes would be trained on the finances to ensure that at least mistakes were not made internally.
Robert Halfon
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise, but, as I think I said in Committee, I do not want to put a straitjacket on colleges. The principal of Blackpool and The Fylde College acknowledged that there might be different requirements for different colleges. Nevertheless, there should be as much financial expertise as possible in further education colleges. When there is real financial leadership, those colleges will always be in good financial health whatever the funding pressures.
We forecast that, by March 2017, we will have spent a total of about £140 million on propping up colleges facing extreme financial difficulties. That money should have been spent on education and training priorities. While we envisage that only a very small number of colleges will ever find themselves insolvent, providing protection for learners and clarity for creditors is a crucial part of what we are trying to do, and of our responsibility to support the sector.
Since the Committee stage, we have been in a position to publish for consultation the Secretary of State’s draft strategic guidance. Following our conversations about the importance of incorporating the views of students in the running of the institute, it will come as no surprise that the guidance sets out our firm expectation that the institute will establish an apprentice panel by April this year. The panel will report directly to the board, ensuring that the learner voice—the apprentice voice—is at the heart of the institute. I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) is encouraged by our approach. We also intend to publish for consultation, before the institute becomes operational in April, an operational plan for the institute which will set out in more detail how it intends to carry out its functions.
As for the insolvency elements of the Bill, we discussed in Committee the protections given to students through the special objective, and the possible ways in which the education administrator could ensure that disruption to students’ studies was avoided or minimised. In particular, we discussed whether the particular regard that the education administrator must have to the needs of students with special educational needs and disabilities should be extended to any other groups. I also recognise the importance of taking account of the needs of care leavers, recognising that they may need additional personal or pastoral support to deal with any uncertainty or upheaval should their college ever be subject to insolvency. Such support is best provided for each individual by a local authority-assigned personal adviser. As I said earlier, we will take steps to ensure that the guidance being produced for local authorities on their corporate parenting responsibilities includes advice on the role of personal advisers in the event that the young people for whom they are responsible attend colleges that enter education administration.
There is much to be proud of in our current system, given that 71% of FE colleges are good or outstanding and more than 50% are in good financial health, the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education or taking up apprenticeships is at a record high, the reforms made following the 2011 Wolf review have raised the quality of qualifications, and 88% of students were recorded as having a sustained education destination in the year after key stage 5.
We know that high-quality further education can have a truly transformative impact on young people. That is why we announced as part of the spending review that we will protect the 16-to-19 national base rate of £4,000 per student for the duration of this Parliament. By 2020, if we include the adult education budget, the 19-plus apprenticeship funding and advanced learner loans, more funding will be available to support adult further education participation than at any time in England’s history.
The measures in this Bill will build on the key priorities, enabling students to make better choices about their future, with the opportunity to gain qualifications valued by employers that will secure their future prosperity and that of our nation.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
In my constituency we are very fortunate in having Richard Huish sixth-form college, which has just been shortlisted as one of the six best sixth-form colleges in the country for The Times award. It runs apprenticeship courses, but there are concerns that it cannot get enough students to apply for some of the business admin courses. There is a real demand from business for those students, yet there are loads of apprentices doing courses where business does not really have jobs for them. Does the Minister agree with me and the principal of the college that provisions in this Bill to develop the synergy between education, apprenticeships and business are welcome, and indeed vital in addressing the skills shortage in this country?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is absolutely right: everything this Government are doing—the apprenticeship levy, this Bill, FE and technical education reform, the drive up of standards, the encouragement of apprenticeships, the money we are putting in with £2.5 billion that will be doubled by 2020—is designed to solve the problems she has talked about.
The OECD has said about the skills plan that
“the UK has a promising plan to advance technical education from a last resort to a first choice.”
Colleges, too, have spoken highly of the plan, including the principal of my own Harlow College, who said:
“As colleges we are not just about courses, we are about careers—we therefore believe that any reform that brings us closer to employers means our students gain higher skills and better jobs.”
This Bill is a Ronseal Bill: it does what it says on the tin. It transforms the prestige and quality of apprenticeships and technical education in our country, addresses the skills deficit, protects students in the event that colleges face extreme financial difficulty, and ensures that the most disadvantaged are able to climb the ladder of opportunity. The Bill underlines the Prime Minister’s commitment to a country that works for everyone. I commend the Bill to the House.
Gordon Marsden
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments in thanking the officials and all Committee members? I particularly thank my Labour colleagues, who did sterling work in supporting us on the Front Bench in Committee. May I also commend the support that the Public Bill Committee gave to us? The role of the Opposition in challenging the Government on these matters is sometimes equivalent to that of David taking on Goliath; we do manage occasionally to get a few slingshots in, and I am grateful on this occasion they have not incapacitated the Minister concerned.
This is an important Bill with some important provisions, which is why we have not opposed it on Second Reading or on Third Reading tonight. However, that does not mean that we do not continue to have profound concerns about its implementation, process and progress. That was indicated in the excellent, although relatively truncated, debate we had on the amendments, in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is still here, for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who gave an inspiring speech on the need for us to have vocational passions, and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), a relatively new Member of the House. All of them talked about practical issues such as implementation, about which we still have real concerns. This is not just a matter of formulae. For a long time—indeed, until it was almost too late—there were no links between higher education and further education in the way envisaged when the previous higher and further education legislation was brought forward.
I ask the Minister to reflect on a matter that is perhaps even more important. We have had a spirited discussion today about whether we need to have a strategy for careers advice in the Bill. We still believe that we do, and we think the Minister has missed a trick in that respect. The inclusion of such a strategy would have entrenched his position and his passion for careers advice, rather than diminishing it. The broader issue, however, is that the things that the Minister and everyone else would like to see happen are not solely a matter for the Department for Education. I know that he is as passionate about delivering traineeships as I am, but to do that we need to build structures and links between the DFE and the Department for Work and Pensions and to reach a concordance over the 16-hour law and other things. If the Government want to deliver careers advice, there will need to be a similar engagement and balancing act between the DWP and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. These things cannot just be left in one particular box.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the passion that he has shown on apprenticeships, but the fact is that apprentices are still handicapped by a number of things on which the Government have yet to prove their bona fides. That includes issues relating to GCSEs in English and maths. I have heard encouraging words on that from the Secretary of State and the Minister, but they have not yet nailed that issue down and it will not go away unless there is a satisfactory solution to the often soul-destroying requirement to retake GCSEs in those subjects.
Apprentices do not work and exist in a vacuum. The question of how their families are supported—through child benefit and in other ways—needs to be looked at, not just by the Department for Education but by other Departments as well. If that does not happen, there will be a real problem. Our new clause on this matter was ruled not to be within the scope of the Bill, but this is still a really important issue.
Mention was made in passing of devolution. I do not want to go into that issue much further tonight, but the Government need to think very clearly about it. They are going ahead with the devo-max process for combined authorities, yet the structures in the Bill do not reflect the reality of what the delivery of adult education, and possibly apprenticeships, will be like. Personally, I do not think that we can have a proper long-term skills strategy on a localised basis without taking apprenticeships into account as well as adult education. That point has not been addressed in the Bill.
The Minister has talked about insolvencies, and I associate myself with his view that it is a minority issue in regard to further education colleges. Let us pray that it continues to be so. However, it is worth remembering that the Bill is being introduced in the context of a period of profound funding cuts in the FE sector. The Government need to address the fact that that is the context in which they have decided to introduce this standalone Technical and Further Education Bill. The Minister also mentioned travel support. I note in passing that if the Government had taken up our proposals on education maintenance allowance, the process might perhaps have been speedier.
I want to return to the question of how the provisions will be delivered, and the timescale involved. It is three months until the apprenticeship levy funding kicks in. We still do not know who the new chief executive of the institute will be, and we do not know about the board. We have had some progress on those issues today, but we are told, for example, that the Skills Funding Agency will stay in charge of the new register of apprenticeships, which raises genuine bewilderment among many people out there—the Minister will have seen the comments made to FE Week in the past couple of days on this subject—as to why it is not Ofqual, if not IFATE, that is administering the register of approved apprenticeship assessment organisations. Is the real reason why the SFA is doing this because it is basically the civil service and that it would give a reserve power to Ministers to micromanage? It is not a question of what the Minister might do but what some of his successors might do.
Those important issues will need to be reflected on in the other place. Two key issues still remain. Will the funding and the staffing numbers that were dragged out of the Government when Peter Lauener spoke to the Committee be adequate for all the responsibilities? I would say that it is doubtful at this stage. How arm’s length or genuinely independent of judgment will the new institute be, or will Whitehall still be micromanaging the strings? Those are not just petty issues. They are issues that, if not resolved properly, will not gain the full-hearted consent of stakeholders, providers and all the people whom the Minister needs, and we all need, in order to meet the targets and to make his aspirations and my aspirations for apprenticeships for the next generation a reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Business without Debate
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all those working in sixth-form education for the fantastic work they do on behalf of our young people and our country. I particularly praise the two excellent colleges, North Lindsey and John Leggott, that serve young people in north Lincolnshire. Having led John Leggott as principal before being elected to this House, I know the importance of this phase of education in transforming life opportunities. I also know that, since I stood down as principal, the challenges facing those who lead colleges has been immense. Three direct cuts were imposed on 16 to 18 funding in the last Parliament, whereas five to 16 funding was protected. On top of that 13.6% real-terms cut, colleges now face a further 8% erosion of the current national funding rate over the remainder of this Parliament due to inflation. There are further pressures from increased employer pension and national insurance costs.
The average funding per student in the sixth forms of schools and academies and in sixth-form colleges is now £4,583, which is 20% less than the funding received to educate each 11 to 16-year-old and 47% less than the average university tuition fee of £8,636 per student. How, in all logic, can it be so much cheaper to educate a 16 to 18-year-old than a 15-year-old or a 19-year-old?
The Government claim that they have
“provided sufficient funds for every full-time student to do a full timetable of courses”.
But they have not published any research on the sufficiency of the funding provided to educate 16 to 18-year-olds. In short, the Government do not know how much it costs
“to do a full timetable of courses”.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. With his track record, he is the right person to be leading it. I suspect like many colleagues, I will be mentioning my college, Lowestoft College, but does he agree that sixth-form colleges such as Lowestoft are the underfunded, unsung heroes of the British education system and that, with the right resources, they can play a key role in addressing this country’s productivity gap?
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman is right to praise Lowestoft College, which, like many colleges in the country, does a fantastic job on behalf of the young people it educates. He is also right to say that these colleges need to be properly funded to ensure they continue to do that good job into the future.
In reality, the national funding rate—currently £4,000 for 16 and 17-year-olds and £3,300 for 18-year-olds—is calculated by taking the settlement arrived at between the Department for Education and the Treasury, and dividing it by the number of students in the 16 to 18 age group. It is no more sophisticated than that. In the independent sector, sixth-form fees are higher than secondary fees to reflect the actual cost of delivery for this age group.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept the remarkable statistic that sixth-form colleges outperform all other 16 to 19 forms of institution across the country, as has been recorded by the Sixth Form Colleges Association in its wonderful manifesto?
Nic Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend for rightly highlighting the high level of performance that sixth-form colleges deliver. He does a fantastic job as a governor of Luton Sixth-Form College and as chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges.
There is now a significant gap between the funding made available to educate sixth formers and the actual cost of delivering the rounded, high-quality curriculum we would all want to see well into the future.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I, too, have a highly acclaimed sixth-form college in my constituency, Richard Huish College. It has just been shortlisted for The Times Educational Supplement top sixth form awards, and I hope it might win—potentially beating Lowestoft College. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with the budgetary cuts we have seen the enrichment courses—art, drama and sport—being dropped from many sixth-form colleges? It is often in such areas that the students who might not excel academically could excel. Might there not be a potential knock-on effect on mental health—everybody is talking about that—and spikes in young people’s mental health if we do not enable them to do these much more rounded courses, which are so beneficial?
Nic Dakin
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that certain elements of the curriculum are under threat when there is such pressure on funding. Enrichment activities, including those that address mental health issues, are one of the many activities that have been under threat over the past six years. The dramatic collapse in funding does have an inevitable impact on the education that 16 to 18-year-olds receive. As someone who has managed resources in a sixth-form college, I know that there are only a small number of variables to play with when facing significant funding cuts, as the sector has since 2010. Alongside the usual good management things relating to the back office, procurement, charges, efficiencies and so on, there are a limited number of options: shrink the curriculum offer; increase the teaching staff contact time; reduce student contact time; and increase class sizes. In reality, all those things have to be done to make things hang together.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case. On the issue of underfunding, does he agree that sixth-form colleges are uniquely cruelly treated, because unlike schools and academies they cannot cross-subsidise from the more generous funding available for younger students in schools and they do not receive a VAT reimbursement? So not only are they the most efficient, with the best track record on delivery, but they are the most underfunded section of the higher education area.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Lady is right to point out the performance of sixth-form colleges and the pressure on their funding. Of course the funding situation for 16 to 18 education is not just affecting sixth-form colleges—it is affecting school sixth forms and academy sixth forms, too. It is affecting all 16 to 18 experience.
Since 2010, the programmes of study followed by students have altered in those typical ways I outlined. Back then, most level 3 students followed a curriculum of four advanced courses in year 1, plus general studies, enrichment and tutorial. They progressed on to three or four courses in year 2, plus enrichment and tutorial. In most cases, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) pointed out, the enrichment has gone, the tutorial has shrunk significantly, general studies has largely disappeared and the number of advanced level courses taken is now normally three in both years. That leads to significantly lower student contact time. I know from experience that there is a direct correlation between contact time and achievement, particularly for students who have struggled to achieve at 16.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank my north Lincolnshire neighbour for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. On the point he just made, he will know that his neighbouring constituencies in north and north-east Lincolnshire are coastal communities, so have particular problems with social mobility. Does he share my hope that when he responds the Minister will indicate the Government’s continuing support for sixth-form colleges such as Franklin College in Grimsby?
Nic Dakin
I thank my constituency neighbour for his contribution. Franklin College is, of course, a high-performing, well-regarded sixth-form college, as are all four Humber sixth-form colleges—Wyke College, Wilberforce College and, of course, John Leggott College in Scunthorpe. I am sure the Minister is listening carefully. He is a very good Minister and I am sure he is going to give us all hope for a rosy future when he speaks later in the debate.
The impact of the changes on students has been significant. The Sixth Form Colleges Association’s 2016 funding impact survey shows that sixth-form college education is an increasingly narrow and part-time experience. Two thirds of sixth-form colleges have already dropped courses as a result of funding cuts and cost increases. Some 39% have dropped courses in modern foreign languages, and the vast majority have reduced or removed the extracurricular activities available to students, including music, drama, sport and languages. Worryingly, 64% do not believe that the funding they will receive next year will be sufficient to support students who are educationally or economically disadvantaged—the very point made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Franklin College in my constituency has already been mentioned. It has experienced significant funding cuts, to the point where it has lost around £1 million per year, resulting in a reduction in the courses offered. Does my hon. Friend think that that will also have an impact if students want to choose a variety of higher education courses to further their education beyond A-level?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is an inevitable impact on the progression into higher education, particularly for courses such as modern foreign languages, as well as, rather worryingly, certain aspects of science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses.
Today, 15 to 17 hours of weekly tuition and support has become the norm for sixth-form students in England, but that would be considered part-time study in most national education systems. Research commissioned by the Sixth Form Colleges Association from the Institute of Education describes sixth-form education in England as “uniquely narrow and short” compared with the model adopted in Shanghai, Singapore, Sweden and elsewhere.
In Shanghai, the upper secondary curriculum is based on eight fundamental subjects: Chinese, mathematics, English, science, thoughts and politics, society, arts and physical education. In addition, there are extended subjects and activities that allow for greater specialisation or for new or collective forms of learning. Finally, there are research-based subjects that take two hours per week. Overall, there is a total of 35 lessons per week, plus an extra hour per day for meetings and physical exercise. Lower and upper secondary education offer broadly the same number of lessons per week, and students receive at least 30 hours of tuition per week.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I rise to speak as one of the vice-chairmen of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges. I am proud to have Greenhead College and Huddersfield New College in my neck of the woods. I went to both their awards evenings last week. Greenhead College was celebrating 60 of its students getting their Duke of Edinburgh gold award, while 85% of New College students went on to university and academically it is in the top 10% nationally. Nevertheless, as we have heard there are huge funding challenges. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the conclusions of this debate should be that we have a review of funding so that it really does tackle the realistic costs of providing a well-rounded range of subjects so that we can compete internationally?
Nic Dakin
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is absolutely on the money—literally and metaphorically. The Minister needs to review the funding and to check that we are appropriately resourcing that well-rounded education that we all want to see. The reason for making these international comparatives is to say, “Well this is what is being invested in other high performing systems.” If we want to compete effectively with those high-performing systems, we need to be willing to look at what we are doing in a self-critical way and to set out our stall accordingly. I am sure that that is what the Minister will want to do when he comes to speak later on in the debate.
In Singapore, the upper secondary curriculum is based on core examination subjects, elective examination subjects and compulsory non-examination subjects. The core examination subjects are studied for around eight hours a week. Students choose three to four elective subjects and study each for around four to six hours a week. Compulsory non-examination subjects—assembly, physical education and character development—take up to four hours a week. Students receive between 27 hours’ tuition and support for those taking three elective subjects and 32 hours for those taking four. The duration of study is either two or three years.
Let us make a European comparison. In Sweden, where I worked for a number of years, upper secondary education is structured primarily through three-year national programmes. Each programme covers a series of foundation subjects—English, history, physical education and health, mathematics, science studies, social studies, Swedish and religion. In addition, a number of subjects specific to a given programme are chosen. Students receive around 19 hours of tuition a week, but, crucially, this entitlement is for three years rather than two.
The Institute of Education concludes its report by describing the English model as
“low hours and short duration.”
Students in other leading education systems receive more tuition time, study more subjects, and in some cases benefit from a three-year programme of study rather than a two-year programme.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this subject to the House. In fact, the issue has been raised in my constituency by the principal of Barton Peveril, who has talked about the problems relating to enrichment, the narrowing of education, efficiency and cross-funding, which are at the heart of our children’s education, and of course about the impact internationally. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government were to look at this matter, there would be an impact on our universities? I am talking about them having to pick up the pieces of our narrow education if we are to compete internationally.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In some ways, she reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn).
As I said, the Institute of Education describes the English model as
“low hours and short duration.”
By contrast with their peers elsewhere in the world, students in England receive around half as much tuition time and are following a three-subject diet. In addition, the funding cut for 18-year-old students has created a financial disincentive for schools and colleges to offer young people a third year to complete their sixth-form studies—and these are the very young people who need the additional support and additional time.
The Institute of Education contrasted the narrowing of the curriculum in England when students reach the sixth form compared with the model adopted by our international competitors. It said that
“unlike other national systems where the amount of tuition actually increases in upper secondary education when compared with the lower secondary phase, the English experience is the opposite. The sharp reduction in the number of subjects studied post-16 (an average of four subjects, now reducing to three) compared with pre-16 (10+ GCSEs or vocational equivalent) appears to represent sudden movement to a part-time curriculum.”
Bizarrely, despite these huge pressures on mainstream 16 to 18-year-olds, the Government have, since 2010, been able to spend money on unproven, untested and different types of provision for 16 to 18-year-olds. That is money that could have been spent on mainstream students. It has been unwise indulgence in political peccadillos at a time when there is contraction in both the population and the budgets.
Some 169 new academy and maintained sixth forms were opened between 2010 and 2015, but the total number of enrolled school students has been static. Average cohort sizes were already small and have declined further. Curiously, the Department for Education offers little in the way of practical advice to make school sixth forms work and has not researched the effectiveness of the reforms that have brought in so many smaller sixth forms.
Nic Dakin
In March 2016, Ministers introduced five new tests to ensure that new sixth forms are viable, which I welcome, but that was a limited step because it does not cover sixth forms that are already open. There is now a long tail of small institutions, with 1,180 school sixth forms enrolling fewer than 100 students. There is emerging evidence that some of their performance is not quite what we would wish it to be.
Meanwhile, university technical colleges have struggled to achieve viability in a system currently built around exams and transfer at age 16. As a result, six have closed and one did not open as planned. A sensible policy from the Department for Education would be to review sixth forms that are particularly small or underperforming, in the interests of value for money at a time when money is short.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add to the adulation that my hon. Friend is rightly receiving for his speech tonight? I cannot help mentioning Ashton Sixth Form College, which is just outside my constituency—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is sitting on the Front Bench. Does he agree that one of the strange bits of Government policy, as I understand it, is that where demand does exist for more sixth-form provision, that can be met only through the creation of school, academy or free school sixth-form provision? That seems very strange, given the credit that has rightly been given to the sixth-form sector by Members on both sides of the House this evening.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister is listening carefully and will obviously take that point on board, along with the other points that hon. Members have made.
I would like to conclude by posing a few questions to the Minister. Why are sixth-formers in England funded to receive only half the tuition time and support available to sixth-formers in Shanghai, Singapore and other leading education systems? Why are sixth-formers in England facing a standard diet of just three advanced-level subjects, while those in other international systems can study eight or nine?
It is good to have a Secretary of State who was educated in the comprehensive system and who attended a comprehensive sixth-form college—it is a first that I very much welcome. She will be well aware that 744,000 16 to 18-year-olds choose to study in colleges, while 433,000 choose to study in schools. All are affected by the squeeze in funding for their age group. Will she therefore move away from funding sixth-formers based on an arbitrary funding rate and conduct a review of funding to ensure that it is linked to a realistic cost of delivering a rounded, high-quality curriculum? Will she agree to work with the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the Association of Colleges and the Association of School and College Leaders in conducting the review, building on the current evidence base?
Finally, in the state sector, education funding decreases at the age of 16 to an average of £4,583 per student, per year. In the independent sector, school fees increase at the age of 16 to an average of £15,333 per student, per year. What does the Minister think are the implications of that for social mobility? On the day when the Prime Minister has made an important speech on the matter, it sounds to me like the sort of everyday injustice that she would be keen to tackle in her desire to build a shared society.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
May I start by adding to House’s adulation of the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and congratulate him on securing the debate? Ensuring high-quality post-16 education is a priority for the Government and for the country. We recognise the contribution of the dedicated staff working in all types of post-16 education and the hard work of students. In fact, a record proportion of young people are now participating in education, training or apprenticeships. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) the assurance that the Government support sixth-form colleges, including the sixth-form college mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and Franklin College in Grimsby.
Education and training in England is widely respected around the world, but we are determined to make further improvements to ensure that 16 to 19-year-olds are ready for the demands of the workplace by moving directly into skilled employment or by continuing to higher education. We are therefore reforming academic and technical education for over-16s and we are learning from the best international systems.
All countries that we look to learn from have a stage of education that no longer exclusively takes place in school. At this stage, there are options for students to gain relevant experience to prepare them for work either through apprenticeships or technical education, as we heard in the previous debate, or to prepare for further academic study at university. The way that works and the age at which it starts varies considerably around the world. For example, in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, there is a high level of investment by employers in vocational training in the secondary phase and an early emphasis on workplace training. That leads to lower rates of young people who are not in education, employment or training than in England, but the difference in academic standards between pupils from different socioeconomic backgrounds in those countries is larger than in England.
By contrast, only about one fifth of 15 to 19-year-olds in countries such as Japan and Korea are enrolled in vocational upper-secondary programmes. The remaining 80% of those cohorts continue a rigorous academic programme. It is useful to benchmark ourselves—if “to benchmark” is a new verb—against such countries to understand the strengths and weaknesses of our education system and to raise our expectations of what students here can achieve. That is why I am determined that we should improve our maths teaching by learning from the high-performing Asian systems such as those in Shanghai, Singapore and Japan by adopting maths mastery through the maths hubs programme, but it is not simply a case of choosing one country to learn from. Our priority should be making our whole system world class.
There is much to be proud of in comparing our education system to other countries. For example, England’s 15-year-olds continue to perform significantly above the OECD average in science and, in 2015, England’s 15-year-olds performed above average in reading for the first time. However, our performance in maths remains at the OECD average and a survey of adult skills identified our 16 to 18-year-olds as having the weakest literacy and numeracy skills out of 18 countries in 2012. We need to take action to deal with areas of poor performance. In the case of literacy and numeracy, we have now made the continued study of English and maths in post-16 education and training compulsory for students who did not achieve a good GCSE pass at age 16. More broadly, we are reforming both academic and technical education.
International examples of programme hours are widely used, but those comparisons need to be carefully interpreted. It is important that we understand what the estimates include, how programmes of longer duration or higher intensity are funded and how they sit beside other routes for young people to take from school to work. It is not always clear in the various studies where work experience is included in the figures. Certainly in the planned hours used to benchmark our own programmes for funding, we do not include self-directed study or homework, which is a key part of this phase of education. It is important that we develop a system that serves our pupils and our economy.
In England, we have an established academic route for sixth-form students through well-respected A-level qualifications. It is true that our system requires pupils to make choices and therefore, to a certain extent, to specialise in a smaller number of subjects for the sixth-form stage, but some degree of specialisation is a feature of systems in other countries as well. Through the A-level route, our academic system at post-16 is effective in preparing pupils for successful futures through in-depth study of the subjects they choose. We have some of the best universities in the world, and the proportion of English students studying in higher education is now larger than it has ever been. That includes the highest ever entry rate for the most disadvantaged 18-year-olds.
Of course, we are not standing still, and we are strengthening the design of A-levels to make sure that pupils continue to be fully equipped for the future. We have given higher education providers a leading role in redesigning a number of key A-levels, to ensure that pupils who take these qualifications are prepared for undergraduate-level study. We have also redesigned the assessment model, increasing the time available for high-quality teaching rather than taking exams.
Where we have not matched our neighbours is in technical education, where we have a major programme of reform under way. The landmark review of vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds conducted by Professor Alison Wolf in 2011 found that at least 350,000 16 to 19-year-olds were working towards vocational qualifications that offered no clear progression routes. The review led to the introduction of new study programmes and of per-student funding instead of per-qualification funding to ensure fair funding for FE colleges in line with other 16-to-19 institutions. As a direct result of the recommendations in the Wolf report, we now include only approved qualifications in performance tables. This means that young people can have confidence that their qualifications will enable them to progress to further study or into employment.
However, we recognise that the system is still not doing enough to support students who wish to pursue technical education. We recognise that we are still not matching the most effective systems of technical education in other European economies. That is why, following publication of the Sainsbury review, we are embarking on a radical reform of England’s post-16 technical education system. Learning from the best technical education systems overseas, we are working to introduce new technical routes that will enable young people to gain the knowledge and skills required for work, according to standards designed in partnership with employers. Bringing training for young people and adults in line with the needs of business and industry will support increases in productivity, which has lagged behind, even as economic growth and employment levels have improved. It will also help to ensure that young people and adults can move into sustained and skilled careers that lead to prosperity and security.
Alongside that, we are continuing the reform of apprenticeships, as we have heard. We are increasing the quality of apprenticeships through more rigorous assessment and grading at the end of the apprenticeship. We are also giving employers control of the funding so they become more demanding customers. We are committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship starts in England by 2020.
Caroline Lucas
I genuinely very much welcome the Minister’s support for the sixth-form sector and sixth-form colleges, but he has been speaking for nearly 10 minutes and has said nothing about the arbitrary funding that has been the focus of so much of the concern expressed on both sides of the House. Will he commit to look at this funding issue? Will the Government look at how much funding is required for the rounded curriculum that sixth-form colleges want to deliver? Colleges in my constituency, such as Varndean College and Brighton, Hove & Sussex Sixth Form College, are desperate to deliver it but are being undermined by the lack of funding, which the Minister still has not really addressed.
Mr Gibb
If only the hon. Lady had waited just two more seconds, we would have come to that pivotal part of my response to the debate.
Clearly, the right level of funding needs to be in place to match our ambitious academic and technical reforms. In 2013, investment in education in the UK as a whole—combining public and private sources—was above the OECD average across all phases, including post-16. We have made the system more coherent so that school sixth forms and colleges are all funded and have their performance reported in the same way. Funding is on a per-student basis, giving schools and colleges the freedom to design the best programmes for their students, rather than rewarding institutions for providing large numbers of small qualifications that have little value.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says that all institutions are treated the same, but free schools, in particular, were outwith the area reviews of provision that we have just seen undertaken in many parts of the country. Is he aware of Connell Sixth Form College in my constituency, which was opened by a grammar school and has recently received a “requires improvement” Ofsted rating? That sixth-form college is operating below the numbers required to sustain it, and it was outwith the area review. Does he think that is a good use of public funds in the context of this debate?
Mr Gibb
Area reviews can take schools into account, but 2,000 or more schools have sixth forms, and if we were to bring them all into the area reviews, that would make the whole system unmanageable. The free school system was introduced to challenge the status quo in terms of sixth forms and in terms of schools themselves, because in the past we have had monopoly provision of new schools. The free school movement has been phenomenal in opening up sixth forms such as King’s College London Mathematics School, where 100% of youngsters are getting A or A* grades in maths A-level, and Exeter Mathematics School. These schools are challenging the status quo in these areas and providing a very high-quality education. We need to see more of those innovative and demanding free sixth-form schools that open up for young people opportunities that they would not otherwise have had.
Nic Dakin
I have been listening to the Minister very carefully. Does he accept that the research available demonstrates that since 2010 the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has been reduced in real terms, and that the impact of that has been to reduce the level of tuition time to 13 to 17 hours per student? I am interested in whether he recognises that as an issue, and if so, whether he sees it as a problem.
Mr Gibb
I absolutely recognise that resources are tight for 16-to-19 education and training. In recent years, we have had to make some post-16 savings while working hard to sustain funding levels for schools, bearing in mind the fact that success in school pre-16 is the best predictor of outcomes in post-16 education.
We have made clear commitments to 16-to-19 education, where we have protected the base rate of funding at £4,000 per student for all types of providers until 2020. This was announced in the 2015 spending review, at a time when public finances are under great pressure. Providers receive additional funding for students taking part in more expensive programmes, and there is also a large programme uplift for providers who have pupils studying four or more A-levels, provided they achieve minimum grade requirements, and about £540 million of funding is allocated each year to enable schools and colleges to give extra support to disadvantaged students. That is essential in helping those from poorer backgrounds or those who, pre-16, have not attained well enough to get the help they need to succeed.
Overall, we plan to invest about £7 billion during 2016-17—taking apprenticeships together with other education and training options—to ensure that there is a place in education or training for every 16 to 19-year-old who wants one. This commitment means that all types of providers are funded for 600 planned hours per year per full-time student. That level of funding supports a significant programme of study. For example, it will allow for three A-levels and 50 hours of tutorials, plus either one AS-level or about 150 hours of enrichment or work experience. While we have not been able to protect budgets for sixth-form education in real terms, there is funding to ensure that every sixth-form age student has the opportunity to undertake high-quality study that will help them to move on to skilled work or further or higher education.
Our commitment to the post-16 sector has contributed to the current record-high proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education, training or apprenticeships, and the lowest proportion of young people not in education, employment or training since consistent records began in 1994. Applications to higher education from 18-year-olds are at an all-time high.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for raising this important issue. I recognise that there is more to do to continue improving our post-16 education system to ensure it is established as one of the world’s best, but we should be proud of the achievements so far and recognise that we are building a system that is both affordable and in keeping with our country’s needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016
(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 1126).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. The order was first laid before the House on 23 November 2016; it is the first of what I am sure will be many statutory instruments laid before the House by the Home Office. Action to address the harms of drug misuse would not be possible without expert guidance, and I am grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which informed the order. I also take this chance to place on the record my congratulations to the new chair of the ACMD, Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, who began his important work on 1 January. I look forward to working with him to continue the effective relationship between the ACMD and the Government.
The order subjects methiopropamine—a stimulant drug—to a temporary control order under section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Methiopropamine, colloquially known as MPA, was controlled under a previous temporary class drug order that expired on 26 November 2016. If the order is made today, the temporary control will continue for a further 12 months. Those further months will allow the ACMD to gather and consider more evidence, in order to make a substantiated recommendation for permanent control under the 1971 Act. That replicates the ACMD’s recommended approach to renew the TCDO covering seven Ritalin-related substances in June 2016.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentioned that the drug is known colloquially as MPA; like many other drugs, I am sure it is included in many other products, as with other legal highs previously. Will she tell the Committee what other names it is commonly known by on the street?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman is right: this drug would commonly have been known as a legal high in the past. However, as far as I am aware, MPA is its colloquial name; I know that other drugs often have a multitude of names, but in this case, the street name—if that is the right term—is MPA. [Interruption.] My helpful colleagues sitting to my left have just pointed out that, while MPA is its most common name, it can also go by the names “Ivory Dove”, “China White”, “Walter White”, “Quicksilver”, “Ultra 3”, “Bullet”, “Mind Melt”, “Pink Panthers”, “Poke”, “Rush”, “Snow White” and “Charlie Sheen”. I hope the hon. Gentleman finds that illuminating. MPA has been compared to cocaine, and some of those names indicate some of the features of that drug.
A number of harms have been evidenced as a result of MPA consumption, including abnormally fast heart rate—perhaps that is related to the nickname “Rush”—anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction. A particular concern, as the ACMD noted, is that MPA came to its attention as a replacement for methylphenidate-based compounds, which were controlled under a previous TCDO. Given that the drug is commonly administered by injection, there is a high risk of harm caused by bacterial infection and local tissue damage.
The ACMD notes that the initial TCDO
“has been effective in halting the problematic proliferation of MPA”
since it was first introduced in November 2015. Evidence indicates that the prevalence of the substance prior to the TCDO, most notably in Scotland, appears to have abated. Sources note fewer instances of users injecting MPA, a reduction in phone calls and database inquiries to TOXBASE and a reported decrease in the availability of MPA online.
Parliament’s approval of the order will enable UK law enforcement to continue, under the strict offences and robust penalties of the 1971 Act, to take consistent action against traffickers and suppliers of temporary class drugs while the ACMD gathers further evidence. The order sends out a clear message to the public that the drug carries serious health risks and, in addition to our legislative response, we continue to take action to reduce the damage of drugs and to ensure that those who become dependent have access to the support they need.
We really want to carry on our vital work in updating the public, promoting health messages and informing the public about the harms of these dreadful psychoactive substances. We are utterly determined to continue our work with the ACMD, to do everything we can to prevent these harmful psychoactive substances being used by people in our country.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Thank you for your excellent chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I would like to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, and I congratulate him on his appointment.
Labour Members fully support the order. It is clear that MPA has become an increasingly popular psychoactive substance and, although the evidence gathered by the ACMD has been largely anecdotal, we cannot take lightly the mounting evidence that it has found of associated deaths and harm. This is one of the first orders to place new psychoactive substances under the 1971 Act that Parliament has been asked to affirm since the Act came into force. Such measures are vital, to allow the ACMD to gather further evidence on the substances and subsequently allow law enforcement officials the opportunity to take action against offenders. I note that nearly 500 people have been arrested since the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 came into force six months ago and that the first offenders have been jailed under the new powers, with more cases progressing through the courts.
We welcome the message that the order sends out to the general public: that the drugs have serious health implications. However, I recall that a five-year reduction strategy for new psychoactive substances was due to be published in the summer, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether, and when, we can expect to see that.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.
Given the devastating effects that this drug has had in Scotland, the Scottish National party supports the order. We welcomed last year’s notification by Police Scotland that instances of injecting MPA appeared to have reduced. It is a little disappointing, however, that the UK Government have responded to the issue by granting a further temporary order. Since we have identified that this is a particularly dangerous drug, a more permanent solution would have been welcome—the Minister herself has raised concerns about the health implications of taking this sort of drug. We should all aspire to making this kind of substance unlawful, less visible and less available, and a more permanent solution would allow us to do that.
Sarah Newton
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea East for her support; it is really encouraging that every time we come together to look at drugs issues there is absolute unanimity. It is really important that we send out a strong, united message to all those who seek to exploit the vulnerable people in society by selling them these appallingly harmful drugs.
I also welcome the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire’s comments about seeking to list the drug permanently. Once the ACMD has enough evidence, we will, of course, be able to do that, but I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that in the meantime the temporary measure gives law enforcement all the powers it needs to go after the people who trade in this most harmful of all trades, selling these appalling substances to some very vulnerable people.
The hon. Member for Swansea East made a point about the drugs strategy. We have been working hard across Government on a thorough and balanced drugs strategy that looks at educating young people, making sure that teachers and everyone working with young people communicate the risks of taking drugs, so that young people themselves make good, informed choices. We have also been working closely with law enforcement bodies to make sure that they have all the powers that they need, and we have been putting the rehabilitation of people who have taken substances and have a problem with them at the heart of our strategy. We are working closely with the Department of Health and we will publish the strategy soon.
In the meantime, we have not been sitting on our hands. We have introduced a whole range of measures, most particularly updating the work done to look at the effectiveness of the educational tools available to teachers and youth workers, and issuing new guidance in that regard. We have also been looking at what works for rehabilitation and detox. We have been doing a lot of work with the Department of Health and sharing that best practice, communicating it out to people in the frontline. New services, communicating tools that people can use to measure the toxicity of drugs, the early intervention schemes—all this good work has been going on while we have been developing the strategy across Government. Although I had hoped that the strategy would be published just before Christmas, I am sure that it will be published very shortly.
I have answered questions and provided the Committee with information this afternoon. I hope that Committee members will feel able to support this important new measure, which, as hon. Members have mentioned, will help us in the good work of increasing the number of prosecutions for the sale of psychoactive substances, closing down head shops and making sure that people who have become addicted to these substances get the support they really need to get their lives back on track.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Exiting the European Union
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robin Walker
The Government have also reassured organisations that structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK withdraws from the EU will be guaranteed by the Treasury after we leave, up to 2020.—[Official Report, 19 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 1280.]
Letter of correction from Mr Robin Walker:
An error has been identified in the speech I made in the debate on Exiting the EU: Science and Research on 19 December.
The correct statement should have been:
Mr Robin Walker
The Government have also reassured organisations that structural and investment fund projects signed before the UK withdraws from the EU will be guaranteed by the Treasury after we leave.
Petitions
Bozeat branch of the Post Office
Tenancy of St Michael's Gate, Parnwell
Written Statements
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“Securing the ballot”: Government Response
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
The Government have published their response to “Securing the ballot”, the review of electoral fraud conducted and published by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) in August 2016. I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the work involved in his comprehensive and detailed report, which the Government believe is an important step in our commitment to tackling all types of electoral fraud in the UK. I add my thanks to all those individuals and organisations who contributed to this important review.
The Government have given each of My right hon. Friend’s 50 recommendations careful consideration. In setting out the Government’s view on each of the recommendations in turn, the response presents a package for reform that will ensure we can build a democracy that is clear and secure. We intend to achieve the changes we propose through a combination of primary and secondary legislation, where parliamentary time allows, and through new or reinforced guidance. As a central part of the reform package, the Government will look to identify legislative opportunities to give electoral administrators greater powers to protect voters from intimidation and undue influence, and to end the dubious practice of postal vote harvesting by political parties.
We will also look to introduce a number of pilot schemes at local government elections in 2018 to trial the use of voter identification in polling stations. The Government agree with my right hon. Friend that asking voters to prove their identity before receiving their ballot paper may be an effective way to enhance the security of the democratic process. Using existing legislative provisions, we will invite those local authorities identified by the Electoral Commission as being at risk of electoral fraud to take part in pilots, as well as authorities who are not considered at risk. The pilots will enable the Government to assess the impact of voter identification on elections in the UK.
The Government are aware of the consequences of devolution for this programme of reform. As with all legislation that relates to the division of competence on electoral matters between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, we are clear that decisions on these changes are ultimately the responsibility of those Administrations. We will consult with the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Administrations to ensure that there is an effective and consistent fit for any changes brought forward.
The response presents a challenging programme of reform, which we will work hard to implement over the coming years. The Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations and with interested organisations to ensure that we can provide a democracy that works for everyone.
Copies of the response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS396]
Mental Health
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I would like to update the House following today’s announcement made by the Prime Minister about this Government’s plans to reform mental health services in this country.
For too long those suffering mental illness in England have experienced a hidden injustice. Mental illness has been shrouded in stigma and the needs of those with mental health problems have been neglected compared to those with physical illness. An estimated one in four people in the UK will experience a mental health problem at any one time and the economic and social cost of mental illness is estimated to be £105 billion a year. Left unaddressed, mental illness can destroy lives, cause untold pain to families and prevent people from fulfilling their potential at work, school or in society.
This Government are determined to address the historic failure—over successive generations and Governments—to tackle mental illness. We are grateful to the Independent Mental Health Taskforce for publishing the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health last year, which set out a clear roadmap for the NHS, our arm’s length bodies and Government. In February, the Department for Health supported their recommendations with an additional investment of £1 billion per year by 2020. NHS England accepted the recommendations for the National Health Service in full and have published an implementation plan. Today the Prime Minister announced that the Government accept all the recommendations made to it by the Independent Taskforce on Mental Health and are publishing an update on our progress against these recommendations. The Government’s response to the Mental Health Taskforce can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-01-09/HCWS397.
But we must go further still. The challenge of mental illness is growing and we must all—at every stage of life and every level in society—take steps to tackle it.
First, because we know that children and young people are most susceptible to mental illness and most disorders originate in childhood, we must make mental health a priority in our classrooms and in our families. The Government have therefore announced a series of steps to ensure children and young people get the support they need. We will:
Commission a major thematic review of children and adolescent mental health services across the country, led by the Care Quality Commission with assistance from Ofsted—the first of its kind.
Bring forward a new Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health later this year, to set out plans to transform services in schools, universities and for families.
Introduce new support for schools with every secondary school in the country to be offered mental health first aid training and new trials to look at how to strengthen the links between schools and local NHS mental health staff.
Develop peer support for children and young people’s mental health and emotional wellbeing—confirming a programme of pilot activity on peer support, as outlined earlier in the year, along with £1.5 million in funding.
Launch a programme of randomised control trials of promising preventative programmes, across three different approaches to mental health promotion and prevention.
Second, we must work with employers to ensure better mental wellbeing in the workplace. Because we know that there are important steps businesses can take to support their workforce, and those that do see benefits in higher productivity and lower absence. The Prime Minister has therefore appointed Lord Dennis Stevenson, the long-time campaigner for greater understanding and treatment of mental illness, and Paul Farmer CBE, CEO of Mind and Chair of the NHS Mental Health Taskforce, to drive work with business and the public sector to support mental health in the workplace. These experts will lead a review on how best to ensure employees with mental health problems are enabled to thrive in the workplace and perform at their best. This will involve practical help including promoting best practice and learning from trailblazer employers, as well as offering tools to organisations, whatever size they are, to assist with employee wellbeing and mental health. We will also review recommendations around discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of mental health.
Third, we need to offer alternatives to hospital to support people in the community. We recognise that seeing a GP or going to A&E is not or does not feel like the right intervention for many people with mental ill-health, the Government will build on their initial £15 million investment to provide and promote new models of community-based care such as crisis cafes and community clinics. The initial £15 million investment led to 88 new places of safety being created. Since 2011-12, there has been an almost 80% reduction in England of people experiencing a mental health crisis being taken to police cells, utilising health-based place of safety, rather than being held in a cell, ensuring people get the best support—in the right place, at the right time, in the right way. The Government now plan to spend up to a further £15 million to build on this success.
Fourth, we will expand treatment by investing in and expanding digital mental health services. Digitally assisted therapy has already proved successful in other countries and the Government will speed up the delivery of a £67.7 million digital mental health package so that those worried about stress, anxiety or more serious issues can go online, check their symptoms and if needed, receive clinically-assisted therapy over the internet, when this is clinically appropriate for the person rather than waiting weeks for a face-to-face appointment—with face-to-face sessions offered as necessary. We will:
Introduce a major £60 million investment, £30 million from Government and £30 million from trusts, of digitally assisted mental health services in six mental health trusts, badged Global Digital Exemplars for mental health. Global Digital Exemplars will be expected to make a step change in their use of digital technology, informatics and data to improve value overall by improving the processes of care, using information to better inform decision making about care, improving the levels of safety and effectiveness of care, improving the ability to sustain continuous quality improvement and improving patient access to appropriate evidence based care.
Pilot digitally-assisted therapy for the NHS’s talking therapies programme. This £3 million pilot will trial existing treatments and offer patients faster effective therapy for illnesses such as anxiety and depression and involve working with NICE to establish a new accelerated accreditation process, to ensure mental health patients can access treatments that take full advantage of changing technology which have been properly tested and accredited, with products becoming part of the mainstream offer to people if meeting NICE standards.
Strengthen the mental health content of the clinical triage platform for NHS 111 with a £3.3 million investment, ensuring improved waging of those experiencing mental ill-health using the NHS’ online platforms, as well as allow self-referrals online.
Pilot and further roll out the health based place of safety capacity management app at a cost of £900,000 to help police and health services manage places of safety spaces in real time.
Develop a set of apps and resources for £500,000, which will be included on an online digital health tools library, and rolled out on commercial platforms like the Apple App store.
Fifth, we must right the everyday injustices that those with mental health problems face. We will:
Work with money and mental health policy institute to undertake a review of the mental health and debt form and agree an approach that will end this unfair practice.
Support NHS England’s commitment, made this year, to eliminate inappropriate placements to inpatient beds for children and young people by 2020-21.
Publish the refreshed Government Suicide Prevention strategy a copy of which can be viewed at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-01-09/HCWS397.
Suicide Prevention
The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 4,820 suicides were registered in England during 2015—equivalent to 13 people per day. Self-harm is also on the rise, with up to 300,000 hospital attendances per year in England categorised as resulting from self-inflicted injury.
We are already taking steps to help reduce suicide. The £247 million investment in mental health liaison services will see trained psychiatrists and counsellors made available in emergency departments to assess, counsel and refer patients on to other mental health services if they present with signs of self-harm or other psychological distress.
Local authorities will also be expected to strengthen local suicide prevention plans, and there is an explicit focus on improving how services respond to cases of self-harm, which is the biggest single indicator that a person may be at increased risk of suicide.
It is hoped that the new strategy, which sets out how local areas should do more to support those at high risk of suicide, will also encourage local authorities strengthen efforts to reach other groups known to be at increased risk.
These include young men—who are three times more likely to die by suicide than women—those in contact with the criminal justice system and certain occupational groups.
Many parts of the country already have established preventative plans. These vary by area, but have included: stronger outreach and liaison services, dedicated services for young people who self-harm and training programmes to help health professionals, police and other community services to understand how to identify and respond to people in acute distress.
All local authorities will now be expected to develop strong, multi-agency suicide prevention plans by the end of 2017, ahead of these being checked and approved by the Department of Health.
In addition, NHS England will develop a new care pathway for self-harm, which will provide greater consistency in how those groups are cared for across the NHS, with consistent treatment guidelines for the recognition, treatment and management of self-harm.
There will also be an increased focus on ensuring those who have been recently bereaved—which are another group at increased risk of suicide—receive information and follow-up support to help them cope with their loss.
[HCWS397]
Safe Use of Drones: Consultation
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) made the following ministerial statement on Wednesday 21 December 2016.
Today, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK Government have launched a consultation
“Unlocking the UK’s high tech economy: consultation on the safe use of drones in the UK”.
Drone technology represents a great opportunity for the United Kingdom, but it is crucial that we strike a careful balance in our approach to drones—a balance between pushing their commercial uses and ensuring safety considerations.
The Government’s industrial strategy will support our ambition for Britain to become the global go-to place for scientists, innovators and tech investors, and the development of new technologies such as drones is key to that. We are already well-placed: alongside the Government’s support for trials and projects, the Civil Aviation Authority has granted over 2,000 commercial drone operator permissions. But we want to further drive forward progress in the UK drones industry by fostering the right supportive environment.
In the UK, drones are already being used by the police, fire services and search and rescue in emergency situations, by energy, road and rail providers to inspect and maintain our key infrastructure, and by conservation organisations to monitor natural environments. Drones are saving time and money, improving delivery of services in these areas, improving safety and even helping to save lives. As the technology develops, we will see drones being used in other fields to achieve similar results. There are also many leisure users of drones, who must follow the strict laws in place, such as keeping their drone within their sight. With the photographic and videography opportunities drones present, sales of drones to this audience are increasing at pace.
But like many other technologies, drones can also be misused and challenge safety, security and privacy. While the vast majority of drone users are law-abiding and have good intentions, it is likely that some are not aware of the rules that apply and inadvertently break them, risking safety, privacy and security. It also cannot be ignored that there will be some who will purposefully break the laws on drones, and potentially use drones to cause harm.
The Government’s vision is for a society and economy in the UK where drones are safely and properly used in ways that improve the delivery of public and commercial services, where all leisure drone users are aware of the rules and adhere to them, and where flourishing drone service businesses are contributing to the UK economy, creating jobs and encouraging the development of important new skills in the UK. We want to create the right conditions for new uses of drone technology to emerge and grow, placing the UK at the cutting edge of new technologies and capturing a significant portion of the global drone applications market. We will not do so unless we take the safety, security and privacy challenges and our duties to the general public extremely seriously.
This consultation sets out some of the next steps under consideration for doing so. These proposals aim to keep pace with this fast emerging market, balancing the challenges appropriately without restricting the opportunity drones present. They are intended to ensure the global competitiveness of the UK as a home for innovation and technological investment while providing the assurance the public need. As the technology and market opportunities develop, we want to proactively address these challenges, and support the growing and changing UK drones services industry.
The consultation is published on gov.uk and the deadline for responding is 15 March 2017.
Responses are encouraged from drone operators (commercial and leisure), the aviation industry, drone manufacturers and other companies involved in the drone market, model aircraft associations and their members, the insurance industry, members of the public and relevant NGOs, higher education institutions and research and development institutions, local authorities, and Members of both Houses.
[HCWS395]
House of Lords
A159 Wildcat Helicopter
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to retain the Government-owned tooling and jigs for the A159 Wildcat helicopter within the United Kingdom; and if so, whether these will be installed in the main Leonardo site.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and wish all noble Lords a happy new year.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government fully recognise the capabilities of the UK aviation industry and the contribution that companies such as Leonardo make to our country. Wildcat airframe production for the UK Armed Forces has now drawn to an end and no decision has yet been taken on retention of the tooling and jigs. However, we are working closely with the company on this issue.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, I wish—in a spirit even of the fag end of good will—to say thank you for the Answer that the Minister has given, but I find it difficult to do so. We are asking for a very simple thing here. The Government own the tooling and jigs which support the job. Leonardo wants to ship those jobs out to Poland. The Government have the leverage to insist that, before that happens, there is a proper, competitive study on the comparative production costs between the two. That is not asking very much. I remind the Minister that the Government seriously damaged the future of Britain’s only stand-alone helicopter facility by handing out orders to the United States in the early years of this Government, without any competitive study whatever. If they commit that mistake again, we are bound to assume that their promise to do everything they can to preserve jobs in Britain are merely empty words. This will be seen as an insult to the technicians and engineers who spent 100 years providing our armed services with world-beating helicopters in the last period.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that decisions on aircraft procurement, as indeed procurement across the defence piece, have to represent best value for the UK taxpayer. On the Wildcat issue, I think the noble Lord will accept that there is no requirement or pressing need for the Government to make a decision yet because no export orders have been received by Leonardo helicopters. However, we clearly have an interest in this. We are working with the company to ensure that UK work content is maintained, and I hope enhanced, for any export orders. The decision on whether to allow the jigs and tools to be relocated offshore will be based on a balanced assessment focused on what is best for UK prosperity.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister believe there is a strategic requirement for our nation to have the ability to develop, design and build complex fast jets, and to do exactly the same for helicopters and warships, or is there no strategic requirement for this? Has this issue been considered by the National Security Council?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government are committed to keeping the UK as a leading aerospace nation. We are fully engaged with Leonardo on future helicopter work in that region. For example, we have signed a 10-year strategic partnership agreement with Leonardo, which of course is key to maintaining cost effectiveness, driving exports and innovation. The Aerospace Growth Partnership, which is being managed by my colleagues in BEIS, will undoubtedly be of benefit in the long term to the UK aerospace industry.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, on this important matter for our aerospace industry, what optimism does my noble friend have that we may be able to export Wildcats? Is there any real prospect of that? If so, is that not a good thing?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, in an uncertain world, Britain needs our Armed Forces to be well equipped, and they need the support of the men and women employed in our defence industries. If the noble Earl agrees with that, will he say what the Government are doing to ensure the highly skilled workforce at GKN is not lost to Britain’s defence? He and I both know we will need them in the years ahead.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is right about the need to maintain high-end skills in this country if we are to maintain our position as a leading player in the aerospace market. The Defence Growth Partnership is one element of this. We have a substantial programme of work already under way to encourage the growth and competitiveness of UK industry. Defence is playing an active part in the cross-government work on the national industrial strategy, which we aim to publish during the next few weeks. It makes sense to allow those programmes to deliver before taking a view on whether any further defence-specific work is needed.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Are the Government aware of the talk among several European Union aircraft manufacturers of both civil and military helicopters and jets that they have a real opportunity to take over production from the UK when it exits Europe? Real discussions are going on in Europe about how production can be transferred from the UK to the European Union. How much thought have the Government given to this?
Earl Howe
Naturally, that is being looked at in the context of the Government’s wider industrial strategy, but the 10-year industrial strategic partnership arrangement we have with Leonardo will act as a driver and influence to ensure that that company focuses on using the skills and expertise available in this country over the medium to long term.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, when the Government published a statement last week saying that the new aircraft carrier to be launched this year would dramatically increase Britain’s firepower in the defence of the world, did they understand whether there would be any planes to fly on this aircraft carrier, or are they relying on helicopters, machine guns or whatever?
Earl Howe
We have already taken delivery of seven F35E aircraft for the “Queen Elizabeth” aircraft carrier. There are more to come. Indeed, we accelerated the procurement programme when we announced the results of the SDSR in 2015. The “Queen Elizabeth” aircraft carrier will be fully manned and fully equipped when she is ready to sail.
Brexit: Green Paper
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish a green paper on their negotiating objectives for Brexit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister has said, we have committed to publish a plan before we trigger Article 50. The Government want to ensure Parliament has the necessary information so that it can scrutinise the negotiating process while ensuring that our national interest in those negotiations is protected.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
Will the Government reveal to Parliament and the British people the damage to the economy that will result from Brexit if we leave the European single market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear in her interview yesterday, we are intent on achieving the widest and best possible access to the single market, and that remains our aim. I am sure that she will say more about this matter in the weeks ahead.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, given that new global value chains and a completely transformed global pattern of trade have utterly changed old notions of the single market and the customs union, is it not rather pointless now frantically to debate whether we should be in or out of the single market until we know what we are dealing with and with whom we have to negotiate about what?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes an extremely good point—he has written and spoken extensively on this. I have had the good fortune to meet a number of businesses large and small, ranging from very high-tech manufacturers to much smaller businesses, to discuss supply chains. He is absolutely right: this is a very important issue. It is complex and, as my noble friend implies, it suggests that the rather bland terms that we use about the Brexit debate need to be treated with great caution.
Lord Spicer (Con)
How is one more clear about the objectives than the Prime Minister was yesterday, which is to get out of the European Union as soon as possible, which includes the single market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, a range of options is open to us and we are looking for the best possible deal for this country.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the Minister needs to offer two things to the House. The first is perhaps that he will no longer do what some of his colleagues do. The Secretary of State, Liz Truss, refused to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights looking at Brexit, a refusal that the committee described as unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will come to the House with not just the final vote that will happen when Article 50 is triggered, but the detail of what the Government are seeking to achieve out of negotiations when we leave the European Union.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that it remains the Government’s intention to build as strong a national consensus as possible around our negotiation position, to treat this House and the other place with the respect they deserve as the negotiations continue, and to give the information required for scrutiny to be meaningful and worth while.
Lord Myners
My Lords, we all try to understand why the Government wish to keep a close hand on their negotiating objectives with Europe—we must remain very hush-hush about this in case Johnny Foreigner understands what we are up to—but would the Minister like to hazard a guess on the negotiating objectives of the 27 countries, the European Commission and the European Parliament? Surely that is not a matter on which we cannot comment.
Lord Bridges of Headley
It is very tempting, my Lords, but not on my first time back. In seriousness, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Having reflected on his question, which is a very fair one, I would like to think that our European partners see that a smooth, orderly and timely Brexit is as much in their interest as it is in ours.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that we will hear first from the Liberal Democrats and then perhaps we can then go to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the Government think it important that we are within the single market and not just trading with it? Can he also explain to us precisely why the well-being of the country is being held hostage to squabbles within the Conservative Party and Cabinet?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I totally dispute the second part of the noble Baroness’s question, I am sorry to say. As regards the single market, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out our thinking on that yesterday. As she said, we are looking for the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single European market, and we want that prosperity for all businesses.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, since the EU does so much better out of our membership than we do, in pretty well every sphere of our national life—trade and jobs, security, mutual residence, agriculture, fish, the single market; not to mention the £10 billion in cash we give it every year—why do we not just tell it that we are taking back our law and our borders and that we will be reasonably generous about the rest of it if it behaves itself and agrees? Would that not be a nice clean Brexit? It need not take very long at all, need it?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord has a unique way of putting things, which I note, but I do not think the Government would necessarily adopt quite that phraseology. It is clear: the Government have set out on numerous occasions over the past few months our intention to take control over our borders, our money and our laws, while achieving the best possible access to the single market for businesses. That is the position.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Does my noble friend not think that it would be simpler to stop referring to the single market and refer instead to what is in the treaty—the internal market—thereby making it obvious that it is absurd to argue that we should leave the European Union and be in the internal market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
As usual, my noble friend speaks with a great amount of forensic attention to detail. He is absolutely right from that point of view, but the words are the words that we seem to be using.
Lord Dykes (CB)
Can the Minister confirm that he takes a lot of advice from Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I listen to all manner of people, my Lords, on all sides of the political divide and on all sides of the argument on this.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the passage of Article 50 will be enormously facilitated if the Green Paper makes it plain that the final and negotiated terms will be subject to approval by Parliament and, if Parliament so decides, in a further referendum?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, as the Prime Minister, my Secretary of State and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the Government will comply with all the constitutional and legal obligations that apply to the negotiated deal with the EU.
Pitchford Inquiry
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a person may be designated as a core participant in the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing if they are currently under surveillance, or subject to data access requests, for activities unrelated to any investigation of a serious criminal offence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the designation of core participants is a matter for the chairman of the undercover policing inquiry. The chairman will consider the inquiry’s terms of reference and the requirements of the Inquiry Rules 2006 when making his decisions.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for her response. It does not answer my Question, obviously. The problem is whether or not the police are still spying on people they have spied on before, who are now subject to an inquiry. Has the Minister asked for assurance from the police that they do not still have those core participants under surveillance? If she has, has she told the inquiry chair, Lord Justice Pitchford, who really ought to know?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have not told the police. Obviously, I will not ask from the Dispatch Box whether the noble Baroness has asked the police but perhaps we could have a conversation about it afterwards.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what she regards as appropriate oversight by police and crime commissioners of the undercover policing carried out by the police forces for which they are responsible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, with regard to professional practice, the College of Policing published the Undercover Policing Authorised Professional Practice for consultation, and the guidance sets out the roles and responsibilities of police officers. Obviously, the PCC has oversight of the work of both chief constables and police officers.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I was one of a number of MPs at the time who were named by an undercover police officer as having had a file on them. This was confirmed to me in person by Scotland Yard as being entirely innocent in my case, which some Members of this House may be sceptical about. Is that body of legislators—we were all legislators in the House of Commons at the time—being considered by the Pitchford inquiry? I think it should be.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is absolutely innocent. I never doubted it. Clearly, the Home Office sponsors the work of the inquiry but we do not direct its work. I do not know whether the noble Lord has asked the inquiry whether that is its intention.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there are about 9 million custody photographs held on a police database, and the police cannot say how many of those pictures are of innocent people and how many are of people who have been convicted. What safeguards are in place to ensure that police databases comply with human rights law and data protection laws, particularly when they appear to contain personal details of those who have never been charged and convicted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is a strict code of ethics on how people’s photographs are held if somebody has not been convicted. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord further on the matter that he has raised.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government accept that it is possible that the findings of the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing could lead to revisions or amendments being needed to the recently passed Investigatory Powers Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will not anticipate the outcome of the inquiry, or indeed the report that is due in the spring of next year. Nor will I therefore predetermine what might or might not be in terms of the IP Act.
Register of Hereditary Peers
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask the Leader of the House whether she is satisfied that the requirements of the Register of Hereditary Peers are compatible with equalities legislation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Equality Act 2010 provides that neither a life peerage nor a hereditary peerage, as a dignity or honour conferred by the Crown, is a public or personal office for the purposes of the Act. As such, the register of hereditary Peers is not subject to equalities legislation. As provided for in the House of Lords Act 1999, Standing Orders of the House make provision for the replacement by elections of hereditary Peers who are Members of this House. It is therefore a matter for this House, when regulating its own affairs.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear the Deputy Leader confirm that this will ultimately be a matter for this House. I ask him also to confirm that the current register of hereditary Peers—containing as it does the names of all those people eligible to stand in by-elections—contains the names of 199 people, just one of whom is a woman. I would have thought that this statistic alone should bring into disrepute the whole by-election system for the replacement of hereditary Peers. I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would do the House a favour by announcing that the Government will support my Bill, which costs nothing, hurts no one and has overwhelming support in this House. In so doing, we would be able to consign this whole by-election system to the dustbin, where it deserves to be.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I must declare an obvious personal interest in the context of this Question, as an elected hereditary Peer. But in the context of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve by his Bill, it would not in our view be an incremental reform. Reform of that kind would clearly change the means by which membership of this House is determined, as well as its composition, and would be a fundamental change to how it operates. The Government’s position is that comprehensive reform of the House of Lords is not a priority during this Parliament.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, until the Grocott Bill or something like it has a realistic prospect of success, should we not look at the electorate for the by-elections? Can we not also take a crumb of comfort that one of those high on the list on the Labour side is Lord Stansgate?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to note that fact but I can only say again that the process for the filling of vacancies on the register of hereditary Peers is a matter for this House under its Standing Orders. It is open to any noble Lord to make representation to your Lordships’ Procedure Committee and to the Lord Speaker on any relevant matter.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said this would not be an incremental change. By my reckoning, if we take the hereditary Peers who are currently in your Lordships’ House, if we fail to have by-elections to replace every single one of them as they choose to retire or depart by other means, it would take 60 or 70 years. I think that is a fairly incremental change. I suggest to the Minister that this House thinks we should end by-elections for hereditary Peers—he just has to be here when we have our debates. There are very few noble Lords, including hereditary Peers, who think it is the right thing to have the nonsense of these elections. The other House would agree with us; the public agree with us. Why do the Government not just get on and make this minor, incremental and sensible change?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I say it is not incremental because the end point of such a measure would be to entrench a House—if one excludes the Lords spiritual—composed solely of appointed life Peers. That is where the Government are coming from. I suggest to the noble Baroness that we have an opportunity, through the committee set up by the Lord Speaker and chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for noble Lords to make representations to the committee on this or any other associated matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister would care to reflect on what he has just said. It does not seem to me that there is anything in the Bill that my noble friend Lord Grocott is bringing forward which would preclude further and different kinds of reform within, say, the next 60 years during which it would be possible to see the end of the hereditary principle in this House, if only my noble friend’s Bill were in operation. Therefore subsequent reforms might overtake that over time, and I think many of us hope that they will, so is that really a reason to stand in the way of this Bill?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the Government’s manifesto made clear, we believe that the size of the House should be addressed, and that is the issue primarily being addressed by the committee set up by the Lord Speaker. However, we also made it clear that with so many pressing legislative priorities, not least those stemming from the result of the UK referendum, comprehensive reform is not a priority during this Parliament. We do not wish to close to our minds to that idea. A good case can be made for comprehensive reform, and it is worth remembering that in the last Parliament the Government put forward a Bill that would have made 80% of the eligible membership elected.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, surely one of the most pressing problems is the fact that we are so horribly Londoncentric.
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises an issue which I believe has often been addressed in the past, but again it is not beyond the scope of the committee that has been established by the Lord Speaker. However, it is difficult to address that issue satisfactorily if one is going to be fair across the whole country.
Lord Newby (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister will reconsider the answer he just gave about the amount of legislative time involved in this incremental change and his assertion that in the period ahead, during which this Bill could easily be passed, the House will be overpreoccupied by legislation relating to Brexit. Surely the case is that, even if we have a Bill to trigger Article 50, we know that the Government and the Labour Party agree that that Bill should be through by 31 March. Therefore, would it not be possible for the Government to give time for the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, from 1 April?
Earl Howe
As with any proposal to reform your Lordships’ House, the key is that we have a prospect of securing broad consensus for whatever is being proposed. Where there are further measures that can command consensus across the House, then the Government are more than willing to work with your Lordships to look at how to take them forward, and we hope to see such proposals emerging from the Lord Speaker’s committee.
Lord Soley (Lab)
The Minister keeps referring to the Government recognising that this is not the time for a comprehensive review. Does he not accept that step-by-step change might be a lot more effective than a comprehensive approach, which has often failed in the past?
Earl Howe
The Government are certainly not averse to incremental reform, providing we can agree on what incremental reform means, which is the reason for my earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. As proof of that, one has only to look at the two Acts relating to the composition of the House that we passed in the last Parliament—the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014—as well as the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015, which again was a measure in this bracket.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, these days, why should gender have any relevance for the descent of anything to anybody?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that the insertion by Lord Cranborne—now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—of this dimension into the 1999 Act was intended precisely to make it more difficult to put in a halfway reform and to ensure that when we moved further on the question of elected hereditaries, we moved towards some form of comprehensive reform? Does he also accept that the main thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in this is to get rid of the elected hereditaries, but to stop there and go no further?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has said that my noble friend Lord Grocott’s proposal is best advanced through a change in Standing Orders—presumably not through legislation. What are the implications of that? Will the noble Earl and the Government give my noble friend an opportunity to test the opinion of the House?
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 9th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 305KB) - (9 Jan 2017)
17:34 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 1 agreed.
“UK universities: functions
(1) UK universities are autonomous institutions and must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech.(2) UK universities must ensure that they promote freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.(3) UK universities must provide an extensive range of high quality academic subjects delivered by excellent teaching, supported by scholarship and research, through courses which enhance the ability of students to learn throughout their lives.(4) UK universities must make a contribution to society through the pursuit, dissemination, and application of knowledge and expertise locally, nationally and internationally; and through partnerships with business, charitable foundations, and other organisations, including other colleges and universities.(5) UK universities must be free to act as critics of government and the conscience of society.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, happy new year, and a particular welcome to our respected guest standing at the Bar, who for those of your Lordships who were not present at Second Reading set a new record for MPs standing listening to debates. I gather he is here again to do a repeat performance. We should welcome his interest and his commitment to this issue, which I know is shared by so many Members of the House. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, for joining me and supporting Amendment 1. I look forward to hearing their comments and those of other noble Lords across the Committee who have indicated to me that they support the amendment.
I declared my interests in higher education during the excellent Second Reading debate we held in the Chamber last month. Even if I had not been to a university, never worked in the university sector or not had my children educated in UK universities, I would have wanted to engage with the Bill because our excellent university sector—currently the second most successful higher education system in the world, with four universities ranked in the top 10—faces substantial challenges in the years ahead. It could, of course, be improved and it could, of course, be more innovative, and we support both those aims, but it also needs to be supported and protected, particularly if we go ahead with a hard Brexit, as now seems inevitable.
The abiding sense I have from our Second Reading debate is that the Bill fails to understand the purposes of higher education. I suggest that without defining these important institutions, there is a danger that the new regulatory architecture, the new bodies and the revised research organisation will do real and permanent damage. Universities across the world have multiple and complex roles in society, and there is no doubt that we all gain from that. They come in all sizes, and that too is good. They are at their best when they are autonomous, independent institutions which have the freedom to develop a range of missions and practices, while at the same time being public institutions, serving the knowledge economy and the knowledge society as well as being tools of economic progress and social mobility. They use the precious safe harbour of academic freedom to seek truth wherever it is to be found and publish it for all to see and discuss. They transmit and project values of openness, tolerance, inquiry and a respect for diversity that are the key to civilisation in an increasingly globalised world.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. The Bill before us does not define a university, and we think it will be improved if it does so. Our amendment does not simply itemise some of the core functions of a university, though it does that too, but also scopes out a university’s role, with its implicit ideals of responsibility, engagement and public service. A characteristic of all these functions is the expectation that universities take the long-term view and nurture a long-term stake in their local communities and wider society; that they embed scholarship and original and independent inquiry into their activities; and that they demonstrate a sustained commitment to serving the public good through taking up a role as critic and as the conscience of society.
I am confident that there is support for this approach across the House, based on the real sense of disappointment at the lack of ambition that the Bill currently exhibits. I hope the Government will feel able to accept the amendment. I say to the Minister that if he were minded to do so, not only would he improve the Bill but he would be signalling a willingness to listen to all the expertise, experience and wisdom that this House possesses and give us hope that he wished to use that for the benefit of this important sector and of the country as a whole. If he does not feel able to accept the amendment as it stands, perhaps he could offer to take it back and bring it back in an improved version on Report. If he did this, we would of course be very willing to work with him on how to improve the text—we have no pride of ownership.
I have to warn him, though, that if he does not want to engage as I have outlined, he will have to explain to this House what it is he cannot accept about specifying that universities have a secure and valued place in our society, and why he has difficulty in confirming that our universities should have statutory rights to institutional autonomy, academic freedom and freedom of speech. He will have to explain why he disagrees with his right honourable friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, who is standing at the Bar, who said in response to questions in Committee in the other place:
“At its most literal, a university can be described as a provider of predominantly higher education that has got degree-awarding powers and has been given the right to use the university title. That is the most limited and literal sense. If we want a broader definition, we can say that a university is also expected to be an institution that brings together a body of scholars to form a cohesive and self-critical academic community that provides excellent learning opportunities for people, the majority of whom are studying to degree level or above. We expect teaching at such an institution to be informed by a combination of research, scholarship and professional practice. To distinguish it from what we conventionally understand the school’s role to be, we can say that a university is a place where students are developing higher analytical capacities—critical thinking, curiosity about the world and higher levels of abstract capacity in their thinking. In brief, that is my answer to what a university is”.—[Official Report, Commons, Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, 15/09/16; col. 271.]
I confess to a little plagiarism in drafting my amendment, which I acknowledge is clearly based on that Minister’s approach, which is the correct one. I beg to move.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, the Bill we are debating today is an enormously important one. I declare an interest as a full-time academic at King’s College London.
The Government are creating the environment in which universities will operate and thrive or decline over many years, probably decades, and are changing it profoundly. Because a country’s universities and the nature of those universities are so central to what a country is—to its values, politics, culture, research and innovation—the Bill is truly important to the whole nation. Yet, curiously, the Bill has nothing to say about universities, as you will find if you have a quick search of the document. It says quite a lot about the university title, and at one point it refers to unauthorised degrees at,
“a university, college or other body”,
by grant, but that is it. Otherwise it refers consistently to “providers”.
Clearly, the Government do not think that the term “university” is meaningless. If it were, neither the Government nor higher education providers nor universities would be so occupied with the university title.
When I dug around a bit, I found that previous legislation also has extraordinarily little to say on the subject. The 1992 higher education Act refers simply to use of the name “university” in the title of an institution, and informs us hopefully that, if the power to change the name is exercisable with the consent of the Privy Council, it may be exercised, with that consent,
“whether or not the institution would apart from this section be a university”.
There is nothing more on what a university is. The Minister has kindly confirmed, in replies to Written Questions that the term is not defined in legislation but is a “sensitive” word under company law, which means that you need permission from the Secretary of State and a non-objection letter before you can use it in a business or company title.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment for all the good reasons that we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. The Office for Students takes on powerful responsibilities to approve and disband universities and other higher education organisations with speedier timescales and lower thresholds. It is only right that criteria for these new organisations should be clearly set out. One reason given for the legislation has been that it is 25 years since the last Higher Education Bill in 1992. We do not question that some updating is necessary to reflect developments and to ensure that teaching has the same status as research, but we question whether 119 clauses and 12 schedules are necessary for this purpose. Could it be that our universities have flourished and retained world rankings because they have not been subjected to government interference? Within education, schools and colleges have suffered from changes imposed by different Governments and by the churn of Ministers seeking to make their mark, regardless of advice from professionals in the sector. Universities for some years have been relatively free of such assistance, and they have flourished as a result.
The importance of setting out the functions of universities is all the more crucial, given that increasing the numbers of universities and opening up new commercial providers sits oddly with other government policy. The country faces acute skill shortages: we need more builders, engineers, carers and technicians. The Government have ambitious plans to increase the numbers, quality and status of apprenticeships. How can that be achieved if they are also set on increasing provision of degrees, in whatever discipline—probably mainly business and other cheaper-to-run programmes—from an expanding range of organisations whose skills could be better focused on training and reskilling for real jobs in real shortage areas? In the interests of joined-up government, could the Minister say what discussions have taken place with the Skills Minister and his team over the unintended consequences for raising the profile of much-needed skills of implying, through this Bill, that degrees are the only game in town?
Without this clause, the first reference to universities comes in Clause 51. Not long ago, universities were pretty well the only option for higher education. Many of the expansions into higher education by colleges, for instance, have been welcome responses to demand and to opening opportunities for non-traditional students. This Bill brings to mind attempts to create corporate universities in the 1990s. There was British Aerospace’s Virtual University; Unipart U, which is now a virtual U; and the University for Industry—the misnomer of all time—which came into its own only when it abandoned any claims on the title of university and changed its name to learndirect. But those initiatives morphed into closer collaboration between academia and industry, to the benefit of both, and with both contributing their different skills and ethos. Encouraging more such partnerships would surely be better for students, employers and the country than trying to widen and potentially weaken the range of higher education providers.
The criteria in this amendment provide safeguards that the core functions and values of British universities will be protected. It would be sadly ironic if the Bill produced a double whammy of undermining efforts to raise the standing and importance of skills, while damaging the standing and reputation of UK universities. There is much at stake in this Bill. We look forward to working with Ministers to ensure that market forces, competition and red tape are not allowed to damage our world-ranking universities. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he feels able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to this important amendment and speak in support of it. I declare my interests in higher education, as indicated in the register, and declare and acknowledge the research support from colleagues at Universities UK and my university, Aston University.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says, UK universities have an exceptional international reputation for teaching and scholarship in many forms. They are places where teaching and research are intimately interwoven. Undergraduate programmes benefit from research-based learning, and graduate students and researchers are beneficially involved in teaching. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, commented very positively on that in his recent review of the research excellence framework. Universities are places where new academic fields grow from interactions between colleagues in different disciplines, and places where the encouragement of independent thought and the challenge to the status quo delivers technological change and innovation. Indeed, that is why so many large companies, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems, engage closely with universities—for example, through their university technology centres—to ensure that academics can challenge the stove-pipe thinking that can develop in large corporations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, has commented, the autonomy of UK universities is recognised by our European colleagues as key to their exceptional positions in the ranking tables. Surely a broad and inclusive definition of the functions of something as important as a university in the UK is to be welcomed. That proposed in the amendment encompasses the key ingredients: autonomy; free speech; academic freedom; interdisciplinarity; teaching, scholarship and research; and, of course, the mission to contribute to society. We must recognise that being a higher education provider, delivering high-quality teaching, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for being a university. I look forward to the Minister’s response in this area.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I made my maiden speech some 12 years ago on the overregulation of universities and I cannot resist returning to that subject. Our worldwide success is now under threat: the Government are risking killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs, instead of cherishing and fostering university autonomy. The autonomy of higher education is not only valuable to the universities and their surroundings; it is the hallmark of a democratic and civilised, progressive society. You can be sure that when the Government interfere in who may teach and who may study at universities and which universities may exist, the entire system of democratic governance is under threat. In the 1930s, thousands—some of whom were future Nobel laureates—fled central Europe to come here. Now they flee from universities in the Middle East, Zimbabwe and China. Our universities’ autonomy is affected by low salaries, short-term employment, lack of tenure and, now, gagging clauses on former employees. The risk inherent in the Bill, which focuses so much on teaching excellence, is that it neglects the very thing that lays the foundation for excellence and established the global dominance of our UK universities, which are a haven for the best threatened academics in the world.
There are some limits in the Bill on ministerial interference in certain respects, but they do not add up to a clear and consistent safeguard for academic autonomy. On the contrary, by protecting that principle only in some cases it is left open to interpretation that other areas are not so protected. If the Secretary of State may issue guidance about particular courses of study, and if a government quango can shut down an existing university, then autonomy is curtailed. The power granted to vary and revoke degree-awarding powers of any university, regardless of its length of establishment, is a dangerous weapon in the hands of the OfS. It could also be used to coerce universities and make them toe the line in the face of, say, pressure by the Government to respond to short-term market forces or perceived national needs.
On uniformity of excellence in teaching, I always say that Isaiah Berlin’s PowerPoint would not have been up to scratch, and Stanley de Smith, the originator of the law of judicial review—in the news every day now—would have been castigated for talking way above the heads of his audience while smoking on the edge of the platform, which was acceptable in those days. Nearly all academics who made a difference did so precisely because they did not conform to the bureaucratic ideal. The culture of box ticking and moving lecturers around as if they were footballers for transfer is already taking hold. The system of research funding has boosted elite universities at the expense of others, as a certainty. The teaching excellence framework will make this worse. Wealth creation and higher salaries for graduates needing to be ready for employment in business and market-driven schemes will, in themselves, do nothing to engender the spirit for which our universities are renowned and which brings—and I hope will continue to bring—to them the most ambitious and creative students from the Far East, Russia, the United States and India.
Lord Winston (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see the Minister for Universities standing listening to our debate on this important issue. We are grateful for his attention to our comments. I will make two points from examples of my own experience; sometimes the House benefits greatly from that. I am very much aware of what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, just said about Germany in the 1930s and the effect of government on the universities, which affected German universities for a long time after the war.
In the mid-1970s, I was a visiting professor for a year at a university in Belgium—one of the oldest universities in Europe. The department in which I worked was one of the world’s leading departments in reproductive physiology, to which came Spaniards, Italians, Brits, Americans, somebody from Australia, a large number of people from South America and some people who managed to get out of the Eastern bloc. The department worked on a major world problem—that of contraception at a time when the World Health Organization predicted that there might be as many as 100 billion people on the globe by the end of the next century. In addition, at that time in vitro fertilisation was not possible. It was a Catholic university. The head of the department, who was probably one of the most famous leading scientists and clinicians in reproductive biology in Europe, faced a considerable threat from the Church in that city. Eventually, with government support, not only was he passed over but he had to leave that environment as a result of the extreme pressure which came partly from government and partly from the Church. That kind of thing could happen again. The head of the department ended up mostly in private practice. The numerous foreign students from all over the world left that department and its huge prestige was also lost. Therefore, freedom of speech and expression in universities should be written into the Bill. I hope that the Government will look at this issue very carefully and perhaps encompass it in a definition.
The amendment refers to universities making “a contribution to society”. I work at Imperial College London and the huge contribution that has been made to society through connections with schools is extremely rewarding. As we spread our word, that has made a massive difference to the aspirations of young people, not only in the East End of London but right across the United Kingdom. More and more universities are becoming involved in developing greater connections with society. That is important for undergraduates and school students. It is vital to extend those connections. That is another reason why the wording to which I have referred, or something similar, must be included in the Bill.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is perhaps not surprising that those of us who are academics are concerned about definitions because one of the things we always teach our students is to define their terms. Hence, I support this amendment which seeks to define what we are talking about. At the same time, we should recognise that over the centuries universities have changed. In England, between the 12th and the 19th centuries, there were just two universities—Oxford and Cambridge—which served largely as institutions for educating people for careers in the Church or in canon law. The modern university as we understand it, an institution which combines research and teaching, was essentially invented in Germany by Alexander von Humboldt in 1810, when he founded the University of Berlin. However, in spite of the changing details of what universities do, they have certain enduring qualities and properties that we should cherish and ensure are retained during the passage of the Bill.
I offer two quotes. We have already heard one excellent quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. One of my quotes is from the then Poet Laureate, John Masefield, when he was offered an honorary degree by the University of Sheffield in 1946. He said, among other things about a university:
“It is a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see; where seekers and learners alike, banded together in the search for knowledge, will honour thought in all its finer ways, will welcome thinkers in distress or in exile, will uphold ever the dignity of thought and learning, and will exact standards in these things”.
That is the spirit in which, during the passage of the Bill, we should consider what a university is. My second quote reverts to perhaps the most famous treatise on universities, written by John Newman in the middle of the 19th century. I will not attempt to read the whole book to your Lordships, but just one brief quote. He says that,
“a University training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end; it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying the national taste, at supplying true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating the exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life”.
These are high-flown ambitions for universities, but ones that we should uphold today, not resorting to a purely instrumental view of universities that are there for economic benefit and training in technical skills.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Bill as a visiting professor at King’s College London, chairman of the advisory board of Times Higher Education and adviser to 2U.
We heard at Second Reading, and have already heard this afternoon, the deep concern in the House about the autonomy of our universities. I am sure that in the process of our discussions we will want to find ways of enhancing the protection of the autonomy of our universities. However, this clause is not the right way to set about it. As we have heard, this clause is the first attempt ever in British primary legislation to define what a university is. It is an ambitious project, and if I were to set up a committee to define a university, I could think of none more distinguished than the Committee in this House this afternoon. It has, however, the paradoxical effect that the first clause we are debating is a set of obligations on universities; it is formulated as a series of “musts” that universities have to do. It reflects a view of the university that is rather narrow and traditional. Of course, it is absolutely right that academic freedom is there, but it also says, for example:
“UK universities must provide an extensive range of high quality academic subjects”.
When I was Minister, I was proud to have given university status to institutions that focused on particular subjects—the Royal Agricultural College, for example, which is now a university. Are we really going to put into law a requirement that there must be an extensive range of subjects before an institution can be a university? That sets back a set of reforms not only from my time as a Minister; it goes right back to the Labour Government of 2004.
There is a long list of ways in which universities,
“must make a contribution to society”.
I do not know quite what this “must” is, but it says that they have to contribute “locally, nationally and internationally”. Does that mean that if a relationship with a local authority leader in the area breaks down, you can turn up and tell the university that it is in breach of its obligations to contribute locally? My personal view is that we should be protecting universities by putting obligations on Governments and regulators to respect their autonomy, not trying to define universities and put obligations on them.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of Birkbeck. I support the amendment for the following reasons.
It has taken decades if not centuries to build up the network and infrastructure of UK universities, and it would be folly to damage their standing and reputation in the world as it stands today. That is not to deny that the sector needs updating and amending. But from the start we must assert, as this amendment does, the age-old academic values that are at the centre of what universities stand for. Those are: reliance on reason, argument and evidence; critical and creative thinking uninhibited by limits on free speech; rigorous analysis and use of data; and precise and meaningful communication between academics and pupils. I hope that we will seek to embrace those values as we scrutinise the Bill, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, to endorse those values.
Since the abolition of the block grant and the arrival of student fees, other concerns have come to the fore in the sector: universities have increased resources to extend their marketing, and management values have come to matter. Universities have become businesses—there is nothing wrong with that—and competitive listing has been one of their recruitment tools. Now, we are told, new providers will, by increasing competition, drive up standards. However, there is no evidence that that will necessarily follow. Indeed, experience elsewhere—in the energy market, for example—indicates that this may not be so at all. For-profit organisations seek first to please shareholders before they please consumers—which is what we are now told we should call students.
Therefore, from the start and throughout the consideration of the Bill we must reassert and defend the prime values of our university sector and resist the Government’s plans to seek central control via their own appointed, unhappily named, Office for Students.
Lord Myners (CB)
My Lords, I did not go to university. Some 52 years ago I applied to be an undergraduate at the London School of Economics and was rejected. Fifty years later, it appointed me chairman of its Court of Governors. Clearly, one of those decisions was wrong. I am also chancellor of the University of Exeter.
I should like to add to the good words that have already been expressed about the commitment that the Minister of State has shown in taking this Bill forward in the other place and in being with us today. I can think of no one in the other place better suited than him to lead legislation regarding, and indeed representation of, our universities.
We have heard from the proposers of the amendment about the importance of autonomy in our universities, as well as freedom of thought and expression. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, spoke about the world standing of our universities. However, we should not disguise from ourselves the fact that in our universities there are some shortcomings, which have become very apparent to me, particularly in my time at the London School of Economics.
I have frequently heard the word “burden” inserted before the word “teaching”, and I have found university professors’ commitment in terms of hours spent working with students to be extraordinary low. I was told that our aim was to get the figure up to 68 hours. As somebody who was new to universities, I asked myself, “Is that a week? No, surely it can’t be a week; maybe it’s a month”—but I discovered that on average professors at the London School of Economics teach for only 68 hours a year.
Therefore, it is important that we embody in law the responsibilities of universities. It is important that we talk not only about academic freedom and autonomy and about the importance of universities in the promotion of research and in having a positive impact on people’s lives and on society but also about accountabilities. I think that there are major shortcomings in accountability in our universities. In many there is a climate of lassitude in terms of academics’ duties and obligations to their institution and to their students, and the Government have quite correctly addressed that as an issue in putting this legislation before us. I also think that the proposals in the amendment are correct—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Surely these shortcomings in teaching times are a matter for the body responsible for governing the university and not for the Government.
Lord Myners
With all due respect, I did not say that they were a matter for the Government; I was pointing out that we should not believe that everything is quite as rosy as is occasionally suggested when describing the excellence of our universities. Like, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I commit to the fact that we should never be content and that we should always work to improve. I am simply saying that there are some areas where universities need to improve. This Bill, in talking about the importance of teaching excellence and putting teaching at the heart of the university experience, does, I believe, address the current shortcoming that we see in this area.
I think that the amendment, while being absolutely necessary in explaining the role of a university, suffers from some inadequacies in its drafting. It barely achieves a Lower Second in terms of striking the balance between a higher-level vision of what a university does and very detailed prescription, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out. Therefore, if this is pushed to a vote, I will vote in favour of the amendment, because I think that the Bill would be strengthened by words to that effect at the beginning. However, it is very important to note that, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made it very clear that he was willing to listen to the Government and possibly not force the amendment to a vote if there was some sign that they were willing to go away and reconsider the need for an amendment of this sort in the preamble to the Bill.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, as a former director of the London School of Economics, I think it is perhaps appropriate for me to speak next. I have to say that I do not wholly disagree with all of what the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said. I disagree on the fundamental point of principle, but the criticism he offered was entirely appropriate. In contrast to him, I strongly support this amendment. In the Second Reading debate, I was highly critical of aspects of this Bill. My objections were not motivated by some sort of stick-in-the-mud desire to resist change and innovation. On the contrary, in some ways the Bill is, in my eyes, too conservative—with a little ‘c’, of course.
I accept and endorse the need for an overall legislative framework for higher education. We need to clear up inconsistencies and ambiguities in the existing system and, far more importantly, embrace the deep transformations beginning to affect both teaching and research. At the same time, however, as other speakers have rightly said, we must be careful not to undermine the very qualities that have propelled higher education in this country to the very top globally.
In amending the Bill—and there is no doubt in my mind that substantial emendation is necessary—we must ensure that we avoid the huge problems created in the US around deregulated for-profit institutions. They have a place but they are not the future. As in almost every other sphere, higher education is likely to be transformed in a radical way by the digital revolution—and, in my view, in very short order. This is a revolution of unparalleled pace and scope. Much more potent models for exploring what is to come include edX, linked to Harvard and MIT, and Udacity, which had its origins at Stamford. We should be investing in analogues, and some of that has to be public investment.
As the amendment makes clear, a university is not just a knowledge provider but an active creator of knowledge and ideas—even the noble Lord, Lord Myners, stressed that point. That relates to what teachers do, because research and teaching are part and parcel of a combined enterprise in a university. Disciplined research and the active protection of academic freedom are crucial to this task. In my eyes, it would be a major step forward to have these principles spelled out in binding fashion, as this amendment does. The amendment, in fact, looks to have a great deal of support across the House, and I hope that it will not be treated in partisan terms. Perhaps the Minister will be moved to accept it without driving the matter to a vote. Many other pieces of what could turn out to be a very difficult jigsaw puzzle for the Government would fall into place were he to do so.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I declared my interest at Second Reading. I am the most junior member of the club of chancellors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Myners, as the newly appointed chancellor of the University of Reading. I have a number of concerns about the Bill and without making a Second Reading speech again, I shall look to the Government to strengthen protections against interference with autonomy.
These are not theoretical objections. In this House, we are all in danger of falling into our anecdotage, but I will give just one. I was once the holder of a similar office to the Minister who is so courteously handling this Bill. My Secretary of State was my late friend and former colleague Sir Keith Joseph. The Secretary of State became incensed by the economics teaching at the Open University, so his junior Ministers, Rhodes Boyson and myself, were given the books to read. This had rather extraordinary results. The Open University’s reply to what Sir Keith saw as unfortunate bias in its teaching was made much worse by its defence that there was a book by Mr Peter Walker that in its view provided balance, which did not necessarily help Sir Keith. This was slightly comic and Sir Keith was a man of immense courtesy and deep understanding of the autonomy of the institution, and nothing much further came of it. But in crude hands and in different worlds it could have done. I shall therefore be looking through the course of this Bill to various things that will help us to strengthen autonomy.
My interest in this first clause is whether a definition helps us. Do we need a definition to say what it is we are helping to provide special protection for? I am made a little nervous by my noble friend Lord Willetts’s comments because the reason that things have not been defined in Bills over the years is the danger of a definition excluding things by accident. Very often when we draw a line we find that we have produced a new boundary and that it is better to leave some things a little greyer. In the 19th century, universities probably meant places where there were multiplicities of departments, but we know of very good liberal arts universities in the United States that do not teach science and are perfectly properly described as universities. Other examples were given by my noble friend Lord Willetts.
I am nervous about the clause as it is defined at the moment, but am interested in the Minister’s response. If he can say that he will take it away and think of this problem of definition, I would be happy with that. As drafted, it is not perfect. It would be odd for any small and perhaps specialised university of great distinction in certain areas that the behemoth of the regulator could demand that it was failing because it was not helping overseas markets or something or other, so there is a danger here. I want definitions to be defended. I do not think that we have it quite in this clause, but my support or not for the clause will somewhat depend on the spirit in which the Minister replies and whether he will agree to take this away and work at it to see if something a little more workable can be discovered.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Stevenson and his colleagues in what promises to be a full-scale and important debate on higher education. It is indeed odd, and even extraordinary, that universities are not mentioned in the Bill. I declare an interest, having been chancellor of Leeds University for the last 16 years.
En passant, I note the spectacularly impressive number of academics of the highest achievement who have expressed serious reservations and opposition to much of the Bill. Surely, in this House more than any other, we believe that the voices of experts, especially of such calibre—many of whom are in this House now—ought to be listened to and recognised as the best wisdom available on the subject.
The Government seem intent on a pincer movement, first introducing free-market rules that could best be described as downmarket options. New colleges called new providers—George Orwell would have loved that—will be able to acquire degree-awarding powers without having to build up a track record by teaching another university’s degree first. None of that boring old research and listening preparation nonsense for this Government, it seems.
The current university system could be called a fine example of the marketplace at its best—there is much talk of the marketplace. There is heavy, open competition for entrance to universities, and heavy competition for lectureships and professorships. When universities put in for grants and funds they realise they are competing with many other universities—sometimes all over the world—and they work out the most competitive as well as the most scholastically satisfactory proposal. This is a marketplace of the mind, but none the less a marketplace and an increasingly key one for the future. Our universities embrace and revel in it.
One of the reasons for this effective balance between learning and earning lies in the autonomy and individuality of our universities. They are not one size fits all, beholden to the state or looking forward to launching themselves on the FTSE 100. They are, to use a phrase of Alan Bennett’s, just “keeping on keeping on” at a high level in different but effective ways, with fertile variations, with their primary purpose: scholarship. As we know, the consequences of scholarship can increasingly be very profitable, wide-ranging across the whole of society and, from the evidence we have, increasingly essential to the success of a 21st-century economy, which, in so many other areas, has found this country wanting. But the heart of it is learning, and the heart of that is the curiosity to pursue knowledge for the sake of more knowledge. Key to that is a certain looseness and confidence in individual and often idiosyncratic needs—private space, in short, for what our greatest scientists and writers in the humanities have always needed to generate their best work. This cannot be legislated for: it is an individual-to-individual decision. This heavy-handed state control is the enemy to that free-ranging condition.
The clamp of the Government’s decision to create a new body—a central control unit—the Office for Students, is anathema to freedom, of which we need more, not less. It would impose another layer of regulation. Goodness knows, universities in this country, like schools, hospitals and the Government themselves, are all but disappearing under the tangleweed of overregulation. Who will run these new bodies, which will interfere so radically in the affairs of the variety of universities? How will they be trained? Where will they come from? How will they know more than those already working hard inside the universities who are the best people? They are already there inside the universities. All of these universities, from the ancient to the relatively new, have built up through expertise and expediency individual and ingenious ways to ride the tide of the times. There is danger of strangulation by bureaucracy.
As they take an increasingly important place in our society as one of the few success stories of the last few decades, universities are being asked to do more, which they are doing. They have now become the forum for disputes about free speech, and it is in universities where unacceptable and destructive racist attitudes must be and will continue to be challenged, I trust. In cities thoughtlessly stripped of traditional industries it is universities that have often provided the new hub of hope in the place.
No doubt others will itemise ways universities can be improved, and I look forward to hearing that. though, we must declare and itemise their current strengths. Universities must be high on the agenda—as high as they are on the ladder of learning in this country. I look forward to the Minister confirming that he will go along with the amendment.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the amendment is very important for one reason. Having taken part in Second Reading, I declare my interests once again as chancellor of the University of Birmingham, chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School, and honorary fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge—I could go on.
This is a once-in-many-decades opportunity to improve the higher education sector in this country. One could argue that we have the best universities in the world, along with the United States, in spite of underfunding. The key issue is that we underfund our universities. If we put in the funding equivalence of the United States of America, or of the European Union, or the OECD average it in itself would improve our universities hugely. But, as an entrepreneur building businesses, I live by the mantra not of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but of restless innovation, of the world belonging to the discontent.
To that extent, I applaud the Bill’s objective to try to improve our universities. I also recognise the Minister, Jo Johnson, for his commitment to this, for listening through the entire Second Reading, and for being here with us today. I know he and his department will listen, as, I hope, will the Minister.
I therefore agree with the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Willetts, that the use of “must” in this clause does not make sense in many circumstances. For example, in India, 1.5 million students apply to get into the Indian Institutes of Technology. The first cut is 130,000. Ten thousand of them make it. Some of the brightest people in the world have come out of that funnel and run some of the biggest organisations in the world today. It has nothing to do with engineering, but it is a specialist engineering science institution. Caltech is always ranked among the top universities in the world. It is a pure science institution. One cannot therefore prescribe that all universities must do everything, but the spirit of this amendment is absolutely right: that universities on the whole must strive for variety.
Lord Giddens
Caltech has a range of other departments, including philosophy, history, social sciences and English.
Lord Bilimoria
I was stressing that it focuses on technology—that is its strength and why it wins all those Nobel prizes—but I acknowledge what the noble Lord says.
I go back to areas of specialisation and the purpose of universities. The mindset of certain people, including in this country, is, “You should study at university what you can apply in a job thereafter”—that is, a sort of vocational mindset. Our universities are not what that is about. My oldest son is reading theology at Cambridge. I do not think that he is going to become a priest, but if he wants to, that is up to him. I do not think that that will happen—he will probably become a management consultant—but what he will learn in that environment is phenomenal. He gets one-to-one supervisions with world leaders in his subject. Not every university does that or can afford to do it, but he has that ability. I consulted Cambridge on this. It said that it recognises the importance of diversity in research and teaching and that the success of global competitiveness of the UK’s universities relies on the core principles of sustainability, diversity and—here is the crux of it—institutional autonomy. That is what worries so many of us about this Bill and why this proposed new clause, right up-front, is so important. It is the spirit of it that I completely support.
The pro-vice-chancellor for education at Cambridge, Graham Virgo, has spoken about the last part of the amendment, which is about being a critic and conscience of society. To narrow down the definition just to teaching and research will be to miss the opportunity to improve our universities and to miss the point. Professor Virgo pointed by way of example to the New Zealand Education Act 1989, which had five criteria for defining a university. The fifth of those was for an institution to accept a role as a critic and conscience of society. That is so important and it is why the amendment sets right up-front the essence of what universities should strive to be about, so that we do not go down the wrong track in this once-in-many-decades opportunity to improve our already fantastic, best-of-the-best, proud, jewel-in-the-crown universities.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the spirit of this amendment, and I declare an interest as emeritus professor at Loughborough University and a fellow of the British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, but I suspect that my contribution was not missed among the 70-odd people who did speak. I have read the debate, and very thoughtful it was. The clear thread running through a large number of contributions from all sides of the House was the perceived threat to university autonomy and academic freedom. I fear that those concerns were not assuaged by the Minister’s assurances, hence the motive behind the amendment.
The fears have to be set in the context of what is widely seen as the creeping marketisation and consumerisation of universities. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell put it, students are now consumers of a product, as if a university were a department store. Many would argue that all that is precious about universities in terms of the development of critical thinking, and in particular encouraging students to think critically and not simply accept what they are given, is being increasingly subordinated to an instrumentalist, economistic concept of a university as in effect a degree factory feeding UK plc.
I suspect the Minister will say that the amendment is not necessary because the Government have said they are committed to the key principles it contains. But surely there would be no better way of demonstrating that commitment than by either accepting the amendment or, given that a number of noble Lords have pointed to possible weaknesses in the wording—and my noble friend on the Front Bench has made it clear that he is not wedded to the exact wording—offering to bring forward their own amendment setting out what a university is and the principles it should pursue. That would show their commitment and establish a clear framework for our deliberations on the Bill. In doing so, the Government would go some way to reassuring both Members of your Lordships’ House and the many organisations and individual academics who have written to us to express their fears that the Bill is taking us too far down a road that is incompatible with the basic principles of what a university is and what a university should be.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the amendment begins very well:
“UK universities are autonomous institutions”,
but the rest of the subsection abolishes that effect entirely. I am really worried about the ability in the Bill of a quango to abolish Oxford, to put it in cartoon terms. This proposed subsection gives anybody the right to abolish Oxford. The moment that anybody can argue that Oxford has not upheld the principles of academic freedom, and if that is argued in court and it goes against Oxford, it is no longer a university. That is an astonishing level of control. You really do not need the rest of the Bill. There would be complete government control over all universities just by having this amendment as the Bill. There is so much in here that allows universities to be controlled because it is mostly about telling universities what they have to do.
If we are going to have a clause such as this—and I really support the idea of it—let us have something that gives universities rights, declares that they are autonomous, and other things that we can think of that work, but let us not keep all these unstructured obligations on them, which can go only in entirely the opposite direction from that which is intended by the proposers.
Lord Willetts
My noble friend is making a really important point, which I strongly agree with. Will he accept that when we turn later to, for example, Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, we then have an approach which might be better at achieving this objective than the approach we are debating now?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I entirely agree that there are some very interesting amendments later on, which may attract me, if not my Chief Whip.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. I support the amendment. We get the opportunity to legislate on higher education once every couple of decades. It is therefore really important that we get it right. It seems really sensible to put into the Bill a definition of what we are talking about. That is especially important because one thing the Bill does is give a fast-track procedure for new universities to be created. We ought therefore to be framing as part of that legislation a definition of what a new university should be committed to.
I have to say that I am taken by one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the precise wording of parts of the amendment. I think he has fastened on the one point where the amendment is weak; that is, in allying the word “must” with the extensive range of subjects. Actually, it is right to put “must” in the Bill in relation to the commitment of a university to academic freedom. If Oxford University were to abandon the principles of academic freedom, it would rightly be up in front of the court of public opinion or a court of law.
Lord Judd (Lab)
On this specific point, I have read the amendment carefully and it does not say that a university must provide a range; it says that “universities must”. This is a very important and somewhat subtle point which needs to be taken seriously.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Judd. However, I think that it would be important for the avoidance of doubt to ensure that there can be no doubt about the ability of a very focused university, concentrating on a particular range of subjects or type of subject, none the less to stand tall and clear as an accepted university. Laying aside the point about “must” and “extensive range”, the whole thrust of this amendment and the principles behind it are absolutely in the right direction. For heaven’s sake, let us put this into the Bill and then set about making one or two adjustments at a subsequent stage of our discussions to get it specifically right. The broad principles enshrined in the amendment are absolutely the right ones that we need to focus on. I make two observations in relation to that.
First, academic freedom and autonomy is not a luxury for a university; it is part and parcel of what a university is. It is rightly said that a university does not teach people what to think but how to think, and that happens through debate, discourse, discussion, research and the contestability of ideas. It arises from a clash of minds and, above all, from no one in a university being told by anyone—government or anyone else—what to think. Secondly, in the ghastly jargon of the age, we are, I fear, living in a post-truth society. Universities, par excellence, are about truth and evidence. They are about making sure that we pay attention to knowledge and reality. I particularly like the phrase in Amendment 1 about,
“the pursuit, dissemination, and application of knowledge”,
because a university absolutely has to do that: pursue knowledge and research, attend to it and discuss it, test it, then disseminate and apply it. It has a duty to its students, to itself as a research community and to wider society. This amendment gets it broadly right. It does not have every single word right, but let us put it in the Bill and then make it even better when we come to further stages of discussion.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, my declaration is simple: I am not a vice-chancellor, a chancellor or a master of a college but I join in the paean of praise for much of what is done in our universities today and I share many of the concerns.
If one seeks to define the open society, surely the role and status of a university in that society would be an essential part of it. Having lived for some years in a totalitarian society when I served behind the Iron Curtain in the 1960s, I saw the pressures on those universities, and I think there is a great danger that we take for granted the freedoms which we enjoy in our own university system.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part at Second Reading, but your Lordships will remember that 6 December was the day after we had the long debate on the composition of this House on 5 December, and I thought it would be trying your Lordships’ patience too much.
I shall speak very briefly. I want to make one point only, and it is this: we have before us a Bill that is riddled with imperfections and an amendment which is far from perfect. We have the great good fortune of having a Minister of State in charge of this Bill—to whom tribute has rightly been paid on a number of occasions, including by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—who is following our proceedings assiduously and in person. I think it is impossible to conceive that he will not take note of what is said today when he discusses it with the Minister in this House. It is important that this crucial point—the spirit of this amendment—is taken on board and considered.
However, we have not a convention but a general habit in your Lordships’ House not to amend in Committee but rather to give Ministers the opportunity to reflect and consider, and then to press, and to press with vigour, on Report. Many is the time when I have found it necessary to vote against the Government on Report. It may well be that that will occur many times during Report on this Bill, but I do not think that on the very first day that this Bill is before us we should tie anyone’s hands by inserting an amendment which it has been admitted even by its advocates needs improvement. Let us try in the conversations that take place both within and without this House to get it right.
There is a great deal to get right. This is an imperfect Bill that threatens some of our cherished academic freedoms, even if inadvertently. There has never been a time when we needed vigorous universities more than we need them now defending freedom of speech. That is necessary, and we are reminded even this very day by some of the comments on how philosophy should be taught and on which philosophers should be exalted and which put down to accept that much is rotten in this state and we need to get it right.
Lord Winston
I take a bit of issue with the noble Lord on this occasion. Does he not think that this definition will pervade the whole of our discussion throughout the Bill, which is why pushing this in Committee may be completely justified, even though it is not usual practice in this House?
Lord Cormack
Of course it will pervade our discussions throughout the Bill, in Committee and on Report, and it may well be necessary to move a refined amendment on Report and to vote on it—of course it may. But do not let us tie a Minister of State’s hands when he has shown himself anxious and eager to listen to what your Lordships say. We are having a good debate, and have had some notable speeches. Let us not push this to a vote this afternoon.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, because I have the greatest possible difficulty with this amendment, for a reason that nobody in the Committee has stated this afternoon. The amendment, as drafted, risks disqualifying—and hence turning some into sheep and some into goats—a whole group of bodies that have been given degree-awarding powers and the title of university since the legislation enabling that in 2004. I should declare an interest in that I am chancellor of BPP University, which is one of the biggest of the new, private universities. We were given degree-awarding powers in 2007 and, much to our great pleasure, were awarded the title of university in 2013.
What do I find when I read the proposed new clause? We would be supposed to provide a full range of subjects—but we do not and never did, although we have a full range of business subjects. Many of my colleagues in the 60 or 70 institutions that have gained degree-awarding powers are in the same place. This clause would just put us somewhere else. It gets rather worse as it goes on, with the second proposed new clause, at which point “UK universities” become separated from other, for-profit universities. We would somehow have ceased to be UK universities, but surely we are constituted under the 2004 legislation—so what would happen? Would we all be universities, with the title, or would we in some way not be, as UK universities become the sheep and the rest of us become the goats?
I have a real problem with this proposed new clause. The legislation was perfectly all right as originally drafted, when we were all higher education providers, but this clause would, for I think many of us, throw a real spanner into the works right at the beginning of the Bill. I would have to oppose the amendment were we to take a vote.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a past vice-chancellor of Cambridge, but more importantly, I have associations with universities all around the world and other universities here in the UK. I support the proposed new clause but also support the need to give it further consideration. I will make just one point: it does not mention governance, and whether universities not only are autonomous but have the right to determine how they govern themselves. This has been a matter of some consideration over the years in various universities, and we debated it intensely in Cambridge at one time. Universities should be allowed to determine their own form of governance, and some words need to be included in a clause like this to say that. It would be a good idea not to go ahead immediately with the proposed new clause but to discuss it much further, particularly taking into account the independence of universities in determining how they govern themselves.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stevenson for tabling this important amendment, and I join others in supporting it. I declare the interests that I declared in my contribution at Second Reading.
This is the first major Bill on higher education for a generation, and it will have far-reaching consequences. One of its aims, as we have heard, is to extend university title considerably. It is a matter of great concern to me that this legislation has so far made no attempt to define what a university is, its role in society more widely or, particularly, what we expect these new universities to do.
There has been so much change in the sector that I can see there is a need for regulatory reform, and I am in favour of it. I am in favour of raising the profile of teaching and of providing incentives for high-quality delivery. I am certainly not against change or challenge—universities have always changed in response to perceived social and economic needs—and new entrants to our higher education sector throughout its long history have ensured its diversity and the spread of excellence that we are so rightly proud of today.
We will have an opportunity to discuss university autonomy specifically and in detail in the next group but the threats to it contained in the Bill, and its proposals regarding university title, seem to undermine what we understand as the function and value of a university. They will endanger both the quality of our universities and the reputation of UK higher education overseas. So although I acknowledge the difficulties in providing a definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and others have suggested, I think we have to go down the path of having this clause at the front of the Bill. I believe it is an essential step in mitigating the risks that I perceive.
As others have said, the Minister could go some way to alleviating my anxieties by responding to some questions. Does he agree that offering an extensive range of high-quality academic subjects, delivered by excellent teaching and supported by scholarship and research, is what has given our universities world-leading status? Does he recognise that universities’ contribution to society, through the pursuit, dissemination and application of knowledge and expertise locally, nationally and internationally, is made possible by their status as autonomous institutions, free to act as critics of government and the conscience of society? Does he agree that UK universities must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech and ensure that they promote freedom of thought and expression? Will he tell us what his Government mean by a university and, if he cannot, will he allow the amendment, or something like it, to stand?
Attempts to articulate the meaning of a university have a distinguished history, from Humboldt and Newman in the 19th century through to the 1963 Robbins report and the Dearing inquiry in 1997. The proposed new clause echoes some of what Robbins said. He defined four objectives essential to any “properly balanced” higher education system. They included “instruction in skills”, balanced by the objective that universities must also promote the,
“general powers of the mind”,
to produce “cultivated men and women”. He said that teaching should not be separated from the advancement of learning and the search for truth, since,
“the process of education is itself most vital when it partakes of the nature of discovery”.
Robbins’ final objective was,
“the transmission of a common culture and common standards of citizenship”.
Some of the wording may now sound arcane, but the principles are still profoundly right. Robbins recognised the importance of universities’ autonomy and the principle of academic freedom. He included in that the right of academics to be active citizens and to pronounce on political questions, making universities the home of public intellectuals and a creative and independent cultural force.
The Bologna declaration, signed by the heads of most European universities in 1988, further enshrined principles that the university is an autonomous institution with the distinctive mission of embodying and transmitting the culture of its society; that teaching and research must be inseparable; and that freedom in research and training is the fundamental principle of university life. For Dearing, the central vision was the need for the UK to develop as a learning society in which higher education would make a distinctive contribution through teaching at its highest level, through the pursuit of scholarship and research and, increasingly, through its contribution to lifelong learning.
Clearly, we attach a great deal to “the university”. Having the title “university” carries significant reputational implications because of all that is meant by the word. As UUK and others have warned, it is essential that new providers can demonstrate that they can provide high-quality education. Any new higher education provider awarding their own degrees or calling themselves a university must meet the same high requirements as existing universities. The bar to entry must be high in order to protect students and the global reputation of the sector. We need robust criteria for new entrants that reflect the role of universities in teaching, research and scholarship, as well as wider civic and social roles. I believe the new clause will help to achieve that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I feel incredibly nervous speaking surrounded by chancellors past and present, professors, masters, wardens et al, as someone who received a certificate of education and then did a part-time degree while he was working. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the reason for the clause is the Bill itself and what it might cause to happen, and what we are seeing on some of our university campuses in terms of academic freedom and freedom of speech.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the wording of any definition has to be precise. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause states:
“UK universities must provide an extensive range of high quality academic subjects”.
It is the phrase “extensive range” that worries me. Your Lordships will be aware that there are specialist universities such as the University for the Creative Arts, the Arts University Bournemouth and, in my city, the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, which was set up by Paul McCartney to develop the creative and performing arts. By their nature, they do not have an extensive range of academic subjects; they have a specialist, narrow range. I am sure that the clause was not intended to exclude them, but that irks those colleges and goes to show how important it is to get the wording right.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, the Bill is imperfect, and this is the opportunity to make an imperfect Bill perfect. The new clause can be simply dealt with if the Minister responds by saying, “Yes, it is important that we have a definition and state the functions of a university, and we will spend time getting the wording right”. If that does not happen, it will presumably have to be pressed to a vote.
Lord Lucas
Does the noble Lord agree that, under the conventions of this House, if we vote on the amendment today, we are stuck with it; we cannot change it any more? If we want to do better—to produce an amendment with the same sort of effects but which takes into account all the good advice from, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and the noble Lord himself—we must not vote today; we must aim to vote on a better amendment.
Lord Storey
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. That is why I said that when the Minister replies, he must state clearly his intentions regarding the functions of universities. If he spells that out, there will be no need to press this to a vote.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I have no offices to declare and I hope I will not bore the House, but I had experience of setting up a new university, the University of the Highlands and Islands, some 20 years ago. I recall that there was huge opposition from existing universities, which did not like the idea of a new university using new technology and the emerging internet, so I have reservations about the amendment. By creating a definition, it appears to be restricting the opportunities for change, variety and diversity in the university sector, so I think it is fundamentally misguided.
I also think that it is a great mistake to have declarative clauses in any legislation. If the amendment were passed, how would it be enforced? What kind of trouble would it cause existing universities, with people bringing judicial review and so on? Then I thought: why are so many very bright, intelligent and knowledgeable people getting up to make speeches in support of it? The elephant in the room is that we are worried about the content of the Bill and the effect that it will have on the autonomy and freedom of speech of the universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Myners, pointed out, we are also worried about the extent to which corporate governance in some universities is strong and effective enough to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. So the Minister has a difficult task.
The problem arises because of the content of the Bill. It would seem better to address the issues that are included in the list by looking at what the legislation says. I am a free market Tory; I do not believe in government interfering in institutions that are doing perfectly well, thank you very much, but I do believe in getting value for money. However, I do not think that it is right to create a situation that we had in Scotland recently—if I can use the referendum word—where the principal of my former university, St Andrews, complained about Mr Alex Salmond putting pressure on the university for political reasons. That is a good example of how things can go very badly wrong.
We should focus on the content of the Bill and what the Bill says to strengthen the autonomy of universities. To pass the amendment would be a very great mistake because, as many people have said—including my noble friend Lord Willetts—by putting in a definition of this kind we may actually achieve the opposite of what is intended in its purpose. I speak in support of the Minister, who has a difficult job. I think that he should reject the amendment, but he should also go back to his colleagues and say, “There is a problem here. What can we do in terms of the substance of the Bill to address the concerns about having autonomy in our universities and keeping government and outside organisations from interfering in their day-to-day work and in their views on how they should be run and expanded?”.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
Following on from the noble Lord’s comments, if the Minister is minded to reject the amendment and go and think about it, could he think in particular about the many institutions that sometimes appear in different parts of the world under the title of university, which may not be universities that this Bill is designed to promote or protect, nor institutions where we would want many of our young people to seek their education? I have in mind not merely the well-known Hamburger University, which has a rather limited set of subjects on the menu, but also those universities that are in fact annexes or derivatives of respectable universities which set themselves up in other parts of the world and which would be most attracted to setting themselves up in a place where students have access to funding for their tuition. Those places offer a very narrow, minimal and perhaps not very demanding set of subjects.
The Minister told us at Second Reading that the big problem currently is that the legislation is needed to update the regulation of universities. I accept the point, but it would be much more helpful to know which specific mischiefs the Government hope to remedy with this piece of legislation. There are specific mischiefs—the noble Lord, Lord Myners, mentioned one of them; there are places where too little teaching is done. But I am very certain that, if the Bill goes through unamended, there will be many more universities, so-called, where very little teaching is done. It is quite ordinary for institutions to compete not to be the best or to have the best offerings but to make the greatest profit and to do it in the most cheap, cheerful and economical way. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, as we move through a technological revolution, of which MOOCs will be a serious part, we need to think very hard about what is not a university. That may be rather easier than defining what is a university.
Lord Judd
First, I declare an interest. I am an emeritus governor of the LSE and a life member of court of Newcastle University as well as being a fellow and life member of court of Lancaster University.
My experience in those quarters has left me in no doubt that this new clause is definitely needed, and this has been an interesting debate about what its exact shape should be. It should be looked at in relation to Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and Amendments 165 and 166 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. They make the crucial point that this legislation should state that the Secretary of State has an inescapable responsibility to uphold academic freedom and freedom of thought. That first principle should be there, right at the beginning of the Bill. I am very glad that my noble friend has tabled those amendments, but it would have been better if their proposals had been included in this new clause.
There are some pressing issues which make this more urgent than ever, and colleagues in the House have spoken about them. The post-truth society is being talked about: there is a desperate need to rebuild and regenerate a commitment of some weight to the search for truth and excellence. That is crucial. I have sometimes reflected that the real test of a good university is the strength of its departments of ethics and philosophy. There is not much ethics these days in most universities. More than this, there is a terrible confusion growing in society about the difference between education and training. If we are to operate our society effectively, of course we need very good training. Some will be vocational training which is sometimes terribly impressive in its quality and its leadership. We also need increasingly to be able to see issues in a multidisciplinary context. It is trite, but it can be said that these days it is a matter of knowing more and more about less and less. We have to have somewhere where things are being brought together and views challenged from different perspectives.
This new clause is very important; we need to make sure that all these ideas are taken on board, as I am sure my noble friend would be the first to agree. His opening speech was very conciliatory and invited suggestions about how the situation could be improved. I hope he meant that because it is important—I am glad and relieved to see him nod his head.
This has been an excellent debate and it would be very unwise not to take these ideas fully on board. Coming back to my first point, we must not, with all our preoccupations, miss the opportunity to leave future Secretaries of State in any doubt about their personal, direct, ministerial responsibility to uphold the principles of academic freedom and autonomy in every way that they can.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, many issues have come up in the debate on which I agree with the speaker, but the difficulty is that not all the speakers agree with each other, which results in a bit of a patchwork. However, on one or two points, not least the point about definitions, this illustrates something. The risk with a definition is that you can get the detail wrong and thus invalidate much of what you want to do, and I have much sympathy with the points made by those sitting on the Benches to my left.
That said, I turn to someone whose works I read at university but subsequently lost, the philosopher Wittgenstein, who wrote about definitions. He was not very keen on them because of the risk that you think you have got them right when you have not. He suggested instead—it is a bit difficult if you are legislating, but it has a place here—that rather than legislate through definition we should assemble examples as a reminder of the richness of what we are talking about. Earlier in the debate, we heard an excellent example of what universities are about. Two Members of the House who are professors at King’s College London publicly disagreed with each other. That is marvellous; that is what universities should be doing. There should be room for that. The risk with a definition is that it could miss out the University of the Highlands and Islands, the Open University or all sorts of other examples. The Imperial College of Science and Technology was under very close scrutiny when the University of London was asked to set it up, but where would we be today without it? Therefore, I simply sound a cautionary note about the risk of overlegislating through definition.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House as I was not able to take part in the Second Reading debate, so I have listened to the debate this afternoon particularly carefully. I always listen carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, but also to the other expert Members of your Lordships’ House.
In so far as this amendment emphasises the importance of academic freedom and autonomy, I understand and support it, although whether it will achieve that is quite another matter. We have already heard several examples, from my noble friend Lord Willetts and others, of unintended consequences and how the amendment may have the opposite effect to the one that is intended. My concern is that noble Lords’ speeches, with the exception of that of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, have made only the briefest acknowledgement of the shortcomings in the way in which universities currently operate. The spirit behind the amendment, and of the speeches on it, seems too often to suggest that things should be left as they are, that things need to be done, but that universities can be left to get on and make the necessary reforms from within their own ranks. I have to say that I do not share that confidence.
Before I go any further, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow—I emphasise “honorary fellow”—at an Oxford college. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that he spoke from the experience of his time in Belgium. I speak from the experience of having four children who have recently gone through a UK university, and their friends, some of whom are still at university. From their point of view, the undergraduate experience is all too often unsatisfactory. It does not, in the phrase of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, represent value for money. This is not the place to go into all that, because we shall get into it in more detail later in the Bill. However, it is clear that from undergraduates’ point of view the over focus on research leads to them feeling they are being neglected. In science subjects, it is clear that large classes are too often taught by PhDs from overseas whose first language is not English and therefore cannot be understood; and that in the arts there is a lack of a proper framework, with students preparing two or three essays per term and otherwise being left to read around in the library. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, offered us a quotation. Somebody who wrote to me about this debate said: “I am effectively paying £9,000 per annum for the use of a good library”.
My final reason as to why universities will not be able to reform themselves is that when one of my children was at university there was the non-contentious issue of how the organisation could be made to operate more effectively. I went down, not in a litigious or combative frame of mind, to say, “This could be done”. If I had been stuck on the shoe of the person I spoke to, I could not have been treated worse. I was given five minutes. I was told that my child was over 18, that I had no reason to interfere or get involved, as it was up to them to make any complaints, and that I should please go away. That is why, living in this bubble, universities will need to understand that there is more to be done. Therefore, change is needed, and in so far as the amendment wishes to enhance the status quo with regard to undergraduates, I hope that my noble friend will not accept it.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I should probably have declared my interests in my Second Reading speech—but they are in the register and I declare them now.
I will start with a theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords brought up: autonomy. I shall not, given how long the debate has gone on, repeat the points that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, my noble friend Lord Winston and other noble Lords made. In particular, my noble friend Lady Warwick made a substantive speech which I hope will command the attention of the House. I remind the House of the mechanisms that we utilised in the past to try to ensure that university autonomy was sustained whatever the Government of the day, however unpopular or controversial the issues that might be raised, and however much public sentiment might not approve of them.
All through the history of modern universities, this country has inserted buffer arrangements between the state and higher education—and that is not an accident. It was an absolutely deliberate intention to make sure that the great qualities of universities could be sustained, irrespective of the calamities—the world wars and the other huge movements in tectonic plates. There was the UGC, later HEFCE, and even, when the polytechnics were going through the process of becoming universities, the work of the CNAA, which was designed to make sure that the older universities played a part in ensuring that the quality of the newer universities would be sufficiently adequate or better than sufficiently adequate to take their place as universities among the entire group—a system which worked well in England, Scotland and, as far as I am aware, in Wales. However, in every single case, and in particular in relation to teaching, the processes were both thorough on the part of those buffer bodies and also a protection of the autonomy and independence of universities so that they could pursue matters with genuine academic freedom.
In the field of research, the work that was originally done on quality assurance was never made prescriptive in a way that interfered with the autonomy of universities but expressed a desire to see great excellence being achieved in those places where it was possible and a broader spread of excellence in those places which perhaps could not do some of the work in particle physics or whatever it might be. I can remember—it is one of the interests I have declared—the negotiations with the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about the character of the research excellence framework that he wished to see. Even the annual letter from the Secretary of State, first to HEFCE and then through the more recent period, was a general outline of what the expectations of the country were. It was never a set of orders to which universities must subscribe, which would lead, were they not to do so, to them being closed, cut back or denigrated. These were genuine protections. I am not trying to repeat a Second Reading point but these were the values to which this country signed up in 1997 in the UNESCO normative treaty on academic freedom and the independence of institutions, which this Bill would tear up.
I think that very careful thought about this amendment, which I intend to support, would be repaid, and the Minister will have to give very convincing reasons why, even in Committee, we should not consider it. Some of the arguments that have been put forward in your Lordships’ House this afternoon do not bear much examination. For example, as my noble friend Lady Cohen said, it is not the case that universities must all provide the full range of subjects. The wording is “an extensive range”.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for whom I have great admiration, that it is not the case that many of the more specialist institutions are so narrow that they do not do a wide range of things, as those of us who have had the privilege of being Ministers covering higher education will know. Imperial College London was mentioned a while ago. The college is rich in every science, including all the social sciences, and it has absolutely magnificent ratings in all those areas. Even the conservatoire music colleges have usually extended their range. SOAS is certainly another example—and there are many. For the avoidance of doubt, there may be an opportunity in what the Minister says to achieve greater specificity regarding what we mean, but in my view that is the bottom line.
In conclusion, I am absolutely astounded by our squeamishness in worrying about whether we can define a university. There have no doubt been massive debates right across time about whether we can do that. I remember recently reading an account of whether Bob Dylan really had created literature, and there was a huge debate about what literature might be. There are always debates about these broader concepts. However, broadly speaking, when you go around the world and talk to people about coming to a university in the United Kingdom, they know very well what you mean. It is not an accident that so many people apply to come to the United Kingdom to study in our universities and they do not all complain that the terminology is fusty and old. I can imagine a focus group saying, “If only we didn’t call them universities. Let’s call them ‘higher education providers’ and floods of people will suddenly appear. The marketing will be transformed”. People come because of their expectations.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that there may very well be people who are dissatisfied, or whose children are dissatisfied—but, broadly speaking, when you look at the number of people who want to come here and who understand perfectly well what we offer, you do not see a system that has broken down, although of course it could do with some reform. I have looked high and low to see what crisis the Bill is intended to resolve and I do not believe that it can be found. If it could, I can tell your Lordships that three areas for which I used to have responsibility—the Chevening, Marshall and Commonwealth scholarships—would be devoid of people wanting them. On the contrary, every single one of them is fought for.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I apologise for taking more of the Committee’s time but I feel that we are losing sight of one of the major reasons why my name is attached to this amendment. I believe very strongly that we have to consider, up front, a definition of a university in the Bill. It is a question not of whether we do or do not have a definition but of who controls that definition. Absolutely rightly, the Bill distinguishes between degree-awarding powers and the title of “university”. So it should and so it must, because we are now in a world where many institutions which are not and will never wish to be universities give degrees. Further education colleges are a very obvious and important sector.
We are also, I am delighted to say, moving into a world with degree apprenticeships. The question is whether the definition of a university is perhaps not super-precise but clear and perfectly workable, like almost every other definition in legislation all over this land, or whether we leave the decisions about what a university is to the bureaucrats of the Office for Students, who will make those decisions but will never actually have to make them public.
So I come back to the purpose of this amendment and why we feel it is so important. If we do not have a definition in the legislation, there will be a definition but we will none of us have any control over it and we will never know what it is.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak very briefly at what I assume is getting towards the end of an interesting debate. What worries Members of this House most about the Bill are the clauses about new providers, and my noble friend Lady Warwick made this very clear in her excellent speech. We have a system of higher education in this country that is highly regarded all over the world. We have many great universities from the point of view of research but we also have many great universities from the point of view of the quality of their teaching and the advanced vocational training that they provide. We do not want this great system undermined by too easily recognising new institutions and giving them degree-awarding powers before they have been through a proper probationary period, in which they are associated with existing institutions that will support their development and growth and help them gain the capacity to become institutions of higher education that we can recognise, embrace and support. That is at the centre of the concerns that have led to a wish to place at the front of the Bill a set of propositions about what constitutes not just a good university but a good system of higher education.
The other point I want to make is that for many, many decades, higher education has embraced not only universities but many other kinds of institution. Some of what has been said when discussing the question of whether or not universities should cover a wide range of disciplines has not quite taken into account the fact that there are specialist institutions that have for a long time, as I have said, not been defined as universities. In some ways, I think we may have made a mistake in deciding that some of these specialist institutions should now be called universities. Looking back, we see that colleges of education, medical schools, music conservatoires, specialist arts colleges and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, mentioned, the Royal Agricultural College, were not defined as universities but as being part of a system of higher education. We might be able to bring some new specialist institutions in, but they should not necessarily—at least not at the beginning of their existence—be called universities.
Most people understand that the concept of a university covers a range of disciplines, allows academics to mix with colleagues from a wide range of subjects and allows students to work not just with those studying exactly the same subjects as themselves but with students studying a wide range of subjects.
There is, in a sense, a bit of a contradiction in this legislation. One principle of all good legislation is that it should be internally consistent and its parts make up the whole in a way that is appropriate and easily understood. On the one hand, Part 3 of the Bill is asking for an umbrella body—UKRI, which would cover all areas of research—in order, we are told, to ensure that there is cross-disciplinary research rather than researchers being in separate little boxes not communicating with each other. That is what good universities do. They are institutions that look at a particular intellectual problem from a variety of different disciplinary perspectives and try to solve that problem. That is why some of the institutions that I mentioned earlier are to me higher education institutions, but they are not universities as normally understood.
To pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said a little earlier, what we should be doing now is not to try to define what a university is, because this Bill should not just be about universities. They are the main provider of higher education, but they may not be the sole providers. Rather we should start with something that sets out what the principles of good, strong, high-quality higher education should be. Of course, that should cover institutional autonomy, freedom of expression, academic freedom and a whole variety of other things that are mentioned in the amendment. But the way in which it has been framed at the moment leads to a certain concern that it is not definitionally perfect.
Will the Minister consider coming back to the House with a new amendment to start this Bill off that covers the sort of issues in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and Cross-Bench and Liberal Democrat supporters? That would reassure us a little that the Government are concerned about these principles and will not rush into a set of legislative changes that will undermine the quality of our higher education system by bringing in new providers that will not meet these principles.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I speak as a lawyer, not as an academic. Indeed, until recently I thought that I was the only Member of the House who has not ever been a governor, chancellor or vice-chancellor of one of these institutions. As my noble friend Lady Wolf has now twice explained, the only direct relevance of this proposed new clause goes to the title of the body in question. In short, it goes only to Clauses 51 to 55 of the Bill. I understand her concern to be with regard to bodies being allowed to be called universities. Effect would be given to that if one said at the start of this new proposed clause: “For the purposes of Clauses 51 to 55, a higher education institution”—because that is what the whole of the rest of the Bill is about, assiduously avoiding any distinction between universities and those such bodies that are not—“should be regarded as entitled to use the title of university if it is an autonomous institution”, to return to the language of Amendment 1, et cetera.
With the best will in the world, although it seems to be the opinion of many in the House that the amendment will affect the view generally as to the autonomous nature of these institutions, as drafted it will not. It goes only to the title. It does not go even to the degree-awarding powers. That has nothing to do with whether a body is or is not called a university. Therefore it is much more appropriate, when concerned not with the title but with the autonomy of these higher educational institutions, to look at the amendments to which others have referred, Amendments 65 and 165, which deal not only with universities but with all higher education institutions.
If we want to give universities some special status, which this Bill as drafted at the moment assiduously does not, we have to recast the thing as a whole and say, “If you are a university, not only will you be able to call yourself such but these consequences follow”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity on the first day back after the Recess to discuss our vision for universities. However, before I turn to the amendment I want first to thank noble Lords for their strong engagement to date. I have had time to reflect, as I am sure have other noble Lords, on the lengthy debate at Second Reading and I have been working hard over the Christmas period to consider the points that were raised and to engage on the issues, as we have throughout the passage of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords have received my subsequent letters. I and the team have been kept somewhat busy with the not inconsiderable number of considered and thoughtful amendments that have been tabled to date and I look forward to responding to each and every one of them. I also look forward to a good debate over the coming weeks and welcome the scrutiny that a Bill as important as this rightly deserves. As I said at Second Reading, we have been listening and continue to reflect, and I am looking forward to hearing the views and contributions of noble Lords from across the Committee. It is fair to say that we have made a pretty good start on this, the first debate.
The Bill before us today is the product of lengthy and thorough consultation and consideration, from the 2011 White Paper of my noble friend Lord Willetts entitled Students at the Heart of the System through to the White Paper published by the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation in May of last year, supported by a Green Paper that received more than 600 responses. The Bill also incorporates recommendations from Sir Paul Nurse’s review of the research councils, the review undertaken by the Higher Education Commission and the report of Professor Simon Gaskell on the long-awaited and much-needed reforms to the regulation of higher education.
Our English universities are some of our most valuable national assets and are powerhouses of intellectual and social capital. We believe that our reforms will help them to continue to thrive into the 21st century and beyond. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, have spoken authoritatively and passionately about their history, from papal bulls to the Dearing report. I also want to assure noble Lords that we do not intend to stop consulting and listening. In fact, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised around the pace at which we intend to implement the reforms, and I would like to take a moment to set out how we now intend to respond to these valid concerns.
As stated in the White Paper, we are aiming for the Office for Students to be in place in time for the 2018-19 academic year. This new regulatory framework, rather than being overly regulatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, suggested, improves on the current piecemeal approach to regulation. It will reduce the overall regulation of the sector for a risk-based approach. However, like noble Lords, we recognise the risks to students and providers of taking forward the implementation of the new regulatory framework in a way that may cause unnecessary disruption and instability to the sector. It is also important that further detailed development of the new regulatory framework is driven by the OfS executive team rather than it being led by the Government and then handed over to the OfS to implement. The campaign to recruit a chair is live and we expect to launch the CEO campaign shortly. The Director for Fair Access and Participation recruitment process will follow shortly afterwards. Therefore, subject to the passage of the Bill, this will allow the OfS to consult on its new regulatory framework in the autumn of this year and to begin accepting and assessing applications from new and existing providers in 2018, in time for the 2019-20 academic year rather than in 2018-19. This allows more time for thorough consultation on the detail of the new regulatory framework and for the sector to be ready for the new regime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, asked whether the Minister had had discussions on these reforms with the skills Minister and I can reassure her that this has indeed happened. Regular discussions take place and the Bill is also complementary to the Technical and Further Education Bill, thus carrying out two reform programmes in parallel. This gives the best opportunity to support young people, a point rightly raised by the noble Baroness.
Let me now turn to this proposed new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has already quoted the definition that was set out by the Minister for Universities and Science in the other place and I agree that it is worthy of note. I note that several definitions have been made. Many of them carry favour.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Thank you very much to those who have contributed to this very good debate, which has been high-level and high-quality. I have particular thanks to those who signed up to my amendment. This will set us up well for the rest of Committee. We have already had more than 500 amendments tabled to the Bill and I gather that there are more to come. According to the Public Bill Office, this is the most amendments for any Bill in recent memory—although it then covered itself by saying that it had records going back only seven years, so there may be others. However, it is still quite a lot and a record.
I expected to have put myself up for an attack on my drafting and if you do that, you certainly set yourself up for it. I felt that while most people were very fair to my efforts, there was a bit of an attempt to play the man and not the ball. I also felt that a red card was due to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, for grading me a lower second for offering a contribution to improve the quality of the Bill. The theme was an offer to the Government to try to work together on this issue, which has obviously caught the interest of the House. Among the 30 Back-Bench speakers and two Front-Bench speakers, I think there were only four or five who could claim to support fully where the Government are trying to get to. I am afraid that the Minister lost the House in his long and rather difficult-to-follow explanation of why he wanted to refuse our generous offer to work with him to improve a statement that would enhance the Bill. I hope that people will remember that as we go forward into other issues.
We clearly have different visions about how to proceed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and to some extent, rather surprisingly, with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the way forward is perhaps not to push this too hard at this stage because there is an opportunity to improve it later on, if the Government will play ball. But if the Government do not play ball, where are you? You are stuck. In this situation, it is therefore right that we take up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury: we should take the courage of the conviction of those who spoke today, move forward with this amendment and, if necessary, amend around the Bill to improve any infelicities that there may be in the current drafting.
The major point made by the noble Viscount when he came to respond was that we would be placing burdens on universities by the form of the drafting. That point was explicitly refuted by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and picked up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne of Eaton-under-Heywood, who said that it was not the case. The Minister has no argument for not accepting this proposal. As he will not, I wish to test the views of the House.
Mental Health and NHS Performance Update
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place. The Statement is as follows.
“This Government are committed to a shared society in which public services work to the highest standards for everyone. This includes plans announced by the Prime Minister this morning on mental health. I am proud that, under this Government, 1,400 more people are accessing mental health services every day compared to 2010 and we are investing more in mental health than ever before, with plans for 1 million more people with mental health conditions to access services by 2020. But we recognise that there is more to do, and will proceed with plans to further improve mental health provision, including: formally accepting the recommendations of the independent Mental Health Taskforce, which will see mental health spend increase by £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament; a Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health to be published before the end of the year; enabling every secondary school to train someone in mental health first aid; a new partnership with employers to support mental health in the workplace; up to £15 million extra invested in places of safety for those in crisis following the highly successful start to this programme in the last Parliament; an ambitious expansion of digital mental health provision; and an updated and more comprehensive suicide prevention strategy. Further details of these plans are contained in the Written Ministerial Statement laid in the House this morning.
However, turning to winter, as our most precious public service, the NHS has been under sustained pressure for a number of years. In just six years, the number of people over 80 has risen by 340,000, and life expectancy has risen by 12 months. As a result, demand is unprecedented: the Tuesday after Christmas was the busiest day in the history of the NHS, and some hospitals are reporting that A&E attendances are up to 30% higher compared to last year. I therefore want to set out how we intend to protect the service through an extremely challenging period and sustain it for the future.
First, I would like to pay tribute to staff on the front line: 1.3 million NHS staff, alongside 1.4 million in the social care system, do an incredible job which is frankly humbling for all of us in this House. An estimated 150,000 medical staff, and many more non-medical staff, worked on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. They have never worked harder to keep patients safe, and the whole country is in their debt.
With respect to this winter, the NHS has made more extensive preparations than ever before. We started the run-up to the winter period with over 1,600 more doctors and 3,000 more nurses than just a year ago, bringing the total increase since 2010 to 11,400 more doctors and 11,200 more hospital nurses. The NHS allocated £400 million to local health systems for winter preparedness; it nationally assured the winter plans of every trust; it launched the largest ever flu vaccination scheme, with over 13 million people already vaccinated; and it also bolstered support outside A&Es, with 12,000 additional GP sessions offered over the festive period.
The result has been that this winter has already seen days where A&E departments have treated a record number of people within four hours, and there have been fewer serious incidents declared than many expected. As Chris Hopson, head of NHS Providers, said, although there have been serious problems at some trusts, the system as a whole is doing slightly better than last year. However, there are indeed a number of trusts when the situation has been extremely fragile. All of last week’s A & E diverts happened at 19 trusts, of which four are in special measures. The most recent statistics showed that nearly three-quarters of trolley waits occurred in just two trusts. In Worcestershire in particular there has been a number of unacceptably long trolley waits and two deaths reported in the media while patients were in A&E. We are also aware of ongoing problems in the North Midlands, with extremely high numbers of 12-hour trolley waits.
Nationally, the NHS has taken urgent action to support these trusts, including working intensively with leadership and brokering conversations with social care partners to generate a joined-up approach across systems of concern. As of this weekend, there are some signs that pressure is easing both in the most distressed trusts and across the system. However, with further cold weather on the way this weekend, a spike in respiratory infections and a rise in flu, there will be further challenges ahead.
NHS England and NHS Improvement will also consider a series of further measures which may be taken in particularly distressed systems on a temporary basis at the discretion of the local clinical leaders. These may include: temporarily releasing time for GPs to support urgent care work; clinically triaging non-urgent calls to the ambulance service for residents of nursing and residential homes before they are taken to hospital; continuing to suspend elective care, including, where appropriate, suspension of non-urgent out-patient appointments; working with the CQC on rapid reinspection where this has the potential to reopen community health and social care bed capacity; and working with community trusts and community nursing teams to speed up discharge. Taken together, these actions will give the NHS the flexibility to take further measures as and when appropriate at local level.
However, looking to the future, it is clear we need to have an honest discussion with the public about the purpose of A&E departments. There is nowhere outside the UK that commits to all patients that it will sort out any urgent health need within four hours. Only four other countries—New Zealand, Sweden, Australia and Canada—have similar national standards, which are generally less stringent than ours. This Government are committed to maintaining and delivering that vital four-hour commitment to patients. But since it was announced in 2000, there have been nearly 9 million more people visiting our A&E departments, up to 30% of whom NHS England estimates do not need to be there, and the tide is continuing to rise.
If we are going to protect the four-hour standard, we need to be clear it is a promise to sort out all urgent health problems within four hours, but not all health problems, however minor. As Professor Keith Willett, NHS England’s medical director for acute care, has said, no country in the world has a four-hour standard for all health problems, however small, and if we are to protect services for the most vulnerable nor can we. So NHS England and NHS Improvement will continue to explore ways to ensure that at least some of the patients who do not need to be in A&E can be given good alternative options, building on progress under way with the streaming policy in the NHS England’s A&E plan. This way, we will be able to improve the patient experience for those with more minor conditions who are currently not seen within four hours as well as protect the four-hour promise for those who actually need it.
Taken together, what I have announced today are plans to support the NHS in a difficult period but also plans for a Government who are ambitious for our NHS, quite simply, to offer the safest, highest-quality care available anywhere for both mental and physical health. But they will take time to come to fruition, and in the meantime all of our thoughts are with NHS and social care staff who are working extremely hard over the winter, and throughout the year, both inside and outside our hospitals.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, and welcome him to the Dispatch Box.
Of course we welcome any announcement that will help to improve mental health services in this country, as indeed we welcomed such announcements exactly 12 months ago, when the then Prime Minister made similar promises. But it seems that the more Prime Ministers promise, the less the NHS delivers. I remind the Minister that the Government’s record actually shows that we now have 6,600 fewer nurses working in mental health than were inherited. We have also seen a large reduction in mental health beds. I remind him of the report and analysis by YoungMinds just before Christmas, which showed that local children’s mental health budgets were raided in order to plug funding gaps elsewhere in the NHS. The survey revealed that when clinical commissioning groups were asked whether the extra £1.4 billion pledged over five years in 2015 for child and adolescent mental health services was going to be spent on CAMHS, nearly two-thirds of CCGs that responded said they used some or all of the money to backfill cuts or spend on other priorities. This has been replicated on a number of occasions when it comes to pledges made by the Government in relation to mental health. The fact is that they simply cannot guarantee that the NHS will deliver. What certainty do we now have that the pledge made today by the Prime Minister is going to be implemented, given the lamentable record of NHS England and the NHS in responding to similar pleas in the past? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to say this morning that she would ring-fence this money to ensure that it indeed went to the services that she said it had to go to?
I turn to the winter crisis. This morning the Secretary of State said that things have been falling over in only a couple of places, but the reality is that one-third of hospitals declared last month that they needed urgent help to deal with the number of patients coming through the doors; we know that accident and emergency departments have turned patients away more than 140 times; 15 hospitals ran out of beds in one day in December; and several hospitals have warned that they cannot offer comprehensive care. We know that we are going back to the dreadful days of the 1990s, with elderly patients left languishing on hospital trolleys in corridors, sometimes for over 24 hours.
Whatever the labels that charities use, whatever the semantics, the Government cannot deny that the NHS is facing a severe winter crisis, the culpability for which lies firmly with the Government. Does the Minister agree that it was a monumental error to ignore the pleas for extra support for social care in the Autumn Statement? Will he now support calls for the £700 million of social care funding allocated for 2019 to be brought forward to help services to cope this winter? Will he urge the Chancellor and his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to announce a new funding settlement for the NHS and social care in March’s Budget?
I listened with great care to the remarks the Minister made on the four-hour A&E target. The implication is that the Government are running away from the target and are now going to use different definitions for who is going to be expected to have that target met and who is not. I remind the Government that in 2010 they inherited a 98% rate for the four-hour target being met, which the NHS had achieved. Under his Government, the NHS has reduced its achievements in A&E consistently, year after year. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State’s weasel words today about the four-hour target show that the Government are now admitting that they will never achieve that target again. What are the Government doing? We know they are going to change the target and the definitions. On that subject, what guidance has the Minister taken from the Royal College for Emergency Medicines that the so-called new standard is actually appropriate?
I turn to the deaths of two patients at Worcestershire Royal Hospital. They had been waiting on hospital trolleys. Will Ministers lead an inquiry into those deaths? Are they aware whether these were isolated incidents? When does the trust intend to report back on its own investigation?
I have been reading today the draft Herefordshire and Worcestershire sustainability and transformation plan, which Ministers point to as a solution to all their problems. The problems of the Worcestershire acute trust have been known for many years—it simply does not have the capacity to deal with the flow of patients into that hospital—yet the sustainability and transformation plan actually plans for fewer beds in that trust over the next three to four years. How on earth can the Government justify reducing the number of beds in that trust when it is under such tremendous pressure because of a lack of capacity?
There is no doubt that much of the current crisis could have been avoided. Hospital leaders, council leaders, patient groups, MPs across the Commons and noble Lords all urged the Chancellor to give the NHS and social care additional resources in the Autumn Statement, but those requests fell on deaf ears. We now see the dismal consequences. The Government need to do very much better.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his first appearance in his new role. I add thanks from these Benches to all the health and care staff who gave up their Christmas holidays to care for patients.
We welcome the Prime Minister’s attention being turned to mental health, and the emphasis on the roles of schools and the workplace. The NHS of course cannot do the job alone. However, many people are not getting mental health treatment, getting it late, not getting the right treatment or getting it many miles from home, which prevents their families and friends supporting them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the money is not getting through to front-line mental health services, despite the £1.4 billion secured from the previous Chancellor by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb when he was coalition Health Minister. Why is that?
Is it not true that if there were not a shortage of funding for other services, CCGs would not be tempted to raid the mental health budget? That is what they are doing. FOI requests by Young Minds, as has been mentioned, show that half of CCGs are using money allocated to children’s mental health to prop up physical health services, which are also in crisis. That is wrong. A recent survey of child and adolescent psychiatrists show that a whopping seven out of 10 of them thought that mental health services for children and young people were inadequate. By any calculation, that is a national disgrace.
Will the Minister ring-fence the money that has been promised to mental health and improve transparency with the publication of the mental health dashboards, which are meant to show how much is being spent on mental health services in every area and on what services? The £1 billion that has already been announced for adult mental health is back-loaded to the end of the Parliament. Will the Government bring it forward to deal with the current crisis? Will they at last acknowledge that there must be a cross-party discussion about how to raise the money needed for health and social care? Will they ensure that the lessons learned in Manchester about integration are spread to other areas? That could save money and provide better service. Will the Government provide more funding for social care? As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, without that, nothing will improve.
To return to mental health, I acknowledge that funding is not the whole story. The main point of the report from the values-based CAMHS commission, chaired by my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield, was that there needs to be a shared set of values and a shared language across all those involved with children and young people’s mental health, thereby enabling the system to have widespread change and a far more joined-up response to mental health issues. Does the Minister agree with that? How could it be achieved?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their kind welcome. First, on mental health, which is clearly the subject of the Prime Minister’s Statement today, I think this is a good news day for mental health services. We know that this part of the system has suffered from not being seen by some people as as important as physical health. We have now legislated for parity of esteem, but of course parity of esteem comes about through practice, not just through law, and part of that is about a series of changes to ensure that this is a high-quality system that is available not just for some but for all.
With regard to performance, there is a lot of strength within the system. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Prior, whose abilities I pay warm tribute to, would always say that there is lots of innovation and quality in the health service. One of the challenges that we face is diffusion. Part of the purpose of the strategy today is about taking best practice and moving it around the system. There is good practice. We have fantastic dementia diagnosis rates, the IAPT system is being copied by other countries and we have a record number of psychiatrists.
As someone who has spent the best part of 15 years working in schools, I think we finally have recognition that something significant and serious is going on with our young people that needs a new approach. With the promise of a Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, I am optimistic that we have an opportunity to deliver what the noble Baroness said—getting everyone who cares about this subject around the table and making sure that we deliver the kind of strategy that is going to do two things. The first is to help schools and young people to identify mental illness where it exists and to access treatment; the second and, arguably, more important, is to build resilience so that young people are better able to resist the various pressures that they are under and to stay in good mental health, because that is our ultimate goal.
There is £1 billion to implement the plan. It is reasonable to ask how it will get to the front line; clearly, this money should not be being diverted to other services. The noble Baroness said that transparency was critical here. CCGs need to report in a much more detailed, open and honest way about where that money is being spent, so that we can ensure that it is going to front-line mental health services.
There is a challenge every winter; that is not unique to this Government. The Statement pays tribute to the incredible work of the staff in the NHS and social care system, and I add my voice to that. They are working at an extraordinary level and under a lot of pressure. Clearly, unacceptable things are going on, such as trolley waits of more than 12 hours. The key is being prepared and, where there are problems, working out what to do about them. The NHS has been well prepared for this winter, with £400 million going into preparedness plans, which it has tested to ensure that they are robust. Although I have been in the department for only five days, judging by the interest, passion and application of Ministers and officials, I can say that a close eye is being kept on this not just in the department but in NHS England and NHSI. As we say in the Statement, we will continue to support trusts to deal with challenges, particularly in fragile areas—some of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we have known about for some time. Help is going in.
On social care, there was more money in the Autumn Statement, which I am sure was welcome, and a change to front-load the precept, which will make a difference, and we have the better care fund, so funding is increasing. However, more people are accessing the service, and we know why: because of the demographic pressures. Since 2010 there are now some 1 million more over-65s, so the system needs the extra support the Government have provided. The noble Baroness was quite right when she talked about integration. One opportunity that we have in the five-year forward view through the sustainability and transformation plans is the creation of much better integrated systems which focus not simply on the number of beds, although that is important, but on delivering the best outcomes. As we know, lots of people in hospitals would be better cared for if they were in the community or at home. One challenge that we face is ensuring that those patients who would be better treated in that environment have the opportunity to move out, freeing up those beds for those who need them.
We are committed to the four-hour target, as my right honourable friend outlined in the Statement, and have delivered many more doctors and nurses to ensure that we can deliver a high-quality service. We are dealing with 9 million more visits to A&E every year than we were in 2000. We need to ensure that we are delivering a service which continues to provide the best quality care in whatever setting is most appropriate, and never lose sight of the fact that A&E is there for a specific purpose, particularly for the support of the most vulnerable. About a quarter of A&E admissions are from the over-65 age group, which is growing, so this will get more challenging.
On the specific issue in Worcestershire, it is of course a terrible tragedy. The trust and NHS Improvement are investigating, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment at this time, other than to say that we will be watching very closely what happens as a consequence of those investigations. Plans are already in place to support the trust and ensure that it can improve, but it is not appropriate for me to comment on the specific deaths that occurred.
We know that additional resource is not just about money; it is about service configuration and how we deliver a better service. We are providing £10 billion more in real terms to the NHS over the course of this Parliament. That is what we were asked to deliver, and that is what we are delivering, in concert with NHS England. It is the responsibility of everyone within the system to ensure that we deliver the best possible service.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, from these Benches I welcome my noble friend to his new position on the Front Bench and pay credit, as he did, to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, did before him.
The Statement suggests that, during this period of exceeding challenge to the hospital sector, with clinical leaders attempts will be made to,
“suspend elective care, including, where appropriate, suspension of non-urgent out-patient appointments”.
I was rather distressed to hear on the “Today” programme of a patient with oesophageal cancer having either his treatment or his admission delayed—it sounded like it was his admission. As a surgeon, I felt particularly uncomfortable about that. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that when it comes to treating patients with cancer, irrespective of the pressures a hospital is under, provision must be made to admit those patients, because any delay can have a long-term effect on them.
Although I accept that there have been 11,400 more doctors since 2010—and that is a very reassuring figure—we must also remember that the intake into medicine has changed significantly over the past 10 or 20 years. There is now probably a majority of female doctors coming into medical school, so the workforce is feminising and changing. Whether we like it or not, many of them will have children, will have family commitments and will wish to work part-time, or less than full-time. When we talk about numbers, it is important that we talk about whole-time equivalents rather than the ballpark figure. It looks like a lot of doctors coming into the system, but we must take into consideration that many of them will work less than full-time, so we may well need to increase the medical workforce, perhaps asking them to work in a different way than they do currently.
I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on that, but I welcome his comments about mental health. I hope that greater provision will be made to ensure that patients with mental health issues have as much support as possible, as he said.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind words of welcome. On the specific issue raised on the “Today” programme, which I believe is the subject of a documentary, and how it relates to the Statement made by my right honourable friend, there is an important distinction, which is that it is at the discretion of local clinical leaders. It is not a blanket mandate to delay treatment where the ethical and clinical responsibilities of those treating a given patient require it to be done speedily.
On the issue of the workforce changing, I take my noble friend’s point about what in the education world we called FTEs—full-time equivalents—and will make sure that the workforce figures I use are always expressed in those terms.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners, and join others in welcoming the Minister to his new responsibilities. With regard to the current performance in accident and emergency departments, part of the explanation in the past has been the lack of access to and availability of primary care services. What thought have Her Majesty’s Government given to the potential for the provision of GP primary care services within accident and emergency departments? How is that work going forward and how might it be integrated with the broader provision of primary care services in the community?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for that question; he speaks with a great deal of knowledge and wisdom on the subject. Clearly, to ensure that we have the best possible services, the system needs to be as flexible as possible to local requirements. As is already happening in some areas, having GPs in A&Es as part of the triage, the streaming service, will provide that kind of efficiency and effectiveness, so that everyone is treated properly. I do not have the detail on where NHS England is on that process, but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to his new post and declare my interest as a member of Sheffield City Council. As 80% of those who are in hospital for two weeks or more are aged 65 or over, many require social care rather than healthcare. What is the timescale for the Government to deal with the crisis in healthcare funding rather than the short-term sticking plaster of bringing forward the precepts?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his question. There are many strategies, going forward. One is the reform of social care, which includes additional funding, with the precepts being front-loaded now. The second is making sure that, in hospitals, those people in beds who would be better served in a different care setting are able to leave through step-down services, or other such services. Of course, the other factor is to make sure that there is appropriate general practice, and not simply A&E departments, although these can be effective in some areas. We want to make sure that there are more GPs and that we spend more on general practice, as we will in the spending review period, for patients who would be better dealt with without going into A&E, if the kind of care that they are receiving would be more appropriate in a primary care setting. We have to remember that, for patients such as those with dementia, the prospect of going into A&E could in itself be frightening and worrying.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot resist the opportunity to remind the new Minister, as I always used to remind his predecessor, about the importance of Britain’s 6 million family carers, when we look at both the issues that he has brought to our attention today. First, he talks about speeding up discharge. You cannot speed up discharge in the social care sector unless you also provide support to the family carers, many of whom are elderly themselves, who will provide that care, when somebody comes out of hospital who is still barely recovered and those carers are expected to perform nursing functions, such as changing catheters. As for mental health, carers are often expected to be full-time carers for young people with very challenging behaviour, and they are often deprived of any information that would help them, on the grounds of confidentiality. What is the Government’s position on helping those informal carers in both these situations?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right: millions of people across the country care for a relative who has some care need, be it a spouse, somebody at retirement age or a child with mental health problems. I do not have the specific details to answer her question; I shall write to her with those details—but through the social care reforms being delivered by local authorities and the reforms going forward through the five-year forward view in community health, there is more focus on that ground-level support, in a way that is much more difficult to do from Whitehall. So we are seeing through the early drafts of the STPs—one of the new bits of jargon that I have had to learn—ideas for how to provide family support that goes beyond the statutory support that is available through the benefits system or the community health system.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to his new role and welcome particularly his comments on the parity in practice, as well as in law, of mental and physical health. I welcome the Government’s commitment of money and the Green Paper on young people’s mental health. Can my noble friend please comment on whether there will be a focus on the disparities of outcomes that persist for many in the black and minority ethnic community, who are often diagnosed late, are more likely to be detained for their condition and overall suffer poorer outcomes as a result in mental health? Could some focus be given to these issues of disparity?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for her warm welcome. I take that point very seriously. Clearly, parity of esteem is no good unless it is applicable to everybody who is suffering from a particular illness. I am not fully aware of the details of the nature of the disparity with black and minority ethnic families but, if there is a problem, making sure that we fulfil this ambitious and I hope welcome strategy is going to make sure that we can lift performance of those services for people in minority ethnic groups.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my health interests. Can the Minister explain why it will take at least four years to stop the appalling situation where children have to go out of their local area to receive their mental health treatment?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was not aware that it would take four years for that to stop. What we are dealing with here is an historic challenge, which is that mental health services not just in this country but in countries all over the developed world have not been at the same level as services for physical health. The strategy that we have set out today and the further elements to come will be one way of making sure that those young people can be treated close to home. Clearly, there will always be cases and instances where they need to travel. On Friday, I had my first ever ministerial visit to Oxford mental health trust and was able to observe the fantastic work that it is doing across a wide area but with a specific residential school and, interestingly, linking up with the university psychology research department. There were young people who were coming to take advantage of that from all over the country. I realise that this is, if not unique, an unusual coagulation of good factors. As part of making sure that you can get treatment for mental illness or support to build mental health locally, we need to make sure that there are more centres of excellence that can be accessed by those who are in acute need.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, we welcome very much indeed any Statement that the Minister or indeed the Prime Minister makes about mental health. The issue of parity of esteem has gone through legislation, but in reality we have seen very little in terms of progress towards that parity of esteem.
I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him every success in this key role. One thing that is not mentioned in the Statement is how we train and educate the workforce to deliver the sorts of plans that we have. For instance, in training our nurses, unless they do a specialist mental health programme they might receive less than a morning’s training in a three-year graduate programme in terms of mental health. The same applies to children and people with disabilities. What efforts are going to be made to make sure that we have the workforce in place with the right skills and training to deliver the sorts of ambition that he and the rest of the House rightly share?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. He is quite right, of course, that to deal with the problems of mental illness in every setting the staff need to be trained to spot them and do something about it. In the announcement today, a couple of things are relevant to his question. The first is on supporting schools and every secondary school having a mental first aid trained teacher, so they can spot the signs of mental illness and then refer them on if necessary, if they cannot deal with them themselves—although they will have the skills to deal with some instances. The other is the investment of £60 million—£30 million from government and £30 million from trusts—of digitally assisted mental health services, which will bring global digital exemplars for mental health. That will mean that we will be able to provide better information for both staff and patients about the quality of care and safety and effectiveness.
Lord Warner (CB)
I welcome the Minister to his new job and raise the issue of CAMHS and the security of funding for CAMHS. It is no good making fine words in this area. The raiding of budgets in this area has taken place in the NHS over a very long period of time. It is not just a question of ring-fencing for a short time; it is guaranteeing budgets over a longish period, so that staffing levels can be built up with people who are expert in this field. Will this issue be addressed in the Green Paper?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He speaks with great knowledge and experience, particularly from his work in the Department of Health. There are two separate issues here. First, there need to be more resources, and we are providing those. Secondly, we need to make sure that those resources are applied in the right setting, so that money designed to support mental health goes there. The primary way we deliver that is through transparency: making sure that CCGs—which are, of course, independent of government and making clinical commissioning decisions based on local need—are reporting on the money they are spending and the services they are commissioning in mental health and then making sure that we work with NHS England to look at any CCGs where that is not happening. It is clearly wrong that money which is intended to support mental health does not do so, but the way to deal with that is to work with the CCGs where it is not happening and to make them report on their own performance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to his position and declare an interest as an adviser to the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, having been the daughter and sister of dispensing doctors in rural practice. Are my noble friend and his department aware of a chronic shortage of psychiatrists in rural areas, which has particular implications for children waiting to be statemented and treated? Is he also aware that there may be a spike in retirements of GPs over the next five or 10 years? The Government have addressed the issue of new doctors coming through; is there a second round, bearing in mind that it currently takes seven years to train a GP?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for her welcome. The global number of psychiatrists across England is increasing: I was not aware of the particular shortage in rural areas. I will certainly investigate and write to my noble friend about it. I know, from my past work in education and the example of head teachers, that the shape of the public sector workforce is now such that senior positions are weighted towards the over 55s. Although I realise that separate pension arrangements are available in the health service, now that retirement and pension ages are increasing we have a reasonable expectation that people might work longer than they did in the past. Therefore the problem described by my noble friend may not be as acute—not just in health but in other sectors as well—as she says. However, there is clearly an issue about the demography of the service and we are backing up GP recruitment with quite a big increase in extra funding for primary care over the course of this spending review period. A large part of that will go on both recruiting new staff and paying those who are in the system now.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Is the Minister aware of whether GP referrals to CAMHS are now improving? Last year a number of reports highlighted the fact that in some 15 trusts up to 60% of GP referrals were not being dealt with. Only the very urgent, critical cases—those children who were self-harming or attempting suicide—were being dealt with. Has this situation improved and is there now proper access? GPs are the gateway to these services and if their referrals are not being taken seriously, these problems will mount up and we will be failing the next generation. Can the Minister give that assurance?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Mental health is an issue that spans education and health. I recognise the problems that the noble Baroness is describing. I do not know the specific details about the performance of referrals but I will write to her with that information. One of the purposes of the strategy, and the adoption of all the recommendations of this review, is to make sure that we make the system work better so that what the noble Baroness describes—which is not what we want to happen—happens less frequently.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord to his new appointment and wish him well. I place on record my gratitude to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who was always open and honest in his dealings with us and straightforward in answering our questions. I hope we are going to have an open and honest discussion about the role of A&Es in the future and whether there is any likelihood that we are going to lose the four-hour limit. Over the holiday period, Sir Simon Stevens commented that A&E is not to be used as a “national hangover service”. Is there a possibility that we are to lose some of the terms we have had in the past because of the number of drunks who are being treated on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays throughout the year—not just over bank holidays? This is creating immense problems within A&E, yet the Government refuse to do anything about the fundamental cause of that: to use Mr Cameron’s phrase, “cheap booze”. Back in 2012 he was advocating a change to try to stop this. Unless that is addressed, there will be a scandalised outcry about changes in the fundamental terms relating to A&E.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. On A&E, the Statement is very clear that the Government are,
“committed to maintaining and delivering that vital four-hour commitment to patients”.
As the noble Lord described, there has been a change in the case load going into A&E. You only need to spend a bit of time in an A&E to know that alcohol is a factor. I do not know whether this is increasing, but I shall endeavour to find out. I absolutely agree that any proper strategy for relieving pressure on A&E must include cracking down on problem drinking.
Family Court
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question tabled in another place on family courts. The Statement is as follows:
“I am grateful to the honourable Member for the chance to update the House on this important issue. The issues at stake in family proceedings are sensitive and often complex, and the decisions of the court can have far-reaching implications for the individuals involved. The presence of domestic abuse only exacerbates an already traumatic situation. That is why the Government have already taken steps to make sure that victims of domestic abuse in the family justice system have support and protection. We have protected legal aid for individuals seeking protection from abusers; we continue to invest in the court estate to improve both the physical security of family courts and the emotional support available for users; and we have placed renewed emphasis on training for those who work in the family justice system, making sure they understand the nature and impact of domestic abuse, and act appropriately when they encounter it.
But we know that there is more to do. As my colleague the Minister for Victims, Phillip Lee, made clear when these matters were debated in Parliament on 15 September, this Government are determined to improve the family justice response to domestic abuse and we have been working closely with the judiciary and others to consider what additional protections may be necessary. We are particularly concerned about the fact that unrepresented alleged perpetrators of abuse can directly cross-examine their alleged victims in family proceedings. I want to make family court processes safer for victims of domestic abuse so that they can advocate effectively for themselves—and for the safety of their children. That cannot happen while a significant number of domestic abuse victims face cross-examination by their abusers.
The Justice Secretary has therefore requested urgent advice on how to put an end to this practice. This sort of cross-examination is rightly illegal in the criminal courts, and I am determined to see it banned in family courts, too. We are considering the most comprehensive and efficient way of making that happen. That will help family courts to concentrate on the key concerns for the family and always put the children’s interests first—which is what they are supposed to do. This work, which is being fast-tracked within the department, is looking in particular at the provisions in the criminal law which prevent alleged perpetrators from cross-examining their alleged victims in criminal proceedings, and we are considering how we might apply similar provisions in relation to family proceedings.
Members will appreciate that such a proposal requires thought, but we want to resolve it as soon as possible. We will make further details available shortly, once the work is complete. I would like to thank the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who has argued passionately that this practice should be outlawed for good”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, while the Secretary of State’s announcement is welcome, this issue was highlighted in a report in 2014, and was pursued by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence, which, in a report last April, listed seven recommendations, including one on this issue, none of which appears to have been implemented. In 80% of cases in the family court, one or more parties is unrepresented, a major problem being access to legal aid. How much has been saved on legal aid in the family courts, given the minimal grants of exceptional funding in domestic violence and abuse cases? In the first six months of last year, only five out of 125 applications for exceptional funding were granted. Will the Government now act on the other recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group? Do they have a view on the perhaps more controversial proposal of Sir James Munby for family court hearings to be in public, for which he is proposing a trial run?
Lord Keen of Elie
We are, of course, aware that this has been a matter of concern. That is why we are determined to address it as urgently as we can. On the matter of legal aid, clearly there are many circumstances in which individuals will seek to represent themselves in family proceedings. Even where that is done, there has to be some degree of control over their conduct. I believe that everyone in this House would agree with that. I point out that we spend in excess of £1.5 billion a year on legal aid. That was the figure for last year. We have increased the availability of legal aid in domestic violence cases—for example, by increasing the period during which evidence of abuse can be produced from two years to five years. As regards the other recommendations under consideration, I invite the noble Lord to await the outcome of the urgent work being done by the department and the conclusion of that work.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we too welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Direct personal cross-examination of alleged victims of domestic abuse by their alleged abusers is unacceptable and must stop. It causes distress and damage to victims and their children and deters victims from seeking protection and redress from the courts. It has become more common with the reductions in legal aid.
Can we be assured that the department’s work will be both swift and thorough and will address a range of possibilities: questioning through a court-appointed lawyer or other third party; strict limits on the ambit of cross-examination to restrict it to what is necessary and relevant; comprehensive witness support; and the use of video links so that parties are in separate rooms? Will the department also establish a procedure to ensure that in future, when a judge in a position such as that of the President of the Family Division presses for a change, as Sir James Munby has pressed for a change in this area since 2014, they are listened to? We should not have to wait for a newspaper campaign, however creditable, to ensure that change happens.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. Of course we are concerned about the distress that can be caused to victims as a result of cross-examination in cases of this kind. The investigation, inquiry and work that the department is undertaking in this regard will be swift and thorough. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of that work at this time, but clearly a number of options will be available. For example, one can take some guidance from what happens in the criminal courts, where the judge may determine what questions are to be put to a witness, may decide to put those questions to a witness himself, and the circumstances where the judge may determine that a third-party advocate should instead be employed to put such questions. However, as I say, I do not seek to pre-empt the urgent and swift investigation and determination that is being undertaken at present.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I should have thought that the principle which precludes the victim in the criminal courts being cross-examined by the alleged abuser would apply equally in the family court. That principle should apply. Will the Minister confirm that cross-examination is intended to be an opportunity to ask questions to ensure that the tribunal has a proper balance on the facts and is not an occasion on which to offer insults to the party being cross-examined?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble and learned friend, who has a great deal more experience in these areas than I would ever hope to achieve. Clearly, the purpose of cross-examination, whether it is to challenge credibility or reliability or a particular account, should be pursued by way of questions. It is not an opportunity to make statements to the court or to give evidence and should never be an opportunity to resort to abuse, whether of a victim, a witness or the court itself.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this issue is widespread, serious and urgent. Research by Women’s Aid found that one in four women in this situation faced direct questioning from their alleged abusers. We welcome the urgency of the Government’s review, but does the Minister agree that some things could be done now without the need for legislation—for example, having the victim and the alleged abuser in different rooms, with questions being put via a video link? Will the Minister commit to look at what the Government can do now, and place whatever legislation is necessary before Parliament at the earliest possible moment? Will he also look at what can be done in the interim?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness, who makes a very good point with regard to how we may attempt to tackle this matter, by way not only of legislation, be it primary or secondary, but also by way of the procedural rules which apply in the context of family cases. That will be looked at in the context of the present review and work. If we consider that steps can be taken, we will make representations to the judiciary so that it can properly examine how these procedural rules can be considered. I understand that the President of the Family Division has arranged that certain work should be undertaken with regard to children in the context of the procedural rules.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I sit as a lay family magistrate in Greater London. Sir James Munby has introduced Practice Direction 12J whereby abusers cannot cross-examine people in court. However, my experience is that while the parties in the family court are very often unrepresented for various reasons, not least because they have not applied for legal aid, there are other opportunities for interaction and potential abuse in the court system, not just in the courtroom itself. Therefore, while I welcome the emergency review announced recently, I think that there needs to be a more wide-ranging review of the family court process as a whole if one is to address these issues. It is certainly my experience that the practice directions that we operate in Greater London prevent the sort of cross-examination which a lot of pressure groups are talking about. The issue is about the wider context. I hope that the Ministry of Justice will expand its review of the family court practices.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, who makes a sensible observation about the fact that this extends beyond the immediate issue of the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses and victims. We continue to invest in improving the court estate to improve physical security in the family courts, which is important. In addition, we have placed renewed emphasis on the training of those who work in the courts in order that they are alert to the sort of issue the noble Lord alluded to, and that work is ongoing.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, while this news from the Government is welcome, and for the work I do as Victims’ Commissioner, the important word for victims of the horrendous crime of domestic abuse is “swift”. Coercive behaviour by perpetrators in our family courts is so rapid that we need to work quickly to ensure that we protect these victims. It disheartens me to hear about families being broken up. In the Secretary of State’s Statement she says that it is about the child. I visited the grooming victims in Rotherham and parents of these children who have been groomed, and the coercive behaviour, the courtrooms and the Cafcass officers—who are supposed to think of the child—have actually broken the family relationship between the mother and child. So while we work to make this swifter, I want to ensure that the Government look at the wider approach, ensure that there is proper training and make that swift, because at the moment victims have no protection whatever. They go into a different courtroom, having gone through the criminal courtroom, and it would be good if we could make the criminal court transfer issues to the family court so that it gets the evidence quickly to support the victims of domestic abuse. The coercive behaviour is horrendous for these victims.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend. Of course, it is necessary to maintain a fairly clear distinction between criminal process arising out of criminal acts and the consequent need to deal with the family consequences in the context of civil proceedings that involve divorce, separation, custody and access to children. The primary interest is always the children themselves, but let us remember that when we talk about abuse, we are not just talking about the abuse of a partner. Sometimes, unfortunately, we are dealing with the abuse of the children of the family unit itself and the coercion against the partner to avoid disclosure of that abuse. Therefore, we have to look to the partner and the children as all being potential victims in these circumstances.
Higher Education and Research Bill
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“UK universities: establishment
(1) UK universities must be bodies corporate, primarily located in the United Kingdom, and established on a not-for-profit basis. (2) UK universities are public bodies, contributing to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at high levels of excellence.(3) UK universities (whether established by Act of Parliament, Royal Charter or by the Privy Council) may be awarded degree awarding powers in accordance with sections 40 to 50. (4) Private universities, colleges of further education and other higher education providers established by Act of Parliament may be awarded degree awarding powers in accordance with sections 40 to 50.(5) Only bodies under subsection (3) or (4) which have met the criteria relevant to the granting of degree awarding powers under section 40(1B) for at least four years may be registered as higher education providers, in accordance with section 3.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment we discussed prior to the Statement was originally part of a combination of amendments, of which this is the second. It might be helpful, for the convenience of the House, if I explain a little more about that, as some of the questions that were raised during the earlier debate also have resonance here.
The issue that we faced in drafting these early amendments was that to promote a debate and discussion—eventually, that was successful—around the role that universities should play in the United Kingdom, we had first of all to assess what that role should be. It also raised questions about establishment and the position of universities with regard to the way in which previous regimes have created them and continue to do so. In Amendment 2, which I stress is a probing amendment, to which I hope the Minister will be able to give answers that will help to formulate our thinking as we go forward, we had to think first about whether universities were essentially put in a position where they had to be based or primarily located in the United Kingdom, which is the first point in the amendment, and what their constitutional or legal formulation was. Most of them—not all—are bodies corporate, and all of them are primarily located in the United Kingdom but have establishments overseas. So this is not just an idle question; these things are happening today and we need to make arrangements.
The third limb of proposed subsection (1) of the new clause in Amendment 2—the establishment on a not-for-profit basis—is, as we will have picked up from the earlier discussion, controversial. In all the analysis I have seen—I look forward to hearing from the noble Viscount when he comes to respond, as well as other contributions—as education is a charitable object, it would be odd if bodies established for educational purposes were also to be profit-seeking. However, I fully admit and accept—we were reminded of this in the earlier debate—that when in government my party previously accepted that it would be possible for some institutions to be established on a profit-seeking basis. However, the quantum of the profit to be distributed from the profits made is capped and specified, so there is an assessment of the issue but it is not a completely binary not-for-profit/for-profit operation. The noble Viscount mentioned this in his response to Amendment 1, and my noble friend Lady Cohen has views on this, which I hope she will share with us.
It is true, and it is important to bear in mind, that no institution will survive if it cannot make an excess of income over its outgoings. In a sense, therefore, all universities, whether they are for profit or not for profit, are in the business of ensuring that their income is greater or at least equal to their expenditure. Therefore, the issue that needs to be addressed is whether we are talking about profit distributed to the owners of the company or profit reinvested in an institution’s activities. That might include teaching, research and other things that we are in favour of with regard to what universities should be.
I raise this as a genuine issue, because in promoting this amendment, I suggested in proposed subsection (3) of the new clause that whether universities are established by Act of Parliament, charter or Privy Council, it will be a restriction on the universities that may be called UK universities that they are not for profit. I am not sure, having made that statement, that my argument will sustain itself through this debate; I look forward to that debate and to the Minister’s response. I have difficulties with it myself, and if I have difficulties, as a promoter of the amendment, clearly others will do too, and I am quite ready to be knocked down on this point. It is important that we understand better what we are trying to say about institutions.
It is, perversely, the area of the Bill where I agree with the original drafting. The Minister has now left us—maybe it was something we said; he is no longer in sight, although he may be around. It is easier to talk about “higher education providers” in this context, although it shames me slightly to say that, given that “university” is an important term and we should hold on to it. Presumably, we are trying to ensure that for bodies providing higher education of the type specified earlier in the Bill—it is extensively discussed later on—which are doing it either for profit or not for profit, to a sufficiently high standard and in a way that meets the criteria of the regulator, which we will establish later, it is sufficient that the question of whether these have to be for profit or not for profit is left open. Therefore, if you follow that logic, it is important to have definitions for both. I will pause at that point, because that is as far as my thinking has got. However, we should address this issue and bottom it out, because it will be important later on in the Bill.
I will make three other points. In proposed subsection (4) of the new clause, private universities are specified, but it also includes, importantly,
“colleges of further education and other higher education providers”,
which I have specified should be established by Act of Parliament. However, I also have a greenish edge about that proposal, because it may be cumbersome and practically not possible to require Parliament itself to review the body that sponsors the institution that we will allow to become degree-awarding and autonomous. But if we are not to require Privy Council or royal charter issuing to take place, which is what is in the Bill, we need some other mechanism, which needs to be robust and at an arm’s length from Ministers. Whether it is through secondary legislation or primary legislation, there has to be a check on Ministers’ ability, not just to create universities but to close them down, because these will be important decisions.
The second point in the list—we will go on to discuss it later but it is raised here because it is important—is that there has to be a provision relating to the length of time that challenger institutions need to exist before they are given the responsibilities of a university. At the moment, the Bill provides for that to happen immediately on a provisional basis, but this amendment and others in the group would hold that back, requiring four years to have elapsed.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, what meaning is intended by,
“primarily located in the United Kingdom”.
There is a large number of examples across the globe of franchised campuses, sometimes franchised by extremely reputable universities in this country and in the United States but operating in other countries. Is it a matter of where the majority of their students are in the world, where the governing body is or where the financial control is? I feel that some clarification may be needed.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may put three questions to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about this proposed new clause. First, there is a classic model of a university—a kind of trusteeship model—in which the university has no interest in profit, it is located in a particular place, and its academic staff and the people running it at any one time wish to enhance it and pass it on to the next generation in roughly the same form. That is a completely noble and understandable model of a university and it is what most British universities are like. However, it is not the only form of universities. There are enterprise universities, global chains of universities and for-profit chains of universities.
Personally, I rather regret the fact that there is not a single British-based global chain of universities, as that is probably the only way in which we will meet the surge in demand for higher education around the world. Organisations such as Amity and Laureate meet this demand but no British organisation does so. Pearson College perhaps comes closest to the model but it is not the same. The amendment seems to propose a kind of anti-globalisation measure. If MIT or an American chain wanted to set up a university in Britain, we would not allow that. If an organisation is not located primarily in the United Kingdom, it does not count.
My second point concerns the not-for-profit stipulation in the proposed new clause. It is very important that a higher education institution and a university have very high academic principles. Personally, I do not think that we should require that they should not be for-profit organisations, given that we know that if you really want to provide higher education on a large scale and grow rapidly, some combination of commercial management and access to commercial capital markets is probably the way to do it. Again, the amendment takes a view about what a university is and eliminates a model. It is a model that barely exists in the UK, although we now have some examples of it, and it is a pity that the amendment tries to stop the process of creating enterprising universities alongside trusteeship universities.
My third point concerns the assertion:
“UK universities are public bodies”.
There is a very attractive rhetoric about the public value of universities, and they do indeed contribute to society in the way that is described here. If, through legislation, we define them as public bodies, we are no longer simply making an attractive rhetorical point about their public purpose; I presume that we are saying something real about their status. We went through this very issue only in the past few years with FE colleges, which were defined as part of the public sector. When people realised what that meant—the colleges being subject to public expenditure controls and borrowing counting as part of the PSBR—even some of the people who rather liked the idea that these were public bodies ran away from the implications. Are we really saying that we think that universities are part of the public sector and subject to the rules and constraints of being in the public sector? You could argue that one reason why our universities have done rather well is that they are not part of the public sector. If this is to be anything other than rhetoric, I assume it means that we think that in future universities should be part of the public sector. Therefore, we are invited to consider a future where universities are not part of global chains and not allowed to make a profit, and, instead, we are going to define them as part of the public sector. Sadly, I do not think that that is the future of higher education in this country.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
Perhaps I may add to my earlier remarks. This proposed new clause is absolute anathema to those of us who are chancellors of substantial private universities set up under the 2004 legislation and regulated to the hilt. My organisation, BPP, has 20,000 students, we have 5,000 to 6,000 undergraduates and we make a profit. We charge £5,000 a year, which is very much less than £9,000 a year, for a three-year degree, and £6,000 a year for a two-year degree. We have part-time degrees all over the place and we offer degree-awarding apprenticeships. We are fairly specialised. We stick within the general field of law and business, although we have just branched out into nursing and medicine—so tomorrow the world.
However, none of that is envisaged in the clause produced by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. I cannot believe that this House intends to outlaw this kind of university. Indeed, you can hardly do so because BPP was granted university status in 2013 after four heavy-duty years of regulation—and we are still heavily regulated, which we do not mind at all.
We would all be perfectly happy with the autonomy clause. For BPP, autonomy is guaranteed by a very tough academic council. You try telling the academic council what to do. That is just impossible—and occasionally it frustrates things that the management would like to do.
Therefore, we really do have to rethink this and, as my noble friend said, bottom out what we mean by “for-profit universities”. I cannot believe that BPP is the only organisation that would be affected by this proposal, yet it is the only one of any size that I can describe. Further on in the debate I will want to emphasise that we went through four years of heavy-duty regulation to get there. To be honest, that is about what it took to convert us from a first-class, long-established training establishment to something that had proper academic qualifications and worked as a university. Therefore, I suggest that we look very carefully at probationary degree-awarding powers. I feel equally strongly about the idea of outlawing private sector universities. There would be one set of things called UK universities, which would be the gold standard, and then there would be the rest of us. What would that say about the 2004 legislation—or indeed about the future of universities in this country? We will have to think about this rather carefully.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment on the basis that it seemed to contain some things that were very worthy of discussion. As we have heard, this is obviously a rather controversial area, but it gives us another chance to look closely at what we understand by universities and at what characteristics in them we value.
There is much to support the ongoing role of the Privy Council in the establishment of universities, providing as it does impartiality, expertise and universal standing in the awarding of royal charters. This clause would also allow for Acts of Parliament—but, again, it is open to debate as to whether there should be other sources of authority. There is a general anxiety that there should be authoritative powers to set up new universities because there is a concern that the Bill as it stands seems to give a fairly free hand for new universities to be set up without necessarily the standards that we have all grown accustomed to.
The other amendments in this group to which I have added my name are all to do with autonomy, which we discussed at great length in the debate on Amendment 1. The success of universities depends on their ability to take their own decisions, so that they can be flexible and responsible to the environment in which they are working and decide for themselves on courses, staffing and admissions. The Bill as drafted includes a number of areas where a future regime could seek to intervene in matters that are for individual institutions. Autonomy has been recognised as providing a key competitive advantage and, indeed, has been identified as a critical factor in making the UK the top performer in the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending in tertiary education. These amendments would enshrine university autonomy in the Bill.
We welcome the Government’s amendment that states:
“Guidance framed by reference to a particular course of study must not guide the OfS to perform a function in a way which prohibits or requires the provision of a particular course of study”.
This addresses concerns about the Government directing individual institutions on which courses they can open or close. However, autonomy is such a fundamental principle of the UK higher education system that we would want the Bill to go further. The amendments in this group enshrine that.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 65 and give my general support to the other amendments in the group. I first declare my interest as chair of Sheffield Hallam University’s board of governors.
Free institutions are a fundamental part of a truly democratic society. We sadly know that simply having the power to vote is not in itself a guarantee of a democratic and free society—you need only to look at Russia to see an example of that. For me, the issue of free institutions is not simply about the benefit to the institution itself but is fundamental to an open society. That is true of a free press but, in my view, it is equally true of free universities. This has been a fundamental tenet of thinking for a long time. Indeed, there is unanimous agreement across all parties about the issue of institutional autonomy.
The question therefore is: why does the issue arise now? I am afraid that it arises precisely because of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, put it well when he said that the Bill itself has raised concerns and questions about institutional autonomy. Yet we would all sign up to the freedom of universities to decide which courses they run, which staff they employ and which students they choose to admit or not admit.
The very particular concern goes to the powers given to the Secretary of State and to the new Office for Students. Others have spoken on this at length and I will not repeat that. However, I will cite three examples that concern me. First, the threshold for the OfS to undertake action against a university is if it appears to the OfS—I emphasise “appears”—that it has breached the conditions of its registration. Surely that is too broad a basis on which to intervene. Secondly, the Bill gives the OfS the power to search and enter the premises of an HE provider registered with it, subject to a court order. Surely that should be limited to situations where there is a concern about fraud or severe financial mismanagement. It is too open at the moment.
Thirdly, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to frame the guidance given to the OfS by reference to particular courses. As this House will know, that contrasts sharply with the current legislation—the 1992 Act—in which the Secretary of State is specifically forbidden from setting guidance to HEFCE in this way. Those are three very specific examples of why this Bill causes concern.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kerslake. The most relevant interest I have to declare is that I was the first Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. I dealt with student complaints, which gave me a great deal of insight into what was going on.
Twenty-nine years have passed since the late Lord Jenkins—Roy Jenkins, the chancellors’ chancellor—secured an amendment to the Education Reform Act 1988. That Act ended the tenure that had been enjoyed by British academics. His amendment protected in law the freedom of academics to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institution. That is repeated in the second half of the amendment being moved this evening, which is directed towards the OfS and the Secretary of State.
Why is it necessary to draw attention to that principle again and to re-enact it? The answer lies in the width of the risk presented in the Bill to the independence of UK higher education and in the amount of power granted to the Secretary of State and the OfS—so much more extensive than in the 1988 Act. Staff have to be free to criticise without fear the opinions of their colleagues and government policy and to publish without fear of reprisal through the closing of departments at the behest of the OfS. In later amendments to be debated in a few days’ time, we will return to the freedom of speech that universities should be securing. However, this amendment is directed, in an overarching way, to the structure that will govern our universities in future.
The Bill would allow untrammelled direction from the Secretary of State for research themes and the appointment of individual council chairs. That could, for short-term gains, limit the scope of the UK’s research functions and its innovation. When my husband was a young scientist in the 1960s, he worked for years on a strange, new and apparently useless but fascinating invention: the laser. We know now how that turned out and how it might have been nipped in the bud had there been in place an OfS regime at the time. The proposed UKRI—the new all in one—will reduce funding routes and may impact on the variety of research that is funded. If plurality of funding is diminished, the risk of taking the wrong decision is magnified, the decision process will be narrower and the diversity of perspective reduced.
We have proof of how things can go wrong: the binary line between universities under the UGC and polytechnics under local authority control and the placing of them in one funding pot; the introduction of central regulation and the auditing of teaching and research; the subordination of academic planning to deep financial controls and the increases in staff workloads despite what has been said earlier this evening—because one hour of teaching may well represent days of research, days of marking, days of seeing students, and days of working in the library and on committees. Indeed, the pressure to research that has been dominant up to now and that was brought in by the Government is responsible for the fact that people now think that teaching is not getting all the attention that it should. What the Bill is trying to do—but should not do in too rigid a way—is swing that pendulum back towards good teaching for the students.
Now we have a sad situation. In the guise of efficiency gains, so much has been lost and cut—and now the miserable replacement of grants with loans to cover living costs will knock all hopes of social mobility on the head. The amendment does no more than keep UK university regulation in line with domestic and international human rights law. The amendment is embedding freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, expression, association and assembly—familiar terms from our European and national human rights legislation. Academic freedom requires freedom from discrimination and harassment and prejudice. It is inextricably bound up with freedom of speech. It also means proper whistleblowing procedures and collegial decision-making, with academic excellence at its heart.
It also involves adherence to the principle of the universality of science—the freedom to share and carry out research without illegitimate hindrance based on irrelevant discrimination. No group of people should be excluded from scientific enterprise under this principle for reasons extraneous to the science itself—so the European Union would be in breach of that principle of the universality of science were it to place barriers in the way of contributions of UK scientists to global research, and vice versa. Of course, no university should discriminate against or boycott the scientists of any one nation. There is everything to be gained from this amendment and nothing to lose. I urge the Government to accept it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I just add a few brief words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. I declare an interest as a former chancellor of the University of Strathclyde, although I do not think that his amendment would extend to Scotland for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, mentioned. In that connection, I should point out that since Clause 117 makes it clear that the Bill extends to Wales as well as England, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, should extend his amendment to cover Wales as well, because I am not sure that there is any difference between Welsh institutions and English institutions for this purpose.
That aside, I commend the way in which the amendment is crafted, particularly the first paragraph because, as it was pointed out, it is directed to the duties to be performed by the Secretary of State. One of the problems revealed by the earlier debate is that of universities being required to do certain things that might attract all sorts of extremely unwelcome litigation. However, this amendment is directed where it should be directed and for that reason, as well as all the other points made by the noble Lord and by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I hope the Minister will take it very seriously.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am wedged between two lawyers. I absolutely support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. One thing concerns me and it may concern the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well. The rise of racist, anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish behaviour in universities in recent years causes us great concern. I wonder whether the phrase,
“the freedom of academic staff within the law”,
will be adequate to control some of these outbursts, which are not necessarily exactly illegal but are certainly very discreditable and dangerous for universities. Would the noble Lord like to address that?
Baroness Deech
I take it upon myself to answer the noble Lord. Amendment 469, when we get to it, deals with precisely that point.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, in his Amendment 65. There should be such a duty on the Secretary of State, although it makes me think about the duty on the Lord Chancellor to protect the independence of the judiciary. We do not see that being lived up to in the way that we would like, so just placing duties on Secretaries of State does not always deliver the outcomes that we want. But I certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake.
I want to give some comfort to my noble friend Lord Stevenson because I share many of the concerns expressed in his amendment. I am not in favour of for-profit universities: I should make that very clear. The ideal of the university is so precious and important to our nation. We should ask ourselves this question: where is a world-class university that is for-profit? The answer is that there is not one—not Harvard, Yale, Oxford or Cambridge.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
MIT has some provisions in its statutes that ensure that the money is fed back into MIT for research at the highest level. If that were part of the standards that we expect of the new private universities, one might feel rather differently. But my concern is that, if you speak to Americans in the field of education and higher education in particular, they look with envious eyes. Yes, they have grand universities, wonderful new liberal arts colleges and some great state universities, but they feel that in Britain we have, across the board, a much higher standard of university than can be seen in parts of the United States.
One thing that concerns them is that they went down this road themselves some 10 years ago. They let the business world bring all its entrepreneurship into the university world and by God, they are regretting it now. They have started having scandals. It has even reached our ears about Trump University, but only because Mr Trump’s name has of course become rather more familiar for other reasons. He was sued by students on the basis that the university set itself up claiming that it would deliver education in the world of business, but in fact the students were absolutely short-changed and exploited. Many of them were ordinary working folk who had thought that it would advance their careers, and in fact they were taken to the cleaners.
A pay-off is now taking place, but there are other cases in the pipeline. We should be very wary about where this will take us. There is the idea that universities could set up without any probationary period to show that they are acting in a proper way. My noble friend Lord Stevenson suggests in Amendment 2 that there should be a period of four years. I certainly agree that there should be a serious period of time to see whether these new institutions will be up to the standard we want this country to be recognised for.
I rather like the idea that “UK universities” will become the kitemark for institutions that follow the traditional pattern, but I am afraid that I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that the pursuit of modernity has to be approached with some caution. I say this particularly when remembering so well the New Labour years. I regret the mistake made by New Labour in its enthusiasm for markets. I have great enthusiasm for markets and I like all aspects of them in their right place, but I do not like their consolidating interests such as the utilities. I do not like markets where you do not get real competition, and I certainly do not like their entering areas of our public life like education and health, where the result is in fact a diminution of investment. So I am very concerned about what the Bill means.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said earlier about his children and their friends going to universities where they felt rather short-changed because they did not get the teaching they expected. I am happy that the Government are seeking to pursue good teaching by creating the right kind of framework, and I have no objection to some of the things proposed in the Bill. However, I am concerned about autonomy and the potential for interference by Government and bodies that are basically a part of Government. I am also really concerned about this business of introducing into the sector profit-making universities which basically will be a milch cow for hedge funders and the like. I have no hesitation in saying that I am concerned about us going down this road, and I support the attempt by my noble friend Lord Stevenson to find a way through that will reconcile the mistake that Labour made when it said that profit-making universities could be brought into the system. I do not think we will relish that in the years to come.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kerslake. The noble Baroness is right to say that placing a duty on Secretaries of State does not necessarily mean that you get the right outcome, but it helps, and this amendment would certainly help. It also sits rather well alongside the new clause we passed earlier today. That was a declaratory provision which affects the title of “university”, and if anything it places a duty on universities. However, this amendment elegantly places a duty on the Secretary of State and on the OfS in exercising the very considerable powers the Bill is likely to give them. It would be sensible to accept it because the autonomy of higher education institutions is so massively important that the more belts and braces we have in the Bill to ensure that that autonomy is safeguarded, the better.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kerslake on institutional autonomy. In passing the new clause earlier today, we have reflected at the beginning of the Bill the spirit of what a university is all about. Although many of us might disagree with the wording of the new clause, its spirit and essence are in place and at its crux is the autonomy of universities. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, before Second Reading I consulted our vice-chancellor, Sir David Eastwood, who is one of the most respected figures in higher education in this country and probably in the world, frankly. He is also a former head of HEFCE. When I asked him about the Bill, he said, “The UK has a co-regulatory approach that has maintained the autonomy of universities and relies on their own governance arrangements where appropriate, allowing universities such as Birmingham to be flexible and responsive to the needs of their students and employers, including shaping the curriculum in the light of the latest research findings, to think long term about global challenges and remain free from direct political interference. It is vital that that cornerstone of UK higher education is preserved throughout the Bill”. That is absolutely crucial to the whole Bill, and this amendment puts autonomy at the heart of everything.
When Universities UK was consulted about this, it said that in order to be successful, universities need to take their own decisions and indeed it used David Eastwood’s words: “flexible”, “responsive” and “autonomy”. They provide the key competitive advantage of our universities. Who is the number one competitor in the world when it comes to universities? We have the top two institutions, along with the United States of America. Later this week I will be at Harvard Business School, which I have been attending for 15 years because I am an alumnus. Harvard is the wealthiest university in the world by miles. On Saturday I will see new facilities that did not exist a year ago which are the result of $1 billion of investment. The university is very wealthy and privately funded, but there is a huge distinction between state universities in the United States and institutions like Harvard. We have a wonderful mix that gives us the best of both worlds. We have universities that receive state funding but yet have always been autonomous and can do their own thing in their best interests. We must not jeopardise that, so we should support this amendment.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my own Amendment, Amendment 66, and in doing so I declare my interests as I did at Second Reading. In common with many commentators, I fear that the Bill gives unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to interfere directly in the academic business of universities and providers of higher education. As it stands, the Bill will allow the Minister to give direct instructions to the Office for Students and it will allow that office in turn to convey specific instructions to universities and other providers. A separation of powers is required to prevent any agency acting in a manner that exceeds its competence or expertise and infringes on other domains for which independence should be guaranteed.
The Office for Students should be an executive body and not be allowed in its own right to pass judgment on academic standards. An independent body of experts should be relied on to assess the quality of the provision of higher education and to judge the standards of accreditation. My proposed amendment would clearly limit the power of the Secretary of State to give specific instructions to universities. The Bill already proposes that any guidance given by the Minister must apply to the providers of higher education in general, but it would also allow the Minister to declare, for example, that, “the course in epidemiology at the University of Middleshire does not conform to the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State under Section 3 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017”. In other words, the Minister could refer to a specific university relative to the general guidelines that have been enunciated. My amendment would preclude the Minister from making such statements in respect of a specific institution. It should be for the Office for Students to make observations about the conformity of courses with guidelines and standards, and it should be allowed to do so only on the advice of a designated body of experts. This point will be reinforced in later amendments that I intend to bring forward.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 55, 62, 72, 426 and 432, tabled in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden of Frognal and Lady Brown of Cambridge, and I will be very brief. I want to say how excellent is the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kerslake because it encapsulates all our concerns about autonomy. I also agree with the eloquent speeches made by my noble friends Lord Kerslake and Lady Deech.
Importantly, these amendments deal with the whole of higher education, not just with universities. We will probably say this on a number of occasions in the weeks ahead, but we are in a new world in which higher and tertiary education is involving more and more of our citizens. Allowing institutions to decide which courses they teach and to be in control of how they deal with their academic staff and their students is absolutely critical to their ability to maintain standards and retain the autonomy that has served us very well.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, which is extremely well worded and very appropriate for the legislation in front of us. I am absolutely convinced that the current Minister responsible for higher education will respect the institutional autonomy of universities, but some future Minister may not. As a former Minister responsible for higher and further education, I was rightly constrained by the 1988 Act and what Lord Jenkins managed to do with his amendment. There were sometimes times when I did not agree with what was happening, but I was unable to interfere, which would have been wholly inappropriate. That is an extremely good thing.
There is a second reason why I support the noble Lord’s amendment. I, along with Jo Ritzen, a very distinguished former Dutch Minister of Higher Education, and two other former European Education Ministers—Eduardo Grilo from Portugal and the former Hungarian Education Minister—embarked on a project led by Jo Ritzen entitled Empower European Universities. It looked at the position of universities across Europe—north, south, east and west—in particular at some of the problems some universities in eastern Europe experience, as in southern Europe. There was an incredible amount of state control over what these institutions could do. One of the outcomes of that is you get no innovation. Therefore, one of the reasons why we should promote autonomy in our higher education institutions is that we should be concerned to make sure universities do not stand still, that they take into account a changed environment and that they are innovative. By being autonomous they are far more likely to be innovative than if they are controlled by Governments, as we saw from the project we did across Europe.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I join those who like Amendment 65, as my noble friend Lord Willetts predicted I would. I join him in saying that I do not share the fears expressed in Amendment 2. To take the example of BPP, which is the company that trained me as an accountant, it has been going a long time. It is the first among equals of a group of companies that have grown up providing professional training services to some very demanding customers. It has therefore developed an ethos of providing very good courses. It also sponsors women’s football, which I am grateful for. It has a broad and very encouraging ethos, which thoroughly justifies its status.
We have to be very careful about the quality of what is provided to students. Noble Lords will no doubt remember Ian Livingstone’s Next Gen report on training for the computer games industry. It found that 85% of courses provided by British universities were not up to scratch. We need to do a lot in the Bill and otherwise to provide students with better information about the quality of their courses, but the people who can demonstrate the best track record in this, who have the best sets of information and who have the most demanding customers are these commercial training companies and those who have come up by that route. We should not be frightened in any way by the fact that they are for profit. Despite that, they have proved that they can provide excellent education.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it seems absolutely logical that if we believe that the considerations in the amendments before us are vital to the carat gold, the quality and the value of our higher education system, let alone its international standing and reputation, someone somewhere has to have specific responsibility for ensuring that everything done is to protect that role. We have seen in recent weeks a very interesting comparison. Our system of judges came under disgraceful and unprecedented attack in the media. Largely everybody in this House felt that it is a duty of Ministers to protect that system to the hilt. It is therefore absolutely self-evident that, to guarantee that what we want to happen will be protected, the responsibility of the Minister must be spelled out in the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, when the noble Viscount winds up will he address a question I will put to him in supporting my noble friend Lord Kerslake’s Amendment 65 and Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, which are about autonomy? The Government say very firmly, which I do not dispute, that they support the idea of institutional autonomy, but will the noble Viscount address how that squares with the consultation the Home Secretary is currently undertaking, which seems to me, on the face of it, to be designed possibly to interfere with the right of universities to decide what courses they will offer and what subjects they will teach? It would be a very serious intervention if the Government were, in granting visas to overseas students, to take account of restrictive views of their own about which courses universities ought to be teaching. Will he address that? It is germane to Amendments 65 and 71.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, so far as the concepts which are in issue in these amendments are concerned, I am entirely in favour of the autonomy of our higher education institutions, but autonomy does not mean they can do what they like. There is a severe restriction on that autonomy in the provisions for academic freedom, because they prevent universities trenching on the freedom of their academic staff in the way described.
This question of academic freedom is grounded on my heart. As a new Lord Chancellor I had been given the rather unpleasant responsibility of taking the universities section of the 1988 Bill through this House. There were about as many chancellors of universities then in the House as there are now. It was rather a difficult task. One of the things I was determined to have was protection for academic freedom in view of the provisions relating to university tenure. I therefore promoted in government an amendment to deal with academic freedom. When the Bill came to Committee, at a very early stage Lord Jenkins decided he had a good definition of academic freedom, which he put to the vote. From my point of view, it had the great effect of not requiring further consultation in the Government.
Academic freedom became a statutory provision then and remains, but it is an innovation on the complete idea of autonomy. One of the other things we have to remember relating to autonomy is a matter raised in the debate this afternoon on the governance of universities and higher education establishments. The form of the governance can be extremely important.
I was involved long ago in litigation about the governance of Scottish universities where they have a rector. For the first time in the history of Scottish universities, a certain student was nominated to be a rector of Edinburgh University—it does not take a lot of guessing to know who that was. He graduated to be the rector of Edinburgh University notwithstanding the judicial proceedings and later became the Prime Minister, so he had excellent preparation for that office. It has therefore to be borne in mind that autonomy does not necessarily mean that you can do exactly what you like, but it means that there is considerable freedom in how you do what you are there to do.
One issue raised by the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was that of profit. As he said, every institution that wants to be ongoing has to ensure that its income is at least somewhat greater than its expenditure—as Mr Micawber pointed out to us long ago. Every institution that is a university or a higher education establishment has to have that. Why should it make all the difference that the people who set that establishment up want a return on the capital that they put into it? I agree with the noble Baroness who said that exploitation is quite wrong—nobody, I think, could dispute that—but it does not necessarily follow that because you run an establishment for profit you will exploit those who come to it. In a free-market situation, which is what we had until fees were controlled by the Government, universities were free to charge what they thought appropriate. I imagine that if a university is fee-paying, as is one of the institutions of which the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, is chancellor, it must have some effect on the fees that are charged to the students.
I think that the law is that the purpose of education is a charitable one, but it does not follow that every institution set up as educational is itself a charity, because to be a charity you have to be established for charitable purposes only. One purpose that is not charitable is distributing profits to those who set the establishment up, so that university and any others that might follow in the same pattern would not be charities. I do not think that that matters too much; what matters is whether you can guarantee the quality of the teaching and research—if it does research—that such an establishment can bring forward. I do not feel that the provision that was made by a previous Government is necessarily incorrect. We have had a good example of what such an establishment can achieve. I think I am right in saying—I am depending very much on my recollection—that at least some of the examining boards are now set up by organisations that are for profit.
Protection from government of the autonomy of an institution strikes me as fundamental. I do not think that the Bill infringes on that directly, but I can see the advantage of making sure by way of negative provisions that it does not happen in the future, because we never know who may come along after the present Government. Proper protection for autonomy strikes me as highly appropriate, although there may be some dispute with my noble friend the Minister about the extent to which it is necessary. Such principles seem fundamental and I hope that they will be followed in consideration of these amendments and many later amendments.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the autonomy outlined in both this and the previous debate has been one of the guiding stars of our universities in this country for hundreds of years. The balance in their relationship with either the Government of the day or other local interests has been vital. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, spoke about profit and not-for-profit and why whether a university or institution might be a charity was irrelevant. I spent more than a decade as a Cambridge college bursar and I know many other finance directors of universities. Getting into a debate about charity and about trading arms ends up being a debate about VAT. That is not the business of this House today, but I could bore your Lordships in some detail on that. It is available to most large charities to find mechanisms that allow them to trade, but the big difference is that they then reinvest profits from any trading arm into the charity. That is why I prefer the word “surplus” to “profit”. That has been the guiding star of our university sector for some time.
I was rather taken with the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, of a probationary period. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for coming back to my own experience, but 20 years ago this year, Lucy Cavendish College achieved full college status with its own statutes—which went through the Privy Council—and part of my role in the preceding five years was to ready the college for that and to prove that the college would be here in a hundred years’ time. That included demonstrating the standards that everybody has talked about—making sure that the base finances were solid enough and that access to students and provision of courses met the demands of Cambridge University. The problem for Lucy Cavendish was that it was a 30-year probationary period, but we are talking about the University of Cambridge and perhaps time moves slightly more slowly there than for others. However, the key lesson that the college learned as we prepared for getting our own autonomy was that we had to be able to demonstrate a whole range of standards that would ensure that provision, and then we could accept the responsibilities that come with the autonomy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, outlined.
I think that the reason that this debate and the debate on the previous amendment have gone on so long is that there is a great fear that in the Bill as outlined, such autonomy is undermined. That is the debate that we need during the passage of this Bill in order to negotiate our way through difficult words such as public and private. I have a slight concern—I would never have described myself at university as being part of the public, but I accept that there was a duty towards the public. It is that language that we need to look at.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
My Lords, I would not have spoken again but for the fact that I should have known the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had been so heavily involved with Lucy Cavendish, of which I am an honorary fellow and, I hope, partly responsible for its financial stability. One thing is being missed out of this debate on autonomy—it is my fault because I have not mentioned it: we find ourselves heavily constrained by the role of the academic council. We also find the role of our owners and financiers considerably stood off by the role of the academic council. The academic council is a great defence against anybody trying to tell us to do things—not that our owners do that. It stands firm. I am sure that this must be true for other universities. It is an important part of autonomy. We do not seem to have discussed academic councils. Perhaps they will be mentioned later in the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this important group of amendments. Our universities are a key part of national life and contribute significantly to the public good and economic prosperity. I fully understand that protecting the sector’s reputation is at the heart of many of the amendments. I assure the House that the Government’s reforms are designed to ensure exactly that and that, like now, only high-quality providers will be able to enter the market, award their own degrees and obtain university title. Once again, I assure noble Lords that the Government are determined to protect institutional autonomy in the Bill every bit as much as the current legislative framework has protected it for the past quarter of a century or so, and I will say a little more about that later.
First, I will address the new clause in Amendment 2. The Government agree that our universities should be expected to have high standards and to do more than simply teach courses. They benefit the communities they are based in, and there is a strong correlation between opening universities and significantly increased economic growth. However, we believe that what matters is this contribution, not the form of the institution. Universities are private, autonomous bodies, not public bodies as such, although of course they contribute greatly to the public good. They therefore come in a variety of forms, as has been discussed, and we value this diversity immensely, as I mentioned in the first debate. We would not wish to exclude excellent institutions such as the University of Law from having full university status simply because it is for-profit. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked why profit is so vilified; he makes a fair point.
Our reforms do not seek to overhaul the current framework for obtaining degree-awarding powers or university title in any major way. Currently any provider, regardless of its corporate form or background, can obtain degree-awarding powers if it passes rigorous scrutiny. Only providers with degree-awarding powers can apply for university title. Again, they need to meet specific criteria but these are not tied to corporate form. The proposed new clause would in effect introduce a two-tier system of universities or degree-awarding providers, when what we are trying to achieve is a more level playing field. It would be a step back in time, rather than further developing a well-functioning system.
To ensure that only high-quality providers can obtain degree-awarding powers, we are planning to keep a track record requirement of three years for all those that seek full degree-awarding powers. However, in parallel, we are also planning to introduce, as has been mentioned, a new route of obtaining degree-awarding powers on a probationary basis. This would mean that high-quality providers that have the potential to achieve full degree-awarding powers can be permitted to award degrees in their own name from the start—crucially, subject to close supervision. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Cohen and Lady Brinton, mentioned, under the current regime new and innovative providers have to wait until they have developed a track record lasting several years before operating as degree-awarding bodies in their own right, no matter how good their offer is or how much academic expertise they have. This stifles innovation, and the new clause would further entrench this system of new providers usually having to rely on incumbents.
However, I assure noble Lords that quality is still paramount. As we set out in one of the published factsheets to accompany the Bill on market entry and quality assurance, in order to be able to access time-limited probationary degree-awarding powers, providers will also need to pass a new and specific test for probationary degree-awarding powers. I realise from the tone of their remarks that this may not necessarily please the noble Baronesses, Lady Cohen and Lady Brinton, but we believe that this is important as a quality check. We absolutely do not intend a complete overhaul of the system of degree-awarding powers. We fully intend that the current criteria will continue to exist in a broadly similar form.
Returning to institutional autonomy, noble Lords will know that, while this concept has been central to our higher education system for many years, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which establishes the current legislative framework, does not explicitly mention institutional autonomy. The Bill goes considerably further by placing in legislation explicit new protections for the freedom of English higher education providers. Those protections apply to all the ways in which the Secretary of State may influence the Office for Students: guidance, conditions of grant, and directions. In each case, the Bill places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to,
“have regard to the need to protect academic freedom … of English higher education providers”.
We strengthened this further on Report in the other place.
I assure noble Lords that there is no disagreement, as I see it, over the importance that we place on institutional autonomy and academic freedom. We have sought to protect these fundamental principles in the Bill. I agree that they are the cornerstone, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, of our higher education system’s success. We have heard considered and well-informed debate—more so on this group of amendments—and I am grateful for the views that have been put forward, but we believe that the Bill enshrines and protects academic freedom. Having said that, I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed about institutional autonomy. I continue to listen and reflect on views from noble Lords and will reflect further on this issue. I hope that gives some reassurance regarding the concerns raised on this issue. These provisions represent the most comprehensive suite of explicit statutory protections for institutional autonomy ever contained in a single Bill.
Amendment 55, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, places a duty on the OfS to have regard to,
“the need to act in a manner compatible with the principle of institutional autonomy”,
when it discharges its statutory functions. I understand and sympathise with the motivation of the amendment, but in the light of the new and additional protections I have just described, the Government do not feel that a statutory duty on the OfS is appropriate. I reassure noble Lords that the existing provisions in the Bill already require that academic freedom and institutional autonomy be taken into account by both the OfS and the Secretary of State. As such, the amendments are unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, asked whether it is right that the Office for Students can intervene “if it appears” that registration conditions have been breached. Intervention based on “if it appears” is standard legislative drafting and is underpinned by the usual public law considerations so that the OfS cannot act irrationally. As a public body, the OfS must at all times act reasonably and proportionately in accordance with public law when exercising its powers.
Similarly, I find myself in agreement with the main intention of the amendments relating to the Secretary of State’s powers to set conditions of grant and give directions to the OfS. But I assure noble Lords that the Bill as drafted does not leave any room for a future Secretary of State to be lackadaisical about this duty. The amendments, while well intentioned, do not add much by way of strength to the duty as it stands. As I have outlined, the Bill includes new and additional protections for institutional autonomy. I sympathise with the motivation for these amendments but I am not sure that adding a duty to have regard to institutional autonomy adds much in practice to the protections already in the Bill. I fear that the amendments may require future Secretaries of State to become rather more interventionist than they are now, guiding or directing the OfS to act in particular ways in particular cases to protect institutional autonomy.
Amendments 425 and 431 relate to the Secretary of State’s powers to set conditions of grant and give directions to the OfS. These amendments, while well intentioned, do not add much by way of strength to the duty as it stands and may risk inadvertently weakening other duties of the Secretary of State in the Bill which do not have this amended formulation.
I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind Amendment 66, which seeks to build on existing protections within the Bill to ensure that when the Secretary of State gives guidance to the OfS, it is prevented from naming individual higher education providers. However, the restrictions on the Secretary of State already in the Bill will have the effect of preventing individual institutions being named in the Secretary of State’s guidance to OfS. Clause 2(6) requires that guidance,
“which relates to English higher education providers must apply to such providers generally or to a description of such providers”.
It is hard to conceive of a scenario where the Secretary of State could comply with these restrictions and yet name individual institutions. On that basis, I assure noble Lords that this amendment is not necessary to ensure the protections it seeks, and that we may rely on these being implicit in current drafting.
I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful nature of Amendments 65, 71 and 165. The desire and determination of noble Lords to ensure that the Bill protects institutional autonomy is both evident and impressive—again, as we have discussed extensively today. However, I do not believe that these definitions of institutional autonomy and academic freedoms add anything substantive to the protections already enshrined within the Bill. Furthermore, as detailed in my letter to noble Lords following Second Reading, the Bill holds the Haldane principle at its core. The Government are fully committed to the fundamental tenet that funding decisions should be taken by experts in their relevant areas. The amendment risks compelling the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the OfS on issues beyond its remit, which I believe is unintended.
Amendment 165, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seeks to include in the definition of institutional autonomy the right of providers,
“to constitute and govern themselves”,
as they consider appropriate. It is of course quite correct that providers have this right. However the powers of the OfS, or indeed any other body empowered by the Bill, to influence how providers constitute and govern themselves are already very limited. The public interest governance condition in Clause 14, for example, merely seeks to ensure that the governing documents of providers subject to this condition have best governance practice embedded within them. As now, the public interest principles are not intended to prescribe in any detail how providers are to be governed. We expect that they will continue to operate in tandem with sector-owned codes, such as that of the Committee of University Chairs.
Finally, Amendment 65, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, would add specific protection for academic staff to speak and challenge freely. Again, there is no disagreement from the Government about the importance of this protection. However, institutions are autonomous and the Government cannot interfere in any decisions regarding academic staff, therefore only the institution itself can protect the freedom of its academics. The Bill already takes steps to ensure that this will continue to be the case by allowing the OfS to place a public interest governance condition on all registered providers, which will ensure that their internal governance must include the principle of freedom for academic staff. We therefore believe that the amendment is not needed.
The amendments that I have just spoken about—and there are quite a few—have understandable and laudable motivations, which the Government share. But on the whole they do not substantively add to the protections for institutional autonomy already contained in the Bill. In some cases, they may interfere with the OfS and UKRI’s distinct areas of responsibility, or create a risk of requiring more intervention from the Secretary of State rather than less. None the less, I will consider carefully the points that have been raised, as the Government agree that it is fundamentally important to ensure that the Bill protects institutional autonomy. The suggestions from noble Lords have been very helpful in understanding some of the concerns about this aspect of the Bill.
Amendment 73 would require providers to operate—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I think that the Minister is drawing to a close. He has not yet addressed the question I put to him about the compatibility with institutional autonomy of the consultation that is taking place about student visas for certain subjects. Will he please address that matter, because there is a genuine potential contradiction here? I am not suggesting a contradiction in his intention but it does not look to me as if the findings of that consultation, if they were turned into an attempt by the Government to tell universities which courses they could offer to overseas students, would be compatible with institutional autonomy. Can he please now respond to that?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, of course. I doubt that I will be able to give a response such that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will nod and agree that it is a full response. I will endeavour to write to him with a fuller response but the situation at the moment is that we have no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students based on its TEF rating or any other basis. I know that the noble Lord’s question was much more detailed than that. The best thing I can do is to meet him offline and/or write a letter giving him a full answer. I am well aware that he is very exercised about this issue, as are a number of other noble Lords in this Chamber.
Baroness Deech
Before the Minister sits down, may I take him back to his statement that there cannot be any interference by the OfS and the Government in the governance of universities because they are autonomous? However, as has often been mentioned this evening, under the 1988 Act university commissioners were sent to rip up the charters of Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and perhaps of other universities too, in the interests of ending academic tenure. Despite protests, they were rewritten. It was the Government’s will, and no amount of protestations at the time about academic freedom made any difference.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Let me give what I hope will be further reassurance that when the Office for Students is set up, as set out in the Bill in different clauses, academic autonomy will be exceptionally important. However, if there is a failing institution, the OfS will have the right to step in, but the steps it must take are long and quite onerous. I reassure the House that many steps have to be gone through before it goes down that route. I am sure we will have more debate about that.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I express my thanks for the support that I received from all parts of the House for Amendment 65. I am very aware of the hour and will not rehearse every argument made, but I will pick up on one point, which is that this amendment is not in itself a guarantee that Ministers or the Office for Students would act properly, but it would help. This is the crucial point for me. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I see this as a practical, simple and necessary amendment to secure institutional autonomy. Just to be clear, the amendment states:
“The Secretary of State, in issuing guidance and directions, and the OfS, in performing its functions, have a duty to uphold the principle of institutional autonomy”.
It is hard to see any situation in which that would lead to greater intervention rather than less. In the circumstances we are in, I shall not press the amendment. I hope there will be an opportunity for further conversation, and I give notice that I will return to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this rather extended debate. I prefaced my opening remarks by saying that this is a complicated group, and it certainly proved to be so. We have got there, but by a rather circuitous route, and I am a bit confused about some of the things that the Minister said when responding. I am sure a lot of us will want to read Hansard very carefully.
It is clear that the position that we are moving towards—it is clear to me and I am going to advance this as a thesis as I withdraw my amendment—is that we want a healthy system of higher education provision in this country. There is no doubt or dissent about that, but it is not clear who decides which institutions that are providing higher education are going to be universities and what the criteria are. The university title follows a particular process which we have discussed and we know about, but who does it? Is it Ministers or civil servants, or is there another body yet to be set up? I would like the Minister to write to us setting out very clearly the structure he has identified today. Who maintains the register? The Minister said that it will be not a statutory register but a voluntary register. I agree that the carrots and sticks are very substantial, but it is a bit of a strange decision to have a regulator—the Office for Students—that does not have a regulatory function because it is voluntary. That needs to be unpicked.
We need to know who assesses the criteria under which higher education providers get on to the register, who assesses the threshold standards for degree provision that they are obliged to have, and who assesses the quality of the degrees they subsequently grant. There are amendments about this later on, but we must also ask who regulates the body appointed as the regulator for the system. Is there another body that we do not know about? A lot of this will be answered by transparency, and I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to us about that.
I was asked three specific questions that I am not going to be able to answer, but I will record them so noble Lords know that I have them in mind. I do not understand the issue about where an institution needs to be located, but I think it is intimately connected with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about who gets the benefit of the subsidy and the tax provisions that are available. It would be quite inappropriate for a body to be registered as a university within the United Kingdom and to receive tax benefits if it is not also providing a public benefit. It is obviously a circular argument; we are making the same point, and we need to have that bottomed out. I do not have a solution, and my amendment would not have taken us to that point. The situation needs to be looked at again.
The trustee model has served us well. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, was not knocking it and recognises its value, but he wanted there to be other bodies such as enterprise institutions. I would like to see the evidence for that. He has no responsibility in this respect, and it is about time he told us where he thinks all these brilliant institutions are. Comments were also made on this side about that issue. I am very sceptical about whether that would be worth while, but it is a fair point to question.
My noble friend Lady Cohen and others on our side need to resolve our differences about this issue. I am not against an institution making a profit, provided that the arrangements under which it is made are transparent. Transparency is the issue, and I am sure we will come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces Covenant
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the role of the Armed Forces Covenant in ensuring that those who serve or who have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, are treated with fairness and respect.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that there is an hour of debate. The right reverend Prelate has 10 minutes, my noble friend the Minister has 12 minutes and everybody else has two minutes. Once the Clock goes on to two minutes, the speaker will have had their time and should sit down and let the next speaker speak.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, it is both a privilege and a responsibility to ask this Question and open this debate on the impact of the Armed Forces covenant. It is a privilege because, despite my day job, opportunities to talk about good news do not occur as often as you might think, and a responsibility because it is clear that there is work to be done as service personnel and their families still suffer disadvantage and do not always receive the consideration that they need. I am delighted by the range of expertise and interest of those who will be contributing this evening, albeit very briefly given the substantial and encouraging interest in the debate, and by the Minister for the personal commitment he has shown to the covenant. I await the debate and his response with eagerness.
First, the good news: those on lowest incomes in the forces have seen their wages increase despite the public sector pay freeze. Many have benefited from changes in mortgage agreements and mobile phone and broadband contracts which no longer penalise them during deployments. The advances made in healthcare at Camp Bastion are now mirrored by specialist centres, particularly in Birmingham. Also, partly as a result of the excellent e-Learning for Healthcare module, there is increasing awareness in general practice of both the needs of service personnel and the special access to healthcare available to them.
Service pupil premium payments have enabled schools to fund projects which support the children of forces families. A superb example of this can be found a short distance from my own home in the diocese I serve. The Crofton Cabin was built with a £20,000 grant. It provides a space for children to Skype parents while they are overseas and specialist counselling to help with the stress of deployments. Home life has been improved for many through the £68 million spent on improving and upgrading accommodation, and 9,000 families have bought their own homes through the Help to Buy scheme. The covenant has helped to raise awareness in the business sector of the needs and opportunities presented by service personnel both as customers and as future employees.
The ripple effect of the covenant should not be underestimated. Only last month the Karimia mosque in Nottingham signed up and ushered in a wave of Muslim-owned businesses that are now contributing to supporting members of the military. By signing, that mosque is encouraging this young community to play its role in defending its country, and making clear how much it values those who serve. This appreciation is vital and much deserved, not just for work done overseas but for the invaluable assistance provided by service personnel during emergencies here—for instance, following the floods.
Where is change still needed and where should we look for further improvement? There have been undoubted improvements in surgical care and rehabilitation for physical injuries, but mental health care provision lags behind. It depends on a health service which has been underfunded in this area. Despite the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement today, mental health provision is strained at best and provision for military personnel is often less than adequate. Can the Minister give us reassurance on the way this essential provision can be better delivered? This applies with as much or greater force to reservists, who are increasingly important to the Armed Forces yet are scattered and less visible. Can the Minister reassure the House on the awareness of the Government as regards the special challenges of this remarkable group?
Mental health problems are known to put a strain on relationships, and it sadly remains the case that the divorce rate among military families is double that of the civilian world. However, it is likely that mental health is not the only reason for that, when the main reason cited by those leaving the forces is the impact of their job on family life. A crucial part of that is where you live. Jesus said:
“Foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head”.
He is therefore not my primary source of advice for what makes for good housing but, like the Armed Forces, the Church has a great deal of experience with housing its people and is aware of the impact of poor housing on morale. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place concluded that families have been let down by the inadequate performance of CarillonAmey. Accommodation remains by far the number one issue reported to the families federations, and service personnel will welcome reassurance from the Minister, if he is able to help today, about the Government’s appreciation of the concern about this and how it will be addressed.
Service personnel can also be disadvantaged when they leave. The variable interpretation of the Armed Forces community covenant scheme by local government means that ex-service personnel and their families are still sometimes faced with the hurdle of “local connection” to overcome before they are housed. There are examples of good practice but at best the situation is patchy. What encouragement can the Government and indeed the rest of us give to raise the level of local government understanding and action?
Family life is of course wider than the house you live in, and it is unfair that those seeking to adopt children, and those seeking to get their children into new schools, still face huge hurdles because of the special circumstances of service life. I hope the schools admission problem might be adequately addressed by the Children of Armed Services (Schools Admission) Bill, which is to be debated for the second time later this month in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister could indicate if the Government have sympathy and if they perhaps plan to reduce and remove these problems.
The principle of the covenant is that those who serve in the Armed Forces and their families should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. For that to be the case, there has to be a clear understanding of what is fair and achievable. Communication of these aims has been helped by an improved website, covenant champions and access to the gateway, but this is an ongoing task, not a once-only one. Both local government and business need to train new members of staff as well as reminding their existing staff about the key features of the covenant and its implications. We are talking here about a culture not of entitlement or advantage but of fairness and equity.
As I resume my place—within time—and await your Lordships’ speeches with anticipation, I remind the House that the covenant has admirably begun to redress injustice, unfairness and disadvantage. We all need to ensure that none of us fails to pay due respect to the men and women, with their families, who are prepared to lay down their lives in our protection.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the debate today and his excellent introduction. As a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I am privileged to observe the work of our outstanding Armed Forces at first hand. We have a duty of care to those who serve and give so much, and to their families, and the Armed Forces covenant is an important national contract to address that.
Time is short and there are three issues that I want to raise. First, to be effective, the covenant needs to be widely recognised and understood, yet almost half of service personnel actually know nothing about the covenant, when they should be benefiting from its impact.
Does the covenant or its delivery need amending? I have heard that there is a perception by some on the ground that the covenant is tokenistic. Although it contains noble principles, does not the lack of penalties for failing to fulfil them make it toothless? I know that there are concerns about how effectively local authorities and companies that sign up to the covenant are delivering, so I ask my noble friend whether the covenant’s effectiveness has been studied and whether there has been any audit of delivery.
Lastly, do the Government do enough for military families? It is difficult to live on one salary today, and many wives are highly trained. However, regular moves mean that it is very difficult for them to continue in employment. The moves also impact on children, who have to either change school frequently or be sent to boarding school. As we have heard, housing is an issue. Fifty-nine per cent of respondents to the 2015 AFCAS survey felt that their family life was disadvantaged through their service, and it is far the biggest factor influencing decisions to leave the forces, at a time when we need to retain the best.
To conclude, the covenant is to be welcomed, but does it have proper accountability and could it be more effective to help both our serving personnel and their families?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the military covenant embraces a principle of fair and just compensation for injury and death in service. Basic awards are currently made under the Armed Forces compensation scheme without proof of negligence on a tariff basis: the amounts awarded for a specific injury are laid down in the scheme. Claims for damages for negligence are therefore frequently brought against the MoD as an alternative. The claim, if successful, will attract general damages based on common law principles which will generally greatly exceed a tariff award, because a lifetime of losses will be considered. However, at present, the defence of combat immunity will defeat a negligence claim for injuries or death sustained in combat.
The Government announced, on 1 December last, a new policy in the spirit of the military covenant to introduce an enhanced compensation scheme which will provide the equivalent of common law damages for injury or death in the field of combat without proof of negligence. The proposals are out for consultation until 23 February. Claims where negligence has to be proved will be redundant. I very much welcome these proposals.
But what is combat? Should combat include deployments on secret missions; or peacekeeping operations, as in Bosnia; or against terrorism, as in Northern Ireland; or anywhere else where British forces are deployed against insurgents? I would argue that planning for specific military operations should stipulate a date or an event when the troops deployed should come within the scope of the new enhanced statutory compensation scheme. On that clear-cut basis, an individual serviceman and his family would have, in effect, an insurance against injury or death at the level of common law damages during the period of deployment in return for the loss of his rights to sue for negligence. Litigation would be greatly reduced.
The Minister has already agreed to participate in a seminar of the Association of Military Court Advocates, of which I am chairman, on the issues raised by the consultation, when I hope to pursue the concept. Further, having regard to experience I have had of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board when, until 1994, the equivalent of common law damages was awarded for criminal injuries, I also hope to address the problems of administering the new scheme. I look forward to a date and time when the seminar can be held within Parliament for all noble Lords to attend.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, my amendment, with government support, to the Armed Forces Bill in 2011, inserted the section in the 2006 Act which requires the annual covenant report. This section refers to removing,
“disadvantages arising for service people”,
and,
“the principle that special provision … may be justified by the effects on such people”,
of their service. The Act requires the Secretary of State to have regard to those principles.
Earlier annual covenant reports made numerous references to disadvantages, but the recent report lays stress on treating people fairly. Fairness is a subjective and immeasurable concept, which bears too little relationship to dealing with or correcting a disadvantage; a disadvantage is more measurable. Morphing from disadvantage to fairness in the work of the covenant is confusing; it is agin the statute.
COBSEO and others in the recent report questioned a proposal to remove the service and medical members from the panel of the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal. In 2008, I tabled an annulment Motion to an affirmative SI because it threatened to disband the then War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal and transfer its work to a social entitlement chamber—a totally inappropriate chamber. Before the debate on the SI, a Written Ministerial Statement said:
“The Senior President of Tribunals … requires the continued use of service members on hearing panels within the war pensions and armed forces compensation chamber and maintains their present role without diminution or alteration. … A decision made at a hearing of an appeal in this chamber will normally be dealt with by a three member panel of one judge, one service member and one medical member”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/08; col. 51WS.]
The Government changed their mind and retained a separate chamber. I moved my annulment Motion but did not divide on it.
Similar tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland remain tripartite. It would be an immeasurable disadvantage to have dissimilar tribunals to judge claims. Will the Minister assure the House that the 2008 tripartite tribunal arrangement for England and Wales is to be continued by this Government without variation or diminution?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, our country is rightly proud of and grateful to our Armed Forces, both those serving and those retired, as well as their families, and I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to the House. First, it is not enough for us just to be proud and grateful; we need to give the covenant the attention that it deserves, and we have a moral obligation, at both a national and local level, to support these men and women and their families, to ensure that they are treated fairly and are not disadvantaged from serving their country. The covenant is there to do just that, yet it must not be seen as just an event, but rather an embedded way of how we do things.
In Wiltshire, we have a large military presence. I declare my interest as leader of the local authority. By 2020, there will be 19,000 Army personnel in the county, so it is perhaps easier for Wiltshire, as opposed to some other areas, to ensure their importance in our communities. For this reason, I believe that it is vital that all our policies as a local authority take account of the particular needs of the military community. For example, there are policies on areas such as: housing allocation; school admissions; the council’s human resources policies to encourage and support reservists; targeted fostering campaigns to encourage military families to consider fostering; working with the Army and local employers to support transition into work, ensuring that service leavers are well equipped with the skills necessary for civilian life when they leave the military. However, there is much more that we can do, even in a place such as Wiltshire. Interestingly, the biggest challenge is always the continued communication to ensure that the public, private and voluntary sectors understand the needs of the military community and that the military community understands what is available to it.
My concern is that in those areas with little clear military presence, it is often more difficult to identify veterans and families so that they get the same consideration. In such circumstances, this relies on the local authority community and the Local Government Association to have a really strong role in ensuring that there is an understanding across all local authorities of their role to deliver the promises stated in the military covenant and a dissemination of good practice in local authorities.
Part of the problem is data, particularly on the veterans; those data are very difficult to collect. In Wiltshire, we understand that 12% of our population are veterans, but I think that it could be higher. What are the Government’s latest views on the Royal British Legion’s campaign, Count Them In, a campaign to ask for a question in the 2021 national census about veterans’ status? This would be of enormous help to local authorities in understanding their communities better.
The covenant is working well in many places, but we must not be complacent. This document must not just be signed; there must be a challenge to ensure it is embedded in policy at both national and local level for our service men and women.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)
My Lords, I thank most sincerely the right reverend Prelate for this evening’s debate. It is a long time since we had one on the covenant and I very much welcome it.
The covenant says:
“The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death”.
It is not a bureaucratic document; it is a compact between the Government, on behalf of the nation—supported by local authorities, a lot of agencies and, indeed, companies who sign up—and our Armed Forces personnel. A substantial number of these personnel do not even know that the covenant exists, so this evening’s debate is terribly important. We have a big defence debate on Thursday, and our Armed Forces personnel are absolutely central to our nation’s defence.
I was chairman of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body for six years and I know that when you talk to our Armed Forces personnel about the covenant a lot of them just laugh. They do not know what you are talking about or, where they do know about it, they feel it is not being met. What they want to know is how their family is being looked after back at home while they are serving in an operation. Are they getting decent housing? That is central to the covenant.
I recognise that there has been a lot of progress, but there is an awful long way to go. It might be a good idea, in considering where we are, to actually ask the serving Armed Forces personnel themselves what they think about the covenant. Is it working? Is it successful? At the same time, we could ask the veterans as well. This might be a worthwhile thing to do, perhaps asking the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body to carry it out in its annual visits.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, Northern Ireland, and as a trustee of the Somme Association. I fully concur with the view that the military covenant is a necessary and important support for serving personnel, veterans and their families. I firmly believe that we need to ensure that both the covenant and associated initiatives are effective vehicles for delivering on their important aims.
One important element of the covenant in Great Britain is the community dimension focused around local authorities, which are responsible for housing, health and education. However, there is a problem in Northern Ireland in that the local authorities do not possess any of these powers. Unfortunately, the political constraints in Northern Ireland remain an impediment for full implementation. However, it is welcome that Northern Ireland is set to secure a place on the covenant reference group and I am pleased that the work of the Veterans Support Committee in Northern Ireland is gaining traction. Its primary focus is to pragmatically deliver, in spite of the local constraints.
In conclusion, I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, the Minister could give assurance that sufficient resources will be made available so that the Northern Ireland Veterans Support Committee can continue its good work and fully realise its aspirations.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is impossible to deliver a balanced discourse on this important subject in two minutes, so let me get off my chest what I believe are some grave injustices which are making a mockery of treating our former soldiers with fairness and respect. Take the case of a former soldier who fired at an armed terrorist,
“whilst bullets rained down in all directions”.
He either fired or waited until the IRA terrorist had killed the other soldiers on guard duty. That soldier received a “certificate of appreciation” from the GOC Northern Ireland—but now he has been questioned about committing possible murder in that attack, which happened in 1972. The soldier is aged 75 and is a Chelsea Pensioner. What in the name of God has happened to decency, justice, fairness and common sense when we are interrogating Chelsea Pensioners for doing their duty to this country?
But it gets worse; two former soldiers are being prosecuted for the alleged murder of IRA killer and terrorist Joe McCann. The soldiers were investigated at the time and were rightly cleared. Will they get a fair trial? Of course not. Of the three soldiers who opened fire that day, one has since died and two RUC officers who may also have fired cannot be found. There are no forensics linking the shots to any particular soldier, so no one knows who actually fired the shots—but that does not matter to the Northern Ireland prosecution service. The Northern Ireland prosecution service is headed by Barra McGrory, the former lawyer of McGuinness and Gerry Adams. You could not make this up if you thought about it.
As the former soldier said, he feels that he is being treated like a terrorist. But of course, he is totally wrong in that regard. If he had been an IRA terrorist, he would have been granted immunity by Tony Blair in one of the grubbiest deals that has ever been done by a UK leader. No wonder that soldier says that he feels betrayed by the Government, with all IRA killers granted immunity and more than 1,000 soldiers being investigated for possible crimes against them. He says, “I’d like a Minister to stand up in Parliament and say something”. I know that my noble friend is not permitted to do that and that it is not his department’s responsibility. That is why I am making this little speech tonight. I am ashamed of what is being done to those brave men who have served us so well. The time has come to stop this betrayal of our soldiers, and to stop it now.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this important debate. The BBC may have perfected the art in a long-running television series called “Just a Minute”, in which contestants are required to speak for a minute without hesitation, repetition or deviation. They sometimes make that minute go on for a very long time indeed. On Christmas Day that series celebrated 50 years of transmission. The fact that we are constrained to two minutes is the sort of thing that causes frustration in your Lordships’ House. It is testament to the importance of this topic that so many Members wish to speak in this debate. The Minister may like to consider initiating a longer debate in government time on the 2017 report and the Armed Forces covenant. Our Armed Forces are vital to the security and safety of our country. We owe it to them to allocate sufficient time to such a debate.
We all express our gratitude to the Armed Forces. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I am a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, and so have seen the work that our Armed Forces do but also some of the stresses that membership of the Armed Forces puts on them and their families. Longer and ever more frequent deployments raise questions for families. Should service men or women come home mid-tour if they have a brief opportunity to do so, or will that unsettle the children? All sorts of things need to be thought about. Some of the challenges of being in the forces are inevitable and there is little we can do about them, but others can be dealt with. That includes accommodation in particular. The summary report suggests that the Government are looking very closely at this. CarillionAmey has not performed well. The detailed report suggests that our service men and women are still dissatisfied with maintenance. What are the Government doing to deal with this?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, not one member of the UK Armed Forces was killed in operations in 2016. It was the first time since 1968 that no one had died—although, sadly, there were deaths on exercises. The Chilcot report exposed the way in which the MoD and Ministers ignored the strict controls known as harmony guidelines on the frequency and length of operational tours of duty that are there to protect the physical and mental health of our troops. Will the Minister talk to us about these guidelines?
The Chilcot report also revealed that in 2006 the then Sir Richard Dannatt, who was then commander-in-chief of UK land command, said:
“As an army, we are running hot, and our operational deployments are well above planned levels … Quite properly, we often talk about an implied contract—the ‘military covenant’—that as an army we have with our soldiers and their families and I fear that it is somewhat out of balance”.
Policy Exchange, in its report The Fog of Law, says that,
“human rights laws mean British troops operating in the heat of battle are now being held to the same standard as police officers patrolling the streets”,
of London. Is this applying the covenant? Surely, when it comes to our troops we should be applying IHL—the Geneva conventions—with primacy over human rights laws. Does the Minister agree?
I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. Armed Forces families are living in squalor, with leaking roofs and broken toilets. The latest covenant report admits to this. A poll commissioned by SSAFA found that,
“seven out of 10 wanted to see more support given to veterans”.
It is so important that veterans are part of this.
The introduction of the Armed Forces covenant is so positive but it lacks bite. It provides excellent guidance but there is no guarantee of enforcement. Can the Minister tell us how well this is being enforced by councils around the country?
To conclude, our servicepeople are not mercenaries. They do not fight for money but to serve our country and because of appreciation. It is great that the covenant is enshrined in law, but what are the Government doing to publicise this covenant report every year? Doing so will help morale and recruitment. We can never take our services for granted. The covenant is a promise by the nation, and we must always appreciate the amazing and priceless service of our troops, and the sacrifice they make.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord for my second speech in this Chamber, as I did for my maiden speech. I hope to learn from him how to fit in so much content in such a little time.
Tonight I will focus on military spouses. They make a significant personal sacrifice to be able to effectively support their partners and families, both practically and emotionally. It is important that we publicly recognise this contribution and continue to improve the support and assistance provided through the covenant and the work of many government departments.
One area on which we can make progress is practical and effective assistance in finding employment. A recent grass-roots survey of 2,000 military spouses by Sarah Stone, herself a military spouse, shows that 84% of military spouses would like to be working, but only 58% are. Many feel penalised for being a military spouse. I quote one of the responses:
“In the first 5 years of marriage we were required to move 4 times—abroad twice. I had no chance of holding onto, never mind developing, my career. With a degree and piles of experience, I am forced to take minimum wage jobs to get by. It is soul destroying”.
We should ensure that we are doing all we can to help those who want to work—for their own sake and for the national economic picture. This is a hidden pool of talent: 70% have management experience and 35% have professional qualifications. An excellent example of real, practical help is Recruit for Spouses, an independent social enterprise started by Heledd Kendrick. Recruit for Spouses has seen many examples of spouses who have been turned down for a job because their partner is in the military, or who have lost a job because of their sudden need for flexible working when their partner has been sent away at short notice. More can be done to inform employers on the potential of employing military spouses, and to assist them in increasing flexibility.
Improving communications around the covenant is a continued challenge, acknowledged in the latest annual report. The excellent new covenant website provides a one-stop shop for information and advises on best practice, including for spousal employment, but we must ensure that this information gets to the people who need it and expand and improve this resource. I welcome the MoD’s spouse employment support trial, and I look forward to seeing its findings shape future policy. Of course, we should acknowledge the impressive work done by forces charities and families federations in supporting military families.
Military spouses face a set of unique challenges. As well as recognising the often unacknowledged contribution and sacrifice they make, we must ensure that the covenant really delivers for them, and I would welcome more focus on their particular needs in future annual reports.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland numbers over a quarter of a million people, including serving personnel, veterans and their families and people who have served from the Second World War right up to more recent conflicts in Northern Ireland and around the world. They have unique needs in terms of education, healthcare and social housing, and the Armed Forces covenant is an appropriate framework for addressing those needs. It therefore saddens me to say that Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant. While Scotland has been effective in funding bespoke services for veterans and Wales has put in place mechanisms for fast-tracked access to the NHS, no such action has been taken by the Northern Ireland Executive. In fact, because of political disagreement between the DUP and Sinn Fein/IRA, the Northern Ireland Executive are not currently represented on the covenant reference group, which means that Northern Ireland does not have oversight of, or the ability to scrutinise, how funding from the £10 million per annum covenant fund is spent.
We are the only part of the United Kingdom not represented on the reference group and have therefore waived our opportunity to influence decision-making. The consequence is that service personnel, veterans and their families in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged compared with their counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom. I find this wholly unacceptable.
Appointing a representative to the reference group would not cost the Northern Ireland Executive a penny. It would give our Armed Forces champions on local councils someone to work to, and it would provide a valuable link between Stormont and Westminster, ensuring that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of funding for those who serve or have served and their families.
I therefore use this opportunity to call upon the Northern Ireland Executive—or perhaps I should address this to the new Executive, if and when they are functioning—to nominate a representative to the covenant reference group so that we can deliver fairness for our Armed Forces community in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the privilege this evening to highlight and champion the Armed Forces covenant, and I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. I declare my interest as leader of North Lincolnshire Council, as set out in the register of interests.
This debate provides an opportunity to reflect on the good progress being made but it is also an opportunity to hear about best practice throughout the UK. As we know, the covenant is a promise by the nation to ensure that those who serve and have served, together with their families, are treated with fairness and respect. It is particularly important that they are not disadvantaged as a result of their service.
My authority is proud to have signed the covenant on 19 September 2012. Since then, it has upheld the principle of promoting the fact that it is an Armed Forces-friendly organisation. As we know, there are 15 themes within the covenant but, in the time allotted, I should like to focus on just three elements: housing, work opportunities and business support.
Everyone needs good housing and a home to call their own, so included in the aims and objectives of the Homechoice Lincs policy is a recognition of the contribution made by the Armed Forces. If members of the Armed Forces are made statutorily homeless or if they have urgent medical or welfare grounds for moving, they have top priority. Importantly, members of the Armed Forces and former service personnel are treated as having a local connection if their application is made within five years of discharge. Bereaved spouses and civil partners of members of the Armed Forces leaving service family accommodation following the death of their spouse or partner are also treated as having a connection, which is very important.
Our action station, situated near the main shopping precinct, offers support with CVs, job searches, interview skills and techniques, the use of computers and IT. Dedicated advisers can also offer more structured one-to-one plans and work with individuals to help them gain employment and work experience, as well as build confidence. The action station also offers DHP advice for those who have various financial difficulties and it works with them to help them gain financial stability.
Last November we pledged to promote the covenant to our suppliers through procurement, signposting suppliers and prospective suppliers to the covenant using digital and web media, as well as procurement resource materials. At the end of this month we will invite the council’s construction partners to sign the pledge, and a wider promotional programme will then follow. As part of the FOSO, we held a jobs fair, to which serving Armed Forces personnel and veterans were invited, and local employers were there to offer live vacancies. I think that real progress is being made in meeting the challenges brought by service life so that no member of the Armed Forces community faces disadvantage.
Finally, the essence of today’s debate is not just to note where we are now but to demonstrate how the Armed Forces covenant is a vehicle for today and tomorrow, spreading covenant delivery best practice across the UK.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I too would like to join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate for instigating this fascinating debate and for his outline of the effects and benefits of the covenant. I will speak on veterans’ health. Many men and women leave the Armed Forces and have no problems as a result of their service, and they integrate and assimilate into civilian life happily. However, others do not have that same benefit. Local authorities can be signatories to the Armed Forces covenant, but NHS bodies cannot. Veteran health is a responsibility of the NHS, not the military. Once they leave the service, veterans can drop out of the system.
When we think of veterans, it goes almost hand in hand with thinking of the Royal British Legion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, stated, it has called for two distinct changes in population data collection. First, it calls upon GPs to ask a new patient to their list whether they have served in the Armed Forces. This helps the GP to understand what issues might arise, knowing their background. Secondly, it requests that a new question is added to the census, again asking whether an individual has been a member of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. These measures make planning easier for local authorities, which have the responsibility for drawing up a joint strategic needs assessment on health, as well as their public health duties. These were granted under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Local authority public health duties include sexual health services, NHS health checks, health protection and a certain number of discretionary services. These are dependent on the local population and can include alcohol and drug abuse services, smoking cessation services, public mental health programmes and dental public health. These are areas in which we know that many veterans have a defined need but, unless the local authority knows about the population, it cannot plan.
Will the Minister give some indication of where in the corridors of Richmond House, or perhaps the Cabinet Office, the Royal British Legion request on the census and on GP registration has reached and when a decision will be made?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for securing this debate. It is fortuitous that it comes shortly after the publication of the covenant’s annual report. In its submission to that report, the Royal British Legion says:
“During this year we have encountered some confusion as a result of the Covenant rebrand and use of the term ‘treat fairly’ rather than the principles of ‘no disadvantage’ and ‘special treatment’. We would welcome both clear and regular reiteration from government of the enduring principles of the Covenant, and the prominent inclusion of the wording of the Covenant online”.
I agree with the legion. I deplore the softening of the covenant’s primary statement from “no disadvantage”, which is in part a measurable concept, to the much less precise “treat fairly”. Will the Minister accede to the legion’s proposals?
The biggest practical problem that emerges is housing. This includes for serving members and their families, for which the latest UK Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey shows a substantial decline in satisfaction, but it is also particularly important in the transition to civilian life. The Government made an important statutory intervention by introducing the Allocation of Housing (Qualification Criteria for Armed Forces Personnel) (England) Regulations 2012. The regulations specifically require of a housing authority that the “local connection” may not be applied to persons who are serving in the Regular Forces or have done so in the five years preceding their application; to members or former members of the Reserve Forces suffering from a serious injury, illness, or disability which is wholly or partly attributable to their service; or to bereaved spouses or civil partners leaving Ministry of Defence accommodation following the death of their spouse or partner where the death is wholly or partly attributable to the spouse or partner’s service.
I have looked into the housing allocation policies in my local area and found that performance varies between complete compliance in Wokingham and Bracknell, weak partial compliance in Rushmoor, formally Aldershot and Farnborough, and no mention of this regulation whatever in the policies of Windsor and Maidenhead. What action will the Government take to secure complete compliance in all English housing authorities of these important regulations, which seek to secure the covenant’s fundamental “no disadvantage” rule?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, before I respond, I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal Scott Hetherington of 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who died while on operations in Iraq on Monday 2 January 2017.
The covenant is a big subject and time is unfortunately short, but I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for securing this debate and providing us with the opportunity to examine how effectively we, as a nation, are repaying the very great debt that we owe to our brave service personnel and their families. This is a debt that we can never repay in full, but we can at least begin to honour it by ensuring that those who sacrifice so much in our defence are treated with fairness and respect.
That is exactly why the Armed Forces covenant was introduced—to set down, unequivocally and in law, the nation’s pledge that former and current members of our Armed Forces—including reservists—and their families, should suffer no disadvantage because of their service to our nation and that special provision may be appropriate for those who have given so much, such as the injured or bereaved. That is why we are working tirelessly across government to implement and improve the Armed Forces covenant, drawing together society so that we can all fulfil our moral obligation to our military family.
A seminal part of that process is, of course, the publication of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report. It is a definitive guide to the covenant that outlines its key principles and achievements, explains what actions have been undertaken over the past 12 months and sets out targets for the coming year. The fifth and most recent report was published just last month, on 15 December, and I am delighted that it demonstrated considerable progress across government in the work that we are doing to support service personnel, their families and veterans, most notably in the key areas of healthcare, education and accommodation.
For example, 2016 saw NHS England launch its veterans’ trauma network, a new system to provide an extra level of support for trauma-recovering veterans and transitioning service personnel, so that their specific and lifelong healthcare needs are met more efficiently. Meanwhile, the Department of Health has developed a new integrated personal care for veterans system to help the most seriously injured service personnel and veterans transition into civilian life. In the devolved Administrations, NHS Scotland established 19 Armed Forces champions, while the Welsh Government provided annual funding of £585,000 to Veterans NHS Wales to improve support and treatment for veterans suffering from mental health issues.
On education, the Department for Education allocated around £22 million in service pupil premium payments to support the pastoral needs of over 73,000 service pupils in state schools in England, and it changed the rules for student funding so that service personnel and their families can now access student funding for distance learning courses while posted overseas. On accommodation, the Department for Communities and Local Government extended the period within which ex-service personnel and surviving partners are given priority for government-funded shared ownership schemes from 12 to 24 months after service.
Those are only some of the cross-government achievements, but they all serve as examples of just how far we have come since the Armed Forces Act 2011 enshrined the covenant into law. The challenge now is to build on this momentum, which is why the Government are establishing a new inter-ministerial group ensuring that all government departments continue to work together to fulfil the covenant vision. But it goes without saying that the MoD’s efforts remain central to achieving all of this and my department continues to work hard to galvanise each and every one of us into action, as the House would hope and quite rightly expect.
Let me turn now to exactly what defence has been up to over the past year. Last year saw the launch of a new UK Armed Forces families strategy setting out how we intend to improve the lives of service families in the round by addressing issues including housing, employment, education, health and welfare. The strategy is underpinned by an action plan, developed alongside the single services and families federations, and a £4 million commitment over the next two years to fund projects supporting families of service personnel in times of crisis or distress.
When it comes to supporting our veterans community, I am glad to reassure my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that the MoD is working closely with the Office for National Statistics and the Chief Statistician to include a question on veterans in the national census so that there will be a fuller picture of where former service personnel are in the UK. The Armed Forces Covenant Fund has £10 million each year to support the covenant by funding projects that address specific priorities, one of those being the creation of a veterans’ gateway. The aim of the initiative is to provide a single point of contact via a fully transactional website, mobile app and telephone number which will help veterans of all ages find and access specific advice and support for a whole host of issues.
That said, I should stress that most service leavers continue to make a smooth transition to civilian life. The Career Transition Partnership provides one-to-one guidance, training and employment opportunities to about 15,000 service leavers. Its success rate is significant: 95% of those who want to find employment do so within six months of leaving the Armed Forces, which compares to a 73% employment rate in the rest of the UK population. All personnel, without exception, are eligible for this support for two years after their date of discharge.
Underpinning this work on veterans and families is a concerted drive to ensure that the letter and the spirit of the covenant are applied correctly and consistently across the UK. Our goal is that anyone from the Armed Forces family based anywhere in the UK should know what they can expect from local authorities and their partners in the local community in terms of support and services. At the same time, front-line staff in any local authority should know just what is expected of them under the covenant. This is not always the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly noted.
With this is mind, the Local Government Association, in partnership with the Forces in Mind Trust, last year commissioned a review with more than 400 representatives of local authorities to identify areas of good practice and create a covenant toolkit. This will help to raise the standard of covenant delivery across the UK. As I speak, the covenant team is developing an action plan to implement the recommendations of that review across the UK. And on the subject of consistency across the UK, to address a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Rogan, I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Executive recently reached a consensus on sending a representative to the Cabinet Office-chaired Covenant Reference Group—a body that is key to co-ordinating the efforts of all covenant stakeholders across the nation.
At a more tactical level, the MoD has been working to resolve some of the practical difficulties encountered by our service personnel in their day-to-day lives, particularly in the commercial field. For example, in a victory for common sense, 47 of the UK’s biggest banks and building societies have now signed up to an initiative that will mean that service personnel posted away from home will be able to rent out their property without having to change to a buy-to-let mortgage, saving them time and money. Meanwhile, 86% of the UK’s motor insurance industry has now committed to waive cancellation fees and preserve no-claims discounts for up to three years when personnel and their families are posted abroad. More than 1,300 businesses and organisations have now signed the Armed Forces covenant.
Finally the team has been focusing on a subject raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean: improving communication about the covenant. Trying to co-opt the whole of society into delivering our covenant vision is nigh on impossible, as she said, if people do not understand what is being asked of them. Likewise, ensuring that members of our military family can take full advantage of the covenant is impossible if they do not know what is on offer. So 2016 saw a rebranding of the Armed Forces covenant. In April we launched a new website to make information about the covenant easier to find. On the ground, we saw the introduction of a 200-strong network of Armed Forces covenant champions across Armed Forces units. These military champions act as the focal point for their local community, helping to deliver information about the covenant directly to personnel and their families.
I will try to answer as many questions raised by noble Lords as I can. I will write on those that I do not address. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that there has been no softening of the Government’s primary statement, which refers both to fair treatment and to no disadvantage.
The right reverend Prelate raised mental health. The best available evidence suggests that the mental health of veterans is as good as or better than that of the rest of the civilian population—but where problems occur, the highest standard of support is made available. More than £13 million from the LIBOR fund has been awarded to programmes specifically supporting mental health in the Armed Forces community.
A number of noble Lords referred to accommodation. We continue to invest in improving accommodation for our people and their families. Standards have significantly improved. Regarding social housing for service leavers, the MoD works closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that service personnel do not experience any disadvantage as a result of their military service when applying for social housing. The MoD referral scheme assists service leavers and their families with social housing applications following discharge.
Considerable help is available on education and schools for service children; I will write on that subject. My noble friend Lady Sugg rightly emphasised the contribution of Armed Forces families and spouses. Again, I will write on that subject.
I listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Blencathra on the Northern Ireland legacy issues. I can tell him before I write that the Defence and Northern Ireland Secretaries are working to create a Stormont House Agreement Bill to ensure that veterans are not unfairly treated or disproportionately investigated.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked whether I could give reassurance that the Northern Ireland Veterans Support Committee will be able to continue its good work. I cannot commit funding from the Dispatch Box at the moment, but I will find out the details and write to him.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked about the composition of war pensions and compensation tribunals. I have today written to the noble and gallant Lord on this subject. In brief, it is something that we will look at as part of the wider MoJ-led transformation of tribunals. It is very much a matter in its focus.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked about harmony guidelines. We are working to ensure that the three services’ harmony guidelines are met, but I fear there will continue to be occasions when that is not possible. Our job is to minimise those occasions and that is what we are trying to do.
My time is up. I hope that the House will accept that a great deal is going on. There is more that we can do and room for improvement, but we remain steadfast in our commitment to work with all our partners on removing disadvantage, instilling fairness and respect, and meeting the unique needs of our Armed Forces community.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 9th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 76-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 305KB) - (9 Jan 2017)
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I chair Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, which is part of the university sector. I feel, rising at this stage, a bit like an actor rising to play the porter in “Macbeth”. There have been hours of drama and extraordinary debate about matters of deep principle. I have to make a speech, if I can, that at the same time is amusing but makes a serious point. I am supposed to do it when three-quarters drunk. Unfortunately, I am not three-quarters drunk—there was not time during the dinner break to get that way—so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I try to square this circle as the porter did.
A well-reputed blog of the higher education sector called, even more peculiarly than the office, Wonkhe, this morning said that there was no chance that the House of Lords would accept this amendment because the resulting body would be called OfHE. I must say that I thought that that was quite a strong argument for the name that I was proposing because “offie” is somewhere you really want to go down to—“go and buy a bottle from the offie”—whereas going for a meeting at the Office for Students sounds extraordinarily tedious and dull. However, it is not on that that I am relying in going for a change of name.
I say “going for a change of name” because I am not convinced that the name that I propose is in every regard absolutely perfect. It could be said that there are many things in higher education that lie outside the field of the OfS and there are certainly some things that lie within it—so I do not guarantee that the alternative that I proffer this evening, Office for Higher Education, is absolutely perfect. All I would say is that it is a great deal more perfect than the option that the Government have presented us with: OfS. I have no idea where “OfS” came from. I envisage in my “Yes Minister” mind a meeting with a special adviser there who said, “Yes, Minister, we could call it anything you like, but we did jolly badly in those university towns at the last election. OfS, so we appear to be on the side of students, would be a good title”—and these things tend to stick.
But the name is clearly inappropriate because much of what it is planned that OfS shall do has very little to do with students. Is registering universities a job for the OfS? Is removing the title from certain universities done in the interest of students? Is fee setting done in the interest of students? Actually, if you come to think of it, the strongest opponents of the Bill have been students, who are now trying to engineer a revolt against the teaching excellence framework. So if we must use this sort of title, perhaps it would be better to call it the Office against Students—which is the effect that I expect this Bill to have; I expect it not to be a successful Bill from the point of view of furthering the student interest.
More seriously, we have to be very careful before importing into our legislation titles which serve a propaganda purpose—who can be against OfS, against students or, in America, against patriots? Before long, we find that the whole of political language has ceased to be neutral in legislation and is starting to slip off into a language from the post-truth era where the titles of things no longer represent their reality but rather a sort of Orwellian other world in which things no longer mean what they are supposed to mean. Such propaganda reasons are not good reasons for the title of an institution.
At this time of night I do not want to detain the Committee further; this is a probing amendment to see whether the Government are at all interested in finding a better name. In the meantime, I will offer unconditionally to any Member of the House who can come up with a better title than I have—Office for Higher Education—a bottle of champagne, provided they can at the same time convince the Minister to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am a student activist in these things. If we are going to change the title, let us just call it OFFS. That is a suitable acronym. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, knows it well. His would be “Ofhed”, and I think the Minister would be that if he accepted the amendment.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey in deploring this title. Words are significant. My noble friend mentioned George Orwell. He knew how slippery language can be. In the fake news and post-truth era, getting words exact matters more than ever. We know that in the light of the Bill students could be called consumers and providers could be entrepreneurs—business men or women. We know that language is loose and being used loosely in politics generally. Hard, soft—when have these words ever been as powerful as they are today? We have to be very thoughtful about this title.
We have spent the day discussing a whole range of activities—knowledge, research, wisdom, range of scholarship, academic life, the global achievements of our universities—and the best we can come up with is the Office for Students. What about the rest of us? What about all the universities and their authority? What about the range of scholarship and achievement of which we are so proud? Finally, on a rather silly note, are the Government really pleased that this will become known as “Ofstud”?
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The Office for Students was always a rather strange title for this all-encompassing and all-powerful body. It was particularly ironic because it took quite some effort to get students in any way involved with it or represented on it. The Office for Higher Education seems an eminently sensible title for it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, that covers all the aspects that this strange body is going to be responsible for. The Minister should think very seriously about changing the title.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I agree that the Office for Students is a very strange name for this body. I take this opportunity to remind anybody in the House who does not already know how very opposed to much of what it is going to do most of our students are, and publicly so. Although the automatic response one gets when this is pointed out is, “Oh, they just don’t want their fees put up”, that is not the sole thing they are complaining about—not at all. I also take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of the University of Warwick student union, with which I have no connection whatever, which wrote an extremely well-thought-out critique of the Bill back in June, which was the first thing to alert me to many of the things that I have become very concerned about since. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that this is not an appropriate title and it would be very good if we could come up with another—but I do not think I will be collecting his champagne.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, of course the serious side to the light-hearted comments is that the name will conceal as much as it will reveal about what is going on here. I understand entirely my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s wish to raise this in a relatively light-hearted way and I do not want to be a party pooper but we need a lot more certainty about what exactly this new architecture, which was one of the great calling cards of the Bill when it was first introduced, is actually going to do and deliver.
A number of amendments further down the list will bear on this and we may well need to return to the name once—and only once—we have decided what we are going to have. For instance, we are now told that the Office for Fair Access will have a slightly different role in government amendments due to be discussed on the next day in Committee. That will change the nature of what the OfS does because, if the government amendments are accepted, it will not be allowed to delegate powers that would normally be given to the Office for Fair Access to anybody else, and it will have to ensure that the director of the Office for Fair Access has a particular role to play in relation to access agreements that are created under that regime. In that sense, the power of the OfS as originally conceived was already diluted at the Government’s own behest. We need to think that through before we make a final decision in this area.
The question of how registration is to take place is a quasi-regulatory function. We have an elephant parading around the Bill—it is supposed to walk around in a room but perhaps we ought not to extend the metaphor too far—in the role of the CMA, to which I hope the Minister will refer. If we are talking about regulatory functions, we need to understand better and anticipate well where the CMA’s remit stops and starts. The Minister was not on the Front Bench when the consumer affairs Act was taken through Parliament last year, but that Act is the reason why the CMA now operates in this area. It is extracting information and beginning to obtain undertakings from higher education providers regarding what they will and will not do in the offers they make through prospectuses, the letters sent out under the guise of UCAS, the obligations placed thereby on the students who attend that institution and the responsibilities of the institution itself. I do not wish to go too deep into it at this stage because there will be other opportunities to do so, but until we understand better the boundaries between the Office for Students and the CMA, it will be hard to know what regulatory functions will remain with the OfS and what name it would therefore be best put under. “Office” is common to many regulators but the letters in acronyms can also be changed.
We are back to where we were on the last group: we are not yet sure what the assessment criteria and regimes will be, but perhaps we know more about the criteria than the regime. It is one thing if a committee is to be established with responsibility for assessing the fitness to be on the register and the quality of the teaching as provided. But if an independent body were established and called the quality assurance office or some such similar name, as it would be under a later amendment, it would be doing a lot of the work currently allocated to the Office for Students. I do not have answers to any of these points. I am sure that the Minister will give us some guidance but it would be helpful, when he is ready and able to do so, if he set out in a letter exactly what he thinks the architecture might look like and what the justification therefore is for the name.
The most poignant point was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden: that an Office for Students without student representation on it seems completely bonkers. I do not understand why the Government continue to move down this path. The amendment brought in on Report in the other place was one of sorts to try to move towards that. But it is a measure of the Government’s inability to grasp the issues here in a firm and convincing way that the person who is expected to occupy that place at the Office for Students, as provided for by the amendment, is somebody able to represent students. It is not necessarily a student, which seems a little perverse. I put it no more strongly than that.
Given that the current draft arrangements in the higher education sector for obtaining metrics relating to the grading of teaching quality in institutions has five students on the main committee and two or three students allocated to each of the working groups set up to look at individual institutions, there is obviously a willingness at that level to operate with and be engaged with students. Why is that not mirrored in the Office for Students? Regarding further use, it is really important that we get that nailed down. If it were a genuinely student-focused body—a provision which many governing bodies have—then the Office for Students might well be the right name for it. But until those questions are answered, I do not understand why the Committee would not accept my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s sensible suggestion.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, before I start, the Committee might be relieved to hear that my contribution will be somewhat shorter than previous contributions were. I start off, though, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his contribution to this short debate. I know how personally committed he is to ensuring that our higher education system is delivering for current and future students, and I value his insight.
This Bill sets out a series of higher education reforms which will improve quality and choice for students, encourage competition and allow for consistent and fair oversight of the sector. To keep pace with the significant change we have seen in the system over the past 25 years, where it is now students who fund their studies, we need a higher education regulator that is focused on protecting students’ interests, promoting fair access and ensuring value for money for their investment in higher education. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the creation of the Office for Students is key to these principles. The OfS will, for the first time, have a statutory duty focused on the interests of students when using the range of powers given to it by the Bill. As Professor Quintin McKellar, vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire, said in his evidence in the other place,
“the Government’s idea to have an office for students that would primarily be interested in student wellbeing and the student experience is a good thing”.—[Official Report, Commons, Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, 6/9/16; col. 22.]
It is our view that changing the name of the organisation to the “Office for Higher Education” rather implies that the market regulator is an organisation that will answer to higher education providers alone rather than one which is focused on the needs of students. That goes against what we are trying to achieve through these reforms. Our intention to put the student interest at the heart of our regulatory approach to higher education goes beyond just putting it in the title of the body. The Government are committed to a strong student voice on the board of the OfS, and that is why we put forward an amendment in the other place to ensure that at least one of the ordinary members must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of students.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned that she thought that students were opposed to these reforms that we are bringing forward. I would like to put a bit more balance to that, because there is a wide range of student views about the reforms. There is some strong support for elements of the reforms as well as, I admit, some more publicised criticism—for example, supporting improvement in teaching quality and introducing alternative funding products for students. As I have already mentioned, we made that change at Report stage to make sure that there is greater student representation on the OfS.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised a point about the role of the CMA. To reassure him, we will set out more detail later in Committee about the relationship between the OfS and the CMA.
As a regulator, the OfS will build some level of relationship with every registered provider, and one of its duties will be to monitor and report on the financial sustainability of certain registered providers. However, this does not change the fact that the new market regulator should have students at its heart, and we therefore believe that the name of the organisation needs to reflect that. For this reason, and with some regret in withdrawing from potentially receiving the bottle of champagne, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I have to say that if we are going to go on like this, it is going to be very hard pounding. I have great respect for the Minister, and I know he has the interests of education at heart. All he had to say was that the Government are prepared to consider alternative titles before we come back to this on Report and if we can find one better than OfS, they will be happy to consider it and we would all have gone home—if we can get a taxi—happy. Instead, he defended this with some arguments that I do not feel the force of.
The Minister said that if it was called the “Office for Higher Education” it would mean that it was acting in the interests of higher education providers only. Does Ofgas operate just in the interests of gas providers? Of course it does not. These regulators do not work in that way. “Office for Higher Education” is a wholly neutral term and means that it will be active in the interests of all those involved in every way in higher education and will not be just a representative of a particular group.
Incidentally, the Minister said the OfS would be representing a particular group and would be representing students because it is about fairer access. The whole point is that, at the time when people are trying to access universities, they are not students at all, or at least they are only school pupils. That is a very good object for a body of this kind, but is not one that can be said to be in the interests of students.
I really would ask the Minister to think again between now and Report. If he is not able to do so, we will take the winner of the champagne and put it to a vote on Report. I hope the House will support me, because if things like this become controversial, in a political sense, across the Floor of the House, I am afraid we are going to find the Bill very hard to digest. However, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, rather perversely, Amendment 4 is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment 18, so I will start with the latter, which is about the important question of the structure of whatever we are going to call the OfS board, as it is currently named.
Amendment 18 brings parliamentary scrutiny into the question of who should chair this board. A very important theme, although perhaps one for another day, is that the Bill is relatively light in terms of its engagement with the parliamentary process. Although the intention is that the Bill should move away from scrutiny under the Privy Council and other similar regimes, it is not necessarily clear that the will is there on the part of Ministers to provide a different scrutiny arrangement, so we will definitely have to return to this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who is in his place, made a very powerful speech at Second Reading in which he pointed out a number of drafting infelicities in relation to statutory instruments, the use of Henry VIII powers and similar matters. I am sure that the recent report from the Delegated Powers Committee will feature in our discussions going forward and that this is another issue we might need to come back to.
However, I am interested in the Minister’s response to the particular question raised by Amendment 18, which is why the Government do not wish the appointment of members of such a key organisation as the OfS to be subject to the scrutiny now commonplace for many public appointments of this type. As discussed, under the Bill as drafted, this body will have incredible power in relation to higher education, effectively opening and closing universities and deciding who should or should not be preferred. It is inconceivable that there should be no scrutiny other than that of the Minister. It is important that we consider including in the Bill the idea that the chair of the OfS should be subject to scrutiny in the process that is now taking place.
Amendment 5 picks up the themes that I elaborated on in the previous group in relation to student representation. It is not convincing for the Minister to simply say that this area has been dealt with by ensuring that at least one of the ordinary members of the OfS board must be capable of representing students. We are all capable of representing students, but none of us present today—unless I am very much mistaken and more deluded that I normally am—can say that they are an active student and can bring that experience to the table. There are many teachers and others around who I am sure would be prepared to stand up and say they could do it, but I do not think they would want to if they were ever exposed to the full fury of the student body. It seems completely incomprehensible to us that the board should not have a student representative—indeed, there should be more than one.
Amendment 6 would ensure that the related criteria for all OfS board members are taken to be of equal importance. The worry here is that there may be vestigial elements from the current regimes, which have been alluded to in earlier discussions today. There is the sense that research takes precedence over teaching competence, that somehow older universities have more authority than newer ones, and that ones with different missions should be discriminated against. Then, there is the question, which I am sure will be raised during this debate—if not, it has been raised in previous ones—of how we make sure that the very necessary representations from our smaller institutions, conservatoires and specialist institutions are made properly.
It is one thing to have a series of representations and an equitable and appropriate way of appointing people, but quite another to be clear that this is done in practice. The amendment is drafted so that the appointment processes—one hopes they will be of an extremely high standard—ensure that broad and equal importance is given to all the elements that make up our university sector and our higher education providers, and that there should be no perception that a hierarchy exists in respect of any of them.
Amendment 7 makes the point, although I am sure this will happen anyway, that there must be current or recent experience among those appointed. I am sure that would be the assumption, but there is no reason at all to suggest that that is always going to be the case. The Schedule seems the appropriate place to put this provision, rather than in the main Bill.
Amendment 8 suggests that the experience of higher education and further education providers should also be taken into account when appointing board members. We have a tendency to speak about higher education as being exclusively in the existing university arrangements but, of course, further education institutions and other institutions such as those we have been talking about in the last few hours all have a contribution to make to higher education, and it is important that board members reflect that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that at least some of the members of the OfS should have experience of providing vocational or professional education. I am thinking here of the University of Law or BPP University, for example, but there are also wider groups that we would need to pick up on. I am sure the noble Lord will make that point when he comes to speak.
Amendment 10 contains a theme that will run in later amendments. We will be addressing ourselves in those amendments to the suggestion that the Bill is too narrowly constructed around traditional university syllabuses in particular, and to a model whereby students arrive at university having completed their school studies at 18 and then spend three years at university before graduating and going on to do other things. The reality is that the median age of students in our British universities is 22 or 23, that many students come in with different previous experiences, and that there is value in that. There is a real sense that the opportunity to build a structure that encourages people to take alternative routes to further education—to take time out to work, or to study while they do other things—has been missed. We need to address that opportunity. Amendment 10 would ensure that widening participation and associated issues are appropriately reflected in the membership of the board.
The final amendment in the group is Amendment 12, which suggests that the Secretary of State should have regard to the experience of higher education employees and teaching and research staff when making appointments. Valued contributions are made from that sector to boards of higher education institutions. Certainly, when I worked in higher education, there was very strong representation from the non-teaching staff—technical, clerical and administrative staff— who all felt that they were participating in the process of governing and managing the university. Why is that not also the case for the regulating body?
I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 11 and 13. I am mostly interested in hearing the Minister’s views on these matters. It seems to me that it is important for a board such as that of the OfS to have experience of the main sets of people and tasks that it is going to be faced with regulating. Amendment 11 would ensure that its members had an understanding of what happens in vocational or professional education. That would be very important because some of its charges will be very much in that part of the world.
Most of all, the amendment would ensure that the OfS has representative people who understand how people end up at university. The business of advising school pupils, looking after pupils who are looking for careers, the limitations of that, the sort of information you need on how 16 and 17 year-olds are, which is very different from 19 and 20 year-old students at university—that is vital experience for a board to have. A great deal of what the OfS is doing is concerned with giving information to people who might come to university and providing structures in order that they should be well looked-after when they get there, so it needs an understanding of what pupils are like.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, I speak from my background at Birkbeck University on behalf of a sector that has not had much of a hearing today—I hope it will have a hearing throughout further debate on the Bill—which is that of part-time university study and of lifelong learning. It is my conviction that this is the shape of the future and will bulk far larger than is acknowledged in the future lives of people struggling to qualify and retrain in a population who will need retraining in new skills throughout their lives. Part-time education to university level, which is carried out at Birkbeck, is enormously popular with those who do it but, as the Minister will know, has recently suffered an enormous fall in recruitment. This followed the introduction of student fees, and we are examining reasons why that should be so and seeking to remedy them. We need to include in the essence of the Bill the fact that part-time university study is a valid, important and growing sector.
It is for that reason that I have tabled Amendment 5A, which adds emphasis to Amendment 5 by stating that one of the members of the board should be dedicated to the interests of part-time further education. This is very important because we find that a much higher proportion of the students who graduate from Birkbeck are from disadvantaged backgrounds than from any other university. This plays absolutely into the Government’s intention of increasing access, so they have a very strong motive to facilitate this kind of education, which has not figured very much in all of today’s extensive debate. It deserves a much higher profile and it will reap rewards. It will benefit not simply 18 to 24 year-old students; people are graduating from Birkbeck in their 50s, 60s and 70s with full-scale degrees. They are retraining, they come from every kind of background and they really appreciate the training they get. A dedicated member of the board for further education among part-time students is very much to be desired.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as pro-chancellor of Lancaster University. I very much regret that I was not here for the earlier debates. The reason was that I was present at the funeral of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, who was for many years deputy pro-chancellor of the university I presently chair and, more significantly, played a very important role in the foundation of the University of Lancaster, one of the Robbins universities. He saw that the creation of these universities enabled the extension of opportunity. We at Lancaster certainly think that that is the job we are doing, because of the high proportion of pupils from state schools we have, at the same time achieving high standards of academic excellence. I put that on record and apologise that I was not here earlier.
I very much support the thrust of what my noble friend Lord Stevenson is driving at in his amendments. If the Office for Students is to exist, it must be composed of people of the highest calibre. It must reflect the full range of concerns in higher education—and I very much agree with the speech that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just made about the importance of part-time education. That has been reflected, and it is one of the things that I would like us to do far more of in my own institution.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Can I just confirm that that is exactly what I meant?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I add my wholehearted support to these amendments. Further education is all too often the Cinderella of the education world, yet further education colleges do an absolutely phenomenal job across a very wide range of students and subjects, so having them represented on this body is absolutely essential. I also support the adult and part-time education students, who form a critical and very important part of the student body. They have different sorts of views and needs from those who are the typical 18 year-olds going to university.
There is also the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made about vocational and professional education, which often links very closely with higher education institutions but has a different sort of ethos and different cohorts of people. All these amendments to add to the membership of the OfS board are critical, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these amendments.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said about part-time students. We will come back to that subject in more detail during these debates. Of all days, today we should think about that really seriously. London has been brought to a standstill by a transport strike, and it is only a matter of time before the drivers of those trains, not merely the people and guards and the other people on the platforms, will no longer be working, because science and technology is advancing rapidly. That is a model for our society, and people will have to retrain.
In my 15 years’ involvement with Sheffield Hallam University, one thing that I have learned above all is that people taking part-time courses have transformed their lives in gaining skills, coming from relatively manual jobs, or jobs with a low level of skill. It is vital that we find every possibility of supporting those students. I urge the Government to consider that during the passage of this Bill. I also briefly defer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and congratulate him on his interest in school students, which has been long-standing and of great importance.
From my experience, I cannot emphasise enough the lack of aspiration that so many school students have because they do not really believe that they can go to university. That is why it is so important that we have the bridge between school and university which this minor amendment would help to promote. There are all sorts of reasons why that is important. We may have the best school teachers in the world, but so many children go home to a desert where there is no aspiration. Their parents ask them: “Why aren’t you going out to work; why aren’t you earning money; why aren’t you supporting the household?”. It is extremely important to find ways of encouraging people from those sorts of backgrounds to understand that they should be considering further or higher education. Having people on this new body who can help universities interface with schools and teachers to give better career guidance would be a blessing and it should be incorporated in the Bill.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great relief that I rise this time to support the amendments proposed by own side; I have confidence in all of them. I also emphasise the importance of part-time students. They are a key part of the business of BPP University—and, like other universities, we suffered a great fall in numbers without changing our offering. We have changed our offering in every way we know how but we are still not increasing the numbers and it will take some work to find out why. In passing, I observe that I have great respect for the work of Select Committees, but I am really not sure that submitting the prospective chairman of whatever this body is going to be called to one is depoliticising the appointment. Select Committees are a fairly political way of doing anything and I do not have much confidence in that suggestion.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments which relate to the representation of people with experience of non-standard and non-typical students, including part-time and mature students. In particular, I support Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. One very good thing about the Bill and about my discussions with the Minister of State has been the very strong commitment to improving widening participation in higher education. We all know what a fantastic driver of social mobility higher education qualifications are, leading to higher employability, higher earning capacity, better citizenship and even things such as better health in future life. For all these reasons, having a non-executive member on the Office for Students board—in addition, of course, to the Director of Fair Access—who has strong experience of improving equality of opportunity, social mobility and widening participation is, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, crucial.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
It looks like I am going to be the last speaker, noble Lords will be relieved to know. I support the general tenor of all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 7 and the idea that people’s experience should be current or recent. That is extraordinarily important, particularly in an area such as higher education which changes very fast. A number of noble Lords have talked about the importance of further education and the importance of—and decline in the number of—part-time students. We are concerned about these extraordinarily important things, yet it seems that none of the current authorities and institutions which deal with higher education has much idea about why this has happened. We did not intend to have the decline in part-time students that we have. Government after Government have talked of the importance of increasing the role of further education colleges in higher education, because they are central to the availability of part-time courses, retraining and lifelong learning. Yet the role of further education has not in fact increased. The numbers have not increased and the proportion has tended to decline.
So these are real challenges. But it also seems to me that one of the reasons we have got ourselves into this situation is that we do not have enough people with current and recent experience involved at the highest levels of policy-making. Therefore, of all these amendments, I most strongly support the proposal that the Office for Students should look for people to join its board who are deeply involved in the sector in the areas which it is looking for, not people who can tick a box because 20 years ago they were on the board of governors of something. I hope very much that the Minister will take that point away and think about it. I cannot see any way in which it undermines the purposes of the Bill and of government policy. That one small thing might make a big difference to the effectiveness of the Office for Students.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I say at the outset that once again I have shortened my comments, bearing in mind the hour. Nevertheless, these amendments need to be properly addressed, so I hope that the Committee will bear with me.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to a fair and open appointment process for the OfS chair. The final appointment will be made by the Secretary of State, but the process will allow for scrutiny of the appointment by Parliament. We have previously stated our openness to a committee of Parliament scrutinising the nomination of the chair of the OfS before the final appointment is made. I confirm that there will be this opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in the appointment of the first chair—for whom the selection process is well under way, as noble Lords may know. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, agrees that the chair of the OfS should not be ratified by a resolution of Parliament but that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. That is correct, despite some comments made this evening that were not particularly in favour of that.
Amendments 4 and 18 would be a departure from the accepted practice set out in the governance code. It is standard practice for the chairs of regulators to be appointed by the respective Secretary of State. We believe that our plans for scrutiny are sufficient and that it is right that the Secretary of State should retain the power to appoint the chair of the OfS board.
Throughout the development of this legislation, the Government have engaged and consulted widely with students and their representatives and we are committed to ensuring that this approach is reflected in the final OfS structure and arrangements. We have already amended the Bill in the other place to ensure that at least one of the ordinary members of the OfS must have experience of representing or promoting the interests of students.
As regards the comments just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, requiring one member of the OfS board to be currently engaged in representing students, as proposed by Amendment 5, would narrow the choice of potential candidates for this role. It could potentially exclude someone who has excellent recent experience of representing students but who has since gone into the working world or further study, thus gaining valuable experience and skills. Furthermore, the standard length of term for public appointments is four years. As such, insisting that the student representative be a current student risks being incompatible with the standard time lines of most courses of study or sabbatical roles as student representatives. That is why we chose the form of wording that we put forward on Report in the other place.
I turn now to the desirability criteria for the OfS board appointments. The Government believe that it is essential that the OfS board should be representative of the broader range of stakeholders in the higher education system. The current legislation that sets out the appointment process for appointments to the current HEFCE board requires the Secretary of State to have regard to experience of higher education, business or the professions. I reiterate that this has worked well for many decades. None the less, this legislation goes further in ensuring a diverse range of board members by setting out seven desirability criteria. These include experience of providing higher education and experience of creating, reviewing, implementing or managing a regulatory system. The seven criteria have been framed broadly so that they allow for flexibility to include board members with the breadth and depth of experience and skills. The Bill in its current form preserves the crucial flexibility for the Secretary of State to constitute the OfS board in the most appropriate way for the challenges and opportunities of the particular day. I reiterate that we need to form a framework that allows us to look ahead a long period of time.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank those who have participated in this brief debate and I particularly thank the Minister, who has dealt with each of the amendments in some detail. I am grateful to him for that. However, there is a pattern emerging, as we saw in the other place. The Government are determined to get this Bill through and they are showing no signs at all that they are sympathetic to any of the issues raised, even those by Members of the Minister’s own side. Although I understand that, I think that my noble friend Lord Lipsey was right that it would have been helpful at least to have had some acknowledgement of the points that have been made, given the expertise, knowledge and experience represented in your Lordships’ House. It is a little sad that we are not getting a bit more purchase on some of the debates about the issues raised here. However, we will come back to these points and no doubt debate them again.
I thank those who have spoken and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.