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, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
The Government are committed to providing free and impartial guidance through Pension Wise to help people make informed and confident decisions about how they use their defined contribution pension savings in retirement.
Seema Kennedy
I am grateful for that answer. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that the Government are taking steps to protect people from being scammed out of their savings as well as ensuring that people have access to information to help them to decide how to draw down their pension savings?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. The Government take the threat posed by scams very seriously indeed. We run campaigns to highlight the risk posed by scams to savers, and we have established a cross-government taskforce to gather and share intelligence, and to co-ordinate enforcement action. We have also consulted on further measures to tackle scammers, including a proposal to ban cold calling in relation to pensions. Our next step will be announced very soon.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Well, that is the point I was going to ask the Minister about. Will he tell us when he will crack down on cold calling? These people are trying to scam others out of their hard-earned life savings, taking advantage of the notion that there are these freedoms, but potentially putting pensioners at great risk. When will the legislation be brought forward?
Richard Harrington
As is to be expected, the hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question; very soon, is the answer.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Preying on elderly people in order to take advantage of their pension pots by giving them bad advice is a despicable crime. Is the Minister satisfied that the number of prosecutions of those who do this frankly evil activity is nearly enough?
Richard Harrington
I would like to be able say that it is enough, but I do not think it is. The steps we intend to take should make prosecutions for scam cold calling much easier. If I am asked the question again in the future, I hope to be able to answer in the affirmative.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On the issue of accurate and clear information, the Cridland report, published last week, stated:
“An increase of the State Pension age every ten years—and by only one year per decade—represents an appropriate pace of change”.
Does the Minister agree with that statement? If so, will he revisit the issue of the WASPI women, who face an increase in the state pensionable age of more than five years this decade?
Richard Harrington
I know that the hon. Gentleman has read the Cridland report in detail, and I thank him for doing so. It will suffice to say that the Government’s response will be published at the end of May and will be comprehensive. As far as the WASPI women are concerned, he knows—I have said this many times at this Dispatch Box and elsewhere—that the Government have made the concession that they are going to make in terms of transitional arrangements from the Pensions Act 1995. I have no further news. That is it.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Reducing fees and charges levied by pension companies is important to helping customers to get the most from their investments. Will the Minister update the House on what progress has been made in that area?
Richard Harrington
My hon. Friend and I have discussed the matter, and I am pleased that he has highlighted it. There has been consultation on the subject, and the Government will make an announcement ourselves and through the regulator very soon.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Government missed an opportunity this year to tackle a wide range of issues in the pensions industry, but they chose to ignore most of them, instead bringing forward the narrow Pension Schemes Bill. The Secretary of State then failed to further his own agenda by instructing his Ministers to resist any attempt to introduce transparency, member engagement and greater clarity on costs. Why does he choose to protect the industry instead of savers? What will the Government do to correct this failure and help us all to build trust in our pensions industry?
Richard Harrington
I thank the shadow Minister for voting for the Bill on Second Reading, and for his generally constructive approach to it. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the transparency agenda is part of a much broader agenda, and the Government will make a proposal very soon.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am currently dealing with two constituency cases in which old people have been robbed of their life savings. In both cases, they have been disappointed with the police response. Will the Minister’s cross-departmental work include contact with the Home Office and individual police forces to ensure that more work is done to address this?
Richard Harrington
I can confirm that the police and anti-fraud authorities are involved in this cross-governmental body.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
This Government support those who aspire to be their own boss. Self-employment grew by 148,000—3.2%—in the last year to reach a record level of 4.8 million. Self-employment has contributed 30% of the rise in employment since 2010 to the current record levels.
Justin Madders
It seems that not a week goes by without another story emerging of the outrageous treatment of the self-employed. This is exploitation. The Deane review of self-employment reported back to the Government over a year ago, and one recommendation it made was that there should be equal treatment for the self-employed, but all we have is yet another review from the Government. When will they actually take some action?
Damian Green
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have commissioned Matthew Taylor to review the rights and protections available to self-employed workers. He asked what we have already done. The self-employed now have access to the new state pension, worth an extra £1,800 a year in retirement. We have doubled the amount of free childcare, which is particularly useful for the self-employed and worth up to £5,000 per child per year. We have also increased the personal allowance, worth £1,000, to the typical basic rate taxpayer.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right: we have definitely helped the self-employed. However, it was put to me at my listening campaign this weekend by self-employed people that they actually want the Government out of their business. They do not want to pay higher taxes, and they do not want more benefits; they just want to get on with their business. Is that something the Secretary of State could support?
Damian Green
I do, and the Government, of course, support that more widely. We are looking all the time at regulations that might hinder the growth of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The actions taken by my Department—for instance, the new enterprise allowance—actively encourage people into self-employment. Some 96,000 new businesses have been set up as a result of the NEA.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Government’s proposed increase to national insurance contributions for self-employed workers in this month’s Budget showed a scandalous detachment from the reality of the majority of self-employed workers’ lives, a failure to understand the boom in self-employment and a lack of the will to address the issues self-employed workers face, including the fact that one in three is concerned about becoming sick or being injured during their work. What discussions did the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor on this before the Budget, and is he concerned about the reliability of the minimum income floor calculation, given the Office for Budget Responsibility’s comment?
Damian Green
I am confident in the minimum income floor calculation. As the hon. Lady would expect, we have discussions all the time with the Treasury on a wide range of matters. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his letter subsequent to the Budget:
“It is very important…that we are compliant not just with the letter, but also the spirit, of the commitments that were made.”
That is why he decided not to proceed with the class 4 NIC measures set out in the Budget. Also—this is important—all the spending measures set out in the Budget, including on social care, technical education and new schools, will be delivered in full.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to note that 96,000 new businesses have been started by jobseekers, but many jobseekers still do not know what help is provided under the universal credit system and the new enterprise allowance. Will he say what his Department is doing to increase awareness of these measures?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Obviously, universal credit is still a relatively new benefit, and many of the self-employed may not be fully aware of the many benefits that arise from it for them specifically. Under UC, self-employed claimants will, for the first time, be offered help to increase their earnings. We will be testing the offer of work coach support to self-employed tax credit claimants. Also, there is an assured level of earnings, but new self-employed claimants will be exempt from this for up to 12 months following their application, which people thinking of setting up their own business will find extremely helpful.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The Department robustly monitors provider performance and independently audits assessments. Assessment reports deemed unacceptable are returned for rework. A range of measures, including contractual remedies, are used to address performance falling below those standards.
Lilian Greenwood
A constituent contacted me after she submitted a claim for personal independence payment and then had to wait 12 weeks for the home assessment appointment she needed. Capita finally telephoned, giving less than 48 hours’ notice of the visit, only to cancel 10 minutes before the appointed time. After three and a half months, she is still no nearer receiving the support she needs. I know from my discussions with the Meadows Advice Group that she is just one of dozens of disabled people being let down by the Minister’s Department. When will the Minister address this catalogue of failure?
Penny Mordaunt
If the hon. Lady would let me have sight of that case, I will look into it in particular, because it is unacceptable and falls below the performance and the courtesy, quite frankly, that we would want from our providers. People’s personal experience is very important in getting this process right. I am pleased to be able to say that from April we will commence the user rep panels, with about 300 people initially, across the UK, to whom we will give real-time experience of PIP and ESA—employment and support allowance.
Mr Hepburn
We have all had cases like that, but could it not only be an arrogant Tory Government who ignore legal decisions that override expert medical opinion in order to deprive people with mental health issues of the right to benefits? What level of cuts has the Minister promised the Chancellor in order to get this policy through?
Penny Mordaunt
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is being very irresponsible in saying that. He knows that there is no change to policy, to budget or to award amounts. I remind him that people with mental health conditions are receiving higher levels of benefit than they did under DLA. This benefit is not about people’s conditions; it is about the impact that those conditions have on the individual’s ability to thrive and live their life as they would wish. It is quite wrong and irresponsible to suggest anything otherwise.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The vast majority of successful appeals are due to late additional submitted evidence. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary appeals, what steps is the Minister taking to automatically access medical reports with the consent of the claimant?
Penny Mordaunt
This is one of the key reasons why not only is 3% of the PIP caseload being overturned at appeal, but we are not getting the right decision at mandatory reconsideration stage. We have been doing a number of trials to improve that, including telephoning claimants to ensure that all the healthcare information that is required for a good assessment and a good decision is in place. There are other measures as well. I hope that this will improve the situation.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Any delay in making the PIP award is stressful for the person in need of that support and creates inefficiencies in a very pressed system. A number of cases successful at first tier tribunal are challenged by the Department and then ultimately upheld. Can the Minister assure me that this number is monitored, statistically insignificant, and, in light of improvements in assessment, falling?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. In addition to the measure that I have mentioned, there are a number of other trials going on and a number of changes that our providers are making—for example, sitting down with someone and talking about the effects of their condition on their ability to live their lives prior to a medical history being gathered.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
One thousand and ninety-nine people currently use the Motability scheme in Inverclyde. It can be over eight weeks before a successful appeal, and during that time claimants are without their car. What is being done to address this specific issue?
Penny Mordaunt
As I have reported to this House before, we have been working ever closer with Motability— a great scheme in its 40th year. We are looking at a number of issues, such as appeals; people who may wish to leave the country, whether for study, work experience, or any other reason; and potentially extending the scheme to other groups. We will report on that review as soon as we can.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that far from cutting support for disabled people, disability spending will increase every year to 2020 relative both to 2010 and today?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that spend will increase, but it is also vital that this Government look at other issues, as we are doing—for example, on the consumer agenda. It is no good our spending money and getting the employment support right if buildings are not accessible and people cannot make use of these opportunities.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Last Thursday, at business questions, the Leader of the House stated that there would be a debate on the Government’s emergency PIP regulations, which will affect the eligibility for PIP of more than 160,000 people, mainly those with mental health conditions. However, he failed to give a date, and the praying against period comes to an end on 3 April. If there is no debate and vote before the House rises for Easter, even if the House votes against the regulations next month they will not automatically be revoked. That represents a huge democratic deficit. Will the Minister now commit to scheduling a debate and vote this week?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady will know that that is not within my gift; it is for the usual channels. It is not correct to say that the regulations will affect 160,000 people. [Interruption.] No, there is no policy change. There is no change to the budget, and there is no change to the guidance that we have issued to our assessment providers. It is quite wrong to raise fear by saying to people that they will be affected. No awards will be affected, and we are operating exactly the same policy and guidance in our assessment practices as we have done before.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Recent changes to the PIP regulations clarify the original criteria used to decide how much benefit a person receives. This is not a policy change or a budget change, and it will not result in any claimants, regardless of their health conditions, seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP they have been awarded.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Former Sergeant William Bradley, who is one of my constituents, developed severe PTSD and depression while serving in the Gulf war, and he was medically discharged from the Army in 2003. He had been on the enhanced PIP rate since 2014, but it was cut to the lower rate last year. Following an appeal, it has now been removed completely. The reply from the PIP hotline was that someone with mental health issues can work, and that this is really a benefit for people with severe physical disabilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this awful case, or, if PIP is not the right benefit for those with mental illness, can she explain what is?
Penny Mordaunt
What the hon. Lady tells me has happened is truly shocking. I would be incredibly surprised if somebody who was manning that hotline said those things to the hon. Lady. I am not saying that I doubt her story, but I would like to see that and I would like to know, if possible, the exact time that that conversation took place, because that is quite wrong. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.
The statistics show that if someone has a mental health condition—if they have PTSD, dementia, a psychological disorder or another mental health condition —they are better served under this benefit. It is important that people know that.
Penny Mordaunt
The Committee is within its rights to look at the decision. It did so, and it concluded that it would not formally review that decision. We have used the urgency procedure, as it was within our rights to do, to establish certainty. We do not want there to be a long period of uncertainty around this, and we do not want to be in the position of having to take money off people. What we have done is to restore that certainty. Everyone knows where they are, and people know that there is no change and their awards will not be changing.
Paul Blomfield
It was a constituent of mine whose case led to the recent tribunal ruling that clarified the eligibility criteria for PIP, and to the Government’s subsequent amendments to the regulations. She lives with multiple health problems and was supported by Sheffield Citizens Advice, which is due to publish a report later this week on the wider impact of the shift from DLA to PIP and the particular effect that it is having on the over-65s. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Citizens Advice to discuss its recommendations?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to do so. PIP is a better benefit than DLA—it better serves a wider range of people with a wider range of conditions better—but we can always make improvements to the system, and I would be very happy to meet him.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
In relation to PIP, will the Minister assure me that the DWP is engaging with those with experience of mental health conditions to ensure that our programmes and our frontline staff have a proper understanding of how a mental health condition can have an impact on someone’s life?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend such an assurance. In addition to the user rep panels that we are introducing in April, we have been conducting a trial since mid-March—it will take about six weeks—looking at audio recording, which should involve about 400 claimants. That is a tool not just to guarantee quality, but to provide reassurance to the claimant.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Some of those who are eligible for PIP may well lose entitlement to the work-related activity group element come 1 April. Will the Minister reassure me that whether through the flexible support fund, the hardship fund or indeed third-party deals, there will be full mitigation for the losses they incur from 1 April?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my hon. Friend such an assurance. People are open to apply to the financial channels he mentions if they need further support. We have been doing some work in the Department on social tariffs and budgeting, which will be rolled out across our Jobcentre Plus network, and all the elements of the support offer for that group are already in place.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Last week I had to deal with a constituent whose benefits had been stopped because she missed an appointment to be assessed for PIP. She missed that appointment because she was an in-patient in hospital in Aberdeen. Even after evidence of that had been exhibited to the Minister’s Department, it twice refused to reinstate her benefits because it said that it had done nothing procedurally wrong. Is the Minister content that that is how the system is supposed to work?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not how the system is supposed to work. If there is a reasonable reason why someone has not attended an appointment, missing it should not count against them. I am quite happy to look at the case that he cites, but that should not be happening.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The number of 16 to 24-year-olds in work is 3.94 million, which is up 28,000 on the quarter and 225,000 on 2010.
James Berry
At the last count, there were 145 jobseeker’s allowance claimants aged 18 to 24 in Kingston, yet when I go to businesses such as New England Seafood, Genuine Solutions and Meeting Point, they tell me that they have vacancies, particularly for young people. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that young people are matched up with the many opportunities that businesses in my constituency and others have for them?
Damian Hinds
The number of young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency claiming out-of-work benefits has fallen by more than half in the past four years, and he is right to highlight the large number of vacancies—over three quarters of a million nationwide. Alongside promoting work experience and apprenticeships, the Government will soon be rolling out the youth obligation, providing additional intensive support for young people from day one.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Minister can highlight what he likes, but long-term youth unemployment in Darlington and the Tees valley is completely stagnant: the situation has not improved at all. What is he going to do to make sure that in six months’ time the picture has improved?
Damian Hinds
Long-term youth unemployment is down 111,000 overall since 2010, and it is down 30,000 on the year. We put particular resource into and focus on the individual areas around the country that need additional support. I encourage more firms to come forward and join the work experience programme, because we know that the experience of actual work is one of the most fundamental things to help young people to move into a regular job.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Young autistic people have a great contribution to make to our economy and society, yet a recent survey by the National Autistic Society reckons that only 16% are in full-time work, and that trend has not changed during the past 10 years. In World Autism Awareness Week, will the Minister tell us how the Government could help? Not only are our employers missing out on the skills and potential of this group of people, but we are wasting an awful lot of talent. How can the Minister help to highlight their plight?
Damian Hinds
May I first acknowledge and recognise my right hon. Friend’s particular expertise in this area? I met the National Autistic Society at the party conference, as a number of colleagues did, and some of the statistics she mentions are indeed very striking. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is bringing forward, through the Green Paper process, a particular focus on the talents, abilities and potential of people with autism, which will be key.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Research just published shows that the forthcoming apprenticeship levy will make the north-south divide worse, because investment will be focused on the south-east, not where it is needed in the north. What will the Minister do to address that?
Damian Hinds
This is a generational shift in investment in the skills base. The levy is an important part of ensuring that all firms of a particular size are incentivised to take part, and the new Institute for Apprenticeships will guarantee the quality of apprenticeships. I think that that will benefit the entire country.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
We are making progress on the independent mental health and employers review, which is led by Lord Stevenson and Paul Farmer. We are also taking forward an internal review of discrimination law in relation to mental health and work. We continue to look at how we can improve employment support for people with mental health conditions, and this approach is reflected in the work and health Green Paper.
Helen Whately
I recently trained as a mental health first-aider. Such training helps people to support others with mental health problems, as well as to look after their own mental health. Will my right hon. Friend encourage more employers to take part in initiatives such as mental health first aid to create a culture in which everyone feels able to seek mental health support in the workplace?
Damian Green
I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking that training, which is very important. She is right that more employers should act. We are now providing a range of support to help employers to recruit and retain people with mental health conditions, including the Disability Confident campaign and the mental health support service in the Access to Work scheme, which many firms and those who suffer from mental health conditions find useful.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State should beware of being so enthusiastic that he ignores the real needs of people who cannot go to work. I had an email this morning from one of my constituents saying that her husband had taken his life on Friday. He first came to us in 2016 when his award of employment and support allowance was under review. Despite his doctor’s protest, he was made to have a face-to-face assessment. We sought an extension of the six-month award; that was refused. At that point, he was so stressed that he attempted suicide. The PIP award was reviewed again in January. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that when doctors say that people with mental health conditions should not have face-to-face assessments, they do not have face-to-face assessments?
Damian Green
The case that the hon. Lady raises is clearly dreadful. I am sure that the whole House will want to send condolences to the family and friends of her constituent, particularly his widow. We are, of course, not just investing more in mental health than ever before—£11 billion this year—but succeeding specifically in improving clinical assessments. More clinical expertise is now available to the assessors who look at individual cases. As she will know, we have now ended reassessment for those who have conditions that can only stay the same or get worse. We are taking steps to try to minimise those effects.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is right. We are taking action through Access to Work and Disability Confident, which I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), but this needs to be part of a much wider programme of education specifically for employers. We have set up a Disability Confident business leaders group because I suspect that employers will listen more to other business people than they necessarily will to politicians.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Is not the main issue to make sure that people have good access to occupational health services—particularly so that preventive action can be taken if an individual feels that they are suffering from a mental health problem—meaning that they can get to an occupational health service quickly and easily to get proper advice?
Damian Green
I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. She will have seen that the work and health Green Paper lays great stress on occupational health services. We have more than doubled the number of employment advisers in talking therapies to make sure that we can help people with the necessary support that will enable them to stay in work. We will need to do more of this important job in the future.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The roll-out of universal credit continues to roll out to plan—[Laughter.] About a million claims have now been taken, and the full universal credit service for all claimant types is available in 53 jobcentres.
Lucy Powell
I shall not mention hon. Members’ ridicule of the Minister’s answer, but I want to raise another point about universal credit: the interaction between passported benefits and universal credit, and the progress on this that the Government are making. My constituents tell me that as they get into work and move through universal credit, they lose free school meals, bus passes for their children and entitlement to a free uniform, so they are much worse off in work than they would be if they were not in work.
Damian Hinds
We continue to work closely with partners and stakeholders to ensure that this service is a success. There are some questions about passported benefits and we continue to work through them.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for coming down to see the successful roll-out of universal credit in Canterbury, where nearly a third of the unemployed now enjoy universal credit. That has not only pushed down the level of unemployment, but resulted in remarkably few cases coming to my surgeries.
Damian Hinds
Universal credit is a transformational benefit. It converts six benefits into one, which means working with one organisation and not three. It supports people into work and makes sure not only that work pays, but that it is visible to the individual that work pays. It is indeed transformational in our system.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
In just a few days’ time, austerity cuts to universal credit come into effect that will further cut the incomes of millions of working families, including families with disabled children, who could lose about £1,600 a year, while single parents in full-time, low-paid work could lose almost £200 a month. Was the intention of universal credit to drive up poverty among disadvantaged children? If not, why will Ministers not accept that the system is failing those whom it was designed to help?
Damian Hinds
No such cuts are about to happen in universal credit. The taper change from 65% to 63% will eventually benefit 3 million households.
Dr Whiteford
Mounting evidence from the full service roll-out areas exposes the fact that the universal credit system is beset with failure. It is simply not working. Rent arrears are soaring, claimants are waiting up to three months to have their claims processed and some people have even lost their homes. The Government need to get their head out of the sand, so will Ministers call a halt to the full service roll-out while they conduct an immediate review?
Damian Hinds
We will not call a halt to the roll-out, because it would be unfair and wrong to deprive people in Scotland or elsewhere of the advantages that the universal credit system brings. We continue to work on improving processes and accelerating delivery, including with respect to housing, and a number of improvements have already been made, with more in train.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Last week’s report by the Equality Trust illustrates just how extreme inequality is in the UK, with the average pay of chief executive officers of FTSE 100 companies standing at £5 million a year. From this April, families on low incomes who are claiming tax credits or universal credit will not receive support for the third and subsequent children in a family, except when the child is disabled. In that instance, however, the money will be withdrawn from one of the other children. Will the Government address this injustice and scrap the two-child limit?
Damian Hinds
The purpose of the limit on support through universal credit or tax credits to the first two children, in the case of new claims and new births, is to reduce our welfare spending and to target it in a particular way—[Interruption.] In some 85% of families that include children, there are one or two children. When it came to determining where necessary reductions must be made, this was the correct way of doing that.
The hon. Lady talks about rising inequality. I simply mention to her that inequality is down, and that household incomes are at a record level.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The Department has sought to maintain the services that it offers claimants while minimising the impact on claimants as far as possible. These proposals may mean slightly longer and slightly shorter journeys for some individual claimants, and that has been taken into account in the setting of the criteria.
Mr Betts
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the campaign that she has run with the Public and Commercial Services Union and local residents to keep open the Eastern Avenue jobcentre, which serves both our constituencies. Will the Minister confirm that the only reason for closing Eastern Avenue is to save money, and that if it closes, extra capacity will be needed at Cavendish Court and Woodhouse jobcentres? In the light of that need for extra capacity, will he produce figures showing whether there will actually be any net saving as a result of the closure of Eastern Avenue?
Mr Speaker
It is very cheeky to ask three questions even when asked with the skill and confidence of the Chair of the Select Committee.
Damian Hinds
I hope that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some comfort. First, let me say that saving money is not a bad thing in itself; it is a good thing, and this overall programme will save some £180 million nationwide. That means that we can reinvest in frontline staff, which will have the biggest effect on helping people to return to work. As for the specific case of Sheffield, the changes will increase the utilisation of the entire estate from 51% to 69% when some of the business moves, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, to the other two sites.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on surviving a recent grilling from young ambassadors at a meeting of the all-party group on youth employment. I welcome the news that fewer young people are unemployed to start with but, at 554,000, the figure is still too high. Will the Minister read the all-party group’s report with a view to ensuring that there are fewer young claimants in the first place?
Damian Hinds
I look forward very much to reading the report. We know that any day spent unemployed can have a lasting effect on people, especially at the start of their careers when they are young, and it is therefore particularly important for us to redouble our efforts.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is clear from the Minister’s answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) that he does not know how much the closure of East Avenue jobcentre will save. We do not know how much rent is being spent there, and we do not know how much needs to be spent on Woodhouse or Cavendish Court to increase capacity for the additional claimants whom they will have to serve. Will the Minister commit himself to giving the House those figures before he makes his final decision and final statement to the House?
Damian Hinds
All the staff and services from Eastern Avenue will move to Bailey Court in West Street and Cavendish Court in Bank Street. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have, of course, taken account in our projections and modelling of the exact space that will be required for those people and that level of workload.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The proposed closure of the Jobcentre Plus at Finchley Central, which is a major transport hub, will mean moving the jobcentre to High Barnet, which is on the periphery of London. That will mean a 40-minute journey and a £3 bus ride for my constituents. Will the Minister agree to revisit these proposals?
Damian Hinds
We have embarked on a programme of change which comes at the end of a 20-year private finance initiative contract. There is both an opportunity and a requirement to review what is needed on the estate. Rents are particularly high in London, and are therefore particularly challenging in the commercial market. We have sought to minimise the effect on claimants, to ensure that there is a good coverage of services within reach, and to run a consultation when a new jobcentre is more than 3 miles away and a journey on public transport takes more than 20 minutes.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
Throughout the development of these proposals, we have been mindful at every turn of the impact on staff and customers. Both statistical analysis and local knowledge have informed the proposals, which are still subject to consultation with staff and, when appropriate, with the public.
Heidi Alexander
Nearly a quarter of the jobcentres earmarked for closure are in London, and, as the Minister will know, both the disability and the black and minority ethnic unemployment rates are higher in the capital than elsewhere. Is the reason for the delay in the equality impact assessment the fact that it will show a disproportionate impact on the groups that typically need the most support to gain access to employment?
Damian Hinds
No, we have been mindful throughout of our duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Equality analysis will help to inform the final decision-making process, and it is an integral part of the thinking and process throughout.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Following the publication of the Women and Equalities Committee report on Muslim women in the workplace, what work is the Minister doing to ensure that minority groups in which unemployment remains stubbornly high are prioritised at jobcentres across the UK?
Damian Hinds
There are a number of very good local projects working with local organisations. I do not have the list in front of me, but there is some good work going on, and we seek to find where best practice exists and see how far it can be replicated.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
I give the same answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford): the Government have been clear that the introduction of further transitional arrangements cannot be justified, given the imperative to focus public resources on helping those who are most in need. There are no plans to go beyond the £1.1 billion concession introduced when Parliament considered the changes.
Rosie Cooper
In response to the Minister’s answer, I ask him whether he will respond to the comments of his Government’s former Pensions Minister Baroness Altmann, who said she regretted the Government’s failure to properly communicate state pension age equalisation, an approach she described as
“a massive failure of public policy”,
and the comments of Steve Webb, another of their former Pensions Ministers, who said that the last Government made a bad decision on changing the state pension age? Will the Minister look at rectifying that?
Richard Harrington
In the latter case, Steve Webb was Pensions Minister at the time, so I do not think there is much further I can say about that.
There were very extensive communications on the 1995 changes. Millions of people checked their state pension requirements; it was publicised and leaflets were produced. This has been said many times on the Floor of the House, and I simply reiterate it.
Diana Johnson
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that that is it for the WASPI women and that everything has been done that is going to be done. Has he given any consideration to the recommendation from the Work and Pensions Committee talking about allowing the WASPI women the chance to claim their pensions early at a reduced rate, which I believe is cost-neutral and fits with other areas where the Government have allowed pensioners to take their pensions earlier at a reduced rate?
Richard Harrington
The proposal is not cost-neutral; I must make that clear. It is very impractical and it is impossible to do in the time concerned. I have made it very clear that the transitional arrangements that were made when the Pensions Bill went through Parliament are all that will be provided.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What was the minimum notice received by those facing the maximum increase in age?
Richard Harrington
These changes took place under two Acts of Parliament: the Pensions Act 1995, which brought in the main change, and the Pensions Act after that. I want to make it clear that after the 1995 Act, 18 months was the maximum increase.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Last week, the John Cridland report indicated that there may well be an increase in the pension age. As life expectancy rises, it is right and proper for any Government to consider increasing the state pension age. However, will my hon. Friend reassure the House that if there are indeed any changes to the state pension age, they will be communicated in a timely and appropriate manner, so that those affected know about them?
Richard Harrington
The Government will be making a full response to the Cridland report. The review is forward-looking and, I must make it clear, will not make recommendations for any changes to happen before 2028. That was a commitment in the 2013 autumn statement.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Richard Harrington
There is a lot happening in pensions at the moment. The point the hon. Gentleman mentions in relation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is something completely different, but there will be no change to the transitional arrangements at £1.1 billion.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Labour will oppose the earlier increase in the state pension age and the end of the triple lock, recommended in last week’s Cridland report, but we welcome the statement from John Cridland that at least 10 years’ notice should be given of any age increase, so there is yet another chance for the Minister. Do the Government agree with Cridland? If they do, will the Minister now admit that they got it badly wrong with the WASPI women and at least back Labour’s proposals to extend pension tax credit?
Richard Harrington
As I said before, the Government will respond to the Cridland review by the end of May.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Every Government Department is preparing for a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union. We are confident that we will be able to secure a deal that works in the mutual interests of both the UK and the rest of the EU. We are considering various policy options.
Steven Paterson
Some 472,000 people who have retired to the EU currently get automatic increases in the state pension, but it is unclear whether this Government will strike a deal on that after departure from the EU, if they manage to do so. Can the Minister guarantee today that elderly EU expats will not join the 550,000 retirees whose payments no longer increase in line with the state pension triple lock?
Damian Green
The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to protect the rights of British citizens currently living in European member states, in the way that we want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here. That will clearly be an important matter for negotiation in the months ahead.
Gavin Newlands
Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government have form on failing to protect workers’ rights? Any illusion about ability to deliver social justice for workers went up in smoke with the Dickensian Trade Union Act 2016. How can we trust his Department to guarantee workers’ rights after article 50 is triggered?
Damian Green
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn the House’s attention to the fact that the Government have pledged to maintain workers’ rights in the course of the negotiations. I am happy also that he gives me the chance to remind the House that the greatest workers’ right is the right to a job, and that employment is at its highest ever level in this country.
Kirsten Oswald
Reports at the weekend suggest that the UK Government intend that EU migrants currently living here will retain access to benefits, but those who arrive after the triggering of article 50 will be denied access. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is actually dependent on the will of the EU member states, and his Government cannot guarantee any of those rights as they press ahead, dragging us into the unknown without any credible plan?
Damian Green
I am sure the hon. Lady knows that no one standing at this Dispatch Box would ever comment on speculative leaks. She will know as well that we are about to enter a negotiation. We are confident that we will get a good result for the people of Britain, and that is what we will be doing.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
The evaluation of the previous cap speaks for itself: capped households were 41% more likely to move into work than similar uncapped households, contributing to the record levels of employment we see today. Since 2013, over 26,000 previously capped households have moved into work.
David Mackintosh
Can my hon. Friend give me some examples of how the benefit cap is working in my constituency?
Caroline Nokes
In Northampton South, of 110 house- holds capped since April 2013, 90 are no longer capped. Of those, about 48%—40 households—have moved into work, demonstrating that my hon. Friend’s constituency is outperforming the national average.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the more generous universal credit taper rate coming into effect over the Easter recess, on 10 April. It demonstrates our commitment to helping people to gain independence in their own lives by getting on and progressing in work. The new taper rate of 63% will boost the incomes of about 3 million families by £700 million a year; a couple with two children could benefit by as much as £425 a year. When combined with the introduction of the national living wage and increases in the personal tax allowance, those changes equate to the biggest pay rise for the lowest earners in a generation.
Chi Onwurah
Newcastle has paid a high price for being the first city to go full service with universal credit, with claims routinely lost, delayed or repeatedly deleted. However, the six-week wait period is doing the most to drive so many into destitution and cause people to lose their home. With 80% of Newcastle council house tenants on universal credit now in rent arrears, will the Minister end the wait period, or will he explain how they are supposed to keep a roof over their head with no money?
Damian Green
I have two points for the hon. Lady. First, the National Federation of ALMOs—social housing providers—calculates that some 75% of tenants are in arrears under the legacy benefits, so she is not right in her suggestion.
Damian Green
Yes, quite; this has been happening for a long time. The idea that universal credit causes housing arrears is just nonsense.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) will know that my Department is working on a pathfinder arrangement with Newcastle City Council precisely to address the problems that may be there now and have been there for many, many years.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
I welcome the news from my hon. Friend’s constituency, which has seen such a strong fall in unemployment. I certainly acknowledge the key role played by third sector organisations. We continue to work with outside organisations and on programmes such as work experience, sector-based work academies, the new youth obligation and, of course, the roll-out of universal credit.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
We heard earlier about the cuts to PIP support for people with mental health conditions that were brought in 10 days ago. The Government estimate that they will affect 160,000 people. This time next week, half a million sick or disabled people who have been found not fit for work and have been placed in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group will start to see a cut in support of £1,500 a year. Given that disabled people are twice as likely to live in poverty as non-disabled people and the recent analysis showing that that has increased significantly, how does the Secretary of State justify the cumulative cuts to disabled people?
Damian Green
First, when the hon. Lady talks about cuts to 160,000 people, she is of course wrong. Nobody’s original DWP award will receive a cut. She also asked me how I justify the changes to ESA, but disabled people and people with health conditions deserve better than the current system, under which only one in 100 ESA WRAG claimants leave benefit each month. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who is cheering from a sedentary position, agrees with me that we need to change the system. That is why we are proposing a huge number of different types of help across the board, including financial help and advice, which will help them into work.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be no change to award amounts, the budget or the policy. The benefit does not relate to a particular condition, but to how a condition has an impact on someone’s life. It is about the social definition of disability. I assure her constituents that that will continue to be the case.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Damian Hinds
Universal credit is a massive reform. I know of no other country with a comparable system that stays with people from being out of work to supporting them in work. Are there challenges in implementing that? Yes, of course there are, but the transformational benefits in sight are immense.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Damian Hinds
I take that point on board, and we are embarking on a number of co-locations as part of the current programme. Co-location can be good both for claimants and for the taxpayer: for claimants because more of the services they need to access are in one place, and, of course, for the taxpayer by making better use of the public estate.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Lady will of course be aware that tax credits fall within the remit of Her Majesty’s Treasury, and I will be happy to ensure that that is raised with the relevant Minister.
Mr Speaker
Forgive me, I could not hear the Secretary of State and did not lip read effectively, but I now realise at what he was hinting. No doubt an answer will be furnished in due course.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
I cannot comment on an individual case, but I can say that, in general, we know that less than 3% of people report that they rely on a zero-hours contract. We know that, on average, those people get 25 hours a week and actually have above-average levels of job satisfaction. Zero-hours contracts are certainly not for everybody, but they do work for some people.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend not only for signing up to be a Disability Confident employer himself but for accepting that challenge, as many Members on both sides of the House have. If every Member of this House accepted the challenge, we would sign up enough employers to reach a quarter of the working population of the UK. I thank him for his leadership in that and wish him well on his visit to his chamber of commerce.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very forcefully. I am, of course, in constant discussion with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office about a wide range of issues involving the labour market.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Damian Hinds
We have female employment at a near record rate, which is to be celebrated. We have seen the gender pay gap come down, but there is more work to do. A number of things have to fall into place for that to happen, but one of the key things happening this year is, of course, the extension of childcare to 30 hours a week for three and four-year-olds. Parents on universal credit get 85% reimbursement, rather than 70%, and we have tax-free childcare, too.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Fawcett Society found last year that 25% of women over 30 are saving nothing for retirement, compared with 15% of men. What does the Secretary of State think is responsible for that, and what is he doing to change it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
Automatic enrolment was designed specifically to help those who were under-represented in pension savings, including women. With the current rate of £10,000 a year, 70% of the new people coming into the system in 2017-18 will be women.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Six out of 10 people with epilepsy who were migrating from DLA to PIP and were surveyed by Epilepsy Action saw their benefit removed or reduced. That compares with two out of 10 people who are migrating overall. Are Ministers confident that assessors and decision makers properly understand the fluctuating, sporadic and life-limiting condition of epilepsy, so that they can make the right decisions?
Penny Mordaunt
We are aware of that. That is one reason why we have increased the clinical support that is available to assessors. They are all healthcare professionals, so they will have that expert advice on hand in the assessment centres. That is something that we brought in recently.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State watched or listened to an appeal hearing for PIP applicants? I have received information and representations from a number of constituents who feel intimidated and misrepresented by the process. What steps is he taking to ensure that the people involved in the process are treated with the respect, dignity and compassion that they deserve?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. We think about every stage of this process. Clearly, if people appeal and those appeals are upheld, we have not got it right earlier in the process. I have mentioned some things that we are doing to build trust, confidence and support. We are also introducing a video relay service in April, which will be of particular help to those who are deaf or hard of hearing. There are a number of small changes like that that we can make to ensure that we get a good result earlier in the process.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I have a 28-year-old constituent who was injured in the line of duty in 2010. He was awarded a tier 3 military pension, which is reserved only for the most severely injured, but he is due to lose his Motability vehicle and that decision was upheld on mandatory reconsideration. Is that seriously the type of person the Government wish to leave housebound?
Penny Mordaunt
I would say two things in response to that question. First, we have been considering particular issues around our armed forces in the Green Paper, which gives opportunities not just for ESA but for PIP. We are also looking at being able to passport information that may be in someone’s war pension record or medical history into our benefits system. I am quite happy to look at the case the hon. Lady raises with regard to Motability.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
What does the Minister say to the private landlord who came to see me with his tenant with concerns about future eviction rates if there is no option under universal credit for rent to be paid directly to landlords?
Damian Hinds
There is, of course, the facility for rent to be paid directly to landlords where necessary, and we are streamlining the process for doing that. However, we think that the general principle is right that most people in receipt of universal credit should know what their housing liabilities are and pay their rent when they are out of work and when they are in work.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
We have been reminded that new claimants of employment and support allowance will get a much lower rate of benefit, starting in about 10 days. Some of those people will find themselves in serious difficulty. Do Ministers have any new proposals to help?
Penny Mordaunt
We do. In addition to the support offer, all the elements of which are in place, the Department has been doing a number of things, one of which is a big piece of work on social tariffs, which is about enabling people to have the right tools and information to reduce their household outgoings and giving them budgeting support.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
In November last year, my motion calling on the Government to at least pause employment and support allowance cuts until mitigation or Green Paper proposals were brought in was carried unanimously by the House. Given that this is the last parliamentary week before the cuts take place on 3 April, will the Minister confirm whether the mitigations she promised will be laid before the House for scrutiny?
Penny Mordaunt
They are already in place. I think this is a misunderstanding that the hon. Gentleman had. The elements that were outlined in the Green Paper were not speculative or things that we would be consulting on; they were things we were going to do. All the elements, including all the recruitment for all the community partners around the country, are in place now.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Let me return to the issue of the DWP estate and travel times. Given that this information has been gathered via Google Maps, which has been shown to be inaccurate as some bus services are no longer operational, will the Minister tell me what tests have been carried out to check the accuracy of the information? If there is a possibility of the ministerial guidance being breached, will any further proposed closures will go to public consultation?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman and I, and many of his colleagues and others from across the House, have had a number of opportunities to debate these matters and to go through individual cases, on individual locations, one by one. We used a variety of sources to determine travel times and “reasonableness” of travel. The ministerial criteria say that if somewhere is within 3 miles or 20 minutes by public transport, it is reasonable to ask somebody to make that journey; otherwise, we have a public consultation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Time is against us and we must hear the voice of Batley and Spen.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
A constituent of mine, whom I have spoken of before, lost her job on Christmas eve. She is denied universal credit because she is over 60 and she is denied jobseeker’s allowance because her husband has a small private pension. This couple’s lives have been thrown into financial turmoil. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Government paid some compensation to this constituent, as she has paid in all her life?
Damian Hinds
Jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit should be available to people of working age. I will have to look at the details of the case the hon. Lady mentioned, if she would like to get in contact.
Magnox: Early Contract Terminations
(7 years, 7 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
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s early contract terminations at the Magnox estate?
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
This morning, I informed the House that the NDA has terminated its contract with the Cavendish Fluor Partnership for the decommissioning of 12 redundant Magnox sites. The NDA ran a £6.1 billion tender process from April 2012, which resulted in a 14-year contract being awarded in September 2014 to the partnership, which is a joint venture between the British firm, Cavendish Nuclear, and Fluor Inc.
CFP started work on the estate on 1 September 2014 and there then started a consolidation process to ensure that the scope of the 2012 tender matched the actual status of decommissioning. It became clear to the NDA that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was tendered for and the actual scale of the work that is required to be carried out. The NDA board concluded that it should terminate the contract on two years’ notice. Termination is made with the agreement of CFP and is no reflection whatsoever on its performance.
Dealing safely with the UK’s nuclear legacy is fundamental and non-negotiable. Decommissioning work will continue under CFP for a further two and a half years. The NDA will establish arrangements for a replacement contracting structure to be put in place for when the current contract ends. The NDA has also settled outstanding claims against it by Energy Solutions and Bechtel in relation to the 2014 Magnox contract. The NDA was found by the High Court to have wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process. It is clear that the 2012 tender process was deeply flawed. The NDA has agreed settlement payments with Energy Solutions of £76.5 million, plus £8.5 million of costs, and with Bechtel of $14.8 million, plus costs of about £462,000—approximately £12.5 million in total.
Those are very substantial costs, which could have risen further if the case had proceeded. Taxpayers must be able to be confident that public bodies are operating effectively and securing value for money. Where that has not been achieved, such bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. I have therefore established an independent inquiry into the original procurement process and why the 2014 contract proved unsustainable. Those are separate issues, but they need to be examined thoroughly. I have asked Mr Steve Holliday, the former chief executive of National Grid plc, to lead this inquiry. It will take a cradle-to-grave approach, beginning with the NDA’s procurement and ending with the contract termination. The inquiry will set out the lessons learned and recommend any further actions it sees fit, including any disciplinary investigations or proceedings that may be appropriate. The inquiry will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, and his report will be available to this House and to the Select Committee.
This was a defective procurement with significant financial consequences, and I am determined that the lessons to be learned should be exposed and understood; that those responsible should be properly held to account; and that this should never happen again.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The NDA has withdrawn its appeal against the judgment that was handed down in late July last year, so will the Secretary of State explain why this decision has been taken now, why the matter was brought to appeal in the first instance, and whether both actions were sanctioned by him or his predecessor?
The judgment confirmed that the NDA had not acted properly in the tender process, and that it was
“acutely aware that an unsuccessful bidder might challenge the outcome of the competition.”
The court stated that the NDA had fudged the evaluation to achieve a particular outcome. More worryingly, the judge also confirmed that the NDA attempted to get rid of information that might have been detrimental to its case, and there was reference to the shredding of notes. Given the serious nature of the judgment, will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be full public disclosure of the investigations, and a public hearing? Does he agree that this case has called into question the future operation of the NDA? Will he explain what structural changes are necessary, and when? Can he offer any assurances to Magnox workers?
Finally, the Secretary of State’s written statement confirms:
“It has become clear to the NDA…that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was specified in the contract as tendered in 2012”.
Will he tell the House when he or his predecessor was first aware of that mismatch and whether it would have been apparent from the work that had already been carried out by previous contractors?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is quite right to ask her questions, and I hope she will agree that the written ministerial statement I have made today is thorough and comprehensive. I am very happy to have conversations with her and the Select Committee over the weeks and months ahead.
The hon. Lady asked some specific questions about the termination of the contract and the litigation. On the latter, there was indeed a Court hearing and judgment in July last year, and there was another one in December on which the NDA has reflected. On 1 March this year—a few weeks ago—a new chief executive and chair of the NDA took office. It seemed to me appropriate that a new set of eyes should consider these matters and the course of action, rather than those people who were responsible for and involved in the procurement exercise looking into it. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, it was a decision for the NDA board—that is how it is constitutionally established—but its decision required ratification by me, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the accounting officer in my Department.
The hon. Lady asked some very important questions about the conduct of the original procurement process and its management. That is exactly why we need to have an independent figure—independent of Government and of the NDA—to make a report available to the House, to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, not only so that we can learn the lessons and ensure that things cannot happen again, but so that, if there is fault and an error has been made, the recommendation of disciplinary action can follow.
The hon. Lady rightly asked about the Magnox workforce, for whom this will be a difficult day. I am happy to confirm to the House that there is no question about the operational good performance of the contract; it was a question of the terms of the letting of the contract. Good progress has been made, and the workforce employed on the decommissioning contract will continue as planned. When the report is made available, lessons will be learned about the NDA’s structure, as well as any particular procedural aspects.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the workforce at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency? They are doing a magnificent job in decommissioning the power station there. Will he confirm that nothing in his statement will prevent that work from continuing? Will he also listen to their concerns about the effect on their pension entitlements of certain changes that have been made regarding the cap on exit payments?
Greg Clark
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the workforce. As he will be aware, good progress has been made in decommissioning the site in Bradwell, with the underground waste vaults containing intermediate level waste having been cleared and decontaminated. That is a reflection of the hard work. There is a separate set of discussions and consultations going on with regard to the pension arrangements, which is not related to today’s announcement.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and the shadow Secretary of State for securing this urgent question. This debacle shows that the UK Government cannot even manage their current nuclear project, which comes at great cost to the taxpayer, leaving their case for a nuclear energy future more threadbare than ever. Given the bizarre and illogical decision to leave Euratom, the trade union Prospect is right to be concerned and to seek reassurances that uncertainty over the future of decommissioning will not lead to a deterioration in standards. What assurance can the Secretary of State give today?
This should be a wake-up call. The UK Government’s nuclear obsession will do nothing to lower energy bills and will only burden the next generation with unprecedented economic, environmental and security instability and risk. The Tories should do the responsible thing and scrap their nuclear obsession in favour of investment and renewable energy in carbon-capture technology. Scottish Renewables recently reported that one in six renewable energy jobs in Scotland will be under threat in the next year. Will the Government acknowledge that their energy policies need to be reviewed to allow the Scottish Government to continue with their competent and ambitious vision of a prosperous green future? Finally, when can we expect full details of the timetable of the investigation into this matter?
Greg Clark
A little humility might be appropriate here, because the Scottish Government provided oversight of this procurement as part of the NDA competition programme board. I am sure that the lessons to be learned from 2012 to 2014 also apply to the Government in Scotland. I am sure that, whatever the view on future new nuclear power, the people of Scotland, as well as those of the whole of the United Kingdom, would want the existing nuclear power stations to be decommissioned safely and to have arrangements in place to ensure that that can be done reliably. On the independent review, which I hope the hon. Lady welcomes, I have asked Mr Holliday to give some interim findings by October, so that they can inform the further decisions about the re-letting of the contract.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay no attention whatsoever to the bizarre asseverations of the Scottish National party spokesman. In asking Steve Holliday, in whom we have considerable confidence, to do this review, I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to bring the review to a final conclusion reasonably soon after the interim report in October so that we can get to the bottom of this matter and ensure that it does not repeat itself in future years.
Greg Clark
I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is important quickly to learn the lessons and to apply them. This is very important work. The work is being carried out to a high standard, but those lessons must be learned and applied.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy call on this matter this morning and for his subsequent letter? The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will challenge hard, but work constructively with him and with Steve Holliday on this important issue. Will he clarify whether the inquiry will be confined to the procurement process, which led to this specific contract? Will it consider other contracts such as the one to decommission Dounreay, which was awarded to essentially the same consortium that won the Magnox contract? I think that he has already confirmed this, but will he say whether the inquiry will be broad enough to consider whether the governance and management arrangements of the NDA have always been, and will continue to be, fit for purpose?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for what he said. I can confirm that the governance and the management arrangements of the NDA are very much in scope. I put the terms of reference in the Library of both Houses of Parliament this morning. It is open to Mr Holliday to go where the evidence takes him—to use that phrase on this. The particular concern is over this contract, but if he feels that he needs to look at other aspects of the NDA’s management, he is absolutely free to do so.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I welcome the characteristic candour and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached the issue. Will he reassure me and the House that the scope of the inquiry will look not only at the NDA, but—as I think he just alluded to—at the role, if any, of UK Government Departments and the Scottish Government in the process?
Greg Clark
I will, indeed. The terms of reference that were published with my written statement this morning make it very clear that, as is absolutely right and proper, the inquiry applies to the NDA and Government Departments, from the beginning of the procurement in 2012 to the conclusion of the litigation and the termination of the contract.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Under current plans, Trawsfynydd power station will lose most of its jobs in less than 10 years. The Government are now in a position to commit to a programme of continuous decommissioning, as recommended by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. When will the Secretary of State publish revised plans following today’s announcement, and will he agree to meet me to discuss the future of the Trawsfynydd site?
Greg Clark
I will certainly meet the hon. Lady. I am glad that she has given me the opportunity to emphasise that the work will continue as planned at all the sites. As she will know, work is ahead of schedule in the plant she mentioned. In the light of that, I will meet her to update her on the latest timings.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
This was clearly a defective procurement with quite serious financial consequences. I welcome the Secretary of State’s determination that the reasons will be exposed, but will he assure the House that people found to be responsible or at fault will be brought to account?
Greg Clark
I can confirm that the terms of reference make it very clear that the inquiry can make any recommendations that it sees fit, including as to any disciplinary investigations or proceedings that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State please confirm that the thousands of people waiting for an outcome on their pensions will not be ripped off?
Greg Clark
Yes. There have been constructive discussions with the representatives of the workforce. Those discussions and consultations continue. Of course, we want to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
The NDA settlement payments are very substantial. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although the payments were made without accepting liability, the cost had the potential to rise much further were the matter taken to court?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a duty to consider the further risks to public money, which is why my accounting officer, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I accepted on advice that, however painful it is—these are significant sums of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) said—we should prevent the sums of money from being even greater.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Given the cost problems with the NDA’s Magnox decommissioning contract, how can the Secretary of State have any confidence whatever in the cost figures for Hinkley Point C, which will itself need decommissioning, especially given the farce of the massive cost overruns and huge time delays in building the EDF sister reactors in Finland and Normandy, neither of which has yet opened and each of which is years late?
Greg Clark
This is about a procurement process that was mis-specified around decommissioning; it is not against the build costs of a future reactor. If Steve Holliday’s report includes wider lessons for the industry, we will be sure to take them.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
All public sector organisations can learn much from procurement processes and public-private initiatives, as the £3,700 a minute spent by the NHS on private finance initiatives would attest. Will the Secretary of State assure me that all public sector organisations will be given the opportunity to learn best practice from the Holliday review?
Greg Clark
I will. It is important when there is such a serious set of consequences for public money that the conclusions should be publicly available, and available to this House and to other Government Departments that may want to reflect on them.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Holliday inquiry will have reached its final conclusions and issued its final report in time for any lessons learned to be taken into account before the new contract process begins?
Greg Clark
One reason I have asked Mr Holliday to make a report by October is so that that can happen. I will meet him in the coming days, as he sets out the scope and timetable, but that is one of the key reasons for the report, and I am sure he will want to make his recommendations available for the new process.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
What were the terms of the pay-off? The Secretary of State has not mentioned it.
Greg Clark
I have mentioned the settlement—it is nearly £100 million for the settlement of the litigation. The chief executive of the NDA has come to the end of his contract.
Declarations of Interest
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following a report made on 14 February by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I would like to apologise to the House for the failure to disclose a financial interest in a Westminster Hall debate on High Speed 2 on 25 March 2015. I should have declared that, owing to a court order caused by my divorce, I was in the final act of selling my house to HS2 under the extreme hardship scheme. I point out to the House that I did declare an interest in the previous HS2 debates on 28 January 2013, 26 June 2013 and 28 April 2014.
In addition, I should, on reflection, have declared an interest when I submitted a written question to the Transport Secretary on 9 October 2013 and when I spoke in the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill debate on 31 October 2013. I also attended meetings with HS2 and responded to the consultation, when, with hindsight, for purposes of clarity, I should have declared an interest.
I have sought to co-operate with the Commissioner for Standards throughout this inquiry. I have never made any secret of how close HS2 was running to my then property in North West Leicestershire. That in no way clouded my view of the HS2 project, which I opposed before the route was announced, during my interest and afterwards. I thank you for the opportunity to put this all on the record, and I apologise to the House profusely for any omissions I may have made.
Points of Order
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise the issue of correspondence between me and the offices of the Minister of State responsible for universities and the Minister responsible for energy, who is in his place. I first wrote to the Minister of State to request a meeting for a business in my constituency—the Underwater Centre—on 14 November. It took some time to get a reply from the Department. I finally received one on 22 December, with an apology for the lack of a response. There was an unwillingness to meet and a suggestion that I take the issue up with the Minister responsible for energy and industrial supply. I did so on 22 December last year. I have chased his office on several occasions, by email and by phone, and we have yet to receive an email. We indicated to the Minister’s office by email last Friday at 12.33 pm that, given the unsatisfactory nature of the situation, I would be raising it as a point of order. I would like advice on what a Member can do when a Minister’s office wilfully seeks to ignore a request from a Member for a meeting with a company in his constituency.
Mr Speaker
Persist, persist, persist, I say to the hon. Gentleman. That is the advice I give him. His attempted point of order has opened an interesting window into his life, the administrative support he enjoys and the diary commitments—not least around lunchtime last Friday—to which he was subject, for which I am sure the House is immensely grateful, but I do not think we can take the matter any further. He knows that my advice will always be to persist—he himself is nothing if not a dogged terrier.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past few days, almost 1,000 people have been arrested, beaten or imprisoned in Belarus—a country still under an effective dictatorship here in Europe. How can we show our solidarity with those in Belarus who are fighting for democracy, for freedom of speech, and for the rule of law?
Mr Speaker
I struggle immediately to see how the right hon. Lady’s observations constitute a point of order. That said, I recognise and respect the seriousness of her concern, and I acknowledge on the Floor of the House her long-standing track record of support for the Belarus Free Theatre. My initial answer is that I think that, by persistence and the good fortune of the ballot, she has probably secured her own salvation, and possibly an opportunity to press for the salvation of those who need it more intensely and immediately, because she has Question 9, if memory serves, at Foreign Office and Commonwealth questions tomorrow. I cannot anticipate the sequence of events, but it wold be a very unfortunate and unsatisfactory Foreign Office questions if we did not get to Question 9. I think I can say with some confidence that we will, and that the right hon. Lady, speaking on behalf of those people who need her help and will value it, will have her chance. What is more, if she expresses herself with her usual force, clarity and eloquence, she might motivate other right hon. and hon. Members to spring to their feet with supplementary questions following her own. If so, I will be all eyes and all ears.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, at 4 o’clock the deadline passed in Northern Ireland. I do not want to make any accusations against the Government, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making a statement elsewhere about what he expects now to happen in Northern Ireland, and I wonder whether you have had any notification of a statement to the House so that the House can express a view.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The short answer is that I have not received any indication that the Secretary of State is minded to come here. From the record of dealing with this Secretary of State—this particular right hon. Gentleman—I can say that he has always been fastidious in wanting to come to the House, often telephoning me and trying to make contact. Indeed, I am advised that he has sought to make contact with me by telephone. I have, however, received no written communication from him at all and no indication of an early statement. I think that one would have been forthcoming anyway, and in the light of my exchange with the hon. Gentleman I feel even more confident that it will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), Mr Speaker. I am afraid that I did not have notice of it, and I was not clear from what he said whether it was me to whom he referred. If it was, I would of course be delighted to meet him to discuss the issue he raised.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for that clarification, but just to be absolutely clear—
Mr Speaker
No, no, no—no additional clarity is required. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is a very cheeky fellow. A simple nod of the head would suffice, which he has provided. In my experience, the Under-Secretary for Business, Industry and Industrial Strategy is as courteous as Members in this place come, so I think we will leave it that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the Minister will get together, possibly over a cup of tea, and discuss these important matters.
Bus Services Bill [Lords]
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2017 View all Bus Services Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 March 2017 - (27 Mar 2017)
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 276 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (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—Report on the provision of concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay a report before each House of Parliament setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities in providing concessionary bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 who are participating in statutory apprenticeships.
(2) Any report under subsection (1) shall include, but will not be limited to, an evaluation of whether section 93(7) of the Transport Act 1985 should be amended to enable local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 who are participating in statutory apprenticeships on the same terms as that which may be provided to persons aged 16 to 18 receiving full-time education.
(3) In this section—
(a) “local transport authorities” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000; and
(b) “statutory apprenticeships” has the meaning given in section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18.
New clause 3—Assessment of possible concessionary travel schemes: impact on use of bus services—
‘(1) A local transport authority that does not provide travel concessions under a scheme established under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to persons specified in subsection (7)(c) of that section shall be required to prepare an assessment of the impact of establishing such a scheme on the use of bus services by persons specified in that subsection.
(2) Any assessment under subsection (1) shall consider, but will not be limited to, the impact of establishing such a scheme on—
(a) the ability of persons aged 16 to 18 to attend schools and further education institutions by means of bus travel,
(b) the cost of bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 receiving full-time education, and
(c) traffic congestion and emissions at peak times in the local transport authority’s area.
(3) In this section—
(a) “travel concessions” has the meaning given in section 112 (1)(f) of the Transport Act 1985; and
(b) “local transport authority” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000.’
This new clause would require local transport authorities to assess how creating an authority-wide travel concession scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education would affect how these students use bus services.
Daniel Zeichner
New clause 1 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass). It would require that the Secretary of State for Transport publish a national strategy for local bus services within 12 months of the day on which the Act is passed, setting out the objectives, targets and funding provisions for buses over the next 10 years. It would also require that the national funding strategy include a consideration of a reduced fare concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19.
New clauses 2 and 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), also relate to bus funding generally, and to young people’s concessionary fares specifically. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities in providing concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18, and new clause 3 would require local transport authorities to assess how creating an authority-wide travel concession scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education would affect the way in which students use bus services.
It is clear that a long-term national discussion from central Government on the funding of the bus industry is long overdue. Since the bus market in England outside London was disastrously deregulated in the 1980s by a Conservative Government, public support for bus services has been provided in a far from transparent way. The effects of deregulation have been stark.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the drop of more than half in passenger journey numbers in Yorkshire and Humber since 1985 is no coincidence—it is down to deregulation?
Daniel Zeichner
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I will return to other examples of the failure of deregulation in a moment. It is not just about the number of services. Fares have risen faster than inflation, and patronage overall has fallen by more than a third. Bus market monopolies have become the norm in far too many places.
Back in October, we noted the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation, but it was far from a cause for celebration. It meant 30 years of bus users being ripped off by a handful of big bus operators, which have carved the market into chunks and which go largely unchallenged in their own territories.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for people on low incomes in rural areas, and in some urban areas as well, it is almost impossible to job hunt without a decent bus service?
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend. In too many parts of the country, it has become very difficult for people to get to and from work. Throughout the 30 years since deregulation, fares have shot up even at times when fuel prices have been falling. For 30 years, while patronage in the still-regulated capital increased, passenger numbers declined in the rest of England.
This month, the Campaign for Better Transport published its latest “Buses in Crisis” report. The organisation made more than 100 freedom of information requests to local councils to get a full picture of recent bus cuts, and it found that funding for buses across England and Wales has been cut by 33% since 2010, and by nearly £30 million in just the last year. Last week I was in Somerset, where support from the county council will fall by another 19% next year. Across the country, more than 500 routes were reduced or completely withdrawn in 2016-17.
Despite the seemingly endless rounds of bus cuts, the Government seem reluctant to look at whether anything can be done in the round to improve the current system of bus funding. The Government’s argument is well rehearsed: the bus industry is a private industry and thus has nothing to do with central Government or central Government’s money. But that is just not the case. Around half of bus industry funding comes from the public purse. In 2014-15, total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall industry funding. In the past, the figure has been higher; in 2010-11 it was more than 46%.
I do not think that asking the Government to publish their strategy regarding such funding for buses in a single document is really asking that much. We just want a little clarity in a system that has become convoluted and confusing. The strategy would set out the plan and objectives for the public money that goes towards local authority-supported bus services, the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by concessionary pass-holders and the payment of the bus service operators grant to bus operators. Public money is being spent on buses, but the Government lack a strategy regarding how that money is spent. We believe that that needs to change.
I have previously raised the fact that operators are being reimbursed by public money for trips made by concessionary pass holders, but those operators can cut services and routes; the public have no say. That leads to the bizarre situation in which someone may have a concessionary bus pass, but no bus on which to use it. That is not a good deal for anybody.
We already have national strategies for roads and rail, and we are told that the cycling and walking investment strategy is imminent. Buses are being singled out within the transport family. Our new clause 1 would redress that imbalance and bring buses into line with other modes of transport.
We believe the Government need to do far more to help young people to afford the cost of bus travel. That is why we are asking the Government to include consideration of a young person’s concessionary fare scheme in the national bus strategy. Young people rightly have to stay in school, further education or training until they are 18, and many of them use the bus to get there. It is quite right that the Government should look at how they can reduce the financial burden on young people who are only trying to get to their school, job or apprenticeship.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Young people in Greater Manchester have told me that it is sometimes cheaper for four of them to get a Uber than to travel on buses in Greater Manchester. How on earth can that possibly make sense, and how on earth can that lead to anything other than complete gridlock on our roads?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading, we heard a number of cases from across the country about the excessive costs of travelling locally, particularly for families. Such a cost is bad for congestion, it is certainly bad for employment and it is bad for social justice.
The way in which buses are funded in this country is clearly not working. We need a proper governmental strategy to address these funding issues and enable the country to have the national conversation about buses that is long overdue and much needed. I therefore urge the Government to accept our new clause 1. It may help the House if I suggest that we will press it to a Division.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
New clause 1 calls for a national strategy that sets out various targets and objectives. I feel sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), sees one of the targets as the need to have accessibility for all who use the buses. I understand that the Government have already considered that issue after it was raised in Committee, and that they have very valid reasons for not going forward with a national strategy. However, by tabling the new clause, the hon. Gentleman has raised several important issues, and I want to mention some of them briefly.
In particular, there is a need for consistency. I welcome the change the Government have made with regards to information for bus passengers, which will help all our constituents. Some of my constituents have contacted me about the importance of having information available on the routes that they are taking. That is important not only for partially sighted or blind passengers, but for one constituent with autism and special needs who contacted me. This will help that individual, as well as a broader group.
As my noble Friend Baroness Campbell pointed out in the other place, other issues of national importance for people who use buses would fall within the national strategy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, such as wheelchair priority and access policies more generally. The Minister’s comments in Committee on wheelchair priority are very heartening. Following the Paulley case, it is important that an advisory committee will be set up. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he has given further thought to the composition of the group’s membership. Does he intend to involve the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? He should consider that carefully. The Minister did not touch on that detail in Committee—perhaps it had not been all worked through at that stage—but perhaps he could take this opportunity to assure the House that, subsequent to our debate in Committee, the discussions as part of that advisory group will be acted on quickly and that all relevant people will be involved.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that these measures in the national strategy would give bus services the status they deserve and recognise the fact that so many more people travel on buses, and make more bus journeys, than they do on trains, which are much more widely recognised in national policy making?
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about the difference in the way trains and buses are treated. I do not necessarily agree that there is a need for the national strategy to ensure parity, but she makes an important point. There should not be undue differences in how we treat bus operators and train operators, in particular on disability issues. I will take that point one stage further before I finish.
When the Bill was discussed in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Campbell said that there is a need for an accessibility policy with teeth to ensure that it is effective. As the hon. Lady said, there is a real contrast between how the Government treat buses and trains in respect of disability access and the conditions for licences for those who operate these important public services. It is a condition of a train operator’s licence that they comply with disabled people’s protections policy and state how they will protect the interests of disabled customers. That is enforceable by the regulator, with fines associated with lack of compliance. Why, therefore, is that not the case for bus operators? Perhaps in the absence of a national strategy, a condition could be put in place to ensure that such provisions exist for bus operators. Buses are an important way for disabled passengers to get to work and to social engagements, and to be a part of the community. Such provisions for bus operators would ensure parity between train operators and bus operators in how they support disabled people.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting distinction between buses and trains. Surely the point is that there are policy initiatives the Government could take, for example on access for disabled people, but that does not mean that a national strategy will take away from the requirements of a local strategy, which is what the buses are based on.
Mrs Miller
I am not arguing against having local strategies, but a number of issues to do with the provision of services have a national resonance. The Government have identified this problem in the provisions on information that is available to bus passengers when they are on buses. That is nationally applicable. I am simply asking the Minister whether he will confirm what further thoughts he has given to ensuring that what is good enough for train operators is good enough for bus operators in respect of disability access.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I support the amendment and want to reflect the huge consensus in Committee on this issue. We divided on a number of matters, but it was a relaxed Committee and the Minister gave reasoned answers. The Bill represents a first step towards a change in attitude to buses. It was brought about following negotiations between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and various metropolitan areas. A deal was reached whereby elected mayors could re-regulate bus services. I hope that this is just the first step.
I ask the Minister to reflect on this issue in a developing situation. The new Prime Minister has brought in an industrial strategy, and there is a strategy for the railways, as has been mentioned, as well as a strategy for aviation. It is rightly difficult to think of areas where large amounts of public money are spent where it is not the responsibility and the right of the Government and elected representatives to define the objectives that that public money should provide.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a connection between directly elected mayors and bus deregulation. Does he see any logical or sensible connection between the two? Is there any reason why the two should go hand in hand?
Graham Stringer
It was a pragmatic decision taken by the then Chancellor and the combined authorities in metropolitan areas. There is obviously no rational basis for deciding to have a different bus system in Greater Manchester from that in Southampton, for example. What would be the rationale for that? Clearly, there is none.
The point I was making is that, having taken the first step—not necessarily consistently, but in a sensible way in the metropolitan areas—it is right to look for a strategy that would help us to get rid of a relic of ideological Thatcherism from the early 1980s, which was seen in the Transport Act 1985 that deregulated buses. What the absence of strategy says is that we do not care how many millions of pounds have gone into the bus industry since 1986 when the 1985 Act came into force. I do not know, but I would have thought that over 31 years we are talking about a large chunk out of £100 billion being spent without any policy direction at all over that spending.
What we have been left with is a rather sterile debate. On the one side it is said that buses are declining and they would have declined in any case over this period. On the other side, there are those who think that that decline was not necessary. They say that without on-road competition, which has failed, with better competition at the tender stage and with a clearer decision on what bus services were needed and what fares should be charged, we would not have lost so many bus routes and bus passengers as we have. Not having a strategy over the last 31 years is saying that it does not matter that two thirds of bus passengers have disappeared in Greater Manchester and that bus fares have gone up considerably more than the rate of inflation. But these things do matter.
As both the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) have said, the vast majority of the people we represent, particularly the poorer people who do not have access to a car, rely on buses to get to work, to get to a hospital and to see relatives at weekends, but after deregulation, many of those bus routes no longer existed. How could we not have a strategy in view of that? How could we abandon those people?
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
Following on from what the hon. Gentleman says about a strategy, it is important to ensure that we have better records on bus safety. I ask the Minister to look again at what record keeping we have on this issue. Of course we publish the number of people killed or seriously injured, known as the KSI, but many other injuries are caused by buses. I can speak only about the London experience, but it would be really helpful if, as we put into place our overall plans for transport, we think of some way of recording minor as well as major incidents, so that we can provide everyone with assurances about the safety of buses.
Graham Stringer
That is a pertinent point. However, a bus strategy would cover all the issues: personal safety, disabled access, fares, and where buses were running. It is clear from the interventions and the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members, both today and in Committee, that that is where the central view of the House lies, and I think that that will be the direction of travel even if the new clause is not accepted on this occasion.
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he recall that, over three Parliaments, the Transport Committee has investigated bus deregulation on five occasions, and does he agree that that reinforces the case that he is making for fundamental reform, starting with this Bill?
Graham Stringer
I do indeed recall the time and effort spent on the Committee’s reports with my hon. Friend. They show that competition does not take place on the road—that is a myth—and that we have left the public purse vulnerable to parasites like Brian Souter who have taken money out of it while putting up prices and reducing the service.
There will be a rearguard resistance from people who have benefited from the system, but we, as parliamentarians who have a duty to look after raised taxes, should support the consensus in favour of a bus strategy that I believe exists in the House. After all, there are strategies throughout the rest of our transport system.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Like the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I was a member of the Bill Committee, and was pleased to contribute to what was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a consensual discussion. It was very well piloted by the Minister, to whom I was grateful for sending a Double Decker chocolate bar through the internal mail. Sadly, owing to the internal mail system, it looked more like a bendy bus by the time it was opened, but I was grateful none the less.
There is much in new clause 1 that is attractive, but I think that, given the improved local data requirements in the Bill, it should be perfectly possible to fix the strategy on a local basis rather than needing some form of Government top-down approach. The essential aim of the Bill is surely to bring about more localism.
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made the important point that a national strategy, or consistency, would really help disabled people, who may travel to a different part of the country and not know what to expect from the public transport system. Can the hon. Gentleman not see that basic minimum standards for disability access or ticketing, for instance, would be very helpful to those who travel across the country using different public transport systems?
Huw Merriman
I can certainly see the attraction of that, but I also think there is a danger that if local authorities think that Government will deliver the strategy, they might then not put anything in place themselves.
Another mechanism in the Bill will make it easier for local authorities to get more involved in the actual policy of how the Bill is implemented and how partnership should operate. Rather than talking of a national strategy, I would state that the Bill has some excellent points that should assist strategy at a local level.
Huw Merriman
Of course: I will give way one last time and then move on to 16 to 19.
Mrs Miller
I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and have a huge amount of sympathy with his wanting to make sure that we have a local approach to our bus services. Does he not then agree with me that we need to make sure that our law, through the Equality Act 2010, has more teeth, so that individuals are able to make the law work for them when they encounter problems, such as discrimination against them because they are disabled?
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, I had been going to retort that perhaps our laws need to be tightened up so that there is that combination. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s point, therefore.
Moving on to subsection (2)—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing only new clauses 1, 2 and 3 in this group. The amendments that I think he wants to speak to—amendments 16 and onwards—are in the next group. If he wishes to speak to them, he can do so when the next group comes up.
Huw Merriman
I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was referring to subsection (2) of proposed new clause 1, which talks about the reduced fare concessionary scheme for 16 to 19-year-olds. Am I within order?
Huw Merriman
Thank you. I have no desire to talk on other proposed measures.
On new clause 1, I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and see the advantages of this scheme. I serve a rural constituency where it is incredibly difficult for young people in particular to travel by bus. I would also extend his point: in my view, this relates to our desire to increase social mobility. If our young people cannot access work, perhaps at weekends, because it is too far for them to travel, and they cannot afford motor insurance premiums—which we all know, and have debated, are incredibly expensive—then there is something to be said for the argument about lack of social mobility. I am therefore attracted to the idea that this should be looked at.
We on the Conservative Benches would point out that we need to make sure that we cost those measures up, however, and that is the matter that would give me concern. If we increase the national debt through policies such as this one, that will have a negative impact on young people, because it is they and future generations that will have to repay it.
Perhaps we could consider the overall cost of concessionary travel, and whether it is time for concessionary travel, perhaps for the over-65s, to be given only to those who cannot afford it. We would therefore be looking more at means testing than giving concessionary travel to those who can well afford it and perhaps would therefore like to share that benefit with 16 to 19-year-olds, who, after all, we are requiring to stay in education and training and so need some assistance.
Andy Burnham
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it may not be necessary to throw money at this? The powers in this Bill could be used cleverly to extract value. For instance, if longer-term franchises were given to the bus operators on condition that they could give free travel to 16 to 18-year-olds, they might then become more regular bus users in their 20s, in which case the bus operators would capture the upside of that. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that this could be done cleverly if more areas were given the ability to use these powers?
Huw Merriman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anything that can be done to get young people on to the buses so that they stay on the buses has much to recommend it. I am also conscious that subsection (2) of new clause 1 refers to “consideration” of a reduced fare scheme, as, indeed, do the points I am talking to. So perhaps a mission for Government should be that money that can be saved, or perhaps reinvested, could go towards this measure, which I believe would help young people and social mobility.
John Pugh
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 and 3 in my name and also new clause 1.
Both my new clauses are basically about coherence; neither is about dictating to local authorities, as was mischievously suggested by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I am not trying to dictate to local authorities what they should do. Both of them are also obviously about concessionary travel for young people, which has been a thorny issue throughout the passage of this Bill.
Support for young people’s transport is variable, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, and worsening. Since 2008, 50,000 16 to 18-year-olds have had free transport withdrawn—a 42% drop, I believe. Two thirds of local authorities no longer provide free transport to 16 to 18-year-olds, and the price of bus passes for 16 to 18-year-olds varies incredibly across the country, ranging from £230 to more than £1,000. The number of transport authorities offering concessions right across their area has dropped since 2010 from 29 to 16, and 10 authorities have no arrangements that benefit the older age groups. The roll of shame of authorities that do not offer any concessionary fares for young people comprises Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, Warrington, Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Peterborough, Bracknell Forest, Oxfordshire, Portsmouth and Slough.
The situation is hardly good and the impacts are fairly obvious. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact on educational progress. According to the Association of Colleges, a fifth of students consider dropping out during their course, and often the reason is transport costs or, if the cost is not foremost in their mind, transport difficulties. There is an impact on students: a survey by the National Union of Students shows that two thirds of further education students pay more than £30 a week for transport—a lot of money for a young person. There is a clear impact on traffic congestion and pollution—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, too—as more young people get a car, perhaps sooner than they should, or rely on parental transport, which affects congestion at all the wrong times in most towns. There is also an impact on educational choice—I emphasise the hon. Gentleman’s point that the worst affected are probably residents of rural areas and poorer students generally.
Within the system are clear anomalies that need to be resolved. We raised the age of compulsory education, but local authority transport obligations remain very much as they were.
Andy Burnham
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says about the withdrawal of concessionary support for young people, but does he concede that the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance under the coalition Government made the problems for young people much worse?
John Pugh
The right hon. Gentleman might be surprised to learn that EMA was mentioned in my notes, but for some reason I omitted to mention it just then. He has drawn attention to it, and I dare say it was a factor.
Another anomaly in the system—this is where new clause 2 comes into its own—is that while we all accord parity of esteem as between the academic route and the technical route, and the apprenticeship route is now being sold fervently by almost all Government Members, apprentices do not really get a look in: an apprentice aged 16 to 18 gets a bare £4 minimum wage. We want to make the apprenticeship route more attractive, and there is some evidence that where schemes are introduced, they are highly successful. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the MyTicket scheme in Liverpool city region improved attendance quite appreciably. Developing transport in line with the apprenticeship system is very much a part of the city region agenda, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) touched.
The aim of my new clauses is relatively modest. They would not change the character of the Bill, which I broadly support. Essentially, they oblige local authorities to take a broader view of the environmental and educational impacts of transport policy.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that while the Government make huge cuts to local authority funding, even where authorities want to provide concessionary fares they are in many cases being forced to withdraw them? We heard evidence to that effect from Nexus, which said that, as much as it would like to support young people, the point was being reached in the north-east where it would no longer be able to do so.
John Pugh
Desperate times call for desperate remedies, and the financial situation in most local authorities at this moment is desperate, as is evident from the Audit Commission’s recent study of local authorities’ financial sustainability. Whether the Government accept that point or not, I think they will accept that there is a case for joined-up policy. The Government need to link the apprenticeship opportunity agenda with real-time transport problems and impacts. That is where new clause 2 comes into its own, and if I am supported, I will happily press it to a vote unless the Minister can assure me that all these things are within his frame of reference for the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It will be useful for me to cover all the amendments in one, hopefully fairly detailed, set of replies.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a national bus strategy—which we discussed at some length in Committee, where I am glad the discussions were considered, reasonable and helpful—and to consider a reduced fare concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19 as part of the strategy. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the possible steps to support local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18.
While the Government fully appreciate the importance of public transport for young people, particularly those living in more isolated areas, we also recognise that the cost of transport can be an issue for some young people, including those who are participating in apprenticeships. One reason for the introduction of the 16-to-19 bursary fund was to help with transport costs. Funding is allocated to schools and colleges and is used to support disadvantaged young people who need the most help with education and training costs, and the 2015 evaluation showed that nearly 400,000 young people were being supported. However, the statutory responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, enabling them to make decisions that best match local needs and circumstances. Many authorities and operators already offer discounts for passengers in that age group.
Both issues relate to funding. In Committee, I made it clear that the Bill is not about funding; it is about providing authorities with new tools to help them improve local services in a way that best suits their areas. As part of the 2015 spending review, my Department is protecting the bus service operators grant at current funding levels until 2020-21, already providing significant certainty of funding for bus services without the strategy proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). The funding is provided directly to local authorities and to bus operators and is not broken down into categories of service or by route. Attempting to do so would be a burdensome exercise that could risk embroiling central Government in the fine detail of local bus service provision.
At the heart of the question about a national strategy is the fact that the Bill relates to local bus services. It is not about a top-down, national plan. Buses are local by definition and play a key role in local transport planning. That is why we are seeking to support local councils with more powers. A national plan is not the answer. More powers for local authorities are part of the answer, and they are what the Bill provides.
Graham Stringer
One of our few disagreements in Committee was about what should be determined locally and what should be determined nationally. When the Government are spending billions a year on bus services, does the Minister not think that they should take an interest in there being more bus passengers and more bus miles and in what the fares should be? That could be stated as part of a strategy. In that respect, what is the fundamental difference between buses and trains?
Andrew Jones
I am happy to agree entirely that buses are a critical part of any local transport mix. I am a great champion of bus travel, which has been made clear in all my work as a Minister and in Committee. However, this is about a local issue, not a national solution. I made a joke in Committee that one of the great truths of business is, “I’m from head office, and I’m here to help.” I often was that person from head office, and I was not always quite so welcome.
This should be about local transport needs, not about a national top-down strategy. Are the Government neutral? Of course we are not, which is why we introduced the Bus Services Bill and protected the bus service operators grant, but ultimately this is about local authorities working in partnership with local bus operators to deliver the right services for their area.
Graham Stringer
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. If it is about local decisions, why will he not devolve the bus service operators grant to local authorities or elected mayors?
Andrew Jones
Some of the grant is already devolved to bus operators, but the key reason not to devolve it further is that it goes direct to bus operators, which very frequently operate routes that cross council boundaries. Council boundaries and bus routes are not the same thing. Transport to work has nothing to do with a local authority’s geography, so it would potentially be a bureaucratic nightmare to change the system.
Having said that, we are considering how to reform the BSOG operation. The grant pays a flat 34.57p a litre in subsidy, which is why it used to be called the fuel duty rebate. We are considering how to incentivise better practice, rather than just rewarding bus operators for using fuel, which is not good practice.
Lilian Greenwood
It feels as if the Minister is trying to devolve all responsibility for the state of our bus services. It was announced in the 2015 local government settlement that core central Government funding to local authorities would fall by 24% in real terms, which is partly why local authority support for buses is falling. Does he not take any responsibility for the impact that is having on bus services and on people’s ability to use the buses?
Andrew Jones
Of course I recognise that the pressures on local government finance are quite acute. In fact, I was in charge of my local council’s financial affairs throughout the financial crash in 2008-09, so I am fully aware of that. At the same time, it does not change the requirement to recognise that buses are a local service and should be determined locally.
Andy Burnham
Has my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) not just exposed a major contradiction at the heart of the Government’s position? The Minister says that he wants local delivery but, when it comes to cross-border issues, he says that Whitehall knows best. Surely the Government’s position on bus services should be for maximum devolution, including of the budget.
Andrew Jones
I am not saying that Whitehall knows best; I am saying that the grant is best delivered to bus operators that are running cross-border services, and then to take it from there. It is not a question of Whitehall knows best. We are not determining the routes that operators should be operating. We are keen to see more support for buses and more routes available, but the way to achieve long-term sustainable bus growth is to have more passengers on the buses.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned the Paulley case, which took five years to go through our legal system and reached the High Court. Specifically, we will be inviting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to attend the meetings of our working group, on which progress has been made. We seek to have a small working group that will look at the practical implications of the Paulley case. Among the members invited so far is the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, because we want the voice of disabled groups. We also want the voice of the bus operators, so we have invited the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Association of Local Bus Company Managers. We also want the voice of passengers, so Transport Focus has been invited. I hope we will see the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been invited to attend but not as a formal member. I hope to get things under way with our first meeting next month.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister, but may I take him back to the cross-border issue? Even in areas that do not have a landscape drawn out for elected mayors, local authorities have for the past three decades worked in partnership with one another where bus routes go across their local authority boundaries. I do not understand his point about devolving the grant to the bus company and not to groups of local authorities in travel-to-work areas.
Andrew Jones
The devolution of the funding goes straight to local bus companies. We are looking at how we can reform BSOG and I will take the hon. Gentleman’s points as a contributory suggestion. I do not want to change the system unless we are clear that it will keep more routes operational. We would have no guarantee, unless we ring-fenced the funding, that if we granted the devolution of BSOG to a local authority it would be used to support buses. It could go towards other forms of local transport. I want to keep it focused on buses. That is why it is with operators. However, I will take his point on board as we think about how to take this matter forward.
To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke a little more fully, the working group needs to be very action-oriented. The High Court encountered practical challenges in dealing with the issue of disabled access. We need to get the balance right. The space that is used for wheelchairs may also be used for parents with disabled children, the owners of assistance dogs and people who use walking frames. I want to protect everyone’s needs.
Disabled transport plans such as DPPPs are important in providing confidence and consistency for disabled people when using transport. I have much sympathy with the reason underlying my right hon. Friend’s suggestion. We will take forward a recommendation in the guidance supporting the Bill that authorities ensure that information is made available to passengers. That might be in a form that is provided by the authority or by individual operators. Again, we have been working on this issue with DPTAC, which has developed a template. I am keen to publish that with the guidance and encourage bus companies to use it. I therefore expect us to make progress in this area, which I hope will assist my right hon. Friend.
Mrs Miller
I welcome the Minister’s clarification with regard to the guidance being made available to passengers, but I gently remind him that when it comes to rail passengers, not only is there a regulator breathing down the neck of providers, but there are fines for non-compliance. How can he give this real teeth?
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that there is a straightforward read-across from rail to buses. There are 30 or so rail companies in this country and 1,000-plus bus companies. We need to have something that is proportionate. For the very largest groups, what she suggests might be appropriate. For the smallest companies, which might be operating a single route, what we are suggesting would clearly be more appropriate to provide information to disabled passengers, which is ultimately our joint objective.
New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), would require local authorities that do not provide a concessionary scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education to produce a report, setting out the impact on that group of young people and on local traffic of not providing such a scheme. As I have said, the legal responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, which are free to put in place appropriate arrangements. Those arrangements do not have to be free, but we expect local authorities to make reasonable decisions based on the needs of their population, the local transport infrastructure and the available resources.
Local authorities already have a duty under the Education Act 1996 to publish a transport policy statement each year, specifying the travel arrangements they will make to support young people to access further education and training. New clause 3 would simply replicate that duty.
In short, I do not believe that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 would add anything of value to the delivery of a bus service on a local basis or directly benefit passengers. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press them.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, we have had a constructive exchange; the points made about disabled access are welcome and will be pursued. As in Committee, much of the discussion has hinged on issues of localism. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) described well what we and many others see as the failures of the systems over the past 30 years. We discussed at length in Committee the value of a national framework, and I did not hear a huge amount of opposition to that in the contributions from Government Members, with many seeming to suggest that they, too, could see the benefits. The Minister heroically stuck to the script and clearly does not wish to go down that route just at the moment, but as we consider in future the way we fund bus services, be it the concessionary fares schemes or the bus service operators grant, there will clearly be a debate to be had.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have that national discussion, involving not only passengers but the industry and the local authorities, about the most sustainable way to fund buses? As local authorities develop different emissions standards as part of their own partnership and franchising schemes—the Campaign for Better Transport has said this—would a national strategy not provide some certainty for the UK’s bus vehicle manufacturers as well? There are many advantages to doing this, are there not?
Daniel Zeichner
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has raised the important issue of air quality, which is clearly becoming more important in many of our cities across the country. I just suggest to the Government that having a national framework within which to discuss these things might be extremely helpful, for a whole range of reasons. I fear that we are not going resolve or agree on this issue, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 4, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) A franchising scheme may not be made unless the franchising authority can demonstrate that the benefits for passengers could not be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”
This amendment would ensure that a Local Transport Authority cannot make a franchise scheme if the passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.
Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 36 and insert—
“(3) A franchising authority or authorities shall consider an assessment and shall not proceed with the proposed scheme unless it is satisfied that—”
This amendment and amendments 17 to 23 would tighten the criteria against which an authority must consider a franchise proposal.
Amendment 17, page 15, line 37, leave out “whether”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 18, page 15, line 43, leave out “whether”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 19, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert “they know”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 20, page 16, line 3, leave out “whether”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 21, page 16, line 5, leave out “whether”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 22, page 16, line 7, leave out “the extent to which”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.
Amendment 23, page 16, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment is related to amendment 16.
Amendment 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) the specific passenger benefits that would result from a franchise scheme, with an explanation of why those benefits could not be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”
This amendment would require a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of the proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why these benefits cannot be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme, or an enhanced partnership scheme.
Amendment 24, page 16, line 9, at end insert—
“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”
This amendment would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme must factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise.
Government amendments 2 to 4.
Amendment 25, page 17, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) A person may not act as an auditor under this section if the person or company for whom the person is employed has been an auditor for the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years or has had any other commercial relationship with the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years.”
This amendment would ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority had no commercial interest or association with the franchising authority which might create, or might be perceived to create, a conflict of interest.
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 6, page 19, line 37, at end insert—
“(4A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”
This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections.
Amendment 26, page 20, line 24, after “(or further postponed)” insert “or cancelled”.
Amendment 27, page 20, line 24, at end insert—
‘(1A) If an authority or authorities decide to cancel a proposed franchising scheme under subsection (1) they may not initiate a revised or alternative franchising scheme until the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the decision to postpone the original scheme was taken.”
This amendment would provide greater certainty for bus operators and passengers by specifying that, if a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, it should not be permitted to bring forward fresh proposals for five years.
Amendment 7, page 30, line 2, leave out “at the same time,”.
Amendment 8, page 30, line 14, leave out “at the same time”.
Amendment 9, page 32, line 27, at end insert—
“123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections
Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.”
This amendment would ensure that employees working under local service contracts not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.
Amendment 10, page 32, line 27, at end insert—
“123Z Effect on employees of introduction of local service contract
(1) Where, either before or after the introduction of a local service contract following an assessment under section 123B, any employee of an operator in the area to which the scheme relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the relevant local service contract.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 123X(4).
(3) Where section 123X(4) applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”
This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the introduction of a franchising scheme automatically unfair dismissal.
Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 41, line 17, at end insert—
“(6A) The requirements that may be specified under subsections (4)(b), (4)(e) and (4)(h) in relation to fares and the prices of multi-operator tickets may only be specified if all operators party to the enhanced partnership scheme are in agreement with those requirements.”
This amendment would specify that fares structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme if the operators involved agree.
Amendment 11, page 57, line 3, leave out “at the same time,”.
Amendment 12, page 57, line 14, leave out “at the same time,”.
Amendment 13, page 59, line 42, at end insert—
“138T Effect on employees of introduction of enhanced partnership scheme or plan
(1) Where, either before or after the coming into force of an awarded contract in an area to which the relevant enhanced partnership scheme relates, any employee of an operator in the area to which the contract relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the awarded contract.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 138S(4).
(3) Where section 138S applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”
This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the award of a contract under an enhanced partnership scheme automatically unfair dismissal.
Ian Mearns
I declare an interest inasmuch as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and vice-chair of the Unite parliamentary group, both of which unions have members in the bus industry.
The transport sector is a safety-critical environment. This is not a loose use of language. The sector involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long hours on repetitive tasks on repetitive routes, and people maintaining equipment at all hours of night and day. Hard lessons have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in the 1980s and 1990s. However, continuing financial pressures, declining support from Government through the bus service operators grant, and commercially oriented initiatives towards potentially reducing staff could threaten safe working practices.
Bus drivers are aware of where corners are being cut. In theory, they may be empowered to use their employers’ whistleblowing policies to speak out. In practice, however, workers who do so are frequently subject to all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistleblowing. This invariably leads to serious safety failings being increasingly ignored and not adequately investigated, or the results of an investigation not being acted on by bus companies.
To counter the dysfunction, a confidential reporting service known as CIRAS was introduced. This system, initially only for rail, has been successful in enabling workers properly to ventilate their concerns, resulting in lessons being learned and an accumulation of failings being halted, with serious harm prevented. All the major rail companies, many of which also own bus companies, such as FirstGroup, Go-Ahead Group and Stagecoach, have signed up to CIRAS.
I should declare another interest inasmuch as I am a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, as I do not own a car. A very good bus service is provided by Go-Ahead Group in my locality, but unfortunately not all my constituents can benefit from such great services. The bus company tries its best and provides excellent bus services during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, unfortunately, their frequency dwindles.
Bus workers outside London should also be able to access CIRAS. That would be the effect of the new clause, which would reproduce CIRAS in franchises or quality partnerships. In response to a spate of deaths and serious injuries involving buses on London’s roads, Transport for London successfully extended the CIRAS scheme to London buses. London has one of the best resourced bus networks and some of the newest buses anywhere in the country. CIRAS itself supports the extension of the scheme to bus operators nationwide. In line with other aspects of the Bill—including matters unconnected to franchising and partnerships, such as audio and visual announcements—a nationally mandated approach is warranted and would be greatly desirable.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I rise to support amendments 14, 16 to 23, 15 and 24 to 28, which are in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Amendment 14, which is very straightforward, would ensure that a local transport authority could not make a franchise scheme if passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.
Amendments 16 to 23 are mainly drafting amendments, but it is important that a franchising authority should be satisfied, rather than that it should just have considered the issues in a franchising assessment. As we heard in the debates on clause 4, it is clear that franchising should not be an easy option. A local transport authority should not be allowed to take a simple punt at franchising without having given full and detailed consideration to all the other options available. There will of course be other options, not least the partnership arrangements that we have looked at, and to which we will surely return in the near future.
The Bill contains stringent tests, but I think it would be very easy for a local authority to say that it has considered whether a proposed franchise regime would contribute to its transport policies; whether it has the capability and resources to operate the scheme; or, just as importantly, whether it can afford the scheme and that it represents value for money for local taxpayers—in other words, our constituents. It is quite another thing, however, for the authority to say that it is satisfied that its proposals will do these things. Surely, given the importance of the step the local authority is proposing to take in implementing a franchise scheme, it is not too much to ask whether it is convinced that its proposals will do exactly what they intend. That is what my group of amendments sets out to achieve.
Amendment 15 simply complements amendment 14, although it looks at the issue from a slightly different angle. I will not say anything more about amendment 15, except that we cannot really have amendment 14 without amendment 15. Amendment 15 requires a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of a proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why those benefits can be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership or an enhanced partnership scheme.
Amendment 24, probably the most important amendment in this group, is all about compensation. The key is to bring into play a degree of fairness. The Bill is silent on the matter of compensation and I think that is wrong. I know what the Minister will say in his response. He will probably say that he will go along with the Transport Committee when it said in its recent report that there is no case for compensating operators who lose their business. I am fully aware that compensation would not have been available under a quality contract scheme, but the days of quality contracts are severely numbered. The fact that there was no compensation under that scheme does not mean to say that it is not right to have compensation for the new arrangements. The loss of business would be bad enough for the large plcs, which would have to redeploy their staff and their assets, but what about the smaller operators?
Graham Stringer
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he explain—so far, he has not done so—on what basis compensation would be given when every bus company is able to compete to run buses via a franchising process?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am not an expert on this, but the small and medium-sized bus companies in my constituency tell me that they are very concerned indeed. They have established their businesses on the back of a lot of hard work, and they have taken a lot of risks. One company that came to see me said that its directors had re-mortgaged their homes and invested their life savings to ensure that the company grew. They stand to lose—not because they have not performed properly, not because they are a bad company, and not because the passengers have decided that they no longer want to use those services—if they do not win a bid to continue to do what they have been doing successfully for many years. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is a fair measure and I ask the Minister to consider it.
The wider point is this: what message does it send to businesses looking to invest in the UK? We want businesses to come to the UK to invest. We should be saying to them, “You’ve come to the UK to invest, and if local authorities take your business off you there will at least be some compensation.” This measure will, in the longer term, represent good value for the taxpayer, because it shows that taxpayers’ money will be put to a good use. If businesses are put out of business because of measures in the Bill, then surely there should be some recourse to compensation.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the importance of delivering value for money for the taxpayer. In the north-east, as in many parts of the country, there is not good value for the taxpayer. The Competition Commission has shown that a very limited number of bus operators have a monopoly over our services. The competition that was meant to follow deregulation has not materialised. This is not good value for the taxpayer. The Bill would allow smaller operators to break into a market on which the big boys currently have a stranglehold.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I can judge only on the basis of what is going on in my area, but I hope that the Minister will take into account what she said. I want more competition and more small operators. There are a lot of big operators around; I want to see the small ones flourishing. It is certainly the case in Norfolk that the small operators, companies such as Norfolk Green, were able to move in on routes and bring a new culture and new service ethic into place—it has done a fantastic job. I defer to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who knows a lot about this subject, but these operators have been able to get more customers on to routes and even to re-open routes that had previously been closed down.
Andy Burnham
The trouble with what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it has not worked that way under the current regime; passenger numbers have gone down in Greater Manchester. My worry is that he seems to be speaking for the bus companies rather than for the travelling public—that is what it sounds like to me. Can he assure me that this is not a wrecking amendment? Is he hoping that the fear of paying compensation will persuade local authorities not even to try to use these powers because they cannot afford to pay that compensation? Is that what he is trying to do?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to wreck the Bill in any way or do anything that is untoward. I am simply trying to make sure that SMEs are treated fairly.
Let me move on quickly to amendment 25. It is a simple amendment that is designed to ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority has no commercial interest in or association with the franchising authority that might create or could be perceived to create—perception is very important as well—a conflict of interest. I very much hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. It is reasonably anodyne, but quite important. I urge him to look at it very carefully indeed.
Amendments 26 and 27 are quite small amendments, too, but they are important. If a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, should it be permitted to come back to that scheme the following year, the year after that or indeed within months? I suggest that it should not. These amendments to clause 4 would prevent the authority from coming back with fresh proposals within five years.
In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
“I know how much business values certainty and stability”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 908.]
I think he was right. One thing that business dreads is uncertainty, which affects investment plans, recruitment decisions and the way that businesses, particularly SMEs, conduct their everyday activities. Bus operators are understandably and justifiably concerned that some of these measures could put their businesses under threat—in the worst-case scenario, with the franchise authority coming back to the franchise time and again within the five-year period. We want to create a situation in which there is a workable franchise scheme and the franchise authority cannot keep chipping away at it.
These amendments are not vital, they would also help local authorities. We know that the burdens on local authorities are growing the whole time. They are under massive pressure to deliver better services and better value for money, whether it be in respect of refuse collection, care for the elderly, street lighting, planning and so on, with ever-dwindling resources. The local authority might have a lot of pressure put on it by its elected members or other bodies to devote time and energy to bringing back a franchise exercise that was not progressed in the first place, which I think would be a mistake.
Andy Burnham
I would like clarification and reassurance from the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me as if the combined effect of these amendments is to open up some confusion, to create possibilities for bus operators to use legal challenge, and to delay and tie the hands of the combined authority in the case of Greater Manchester and in other combined authorities elsewhere. Can he be absolutely clear that that is not what he is trying to do? It sounds to me for all the world as if that is the real intent behind these amendments.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. I remember asking him questions in past times, when he was a Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, and we have engaged in debates in Committee. I assure him that I do not intend to do what he has suggested. I think that small and medium-sized enterprises and the smaller bus companies will support the amendments.
Lilian Greenwood
Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the very fact of having the opportunity to take franchising powers enables local authorities to put pressure on operators, not all of which are small and medium-sized companies—in fact, most of them are very large—in order to bring them into partnership arrangements? If a local authority does not have the potential to develop franchising schemes, many operators will not seriously enter into negotiations on either advanced quality or enhanced partnerships.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I was under the impression that authorities had those powers anyway, but the Minister will obviously have heard what the hon. Lady has said. It is up to the Minister to listen to what we have said, and then to make a decision.
I now want to say something about amendment 28. I will be brief, because I have already taken up a fair amount of the House’s time. The amendment would allow fares structures to be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme only if all the operators involved agreed. The key issue is the ability of commercial bus operators to set their own fares, which is an important feature of a deregulated market. Of course fares structures are set competitively. In the same way, a commercial enterprise looks at what its competitors are charging, and structures its own charges accordingly. The competition authorities have introduced important safeguards to ensure that bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market and set fares at levels that disadvantage passengers. There are checks and balances, and that is extremely important.
Ian Mearns
What the hon. Gentleman is saying seems to suggest that the powers of a local authority, or collection of local authorities, in the areas that he represents would be less than those currently enjoyed by the voters of London when it comes to oversight of the running of an integrated transport system. Why should electors in all the other parts of England have an inferior set of arrangements?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a huge amount of respect—that I have listened to bus operators and passengers in my constituency. We now have more bus services in our remote communities and villages that we did, say, 20 years ago, when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was standing for election to a rural Norfolk seat—and he nearly won that seat in 1997; I think it was Mid Norfolk—because SMEs have stepped up to the plate.
I have taken enough of the House’s time. Let me simply say this to the Minister. I believe that the amendments go a modest way towards improving the Bill, without undermining or sabotaging parts of it. I think that they will help bus operators—especially the smaller ones—and passengers and local authorities by providing clarity.
Mrs Ellman
I want to talk about the new clauses and amendments relating to franchising, including amendments 14 to 23, 26 and 27.
The strength of the Bill lies in devolution, and its proposal that decisions on how to provide local bus services should be devolved to local transport authorities, which should consider what works best in their areas. It is important to remember that the Bill has come about because of dissatisfaction among members of the public—people who want to use buses—with the way in which the current system operates. There have been a number of attempts to change the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated transport services, but none of those attempts —which have been made under successive Governments—has resolved the problem. The Bill is important because it tries to address the difficulties that the public have experienced, and to create a thriving bus sector.
The Transport Committee examined the Bill in detail from the perspective of passengers. We welcomed the possibility of new and smaller entrants to the bus market, but what worries me about the new clauses and amendments is they may prevent the proposed devolution from taking place. There are two aspects of that. The first relates to combined authority areas with directly elected mayors having the power to proceed with franchising. There is a lack of clarity about the regulations that will be introduced, or imposed, to impede the ability of the mayors to do that. Will it be an absolute right, or will onerous, complex and perhaps unknown regulation be imposed? I hope that the Minister will clarify that issue, because it relates to a fundamental part of the Bill.
Secondly, the Bill proposes that transport authorities in areas that are not run by combined authorities with directly elected mayors may have powers to introduce franchising in certain circumstances. The amendments make that proposal extremely complex. It would be impossible to assess whether the transport authorities would be able to proceed with franchising if they wished to do so. The Transport Committee looked at good practice, and concluded that transport authorities should consider existing ways of operating in partnership with operators before moving to a franchising system, but we did not think that that should be part of the regulations. This proposal introduces new hurdles, but it is not fully specified what those hurdles are, or—this is equally important—how they would be assessed before the authority could adopt the franchising system. That, I believe, strikes at the heart of the Bill.
The Bill is intended to improve transport services in localities and devolve to local transport authorities the ability to act on the needs of their areas, but the hurdles introduced by the amendments might enable future Ministers to impede its objectives, and I am sure that present-day Ministers would not wish that to happen. I am extremely concerned about the amendments. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what they mean, and will make clear whether the Government intend franchising to go ahead, as they have stated, without introducing complex hurdles which would make the proposed system extremely difficult to achieve.
Graham Stringer
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee. As she said earlier, the Committee has considered this issue on a number of occasions, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned this—we have never been able to find a reason why London should have one system and the rest of the country should have another. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) grins at that, and I do not blame him, because the regulated system in London is superior to the system in the rest of the country.
I listened to the responses of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about his not wanting to wreck the Bill, and I take that at face value. However, I do not think the amendments reflect the reality of the nature of bus services, certainly in urban areas. I am not an expert on bus services in Norfolk and suspect the hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about Norfolk, but if he is concerned about small bus companies, he should support this Bill as it is or seek to improve it, because what has happened in the west midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the great urban areas of this country is precisely the opposite of what he wants: small companies have been driven off the road by large companies.
Ian Mearns
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the impact on the small bus service providers. When bus services franchising was introduced, I remember visiting Merthyr Tydfil to see Gateshead football club play Merthyr in a Conference fixture, and—lo and behold—there in Merthyr Tydfil were Go-Ahead Gateshead buses being used in a local bus war to destabilise a local small bus company. So in terms of the impact on small and medium-sized bus companies, that particular horse bolted long ago.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is right: the deregulation of bus services has not led to greater competition and has not benefited SME companies. They have been literally driven off the roads, because on the odd occasions when there has been on-the-road competition, it has led to congestion and eventually a large monopoly operator taking over. FirstGroup, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and one or two other companies have taken control and have therefore been able to exploit the situation through introducing high bus fares and sometimes withdrawing services for other areas.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments on small and medium-sized bus companies, and there is a lot of truth in what he says about the smallest bus companies, but does he agree that the greatest concern is for medium-sized operators? There are not many medium-sized companies in the country, but there are some in counties such as mine, Nottinghamshire, and neighbouring Derbyshire: Marshalls of Sutton on Trent and trentbarton —which the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) will be familiar with—are good medium-sized bus companies and they stand to lose a lot from this. They will grow exponentially if they win a franchise or, in the case of either of those companies, they could find 30 years of hard work going down the toilet with no compensation whatsoever.
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will come on to it. He is right to be concerned about that, but I want to develop the logic of the argument that I am making as to why these are not sensible amendments. In large parts of the country, where most bus passengers are, we do not have competition. The basis of the Transport Act 1985 was that there would be on-the-road competition and that would provide good services, and if bus companies lost out because of on-the-road competition, they lost out as in any other capitalist-competitive market situation. That has not happened, however; we have moved to monopoly.
Incidentally, when the 1985 Act was implemented in 1986 no compensation was paid to those bus companies—of which there were a number—running on regulated routes. Mayne in east Manchester, for instance, had run for many years in that area; when it had to compete, it did not get compensation.
We are now moving—through principled objectives, in a different way—to a competitive system, in those areas that choose that, because there will be choices for Norfolk, Greater Manchester and other areas at some stage. As with rail franchising, in a competitive situation, when a company loses out, it loses its business, even if it has invested in it previously. In fact, one of the difficulties with franchising is that we end up with investment up front and a lack of investment at the end; that is just the nature of franchising.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about medium-sized bus companies, that can of course be taken into account in the way that franchises are set up, by local choice. Areas can set them up in as many different ways as they wish, so medium-sized companies could be given the right to tender for routes that fit the size of the company if that was what the franchising authority wanted to do.
That brings me to a point I made in Committee, and which was rejected. Rather than the amendments we have here, I would have preferred the Bill to say that the regulations should not be overly burdensome and that they should reflect local conditions. If they were reflecting local conditions, they could take into account those small and medium-sized companies. There is a large point here, however, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the large companies would be more pleased than the small bus companies if these amendments were passed.
There is not a single quality contract in this country, and that is because when they were brought in under the Transport Act 2000, it contained a clause that is very similar to measures here, saying that they are the only practical way of delivering a better bus service. That is an incredibly high hurdle to jump, which is why there are no such contracts. Quality partnerships were referred to; I asked the Minister in Committee how many of them there were in the country, and, after a little help from the officials, we discovered that there were 10. So even quality partnerships are not abundant on the ground in this country. We do not need overly burdensome regulations. We want to make this work because it will improve the service for passengers, be more competitive and lead to better services.
We are not discussing them now, but there are huge guidance notes associated with this Bill, which I think tend to be overly prescriptive. I prefer to rely on the good sense of local councillors; they will make some good decisions and some bad decisions, but there are many bus companies with vested interests who are opposed to this, and if local authorities behave in an unreasonable way, they have the right to apply the Wednesbury principle and go for judicial review.
Rather than having lots of prescriptions, and putting ever more hurdles in the way of locally elected people making decisions, we should rely on their good sense. Sometimes they will get it wrong, as sometimes national politicians in Governments and Cabinets get things wrong, but we can rely on them and the common law, which will ensure that if bus companies feel that they are being unfairly treated and that transport authorities are behaving in an unreasonable way, they can take that to court.
So I hope the Minister will reject these amendments. We have held in the balance throughout our discussions the question of what is central and what is going to help local authorities, transport authorities and elected mayors to make these decisions, and these amendments do not help move us towards having a better local transport system.
Daniel Zeichner
There is a wide range of amendments in this group, many of which we support, but some we do not.
I genuinely hope that the Minister will consider new clause 4 on bus safety, despite his comments in Committee. More disappointment has been expressed to me on that aspect of our Committee discussions than on any other, partly because the comments of the Minister in the other place had been encouraging, but also because I cannot believe that there is any disagreement on the value of improving bus safety, and this is widely seen as an effective and cost-effective way of achieving that goal.
I think the Minister suggested in Committee that he might be minded to insert some guidance to encourage bus operators to sign up, but the evidence on voluntarism is clear: to my knowledge, no bus operator outside the London franchises is signed up to any independent, confidential incident reporting system. We have an opportunity now to end that situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, such a system is not expensive. It works in the railway industry, and I have not heard a strong case made against it. It seems to work well and I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity.
Amendments 14, 16 to 23 and 15 appear to us to be unnecessary and to go against the spirit and devolutionary nature of the Bill. The assessment process laid out in the Bill and the extensive guidance—168 pages—available for it are extremely thorough and tough, and do not need to be added to. Amendment 24 undermines the assessment made by the Government of the issues relating to compensation and sufficient time to enable operators to plan. Provisions already in the Bill fully satisfy all value-for-money considerations. We are pleased that the Minister confirmed on Second Reading and in Committee that the aim of the process is not to put barriers in the way of authorities proceeding to franchising. We fear that the amendment threatens the very heart of the Bill. Amendment 25 also seems to be unnecessary, as additional appropriate independence, rigour and structure for the audit process will be ensured by the Government, to which I think the Minister is about to speak. Amendments 26 and 27 also seem at odds with the devolutionary nature of the Bill, because it should be for elected authorities to make the decisions, based on their local judgments.
We strongly support amendments 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The arguments were well made in Committee, and perhaps even more strongly today. In any transfers workers should be properly protected, and we have the opportunity to ensure that. I fear that the Government will choose not to take the opportunity, but I urge them to do so.
Andrew Jones
The respective roles of central Government and local government were a running theme in Committee, and I think we are back to it this afternoon. I will begin with the amendments that deal with the franchising schemes.
The decision to move to a franchising system is a big one for any authority or combined authority to take, and it is therefore not to be undertaken lightly. It must have at its heart improvement for bus passengers, but it must be very much a local decision. That principle has underlain the Bill right from the beginning. We want to ensure that authorities contemplating franchising do so with their eyes wide open to the opportunities, the risks and the costs, and we expect them to have consulted widely on their proposals.
The Bill sets out clearly the processes that authorities must follow before they can implement franchising. Those include developing an assessment of the proposed franchising scheme—in effect, a business case. As part of that assessment, the authority must consider the value for money and affordability of the proposal and must compare making the proposed scheme with other courses of action, such as a partnership—very much as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) suggested.
Several of the amendments in the group would change how those arrangements are operated. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend, would require an authority to include in its assessment consideration of whether the proposed scheme will be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to operators. Given the extensive requirements I just set out, I do not see a need to make those similar additional matters a separate part of the assessment. Also, it is not necessary or appropriate to refer to compensation in this part of the Bill, or indeed any other. Any move to a franchising scheme will not come as a surprise to bus operators; the clear processes and consultation arrangements we have set out will give them sufficient warning and sufficient opportunity to express their views on the proposed scheme, as statutory consultees.
Graham Stringer
The Minister says that competition will continue, but does he accept the evidence that the Transport Committee took from the Competition Commission, which was that the commission was unable to find much evidence of any on-road competition?
Andrew Jones
My point is that competition will move, but it will not disappear from the market. Competition now takes place on the road; it will move from the roadside to the tender. I do not accept that competition disappears from the marketplace. I came to this place from a robust private sector background, where competition was the daily bread-and-butter activity, and I am sure that it can have a positive impact on customer service, innovation, price and so on.
Robert Jenrick
The Minister kindly met my constituent John Marshall, who in addition to running a medium-sized bus company chairs the east midlands passenger transport organisation that represents other small and medium-sized bus companies in the region. He tells me that for him and his members, the question of compensation remains unanswered by the Bill. For the sake of clarity for bus operators, will the Minister say whether the Government intend that in the event that franchises are lost, no compensation will be or should be paid to any bus company in the UK?
Andrew Jones
We do not think that it will be a requirement to pay compensation, but an authority that goes down the route of developing a franchising model will of course be free to offer payments as it sees fit. It is not Government policy that such compensation will be mandatory.
Amendments 16 to 23, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk would require a franchising authority to be satisfied of, rather than to consider, certain matters when making its assessment of a proposed franchising scheme. That is a significant distinction. The assessment as set out in the Bill does not require the authority to pass certain tests or to prove that franchising would achieve certain outcomes. Instead, it reflects the standard approach for public sector investment decisions of requiring a view to be taken on the overall merits of the scheme.
That is a deliberate move away from the quality contract scheme process, under which no local transport authority has established a franchising system. A requirement for a franchising authority to satisfy itself that franchising will deliver certain outcomes risks raising an impossible hurdle. It would be difficult for authorities to satisfy themselves with certainty, as their analysis, by its very nature, will be based on assumptions and projections about the future. The amendments therefore risk making the Bill unworkable in practice. We agreed to deliver as part of our devolution commitments franchising powers that would be more usable than the existing quality contract schemes, and that is what the Bill does. I hope that, on the basis of the explanations I have given, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will not press amendments 16 to 24.
In addition to requiring a franchising authority to prepare an assessment, the Bill requires the authority to obtain a report from a qualified auditor. In relation to the consideration of affordability and value for money, the report must set out whether the authority has used information and conducted an analysis of sufficient quality. The authority must publish the auditor’s report as part of its consultation process. Amendments 2 and 3 make it absolutely clear that the auditor appointed for this purpose must be independent. It has always been our intention that the auditor should be independent, but we wanted to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond any doubt. Amendment 3 imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters that a franchising authority is to take into account when selecting an auditor and on the criteria to be taken into account by an auditor in reaching a view on the relevant aspects of the authority’s assessment. An authority or auditor must have regard to such guidance.
I am happy to say that I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk on amendment 2. He may be surprised to hear that I also agree with the principle behind amendment 25, but the nuances of how independence from the authority can be demonstrated are better addressed through guidance rather than on the face of the Bill. That is the thinking behind amendment 3. For example, amendment 25 would require an auditor to have five years of independence from the authority, which could be difficult to deliver. For the combined authority of Manchester, for example, it would have to be demonstrated that none of the bigger accountancy firms had dealt with any of the constituent authorities on any issue over the past five years, which could be quite a challenge. However, the principle of independence has absolutely been in the Government’s thinking since the beginning. I support that principle, which is behind my hon. Friend’s amendment, and that is why I hope that he will feel able to withdraw amendment 25.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments on amendment 25, but will it be possible to include the spirit of the amendment in the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue? If he can give an undertaking that that could happen, I would be prepared to withdraw amendment 25.
Andrew Jones
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will deal with independence in the guidance, and independence from the decision-making body will be a basic criterion for the auditor.
Andy Burnham
I am reassured by what the Minister said this afternoon in rejecting amendment 14 and other related amendments. I ask him to go a little further and commit to the House that the spirit of his remarks today will be carried into the guidance and regulations that will follow the Bill—the consultation on them closed sometime last week. Will he also work closely with Transport for Greater Manchester and other metropolitan transport authorities to ensure that the wording of the regulations and the guidance is consistent with what he has said today and what is in the Bill?
Andrew Jones
I can provide the right hon. Gentleman with that assurance. We are not seeking to stand in the way; we want to create a suite of powers for local authorities to make decisions about what is right for their area. In some cases, it will be a franchising model, but that will be at the margins and not what will happen in most parts of the country. However, some parts, such as Greater Manchester, have indicated much interest in that model. It is not one of our objectives to block local authorities from choosing what is right for their area. We want a thriving bus industry, with local authorities working with bus operators to deliver a better network with a better deal for passengers and more passengers on buses. That is our objective with this Bill.
Amendments 4 and 5 make clear the precise requirements that a person has to satisfy to be appointed as an auditor. We are proposing the changes in response to effective representations we have received from a number of Members and following meetings that the Secretary of State and I have had to discuss the practicality of existing provisions with potential auditors. I hope that the amendments will be broadly supported by Members across the House.
The aim of amendments 14 and 15, once again tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, is to prevent a franchising scheme from proceeding if the passenger benefits it is expected to deliver could be achieved by making a partnership scheme. I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend’s intentions. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) have done a significant job in speaking up on behalf of bus passengers for a considerable time. I do not want to see franchising pursued for any reason other than passenger benefit, and certainly not for ideological reasons. Passenger benefit is a theme that runs throughout the Bill. We want to see passenger experiences improve.
As I have made clear, however, the Bill already requires a local transport authority to compare making a franchising scheme with one or more other options. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will be reassured to know that that should be a proper consideration of the options available. Indeed, the draft guidance, on which we recently consulted, states:
“Identifying realistic options should not be a desk exercise… and authorities should engage with bus operators in the area”
to see whether there is “a realistic partnership proposition”. It also states that an
“authority should not dismiss realistic”
alternatives without detailed assessment. The decision-making arrangements for franchising in the Bill are appropriate. Following a consultation on its assessment of the options, which should include bus operators and passenger representatives, an authority that decides to implement franchising must have satisfied itself that franchising is the right option for its area. Importantly, it should have a clear rationale for that decision with passengers at its heart. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw amendments 14 and 15.
The final set of amendments relating to franchising decisions are also from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk. Amendments 26 and 27 aim to prevent an authority that has developed a franchising proposal, but not progressed it, from making another franchising scheme for a period of five years. Those amendments go against the spirit of devolution. Banning the introduction of a franchising scheme for an arbitrary time period would severely restrict the capacity of an elected mayor, or other franchising authority, to take local situations into account and to act accordingly. It could also undermine the democratic process by preventing a new mayor elected within the five-year period from developing a franchising scheme, even if he or she had had franchising in their manifesto. In practice, if an attempt to franchise were to fail, it is highly unlikely that an authority would seek to make another scheme without devoting a reasonable and significant period of time to learning lessons from the experience. Given that, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendments.
I will now move on to consider how much freedom a mayor or local transport authority should have in implementing franchising and partnership schemes. Amendments 6 to 13 and new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Gateshead, seek to limit that freedom in various ways. As I said in Committee, I do not believe that mandating the basis upon which contracts are procured by local transport authorities, or the contents of those contracts, is appropriate, but that is exactly what amendments 6 and 9 propose in relation to the terms and conditions of employees. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the power to achieve the outcome that the amendments seek will already rest with the franchising authority that will be letting the contracts. Employees and their representative groups will have plenty of opportunities to raise such points during the consultation process for the respective schemes. Indeed, it may be appropriate to put the proposals to the mayoral candidates of each of our parties.
I am a little surprised that the amendments have been tabled, because we discussed the practical concerns about them in Committee. For example, it is not clear which terms and conditions would apply where people with different arrangements had previously transferred under TUPE, and the cost of the proposals could also prove sufficient to prevent some authorities from pursuing a franchising scheme.
Ian Mearns
Does the Minister accept that injuries can also occur to passengers? As a regular bus user, I have witnessed such injuries on a number of occasions. This is not only about pedestrians and other road users. Bus passengers, often without the vehicle being involved in any sort of collision, can be injured when, for instance, the bus brakes abruptly. Surely the travelling public on buses—the customers of the bus operators—have a right to some Government protection.
Andrew Jones
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is no doubt that passengers can be injured on a bus. I am also a regular bus user—not that that is particularly relevant—and all of us who travel on buses will have seen such injuries. He makes a reasonable point, but it does not necessarily mean that we need to mandate a reporting system in primary legislation.
Transport for London is the main example of confidential reporting by a bus operator, and it has featured in our debates in Committee. I understand that TfL pays the CIRAS subscription. When the London Underground and rail contract came up for renewal, the CIRAS contract was extended to cover buses at no extra cost to TfL. That prospect is different from mandating that every bus operator subscribes to such a system.
As I mentioned in response to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), there are 30 rail companies and 1,000-plus bus companies in this country. We also need to consider the evidence. I have not been made aware of any robust evidence to suggest that arrangements introduced in London have had a significant impact on safety. If a franchising authority wishes to stipulate a system such as CIRAS as part of its conditions of contract, it is of course free to do so—that is what TfL has done here in London. Authorities that negotiate partnerships could also include bus safety measures as part of such an arrangement, so I will explore through guidance how we could encourage operators and local transport authorities to consider the benefits of an independent confidential reporting system, but we will probably limit that only to a franchising or partnership scheme to start with.
I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Member for Gateshead will feel able not to press amendments 6 to 13 and new clause 4.
I have been speaking for far too long, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you and Members on both sides of the House will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks.
Amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, addresses decision making in enhanced partnership schemes. It would prevent requirements on how tickets are purchased or fares paid, on how fares or ticketing arrangements are publicised and on the price of multi-operator tickets from being specified in such a scheme unless all parties agree. Ticketing is a key element of the Bill’s partnership proposals, and one of the key principles of the enhanced partnership regime is that it does not require consensus by all operators.
Instead, affected operators may object to the enhanced partnership proposals at key points in the process, and the authority cannot proceed with its proposals if more than a sufficient number of operators object. Details of what amounts to that sufficient number will be set out in the draft regulations, on which we have recently finished consulting.
Leaving aside the objection mechanism, there are further safeguards to ensure that individual operators are treated fairly when ticketing requirements are included in an enhanced partnership scheme. A key safeguard is the ability for any proposals relating to ticketing, or any other element of an enhanced partnership scheme, to be subject to scrutiny by the Competition and Markets Authority, which will be a statutory consultee on the proposals. Our draft guidance on enhanced partnerships also makes it clear that all documents should include a section on competition, and it provides clear advice on how individual operators can raise concerns with the CMA at any point during the development or implementation of a scheme.
Perhaps most importantly, I can reassure my hon. Friend that an authority making a scheme has to be satisfied that any restrictions on competition introduced by an enhanced partnership, such as setting the price of a multi-operator ticket, are balanced by the benefit to passengers. The effect on small and medium-sized bus operators should also be taken into account as part of that process, and we have built protection for small and medium-sized operators into the Bill by requiring them to be considered, whichever regulatory model is chosen locally.
I make it clear that the provisions are about fairness, and not about protecting the commercial interests of operators. Bus operators may well prefer their passengers to buy a ticket for use only on their buses, rather than one that can be used on any bus service. That is of course in a bus operator’s commercial interest, but it might not necessarily be in the interest of a bus passenger.
If my hon. Friend’s amendment were to be accepted, only one operator would need to put its commercial interests first to block an improvement to ticketing for passengers that might grow the entire market in its area. Overall, the safeguards I have outlined are enough to ensure that proposals relating to ticketing are fair and reasonable to bus operators while delivering improvements that benefit passengers. I hope he finds my explanation reassuring and will therefore not press his amendment.
I believe the Bill already has decision making right and is in the right place to get the best outcome for passengers. In doing so, it will deliver on our devolution commitments, and I trust the House will agree.
Ian Mearns
I would like to think that the Minister will provide within the guidance to the Bill, once it is enacted, a reference to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System as best practice in the industry. Notwithstanding that, I do not seek to press the new clause or amendments 6 to 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4
Franchising schemes
Amendments made: 2, page 16, line 38, after “an” insert “independent”.
This amendment and amendment 4 make plain the status of the persons who may audit an assessment under section 123B produced by a franchising authority or authorities.
Amendment 3, page 17, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance as to the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor.
( ) Franchising authorities must have regard to any such guidance.
( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance concerning the matters to be taken into account by an auditor when forming an opinion as to whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality for the purposes of subsection (2).
( ) Auditors must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor and to issue guidance on whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality. It also imposes duties on franchising authorities and auditors to have regard to any such guidance.
Amendment 4, page 17, leave out line 3 and insert
“For the purposes of this section an auditor is independent, in relation to an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme, if the person would not”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 2.
Amendment 5, page 17, line 8, leave out from “person” to end of line 9 and insert
“eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of”.—(Andrew Jones.)
This amendment alters the definition of “auditor” so that it means an individual or firm eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 as modified by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
Clause 22
Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 1, page 78, line 4, leave out clause 22.
This amendment would remove Clause 22.
Amendment 1, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass), would remove the clause that bans county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services. In short, we seek to overturn the Government’s ban on municipal bus companies.
This clause is a piece of ideological dogma that has no place in an otherwise agreeable piece of legislation. We visited this issue in Committee and I fear that the Government are not minded to budge, but I and many others found the Government’s arguments there extremely unconvincing. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services are kept separate…as such we do not think authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 57.]
The Opposition also want passengers to see benefits; we simply do not agree that municipal bus companies cannot be a part of achieving those benefits.
The latest annual Transport Focus bus passenger survey, which was published just last week, demonstrates once again that municipal bus companies provide some of the best services in the country. Nottingham City Transport and Reading Buses—municipal bus companies —had higher overall satisfaction results than the big five private national bus operators. The Government’s attempted ban on new municipals therefore flies in the face of all the evidence.
The ban also flies in the face of the Government’s purported commitment to the spirit of localism and devolution, which they claim the Bill encapsulates. Although they say that the Bill will provide local authorities with a range of options and tools, and that local authorities are best placed to make a decision about how local bus services are organised and run, they are imposing an arbitrary ban on one of those options—and not just any option, but one that has been shown to work very well for passengers.
Of course, many of us suspect that the clause is about pacifying some private bus operators, which the Minister once said
“are already on a journey here”.
Without wishing to rehash every fine point from the Committee, we do not see municipalisation and competition as necessarily antithetical. In fact, it is the Government who are undermining their long-held admiration for competition by imposing barriers to the market to stop municipal bus companies competing with private bus companies. Are the Government really afraid that local authority-run bus companies might just be better? The Competition Commission has reported that it has seen no evidence that municipal operators distort competition in the bus market.
Ian Mearns
Ministers have short memories about how an awful lot of the big bus franchise companies came about in the first place. Some of them were based on old municipal bus companies, which were sold off at a pittance with their entire estates of bus depots, bus parks and vehicles, only to be floated on the market a matter of months later for 10, 15 or 20 times the price at which they were bought in the first place.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the people who worked on the buses in that period still feel very aggrieved by the process that was gone through 30 years ago, which left so much of our country with services far poorer than the universal coverage that was available at the time.
The Competition Commission suggested that municipal companies might be minded to run services and routes that make less sense for economic reasons—perhaps those unprofitable routes and services that bus operators have been cutting left, right and centre. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also described municipal bus companies as an innovative transport solution that demonstrates that
“conventional commercial operations are not the only option.”
Sadly, they soon will be if the Government have their way with this measure.
Daniel Zeichner
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) first.
Graham Stringer
Two have come at once! Does my hon. Friend agree that, aside from the reasons given by the Competition Commission, municipal bus companies can provide a benchmark? In a rational debate, we should be able to get from the Government a reason why, when municipal bus companies have performed in an excellent way, they are not allowed to compete. Does he agree that that reason was not forthcoming in Committee?
Daniel Zeichner
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The point about keeping the market honest is important. When I was first elected as a local councillor, the housing officer told me that one of the roles of an in-house operation was to keep the market honest. That is an important role.
Daniel Zeichner
I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
Lilian Greenwood
Is not one reason that Ministers have given for objecting to municipal operations that they would prevent the market from operating effectively? When we look at the latest bus passenger survey, is it not interesting that Nottingham City Transport has the highest value for money of any single operator in the country?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend consistently makes the case for Nottingham. That is made far easier for her by the excellent local services she has. People from my city of Cambridge have gone to Nottingham to see how to do it. Part of the lesson is that a municipal can do it really well, but according to the Bill, that will not be possible.
Andy Burnham
The Minister stressed the importance of vigorous competition. Is it not the case that if a franchising process were used, the existence of the municipally owned option would enable those doing the franchising to drive an even harder bargain on behalf of the public, because there would be that fall-back option if the private sector could not come up with the goods? Therefore, would it not enhance competition and enable the passenger transport authority to get an even better deal for the public?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend is correct yet again. Interestingly, much of the discussion in Committee was about moving competition from on the road to off the road. I think we agree that in areas where there has not been competition, franchising would be far from a less competitive system. People in London talk about just how competitive the system is, so no Government Member should be worried about a lack of competition. My fear—this is why it is so important that we have protection for the workforce—is that if we are not careful, competition can bring the risk of a race to the bottom. That is why we believe that we should have the provisions that we have just debated. I think the evidence is clear that the franchising system would benefit from having municipals as an alternative.
The conclusion of the Opposition is that banning local authorities from running their own bus companies is slightly unworthy of the spirit behind the Bill. The evidence is clear that they work for bus passengers and are able to put social values at the heart of what they do. This measure has drawn the attention of the public more strongly than other parts of the Bill. It has rightly brought a strong reaction from local councils across the country. They do not understand why they should be prevented from doing something that they strongly believe is in the interests of their local constituents. Some trade unionists feel strongly about this measure, as do passengers, and I pay particular tribute to the organisation We Own It, which has campaigned strongly against it. We believe that this is a petty measure that sits uneasily with the rest of the Bill, and I urge the Government to look at it again and accept our amendment today.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I just wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments in the previous group. I was not quick enough on my feet to catch your eye at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been in this place long enough to know that one should quit when in front. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that my amendment 25 is going to be incorporated in the guidance and for the useful reassurances he has given me on amendments 15, 26, 27 and 28. I was disappointed on the issue of compensation, but, as he pointed out, there can indeed be scope for the authorities to compensate if need be. On that basis, I will not seek to press those amendments to a vote, although I say so a touch belatedly.
Mrs Ellman
I rise to support amendment 1, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). This is all about devolution and local transport authorities deciding what is best for their areas. No good reason has been put forward for not permitting new municipal operators as an option. The Government have expressed concern about possible conflicts of interest, but that cannot be taken seriously. We need look no further than the experience in Nottingham, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and in Reading to see that there is the perfect ability—this has already been done in those areas—for the proper distance to be established between the local authority as a local authority and the transport operator as an operator in terms of letting out franchises. The Bill is about giving more local choice, and it is entirely unjustifiable to remove from local authorities the option of having a municipal operator. The Department has found a way to put forward complex regulations on franchising and if it still has concerns about this topic, regulations could also be introduced on setting up municipal bus operations. I therefore urge the Government to think again.
Lilian Greenwood
I support amendment 1, and we had a long discussion on this issue in Committee. I spoke then and on Second Reading about the success of Nottingham’s municipal operator, and so, much as I love Nottingham City Transport, I will restrain myself and not repeat myself.
I continue to question the Government’s motivation for their determination to ban local transport authorities from establishing new municipal bus companies, as Ministers have simply not made the case for such a ban. The Transport Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), describes it as a “disproportionate response”. Clearly, this measure is anti-localism and it prevents councils from acting in the best interests of their residents. In Committee, the Minister said that there should be a split between the commissioning and the provision of bus services. I do not disagree on that, but this ban goes far beyond that. As was noted in Committee, local authorities with municipal operators have proved themselves very capable of managing just such a split when tendering for supported services.
In Committee, the Minister also suggested that the existence of municipal bus operators
“could easily deter investment from the private sector”.
When I asked him what evidence he was drawing on in making such an assertion, he admitted
“of course we do not have any evidence for it. I am just looking at what the risks may be.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 67.]
The Minister’s risk aversion is simply unnecessary and can be shown to be such. Nottingham has an excellent municipal operator, but it does not deter private sector investment; as the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, we have excellent private sector operators in Nottinghamshire, such as trentbarton. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will rethink their commitment to what I can only describe as an ideological obsession, and take this opportunity to end their unreasonable position and accept amendment 1.
Andrew Jones
This amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), proposes to remove clause 22. We debated this at length in Committee and I wish to reiterate that the several existing municipal bus companies, including Nottingham City Transport and Blackpool Transport, which serves the area of the rail Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—deliver a high standard of service, and I will expect that to continue. Their ability to provide that is not affected in any way by this clause. The franchising and enhanced partnership tools in the Bill will provide authorities with more influence over bus services than they have now, and striking that right balance between local authority influence and the role that the private sector bus operator can play is important. Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services is kept separate. As such, we do not think that authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.
We have seen encouraging innovations from the private sector—although not exclusively within that sector—such as the introduction of smartcards, the installation of wi-fi and increased accessibility in our bus network. Those improvements have all been delivered through private sector investment and they show overall that the industry is always innovating and delivering a good deal for its passengers.
Ian Mearns
The Minister will be aware that over the past six and a half years local authorities up and down the country have seen significant and ongoing reductions in their revenue support grant. Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government have always been encouraging local authorities to be entrepreneurial and enterprising, and to go out there and earn money to backfill where the RSG once existed. By this measure, the Minister is precluding local authorities from doing just that.
Andrew Jones
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is also fair to say that no local authority has either set up a municipal bus company or approached me with a view to doing so. Therefore, this is in some ways a slightly notional or theoretical debate—[Interruption.] Making sure we get clarity is the entire point here.
This Bill seeks a balance between local authority influence—we are providing local authorities with a variety of tools to address local issues—and the role that private sector bus operators can play, in order to ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the very best services for passengers. This Bill is about local authorities and commercial bus operators working together to improve local bus services. It is about co-operation, all designed to improve the benefits for bus passengers. I hope that this has made the Government’s position clear and that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not press this amendment to a vote.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister has finally let the cat out of the bag. If there has not been a queue of local authorities coming to him with requests to form companies, he does not really need to legislate to ban them from doing so. This is pure ideology. There has been a great deal of agreement on the Bill—we have found a lot of common ground—but on this issue, I assure the wider world that there is clear red water between the Opposition and Government Benches. We will press the amendment to a Division, and its effect will be achieved by a future Labour Government.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will be tabling the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Mr Speaker
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the Bus Services Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 18 to 22 of, and schedule 2 to, the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee, and including amendments made on Report. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move a consent motion?
Mr Speaker
A simple nod of the head would suffice, but the Minister said it with eloquence and charm to which he is no stranger.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
The Chairman
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and schedule to, the Bus Services Bill [Lords]:—
Clauses and schedule certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 14, 16 and 18 to 22 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee (Bill 158) including any amendments made on Report.—(Andrew Jones.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Andrew Jones
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have engaged so constructively with the passage of the Bill, and demonstrated their shared commitment to improving bus services and increasing bus passenger numbers.
Buses are already England’s most used form of public transport, accounting for more than 4.5 billion passenger journeys a year. They are vital to the economy, connect our rural and urban communities to employment, schools, hospitals and leisure, and are used by people of all ages. That is why the Bill has bus passengers at its heart. It allows local authorities and operators to adopt measures to improve services and grow passenger numbers. This is, therefore, an enabling Bill that is fundamentally about improving bus services for passengers, and that recognises the need for local solutions to local transport problems.
By working together, local authorities and operators can tackle key transport issues, such as pollution and congestion. They can support local businesses and help to drive the local economy. The Bill introduces a range of tools that will achieve those aims. It builds upon the success of partnership working. Local authorities and operators can agree the standard of services in a particular area. This could include multi-operator tickets, better connections between transport modes and improved vehicle standards, all of which will drive an increase in bus usage and increase performance. I emphasise that this part of the Bill has been widely welcomed by local authorities, operators and hon. Members, although it is, of course, not the only opportunity that the Bill brings.
The Bill will bring the opportunity to refresh powers for local authorities to franchise, delivering on our devolution agenda. It is only right that many of our larger cities have the opportunity to make franchising a success, just as TfL has done in London. Of course, franchising is not for everyone, and authorities must have a compelling case to implement such a scheme. I am of the firm belief that the Bill, as amended by this House, will deliver a better standard of bus services. It reinstates automatic franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which will preserve a degree of commercial certainty and help to maintain the significant private sector investment that we have already witnessed in the bus market. In addition, the requirement of an independent auditor as part of the assessment for franchising schemes will ensure that a scheme is implemented only with proper scrutiny.
A necessity to buy separate tickets or to pay with cash when travelling by bus can be frustrating and costly. Authorities will, therefore, have improved advanced ticketing powers to create multi-operator ticketing schemes that cover not only buses but other modes of transport such as tram or light rail. They can also make use of emerging technologies such as contactless and Bluetooth ticketing. The Bill will make it easier for passengers to access information on timetables, fares and routes. App developers will be encouraged to develop innovative products that will make this information available to passengers. I firmly believe that these improvements will deliver significant benefits to passengers, and will therefore attract more people on to public transport.
The Bill will also deliver accessibility improvements. Indeed, the audio-visual provision introduced in the other place has attracted more public attention than any other part of the Bill. It has certainly dominated my inbox more than any other matter by a factor of many. The provision will ensure that bus services in England, Wales and Scotland are accessible to those with a hearing or sight loss disability and, at the same time, will provide valuable information to all passengers. I know from personal experience the importance of next-stop announcements in London and elsewhere. All passengers will benefit from this significant improvement.
I want to see the bus market thrive and encourage more people on to public transport. As I said at the beginning of this speech, the Bill will have significant benefits for the environment, congestion and the local economy. Ultimately, we seek to reverse a decline in bus usage and put passengers at the heart of bus services. I thank all hon. Members who have engaged and contributed to the Bill, especially those on the Bill Committee, as well as the Committee Clerks and parliamentary counsel for all their work. I particularly thank my team within the Department. A significant amount of hard work has got us to this point. We have a good Bill that has been welcomed widely and reflects the importance of buses in local communities. We want the bus industry to thrive, and that is what has driven the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Andy McDonald
I will pick up where the Minister left off and thank everyone who has contributed to the Bill, especially my hon. Friends who served on the Public Bill Committee, and the officials. I pay tribute to the wonderful work of the Transport Committee and everything it has done on this matter. I also thank hon. Members’ staff for their efforts, particularly Juliet Eales, who is soon to leave the shadow Transport team, but whose contributions have been invaluable throughout the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is ultimately underlined by broad consensus, which has been reflected in the generally cordial spirit of our debates. At its heart, the Bill offers local authorities the opportunity to improve the way in which buses are run in their areas, should they choose to take it. We have fought for this over many years—first, 17 years ago through legislation that failed to make the impact we had hoped, and then from the Opposition Benches for seven years. Since 2010, we have sadly heard, time and again, of bus routes axed, constituents campaigning hard to keep their vital local bus service, and disabled people, jobseekers and students unable to afford the rocketing cost of travel. We have heard these issues, and we have fought for a revision of the bus market to give local areas the power and flexibility to control their bus services as local circumstances best allow.
Although the Bill is not perfect and is certainly not the silver bullet to fix the bus system across the whole country, there is much to be positive about. Mayoral combined authorities will now be able to unlock powers to regulate their bus services, increasing parity between areas such as Greater Manchester and London. We have fought to ensure that those powers can be accessed without delay, and that the process for bringing in those powers will be clear and free from hidden barriers. We had hoped that all areas of the country, whether they have an elected mayor or not, would have access to those powers, but we will have to continue that argument another day.
The Bill provides new partnership options to local authorities for working alongside bus operators. We hope that local authorities will be encouraged to use these new tools to improve journey times and vehicle standards, and consequently to reduce congestion—huge environmental and health issues that affect us all. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring buses providing local services to have in place audio-visual information systems. We are so pleased that the Government included this provision following strong pressure from Labour in the other place, and an excellent campaign from Guide Dogs. That measure could make a real difference to people’s lives.
What is missing? Stronger employment protections, clearer accessibility provisions and bus safety improvements. We fought for those and we won the arguments, but we lost the votes. That is the tragedy of being in opposition. The Bill could have been better, and we were disappointed by the lack of movement from the Government in these areas. The Bill is not perfect, but it will go some way to reversing the damage of deregulation that we have fought to fix for three decades. Going some way to reversing that damage is better than going no way at all. For that reason, and on behalf of all those constituents waiting at bus stops right now, we will support the Bill on Third Reading.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I assure the House that my contribution on this important Bill will be brief.
The partnership provisions in the Bill are welcome and important. Partnership working between local authorities and private sector bus companies has delivered a whole range of improvements for passengers in many parts of the country. The goal of the Government here should be to focus on encouraging that kind of co-operation, whereby the business acumen and expertise of the private sector can work alongside the local understanding and commitment of local authorities, so those provisions in the Bill are welcome. During the passage of the Bill, hon. Members have cited a number of positive examples of different parts of the country, such as Brighton, where partnerships between private sector operators and local authorities have had a transformative and positive effect on services.
I regret that I was not able to be here for the debate on the amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) tabled, but I very much welcome the assurances given by the Minister on a number of them and the recognition of the importance of a number of the principles contained in them. In particular, I urge him to take seriously the objectives of amendments 14 and 15, and I hope the guidance issued will clearly set out the fact that franchising schemes should be a last resort and will be approved only if partnership working will not deliver the benefits that are sought for passengers.
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s support for amendment 2. Ensuring that those who audit a franchise assessment are properly independent significantly strengthens the Bill. It would be unfortunate if those checking out a franchise assessment were not independent of the local authorities essentially making the decisions on franchising authorities.
To return to a theme I talked about at some length on Second Reading, I hope the Government will do everything they can to facilitate certainty in the private sector bus operators market, because that certainty is the key to investment in new fleet, better ticketing measures and a range of passenger improvements. Anything that leads to uncertainty could jeopardise investment, which would have a negative effect on passengers. I particularly have in mind the importance of delivering smarter ticketing, which is crucial not only for passengers’ convenience but in persuading them that the bus can more often be an attractive and viable alternative to the car.
There is a certain irony in the fact that it is a Conservative Government who are taking through this Bill, which, as the House is aware, partially rolls back one of the major privatisations of the Thatcher era. There are mixed views on the role of private sector bus operators in delivering transport services, but I believe they have brought significant benefits for passengers, and I hope nothing in the Bill is allowed to jeopardise the reliance on the expertise and investment that the private sector has brought to bus operations over the years.
Mrs Villiers
I am afraid I am about to conclude, but the right hon. Gentleman will get his chance very soon.
I close by once again thanking the Minister for his assurances that he takes seriously the points raised in the amendments and for commending partnership working between the private sector and local authorities, which is one of the best ways to deliver improvements for passengers.
Mrs Ellman
The Bill is an important step in achieving a modern, thriving bus sector, and I welcome it. In doing so, I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues and to the shadow team for the work they have done. I also commend all the members of the Transport Committee for the work they did in scrutinising the Bill. Although some of the points we made have not been acted on, some have been considered, and this is now a better Bill.
I first spoke on bus deregulation a very long time ago. When it was introduced through the legislation in 1985, I was the leader of Lancashire County Council. I opposed the legislation very strongly because I was concerned it would result in a reduction in bus patronage outside London, and the intervening years have indeed shown that it did. The Bill does not repeal that legislation, but it does make substantial changes to it, which I very much welcome.
A thriving, comprehensive bus network across England is not an optional extra but an absolute necessity. The basic principle of the Bill—that there should be more devolution, and that local transport authorities should decide what is best for their areas—is the right one, and I welcome it very much. Although I am disappointed that the Government have not gone as far as I would have wished in some areas, I welcome the Bill as we have it now.
I welcome the provisions on the accessibility of buses, and particularly those on access and information for people who are impaired. If information about bus services and the operation of individual buses is made more accessible to people who have a disability, everybody else benefits as well, so it improves the bus sector as a whole.
I thank everyone who has been involved in the Bill. It makes major strides in producing better bus services for the people of this country—those who currently use our buses and those I hope will do so in future—and I am pleased to support its Third Reading.
Andy Burnham
Bus services are the mainstay of the public transport system, yet, historically, the House has given them comparatively little attention, and I am pleased that the Bill begins to correct that.
I congratulate the Secretary of State, the Minister and, indeed, the Government on the way they have stuck to the terms of the devolution deal and delivered a Bill that will bring real benefits to the travelling public in Greater Manchester and beyond. I also congratulate those on the Labour Front Bench on the constructive way in which they have engaged in this debate.
It is also appropriate to congratulate council leaders in Greater Manchester. The Bill was a clear demand of Labour leaders in Greater Manchester as part of the devolution deal struck with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is, in effect, as I think the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) was hinting a moment ago, a Labour Bill and, I am proud to say, a Greater Manchester Bill. In that sense, the Opposition take great pride in it clearing its Third Reading tonight.
Ian Mearns
My right hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech, but he should not put bad ideas into the Government’s mind—they might change their mind and vote against the Bill.
Andy Burnham
Well, I will call it a partnership Bill, if that makes my hon. Friend feel a bit more at ease. It is certainly a rare example of common sense breaking out on both sides of the House.
I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). As she said a moment ago, she has consistently spoken of the damaging effects of bus deregulation—the free-for-all, the decline in the quality of services and the increase in fares. She has been consistent, and she is vindicated tonight as the Bill finally goes through the House. So, too, is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who made the same argument throughout the years, including under the Labour Government, and who has waited a long time to see this Bill come to pass.
To be successful in the new role that I seek, I will seek to use the powers in the Bill for the benefit of the travelling public in Greater Manchester. For 32 years, we have had a bus service that has been run for private vested interests rather than in the public interest. Only last week, a whole new series of service alterations were announced that will decrease the quality and coverage of services across Greater Manchester, with no real ability for communities to challenge those decisions. Well, that way of running bus services is coming to an end.
Lilian Greenwood
I am very much enjoying my right hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) said, the Bill seeks to enhance competition and the role of the private sector by having really effective competition off the road? On-road competition has not delivered for passengers.
Andy Burnham
That is absolutely the point. If we construct a franchise process that really puts the public interest first, and we then ask the private sector to meet that public interest, that will be a much better system; indeed, it is the system the right hon. Lady’s constituents benefit from in London. The question I was going to ask her was, why, if she thinks that is okay for her constituents, is she seeking to deny it to ours? That is not an acceptable position for her to take.
Mrs Villiers
Obviously, I do not want to go back over the whole debate we had on this, but there is a range of ways in which the bus sector is very different in London, not least the fact that Londoners pay millions of pounds in congestion charges, which support the bus network. That is one of the major reasons why bus services in London are different from those in the rest of the country; it is not necessarily the regulatory structure that makes the difference.
Andy Burnham
That is, if I am honest, the kind of London-centric argument that gets this House a bad name—“London’s different and therefore it needs different rules and all the extra attention.” If the system works in London, why can it not work in a city region like the west midlands, Merseyside or, indeed, Greater Manchester? If the principles are good ones that deliver a good bus service for people here, then surely they should be extended to the other major cities of our country, and those decisions should be devolved.
If I am to be in a position to use the powers in this Bill, I would use them to bring fares down. Fares are much more expensive in Greater Manchester than they are in London, for instance. I would use them to increase and improve disability access, including audio-visual provision. I would use them to pave the way for an integrated ticketing system. We are currently denied an Oyster-style system. Because of the free-for-all, all the operators use different ticketing systems and cannot provide an integrated system. I would use the powers to give every community a decent, reliable service. I would use them to introduce a free bus pass for all 16 to 18-year-olds.
Ian Mearns
Will my right hon. Friend muse for a moment on why companies are making twice as much profit on routes that they operate in places like Tyne and Wear and Greater Manchester than on routes that they operate in London? They are the same companies, but the operating profit on the routes that they run in those two places is twice as much as it is in London.
Andy Burnham
It is simple, is it not? We have, in effect, an unregulated system, and because of that companies are able to increase fares outside London faster than they have been increasing in London. That is how they make those profits. There are good bus operators out there, and I would not want to punish them. I have a smaller operator, Jim Stones Coaches, in my constituency —a brilliant bus operator. We would want those good operators to be part of the new regime. It is time to call time on the profiteering off the backs of the travelling public in places like Greater Manchester.
The decline in quality and the rise in the cost of bus travel in places like Greater Manchester has, over the 32 years since buses were deregulated, put more and more cars on the roads, to the point where conurbations like Greater Manchester are becoming increasingly congested. As I said earlier, it is cheaper for young people in some parts of Greater Manchester to get a taxi than to use a bus service. That cannot possibly make sense. It tells us that something is seriously wrong with the way that the system is operating. I say to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet that the people of Greater Manchester deserve a bus system as good as London’s, if not better. That is what, using this Bill, we will now seek to deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday last week I asked for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24. I do not seek to reapply for that debate, but last week Mr Speaker said that he would
“hope and anticipate that the usual channels would find time for it to be debated.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 655.]
Business collapsed at 4.35 pm last Tuesday and it is finishing at 7.43 pm tonight. This is completely illogical to me and to everybody else watching elsewhere. Can you advise on how I could get a debate on the significant concerns that I still have about the Tories’ two-child policy and rape clause before it is implemented in 10 days’ time? If now is not the time, when is?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter for the Government. The main thing is that it is definitely on the record, and I would hope that the usual channels would have picked up on the comments that have been made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6))
Employment and Training
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
Mental Capacity
That the draft Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Employment
That the draft Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
Electricity
That the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.
Capital Gains Tax
That the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 6 February, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
Question agreed to.
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
Eu-turkey Cooperation on Migration and the Impact on the Schengen Free Movement Area
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15429/15, a Commission Communication: Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 1 May-10 December 2015, European Union Document No. 15397/15, a Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation No. 562/2006 (EC), also known as the Schengen Borders Code, as regards the reinforcement of checks against relevant databases at external borders, European Union Document No. 6798/16 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Back to Schengen–A Roadmap, European Union Document No. 5985/16, a Council Implementing Decision setting out a Recommendation on addressing the serious deficiencies identified in the 2015 evaluation of the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of management of external borders by Greece, European Union Document No. 7183/16, a Commission Communication: Next operational steps in EU-Turkey cooperation in the field of migration, European Union Document No. 8175/16 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: First Report on the progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement; and supports the Government in continuing to work alongside EU partners as part of a comprehensive approach to global migration issues.—(Mr Syms.)
Question agreed to.
Sittings of the House
Tyne Marine Office
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
South Shields has a proud maritime history, present, and, I hope, future. The shipping industry is a major employer in South Shields, its contribution to the industrial and social history of the region being well documented. As one seafarer commented to me, South Shields used to be the centre of the universe for the maritime industry.
The Tyne marine office was previously based at Compass House inside the port of Tyne. It provided seafarers and our local area with a range of vital services, including managing and issuing seafarers’ documentation, and conducting oral exams and eye tests. Our surveyors fulfilled the UK’s legal obligation to conduct port state control inspections of foreign-registered vessels working from our ports in the UK, as well as providing a public counter service for advice and complaints from ship owners, seafarers, and members of the public.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s consultation on the future of the Tyne office stated that it would close by September this year, yet it closed on 6 March, with the lease expiring just a week later—a move that was supported by the Government’s maritime growth study. I accept, of course, that some alternative provision has now been made at South Tyneside College for an initial period of five years, but the move has seen a depletion in crucial parts of the service. Not only was the office closed ahead of schedule, but what is in its place does not, quite frankly, fit the bill. The new office will not have on-site surveyors, nor a counter service. The 18 surveyors have been redeployed in the “flexible, customer-focused” way the Government believe to be an essential strand in their plans for maritime growth. The consultation proposed
“to put in place a remote, IT-enabled working regime to minimise any adverse impact. This would be based around our surveyors working remotely, from other suitable MCA or Government locations or from home.”
This is now in practice. However, can the Minister advise me on when the new IT system for remote working will begin to be used by MCA surveyors? It is important that ports and ship owners in the north-east, but also taxpayers, know how much the IT procurement exercise will cost, in order to balance it against the estimated £330,000 total annual savings that the MCA will make from the marine office closures.
The loss of the Tyne marine office has left a 350-mile stretch of UK coastline between Aberdeen and Bridlington with no physical base for MCA surveyors who are required to inspect and, if necessary, detain a diverse range of UK and internationally registered shipping. Its loss has increased the prospect of the private sector carrying out port state control work at ports where an MCA surveyor may not be available at short notice. This was recognised by some local RMT members in the north-east who made their feelings clear to the Government and to the MCA, stating that
“the closure of the Port of Tyne office and opening an office in Bridlington will open the North East coast to be exploited by shipping companies when inspectors are working from home and do not have a centre to coordinate their inspections and monitor shipping movements along the North East coast.”
In November 2013, a Panama-registered ship called the Donald Duckling was detained in the Tyne by MCA surveyors. This cargo vessel of over 46,000 tonnes was found to be unsafe and crewed by 18 Filipino seafarers who had run out of food. The vessel owners then abandoned the ship and the crew, who were stranded on the vessel, without pay and reliant on international freight transport and our brilliant South Shields Mission to Seafarers and assistance from our port of Tyne to survive. The crew had to wait nearly a year before receiving any pay or safe passage home. Moving MCA survey work away from a physical base may compromise response times when a substandard vessel of concern is in the north-east ports, even if only for a relatively short period.
The other change is the loss of counter service. Marine offices traditionally provide that service to cater for matters such as discharge books, training record books, seamen’s cards and other certification, including duplicates of lost certificates. As our marine office covered Berwick to Whitby, this is a loss not just for my constituents but for the whole north-east and parts of Yorkshire. Seafarers now have to travel to Hull or send their documents by post, all at increased cost and risk. Providing the service is an administrative task, and I am led to believe that the same number of administrative staff are to be retained at the college, so I am completely at a loss as to why the service has been removed, especially when the range of certification required to work at sea is extensive and subject to regular updates.
Just this January, the key convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping, which sets out basic requirements for all seafarers, was subject to changes, and the MCA is in the process of reforming its fee structure, including for the basic medical certificate, without which a seafarer cannot work at sea. Marine information notice 541, issued by the MCA earlier this month, states that the Hull marine office will offer a number of services previously provided in the Tyne marine office. The Hull office, which was under threat, is to remain open, but that does not take away the fact that the counter office for seafarers in South Shields and in the north-east will be 100 miles down the coast.
The number of seafarers at work or in training in the UK shipping industry is in long-term decline, with records showing that there has been a 60% decline in the number of merchant seafarers over the last 30 years. We are seeing a decline in offshore supply activity in the North sea following the collapse in oil prices, and there is a constant threat, especially for ratings, of being replaced by low-cost crew from overseas. In that context, I cannot see how the loss of the Tyne marine office will encourage my region to recover jobs and skills in this industry. The Government speak of wanting to recruit and train more British seafarers, but surely taking steps such as the closure of this office and the removal of the counter service will have exactly the opposite effect.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the planned merger between South Tyneside College and TyneMet in my borough. With our history of seamanship and engineering excellence, should we not be encouraging young men and women who seek a career at sea, rather than discouraging them?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It will come as no surprise that I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. In an era when our seafaring industry is declining, we should be doing everything we can to encourage growth, so I would like the Minister at least to commit today to restoring the counter service in South Shields.
The seafarer projections review published by the Department for Transport in January forecasts big increases in the demand for seafarers from the UK shipping industry over the next decade. If UK ratings and officers are to fill those jobs, the Government have to go beyond the maritime growth study to tackle the effect of the low-cost crewing model in constituencies such as mine. I understand from the maritime unions that the Government are taking encouraging steps on applying the national minimum wage for seafarers. We need significant reforms such as that, not the closure of marine offices, to revive our traditional seafaring communities.
I am pleased that South Tyneside College will retain responsibility for conducting seafarers’ oral exams, because the Tyne marine office conducted the highest number on the national network. Between 2009 and 2016, it carried out nearly 7,700 seafarer oral exams. The total number of UK seafarers working today is just over 23,000, so a significant number will have been through the marine office in my constituency. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to offer some assurances that that service will remain firmly in place in South Shields for the long term.
I am a little confused about why, in all those changes, the office has retained the ensign unit, which carries out services for the large or super-yacht sector. I think all my constituents will agree that South Shields is not an area awash with super-yachts. It is, however, awash with seafarers. Can the Minister explain the rationale for keeping that service but not the much-valued counter service that my constituents wanted us to retain?
It is short-sighted to cut the marine office network, particularly in traditional seafaring centres such as South Shields. Marine offices such as that on the Tyne should be seen as assets in an industrial strategy that strengthens the links between maritime communities and seafaring jobs and skills, particularly for women, who remain poorly represented in the seafarer workforce domestically and internationally. The loss of the Tyne office in my constituency will save the MCA only just over £100,000 per year. Its closure tells my constituents that the Government do not value seafarers in the north-east, and I fear that the long-term effects of these changes will far outweigh the short-term and short-sighted financial gain.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I will not detain the House for long, but I want to put on record the fact that I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) has just said. The UK maritime workforce continues to diminish, and important skills are being lost to the industry. We must never forget that we are a maritime nation. We seek to increase our trade significantly beyond the confines of the European Union, but we are reducing our protective infrastructure for looking after the interests of UK-based seafarers in a growing international market.
The offshore oil and gas industry along the North sea coast has been in the doldrums, and many ships and vessels are tied up in ports along the north-east. Yet we are losing our regulatory capacity to make sure that the people who work on those vessels are the right people and of the right nationality, and that they have the requisite skills and work permits to do so. I find it beyond belief that the Government are taking the measures that my hon. Friend has talked about in this important Adjournment debate. We need to reverse this retrograde step for an industry that needs the Government to act on its behalf rather than abandoning it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing this debate about the closure of the Tyne marine office. The second thing I should do is to offer a bit of an apology, because I am not the maritime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has responsibility for maritime, is away on important Government business in China. It may well be that I cannot answer all the hon. Lady’s questions in my speech, but I undertake to go through the entire Hansard report of this debate and take the questions back to the Department to ensure that she receives the answers that she seeks. I wanted to clarify that before we went any further.
Before I talk specifically about the recent closure of the Tyne marine office, it might help the House if I set out some background to the decision. The House will recognise our people’s strong connection to the sea and our impressive maritime heritage. The British have always looked beyond our shores and built strong trade links with the rest of the world. Ships and the related maritime industries have historically been crucial to our economic wellbeing, and that remains as true now as it has ever been. We are an island nation, and the UK relies on shipping for 95% of its trade by volume. Maritime industry directly contributes at least £11 billion to the UK economy each year. Those maritime industries are expected to grow significantly in the next decade, and the public needs the assurance that commercial ships visiting our ports, whether or not they are actually registered in the United Kingdom, are operating safely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise to the initiator of the debate, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) that, although I rushed to get to the Chamber—I actually ran very fast—I was a wee bit late, for which I also apologise to the House. Does the Minister agree that the closure will undoubtedly compromise the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency survey and inspection unit to carry out its duties and that, although it is difficult to quantify, the impact on local seafarers living and working in the area will certainly be adverse, to say the least?
Andrew Jones
I am not sure I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I will come on to discuss that very point later.
Operational safety matters for the sake of the seafarers on ships, and for protecting our cherished and highly prized marine environment. That is why we need a robust, strong and effective ship survey and inspection regime. Within my Department, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for providing the broad safety regime. In that effort, the agency and its staff are guided by its mission statement:
“Safer lives, safer ships, cleaner seas”.
The ship survey and inspection regime we have established must be capable of ensuring the safety of the shipping industry, while at the same time being supportive of the industry it serves and commercially attuned to what the industry needs. That view is shared by the industry itself, and it was highlighted in the “Maritime Growth Study” report published in September 2015. Lord Mountevans’s report set out a number of recommendations to support the growth of the whole maritime sector. The Government and the industry have been working tirelessly, in unison, since the report’s launch to put into effect its excellent recommendations.
For the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, we have implemented some of the recommendations by separating the UK ship register into a bespoke, commercially focused directorate. We have appointed Doug Barrow, formerly the chief executive of Maritime London, as the new director of the UK ship register. He has been supporting the MCA on a part-time basis since January, and will take up his appointment full-time on 10 April. Mr Barrow brings with him an expert and forensic understanding of the commercial needs of the shipping industry. The MCA’s leadership has also been bolstered by the appointment of its first non-executive chairman. Michael Parker, who will fill that role, brings with him over 40 years of experience and knowledge. He, too, will support the MCA’s greater commercial awareness and responsiveness, which is critical to what I will come on to talk about shortly.
Another transformational change for the agency, which is linked to balancing its role as a regulator with the need for greater commercial responsiveness—this recommendation was at the heart of the “Maritime Growth Study”—is the modernisation of our ship survey and inspection arrangements. Ship survey and inspection is at the heart of the Government’s responsibilities as both a flag state, running a shipping register, and as a port state, with many ships visiting UK ports and harbours daily. Both roles are about balancing safety and the protection of the environment with facilitating legitimate commercial activity and trade.
The safety of shipping, ports and the marine environment is dependent on effective and proportionate regulation, robust technical standards and the comprehensive oversight and inspection of national and international merchant shipping fleets. Effective survey and inspection is key to compliance, and it must be robust if it is to support the level of growth in the maritime sector envisaged by the “Maritime Growth Study”. Overseeing shipping and protecting the marine environment carries a degree of risk that needs to be properly managed. A failure in regulatory governance by those operating ships could—very sadly, as we all know, it sometimes does—result in serious accidents, with damaging consequences for those involved and for our environment.
The MCA carries out its ship survey and inspection regime for the UK through a frontline cadre of some 130 marine surveyors located around the UK. The marine surveyors are experienced seafarers, many of whom are master mariners, chief engineers or qualified naval architects. The frontline marine surveyors are supported by experienced and equally qualified colleagues working in policy, technical and in-house advisory positions, providing oversight and advice, and monitoring technical and professional standards.
Notwithstanding its strong global reputation for competence and its positive influence on worldwide safety standards, the MCA has struggled in recent years to meet its remit and its ability to discharge its statutory obligations for maritime safety. In part, that has been because it has proved difficult to attract qualified marine surveyors in what is a highly competitive marketplace. The marine surveyor cadre has been operating with some 30% vacancies, and has for the past few years found it very difficult to attract and retain high-quality staff.
Recognising the need for change, the agency carried out a comprehensive review of the way in which it delivers its ship survey and inspection obligations. By listening to the needs of customers and the industry, and by considering the Government’s estate strategy and optimising the potential benefits of technology, the MCA has identified a number of areas where improvements can be made. With the support of the trades unions, new terms and conditions have been agreed for the agency’s frontline marine surveyor workforce. The modernised terms are designed to improve availability, deployability and responsiveness to industry and wider demand, while at the same time retaining and attracting new talent to the workforce.
A key element to the new terms and conditions is the concept of remote working, which is made increasingly possible by modern technology. The hon. Lady asked about new IT systems, and I can tell her that they are already in place. Marine surveyors will no longer be required to work from one of the relatively few marine offices around the UK. They can instead work remotely anywhere, serving a much greater proportion of our customers in and around the UK’s ports.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Will the Minister share with the House the cost of the new IT programme?
Andrew Jones
I cannot do so, because I do not have that information with me, but I will find out and write to the hon. Lady.
The key is to build on remote working, which is made possible by modern technology, to provide a more customer-oriented service. With frontline marine surveyors based closer to their customers, the MCA can simply respond quickly to customer needs. That ability is a further direct response to an industry that increasingly needs support at all times of the day. The changes address particular industry concern and call for change. That is the background: a more customer focused and responsive sector driven by technology, and the needs of a sector that we wish to see grow.
That brings me to the specific issue of the closure of the Tyne marine office. As part of the overall package of change, the MCA consulted last year with the public and industry on the new proposed estate footprint. Following the consultation, the agency concluded that there should be nine marine offices across the UK. The proposal to close the Tyne marine office was confirmed. The Tyne marine office has played a key role in maritime safety, alongside others, in the north-east for many years. That point was made by the hon. Lady. It is without question. Its close relationship with local industry and with South Tyneside College has seen over 1,000 seafarers, both new and experienced, visit the marine office every year to sit their seafarer examinations.
Recognising that local need, I can inform the House that the same number of marine surveyors will continue to be located in the Tyne area to meet demand. The Tyne marine office has closed, but the MCA has opened a bespoke examination facility in the area to respond to the needs of the customers and industry. The new examination centre, which has MCA branding, is situated within South Tyneside College. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, it opened on 13 March 2017. The MCA’s commercial large yacht unit, known as Ensign, will operate from the same examination centre. It might not be a venue for that many super yachts, but it is a venue for expertise within the MCA. That is why the unit was there in the first place. Remote working marine surveyors based in the Tyne area will be able to use the facility as a remote office when required.
The hon. Lady raised concerns about there no longer being a counter service on the Tyne. There is no longer a counter service, but I would highlight that the MCA still has in place service provisions to provide documents, such as discharge books and seamen’s cards, in line with other Government services. Applications for these documents can be made online or via the post. It is worth noting that over the past two years, there have been approximately two visits per week to the Tyne counter. That is in contrast to the 1,200 exams and over 100 port state control inspections per year. The provision of a counter service fails to take into account the direction of technology, the lack of demand and the need to consider providing services in a way required by customers.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being very kind. I am aware of the figure of two people a week going to get papers and documentation, but does the Minister have figures for how many people came into the office for help, advice or discussions about future careers? That service mattered to my constituents and they would want it to be brought back.
Andrew Jones
I can pick up that point, along with some of the other points raised. The need to have a presence in the area is understood, with the link to, and the base at, South Tyneside College, which will deliver 1,200 oral exams and over 100 port state control inspections a year. It is important to emphasise that the MCA and its excellent marine surveyors have not in any way abandoned the north-east of England. They are still very much there. They are talking about the same number of people providing the same services. They will be supporting their local customers. What we are trying to do is deliver that service in a way that is more responsive to customer need. That is the feedback from industry. We need to make our service more attuned to its needs, so we no longer continue to see maritime decline. They are just working differently and from a different base at the South Tyneside College.
This was the first step in a national restructure intended to secure a robust survey and inspection regime that aims to deliver a more efficient service. It is a service that can meet the needs of customers and industry. It is a modernised service that will help to attract new ships to fly the flag and join the UK ship register. I can assure the House that our modernised ship survey and inspection arrangements will mean that we retain our place as one of the most respected maritime nations in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017.
It is a deep pleasure, Mr Evans, to serve under your chairmanship. If made, the draft order, which was laid before the House on 6 March, will bring to life the devolution deal that the Government negotiated with the West Midlands on 17 November 2015. The draft order will confer new powers on the Mayor and the combined authority, as set out in the groundbreaking and exciting devolution deal, particularly regarding transport, housing and regeneration, air quality, smoke-free premises, places and vehicles, antisocial behaviour and culture. The overall result will be to create for the West Midlands arrangements that should—and we hope will—materially contribute to the promotion of economic growth across the area, improve productivity and, of course, facilitate investment and the development of the area’s infrastructure.
From chairing previous statutory instrument Committees, Mr Evans, you will be aware that this devolution deal is one of a number that we have negotiated, in fulfilment of our important manifesto commitment to devolve powers from Westminster to local communities that choose to have an elected Mayor. Through the deal, the West Midlands combined authority will receive a devolved transport budget, new housing and regeneration powers, and control over an investment fund of £36.5 million a year for 30 years, with the aim of boosting growth and prosperity in the area.
The implementation of the deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has seen two orders already pass through the House: first, the West Midlands Combined Authority Order 2016, which, unsurprisingly, established the combined authority, and secondly, the West Midlands Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016, which created the position of Mayor for the West Midlands. The first election will take place on 4 May.
The statutory origin of today’s draft order is in the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority with, of course, the consent of the constituent councils: Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The draft order is made in accordance with the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The scheme sets out proposals for powers to be conferred on the combined authority, with some to be exercised by the Mayor, and for funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers. As required by the 2009 legislation, the combined authority and the councils consulted on the scheme proposals. The consultation ran for seven weeks, from 4 June to 21 August 2016, and the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses last September.
Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act and is satisfied that they have been met. In short, that means that any transfer of powers should lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the West Midlands combined authority area. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the impact on local government and communities, as required by the legislation. Furthermore, the seven constituent councils have consented to the making of the draft order.
Turning, hopefully briefly, to the detail of the draft order, the Mayor takes on responsibilities for a devolved and consolidated transport budget under the deal, and a key route network of local authority roads. The West Midlands is substantially more advanced on the key route network than other devolution deal areas, which is why those particular routes are listed in the draft order. The draft order also confers powers to enter into agreements with highways authorities, Ministers and Highways England in relation to the maintenance of roads; powers to promote road safety and to regulate traffic; powers to operate a permit scheme to control the carrying out of works on the combined authority roads; and powers to collect contributions from utility companies for diversionary works needed as a result of works on the key route network.
More generally, the Mayor will have powers to pay grants—in practice, for highways maintenance—to the seven constituent councils of the combined authority, with the condition that the Mayor have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the councils have sufficient funds to discharge their highways functions effectively. With the assistance of the combined authority, the Mayor will exercise compulsory purchase powers in relation to housing and regeneration—the same powers that presently reside with the Homes and Communities Agency. The draft order provides that the functional powers of competence already exercisable by the combined authority can also be exercised by the Mayor.
The draft order will confer a number of powers on the combined authority, in addition to its existing transport, economic development and regeneration powers. These will include issuing penalty charges in respect of bus lane contraventions across the entire combined authority, as well as powers and functions of the HCA relating to improving the supply and quality of housing—a really important power, which also includes securing the regeneration or development of land or infrastructure, and supporting the creation, regeneration and development of communities. These powers will be exercised concurrently with the HCA.
The combined authority will receive powers to designate mayoral development areas, leading to the creation of mayoral development corporations—the first such corporation, which has been approved already in this place, is in the South Tees devolution area. Powers relating to air quality will be devolved, too, as will powers to be an enforcement authority in relation to the prohibition of smoking in premises, places and vehicles; powers to issue civil injunctions for antisocial behaviour on the bus and tram network; and powers to take a role in cultural activities, with the provision and support of cultural events and entertainments across the combined authority area.
The draft order provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the Mayor and the combined authority, including the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the Mayor and deputy Mayor. It also provides for the addition of five new non-constituent councils, which will not be full members of the combined authority and will not take part in the elections, but which will be around the table for important decisions. Those five new non-constituent councils—North Warwickshire, Rugby, Shropshire, Stratford-on-Avon and Warwickshire—will join the existing five non-constituent councils of Telford and Wrekin, Tamworth, Nuneaton and Bedford, Cannock Chase, and Redditch.
The draft order will come into force on 8 May when the West Midlands Mayor takes office, with the exception of the provision relating to the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, which will come into force on the day after the draft order is made, to ensure that arrangements are in place for when the Mayor is elected.
In conclusion, the draft order will devolve brand-new, far-ranging powers to the West Midlands and will put decision making in the hands of local communities. We hope, through these deals, to help to rebalance the economy and create prosperity across the West Midlands and in the other devolution deal areas that we have negotiated. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am hoping for a peaceful week after the traumatic events of last week. I know that a number of Members have found it difficult to come back into the Palace of Westminster this week—it is a credit to everybody here that we have come together, across the parties, to support each other.
I am very pleased to see the draft order. I have made the point a number of times that devolution is incremental and will evolve over time, and I am pleased to see that another part of England will benefit from it. However, I struggle to concur with the Minister on a number of things he said, including that the draft order, as set out, is groundbreaking. I suppose, technically, in the creation of any structure, ground has to be broken to a certain degree. Over the Easter weekend I will be building a new shed. Ground will be broken in the course of that project, but it is hardly a skyscraper.
We need to be honest about what the draft order is and what it is not. It is the first steps in devolving power from Westminster to a local area. It is not devolution of autonomy and freedoms in the way we are demanding for England. We are very comfortable talking about devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we are less comfortable when it comes to our English towns, cities and counties.
The money that has been referenced is in addition to that which has already been spent by local authorities, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with the population of that conurbation—£36 million is insignificant when compared even with the money that local authorities are cutting from their base budgets. The most disappointing element of the draft order is that we have not seen any real attempt made at genuine fiscal devolution. Narrow powers have been passed down, but there is no ability for local authorities either to generate new taxes or to retain taxes generated in their locality for local benefit. The Opposition expected proposals by now for stamp duty retention, so that local areas can create brownfield regeneration funds or kick-start housing. Instead, local areas are dependent on central Government deciding how much they feel comfortable giving to them. I hope we can begin to make progress on some of that.
Even the powers being devolved are not real powers at all; they are certainly no more, in truth, than the powers local authorities have today. We are talking not about power to effect change, but about influence. Many local authorities provide that influence on a regular basis. On the Department for Work and Pensions devolution framework, there is no ability for a local area to develop its own contracting arrangements, because it has to stay within those of the DWP. Moreover, when programme providers fail, the greatest power that local areas will have is the ability to escalate it to the DWP at a local level so that it can be addressed. But they would do that anyway: if local councils thought that the DWP was not performing to help local residents in any way, they would naturally escalate the issue.
Where is the real power that should come with devolution? Unlike any Minister or civil servant at the DWP—this point that has been made in support of directly elected Mayors—the whole geographic area, which will be in place in just a few weeks’ time, will have no real power to change its arrangements with the DWP.
When reading back the original devolution deal that was agreed, I found it amazing how things have changed so quickly. A number of people have moved on, though some not of their own choosing. I refer, of course, to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time and party to the original devolution deal, but who is now extremely busy covering a number of different responsibilities around the world. Lord O’Neill evidently did not feel comfortable with the devolution settlements on offer and decided of his own volition to move on.
I pay tribute, however, to Albert Bore for his work as leader of Birmingham City Council, and to Councillor Ann Lucas for her work as leader of Coventry City Council. Neither of them are now on the combined authority, but we would not be discussing any type of devolution to that area without their hard work. I know this is still very raw for people who live in Sandwell, but I also pay tribute Darren Cooper, who was a signatory to the deal and who passed away before he could see the mayoral elections take place this year. My thoughts are with him, his group and his family at this time. I am sure that he would be pleased with the progress made in coming to this point.
The offer has been made before. I think that the English are frustrated with being a fourth-rate partner when it comes to debates on devolution. The time has come for a relationship of equals. If it is good enough for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, surely it ought to be good enough for our English towns, cities and regions.
We need to move on from the fragmentation of devolution that is currently on offer, where deals are done behind closed doors, there is no clear framework of what can be devolved to a local level, and where we are still very prescriptive. The idea that we are spending parliamentary time talking about powers that allow a directly elected Mayor to fine drivers for driving in a bus lane or to hold an event in their area is frankly laughable. It is more reflective of a centralising state, not one where freedom and devolution are really on offer to a lot of areas.
It should not be for this place to take a view on such issues. Local areas should be able to consult their local populations in order to make those changes and to run and govern as they see fit, within a clear framework of entitlement and accountability, and to ensure that they get a fair amount of funding.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I entirely support everything my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that it was probably nonsense to abolish all the metropolitan councils that Labour established many years ago?
Jim McMahon
I agree with my hon. Friend. Many of the relationships forged today are not new at all: they were born during that time when people had a history of working together and recognising that on some issues it is necessary to go to a wider geography to recognise the local economy, place and identity. Sometimes it is more complex that the administrative boundaries that we draw here.
This mayoral competition is clearly hotly contested. There is a Conservative candidate whose name has slipped my mind. Siôn Simon is a fantastic advocate for the area. I went to see Siôn when he was on the campaign trail in Birmingham city centre, speaking to people about what the mayoral function can bring and the local leadership that could be put in place. There is no doubt that his vision for the area is compelling and impressive, and it really connected with local people. It was also apparent that local people did not feel that they had been included in the conversation about the development of the mayoral function in the first place.
What this comes down to is that devolution is not about government or structures; it has got to be about people and community. If people and communities do not feel that they have co-produced the devolution on offer, it is going to be very difficult to convince people that is worth coming out to vote.
I am confident that, with an outstanding candidate such as Siôn Simon, people will be inspired to come out to vote. I have no doubt that the Conservative candidate, whose name has again unfortunately slipped my mind, will get a small number to come out as well. We wait with bated breath to see the turnout.
Let us be clear: the minute a Mayor is elected—my hope and estimation is that it will be Siôn Simon—they will start to demand greater powers for the mandate they will have secured through the ballot box. At that point, I hope that the Government will have moved on and started to hand down genuine power, instead of the narrow powers in the draft order.
Kelvin Hopkins
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, however briefly. I endorse everything my hon. Friend said about the great metropolitan counties of the past that were abolished by a Conservative Government. We seem to be inching back in that direction, though we are not going fast or far enough and, of course, the moneys allocated are not much in real terms.
I have one simple question. I think the Minister mentioned an authority in Bedford in his list of towns, after Stratford-on-Avon. Did he mean Bedford?
Kelvin Hopkins
I represent a town in the county of Bedfordshire, which is not in the west midlands. That was my simple point. If the Minister said Bedworth, I must have misheard him.
Colleen Fletcher
No, he did say Bedford, but it is Bedworth in actual fact.
Andrew Percy
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman spotted my deliberate mistake. I was making sure that people were awake for this important Committee. I may have inadvertently said Bedford when I meant Bedworth—I apologise if I did indeed say that. It was a deliberate accidental mistake, if such a thing can exist. My geography gets a little pasty south of Sheffield, being a proud Yorkshireman.
I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, welcomes the draft order. He tends to be consistent in his contributions to these debates: he welcomes the general principle, but then he goes on to criticise the draft order. All I will say is that we must be doing something right with these deals, because two of his parliamentary colleagues have decided that these roles are so important and interesting that they have deserted the parliamentary Labour party to run for Mayor in Liverpool and in Manchester.
We are, of course, attracting big names. I cannot remember the name of the Labour candidate for the West Midlands, but I can remember the name of Andy Street, who is the excellent Conservative candidate. He is obviously the only candidate with a proper vision for the whole of the West Midlands, and we expect him to do very well come the elections. I am sorry that I cannot remember the name of the Labour candidate, but the fact that we are attracting big names to run for these roles is an indication of how much influence the new combined authorities have.
I think the shadow Minister made two policy announcements today: he recommitted the Labour party to the establishment of metropolitan councils, and then he said, “We want to be equals with Scotland and Wales.” I am not sure whether that is a new Labour policy of a Parliament for England, but those were two interesting Opposition policy announcements.
The shadow Minister said that there will be no real powers and he talked about local taxation. Shortly, local authorities will be able to retain 100% of business rates, and the Government have given them much more freedom with business rate discounts. We have given them flexibility to offer reductions, should they wish to do so.
Jim McMahon
Does the Minister accept that there is a world of difference between fiscal retention and fiscal devolution?
Andrew Percy
We are giving much more control and certainty to local authorities than ever was the case when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government.
Andrew Percy
Well, they were not really good old days. If they were such good old days, Labour would not have left office with unemployment much higher than it was when they came to office, the economy would not have tanked and people would not have voted them out. They cannot have been that jolly. Certainly, the people in my constituency who were sacked on the Labour party’s watch do not think of them as good old days.
Andrew Percy
I am just responding to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I have noticed in a number of these debates that he makes a point, I respond to it and then he has a go at me for doing so. It is an interesting debating technique.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned employment and skills. He said there is nothing in the draft order about the DWP and skills. The truth is that combined authorities will have full retention of the post-19 budget by the start of the 2018-19 academic year, and they will also chair the area-based reviews for post-16 skills provision. That includes the power to co-design employment support for the hardest-to-help claimants. Of course, that will be done in partnership with central Government—the DWP—because, quite rightly, they have a national framework for what they want to achieve in getting people back to work.
The deals confer a power that does not presently exist, which enables the new local structures to co-design that employment support. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the best way to achieve for people who are looking for work or who have employment and skills issues is with a partnership between central and local government. The co-design power, which the hon. Gentleman was a bit sniffy about, is actually really important, and I think the West Midlands will value it.
I do not think there is much more to say than that. I wish the shadow Minister well with his shed building—I am available to come and open it. Come the 2020 election, he will go to his potting shed and prepare for what he will hope will be a flatlining number of Labour MPs. I do not think he will go to his potting shed to prepare for victory.
I commend the draft order to the Committee, and we wish Andy Street all the very best for the upcoming election. I know that the people of the West Midlands will be tuned into this Committee. They will have heard the plugs for both the Labour and the Tory candidates, so we will have made a definitive impact on the election. This is an important milestone and an important step in bringing this devolution deal to fruition.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) (amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I am delighted to be here to speak about these important regulations, which will continue to ensure the provision of five mandatory health and development assessments and reviews as set out in the healthy child programme.
The Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) and Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 transferred responsibility for commissioning public health services for children aged nought to five from NHS England to local authorities, allowing local public health services to be shaped to meet local needs. That includes responsibility for delivering the healthy child programme.
The healthy child programme is the main universal health service for improving the health and wellbeing of children, providing families with health and development assessments and reviews, health promotion, screening and immunisation. It is supplemented by advice on health, wellbeing and parenting. The five reviews are offered by health visitors to pregnant women, new mothers and children from birth to age five and include the antenatal visit, new-born review, six to eight-week check, one-year review and two to two-and-a-half-year review. They are required to be provided by all local authorities in England.
Health visitors play a crucial role in ensuring that children have the best possible start in life and lead the delivery of the elements of the healthy child programme that relate to children aged nought to five. Health visitors provide valuable advice and support to families and are trained to identify health and wellbeing concerns. Through the health visitor programme, we have supported the profession more than ever before to transform the service.
In April 2015, when the health visitor programme was transferred, there was an increase of just under 50% in the number of full-time equivalent health visitors in the workplace since May 2010. Health Education England is ensuring sustainable development of the health visitor workforce, and more than 800 health visitor student training places are being commissioned. Along with service transformation, that means that more families now have access to the support they need in those precious early years.
We are also committed to supporting school-age children and young people by promoting their health and wellbeing through school nursing services. There are about 1,100 school nurses in England, supported by other professionals such as community staff nurses, healthcare support workers and nursery nurses. In January 2016, Public Health England published commissioning guidance for school nursing, which makes clear that school nurses should be accessible and responsive to children’s needs.
The 2015 regulations, which place a duty on local authorities to provide the five universal health visitor reviews, contain a sunset clause and will therefore lapse on 31 March 2017. The legal obligation on local authorities to provide health visitor services is also set to lapse on 31 March 2017. The draft regulations will prevent that from happening.
The current regulations also include a provision for a review to be undertaken of their operation. The Department of Health commissioned Public Health England to carry out a review of the operation of the five mandated universal health visitor reviews following the transfer of responsibility to local authorities, as set out in the 2015 regulations. A review was carried out in summer 2016, and Public Health England’s report was published on 1 March 2017. The review found widespread support from local authorities and commissioners for the universal health visitor programme remaining in place in order to secure the delivery of long-term benefits from the healthy child programme, including improved health and wellbeing outcomes for children and their families.
There was also a strong view held by professional representatives of local government and the nursing profession that the services are essential for prevention and early intervention and a general agreement that they deliver a positive return on investment and contribute to other Government priorities such as reducing childhood obesity, reducing smoking in pregnancy and improving maternal mental health. I would like to thank Public Health England for its important work on the review and for helping to inform the regulations.
Local authorities will continue to be funded to deliver the mandated health visitor reviews. Local authorities will receive more than £16 billion between 2015-16 and 2020-21 to spend on public health, which includes children’s services and health visitors. That is in addition to what the NHS will continue to spend on vaccinations, screening and other preventive interventions.
I announced earlier this month that we have decided to retain the ring fence on the public health grant for a further year, until 2019, as we move towards implementing 100% local business rate retention. That is a step on the way to a more locally owned system and will help to smooth the transition by providing some certainty for the next two financial years. It is right that local authorities have appropriate flexibility to deliver against their local priorities, but it is also appropriate that some key requirements are set nationally, such as the five universal health visitor reviews.
By continuing these mandated elements of the healthy child programme, we intend to maintain consistency across all local authorities when ensuring the delivery of these services. The draft regulations will remove the sunset clause from the current regulations, ensuring that local authorities continue to provide these important visits to families. Removing the sunset clause will ensure that the duty on local authorities to provide these services does not lapse on 1 April. I am confident that that sends a clear signal to health visitors, family nurses, local authorities and the public of the Government’s ongoing commitment to universal public health support for pregnant women, children and their families.
The Government are committed to improving our children and young people’s health outcomes so that they become among the best in the world. What happens in pregnancy and the early years impacts on the life throughout its course. Therefore, a healthy start for all children is vital for individuals, families, communities and, ultimately, the nation. I commend the regulations to the House.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. The Opposition are pleased that the Government have finally brought these regulations before us, especially with the end-date for the mandation of health visitor reviews being so close—it will be in five days’ time, to be exact. I welcome a lot of what the Minister said.
The regulations are welcome as they continue the mandation of health visitor reviews, which are an important part of an early intervention strategy. We will therefore not seek to divide the Committee. However, I have concerns about health visiting and what the regulations will do that I wish to raise with the Minister and on which I seek reassurance.
This year marks 155 years since the start of health visiting, which has had a range of different guises over the years, in 1862. It is important that we protect this long and proud career and give it the support it deserves. It is therefore concerning to see in the provision relating to regulation 5B of the principal regulations a potential watering down of who can do universal health visitor reviews, allowing other qualified health professionals to conduct reviews instead of health visitors. That is concerning when there is anecdotal evidence that health visitors are being told to delegate to other professionals, but are doing so only because they are so overstretched and busy with their huge workloads. That does not mean other health professionals cannot be complementary to the reviews, but the core reviews must be done by health visitors, because they are the specialists and it is their job to do it after being trained to undertake that role.
A health visitor’s role should not be diminished. I hope the Minister agrees and will assure me that she will closely monitor that issue, as I certainly will, to ensure that health visiting is not a diminished profession and that we do not see a reduction in the quality of health visitor reviews. I look forward to her response.
Nicola Blackwood
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support for the regulations. As she said, they will be essential to ensure the future health of the upcoming generation. I listened to the points she made. She can see in the health visitor numbers, which stand at 4,200, and in the 800 training places that we are committed not only to health visitors and a strong health visitor training force but to the quality of assessment within that force. I hope that she is reassured on that point.
Health visitors support families to give children the best possible start in life. That is exactly why we have taken this strong action to continue to ensure the provision of the five mandatory health and development assessments and reviews so that this service will continue to be provided to all families. I hope that the shadow Minister is reassured.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017.
The Government propose extending the horserace betting levy to betting operators that are based offshore, which will correct the current unfairness in the levy system whereby betting operators in Britain are required to pay the levy, but those based offshore in otherwise identical circumstances are not. The issue has become more acute as the shift to betting online has increased. The levy will be due on bets on British racing made by consumers located in Britain. As part and parcel of that, we are setting down the rate of the levy in legislation, moving away from the fractious annual negotiation process and providing long-term certainty for betting and racing. It will be set at 10% of a betting operator’s gross profits on such activity.
Next week is horse-racing awareness week. This Committee allows me to fire the starting gun seven days early and place on record that British racing has long been a source of entertainment for many, a provider of jobs and a focal point for many rural communities. The mutually beneficial principle of transferring funding to racing from the proceeds of betting under statutory arrangements dates back to 1928. The levy itself has been in place since 1963. The levy supports funding for a range of areas, including prize money, integrity, equine welfare and veterinary science. Since 2000, more than £32 million has been invested through the levy in veterinary science and research alone.
However, changes to the market have meant that the levy is no longer fair and fit for the modern world, as betting operators based offshore are not liable to pay it. That has created a system that puts British-based operators at a competitive disadvantage and has contributed to a reduction in levy receipts. There have been a number of efforts over the past decade to broker voluntary deals to ensure a fair contribution from all who make sizeable profits from the racing product. I thank those operators that have done the right thing and made voluntary contributions over that period, but regrettably history shows that it has not been possible to reach a satisfactory solution to the problem of the many offshore bookmakers that benefit from the British racing product without being required to make a fair contribution to the industry. British racing is the envy of the world, with a rich history and traditions dating back hundreds of years. It is imperative that there is, via the levy, a solid foundation that will continue to support the sector and attract investment in sport.
The levy is a pre-existing state aid, as it was in place before the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, but any material change, as is the case here, requires state aid approval from the European Commission. Colleagues may recall that, in the debates considering the power to extend the levy in 2014, it was made clear that changes to the levy scheme were likely to be necessary before it could be extended. We have thought carefully about the right way to apply the state aid requirements to the British context, and we consider that the package of levy reforms taken together represent the right approach for the British industry. The Government are seeking state aid clearance and, as set out in the statutory instrument, the regulations will not come into force until state aid approval is granted. I am confident that clearance will be received shortly.
The principle of the levy is simple: all operators that benefit from British racing above a minimum threshold should contribute to its funding. The levy will apply to bookmakers—including pool betting and spread betting operators—and betting exchange providers in Britain and offshore. The levy will apply in the same way regardless of where the bet is placed, whether that is at the course, in a high-street bookmakers or online. That ensures that the levy will apply equally to all operators, with no differential treatment based on how or where customers place their bets.
The Government have considered a range of evidence in arriving at a fair rate. There have been three public consultations, and I have held a number of meetings with representatives from betting and racing. The Department commissioned an independent report on the funding of racing, and regard has also been given to the recent history of the levy and the overall landscape of the betting market.
It is important to reduce the risk of the levy acting as a barrier to betting operators entering the market. We are therefore introducing a threshold amount. No operator will pay a levy on their first slice of gross profits derived from taking bets on British horse-racing, and it will be set at £500,000. The majority of small and medium-sized operators will therefore not be liable to pay the levy. In order that the exempt amount does not create perverse incentives for an operator to artificially split their business, the regulations make provision to ensure that an operator does not benefit from multiple allowances.
The Government are of the view that the overall package of a rate of 10%, with the £500,000 de minimis threshold, is a fair and proportionate contribution from the betting industry to the mutual interest it has in a good quality racing industry. The Government consider that a fixed rate provides certainty for betting and racing. However, it is important that the levy can be responsive to future changes in the market. The Secretary of State is therefore required to review the levy rate within seven years. This period is intended to strike a balance between allowing the betting and racing industries to plan commercial strategies and long-term investments with confidence while ensuring that the levy can respond to the evolution in relevant sectors.
The Government have previously announced that we intend to make separate changes to reduce the cost of administering the levy, currently done by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and remove the Government from day-to-day involvement in levy expenditure. We will consult on the second phase of reform in due course.
In conclusion, the reforms will create a level playing field between all betting operators. They will provide a fair return to racing and will ensure that the industry can continue to be the home of the best quality racing in the world for years to come. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Order. Before I call you, Dr Allin-Khan, I am obliged to tell you that it is not satisfactory that you turned up late before the address of the Minister. This gives me no pleasure, but I am obliged to say this. I realise that the reason why you were late is possibly because of the immense security arrangements going on in this place at this time, but we always try to ensure that at least the Front-Bench speakers are present at the start of any address.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I beg your pardon for being a fraction late. It is the first time it has happened and you are absolutely right that there was a very good reason for it. I am happy to indulge you further on the matter after the Committee rises.
The horserace betting levy was introduced many years before the Minister and I were born. Although it serves a good purpose, it was introduced more than half a century ago and it is time to bring it into 2017. The levy funds central areas within the racing industry, including the equal distribution of prize money; higher racing integrity; advances in equine welfare and veterinary sciences; and, importantly, improvements in the mental and physical wellbeing of participants.
The current levy does not apply to overseas and online betting operators. Given that the profits generated, which serve such important causes, have been exponentially declining, we believe it is time to revise the levy. In 2005-06 alone, the levy produced more than £99 million, but the number drastically dropped to just £54 million a decade later. With the popular rise in online gambling, especially since the development of smartphones, we have seen many aspects of our daily lives move online. We put photos in frames less and on Facebook more. Phones have become the new shops.
Just as those parts of our lives have moved online, so has betting. With relative ease, punters can place bets on any and every sports event taking place across the world. I am sure we all welcome such technological developments, but it is our duty to ensure a level playing field across all markets, including gambling. That means bringing the horserace betting levy into the 21st century, where online bookmakers are required to contribute, just as high street bookmakers are.
The levy comes into effect only when a bookmaker makes £500,000 profit on British horseracing, so it will not adversely affect smaller companies competing against larger companies. The Opposition welcome that move. In the discussions I have held with relevant organisations and bodies, there was agreement that that was a step forward worth making. Having said that, there are a few areas that I must explore and question in order to feel confident that the Government have taken them into consideration, and that they will act if they have not done so already.
I hope the Minister can reassure me on the following points. While smaller in scale, greyhound racing is a section of the market where it is not compulsory for bookmakers to contribute towards a levy. They give voluntarily at a rate of only 0.6%. Why have the Government not gone further and sought the introduction of a greyhound racing levy? Has the Minister made any predictions or estimations on the extra sums that will be generated with the changes to the levy? What discussions have there been and what considerations have been given to the welfare of horses, and will any of the additional sums raised be ring-fenced to ensure that horse welfare is made a priority?
Given that extra money will be given to racecourses across the country, will the Government ask them to commit to paying staff the living wage as set by the Living Wage Foundation? Why has the Minister chosen to review the levy after seven years? Will she explain her decision? The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I do not intend to delay the Committee for too long. I have a fiancée—soon to be Mrs Foster—who was once an amateur licensed jockey. We still have Breezy, her last race-horse, which gives me an interest. Hazel assures me she will not be going on a horse in a race any time soon, and the only race Breezy is likely to compete in is one for his next feed bucket.
I welcome the regulations, and particularly the fact that they will bring a fairer and more level playing field. They are relevant to my constituency in Torbay because the people who go to Newton Abbot racecourse regularly look to stay in Torbay and bring valuable business. I welcome what the Minister has outlined. The regulations are about supporting the industry and creating a level playing field so that betting operators here do not end up paying a levy that others can avoid by using a different model of operation. The amounts that will be generated will make a real difference and the measure is needed. I am not going to ask any questions, such as what tips the Minister has for the racing coming up. I simply want to put on the record my support for the measure and how I think it will benefit my constituency.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Given that the Scottish National party supports the legislation before us today, I will be brief in my remarks.
We accept the need for an overhaul of the system—indeed, we have voted for such in the past. In 2013 we supported a new clause to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill, which would have made offshore bookmakers liable. The Government did not support it at the time, but I am pleased to see them come to the right conclusion on this occasion.
In addition, the Scottish Government and the cross-party horse-racing and bloodstock industries group in the Scottish Parliament also support the changes. In any event, I think all parties, both inside this place and out, would agree that a fair and sustainable instrument of reinvestment is long overdue.
Over the years, the number of bets placed online has markedly increased. In tandem with that, the proportion of online bets made using offshore bookmakers has also increased dramatically, resulting in the levy not being applied to an estimated 40% of all bets on British racing. The British Horseracing Authority has estimated that that costs the industry more than £30 million a year in lost levy receipts. The SNP does not believe that bookies can exploit the system by moving parts of their business offshore to avoid meeting their responsibilities.
It is worth noting that the levy exists for a reason. As well as supporting the nearly 17,500 people who directly work for horse-racing, it also advances horse-racing in general. Failing to abide by this important levy makes it more difficult for the sector to meet a critically important set of responsibilities, including the wellbeing of people who work in the sector alongside the horses themselves. It is right that we introduce legislation that closes that loophole.
It has been forecast that the levy will raise between £10 million and £30 million. With such a wide forecast, it is only right that we review the levy’s efficacy. Will the Minister provide the Government’s thinking on the seven-year timescale of the review? Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Tooting, has that period been agreed by both the horse-racing and betting industries?
We must be mindful of spectators and punters across the UK who may become addicted to gambling. Problem gambling causes harm to the gambler and those around them, including family, friends and others who know them or care for them. Nearly 50% of people have gambled in the past four weeks; even though the majority of people gamble with moderation, addiction is still said to cost the UK Government £1.2 billion every year, with the impact on the individual being more devastating. Given the additional income being secured for the sport of horse-racing, we should contemplate whether additional support can be offered to those affected by problem gambling.
It is unclear how much of the funding acquired by the Horserace Betting Levy Board has been spent in Scotland. The only source of information containing a discussion of the issue is a 2015 William Hill report, which states that the betting industry’s annual contribution through the levy to Scottish racecourses for 2014 is
“£4.1 million, 6% of the total UK levy contributions”.
In addition, a 2014 document noted that the income received from the levy by Scottish racecourses exceeds that bet on Scottish fixtures. However, given that Scotland accounts for 9.8% of the betting taxes and levies collected in the UK but has 5% of the British horse-racing sector, it is likely that Scottish punters make a net contribution to horse-racing in the rest of the UK. That is estimated at £2.8 million per annum. I ask that a proportionate amount of any additional funds raised be spent in Scotland, where the country’s five racecourses attract more than 300,000 visitors annually, the economic impact of which has been valued at £170 million a year.
I welcome the new proposals set out by the Minister, and believe that they will help to secure vital resources to support the industry and horse-racing in general. They will also help to prevent aspects of the industry from moving sections of their online business to offshore accounts, avoiding their responsibilities to the levy and the sport.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I want to start by saying how important the issue is for my constituency. I estimate that between 700 and 1,000 jobs relate directly to the racing industry in West Berkshire. We are one of the three big training centres in the country, and the Lambourn valley is, of course, the home of national hunt racing. A lot of businesses on which my constituents depend have been looking carefully at the sometimes tortuous negotiations that have taken place on the subject over many years. Those of us who are members of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries will have sat in on frequent meetings with the Minister and her predecessors on either side of the House about how to fund such an industry fairly.
In addition to Lambourn, where there will be an impact, we have one of the premier racecourses in the country at Newbury. There are direct jobs there, as well as tourism throughout that part of the Thames valley, and the effect will be enormous. To understand the issue, including the reduction in income from the levy, we need to understand the extra costs of putting on a day’s racing at any course—leaving aside Newbury, which has the ability and location to generate other funds. There are racecourses in some of my hon. Friends’ constituencies, and in Scotland, that rely on racing for nearly all their income. We want a system that supports racing across these islands and that makes sure that the industry is set for the future.
The industry has relied for too long on an analogue system in a digital world—the hon. Member for Tooting put it well; it was brought in three years after I was born, when there was no online betting. The system by which people can now bet did not exist. Betting has of course changed in other ways. People can now bet on a place—or, to put it better, a variety of different conclusions to a race. Income to the industry has reduced because of online—and in some cases offshore—betting, from £115 million in 2007-08 to £54.5 million in 2015-16.
To answer the question of the hon. Member for Tooting about the Government’s predictions, according to the explanatory memorandum the figure of 10% will, on 2015-16 predictions, bring in an income of between £72 million and £84 million. That is not back to where we were in 2007-08, but it is certainly a big improvement. It is entirely right to implement a percentage, because then we will not have to rely on an annual review as we go forward.
Will the Minister give a little more explanation of how the governance of the levy will work and what systems will be in place following the ending of the current arrangements with the levy board? I felt at times that this issue was as difficult for Ministers of all parties to deal with as trying to pick up mercury with a fork. I congratulate the Minister on not only nailing this, but doing so with agreement right across the industry. There may be some outliers who disagree, but the conversations I have had seem to suggest that she has achieved the alchemy that has been missing; perhaps it will set her straight for a future career in negotiating a power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland.
As things stand at the moment, we are now able to say that all betting—offshore, online, onshore or in the traditional way on racecourses—will be subject to a system that will result in a fair income for racing. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I feel your frustration, Sir Alan; your knowledge and insight into the horse-racing game is sadly missed by the Opposition today. I welcome you to the Chair. I was not disappointed when our spokesperson did not turn up on time today. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and I hatched a plot: I would have made my name in her position today if she had not arrived. It was not to be.
I congratulate the Minister. Some 20 years ago, when I was a new MP and she was a novice researcher, we used to have a pint in Bellamy’s club, which is sadly not there anymore. We never discussed horse-racing, so I am surprised and pleased that she has achieved something that so many people before her have tried to do and not succeeded. I congratulate her on that.
I have just a few brief questions. First, the Minister mentioned that she was confident about state aid rules not being contravened. On what basis does she have that confidence? Secondly, she says that everybody is on board, so far as the bookmakers are concerned. Is everybody on board, or has she any concerns that there is a particular area that still holds concerns and may, at the end of the day, challenge her?
Thirdly, may I ask her about the distribution, so far as geography and the allocation of the money are concerned? I do not know whether she has any say in that. On geography, will all areas of the country get a share—a fair share—of the money? On allocation, let us hope it is not like the Premier League and that the money does go down to the bottom—to the smaller people at the real grassroots of horse racing, who miss out so often and who struggle to keep our great sport alive.
The Chair
Order. Gentlemen, before you are called I should say that, according to the House’s guidelines and rules, Members not on the Committee may turn up and ask to stand at the discretion of the Chair. I point out to you that this is a very short Committee meeting today, and we have to give time for the Minister to respond and for any other Committee members to ask questions or answer queries. Nevertheless, I think it is in keeping that the two of you should be given an opportunity to speak, particularly because you both have such a wealth of experience in this area.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Thank you for agreeing to call me in this short debate, Sir Alan. As you say, I am not a member of the Committee, but I wanted to turn up and make a brief contribution. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, and also to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on the racing and bloodstock industries with you. That is the first interest I need to declare. Secondly, the Cheltenham racecourse is in my constituency, and a great racecourse it is. Thirdly, I need to draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I receive hospitality from bookmakers and horse-racing from time to time. I have checked with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and it is in order for me to contribute to this debate.
I support the regulations. Unlike a number of other hon. Members, I had been born when the levy was introduced—I do not suggest that that gives me any greater authority to speak on the issue. It is important that horse-racing has a boost in income, regardless of where it comes from. We hear about it being the sport of kings. We saw racing at the Cheltenham festival, in my constituency, just a week and a half ago, we are coming up to the grand national festival, and we see Royal Ascot and the Derby. At that level, yes, there is an awful lot of money in horseracing.
If we go beneath that level, we find a very different picture. Many horse races are run for prize money of £2,000. To break even over a season, it would be necessary to win about 10 races, and no horse is going to do that. Owners going into racing at certain levels know for sure that they are going to lose out. There is a need for more money in racing for stable staff, jockeys and trainers at that end of the market. There is a pyramid, and most people are at that end of the pyramid and do not make much money, and many of them struggle.
There is certainly a need for measures to be taken to bring more money into racing. As the Minister rightly said, there is an anomaly. That is nobody’s fault, but it has come about because of the changes in technology and the way people bet. It is only right that this measure be introduced to bring about fairness and consistency in how bookmakers pay the horse-racing levy.
I hope that the Government are not considering taking any further measures, which might reduce bookmakers’ ability to fund horse-racing. That is a debate for another day, but it needs to be taken seriously. If further measures were taken that undermined the bookmakers’ ability to pay, the regulations would be rendered completely useless. I hope that we can proceed with caution in other areas, but we can perhaps come to that on another day.
I echo what the hon. Member for Jarrow said. When we make these changes and more money comes into horse-racing, I hope, as someone who represents one of the top racecourses in the world, that the money is not just ploughed in at the top end and that consideration is given to the many thousands of people who struggle at the lower end of horse-racing. Without those people, there would be no Cheltenham, no gold cup, no Royal Ascot. I know that is a debate for another day, but it is a very important point.
I will comply with your request that I speak for only five minutes, Sir Alan—thank you for giving me the opportunity to support the regulations. I wish the Minister well in her endeavours.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for allowing me to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Unlike the hon. Member for Jarrow, my pleasure is only tempered by the fact that we do not have the benefit of your expertise as a successful owner and breeder on the Committee today.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I refer people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like him, I am an occasional visitor to racecourses for the benefit of bookmakers and people in the racing industry. I am grateful to both for their occasional invitations to race meetings. For many years, I have been the modest owner of racehorses, or I should probably say the owner of modest racehorses. That would be a better way to describe it.
There are two issues I want to explore. The first is whether the Government are in order in making this change in the way that they are. When I first inquired of the Clerks about the mechanism for changing the rules, the Clerk of Bills in the Public Bill Office said:
“I can say with reasonable confidence that changes to the levy itself and its scope would need primary legislation, probably contained within the next Finance Bill after the Budget in March.”
As we can see, however, this is not primary legislation. Why do we not have primary legislation when that was the advice of the Clerk, in particular given that the Minister described this in her opening remarks as a “material change” to the levy? I would like her to consider that point.
I am grateful to Lord Lipsey, who is an expert on such matters in another place, for some advice he got from Olswang’s lawyers. Their point was that it is of course in order to impose the levy on foreign betting operators who do not pay it—because
“the 2014 act specifically says so”—
but
“this order goes ‘well beyond’ that. It mandates a fixed levy of 10% for all bookmakers, in place of the present process of annual levy fixed by the levy board. It mandates the extension of the levy to the Tote’s on-course operation”,
which was not the case before, and all on-course bookmakers will have to pay the levy, subject to the exemption set out by the Minister. Those lawyers, too, feel that there is some doubt as to whether that is how the situation should be handled.
My final evidence is from 2013, when we had a private Member’s Bill to extend the levy to foreign operators. Responding to a point someone had made in the debate, the Minister at the time, Hugh Robertson, said about the levy:
“The best thing I can do is read to her the legal advice that I have been given by the Government Law Officers, which says that although a levy is permitted in its current form, since it originates from before 1972 and therefore pre-dates state aid rules, the European Commission is likely to consider that the collection of contributions from overseas operators would substantially alter the levy, such that it was no longer compliant with state aid. I am afraid that, regardless of how many high-priced opinions are obtained elsewhere, once the Government Law Officers have opined that the Bill is therefore defective in that respect, the Government cannot accept it.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 638.]
[Interruption.] There is a Division—should we break here?
Philip Davies
I was presenting as evidence the remarks of a previous Minister; if the Minister would explain why the Department’s legal advice has changed so radically, that would be welcome. Perhaps, when she does, she will explain what will happen if the original legal advice, rather than the latest, proves accurate, and the European Court of Justice comes down on a different side of the fence from the one anticipated.
My second point is about the merits of the levy in the first place. I am astonished at the Labour party and Scottish National party support for it, because we all know that it is taking money from poor punters and giving it to rich owners; it is redistribution of wealth in reverse, so I am intrigued by their support. On the Conservative Benches we are, you will notice, Sir Alan, against subsidies for any industry unless it is farming or horse-racing. People may draw their own conclusions as to why Conservatives are all in favour of subsidies for those two industries but not for others.
The levy figures are clear. Something like 75% of the prize money in the UK goes to about the top 10 owners in the country, so it is a great benefit to Sheikh Mohammed, the Qatari royal family and Coolmore Stud—I am sure they are not really on their uppers. The question is whether we should be subsidising their sport and interests.
I have two more points to make. First, it seems to me that the Government have made changes to the scheme to satisfy the European Commission by extending the levy to the Tote and on-course bookmakers, which were not in the original proposals put out to consultation. Why do not the Government, given that they are now pursuing a policy that they do not support—it was not their original proposal—wait until after we have left the European Union, when they can introduce whatever policy they want without having to refer any of it to the European Commission and risk its going through the European Court of Justice?
Finally, we talk about the amount of money that goes from bookmakers to racing. When the levy started, it was a mechanism to do that. The Government have always been against the levy; they have tried to abolish it, because they think it is a bad system. However, it was a useful mechanism for transferring money from bookmakers to racing when there was no other mechanism for doing so.
I asked the Minister some questions not too long ago about how much money bookmakers give to the racing industry. Racing always wanted about £100 million out of the levy; that was the figure it wanted to achieve—a perfectly reasonable figure. However, let us take 2012 as an example. The levy has gone down since then but media payments have gone up, so the figure is probably still about right.
In 2012, the bookmakers handed over, in levy payments, £74 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, that has gone down since—I accept that. In the same year, they also gave £153 million in media rights to show the racing in their shops and online, £88 million of which went to racecourses. That figure has gone up considerably since 2012. They also gave £12 million in sponsorship. The total going directly to racecourses from the betting industry was £174 million. However, it cost bookmakers even more than that, given the money taken out with respect to picture rights.
In that year, total prize money in racing, in the UK, was £97 million. If people were asked what proportion of prize money bookmakers in the UK should contribute to UK horseracing, I suspect that some might say half. Some zealots might say all of it. I suspect very few people would think that bookmakers should give virtually double the total UK prize money levels to the racing industry, yet that is what they do every single year. That, to me, seems excessive. The Government seem to be doing nothing to find a way to make sure that the horse-racing industry passes the money down from racecourses to owners and trainers.
If the Government proceed with this, I hope that they do not just try to extract more and more money out of bookmakers, which are actually taking less and less on horse-racing; it is becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of their business. I hope that the Government accept that bookmakers pay a huge amount into racing—I think it excessive, in many respects—and that they find a way to ensure that racecourses pass that money on in prize money, not just to the richest racehorse owners but to those at the bottom. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will say to the racing industry that, yes, the Government will make sure that it gets the money, but that it should make sure that that money goes from the racecourses to the people it is intended to support.
The Chair
Sir Edward, give me a second before you proceed. Because of the two Divisions, we can now go on until 6.23 pm—although we do not have to.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
Sir Alan, I apologise, not only to you but to the Committee as a whole, for my slightly late arrival at the Committee. I will certainly not go on until 6.23 pm or anything like it.
I do not want to have a row with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley because it simply would not be worth it. However, I do not want him to think that I accept that Leicester Racecourse, in my constituency of Harborough, is at the bottom end of the racing hierarchy. It may not have the cachet of Newbury, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury proudly represents, and it may not be quite like Cheltenham, but it is not a bad racecourse. If this new arrangement enables more racing to be held there, and for there to be better prize money to attract higher-quality racing at the racecourse, so much the better.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley speaks with great knowledge of the bookies’ industry. I was also delighted to hear from him that one of his many horses once ran at Leicester, steered by the great Dettori. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend riding one of his own horses.
Sir Edward Garnier
“No chance”, he says. There we are—there is a God.
While we are getting excited about what my hon. Friend may think is the unfair nature of this new arrangement on the bookmaking industry, I think it is important that we also discuss the unsung heroes of the racing world who work at and run, shall we say, the less famous racecourses throughout the country.
The last time I went to Leicester Racecourse—last summer, for one of the summer meetings—the number of people working backstage was probably just as great, proportionally, as it would have been at Cheltenham, Newbury or Aintree. However, the cash flow and the money going through that particular racecourse is not nearly as great as at some of the great festival racecourses.
Richard Benyon
Does my right hon. and learned Friend also agree that the cost of putting on a day’s racing and complying with all that we now require—on crowd management, health and safety and all of the other good policy changes that have been made for the public’s safety—is extremely burdensome on precisely those smaller courses?
Sir Edward Garnier
My right hon. Friend makes the point I was trying to make rather better than I was making it myself; I am grateful to him for having done so.
It is perfectly true that the number of people from the medical services, vets, stewards and other officials now needed to put on a day’s racing is enormous. From the stable yard right the way through to the car park, there are lots and lots of people, all of whom have to be paid, apart from some of the kind volunteers who help out for the love of it. Those are not racecourses that are putting on tens of meetings a year or attracting the greatest of the prize money. Of course, the famous yards that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned will no doubt benefit from the regulations, but I hope the money will trickle down and enable racecourses such as Leicester and—is there a racecourse at Hexham?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
“Is there”? It is the best racecourse in the country!
Sir Edward Garnier
Well, there we are. I have achieved publicity for that great racecourse in Northumberland, in addition to the one in Leicestershire.
Even if these regulations lead to an increase in the cash flow coming into the small racecourses by only a small measure, the Government will have achieved a public benefit. I salute the Minister for what she has achieved. I wish this new levy system Godspeed, and I trust that vast sums of bookies’ money will end up in Oadby, the home of Leicester racecourse in my Harborough constituency.
Tracey Crouch
I thank Committee members for their engagement and their contributions to the debate. Although the principle of an extension to the levy is, on the face of it, simple, it has been demonstrated by the important points that have been made during this debate that it is more complex than it might seem. I will address each of those points in turn.
I thank the hon. Member for Tooting and the Opposition for their support for the regulations. The hon. Lady is right in her assessment of why this is a necessary step forward. As she said, the industry and the sector have evolved, so we can all now gamble in very different ways than we could 50-odd years ago.
The hon. Lady’s comments about greyhound racing are very topical. I recently wrote to Bet365, the only major online operator contributing to the voluntary fund, to thank it for taking a lead in this key area, and I have also written to trade bodies representing all the betting operators to ask that they take part in discussions to improve the current funding position. Lord Lipsey has volunteered to chair that act of mediation. Although there are no plans to introduce a statutory levy for greyhound racing, we will try to encourage more money into the sector.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
May I support the Minister’s argument? Greyhound racing grounds are closing in record numbers, which is exactly why we need these regulations. Plumpton racecourse in my constituency welcomes them, because it needs that extra funding to make it sustainable.
Tracey Crouch
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. We are incredibly proud of the whole racing industry. I have met greyhound industry representatives on a number of occasions to tell them that we continue to support them. We will try to encourage more money into the sector on a voluntary basis. We want to ensure, through the levy for horse-racing, that it has a fair amount of money going into it from the offshore sector.
The hon. Member for Tooting also asked about the living wage. Although that is not a matter for the levy, we expect racing to work with racecourses to ensure best practice. As she is aware, the Government have increased the national minimum wage, and all those working in racing will benefit from it.
The hon. Lady and other Committee members mentioned the timeframe for a review. We believe that the seven-year review set out in the regulations strikes a balance between certainty and a reasonable timeframe. The rate can be reviewed at any time if there are changes in the industry that suggest that the rate no longer remains appropriate. Otherwise, it is required to be reviewed automatically within seven years. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay for his contribution, although given that I contributed significantly to the profits of a bookmaker during Cheltenham he had probably better not rely on tips from me for the forthcoming Grand National.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North asked specific questions about Scotland, and I should say at the outset that I am grateful for the Scottish National party’s support on this issue. Officials have kept the Scottish Government informed about levy reform throughout the entire process. Courses in Scotland do, and will continue to, receive levy funding, and the extension to offshore means that more money will be available for courses across Great Britain. Last year the levy board distributed almost £4 million to the five racecourses in Scotland; I hope that addresses his question.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is a long-standing advocate for reform, and I am enormously grateful for his sage advice on the sometimes complex issues in this area. He spoke eloquently about the need for these changes and then asked a specific question about governance. This is where I explain that it is quite a complex issue, because there are actually two stages, and today is merely the first phase.
In the short term, the levy board will remain responsible as the governing body, but we will consult on transferring responsibility to a nominated racing authority who will act on behalf of the racing industry. At the moment, the levy board is required to provide an annual report making clear how the money is spent; that is important to make sure that money gets to all parts of the racing industry, as others have raised, and we expect a similar to process to occur under the new racing authority.
I will quickly refer to the transitional phase and some of the administrative changes. The Government will consult on using a legislative reform order to effect the transfer of responsibility to the gambling commission and the racing authority. We will consult affected stakeholders on the detail of those proposals shortly, and we intend to complete transfer of responsibilities in early 2018. It is absolutely crucial that we minimise any disruption when moving to the new arrangements, which is why the administrative changes are intended to be completed in early 2018.
My hon. Friend, as I will call him, the Member for Jarrow has not returned from voting, but I want to put on the record my thanks for his kind words—although I was worried that he was about to reveal all my secrets as a researcher. Distribution is a matter not for Government, but for the board at the moment, and the racing authority in the future. All areas of Great Britain benefit from the levy, and that will not change. As it has done, the levy will continue to benefit the grassroots of the sport, and we expect the new racing authority to have clear criteria for allocating funding and to report that transparently. He also asked about state aid. As the statutory instrument makes clear, the legislation will only come into force once state aid clearance is received.
There is a specific provision within the statutory instrument that says it will come into force on 1 April 2017 or the day after it is made—so, the state aid clearance is expected. My officials have engaged extensively with the European Commission, and as a result I am confident that we will receive that clearance shortly. To be perfectly honest, we would not have introduced these regulations to the House if we did not have that confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury spoke very kindly about the reforms. I welcome his support for this; his experience and expertise on all things racing mean that it is even more appreciated. I am grateful.
I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I am pleased that Parliament’s procedures allow him, even as a non-voting member of this Committee, to express his views. I feel that some of his speech was 54 years too late. The levy exists, and it is my duty to make sure that it reflects the world we live in today.
My hon. Friend asked some very specific questions about the need for primary legislation. There is no need for primary legislation; the power in section 2 of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 allows the Government to extend the levy in a state-aid-compatible way using secondary legislation. The point of securing the power in 2014 was to allow us the flexibility to use secondary legislation, and the power is broad enough to address all the issues necessary to secure state aid approval.
We do not agree that these regulations are ultra vires. As was made clear in 2013, the levy is a state aid and, as I have said, extension to off-shore operators is a material change to the existing scheme, which requires notification and approval. On-course bookmakers and the Tote have always been liable to pay the levy since 1963, but my hon. Friend is right—state approval is required, and we have sought it and are confident we will get it shortly. The Department’s legal advice has not changed, because we have always been clear that the levy is a state aid.
Finally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough spoke with passion about the breadth and depth of the industry. Racing is an important sector, and it is essential that we do all we can to support it, from the small racecourses to the large ones. These reforms are long overdue, and I hope the Committee will agree that they will make a profound difference to the British racing industry and to the thousands of hard-working stable staff, jockeys, trainers and all those who make racing what it is today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Horserace Betting Levy Regulations 2017.
Draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017
Draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017
Draft Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017 and the draft Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017.
Dr Lee
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I will set out the purpose of each of the draft regulations in turn.
The draft fee-paid judges regulations will establish a pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges that mirrors the existing pension scheme for salaried judges established by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is required following the court’s decision in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice. The draft regulations will make provision for a pension scheme for people who have held eligible fee-paid judicial office in the period between 7 April 2000 and 31 March 2015. They will also establish the fee-paid judicial added voluntary contributions scheme, the fee-paid added years scheme and the fee-paid judicial added surviving adult’s pension scheme, enabling members of the principal scheme to pay voluntary contributions towards the costs of additional benefits under one or more of these additional schemes.
Following the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice and subsequent court decisions, it is now established law that a lack of pension and other specified benefits amounted to less favourable treatment of some fee-paid judicial office holders than of salaried judges doing the same or broadly similar work, which is contrary to the part-time work directive. The Ministry of Justice therefore made the commitment to implement a pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges. We have already honoured that commitment for future service, subject to transitional protection, by introducing the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015. However, another pension scheme is also required as the remedy in respect of reckonable fee-paid service from 7 April 2000—the date when the part-time work directive ought to have been transposed into UK law. The power to create such a fee-paid pension scheme was created by section 78 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015, which inserted a new section 18A into the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
The Ministry of Justice carried out a detailed public consultation on the draft fee-paid judges regulations, following which they were modified to take account of responses and as part of our own review. Our response to the consultation was published on 27 February alongside the final draft regulations.
The draft amendment regulations will amend the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 in a number of ways. They include provisions to take account of the creation of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and to ensure parity of treatment between individuals with entitlement in the existing Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 scheme and those with entitlements under the fee-paid scheme in respect of their pension entitlements under the 2015 regulations. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to amend the 2015 regulations to correct a drafting error in regulation 1(3); to enable the Lord Chancellor to determine the eligibility of particular Scottish fee-paid judicial office holders to join the pension scheme created by the 2015 regulations; to remove negligence as a basis for forfeiture or set-off; to make a correction to the definition of index adjustment for revaluation purposes; and to apply full and tapering protection to those judges who were in fee-paid office on 31 March 2012 but who have subsequently been appointed to salaried office. The 2015 regulations were made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to create a career-average pension scheme for judicial office holders as part of the Government’s wider reform of public service pensions. This is the first time they have been amended.
The draft additional voluntary contributions regulations will establish a judicial additional voluntary contributions scheme—a money purchase scheme that enables its members to make contributions within a range of investment options, in addition to their contributions to the 2015 judicial pension scheme. The AVC scheme is to be managed by the Lord Chancellor, and the Judicial Pension Board will oversee the governance.
The 2015 judicial pension scheme was established on 1 April 2015, in response to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The 2015 scheme applies to both fee-paid and salaried judicial officeholders. The existing judicial pension schemes provide a facility to contribute to a money purchase pension scheme. These AVC regulations are now providing the same facility to members of the 2015 scheme. That includes the pension flexibilities contained in the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2015.
In additional to the AVC regulations, we are also making separate amendments to the additional voluntary contributions scheme, established under the older judicial pension scheme, made by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. We are doing so via a separate set of regulations that also give effect to the pension flexibilities to enable a consistent approach.
These three sets of regulations are necessary to ensure, first, that the fee-paid judicial pension scheme regulations establish a legal remedy to provide eligible fee-paid judges with pension benefits equivalent to their salaried comparators. Secondly, the amendment regulations make provision for a range of amendments to the 2015 judicial pension scheme. Thirdly, the additional voluntary contributions regulations are being introduced to honour the Department’s commitment to provide that facility to members of the 2015 judicial pension scheme.
I hope the Committee will welcome these regulations, which make important provision for judicial pensions, in respect of the Government’s legal obligations to meet outstanding commitments and of ensuring that all the necessary arrangements are in place for a consistent approach to the relevant provisions across the judicial pension schemes. I therefore commend the three draft regulations to the Committee.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. We welcome these provisions. It is absolutely right that there should be parity of treatment for judicial officeholders doing similar work. The provisions will also be retrospective and backdated, so that those who were not covered before now will be. We welcome the proposals.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and to speak in this important Committee addressing judicial pensions amendment regulations. I want to put a few questions to the Minister, which I hope he will be able to clarify.
I note from the explanatory memorandum—obviously I had time over the weekend to go over the statutory instruments in detail, but the explanatory memorandum is probably the best thing to refer to—that at the moment the legislation is not compatible with the European convention on human rights, until the appeal McCloud v. Ministry of Justice is heard. I understand the Government’s desire to bring these regulations into being swiftly, so that we are not in a position where fee-paid judicial officeholders are at a disadvantage or are receiving unlawful pensions, but will the Minister assure us that we will not be back here again, further amending the regulations, to take into account the outcome of the appeal? Can the Minister shed some light on the debate that must have happened in the Ministry of Justice about whether this was the right moment to bring forward these important regulations?
I note with some concern that the regulations were passed only in 2015 and yet here we are, less than 18 months later, debating amendments. I am pleased, though, that the matter is being dealt with rapidly. Those of us who represent constituents who have lost out through Government pension schemes might raise an eyebrow at the fact that legislation can be introduced so rapidly to right a wrong. I represent pensioners who had worked for the Atomic Energy Authority who were stiffed out of their pensions when they were transferred to the Atomic Energy Authority Technology company. They were assured by the Government Actuary that their pensions would be no worse off than those they would have received had they remained in the public sector, so they transferred to the private sector, and now AEA Technology has gone bust and their pensions have been reduced. It has been almost impossible to get the Government to address that important issue, but I am pleased that they are very keen to do so when it comes to judges.
Can the Minister shed light on the Scottish Government’s position? I notice that they have asked that their judges be included in the scheme, rather than a separate pension scheme. There is a vigorous debate at the moment about a possible second referendum on Scottish independence, so will the Minister shed some light on what will happen to the pension scheme should Scotland become independent? How complicated will it be to separate the two pension schemes?
Finally, I note that there is no scheme for the forfeiture of a judge’s pension, because apparently that would infringe on judicial independence. I cannot help thinking that judges have got a clever point into these regulations. I do not know whether there is a provision for the forfeiture of a Member of Parliament’s pension, or whether we are immune from forfeiture in order to protect our independence. Will the Minister shed some light on what is meant by the phrase “judicial independence” in the explanatory memorandum? If a judge—they are only human—were to commit a heinous crime while sitting as a judge, would we have no redress against them, in terms of forfeiting their pension, even though the full force of the law would be brought to bear? Those important points require some explanation from the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Dr Lee
We have had an interesting debate, and I thank the Committee for the points that have been made.
I am rather flattered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage attends my Statutory Instrument Committees with such diligence and asks such informed questions. I wish I had taken such an interest in his when he was a Minister. On his comments about the European convention on human rights, the Department believes it is right to make the regulations now to ensure that the fee-paid judiciary have access to a judicial pension scheme. The Ministry of Justice has appealed against the decision in McCloud, but if it is ultimately unsuccessful, steps will be taken to remove the incompatibility. I will write to my right hon. Friend with a detailed response to his long list of questions so that he can satisfy himself that these regulations are the right thing to do.
As I have explained, the changes being introduced through these regulations are necessary to honour the Government’s commitment to implement a suitable pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges. At the same time, we are also taking the opportunity to make other necessary changes, both to amend the existing 2015 judicial pension scheme and to create an additional voluntary contributions scheme. I hope these provisions will be welcomed by those to whom they apply. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017.
Draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017.—(Dr Lee.)
Draft Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017.—(Dr Lee.)
draft Deregulation Act 2015 and small business, enterprise and employment act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (Savings) regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Deregulation Act 2015 and Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (Savings) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. These regulations make consequential amendments and savings provisions to legislation that refers to the Insolvency Act 1986 as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 with effect from 6 April 2017. Most significantly, the regulations update the Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order 1986, which is the procedural framework that deals with the administration of the insolvent estates of deceased debtors, and the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994 that deals with insolvent partnerships.
Over the past two years, the Government have introduced a series of reforms to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. We have achieved that through the Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the new Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. The policy impetus for these measures was to remove unnecessary burdens and enable greater use of technology to reduce the cost of administering insolvency proceedings. It was part of the Government’s red tape challenge, which asked stakeholders for views on how unnecessary regulation could be reduced and how procedures could be modernised, simplified and made more efficient.
The responses that we received produced a package of measures aimed at reducing costs and improving returns to creditors. The changes, which commence in April 2017, should deliver a net benefit to business of £22 million a year. The key policy changes to which these consequential amendments apply include the fact that physical meetings will no longer be the default mechanism for making decisions in insolvency proceedings. In many cases, an office holder will be able to use a process of deemed consent, whereby they write to creditors with a proposal and, provided they do not receive objections from more than 10% in value of creditors, the proposal will be deemed to have been approved. Alternatively, office holders can use an online virtual meeting, a telephone meeting or an electronic voting system, or they can seek decisions through correspondence.
Currently, an office holder must hold a face-to-face meeting of creditors in order to lay his or her final report on the outcome of the case. These meetings are rarely attended by creditors. In future, the office holder will simply send a final account of the particular case to creditors. That will not reduce the creditors’ rights to challenge any actions of the office holder. Creditors with no further interest in an insolvency process will be able to opt out of receiving further routine correspondence and reports from the office holder. That will not include correspondence about the payment of a dividend, as the office holder will still have to notify all creditors if a dividend is proposed.
Where parties are used to corresponding electronically, that can continue after insolvency without the need to obtain permission from each creditor. That will encourage e-communication, which is generally cheaper and speedier than traditional post. Under the current rules, an office holder must obtain a court order if he or she wants to put all future communications with creditors on a website, which restricts considerably the use of technology. The requirement for a court order has therefore been removed.
If a creditor is owed up to £1,000, new provisions will allow an office holder to rely on information contained in records belonging to a company or bankrupt and to pay a dividend without the need for the creditor to submit a formal claim. As business practice has developed, particularly through new technologies, corresponding changes to insolvency law have been slow to follow. Users have not always been able to take advantage of the quickest, most cost-effective or most convenient methods of engaging with the insolvency process.
The changes coming into force on 6 April modernise the insolvency process by encouraging the use of electronic communication and decision making so that they are more fitted for the 21st century. They will increase creditor engagement through more convenient methods of interaction, as well as reducing the costs of seeking decisions. In particular, we will introduce amendments that enable modern methods of communication and decision making to be used in place of paper communications and physical meetings. This will increase creditors’ engagement in insolvency cases by encouraging the use of decision-making processes that are fit for the 21st century.
The insolvency reforms have been informed by extensive consultation and engagement with a range of parties affected by insolvency, including the insolvency profession, creditor representatives, insolvency regulators and public bodies.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello.
The Minister has set out the provisions of the draft regulations concisely, but I wish to ask her to clarify a number of points. She mentioned, as do the explanatory notes, that the draft regulations will update the Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order 1986 and the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1995. Will they update only those two measures or will they affect insolvency legislation more widely?
Some questions spring to mind about the creditors meeting. As the Minister said, creditors often do not attend creditors meetings. Will she set out the circumstances in which it is envisaged that a decision will be taken not to hold a creditors meeting, and on whose authority such a decision will be taken? There are reasons why creditors meetings are sometimes beneficial—it is not entirely out of the ordinary for creditors to feel that they would prefer to replace the nominated insolvency practitioner at those meetings—so it would be helpful to understand the circumstances exactly.
Will the Minister tell us the expected savings from the use of electronic communications and the anticipated increase in payments to creditors in the form of dividends? Is a review likely to be held of the success in delivering those savings and that increase in dividends once the regulations are in force? If so, in what way?
I agree that the proposals will save time and money. Using electronic processes makes perfect sense, although there are always questions about how creditors are guaranteed to receive communication electronically. What checks will be in place and what assurances can she give that all creditors will receive their correspondence in that way? What confirmation will be made that they are receiving electronic communications?
The Minister made the point that if a dividend is secured, all creditors will be notified, whether or not they have chosen to receive communications. Will that notification be made on paper, electronically, or by a combination of both methods? I look forward to her response.
Margot James
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, physical meetings may be requested when 10% of the value of creditors have deemed that they would prefer to take decisions via correspondence and electronic communications. On the changes to how decisions are made, he asked what saving the Government think they can achieve by abolishing physical meetings. We estimate that the total benefit to creditors will be approximately £6 million or more each year from including the removal of the requirement to hold a final meeting as well as of the default physical meeting as a way of agreeing decisions.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, it is just the two regulations that we are discussing today. I am grateful to him for his questions, and I hope that we can agree that the regulations will bring important benefits. I said that it is just the two regulations that we are discussing; that covers legislation on the main insolvency elements relating to administration and the deceased and insolvent partnerships order.
Bill Esterson
I asked whether the Minister could give an example of the circumstances in which the creditors meeting would not be held. I am not entirely sure whether she answered or not; she might have done right at the start. Perhaps she would clarify that point for me.
Margot James
I hope that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question correctly. The physical meetings will not be required when 10%, in terms of the value of the creditors, decree that it is acceptable to go ahead without physical meetings and to revert to electronic communication. I hope that I have understood him correctly in that regard, and I hope that we can agree that the regulations will bring benefits in updating the legislation to ensure that it is efficient and effective and delivers the best returns possible for those affected by insolvency. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Sector Apprenticeship Targets Regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Sector Apprenticeship Targets Regulations 2017.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall—especially having sat next to you on the Back Benches for five years in the last Parliament. The regulations are the first use of the power under sections A9 and A10 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies.
The Government are committed to delivering world-class public services and ensuring that people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Through investing in education and skills, we will tackle our productivity gap, deliver greater prosperity and promote fairness. We will create a ladder of opportunity that delivers jobs, security and prosperity and enables people from all walks of life to reach their full potential through apprenticeships.
To meet those objectives, it is vital that the public sector embraces apprenticeships, and the introduction of the target will support them to do that, building their workforce capability and delivering more for the public in the process. The regulations will strengthen the public sector’s commitment to apprenticeships, raising the prestige of that route into work by putting apprentices at the heart of every workplace.
The regulations set the target that the number of apprentices who begin to work for in-scope public bodies from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2021 will be equal to 2.3% of the public body’s headcount in England. By engaging with public bodies, Government Departments will support their own wider public sectors to meet the 2.3% target.
Our reforms will make apprenticeships more rigorous, better structured, independently assessed and more clearly aligned with the needs of employers. By investing more than £60 million in supporting apprentices from deprived areas, we are enhancing social mobility by ensuring that everyone—regardless of age, background or circumstances—can gain the skills employers need.
Alongside the reforms to technical education, it is right that the public sector plays its part. We have committed to 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Historically, the public sector has delivered far fewer apprentices than the private sector. That is why it is necessary to establish the target, to ensure that all parts of the economy are able to benefit from the skills revolution. It is only sensible that we take action to meet our public sector skills needs, and the target will do so by increasing the capacity and capability of public sector employers. It will support them in taking advantage of the reformed apprenticeship system so that they can, in turn, deliver more for the taxpayer.
During the passage of the Enterprise Act 2016, which inserted this provision into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, the House debated and voted upon provisions enabling the Government to set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies. At the time, there was cross-party support for what was rightly regarded as an opportunity to both improve public services and provide more opportunities for people of all backgrounds. It is exactly that two-part benefit, which the target can and will ignite, that led the Government to act. We do not increase the responsibilities of the public sector lightly. We remain diligently aware of the challenges faced. Rather, the regulations are an opportunity for public bodies and the nation as a whole.
We consulted on the target in January 2016 and received 180 responses from bodies across the whole public sector, including numerous public sector organisations that recognised the value of apprentices in their own and wider workforces. The majority of those felt it vital that the public sector engaged with our reforms and itself benefited from the growing apprenticeship movement.
We also listened to concerns that were raised. Some respondents were critical of the target being assessed on an annual basis. As such, while we will continue to monitor public bodies’ progress in annual returns, the target is calculated for grouped bodies as an average over the target period. For all other public bodies, the target is calculated only in respect of years in which the public body has 250 or more employees. That will allow the best of both options, with organisations being able to plan their training and recruitment of apprentices to meet their workforce needs, and the Government being able to monitor, intervene and support public bodies where suitable.
Headcount is used for the purpose of calculating the target, as we believe that using full-time equivalents would result in a lower number of starts. We want the public sector to deliver its fair share of apprenticeships. However, following consultation, we will now allow local authorities to separate out the headcount of bodies for which they employ staff but do not direct the workforce planning—including schools and emergency services—in their information returns.
We chose the target of 2.3% of a public body’s headcount, because that reflects the public sector’s fair share of our commitment to achieve 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Different sectors will have different ways to have regard to that target, with my Department supporting others across Government to best engage their wider public sector bodies.
The regulations prescribe the public bodies in scope of the 2.3% target, how public bodies can calculate progress towards meeting the target, and the information that they must publish and send to the Secretary of State. Regulation 2 identifies how to define the headcount that public bodies will use as the basis of their calculation of the target. Regulation 3 prescribes the public bodies in scope of the regulations. Regulation 4 identifies reporting periods relevant to both the calculation of the target and when information must be published and sent. Regulation 5 specifies the target period, and regulations 6 to 8 specify how the target is to be calculated for the different public bodies. Finally, regulation 9 specifies the information that must be returned and/or published.
The groups of public bodies described in the regulations and public bodies with 250 or more staff in England, as of 31 March in any of years 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020, will be required to publish and/or provide information relating to their progress towards meeting the target for each year they are in scope. There are two parts to that requirement. The first is a data publication. That will identify a public body’s progress towards the target through data. Sharing that information publicly, and directly with the Department, will make bodies transparent and accountable, and make clear which bodies are leading in their investment in apprenticeships. Secondly, public bodies will have to send an apprenticeship activity return to the Department, detailing the actions that they have taken to have regard to the target, why they may not have met the target, and their intended future actions to do so.
We recognise that there will be specific challenges across sectors, including the NHS, schools and local government. I am particularly glad that standards for police constables and registered nurses have been approved, and standards for midwifery and teachers are in development. In addition, my Department will be supporting others across Whitehall to deliver apprenticeships and engage their own public sector bodies in scope of the target. Departments will lead their wider in-scope public sector bodies to understand where and how apprentices can be employed in their workforces and how they can meet the 2.3% target. For example, in my own Department, we have recently published a guide to the new apprenticeship system for different types of schools.
Departments will also work with public bodies to develop new, employer-designed apprenticeship standards and increase the number of quality apprenticeships, thereby delivering more for the public and increasing access to the ladder of opportunity, especially for those from the most deprived areas, who are under-represented in apprenticeship positions. The regulations are an important part of our wider plans for the delivery of world-class public services and a skills system with apprentices at the heart of the workplace.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and to respond to the Minister’s speech. As he said, there has been cross-party consensus on this issue. We are broadly in support of the principle. How could we not be? The Minister made it clear that the Government are drawing on the 2009 Act, which was passed under a Labour Government, in inserting these proposals for targets. That was of a piece with our proposals on procurement in the 2010-15 period, which the Government, after some scepticism under the coalition, have now come round to taking forward.
We welcome the principle, but we are dealing with a very diverse collection of public bodies, not to mention the varieties of Government Department that will have to deal with this measure. As the Minister said, bodies in the scope of the regulations include Government Departments, local authorities, NHS trusts, fire and police services and local authority-maintained schools. The Houses of Parliament, further education colleges, the BBC, Channel 4 and the Post Office are exempt from the requirements. I will leave hon. Members to wonder about the criteria on which those bodies were grouped. Perhaps the Minister would like to confirm why they were exempted.
This measure is clearly a big deal for the Government. As I understand it, they expect that 16.2% of the 3 million apprenticeship starts they have pledged to deliver by 2020 will come from the public sector, because that is the percentage of public sector workers in the total workforce. As the Minister was good enough to acknowledge, the proposals have not been without questioning and some criticism. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that, as currently devised,
“the focus on targets will distort policy and lead to the inefficient use of public money.”
It also said that
“This potentially costly policy is largely designed to hit the government’s target for 3 million new apprentices, not as a way to increase the quality of public services. It should be removed”
and that the one-size-fits-all approach to large public sector employers in England is
“clearly not a sensible way to encourage more apprenticeships, or to help deliver efficient public services.”
Some might think that is a sweeping—and possibly sharp—judgment. However, no matter how good the intentions are, we are led to ask some significant questions about whether the broad sweep of that delivery will do quite what the Government intend. I will focus my questions on the process and particular pinch-points in that area.
One such pinch-point was identified by the Local Government Association—again, these are specific issues in specific places on which the Minister might like to respond. In particular, the London boroughs made the point that they would have to increase their creation of apprenticeships by more than 570% to meet the target. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers said that the target was
“unrealistic in the current climate.”
That is the important point: it is about putting the aspiration alongside what Government Departments can deliver in the current climate, and what local government can deliver. Of course, that may vary between local government areas in the same way as it does between Departments, depending on whether funding is more protected or otherwise from the Treasury.
Again—this has been a feature of the criticism of some delegated legislation proposed in recent months—there has been criticism of the lack of an impact assessment for this measure, because, as the Local Government Association said, it seems
“likely to impose significant costs on local authorities in terms of workforce planning, administration…and compliance with apprenticeship quality standards.”
As the Minister indicated, the Government’s response did acknowledge those concerns, but they largely rejected any proposals to counter them—though he touched on a number of mitigation measures. Schools will continue to be included in the apprenticeship target, which, as I understand it, will continue to be based on headcount rather than full-time equivalent numbers.
It has taken some time to develop the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the then Business, Industry and Skills shadow Minister, had a lively exchange with the then Small Businesses Minister, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), on the matter in a Bill Committee in February 2016. On that occasion, he said that measuring by full-time equivalent would ensure that any mandatory target for the public sector reflected the actual size of the workforce. She said that, during consultations, she would look at whether full-time equivalent should be used instead of headcount. However, as we have heard, ultimately, that option was rejected.
In that Bill Committee, Labour Members raised other issues. My hon. Friend talked in particular about whether local authorities should be allowed to include apprenticeships generated in their supply chains. I do not want to stray from the focus of this Committee, but there is an interesting echo there of the discussion we are having about how widely firms and businesses should be allowed to look at other factors to cover some of their apprenticeship levy costs. In that Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) asked—I do not think the Government have addressed this—whether excluding supply chains may encourage local authorities to keep services in-house when they could find better cost-value in outsourcing.
May I point out to the Minister, not that I think he is unaware of it, that the response of the supply chain, both in the public sector and the private sector, to Government initiatives, whether this initiative or the apprenticeship levy, is critical. In many sectors, as he will know, the effect of involving the supply chain, and many of the small businesses that go with it, can be twofold, threefold and, in some cases, fourfold that of a large employer. Therefore, there are still some significant questions to be addressed in that regard. It would be helpful if, in his response, he touched on that and the continuing concerns.
I go back some time in this place, so I remember well the controversy in the early to mid-2000s about the Labour Government’s Train to Gain programme, which members of the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, were highly critical of. Indeed, the Select Committee on which I served looked at some of those issues and whether Train to Gain had encouraged employers simply to rebadge existing employees. I am not suggesting that that will automatically be the effect of this initiative, but it is the case that there are some challenging targets to be met not only in London schools, where it is more difficult to rebadge existing employees as apprentices, but in other large public bodies, not excluding Government Departments.
If I were of a mischievous frame of mind and if episodes were still being made of “Yes Minister”, an interesting episode might be written on the challenges of various Government Departments to compete with other Government Departments. I say that in jest, but it is a serious point. In implementing this measure, the Government need to be careful that people are not rebadged for their existing training. The Government need to ensure that the apprenticeship contribution is a genuine, new contribution that empowers those individuals in the public sector not simply—the Minister will have heard me comment on this before—in terms of the bespoke skills that they need for the job they are doing in the public sector at that point, but in terms of the more analytical skills that they will need—this is particularly true for the large number of women in the sector—as the way in which we deliver services and administer things in the public sector begins to change. That is true in general terms, as well as in terms of the specifics about automation, which we have read quite a lot about recently.
The Minister spoke about the targets and the particular focus he wanted to have. I know he feels strongly about this issue, and I applaud him for that. He talked about the £60 million for local government to support apprenticeships in deprived areas. I ask him, as always, what scope will there be to increase that further? Those deprived areas and the local bodies in those areas—particularly local councils—have often been hit the hardest in that respect.
The Government may or may not go along with what I was speaking about in Birmingham at the FE Week conference last Thursday. I said that we want to consider committing ourselves to targets for increasing the number of apprenticeships for people with disabilities, care leavers and particularly—this is a new suggestion—veterans. I know from my own experience, as chair of the all-party parliamentary veterans group, that a number of younger leavers from the armed forces are leaving with skills that are not easily passportable into civvy street or recognised, and in some cases are leaving with very poor skills. That is an area to look at. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that could tie into public sector apprenticeship targets.
How will the Government encourage and incentivise local authorities to increase their apprenticeship starts amid a series of cuts to funding? The figures are bleak. The Local Government Association has estimated that councils will face an overall funding shortfall of £5.8 billion by 2020, and budgets have been cut by £18 billion in real terms since 2010. My own local authority in Blackpool has taken some of the biggest hits for a small unitary. This is not simply an argument about the Labour party’s position on cuts as opposed to the Conservative party’s position. If Government are not careful, this will impair and undercut the impact of what they are trying to do.
Some three years ago, I was privileged to work with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who is now in our party’s Communities and Local Government Front-Bench team, on a pamphlet with the Smith Institute called “Apprenticeships—how local government is making a difference”. In that pamphlet, we cited a number of local authorities that were doing some very good stuff. In 2013, Lewisham Council was offering 74 apprenticeships for its 2013 intake. My own council in Blackpool was employing 45 apprentices, as well as a further 47 apprentices with its partners in the construction industry. Newcastle City Council was maintaining its commitment to apprenticeships, with a target of 500 new ones. Plymouth City Council, which is smaller, was nevertheless employing 49 young apprentices and 21 adult apprentices. In that year, it met and exceeded the Government’s target of 2.3% of the workforce being apprentices, because its figure was equivalent to 2.6% of the workforce.
The question I have for the Minister is not where are the snows of yesteryear, but where are those apprenticeships now? Many of them, sadly, have gone because those local authorities, which were very ambitious and took that forward, have simply not had the financial base—particularly given the doubts as to what the financial base will be by 2020, in terms of the variability of benefiting from retaining business rates—to continue pressing on that. If the Minister wants local government to walk the walk, as well as him talking the talk, he has to take up that issue with his colleagues in DCLG.
I have already said that we still believe that the target should, in most cases, be based on full-time equivalent—FTE. What ability will the Minister have to monitor how effective that is and how it is taken forward? I am conscious that the target is very ambitious and will involve a lot of ambitious monitoring. Who, in Government, will do that monitoring? The Minister will probably know what is coming, but anything to do with apprenticeships could be monitored, in theory, by the Skills Funding Agency, by the Institute for Apprenticeships, which will launch next month—I have said on a number of occasions that I, and many others, have concerns about its capacity and numbers—or by another body. I invite the Minister to tell us who will be doing the nuts and bolts of monitoring what happens between various Departments, for example.
The Minister talked about publishing information on take-up: how will the Government address that, regarding Departments and the other public bodies—the smorgasbord of organisations that produce their accounts at different times? He also mentioned the standards and cited a couple of positive and encouraging examples of Departments collaborating to produce particular apprenticeships and particular standards—there were always going to be one or two good examples. How will the Minister monitor particularly closely—perhaps this is an issue for the Cabinet Office as well—the performance and delivery of those areas?
As I have said, Labour Members approve of the direction of travel of the regulations, which is why we will not oppose them, but the devil, as the Minister will no doubt tire of hearing from me, is in the detail. Our questions, and the Government’s asks of the many public bodies, some of which are extremely vulnerable in a local context, need to be responded to.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall.
I want to follow on from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, which was thoughtful and positive, but not without constructive criticism. As he said, I think we would all agree that apprenticeships are a good idea and any opportunity to consider how we can better restore their value in society, which has perhaps for some decades not been there, is worthwhile.
What is really important, however, and this is one of the reasons why apprenticeships were so valued in their heyday, is the quality of apprenticeships and the direct routes they can provide into work, as a meaningful alternative to higher education and the university route. I say that at the start to ensure that the Minister understands that I believe that this is an area whose time has come. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to get rid of the polytechnics, because we got rid of something that was valued for technical achievement, from surveyors to architects and all sorts of vocational jobs and life opportunities. In some ways, the university title got rid of some of the emphasis and focus on those areas. Many people of my age—friends, and also constituents—people who went into work with an apprenticeship or as a technical assistant, have in more recent times worked their way up through the company or organisation to become top management. However, when they look at the ladder for others, it is not there in the same way.
I have some questions about the regulations and the targets. There is no mention in the regulations of any repercussions following a failure of a public body to meet the targets. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s answer on that.
There is a worry that in public bodies that have more than the average number of staff on part-time contracts, using a head count rather than full-time employment as a basis for the target will affect the number of people in those organisations who can provide the hands-on mentoring and training that apprentices need. When the overwhelming number of staff are part-time, full-time apprentices could present a problem. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s comment on that.
What action will the Government take to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of apprenticeships in some of the exempt public bodies? Some of the most prestigious public bodies, including the BBC, Channel 4, the Post Office, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, housing associations, charities, higher education institutions, colleges and independent schools, do not have a target. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister where the direction of travel lies for those organisations, some of which should be well able, compared with a local authority, to meet public sector commitments. Is there not a danger that requesting public bodies to monitor apprenticeship starts could lead to the churn of short-termism? As well as monitoring starts, is it not also important to monitor those who complete apprenticeships and end up in a job?
In Public Accounts Committee evidence sessions on the impact of the Government’s policy in this area, I have raised some of the pertinent issues, particularly in schools, that still need to be resolved. While we all want more apprenticeships, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that they do not follow the normal pattern of gender segregation within employment. Whatever job an apprenticeship falls under, there is an absence of thinking about how to ensure that both men and women are encouraged into it, and that we do not embed another generation in which men and women go into jobs defined by their gender.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South and the right hon. Member for Don Valley for their contributions. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind comments he has made about my not being able to attend the FE Week conference because of the security issue that took place in Parliament. I will answer some of their points individually and some together.
On quality, the right hon. Lady made an important point about polytechnics. Perhaps the wrong decision was made. I hope that with the boost to FE through the Sainsbury reforms, national colleges and institutes of technology, and the extra £500 million announced, we will go back to state-of-the-art technical education. That is the purpose of many of the things I am trying to do in my work. We have changed the legislation to ensure that an apprenticeship does what it says on the tin—it is about not just work experience for a few months. As defined in the legislation, it must be a minimum of a year, with 20% off-the- job training. We have moved from a framework, where there was a spaghetti junction of qualifications, to rigorous employer-led standards that meet our skills deficit. That is why we have created the Institute for Apprenticeships and, from next year, subject to approval by the Lords, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady asked about those bodies that are outside the scope, for which there are various reasons. The House of Commons, for example, is not subject to the control or direction of Ministers. As a smoker, I know that we would legally be allowed to smoke in here, but the Speaker has made a decision that there will be no smoking. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when I entered Parliament I was the first MP to employ a full-time parliamentary apprentice in the House. Many MPs now do that, and the House of Commons has a very good apprentice scheme. Over the years, I have met those apprentices, who work in all the different areas of the House of Commons. The BBC works with the scheme very closely. As to the Post Office, the reason is partly that 97% of the 11,500 post offices are run by independent postmasters on an agency basis, rather than by people who are Post Office employees, so there are reasons why some FE colleges and universities are out of scope and why a number of organisations were not included.
Caroline Flint
Can the Minister give one good reason why a university is out of scope while schools will be affected?
Robert Halfon
FE colleges are corporations or companies, for the most part; universities are regarded as independent bodies and were not seen as in the public sector or managed in the same way. However, there may be universities subject to the levy, depending on their wage bill, so they will be required to have apprenticeships or the levy will be used to fund apprenticeships elsewhere.
An impact assessment was done for the whole Enterprise Act 2016. Neither an impact assessment nor an equalities impact assessment was prepared for the regulation, because the measure affects only publicly funded bodies, with no costs to business. The Better Regulation Executive confirmed that no impact assessment is required in relation to the regulations but, as I have said, one was done for the whole Act.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked whether a number of areas in public services would be able to have apprenticeships, and perhaps I can give some examples, beginning with the national health service. The public sector target is 27,500 new apprentice starts for 2017-18. That is estimated to deliver 100,000 apprentices in the course of the Parliament. The information from Health Education England is that almost 20,000 apprentices were employed in the NHS in 2015 and 2016. I have met many healthcare apprentices when visiting colleges and apprenticeship training providers. We are developing pathway apprentice standards—level 2 healthcare support worker leading to level 6 nursing apprenticeship.
I recognise that schools are a difficult issue. First, it is important for councils to share their levy pot fairly. We have issued guidance to schools. The Department for Communities and Local Government is keen that the levy pot should be shared fairly. The whole purpose of the levy is to change behaviour and create an apprenticeship and skills nation. Why cannot a teaching assistant in a school do a teaching assistant apprenticeship, a cook in a school do a hospitality and catering apprenticeship, or someone who is doing business administration do a business administration apprenticeship?
Gordon Marsden
The right hon. Gentleman is responding with particular examples to what I said about problems and pressures for schools. None of those is a bad example, but the issue is whether the apprenticeships will lead to any progression or improvement in career status. I am concerned, as others may be too, about whether, particularly in strained financial circumstances, schools will rebadge people doing existing relatively low-level jobs—I put it mildly—to achieve the target.
Robert Halfon
There is an important point here. I have acknowledged in the past that there will always be some gaming of the system and I accept that once the levy comes in we will not know how much, for a while. However, if someone is doing a teaching assistant job why should they not be offered an apprenticeship and a skill? They certainly will not be able to progress without a skill. With a skill and an apprenticeship they will have a much better chance of progressing. If someone is a school cook, why not give them the chance to do a hospitality and catering apprenticeship?
Caroline Flint
I do not see the evidence that some of those routes for progression are not already working. I have in mind people in my constituency who have become teaching assistants—in fact it was something that the last Labour Government helped to create. I know a number of people who have used that route to be supported and get training, and they have ended up taking the teaching route afterwards. Likewise, in many of the schools that I visit, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman visits many schools too, members of the ancillary staff—whether that is in the kitchens, or on the maintenance side of the school—often have to get their NVQs and other qualifications that are suited to what they are doing, and it is concerning that we just end up with a rebadging for no good reason.
Robert Halfon
First, that may be the case for some people, which is all well and good, but I want everyone to have a chance of having an apprenticeship. However, even if the right hon. Lady is correct that everyone has a certain qualification or a certain level of training, why not give them a chance to do an additional piece of training? If they have a level 3 qualification, why not give them an apprenticeship in level 4, and so on and so forth?
As I say, the purpose of these regulations is to change behaviours. As long as standards continue to be developed—new standards are being developed and they are of higher quality—I think we will give everyone that chance. We want employers to know that when we say we want to create an apprenticeship nation, that is what we mean.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about the issue of the headcount versus the full-time equivalent; that was also raised by the right hon. Member for Don Valley. We think that headcount is the fairest measure to assess workforce numbers for the purpose of delivering high-quality apprenticeships. If someone does more than one apprenticeship with the same employer, they can count towards the target more than once. Headcount data are readily available across the whole public sector, and if the headcount target were to be replaced on a full-time equivalent basis, the 2.3% target would result in a lower number of starts, meaning that the public sector would not deliver its fair share of apprenticeships unless the target was raised. Having said that, we have listened to those who are concerned about how the target might impact on them, given the high proportion of part-time workers, and we suggest that these bodies should use FTE in parallel with headcount, to report and explain any underachievement of the target as necessary.
This is not about one size fits all; we have listened to people and responded. The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about cuts. No one has denied that there have been pressures—significant pressures—on the economy but most of the organisations that we are talking about pay the levy, so for most of them it will come out of the levy pot. It is not relevant to say that cuts will affect this process, because if an organisation wants an apprenticeship, it will come out of its levy pot. That is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the supply chain. He will know that after the first year of the levy, provisionally 10% will be allowed in terms of the supply chain. He talked about gaming; if anything, we could affect gaming if we do not get things right. After the first year, we will see how things pan out, then we will make a decision, but the 10% figure will not apply until after the first year of operation of the levy.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether or not this process was an efficient use of public money. If we look at apprentices’ returns, we see that if someone is doing a level 2 apprenticeship their wage increase is 11%, between £48,000 and £74,000; the figure is between £77,000 and £117,000 for level 3 apprenticeships. Ninety per cent of apprenticeships get jobs. Apprenticeships are very good for the economy. There is another figure that I forget, but all apprenticeships deliver a huge return in terms of cost-benefit to the economy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned social justice and social mobility. He will know, because I mentioned it in the debate in Westminster Hall about financial support for apprentices, that we are undertaking a review of social mobility and apprenticeships. Some £60 million was guaranteed for this year, and the review is under way. As for the Maynard reforms, I hope to make an announcement soon—that is a real “soon” and not a civil servant’s “soon”—that I do not think he will be too unhappy with.
The hon. Gentleman talked about veterans, and I will reflect on his remarks. I have not seen his whole speech, I only read the article in FE Week. I thought that was important, and I will look at what we are doing. I know, as the Defence Secretary proudly tells me, that the Ministry of Defence is a huge employer of apprentices, but I think that is an important thought.
The hon. Lady—
Robert Halfon
Sorry, the right hon. Lady—I beg your pardon—talked about getting women into STEM.
Caroline Flint
That is an important area, and there are lots of jobs across the public sector that need the skills that a STEM-based education provides. However, I am sure the Minister knows as well as I do that, across the public sector as well, there is a massive amount of gender job segregation, which, in some ways, reinforces the pattern of low pay for women in certain sectors. It would be very good in the long term if we can do anything at all to encourage more diversity across those areas.
Robert Halfon
The right hon. Lady makes an important point. Some 53% of apprentices are women, and the survey suggests that female apprentices actually earn more than men. However, there is a huge problem around women in STEM subjects.
One of the issues I face when looking at careers guidance in schools is that they show a picture of a woman being a nurse and man doing engineering. That is from primary school onwards, and it is a significant problem. We are doing a huge amount of work on careers strategy and we are looking at that. Everywhere I go, I try to promote female STEM apprenticeships and females doing STEM in schools, but there are cultural issues and all kinds of problems that make this quite a difficult problem to surmount.
Caroline Flint
I thank the Minister for what he says, but perhaps he could go away and reflect. In evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, officials told us that there are targets for addressing this particular problem for black and ethnic minority people but not women, which he clearly understands from what he has just said.
Robert Halfon
It is important that we take the right action to make sure that we increase those numbers; I think that we are doing that. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about monitoring. The Skills Funding Agency, through the National Apprenticeship Service and the Digital Apprenticeship Service, is monitoring that and works with the bigger employers. Department for Education officials will analyse the returns on a yearly basis. He will know that my boss, the Secretary of State, chairs the “Earn and Learn” taskforce.
There is no particular stick that public sector bodies get if they do not meet targets, but we are doing everything possible. We want to work with public sector bodies—they will obviously publish their information; it will be up to the independent bodies how to collate it—to try to see this as a new thing that we are doing. We will see how it pans out each year as we assess, but at this point in time, we are trying to work with public sector bodies, rather than saying that there will be a penalty if they do not deliver on their particular targets.
You will be pleased to know that I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Nuttall, but I shall close by saying that this is a very important part of our reforms; it is not just a stand-alone product. It is part of our designs to change behaviours to create that ladder of opportunity for millions of our young people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Sector Apprenticeship Targets Regulations 2017.
Petitions
Post office in Westcliffe, Scunthorpe
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Badger Culling
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 165672 relating to badger culling.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. The petition reads:
“Since 2013, thousands of badgers have been killed in a Government cull attempting to control bovine TB. Against scientific advice & before a 4 year trial has completed, the government is now expanding the cull to new counties—tens of thousands of healthy badgers could be killed.
Experts in disease control and animal welfare agree that pilot badger culls have proven both ineffective and inhumane. Shooting badgers is also expensive, costing tax-payers some £5,000 per animal. Bovine TB is a serious problem but killing badgers is not the solution, and could actually make the situation worse. It is a costly distraction from an effective solution incorporating vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures and improved testing.”
I have no special expertise in this area, but I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for asking me to move the motion. However, I have one claim to authenticity, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden): a predecessor of ours, Roy Hughes, who represented the areas we now represent, sponsored a private Member’s Bill in 1991 that was intended to control the abuse of badgers taking place at that time by protecting their setts and making activity against them illegal. We therefore have a good tradition in Newport.
I share with most people a great affection for these beautiful creatures. As the superior species, we have a responsibility towards them; as the intelligent and thinking species, we have a duty to ensure that all sentient, living creatures are protected from gratuitous violence or cruelty. I believe that the Government’s policy on badger culling is evidence-free and prejudice-rich. The present Government have a long record of appeasing farmers—everything farmers want, normally farmers get from this Government, however unreasonable the demands might be.
The case has been made powerfully in other parts of the world for the futility of culling, which appears to be a simple solution only to those who believe in shooting first and thinking later. We heard similar nonsense in the debate about hunting; some people thought that it was a reasonable method of pest control to take 100 riders and horses across the countryside to deal with one fox. Sadly, that rural attitude is not as respectful as it should be of all animal life.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some strong points. He spoke about the evidence-free approach being taken in England. Does he agree that the approach being taken in Wales has demonstrated clear evidence that the cull was unnecessary? We have continued to see massive reductions in bovine tuberculosis, much greater than those in England—47% in Wales over eight years, compared with 16% in England. Even this year infections have continued to decrease, according to the latest information provided by the chief veterinary officer.
Paul Flynn
The badger has an honoured place in Welsh literature and history—it is known in Wales as mochyn daear, the earth pig, which is a very descriptive name for the animal—and the attitude taken to it in Wales has been very much science-based. The UK Government say that they are using every tool in the box, but they are using the rusty tools out of a medieval box, such as the crudest way to diagnose—with a skin test rather than the other scientific tests available—and culling. In Wales, however, the authorities have quite sensibly said that the effective way is to use vaccination, which we did for four years between 2011 and 2016. Sadly, there is now a world shortage of the vaccine, because it is needed against human TB, although some nations have secured their future supplies.
Wales is in a fortunate position. The chief executive of the Badger Trust rightly said:
“We are delighted to see confirmation that badger vaccination is leading to a substantial reduction in the prevalence of TB in badgers and that any temporary halt while the global stocks of BCG vaccine recover, will not lead to an increase in the spread of the disease in badgers.”
He was also disappointed to see criticism such as that from the Farmers Union of Wales, which talked about the £700 cost to vaccinate a badger even though the cost of the cull is a great deal more.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman—I do not agree, clearly, but I am listening carefully, as we should on both sides of the argument. I accept that vaccination is one element, but does he agree that experiences in Australia, Ireland and New Zealand show that culling is also an important element in the control of bovine TB?
Paul Flynn
We could go through every country in the world—I will mention a few others—but I am talking about a recent experience that is nearer home, in Wales. I also want to talk about the Krebs trial, which is the most ambitious trial carried out, and one that was entirely science-based and prejudice-free. Furthermore, the cost of killing one badger in the culling process in England is not £700, but nearer £7,000.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with relating badger culling in England to killing possums in New Zealand is that they are two very different animals, with different ecologies, and in completely different landscapes and environments?
Paul Flynn
Indeed, yes. It is deer in Australia, and there are various problems throughout the world, but in Wales, the neighbouring country to England, we have a very satisfactory situation. Peter Martin was critical of the Farmers Union of Wales for not appreciating what had been done in Wales. He suggested that it should be celebrating the success of the Welsh Government and
“calling on DEFRA and the NFU in England to follow the Welsh example of reducing bovine TB by focusing on improved cattle testing and movement controls. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the Welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers.”
Ireland has had a fascinating experience. In the 1980s the Irish decided to slaughter all the badgers in the country, which were estimated at 70,000. They exceeded their own expectations, however, because they have culled 96,000 badgers since 1985. The national operation consisted of teams of 100 contractors setting up 6,000 snares a night, working for eight months of every year. In 2012 a whopping €3.4 million was spent culling 6,939 badgers, yet after all that slaughter an examination found that the reduction on the previous year in the number of cattle diagnosed with TB was 55—after that huge expense. That is €61,818 for every cow below the previous year’s figure. It is staggering that that huge amount was spent and so many animals were killed for so little benefit.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Is that not even more perverse, given that the badger population is responsible for only about 5.7% of the spread of TB in any form whatever? Investing that money in other biosecurity measures would surely be far better value, let alone more moral.
Paul Flynn
As we know, there is a great deal of confused and unscientific thinking about this issue. TB can be spread from badger to badger, from badger to cow, from cow to cow and from cow to foxhound, among which there was recently a significant new outbreak. The Government’s approach has been crude and crowd-pleasing, not science-based. Strangely, in their reply to the petition, the Government actually had the cheek to mention the Krebs report, which was done under another Government, as a matter of some credit to them.
Rachael Maskell
TB is also spread by the spreading of slurry on fields. That is not tested, so other measures could be taken. Badgers and cows do not share the same space at the same time. Further research is really needed in that area to prove whether even 5.7% of the disease is spread via badgers.
Paul Flynn
That is a really serious problem. We have been permissive in allowing the spreading of slurry. As we know, there is a new case involving the Kimblewick hunt, which hunts in five counties and spreads the infection where it goes. There is permissiveness in not recognising the importance of infection from slurry. It is much easier to blame the badger—to find one culprit and blame it. The Government have their policy. They mentioned the Krebs report, which I believe is the biggest and most scientific analysis that has been conducted anywhere in the world.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—there are certain things happening in Northern Ireland—but is he aware that we have a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland that is looking at capturing badgers, testing them, vaccinating them and then releasing or, if they have TB, euthanising them? We are looking at different methods. We are not just saying, “Cull all badgers,” but finding a new way forward. We need to learn from that rather than blaming all badgers.
Paul Flynn
That is an entirely intellectually respectable and humane approach to this issue. Krebs looked at the problem and three approaches were trialled: a reactive approach in which, following TB outbreaks, badgers were culled on and around farms but not elsewhere; a proactive approach in which as many badgers as possible were culled in the whole area and badger numbers were kept as low as possible; and a survey approach, where no badgers were culled but the land was surveyed for details of badger activity. The cull went on for nine years, some £40 million was spent and 10,000 badgers were slaughtered. Reactive culling was suspended in the early days of the trial due to an increase in bovine TB outbreaks in reactive culling areas compared with areas in which no culling had taken place. That was a surprising result, but the independent scientific group advised that reactive culling should not be used to control bovine TB.
After that long period, Mr Krebs announced his decision. He said that the trial evidence should be interpreted as an argument against culling. This is not some prejudice-based release put out by a political party seeking favours; this is scientific proof of the highest order. He said:
“You cull intensively for at least four years, you will have a net benefit of reducing TB in cattle of 12% to 16%. So you leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers… It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease.”
He said that he had recommended randomised badger culling trials in 1997 because it was not known then whether a cull would be effective or cost-effective. His view on the issue was formulated after he saw the results—it was based on evidence. No party should have returned to the idea of culling after that impressive evidence and all the scientific reports that supported it had come out.
Imperial College London researchers reported that
“reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after”
culling took place. Within three or four years, badger numbers were up to their previous level. The researchers added:
“These results, combined with evaluation of alternative culling methods, suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB”.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. Is it not really perverse that, throughout the culling process in 2016, badgers were not tested to see whether they were carriers of TB and we therefore really do not know what impact the cull is having?
Paul Flynn
That demonstrates the Government’s amateurish approach. They wish to get the animals out of the way, but they have not made a serious attempt to find out how bovine TB is spread.
We now have another worry: the Kimblewick hunt. That must be taken into account, but there does not seem to be a great deal of enthusiasm from the Government to take it up. The Kimblewick hunt is an amalgamation of three hunts. It hunts in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. Campaigners discovered that the hunt’s hounds are infected with bovine TB. There have long been complaints, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, about poor farm hygiene and hunts feeding disease-ridden “fallen cattle” carcasses to foxhounds. The fact that 25 of that hunt’s foxhounds had to be put down because they were infected with bovine TB and a further 120 are undergoing testing is a cause for serious worry, and I have asked the Government what they will do about it.
The infection of foxhounds was not seen as a threat in the past, but few animals are free to cover and infect more territory than hounds undertaking trail hunting or chasing foxes, so this is a really serious new risk. The news has been kept quiet since December. The hunt itself suspended hunting but is apparently carrying on using visiting packs. The problem could be widespread. There are reports that some farmers have belatedly tried to protect their cattle by banning hunts from their land. Farmers local to the hunt’s kennels are refusing to let it hunt on their land. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, it is suggested that the hounds were fed raw, TB-infected meat, even though that contravenes meat hygiene rules and bovine TB controls. Do the Government believe that that is happening or there is a risk of it happening? We are all familiar with the close association that there has long been between hunts and the farming industry, and the way that hunts were used to dispose of fallen cattle. The danger seems to be substantial.
I believe that there is sufficient evidence for a new investigation into the prevalence of bovine TB among foxhounds and a case for suspending hunting until that has been proved to be a risk or otherwise. Let us put that to the test. I have recently put down many questions and had unsatisfactory answers to all of them. We now have a chance to answer the concern of the great majority of the public who do not believe that culling is an effective way of controlling bovine TB and believe it is inhumane and cruel. That is the view that the petitioners have expressed.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. As he concludes his remarks, does he agree that one thing the Minister could take from the debate is to look again at the Welsh Government’s experience, which has been less expensive, more humane and ultimately more effective?
Paul Flynn
Indeed. Unfortunately, because the Welsh Government are the only Labour Government in the United Kingdom at the moment, the UK Government have been tempted to use them as a bit of a punch bag, almost always irrationally and always unfairly. The Welsh Government have had a great many achievements, and one that I would like to see copied in this House is presumed consent for organ donations.
I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at the figures. The Government’s ambition now is for a programme that will go on for 25 years. That is an extraordinary way to protect themselves. If we say, “It’s not working,” they will say, “We’re only five years into the programme,” or, “We’re only 10 years into it.” They are talking about seeing a real improvement in 25 years. We have already seen that improvement in Wales, and Ireland, after 32 years of trying to wipe out the entire badger population, is now going for the vaccine—it has vaccine stocks. If it has stocks of the vaccine, why can we not have them here?
I applaud the sentiments of all those people who have taken up this cause with great skill and a mountain of scientific evidence. Now is the time for the walls of Government prejudice to come down. We should adopt a scientific and humane approach.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a farmer, but I do not have any livestock. However, I represent one of the country’s greatest agricultural constituencies and, unfortunately, one of those that has been most affected by bovine tuberculosis. Sadly, I speak with some experience on this subject.
My constituency is home to one of England’s largest cull zones, spanning the whole of the north Cotswolds. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work and effort displayed by my farmers, who have committed a great deal of time and money to maintaining and protecting their badger cull zone in the face of numerous attempts at sabotage. To all those who say that farmers are not in favour of the culls, I simply say: why did they go to such considerable effort and expense if they did not believe that culling works?
The only real way to control TB in badgers is for scientists to invent an oral vaccine that could be incorporated into a bait to be fed to badgers. That method was successful in eradicating rabies in foxes on the continent. An oral vaccine for badgers has been “just around the corner” ever since I became a Member of Parliament in 1992. I urge the Minister today to redouble the Government’s efforts to find such a vaccine, because that would be the ultimate solution to this unpleasant problem.
This is an unpleasant problem. TB is a nasty disease, whether in cattle or badgers. Badgers who contract it either go to the bottom of the sett and die a long, slow, painful death from the disease, or lie semi-comatose at the top of the sett, with up to a third of their body covered by lesions. In that state, the animal is highly infectious to other badgers, so no wonder TB spreads from badger to badger.
It is important that we eliminate TB in badgers to prevent that cruel death among badgers. TB is also in cattle; not only does the disease cause them a great deal of pain, but they become less productive. When the disease is detected, they have to be slaughtered, so there is considerable economic loss to both the taxpayer and the farmers. In the past 10 years, a total of 314,000 cattle were slaughtered, costing the taxpayer and farmers more than £500 million; that will be £1 billion by the end of the decade. One need only see the emotional effect on farmers in my constituency of seeing the cattle that they have bred and cared for prematurely slaughtered. I think Opposition Members often forget the effect that this dreadful disease has on farmers.
Richard Drax
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does he agree that those who oppose the cull look at the badger as a friendly, lovable animal, which in effect it is not? Factually, the badger is responsible for destroying bee hives, hedgehogs and ground-nesting birds such as skylarks, grey partridges and meadow pipits. [Interruption.] That is true. It is also responsible for the loss of wood warblers, nightingales and stone curlews. Those are facts. The badger is a danger, and like all wild animals that have no natural predator—just like deer and foxes—it should be culled, so that numbers are maintained.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. A reminder that interventions should be brief.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I commend my hon. Friend for putting some of the facts about wildlife on the record. He is right about the reduction in some of our bird and mammal species, such as the hedgehog.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to cite the source of the evidence he just supported?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Well, the source is evident to any countryman out there. There has been a rapid decline in hedgehogs, and we know perfectly well that badgers eat hedgehogs’ young, wild birds and birds’ nests. That, however, is not the subject of the debate, and I do not want to get drawn on that red herring.
Stephen Doughty
It is on facts and evidence. The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Clearly TB is a terrible disease, whether it is in badgers or cattle, and everyone wants to see it reduced. Looking at the evidence of the measures taken in Wales and the much less effective methods taken in England, how can he explain the disparity between the two?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Wales. In Wales, although BTB has decreased, the current vaccination programme operates in only 1% of the country and is only in its second year, so it is difficult to see how vaccinating has led to the reduction in BTB.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, before he asks me to give way, that other factors are involved. Having said that, I would like to comment on the costs, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who introduced the debate. He has read all the literature, and he is an intelligent chap of a scientific mind, so he knows perfectly well that for a vaccination programme to be successful, the badgers have to be vaccinated for five years. As he said, each year costs £662; that is well over £3,000 for every badger vaccinated. He also knows perfectly well that vaccinations have no effect on the poor, diseased badgers I described—the ones who are really suffering—that go on to spread the disease to healthy badgers. I therefore cannot see how a vaccination programme can be successful.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Will the hon. Gentleman please be patient? I will give way in a minute. He is jumping up and down like a yo-yo. The hon. Member for Newport West and anyone who knows anything about this subject will also know how difficult it is to trap a badger. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) implied, badgers do not just sit there in a trap and lie dormant; they bite and try every way of getting out of the trap, so the people who do the vaccinations have to be skilled and well trained. It is not easy to get all badgers into vaccination traps. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—I will give way to him once more—that vaccination is not very effective in itself. Where it is effective and has a role is in targeted areas around trial cull areas to stop perturbations spreading the disease further.
The hon. Member for Newport West, who mentioned the shortage of BCG vaccine, made a point that was in my speech: the BCG vaccine has been around for decades. It would be useful if my hon. Friend the Minister could say something about that, so that where we do want to carry out vaccination on the edges of trial cull areas, that option is available. We need to ensure that happens. I will give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth one more time. This is the last time I will give way, because a lot of people want to speak in the debate.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is generous. I never suggested that vaccination alone was a solution. The chief veterinary officer for Wales has been clear, and has spoken of a combination of increased testing frequency, improved biosecurity and other cattle control measures, as well as vaccination. There is a huge disparity between the 16% reduction in England and the 47% reduction in Wales. Clearly, there is a difference in the way the approaches work.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I was coming on to the issue of biosecurity, which obviously has something to do with it, as do more accurate tests. There are a number of things that could help. In a spirit of constructive debate, which I hope is what this afternoon is about, I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister methods by which we can all help to eliminate the disease, and support the 25-year elimination programme. It is important, in the trial areas, that we eliminate TB in badgers, to prevent this cruel death. Farm biosecurity has rightly been improved, and that has been extended across the country. The Minister has, in this Government and the coalition Government, taken a number of steps to improve testing and biosecurity on farms. Examples include post-movement testing and more accurate skin tests in certain areas. All those things have a role to play; I hope we all agree on that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
No. I did say that I was not going to give way again. Other people want to speak. By the time I finish, I will have spoken long enough and will be reprimanded by the Chair.
In other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and, I am afraid, Ireland, controlling the TB reservoir in wildlife has had a significant effect, eliminating or severely reducing the incidence of TB in cattle. Fifty per cent. of England is set to be TB-free by next year, with all 10 badger control operations achieving a successful outcome, according to the targets that have been set.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
As I was saying, we need to use all the methods at our disposal to get on top of this dreadful disease; I have already described the suffering in badgers and cattle that contract it. It is important that we find a variety of mechanisms in our locker to combat it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about this, but the opposition to the culls always harps on about biosecurity. However much the biosecurity is improved—some simple things can be done, and have been done over the years, such as putting the water trough and feed trough in places where badgers cannot get at them—the plain fact of the matter is that where badgers roam on pasture, and cattle feed on pasture, there is inevitably intermingling.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I said I would not, but since we have had a break, I will give way one more time and no more.
Dr Monaghan
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is highlighting some alleged facts in relation to the engagement that badgers have with cattle. I would like to suggest that there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate that view whatever.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent chap, that every bit of logic points to the fact that there must be a link. If badgers have TB and cattle have TB—I do not think this island is alone; this takes place in the rest of the world —any scientific hypothesis would assume there is a link. It is not credible for him to suggest otherwise.
We have to take every opportunity to improve biosecurity in the ways I have mentioned. We also need to improve the testing. We know that the traditional swelling test leaves an element of cattle undetected. We need to work on better tests, whether they be skin tests or others. We need my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that we have the resources to research tests that are much more reliable. The polymerase test is being adopted in some areas, which gives a more reliable result. The problem is that it also detects the disease in some animals that do not have it, so they show up in the test as having it. We need to keep trying to develop a more effective test. As well as that, in edge vaccination areas, we need to stop the perturbation effect that I described. We rely on the Minister and the Government to ensure that we have sufficient supplies available to do that, because there is no doubt that that is part of the armoury.
The final part of our armoury is the trial culls. The opposition to the culls tries to maintain that the culls are not improving the situation. Any initial assessment of my constituency would show that where trials have taken place—for example, on the hard edge of the Severn—the incidence of TB has reduced. It is early days, but even the evidence from Krebs and pre-Krebs of the gassing of badgers showed that where badgers are eliminated, the incidence of TB declines.
One thing that my farmers want to know from the Minister today is what regime will succeed the original three cull areas. It seems that everybody has gone to a huge amount of trouble to eliminate badgers in those areas. If the whole thing were stopped dead now, it would be rather a waste of time. They want to know what sort of regime will succeed that. They hope that it will be a light-touch regime and not too onerous. I can tell my hon. Friend that getting the big trial area up and running in the north Cotswolds was very onerous indeed for the farmers involved. I think that he needs to look at ways in which the regime can be made lighter-touch.
In conclusion, my local farmers suffer emotionally and economically. The taxpayer suffers economically. The badgers suffer a painful death. The cattle become unproductive and have to be slaughtered prematurely. It is essential that the Minister reassures the House today that resources are being put into trying to find a satisfactory oral vaccine for badgers; that would be the ultimate solution to the problem. We need to find more effective skin testing, so that all the animals that have this dreadful disease are detected and eliminated from the national herd. We also need to look carefully at the spread of the disease to other species. There is increasing evidence that this terrible disease is spreading into the deer population. Perhaps my hon. Friend can say something about that this afternoon, and about the total situation in relation to TB. Is it stabilising in the main areas affected, or is it still increasing? We need to find that out.
We need to use all the tools in our box. I urge the Minister to keep on with the trial areas; that is what my farming constituents want. They believe that that method works; the proof will come when all the results are evaluated, but anecdotally, so far, they believe that it works.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—I was going to say “my hon. Friend”, but of course formally we are not friends. The hon. Gentleman has made a passionate defence of Government policy. I hope he understands that other people feel equally passionately on the other side of the debate. It is testimony to the nature of this place that we will continue to have robust debates, in the best democratic tradition, whatever happens.
Richard Drax
May I first refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which I forgot to do earlier? The hon. Lady rightly says that views are passionately held on both sides. Certainly on one side, there is sometimes, by a minority, mindless violence and intimidation. Will she condemn that?
Angela Smith
I am always happy to condemn violence and intimidation of any kind.
I congratulate the lead petitioner, Simon King, who has not been mentioned so far and who managed to amass the 100,000 signatures needed to secure the debate. That we managed to get over the 100,000 threshold demonstrates the degree of interest in this topic outside the House. At this point, it is important that I declare an interest. I am a member of the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, in which the lead petitioner plays a very active part, so I think I ought to put that on the record.
The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who made a very thoughtful contribution. However, I take slight issue with one of his points. For me, this is not about whether farmers get whatever they want from the current Government. I understand that farmers struggle very hard to secure a decent living. Their way of life is often very hard. Currently, many aspects of our agricultural sector are struggling to make ends meet. I want to put that on the record.
I also think that if we are to find a way forward on this issue, it is important in the long term to find consensus and common ground. I applaud those charities, including the Wildlife Trusts and the Save Me Trust, that have tried very hard—and are in many instances succeeding—to establish working relationships with farmers, so that we can start to find a way forward that brings all parties to the table, and so that we have constructive attitudes and dialogue instead of the rather divisive debate that has characterised all the discussions on badger culling so far.
I will not rehearse the whole history of badger culling over the past four to six years. Suffice it to say that at the heart of all the debates, all the questions tabled in the House on badger culling and all the disquiet relating to badger culling is a very deep sense of unease about the Government’s rather cavalier attitude towards the science on this issue.
I will start with the randomised badger culling trial. That 10-year project drew the conclusion, at the end of the period, that no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in England could be made through the use of badger culling. That was clear, and the Labour Government in 2009-10 determined that culling was not the way forward and invested in vaccination programmes. The incoming Government, as was their right, decided to act otherwise.
In April 2011, a panel of independent experts was convened to set clear parameters for pilot culls. What was really important about that period was that the Government had parameters that reflected the discipline established by the RBCT. I am referring, of course, to the land boundaries for culling, the time period allowed for culling, the percentage of animals to be culled and the need for repeated culling over a period of years. Those were the principal parameters put in place by that panel of experts in April 2011, and it was according to those parameters that the pilots were given the go-ahead. Despite significant opposition from parliamentarians such as myself and from huge numbers of people in the country, the pilots were given the go-ahead, and they were of course located in west Somerset and west Gloucestershire.
For me, the first breach of the science was the decision to go against the conclusions drawn by the experts at the heart of the RBCT. The second breach came when the first round of culling in the two pilot areas took place in 2013, because the number of badgers killed in the allotted six-week period was nowhere near the target required to make the cull in any way effective and so the time period was extended—I think it was nine weeks in one of the cull areas and 11 weeks in the other. The second breach, therefore, was of one of the key parameters for the pilot culling. The extended time period was the second breach of the science by Government policy.
The science was further breached when the independent experts panel reported on humaneness after the first round of culling. It stated that at least 7% of the badgers killed were killed inhumanely. However, rather than responding constructively to the panel’s findings, Ministers disbanded the panel—got rid of it.
That was followed in 2014 by new culling areas being announced. Let us remember that it was decided, when the parameters for the pilot culls were established, that a four-year culling period would be needed to demonstrate whether the approach would be effective. Despite all that, just two years into the pilot project, the practice of culling was extended. That was despite the data on the numbers at that point not demonstrating success in terms of meeting the criteria set in 2011. That was particularly the case in relation to the numbers that they managed to kill in those first two years in the two pilot areas.
Then, in 2015, the Government formally relaxed the criteria for culling in relation to the land area. The required land area was at least 150 square metres in extent, but that was suddenly reduced to 100 square metres, despite the majority of those responding to the consultation saying that such a change would be wrong. There was relaxation of the criteria in relation to the period of time allowed for any one cull and the minimum land area used for culling; the recommendation was that a minimum of 70% of the land area in the zone would need to be used for the culling, but that criteria was relaxed.
In summary, as time has gone on we have witnessed a blatant refusal by Government to follow the science. They have not only pursued this policy in opposition to the outcomes of the RBCT; they have gradually but significantly moved further and further away from the original scientific parameters established in April 2011. They have moved so far, in fact, that at this stage it is probably now impossible, in relation to the extended culling areas, to determine whether the approach is effective at all. They have moved so far away from the original parameters that culling, as practised in the last four years, has therefore been discredited. It has no basis in science, because the science has been distorted, twisted and, in the end, utterly abandoned.
The very least the Government can do is furnish Parliament with a full evaluation of the impact of culling in the two pilot areas—west Gloucestershire and west Somerset—where four years of culling are now complete. Back in the debate in September 2016, the Minister failed to answer my question about whether an evaluation would be commissioned. It is hard to imagine that this policy can do anything—other than lose the last desperate shreds of its credibility—unless such an evaluation is not only completed but made available to Parliament. The Government have an opportunity to rescue at least some credibility in relation to this issue, if they would only ensure that that is done. Having a pilot suggests that an evaluation will be made of whether it has worked. The Government need to do that work and present it to Parliament. If, on the basis of that evaluation, it is then concluded that the approach has not been effective, at that point the Government would have to explain why they further relaxed the criteria in 2014 and ’15 and why, in particular, they allowed the culling to be extended to other areas of the country.
In conclusion, we need to see a thorough, independent assessment of the pilot culls. We also need the Government to make international comparisons, and not only with other culling practices. Somebody has said to me already this afternoon, “You didn’t make your usual statement.” I will make it now: badgers are not possums. They really are not; they are completely different creatures. The Government should be making international comparisons with countries that have focused on vaccination as an alternative, where vaccination is used, as it is with other species, to establish a critical mass of immunity. That is the key point about vaccination. It is not about individuals necessarily; it is also about critical mass and ensuring immunity at a level that gives a country a sense of moving forward and eradicating diseases such as TB. There are countries that have focused on vaccination as an alternative. We have heard a lot about Wales this afternoon, where the approach appears to be working, and we know that Ireland is considering a shift to a different approach that would involve vaccination. Finally, and above everything, we need the Government to commit to abandoning culling if an independent evaluation of the pilot areas demonstrates a failure to deliver a meaningful, long-term reduction in the incidence of bovine TB.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on leading the debate. I want to touch on two issues: animal welfare and science. Anybody who has been brought up in the countryside and who understands rural England—I was brought up in rural Dorset, surrounded by farm land and livestock—knows and understands the devastating effect of epidemics and pandemics of bovine TB, foot and mouth disease, swine fever and bird flu. It is hard to describe how bad they can be—bad for humans, certainly, but infinitely worse for the wildlife and livestock affected.
My eldest son, who is now a vet in practice, began his career before he had even joined a practice by seconding himself to the Ministry of Agriculture and going out and ordering the destruction of thousands of cattle. He watched grown men, maybe twice or three times his age, burst into tears as he gave them the verdict. You and I know, Mr Streeter—you are from Devon—because we have seen those piles of carcases in flames, and it is not a pretty sight. I am not trying to suggest that bovine TB has yet reached pandemic proportions, but to the individual farmer and the individual holding the effect is the same: it is devastating.
Of course, for the wildlife and livestock it is equally bad. It has been said correctly on both sides of this Chamber that bovine TB is a terrible, painful, awful disease. It affects cattle, badgers, dogs and, we believe, deer, and it appears to be spreading. To do nothing is not an option, but we have to do the right thing. Just doing something might superficially play to the gallery and please a few people in rural England, but it is not going to solve the problem. I will not put words into your mouth, Mr Streeter—you are sitting in the Chair—but I suspect that you and I both understand that.
Apart from the hon. Member for Newport West, I am probably the only person in this Chamber who is old enough and ugly enough to bear the scars of Krebs. I have been through those debates and discussions and know very well that the outcome was what can only be described as conclusively inconclusive. People on both sides of the cull debate took from it what they wanted to prove their own cases. Post Krebs one could argue—I would not, but one could—that it was worth a try. Well, it has been tried, and it failed. With 15,000 badgers at a cost of £7,000 each—let us be generous and say £6,000 a badger—hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent for virtually no proven effect whatsoever. That is the bottom line.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well that I am a member of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which has been widely misrepresented by some people in this House but is actually an organisation committed to farm animal welfare. We support many of the aims that the Government set out in their manifesto and we want to help see them through, but on this issue I believe that successive Ministers and Administrations have got it wrong. One of the things we have always tried to do is base our arguments on the science. The British Veterinary Association—I am merely an honorary member, but I do not think that I am misrepresenting its view—does not regard this as a satisfactory way forward. Why? Because it is wrong in science. That brings me to the second of the few remarks I wish to make.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I share a similar position to that of my hon. Friend in the BVA, which believes:
“Badger culling in a targeted, effective and humane manner is necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a significant contributor to the presence of bTB”—
I thought it would be helpful just to set out the BVA’s position.
Sir Roger Gale
I am afraid that the BVA is a faith of many churches. To some extent, it probably depends on which veterinary surgeons people listen to.
Angela Smith
I, too, am an honorary life member of the BVA. The BVA has made it clear that it does not support the free shooting of badgers, because it is inhumane, as was proved by the independent expert panel. As things stand, the BVA is not particularly happy with how the culling is being conducted.
Sir Roger Gale
There is an attitude that we have to use every shot—unfortunately literally in this case—in the locker, and I believe that we are going down the wrong path. I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. If culling worked and eliminated TB in badgers and cattle, I could probably live with the fact that it was necessary, because in the long run it would be the kindest thing to do. But we do not know how many of the 15,000 slaughtered badgers have even had TB, because they have not been tested. Where is the science in that? We do not know whether cattle are giving TB to badgers or badgers are giving it to cattle, or both, because that has not been proven.
I accept that vaccination is costly and difficult, but it is nothing like as costly and difficult as shooting badgers. We know that in Wales, where vaccination has been used much more widely—again, let us discount the wilder claims of success and say that that has probably had a 20% to 25% success rate—culling, at best, has had a 4% success rate. If the Minister has other figures and can demonstrate conclusively that the facts are otherwise, I would be very interested to hear them. So far, we seem to be a little short on statistics giving any indication that the policy that we are currently pursuing works. I want a policy that works. Whichever side of this argument we are on, I guess we are all on the side of wildlife and farmers, and everybody in the Chamber wants a policy that works.
The Republic of Ireland has developed what it believes will be an efficacious vaccine. The bottom line is that we are all looking for that, and I want to see us go down that road. Instead of wasting more time, money and effort going down a blind alley—pursuing a policy that does not work, has not worked and will not work—if we put all those resources and all our effort into finding a vaccination that works for cattle and badgers, we can solve the problem. I urge the Minister to take that away and think about it again. I am not saying that he has not thought about this issue—patently he has; he probably goes to sleep at night dreaming about it—but we need a solution that works.
Two things have not been pursued: one is vaccination, which I have mentioned; and the other, which others have mentioned, is proper ecological bio-control of the movement of cattle and of livestock generally. We know that works because we tried it during the last pandemic, so instead of messing around at the margins, let us get this right.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I did not expect there to be time for me to speak—I am a late entry—so I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and other Members who have spoken for approaching the issue in such a reasonable and measured way. Most of us have spent many hours debating this topic in this Chamber, and debates have not always been conducted in the most generous manner, so today has been an interesting and significant improvement.
However, I will argue against a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman raised—I know he will forgive me. Let me begin with the Government’s position. It was slightly suggested that the Government are interested in only one way of dealing with this problem. I suspect that the Minister will come to that, but throughout the time I have spent observing the Government’s reaction, they have always been adamant that culling is not the only solution, but part of the wider package involving a number of different measures that they are trying to test and improve all the time. Culling forms part of that, but of course it is not the only solution in town.
[Ian Paisley in the Chair]
To make a more light-hearted comment, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government’s policy as a crowd pleaser. From the Minister’s point of view and that of one or two colleagues, I suspect that a policy of culling wildlife is seldom likely to be much of a “crowd pleaser.” If there was another way in which the Government could have approached the problem, I suspect that they would have, so I am not sure that I would have used that expression.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The farmers would not want a cull if there was another way of doing it, because it is very expensive, time-consuming and everything else; it is just that there is no other way of doing it. Even if it means that there is a slight reduction, they are prepared to go to the expense and take the time to do it.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am unlucky enough to represent a constituency in one of the areas in the UK with the most herd breakdowns, where TB is most prevalent, and farmers in my area would absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments.
Rather conveniently, I was about to come to the Wales comparison. As the hon. Member for Newport West will recall, not many years ago the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in Cardiff first addressed the problem in policy terms. At that stage the advice that they—and the UK Government—had from the chief veterinary officer was that culling could form an important part of the overall control measures. It is being portrayed here, as it has been before, that somehow the advice to the Welsh Government has changed over the years; that somehow the Welsh Government are working to a different set of proposals. The truth is that the advice they have today is exactly the same as the advice they had then. For those who wish to go into the archives, that advice still maintains a reference to culling as potentially part of the programme for eradicating bovine TB in Wales.
It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) did, that the vaccination area in Wales, just north of where I live, covers a small, limited area. That vaccination programme has had to be suspended due to a reduced number of vaccines, as the hon. Member for Newport West commented. The reality is that the very encouraging statistics that have been quoted from Wales for the reduction in herd breakdowns from bovine TB are universal across the whole country. They do not simply reflect the activity in north Pembrokeshire and south Ceredigion. The implication that the vaccination programme has resulted in the 47% reduction in herd breakdowns completely misrepresents the truth. Those figures relate to a tiny land area just north of where I live, whereas the statistics that are being bandied about in the same paragraph relate to the whole of Wales. We keep talking about the importance of relying on science, but we also need to rely on proper, validated statistics. Making comparisons about a few hundred square kilometres of north Pembrokeshire and pretending that that is a reflection of the rest of Wales is a bit misleading.
Sir Roger Gale
Does my hon. Friend quarrel with the fact that in the vaccination areas there has been, at worst, a reduction of 20%, whereas in the cull areas the equivalent figure is miniscule—about 4%?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend made my next point for me. I absolutely recognise that there is a discrepancy between those two numbers, but the problem is that we are trying to compare a non-identical set of figures and a non-identical timeline of events leading up to the particular measurement of the figures—I do not think I put that very clearly.
It is misleading to compare the numbers acquired over four years in north Pembrokeshire and south Ceredigion, during a five-year programme that had to be suspended, with a much longer process involving a different set of calculations in England. I myself find it frustrating, but we are not comparing apples with apples when looking at the two systems and processes in those two different areas. Saying, “Here is a solution that works; why don’t the stupid Government use it?” is massively over-simplifying the problem. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but we have known each other a long time, and if there was a solution or a magic pill that he could administer to make this all go away, I suspect that he would have done so by now.
Angela Smith
The hon. Gentleman’s speech gives rise to two suggestions. One is that he might argue, along with me, that we ought to have a proper evaluation of the pilots in England. The second is that if we want to compare apples with apples, perhaps we need a proper, Government-sponsored vaccination pilot project in England.
Simon Hart
I think that you, Mr Paisley, would come after us if we went down the road of discussing the merits of devolution and having a different set of policies in Wales, which I suspect might be the only way to achieve those aims. However, I have no problem with proper evaluation, and I suspect that the Government have none, particularly given the importance of science, of which we are rightly frequently reminded. As the hon. Lady said herself, it is a pilot scheme, and we are fairly early in the lifetime of the project. To come up with figures now that present an absolute position on where we are and where we should go is a little premature—not necessarily that premature, but the moment is not quite with us.
I have two further points. Reference has been made to the Irish comparison. I made some brief inquiries when we went to vote in the Divisions just now. To suggest that the culling in Ireland was a success, but that it has given way to a different regime that is a resounding failure, is again not an absolutely accurate reflection of the position. When herd breakdowns occur in Ireland, as they still do, an epidemiological investigation is held in the area, followed by an absolutely thorough cull. The idea that culling forms no part of the Irish Government’s approach to eradicating bovine TB is a misrepresentation of what is happening.
We have talked about the cost of vaccination. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds mentioned a figure of about £672 annually for a vaccine that is irrelevant in dealing with badgers already carrying the disease, making the injection a completely pointless and expensive approach. There is some doubt about the exact number—I have not been able to ascertain it for 2016-17—of infected badgers that have been unnecessarily vaccinated recently.
Paul Flynn
It seems extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman brushes aside the fact that Ireland has slaughtered 96,000 badgers without any beneficial effect. If he wants to know about the number of infections, he should ask his Government to test the slaughtered badgers. Tests have been carried out on roadkill badgers, and the percentage contaminated with TB is very small indeed—about 5%.
Simon Hart
I suspect that the Minister will deal with the second part of that intervention. As for the first part, I will say only that the Irish Government would not deem their approach to the eradication of bovine TB quite the failure that the hon. Gentleman portrays it to be.
On the cost of culls and/or vaccination, I agree that both figures are eye-wateringly significant, but very little attention seems to have been given in this debate to the cost of the disease to taxpayers, farmers, contractors and the great supply chain that survives on agriculture. If the Minister was to mention the damage done to the economy of rural Britain as a direct consequence of this as-yet-unsolved problem—he probably has the figures at the tip of his tongue—the figures that the hon. Gentleman has quite reasonably mentioned would pale into insignificance.
The British Veterinary Association has been mentioned. Like many colleagues, I am not a scientist, but I hope that I am reasonably practical about these issues. However, I have not spent a career in this area of science, and neither have most of my colleagues, so often what we are treated to is a debate among high-powered, articulate people representing entirely opposite views. As juries who must listen to expert witnesses occasionally find, it is sometimes difficult to separate fact from opinion, and genuine, current science from bogus science. It is sometimes difficult to get a proper measure. That is why—I should have declared my interest; I apologise for forgetting to do so at the beginning of my speech—I refer to and rely on organisations such as the BVA.
To my mind, of all the organisations from which we take evidence and to which we listen, one stands out from the crowd as scientifically focused, objective, sensible, measured and, above all, more experienced on this issue than any of us ever will be. The BVA has done all that for us: listened to the science, filtered out the nonsense from the good sense, and listened to farmers and—I hope—politicians. It has done all that, and has come to this conclusion, which I mentioned just now but will mention again:
“BVA believes badger culling in a targeted, effective and humane manner is necessary in carefully selected areas where badgers are regarded as a significant contributor to the presence of bTB in cattle.”
That is not just the pro-cull members of the BVA versus the anti-cull members; it is a policy position from one of the country’s most respected veterinary resources. Frankly, as much as I would love to know more, my view is that if it is good enough for the BVA, it is good enough for me.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on opening this debate with an excellent speech. We last debated badger culling on 7 September 2016, in a debate that I led in this Chamber. Today, we are debating e-petition 165672, which calls for an end to badger culling, rather than an extension of culls to new areas.
Ending the badger culls is an eminently sensible and empirically sound proposition supported by almost 110,000 members of the public. I welcome the public support for the issue, and Mr King’s leading role in initiating the petition. The e-petition notes that experts in both disease control and animal welfare agree that badger culls have proven to be ineffective and inhumane. I add that the culls are also ruinously expensive, wasting taxpayer money at the rate of more than £6,000 per badger inhumanely slaughtered.
In September, I noted that bovine tuberculosis, or BTB, affects beef and dairy cattle herds in England, and that although Scotland has been officially free from the disease since 2009 and Wales is increasingly demonstrating how to bring it under control, the incidence of infection in England is rising, particularly along the edge areas, which threatens further herd outbreaks and the perpetuation of absolute misery for England’s farmers.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I join my hon. Friend in commending the work done in Scotland to ensure that we have been certified free of the disease for the last eight years. Does he share my concerns about the repercussions for TB control, particularly among cattle, of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU?
Dr Monaghan
I absolutely agree, particularly in relation to the evident risks of the spread of infection if appropriate cattle movement control and biosecurity measures are not implemented. That is why the Scottish National party is participating in this debate, even though it relates primarily to England and to the impact of bovine TB on England’s farmers.
We should be in no doubt that bovine TB is a very serious problem, and that killing badgers on an industrial scale is probably making the situation worse. Badger culling is nothing less than a costly distraction from the implementation of an effective solution, which requires a focus on sound animal husbandry and biosecurity, including vaccination, increased cattle movement control measures, and improved infection testing.
We know that bovine tuberculosis is caused by mycobacterium bovis, which is excreted by infected cattle on to the land they graze, where it survives in the soil and is then passed to other cattle and other species. Nevertheless, the predominant mode of transmission in cattle is nose-to-nose, and such transmission is encouraged by trading and moving cattle between herds. Indeed, evidence suggests that the number of new herd breakdowns appears to double approximately every nine years.
In the last decade alone, the UK Government have slaughtered 314,000 otherwise healthy cattle in an attempt to control infection. In 2013, more than 6 million bovine TB tests were performed in England in an ineffective attempt to identify the disease, leading to the slaughter of more than 26,000 cattle. Such skin tests are only 20% to 50% effective. The Minister will be interested to know that a new study, published just last week, shows that, as I argued in September, the tuberculin skin test fails to identify up to 50% of reactive cases. The skin test has always been a herd test, not an individual test. Its efficacy is hindered by the ability of the disease to hide in animals whose immune response is suppressed. In cattle, this could be due to a range of factors, including age, history of exposure, pregnancy and fluke parasite burden.
The ineffectiveness of the test means that in the last decade, the rising incidence of the disease has cost the UK taxpayer more than £500 million. Today, 20% of all new herd breakdowns are detected only in the slaughterhouse, such is the ineffectiveness of the overall testing programme. The inability to bring the disease under control resulted in a cost to the UK taxpayer of almost £100 million in 2014 alone, and the additional cost to farmers is estimated to run into tens of millions of pounds annually. The financial costs are staggering. The rise in the incidence of the disease in England is giving rise not only to an increase in the number of beef and dairy herds affected, but to increased geographical spread and consequently a spiralling cost to the UK taxpayer—more than £1 billion in the next decade alone, by the estimate of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The crisis that England’s cattle farmers, and their families and communities, face cannot be overstated. If the disease continues to increase unchecked in England, it will also begin to threaten herds in other nations that are currently free of the disease, such as Scotland, and that are successfully combating it, such as Wales. I am certain that we all want to avoid that. In that context, it is frankly inexplicable that the rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis in England is being attributed to badgers, because research shows that, even in remote areas of England where bovine TB is rampant, 86% of badgers are clear of it.
The Government must stop allowing farmers to believe that the level of infectious TB in badgers is much higher than it is, and that culling might make a difference when we know that it will not. Despite the huge amounts being spent, no substantial or respectable body of scientific work has ever been produced that contradicts the conclusions of the study by the independent scientific group on cattle TB, which initiated the randomised badger culling trial in 1998. That study, as we have heard, found that reactive badger culling resulted in significant increases in cattle TB incidence, to the extent that culling was abandoned early in the trial. The study concluded, first, that
“badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB”;
secondly, that
“weaknesses in cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs”—
that is, cattle themselves are the disease reservoir; thirdly, that
“cattle-to-cattle transmission…is the main cause of disease spread to new areas”;
fourthly, that
“substantial reductions in cattle TB incidence could be achieved by improving cattle-based control measures”;
and, finally, that
“agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.”
In short, the scientific evidence does not identify a causal relationship between the presence of badgers and a rising incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. The current approach means that the people of England can have as much bovine tuberculosis as the UK Government are prepared to pay for.
History shows us that bovine tuberculosis is an ugly opponent, and that dealing with it requires scientific precision in testing, movement controls and selective removal. In the 1960s, bovine tuberculosis infection was reduced by around 80% in under four years. That reduction involved short-term actions in return for long-term benefit. The intelligent and evidence-led approach is to deploy interferon gamma and apply the emerging late-stage tests for hidden bovine tuberculosis, such as RPA 7, alongside biosecurity measures and cattle movement restrictions. Resources must be directed towards testing and control, and plans for expensive and divisive badger-culling pilots in England must be put on hold. There is already more than enough evidence to show that the controversial free-shooting method does not work. The strategy must now be to seek to deploy gamma testing in the pilot areas, and plans should be initiated to invest heavily in supporting livestock controls, with unequivocal backing from the UK Government.
Further attempts to disguise the failure of the badger cull programme are futile. Compelling recent evidence from Wales and Ireland shows that there is no value in addressing the hypothetical contribution from badger culling, especially while the overwhelmingly critical cattle-to-cattle transfer remains uncontrolled. No other country is seriously considering such a pitifully crude, wasteful and ineffective solution to bovine tuberculosis as badger culling.
In September’s debate, the Minister noted the policies that he is overseeing:
“We have annual testing in the high-risk area and four-yearly testing in the low-risk area. We have annual testing in the edge area and six-monthly testing in hotspots in the edge area, and we continue to consider rolling that out. We have contiguous testing in the high-risk area where there is a breakdown, and we have radial testing in the low-risk area, going out to 3 km, where we have a breakdown. We are now consulting on greater use of the gamma interferon test so that we can pick up the disease faster. We are also looking at what more can be done in other species. We are constantly trying to refine and improve our cattle movement controls”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 219WH.]
There is scope for further work on those points. What progress has the Minister made on controlling slurry spreading, on managing deer populations, on limiting hunting with hounds, on restricting cattle movements and, above all, on challenging weak biosecurity measures, including feeding infected cattle to hounds? I say “weak”, because it has recently been brought to my attention that Natural England has rolled back on farmers’ risk assessments; indeed, I understand that in five of the seven new cull areas, only 5% of participants’ farms had received biosecurity visits from Natural England by mid-September 2016. It is unsurprising, then, that Natural England failed to release information from its biosecurity monitoring forms for all the new cull areas and has abandoned the assessment ratings of good, fair and poor that were used up to 2014. Why is that, Minister?
By 2015, the percentage of participants’ farms with cattle that had not—I emphasise not—been visited by Natural England monitoring staff was 55% in west Gloucestershire, 63% in west Somerset, and 68% in Dorset. I repeat that those are the percentages of participants’ farms that were not visited. That is not science-led or evidence-led practice, Minister. Why was a small team of between just seven and 10 people monitoring biosecurity visits from 2012 to 2015? Has the team been expanded to an appropriate level? I also note that the UK Government no longer collect data on the humaneness of culling badgers. Again, why, Minister?
There is also further evidence of a failure to assess the wider ecological impacts of culling. A report by the Food and Environment Research Agency in 2011 identified a range of outcomes from the culling of badgers that could result in disruption to ecosystems. The report identified the potential impact of the resulting change in the abundance of other species on a wide range of habitats, and it indicated that screening exercises and appropriate assessments should be carried out where badger culling was proposed. However, with a total of 10 licences having been issued to date, the UK Government have failed to conduct appropriate assessments to determine whether badger culling is creating wider ecological impacts that affect species and habitats protected under the Bern convention. That is yet another reason why badger culling should be suspended.
The historical and contemporary evidence increasingly demonstrates that the true engine driving the ongoing spread of bovine TB is, and always has been, the so-called problem herds with recurrent and/or persistent chronic TB. The proposition that the inhumane persecution of badgers will miraculously control TB infections is ridiculous, which is exactly why the Welsh Government have abandoned badger culling and why the European Union has never agreed with the UK’s policy in this area. This is a disease more likely to be carried on the boots of human beings than by badgers.
The UK Government should abandon the tuberculosis skin test as the primary means of identifying infection and new herd outbreaks, and should instead adopt modern methods and technologies to address this disease. Specifically, they should adopt gamma interferon tests and robust systems of biosecurity. Combined with a co-ordinated badger vaccination policy in high-risk areas for bovine TB in England, and restricted movement of cattle, this course of action would represent a more progressive and intelligent approach, and it would realise results within months. It would also be more humane and better support England’s farmers.
Just as I did in September, I again ask the Minister to please look to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; to recognise the important contribution of rigorous blood testing regimes and effective movement controls to reduce the risks of cattle-to-cattle transmission; to introduce a centrally co-ordinated and comprehensive badger vaccination policy in high-risk infection areas in England, focusing on reducing the incidence of this dreadful disease in cattle; and to please stop the regressive and medieval practice of badger culling, which the public abhor, and which diminishes our collective humanity.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today for the Opposition.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for opening the debate and demonstrating, with his usual eloquence, his passion for the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made some important and knowledgeable contributions to the debate. I stress the fact that she talked about the importance of consensus. If we are going to solve this problem and eradicate this disease, we need to work together. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) clearly set out the importance of using science and evidence, so that we can develop a policy that works. He also stressed the importance of developing a vaccination, as did the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown).
As we have heard today, bovine TB has a significant impact on farmers by causing loss of livestock, particularly for small dairy farmers, who are already under significant financial pressure on a daily basis. The compensation they receive for slaughtered cattle is not good—up to a maximum of £1,225 for non-pedigree dairy cows and less for beef cows. Quite simply, bovine TB must be urgently controlled and eradicated. However, I want to be absolutely clear: the Labour party opposes badger culling, because we do not believe that it is the most effective way of managing the disease or that is it the most humane.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge also mentioned the fact that during the last Parliament the independent expert panel, which was appointed to monitor the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of the first year of the badger culls, concluded that the 2013 culls had failed on both effectiveness and humaneness. A number of other hon. Members also mentioned that during the debate.
Last August, the Government agreed that seven new culling areas would be permitted in England, in addition to the existing areas. Culling in these areas will be carried out over four years. In 2016, culls took place in each area between 29 August and 18 October. Although the Chief Veterinary Officer has advised that the culls were humane and effective, and show that culling can help to achieve disease control benefits, environmental experts have questioned the validity of the evidence base and argue that there is no basis for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of culling in reducing bovine TB.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to pursuing other measures, including tighter cattle controls, biosecurity, and the design of the new badger edge vaccination scheme. However, it is disappointing that the Government propose licensing a supplementary form of badger control only after a cull has been completed over at least four years.
Clearly, it is time for long-term solutions to combat bovine TB. We would like to see an alternative, science-led approach, combining a number of methods, to prioritise the development of a vaccine, together with improved cattle testing and cattle management, with tighter biosecurity measures and improved animal husbandry. Evidence-based and science-led policy must be at the heart of everything we do.
We have heard extensively about the different approach taken by the Welsh Government. Since 2012, they have vaccinated more than 5,600 badgers in Wales and the number of cattle herds under restrictions from bovine TB is now at its lowest level there since 2006, with 95% of Welsh herds TB-free. We have heard how there has been a 47% reduction in new instances of the disease in Wales, as a result of increased testing frequency, improved biosecurity and other cattle control methods alone. That compares, as we have heard, with the net reduction of just 16% of new incidents of bovine TB over nine years of randomised badger cull trials in England. We have heard about the cost—the cull cost of £6,700 per badger. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would consider that to be anything other than an extraordinary amount of money, considering—as the RSPCA notes and as we have heard—an estimated cost of £662 per badger vaccinated in Wales. The substantial amount of money that would be saved by vaccination would be better invested in supporting the farming industry.
Simon Hart
I am sorry to bore Members with this, but that is an annual figure. The hon. Lady needs to look at it over the lifetime, rather than as a single figure.
Sue Hayman
It may well be an annual figure, but there is still an extraordinarily significant difference between the two figures.
Sue Hayman
Well, I consider it to be extraordinary, and I think that many colleagues do, as well.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The policing costs for the cull areas would be zero if it were not for the effects of the protesters; therefore we cannot compare one figure with another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) just said, and as I said in my speech, when the annual cost of vaccination is extended over five years the actual cost is not £660 per badger but £3,000.
Sue Hayman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It only goes to show that we really need proper evidence. However we look at it, it is much more expensive, per badger, to cull.
Paul Flynn
Does my hon. Friend agree that vaccination has the effect of giving immunity on a continuing basis, by removing the disease, whereas culling has proved to be effective for only short periods, with instances of the disease then returning in great numbers? Last year there was a large number of new cases and 35 areas that were previously bovine TB-free were declared infected. The culling is therefore failing.
Sue Hayman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The important thing is that we have effective long-term solutions, and vaccination has been shown to play an important part in that.
The example of Wales has shown what we need to emulate here in England. The randomised badger culling trial—RBCT—which has been mentioned, is the largest ever study conducted to examine whether culling badgers would reduce TB in cattle. It concluded that
“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain”,
and went on to state:
“It is unfortunate that agricultural and veterinary leaders continue to believe, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, that the main approach to cattle TB control must involve some form of badger population control.”
In 2012, Lord Krebs, President of the British Science Association and a key scientist involved in the RBCT study, called the Government’s cull policy “mindless”, adding:
“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. The government is cherry-picking bits of data to support its case.”
An October 2012 letter to The Observer, signed by 31 eminent scientists, described the cull as a “costly distraction” and stated:
“As scientists with expertise in managing wildlife and wildlife diseases, we believe the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it.”
In 2015, a group of scientists and wildlife experts wrote another letter, this time calling on the Government to
“reconsider, immediately, the decision to continue and extend the culling of badgers.”
We have been falsely presented with the impression that without large-scale badger culling, bovine TB cannot be effectively controlled. It is all very well to say that culling a certain percentage of badgers in an area will halt the spread of the disease, but who is to say the culled badgers are not disease-free and the surviving badgers are carrying the disease? We must be careful not to do more harm than good by dispersing infected badgers into previously unaffected areas and spreading the problem. That is something no one wants to see.
It is clear that we need urgent investment in a widespread vaccination programme and a proper biosecurity strategy. That means reducing the chances of cattle and badgers coming into contact, directly or indirectly, to minimise the risk of the disease entering a farm. We have heard that in 2015 the British Veterinary Association withdrew its support for the shooting of free-running badgers, stating:
“it has not been demonstrated conclusively that controlled shooting can be carried out effectively and humanely”.
In a letter to the Prime Minister last summer, Professors John Bourne, Rosie Woodroffe and Ranald Munro wrote:
“We urge you to review the considerable evidence that culling badgers is a risky, costly, and inhumane tool in the fight against bovine TB. We submit to you that expanding this unpromising programme would fly in the face of scientific evidence. We publicly call on you at this time to halt—not expand—the failed badger cull.”
They concluded that
“the roll out into many more areas will immediately increase the risk of a considerable number of badgers being injured and suffering”
for a cull that “doesn’t actually work.”
Bovine TB has been a problem for a long time, and badger culling has been attempted as a solution for many years, yet the disease has not gone away, so it is clear that efforts are not working. Although it is very welcome that the Government are pursuing other measures, such as tighter cattle controls, biosecurity and the designing of the new badger edge vaccination scheme, subject to a global shortage of the vaccine, it is disappointing that they continue to pursue culling.
Now is the time to change our approach. Vaccination and biosecurity must be the priority, and I urge the Government to prioritise them, along with improved cattle testing and management. We must urgently find long-term solutions to stop the spread of bovine TB, but we must do so in a humane way, following scientific advice.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate all the petitioners. I understand that more than 108,000 individuals signed the petition, led, as has been said, by Mr King. That shows that this is an emotive, but incredibly important, issue, and it is right that we spend this time debating it.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge (Angela Smith) declared an interest, in that she is a member of the Wildlife Trusts. If that is considered an interest, I should probably join her by declaring that I am a member of the Wildlife Trusts in Cornwall. They do some fantastic work, but it has to be said that this is one area on which I and my local Wildlife Trust have to agree to disagree. The truth is that TB is an incredibly difficult disease to fight. It is slow growing and not easy to detect. We are constantly trying to improve diagnostics, and I will come on to that. No vaccine is fully effective. The best we have is the BCG vaccine, which we know is only about 70% effective.
The disease has a huge impact on our livestock industry. Last year, we slaughtered about 29,000 heads of cattle. This is a disease that costs us £100 million a year to manage and fight. There are no easy solutions and there is no single measure that provides the answer to a disease of this sort, which is why the Government have set out a comprehensive 25-year strategy that involves us using all the tools at our disposal to bear down on the disease.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge pointed out that the previous Labour Government decided not to proceed with a badger cull. I have to say that had they acted as one should with any animal disease—swiftly and assertively to get it under control—it might have been easier to turn the situation around. The reality is that we had 15 years that can be best described as a period of dither, when clear action was not taken on all the available fronts to tackle the disease.
Paul Flynn
Will the Minister compare that with what the Irish Government did? They took every action possible, in slaughtering every badger they could find—in fact, they slaughtered more badgers than they thought were in the country. That was wholesale, mass slaughter and it failed, miserably. They are now going on to do vaccinating. It is nonsense for the Minister to try to use a political argument when there is no basis for it in science.
George Eustice
I was going to return to that matter later, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it I can deal with it now. There is a bit of a misconception about what Ireland has done. They have pursued a successful cull strategy, which has significantly reduced the incidence of TB. Having got the badger population down to a lower level, they are now exploring how to deploy vaccination in the way that one should, as an exit strategy from a cull once the population has been reduced and not as an alternative. To make a comparison, had the Labour Government grasped the nettle and acted swiftly, we could have been in a similar situation and had the disease under control by now.
Angela Smith
Will the Minister not acknowledge that in their earliest days, the last Labour Government did act by ensuring that they funded, organised and gave the green light to the 10-year study, which attempted to establish a sound scientific base for how to intervene effectively, especially in relation to culling and how to respond to demands for it? Will he not also accept that the lifting of controls with foot and mouth disease in 2001 necessarily had a major impact?
George Eustice
Obviously the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had an impact, but my point is that there was a loss of 10 years when the science had been clear about what was required since the ’70s. It would have been possible to act earlier, although I will return to the science, as a number of Members mentioned it.
Many Members talked about the importance of cattle movement controls, and I completely agree with that. In fact, it is not in doubt; we have a consensus on that. Cattle movement controls are absolutely at the heart of the Government’s strategy, and have been for many years. I simply ask Members to look at the controls we have now. We have annual testing in the high-risk area. We have four-yearly testing staggered in the low-risk area. We have annual testing in the edge area. In hotspots in the edge area, such as Cheshire, we have six-monthly testing, and we are exploring opportunities to expand that methodology. We have contiguous testing in the high-risk area when we have a breakdown and radial testing in the low-risk area when we have a breakdown. We have pre-movement testing before animals can be moved off a holding, and we now have post-movement testing once animals are moved to a holding in the low-risk area.
Last year we consulted on, and have now implemented, a new approach to using the interferon gamma test much more often than before. When the skin test and the surveillance test detect a problem, we are deploying the interferon gamma test much more often, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) highlighted. We have also just implemented an approach of taking a much harsher interpretation of some of the inconclusive tests, as some of the evidence is that an inconclusive test often means a delayed response. We are constantly looking at whether we can refine things. Members should bear in mind that when we do these tests and detect a problem, all those holdings are placed under restriction. I agree that cattle movement controls are a crucial part of the fight against the disease, but I put it to Members that we are doing everything possible that there is to do at the moment. We are already doing what Members are asking us to do, and we have been for some time.
A number of Members raised the issue of vaccination. As I said earlier, we believe that vaccination of badgers could give us an exit strategy from the cull once we have reduced numbers. That is why we continue to spend millions of pounds trying to develop an oral vaccine for badgers, and that work is ongoing. In 2015, we had an edge area vaccination pilot, where six voluntary groups came together to support us in rolling out the trapping and vaccination of badgers in the edge area. As a result of the shortage of vaccine and a request from the World Health Organisation that the vaccine we had be reserved for medical use in humans only, we had to suspend that programme, in common with Wales. We hope to secure new supplies of vaccine and to resume that edge area vaccination project in 2018.
Dr Monaghan
The Minister has accurately noted some of the initiatives he mentioned at the conclusion of his speech in September 2016. Can he tell us what impact those measures have had? What action has he taken to address other issues, such as slurry spreading on fields and feeding infected cattle to hounds and perhaps other animals?
George Eustice
We publish the disease surveillance data annually in August. To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stockbridge made, that includes data specific to the cull areas that we have under way. Having just implemented the new use and the adoption of the interferon gamma test, it is too early to tell how much impact that will have. What we do know is that the basic surveillance testing measures, pre-movement testing and restrictions have been in place for a number of years. As in Wales, they have undoubtedly contributed to holding the disease in check, but we know that, on their own, the measures will not be enough to roll the disease back.
We continue to do work on developing a cattle vaccine. The BCG vaccine can be used in cattle, but we know it is not 100% effective. It probably gives between 65% and 70% protection to herds, but that would nevertheless be beneficial if we could secure the right kind of test that could differentiate the vaccine from TB. Some years ago, we did manage to get in place an interferon gamma blood test that could do that, but it unfortunately threw up a lot of false positives, which is a common problem. We are now doing work to consider the skin test. We believe that we are close to getting a skin test that can distinguish between the disease and the vaccine. When we are able to get that in place, we will work towards starting trials of that.
A number of Members have raised the issue of Wales. As my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, the area in Wales under the vaccination pilot represented just 1.5% of the country. Wales’s cattle movement restrictions almost mirror ours; there is very little difference. The differences tend to be in the types of restrictions on cattle markets, but they are minor differences. All the other approaches, on surveillance testing and restrictions, are remarkably similar. If we look at the figures, the latest statistics show that 95% of Welsh herds and 94.2% of English herds are TB-free, so the difference is not enormous.
The large drop in TB in Wales that has been quoted by a number of Members seems to be based on a reference point of 2012-13, which was a year with a very high prevalence of disease. In the past year, Wales has seen a 23% increase in the number of cattle slaughtered due to TB, while England has seen just a 4% increase, so we can trade statistics, but I simply point out that the approach in Wales to cattle movement controls is remarkably similar to what we are doing in England. The area covered by Wales’ vaccination pilot is nowhere near large enough to draw the conclusions and inferences that some Members are drawing.
To turn to the badger cull and the science, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn)—he opened the debate, and he has a long track record of campaigning on wildlife issues and animal welfare issues—rightly pointed out that badgers are sentient creatures and that we would not do the cull unless we needed to. As I have made clear many times before, I would not sanction the cull unless I believed it was necessary to combat this terrible disease. The advice we have from our chief veterinary officer is clear that we cannot eradicate the disease unless we also tackle the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. While the policy is contentious, it is the right policy. Sometimes Governments have to pursue the right policy, even if it is not popular.
Sir Roger Gale
I have been listening very carefully to what the Minister has been saying. I do not understand how he and the chief veterinary officer can assert that the reservoir is there when none of the animals that have been eliminated have been tested.
George Eustice
The issue was looked at extensively during the randomised badger culling trials, and we know that in the high-risk area, where there is a strong prevalence of the disease, around a third of badgers have bovine TB. That has been demonstrated previously.
On the science, there is no example anywhere in the world of a country that has eradicated TB without also addressing the reservoir of the disease in the wildlife population. TB was first isolated in badgers as long ago as 1971. In 1974, a trial was conducted to remove badgers from a severely infected farm, with the result that there was no breakdown on that farm for five years. Between 1975 and 1978, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food funded extensive work and demonstrated conclusively that there is transmission and a link between badgers and cattle. Subsequent work in Ireland reaffirmed that finding.
The Krebs review observed that, between 1975 and 1979, TB incidence in the south-west fell from 1.65% to 0.4% after the cull—a 75% reduction. Subsequently, in the late ’70s and early ’80s, more extensive work was done in three exercises. One was in Thornbury, where the TB incidence fell from 5.6% in the 10 years before culling to 0.45% in the 15 years after, which was a reduction of 90%. In Steeple Leaze, there were no breakdowns for seven years after the badgers were cleared. In Hartland, the incidence dropped from 15% in 1984 to just 4% in 1985—a reduction of more than two thirds. I have pointed out the historical data, as I did in the previous debate, because it is often tempting for this House to feel that it is considering issues for the first time, but the challenge of fighting TB is not new and a great deal was learnt during the 1970s and ’80s.
Dr Monaghan
I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with his time. He has given various examples that suggest that culling badgers has been successful in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. Can he tell us the full range of variables that were tracked and monitored in each of those experimental cases? How do we know that the assertion that badgers were responsible for the infection rate is not just an artefact of poor experimental design?
George Eustice
It was always recognised that the trials did not have controls alongside them in a scientific way. That is why, as I was going to explain, the RBCT trials were carried out.
Angela Smith
I thank the Minister for being generous in giving way, and just for people to be clear, my constituency is Penistone and Stocksbridge, with an s in the middle. That is very important.
The Minister referred to the review by Professor Krebs. If the review was valid, presumably the 10-year trial—the scientific study led by Professor Krebs—was also valid, and its conclusions should have been taken more seriously by the Government.
George Eustice
The full benefits of that RBCT trial presented themselves in the years after the report was concluded, as is now widely accepted. The average reduction in incidence, even if we take account of the theory of perturbation, was 16% during the trial, as everybody accepts, but in the 18 months after culling ended in the RBCT, there was a very sharp, 54% reduction in the incidence of the disease. The average across the period was 28.3%, so the evidence was pretty clear that removing and reducing the badger population in a proactive way could contribute meaningfully to this issue.
The issue was looked at again in 2013 by Professor Charles Godfray, who conducted an independent review of all of the science, which brought together leading UK experts. It concluded that TB spreads within and between populations of badgers and cattle, and that the spread from badgers to cattle is an important cause of herd breakdowns in high incidence areas. Policy is based on evidence that has been clear since the 1970s. The latest review conducted by Professor Charles Godfray with leading experts supported that conclusion.
There are issues that we continue to look at. I have an open mind to additional approaches that can help us bear down on the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the importance of biosecurity. I agree with him. In fact, a couple of months ago I launched the cattle herd certification standards scheme, an accreditation scheme where we try to incentivise farmers to sign up to high levels of biosecurity. We are now looking at new ways in which we might incentivise them to do that and to put more emphasis on that.
Some hon. Members mentioned the handling of farmyard manure. We know that the disease bacterium can spread through farmyard manure and through latrines via badgers. That is recognised and not disputed. We already have many restrictions in place on when farmyard manure from infected herds can be spread and where it can be spread. I constantly keep such issues under review, and in recent months I have asked our policy team to look again at whether there is anything further we can do. We are continually looking at whether we can strengthen and improve genetic resistance to the disease.
The Holstein UK society is doing very important work to try to breed resistance to TB into the dairy herd. We support that and stand ready to assist if required. There is also some novel research going on, very much in the early stages, into whether we could develop a self-disseminating vaccine for badgers. That would mean using something like a herpes virus. The vaccine would be inserted and would spread naturally through a badger population. If we could perfect something like that, it would be a major breakthrough, although we are some way off.
Angela Smith
What we are hearing is all very welcome news indeed. I am pleased to have it on the record, but it would be good to have an answer to the key question: when will we get publication of an independent evaluation of the pilot culls?
George Eustice
I was moving on to that. Data on bovine TV incidence in the cull areas are published annually. Because of the low prevalence rate, we need aggregate data over a year. We have already published the first two years. The third one will be published in August, so we are already publishing the data on disease incidence in the two cull areas.
I want to move on and cover some of the other points that were raised. The hon. Member for Newport West raised the issue of the Kimblewick hunt and dogs. Our veterinary advice is clear that dogs are not a major contributor to the spread of the disease. The incidence of TB in dogs is very rare. We occasionally get incidents, as we do with cats. Three years ago we had an outbreak of TB in cats in a particular area, but the veterinary advice is clear: it is not a key contributor. In the case of the Kimblewick hunt, an epidemiological investigation is under way. Until it is completed, it would be wrong to speculate on what the origin or route of the disease was. On the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of stopping hunting, although I understand that he has a wider objective to do that, it would not be a proportionate step, based on the risk that we have.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised the issue of the independent expert panel. It was only ever intended that that would be for the first year to review data. It was never intended that it would report each and every year. She asked about evaluation. I have been clear that the evaluation is ongoing. We have already published the first two years and the third will be published in August. She mentioned the need to reduce the population by at least 70% within six weeks. I will simply point out that the RBCT never estimated its badger population at the start. It retrospectively guessed how many it thought it had reduced, so there is a danger of having false precision around some of the figures.
George Eustice
I am afraid I have given way generously. I will press on because I believe we may have a Division shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds asked what happens after the current culls have ended their four years. As was pointed out by the shadow Minister, in the two cull areas that have concluded four years, we will—
George Eustice
I extend my gratitude to everyone who has returned to the debate, as some hon. Members will have detected that I was getting towards the end of my contribution. I have gone through my notes to check whether I overlooked anything earlier.
To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds on the culls that have completed their four years, as I explained just before we suspended the debate, at the end of last year we consulted on having low-level maintenance culling to keep the population in check. That would very much be a small operation with much-reduced numbers—not like the culls we had for the first four years. My hon. Friend also mentioned deer and other species, and he is right that wild deer can carry TB, but our veterinary advice is that their role in transmitting TB is significantly lower than that of badgers, because of their nature and how they move about. TB spreads less freely among deer, because badgers live underground in close proximity to one another. Nevertheless, deer are a potential concern, but we believe badgers to be far more prevalent in spreading the disease, and do so in far greater numbers, in particular in the south-west, the high-risk area, so that is where we are focusing our attention at the moment.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked us to learn lessons from other parts of the UK. As I pointed out in his debate on badger culling and bovine TB, Scotland is officially TB-free, but Scotland has an incredibly low badger population. It is the only part of the UK not to have a large badger population.
In Northern Ireland, which was mentioned, the approach is to trap, test, and vaccinate or remove. We follow the evidence from that approach closely, but the difficulty is that there are no good diagnostics for picking up the disease, as I said earlier. The people in Northern Ireland might therefore release up to 40% of badgers that have the disease, although they would not have detected it. In addition, they could be vaccinating and re-releasing badgers that had already had the disease. That approach is by no means perfect, even though superficially it sounds logical.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), mentioned costs. All I can say is that in year 1, the costs were higher—a huge amount of surveillance and post-mortem testing was going on, we had the independent expert panel and policing costs were higher—but the costs have been reducing as we have rolled out the cull. We also have to put that in context: every year, the disease is costing us £100 million, so doing nothing is not an option.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
There has been universal agreement across the House on one point in the debate: if we can find an oral vaccine, that is a possible solution. Will the Minister say something about the Government’s research into oral vaccines? I am thinking in particular about meningitis B and a vaccine for babies, on which I have campaigned. That new vaccine is manufactured in a totally different way. Will he look at the science behind such vaccines to see what lessons can be learned?
George Eustice
One of the challenges of TB is that it is a bacterial disease, and it is notoriously hard to get vaccines to work in that context, whereas with a virus, if the vaccine is cracked, the virus is cracked—as with, for example, the Schmallenberg vaccine. We have to recognise that despite decades of medical research, the best TB vaccine available is still the BCG. As I have said, however, we are spending millions of pounds on research to develop an oral bait that badgers would take and that would immunise them. As the hon. Member for Newport West pointed out correctly, if we can get the vaccination right, a herd effect in badgers could pass on the immunity. We are also in the very early stages of looking at the notion of self-disseminating vaccination with a positive, contagious vaccine that could spread through the badger population. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds is right that that is an important area of research, but I go back to what I said at the beginning: vaccination is only one of our tools for bearing down on the disease. I am afraid, however, that a badger cull is an essential part of any coherent strategy to eradicate TB. That is why we are continuing with the policy.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the BVA and its comments on the free shooting of badgers. As I said before, I live quite near Bushy Park, across the bridge from Kingston, and every autumn a sign is put on the gate stating, “The park is closed today because a deer cull is going on.” No one bats an eyelid. People do not say, “This is terrible”, and we do not get protesters running around dressed up as deer or in the middle of the night, trying to disrupt things. People seem to accept that.
I put it to hon. Members that we have to keep some sense of perspective. We are trying to fight a difficult disease and the veterinary advice is clear: a badger cull has to be part of any approach to eradicating that disease. Is it really that different from the approach that we take to controlling other wildlife, such as foxes, or deer in royal parks?
Paul Flynn
The reply that we have had from the Minister is very disappointing. He has said that he will not take any action on hounds, because it is very rare for bovine TB in dogs or hounds to be transferred to other species. The Government cannot have it both ways, if that is their policy, because the chief veterinary officer, Mr Nigel Gibbens, took to the airwaves in 2013 to proclaim that it was not safe to take one’s pet Labrador, or let one’s pet cat, out into the woods, as it might catch bovine TB from badgers and subsequently infect its owner. I think that that was taken as a rather extreme view at the time, but if the veterinary view is that bovine TB is infectious to other species from hounds, we must take very seriously what is happening in a hunt that has been trampling over six of our counties. We should look, too, at other methods and ensure that, if there is a new source of infection, such as hounds, we carry out inspections. The reason we do not know whether TB is in hounds is that we have not looked, and it is about time that that was done.
An interesting claim was made about possums in New Zealand. In 2009, the New Zealand Government reported that the incidence of bovine TB in possums was 0.004%, which is vanishingly small, and pointed out that the virtual elimination of the disease from the possum population was to do with cattle control—reducing movements of cattle around the country—and nothing to do with culling. It is entirely false to pretend that it was. Some Government Members put forward a sort of Enid Blyton view of wildlife—that wild animals should abide by the ten commandments and not go out and eat other animals, or follow their natural life. That view is put forward sentimentally by some to defend what are barbaric acts against these dumb animals.
Some other points made in this debate were entirely false. The figures about Wales that one Government Member gave were just untrue. We know that the system in Wales is working, but the system in England is not. Between November 2015 and 2016, there were 36 new herd incidents in which official TB-free status was withdrawn—we are going backwards with those—and the number of cattle destroyed was up 8% in some areas. We know, too, that the number of herds that are identified as infected with bovine TB at slaughterhouses is in the hundreds. The crude, unscientific system that we have for detecting TB is not working. The Minister gave some pie in the sky hope for the future about things that are unlikely to come to fruition for many years, but the Government have shown a lack of conviction in this policy by setting a 25-year target for its delivery. I do not think many of us will be around to see that, and the Government will constantly use the excuse, “You must give us time to deal with this.”
I accused the Government of being crowd-pleasing. I was talking about the farming crowd, not the general crowd. The Government have outraged the majority of the public. It is not reasonable to mock those who sacrifice their time and safety to protest vigorously against unnecessary acts of cruelty that have no basis in science or what happens throughout the rest of the world. The worst mistake that politicians make is to say, “Something must be done. We can’t think of anything intelligent to do, we can’t think of any practical to do that will work, but we must do something.” I am afraid it is one of the great sins of this House and the way that we legislate that the worst mistakes we make are often in the pursuit of “something must be done”. Badger culling is a very bad idea. It is cruel, and the country will rightly show its contempt for a Government who continue with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 165672 relating to badger culling.
Written Statements
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BEIS Non-departmental Bodies
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I would like to inform the House that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has today announced its decision to terminate its contract with Cavendish Fluor Partnership (CFP) for the management and decommissioning of 12 redundant Magnox sites (including two research sites) which, together with the Calder Hall reactor on the Sellafield site, formed the UK’s first fleet of nuclear power stations.
The NDA ran a £6.1 billion tender process from April 2012 which resulted in a 14 year contract being awarded in September 2014 to the Cavendish Fluor Partnership—a joint venture between the British firm Cavendish Nuclear, a subsidiary of Babcock International, and the US company Fluor Inc. This decision was approved by the then Department for Energy and Climate Change and HM Treasury.
CFP started work on the Magnox estate on 1 September 2014.There then started a process to ensure that the scope of the contract assumed in the 2012 tender matched the actual status of the decommissioning to be done on each site—a process known as consolidation.
It has become clear to the NDA through this consolidation process that there is a significant mismatch between the work that was specified in the contract as tendered in 2012 and awarded in 2014, and the work that actually needs to be done.
The scale of the additional work is such that the NDA board considers that it would amount to a material change to the specification on which bidders were invited in 2012 to tender.
In the light of this, the NDA board, headed by a new Chair and Chief Executive, has concluded that it should exercise its right to terminate the contract on two years’ notice. The contract will be terminated in September 2019, after five years rather than its full term of 14 years. This termination is made with the agreement of CFP.
Dealing safely with the UK’s nuclear legacy is fundamental and non-negotiable. It is important to emphasise that this termination is no reflection on the performance of Cavendish Nuclear or Fluor, and work on decommissioning at all the sites will continue with the management of CFP for a further two and a half years.
During this period, the NDA will establish arrangements for a replacement contracting structure to be put in place when the current contract ends. This work will be led by the NDA’s new Chief Executive, David Peattie.
I have every confidence that CFP will continue to deliver to high standards during the remainder of the contract.
Although this decision is one made by the board of the NDA, it requires the consent of myself, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Accounting Officer of my Department. That consent has been given.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the NDA’s decisions reflect its legal obligations, including under procurement law, that further risks to taxpayers’ money are contained and that robust arrangements are put in place to deliver this essential decommissioning programme.
In addition I can announce today that the NDA has settled outstanding litigation claims against it by Energy Solutions and Bechtel, in relation to the 2014 Magnox contract award.
The NDA was found by the High Court in its judgment of 29 July 2016 to have wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process.
As part of the settlements, NDA has withdrawn its appeal against the judgment. While these settlements were made without admission of liability on either side, it is clear that this 2012 tender process, which was for a value of up to £6.1 billion, was flawed. The NDA has agreed settlement payments with Energy Solutions of £76.5 million, plus £8.5 million of costs, and with Bechtel of $14.8 million, plus costs of around £462,000—approximately £12.5 million in total.
These are very substantial costs and had the potential to rise much further if the case had proceeded to trial.
Taxpayers must be able to be confident that public bodies are operating effectively and securing value for money. Where this has not been achieved such bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.
I am therefore establishing today an independent inquiry into the conduct of the 2012 procurement process and the reasons why the 2014 contract proved unsustainable. These are separate issues but both need to be examined thoroughly by an authoritative and independent expert.
I have asked Mr Steve Holliday, the former Chief Executive of National Grid, to lead the inquiry. The inquiry will take a ‘cradle to grave’ approach beginning with the NDA’s procurement and ending with the contract termination.
The inquiry will also review the conduct of the NDA and of Government Departments and make any recommendations it sees fit—including what further investigations or proceedings, for example possible disciplinary proceedings, may be required as a result of its findings.
The terms of reference for Mr Holliday’s inquiry will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Mr Holliday will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary, and his report will be made available to this House, including to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
This was a defective procurement, with significant financial consequences, and I am determined that the reasons for it should be exposed and understood; that those responsible should properly be held to account; and that it should never happen again.
[HCWS554]
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
The first formal Justice and Home Affairs Council of the Maltese presidency will take place on 27 and 28 March in Brussels. The Home Secretary, and I will represent the UK.
Interior day (27 March) will begin with a discussion on IT measures related to border management. The presidency will provide a progress update on negotiations on the European Travel and Information Authorisation System (ETIAS) proposal and the Entry/Exit System (EES) proposal. The Government recognise the importance of increasing the security of the EU’s external borders, however as the UK is not part of the border control aspects of the Schengen agreement it will not take part in either proposal. This item will be followed by a progress update from the presidency on the implementation of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex). Again, the UK will not take part in the new agency. However, we will continue to provide support to its operations on a voluntary basis, as we have done with its predecessor.
Interior day will continue with a debate on the EU’s returns policy. The Commission will present an action plan to improve the effectiveness of returns from EU member states to third countries, and a recommendation for enhanced implementation of the returns directive. The UK does not participate in the returns directive but welcomes the Commission communications, and the Home Secretary is likely to intervene to share UK experience and best practice in the area of returns to third countries.
Over lunch, Ministers will discuss implementation of the EU migration policy. I expect the presidency to reiterate its calls for member states to meet commitments made under relocation measures, which the UK did not opt in to, and to increase support to the European Asylum Support Agency. The Home Secretary will confirm the UK’s existing commitment to deploying asylum and border experts to support Greece.
The afternoon session will start with a short item to update on the recent activities of the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN). The UK is supportive of the work of the RAN to bring together practitioners, civil society and policy makers to help develop tools to tackle radicalisation.
The Council will then discuss external aspects of EU migration policy, including follow up to actions contained in the Malta declaration and the Valetta action plan. The UK supports the Malta declaration and ongoing efforts to stabilise Libya. The Home Secretary will press for concerted action to tackle organised immigration crime into and within the EU, and stress the importance of using regional partnerships, specifically the Khartoum process, to drive forward work under the Malta declaration.
Under ‘Any Other Business’, there will be an update from Austria on the “Managing Migration Challenges Together” Conference. The Commission will update on follow-up to the December 2016 EU-Internet Forum, specifically the outcomes of Commissioner Avramopoulous’ visit to the United States to discuss actions that internet companies are taking to counter terrorist propaganda and extremist content online. The presidency will also provide an update on EU responses to the European Court of Justice’s TELE2-WATSON judgment on data retention, ahead of a substantive discussion on Justice day. The Home Secretary will emphasise the importance of law enforcement experts being engaged in identifying appropriate responses.
The final substantive item of Interior day will cover a progress report from the presidency on negotiations on the reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The UK has not opted in to the majority of these measures, and is unlikely to intervene on this item.
Justice day (28 March) will begin with an update from the presidency on its proposal to convene a friends of the presidency group to facilitate a common reflection process at EU level on the impact of the TELE2-WATSON judgment on data retention. The UK is committed to working with other member states to understand the potential risks this judgment poses to investigating crime and protecting the public. I will emphasise the need to develop a common understanding on the necessity of data retention in relation to law enforcement and public safety.
On Criminal Justice in Cyberspace, the discussion will focus on strengthening and further aligning the legal frameworks and practical processes that allow access to, and the transfer of, electronic communication data to support the prevention and prosecution of crimes. I will intervene to support efforts to improve and co-ordinate member states’ capabilities in this area.
There will then be a policy debate on the criminal justice response to foreign terrorist fighter returnees. This will involve a discussion about policy recommendations made by the European Counter Terrorism Co-ordinator to tackle the threat from returning foreign fighters. I will highlight the work the Foreign Secretary is leading focused on the collection of evidence that can later be used to convict returning foreign fighters.
On combating financial crime and terrorist financing, the presidency will provide an update on the progress made at the working groups for the directive on countering money laundering by criminal law and the regulation on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The UK is currently considering whether or not to participate in these measures.
The morning will end with an update on the progress of the negotiation of the directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. The UK is broadly supportive of the objectives of the proposal.
The final agenda item on Justice day will be a lunch discussion on the protections afforded to whistleblowers. The UK will share information on its system for protecting whistleblowers in response to presidency questions on the matter.
[HCWS556]
Boundary Commission for England: Deputy Chairman
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
I should like to inform the House that I have made the following appointment under schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986:
The hon. Mr Justice Nicol has been appointed as Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for England, effective from 27 March 2017 until 26 March 2020.
[HCWS557]
Bus Services Bill: EVEL
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I am pleased to announce the publication of analysis of English Votes for English Laws in relation to Government amendments made at Report stage to the Bus Services Bill.
The English Votes for English Laws process applies to public Bills in the House of Commons. To support the process, the Government have agreed that they will provide information to assist the Speaker in considering whether to certify that Bill or any of its provisions for the purposes of English Votes for English Laws. Bill provisions that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and which have a subject matter within the legislative competence of one or more of the devolved legislatures, can be certified.
This analysis reflects the position should all the Government amendments be accepted.
The memorandum can be found on the Bill documents page of the Parliament website at: http://services.parliament. uk/bills/2016-17/busservices/documents.html and I have deposited a copy in the Libraries of the House.
It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.
[HCWS555]
Rail Franchising
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I am pleased to inform the House that following a rigorous competition I intend to award the South Western rail franchise to First MTR South Western Trains Limited pending the successful completion of a standstill period of at least 10 days.
The House will know that this Government are determined to transform the way that the railways work to deliver a revolution in services for passengers. In December 2016, I set out my vision for achieving this through a new era of joined up working between train operators and Network Rail. Earlier this month my Department announced a consultation on the South Eastern franchise which explained our ambition for bringing together the operation of track and train, so that one team of people is focused on providing the best service to passengers. Today’s announcement that First MTR South Western Trains Limited has been awarded the South Western franchise means we are a step closer to achieving that ambition.
The new franchise will see closer partnership working between track and train. A railway that is predominantly run by an integrated local team of people with a commitment to the smooth operation of their routes, improving services and performance is at the heart of my vision for the network, and First MTR South Western Trains Limited expects to work even closer with Network Rail with the shared aim of giving passengers exactly that. The joint teams will work to drive higher performance, achieve greater productivity in operations, improve maintenance delivery and infrastructure renewals, and support infrastructure improvement delivery, all for the benefit of passengers across the South Western network.
The new franchise will run for seven years from 20 August 2017 to 18 August 2024, with an extension of 11 railway periods callable at my discretion.
This is the 13th franchise award since 2013: a rapid programme of renewal which represents the Government’s determination to transform the travel experience for rail passengers across the country. In the last 12 months alone, new franchise agreements have released private funding for brand new trains in the north and the east of England. The new South Western franchise will also see investment in brand new and refurbished trains.
This Government are funding the biggest investment in rail since Victorian times, and the award of this new franchise is the latest step in making journeys better: simpler, faster and more reliable. Passengers across the South Western network will see improvements to their journeys, whether travelling into central London, or between the towns and cities in the southern and south-western counties of England. The new franchise will support the communities and boost economic growth in the regions it serves.
Passengers, local authorities, businesses and other stakeholders across the area contributed to a highly demanding and challenging specification for the new South Western franchise. Bidders were invited to demonstrate how they would meet this specification, and I am delighted that First MTR South Western Trains Limited set out an exciting plan for the franchise that will not only meet but significantly exceed these expectations.
First MTR South Western Trains Limited will oversee a £1.2 billion investment programme to improve services for passengers on all parts of the network from London to the south west.
There will be 22,000 extra seats into London Waterloo each morning peak and 30,000 extra seats out of Waterloo each evening peak, and a fleet of 90 new trains will provide more space for passengers on Reading, Windsor and London routes.
The plans were designed to make optimum use of our major investment to increase platform capacity at London Waterloo. First MTR South Western Trains Limited will use the experience of one of its major shareholders MTR, who operate the busy Hong Kong metro, to deliver smooth and rapid journeys for passengers travelling around London’s suburban network. Faster journeys will be delivered through a consistent fleet of new suburban trains offering a regular, metro-style service. Passengers can look forward to more space, ensuring that the railway can support London’s growth.
The train journey is only one part of the passenger experience, so we were very pleased with First MTR South Western Trains Limited’s plans for significant investment in station improvements. They will deliver at least 1,500 new car park spaces, refurbished waiting rooms, more seats and new waiting shelters. There will be investment to make Southampton Central station a destination fit for the community it serves, with a new entrance canopy, improved retail, and better facilities for passengers.
The use of smart cards will be expanded, and there will be a new smart card product, automatically offering the cheapest walk-up single or day return fare. A new flexible season ticket will benefit people working fewer than five days a week, there will be a discount offered for people buying 12 consecutive monthly season tickets, and new discounts for student travel. Season, single and return tickets will be made available on smart cards across all of the franchise.
I am pleased to announce also that the new South Western franchise will introduce new Delay Repay compensation, including for delays of 15 minutes or more, and with automatic claims for smart card season tickets and advance purchased tickets bought through their digital channels.
There will be better information for passengers, so that they can make more informed decisions about their journeys. Real time information will be available on screens on trains and at stations, as well as on the website, and through the new customer app. Station staff will also be well informed through innovative use of smart devices so they can better help passengers, especially during times of disruption. There will also be live information about seating availability and crowding levels, so that passengers know the best place to stand to board the train.
Reflecting the Government’s commitment to create 30,000 apprenticeships across all transport modes by 2020, First MTR South Western Trains Limited will offer more than 100 apprenticeships each year. Their plans also include funding to support Community Rail Partnerships, Station Adoption Groups, and to encourage community use and regeneration of available station space. The franchisee will reduce energy use at stations and depots by over 40%, and water use by over 18%.
This Government have set a clear vision for the future of rail travel and is investing to deliver on that vision for passengers across the country. Over the past few years the franchise renewal programme has resulted in significant new investment and exciting innovations for passengers. The new South Western franchise represents the next chapter in that journey and we look forward to working closely with First MTR South Western Trains Limited and Network Rail to ensure that passengers receive the improvements they have demanded as we transform their rail travel experience.
[HCWS553]
House of Lords
Shipping: Safety
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the international safety regulations and procedures laid down in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea to ensure the safe evacuation of ships carrying more than 5,000 passengers and crew.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, assessments of the safety regime for shipping are undertaken by the International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee. The particular issue of large passenger ship evacuation was the subject of significant additional work following the loss of the “Costa Concordia”, and regulations relating to passenger safety drills were subsequently adopted internationally.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but if something happens to a cruise ship of, say, 10,000 people—passengers and crew—in the middle of the Atlantic, Antarctic or the Arctic, where ships go more these days, and there is a need for an evacuation even if the ship remains upright, and people are able to get into life rafts without panicking, what happens then? He did not answer the Question about whether there had been any full-scale trials of such a scenario. Will he urge the IMO to get on and do a trial such as this to see what happens? My fear is that there will be wholesale panic.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure I speak for everyone in your Lordships’ House when I say that we hope that such an occasion does not occur. Importantly, to get to the crux of what the noble Lord is asking, the UK has been not just working very closely with the IMO—the organisation that leads activities in this field—but showing leadership to improve the importance of safety. SOLAS chapter 3 in particular makes provision for passenger vessels to undertake drills on a weekly basis—and, following the “Costa Concordia” accident, passengers must undertake safety drills to familiarise themselves directly with evacuation procedures to address the sort of scenario the noble Lord illustrates.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
Does the Minister know whether consideration has been given to language issues? There will be people of all nationalities on these ships. Communications between the crew and passengers are vital. Do these form a part of any tests that take place?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In light of representations that we ourselves have made, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of languages, because many who travel may not be familiar with some languages. In that regard the IMO is looking to introduce specific measures to ensure that evacuation drills and emergency procedures reflect the languages of the people who are travelling.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that 19 ships capable of carrying more than 4,000 passengers are on order at the moment for delivery by 2020? The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked about crew. Is it not vital that crew training is given absolute priority in view of the problems that he mentioned with languages? In the “Costa Concordia” accident, I gather that the crew could not understand emergency instructions in the official language of the ship.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point. I partly addressed it in my previous answer, but he is of course right. When we look across modes of travel, we see that in aviation, for example, all evacuation and emergency procedures on a flight heading for a particular destination in a particular country are explained in a particular language. I suggest that there is a bigger challenge for cruise ships, which often stop at different destinations—but language and crew training related to it are nevertheless important.
Lord Cormack (Con)
What is the attraction of taking a cruise with 4,999 of your closest friends?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Unlike the noble Lord, I cannot claim to have 4,999 close friends. There are many noble friends in your Lordships’ House, but, even if we went on a cruise together, I am not sure that we would quite reach that standard.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, can I clarify the Government’s position on this question? Bearing in mind the increasing number of British citizens who go on cruises, can the Minister—I do not think that he has done it so far—give an assurance that the Government are satisfied that the existing safety of life at sea regulations on evacuation in an emergency and the associated crew training and practice drill procedures reflect the reality of today of much larger cruise liners than before carrying many thousands of passengers and crew?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I can give that assurance. We are working on several streams; first, looking at adapting existing fleets in accordance with the challenges and the way in which the industry operates; secondly, looking at crew training; and, thirdly, ensuring that emergency and evacuation procedures reflect the language of those travelling on those ships. So, yes, we are satisfied, but one can never be overly prepared for such emergencies. When such incidents happen, the real test will be of the stability of the ship, the operation of the safety regulations and how well crew members are versed in them, and how well educated and informed are the travelling public. Work is going on to improve that. I suggest to the noble Lord that it should be an ever-evolving exercise, so we look to embrace the latest technologies and address the concerns which noble Lords are right to raise.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a past chairman of the RNLI. The International Maritime Rescue Federation has been looking at the vexed subject of how one retrieves hundreds if not thousands of people from a ship which has been evacuated on to the sea. Has it made any sensible progress and is it still working well with the IMO?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble and gallant Lord is right to raise this issue. My understanding is that work has been done to ensure the survivability of ships for a longer time and that, if an evacuation is necessary, it can be conducted. In the case of the “Costa Concordia”, the ship was stable for up to an hour. Had the crew and captain been equipped in an appropriate manner, perhaps more lives could have been saved. Another area that we are looking at is the stability of ships, to allow them to return to port safely without the need for evacuation. The noble and gallant Lord asked how the two organisations were working together. I shall write to him on that.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, has consideration been given to a minimum thickness of hull for these vast cruise ships, particularly those going to Antarctica?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, given the technical nature of that question, I will write to my noble friend. I assure him that on all types of ships, including the roll-on, roll-off ferries widely used by the travelling public, the issue of safety is extremely important. It is important to consider the nature, building and construction of ships—but, as we have said, we must also inform the travelling public on safety procedures and ensure that the crew, too, is well informed.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the training of officers and men is crucially important and British seamen are probably the best in the world. However, we have a huge shortage. In the Falklands, 73 merchant ships were called up, all using British crew. Have the Government ascertained the minimum number of merchant seamen this nation requires for crisis and emergency?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On a maritime Question, I knew I was missing something—and now I know what that was. I will write to the noble Lord in that respect.
GovCoin
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the GovCoin trial, and what plans the Department for Work and Pensions has in place for its large-scale rollout later this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the initial independent assessment of the small-scale trial has been positive. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to work with industry to explore new and innovative products such as this that have the potential to support people with their personal budgeting and reduce the overall costs of welfare administration.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that initial findings offer real potential in this area, not least in greatly empowering the relationship between benefit recipient and the Government while at the same time realising significant savings for the taxpayer? To this end, will he urge colleagues in the department to push ahead with a full-scale trial to see whether we can deploy this technology—not only in the DWP but potentially across government?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would not want to speak for the rest of government, although obviously I answer on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government on this occasion. Certainly, we want to look carefully at this particular trial. It was a very small trial, involving only some 20 to 30 people. It was more what I think is termed a proof of concept rather than a trial, but it produced encouraging results and we want to look at those in due course.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, concerns have been raised, including as I understand it by members of the Government Digital Service, that this technology could be used in future to monitor or even control how social security claimants spend their benefits. Could the Minister give a categorical assurance that this will not happen, in the interests of claimants’ privacy and freedom of choice?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I give the noble Baroness that categorical assurance. The Department for Work and Pensions has absolutely no access to any such claimant information and will have no access to it in any further trials we look at. We want to keep it like that. Obviously, information will be able to Disc—which is GovCoin, referred to in the Question—but that will be protected by data protection principles. I reiterate what I said to the noble Baroness: the department and the Government will have no access to that information.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that this initiative, however welcome, is but one small step in tackling the much larger problem of financial exclusion? Could he give an assurance that the Government will carefully consider the recommendations of the Select Committee on Financial Exclusion, the report of which was published on Saturday? I had the privilege of chairing that committee. Particularly, there is the recommendation that fewer people are unbanked in the first place and so would not need this technology.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I wondered whether the noble Baroness would want to get in to highlight the fact that she produced the report that came out on Saturday. I think the report was embargoed until midnight on Friday and I have not yet had the opportunity to read it. I glanced at it but assure the noble Baroness that the Government will give it due consideration.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am tempted to invite the Minister to explain how bitcoin and blockchain technology work, but I will take pity on him. For people like me, it is much simpler. I understand that volunteers were given an app through which, essentially, electronic, digital money was paid to them and they could spend it only in certain ways which were tracked and recovered. Obviously, that raises significant issues about privacy and data. My understanding is that the Government’s own report on what is called distributed ledger technology said that it clearly needs a regulatory, ethical and data framework. In the absence of that, when the DWP started this, how did its Ministers assure themselves that benefit claimants were genuinely giving free, informed consent to be able to use this? If it is now to be a much larger-scale project, what kind of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny will there be?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, we have not yet decided to move on to a fuller and larger trial, but if we did, no doubt that would have the appropriate checks and balances and be examined by the noble Baroness and others in due course. This is a simple, small-scale trial involving some 20 or 30 people. I am assured that they all gave full and proper consent to it, and that some of them found it very useful indeed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not asking me to explain the more technical matters, which are probably beyond her—and me. As she knows, it is a very simple app designed in the form of jam jars into which one can put one’s money and then take it out for specific tasks. As I said earlier—and the assurance I gave on this would apply to any further trials—the department and the Government will have no access to that information; that is, what has come out of the jam jars and gone into housing or whatever.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Will traders who sign up to and agree to trade under this scheme be able to offer discounts to benefit recipients? By the way, I thought the next trial was for 1,000 people.
Lord Henley
My Lords, there is no next trial planned at this stage. We are considering that. It is not a question of discounts but of the fact that those who have to deal purely in cash can find life very much more expensive than those who are able to pay by other, more advanced means. That is the point behind it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that blockchain technology in general has applications far beyond this trial—indeed, all the way across government and society? Are the Government studying the phenomenon to check where it might be useful?
Lord Henley
My noble friend is absolutely right that very interesting ideas can come from blockchain and other things. I do not want to expand further on that in this Question. We are dealing with just a small-scale trial here, designed to make life easier for certain benefit claimants and to make it easier for them to manage their money.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend talked about the need for an ethical framework underpinning the use of this sort of technology. Obviously, the Government have decided to go ahead with this trial in the absence of such a framework, but does the Minister agree that one is needed, not only for further developments in this area but for developments in the sorts of areas that have just been referred to by his noble friend?
Lord Henley
My Lords, that might or might not be the case, but what we are talking about here is this particular trial. The important thing is that we achieved the proper consent of those taking part and we gave the proper assurances, as I have repeated, that there would be no release of information about how those individuals spent their money to the department or the Government more widely.
Digital Technology: Skilled Workforce
Lord Cromwell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to boost and sustain the pool of skilled workers from the United Kingdom in the digital technology sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the UK Digital Strategy 2017, we are taking steps to develop the digital skills needed for our world-leading digital economy. We have revised the computing science curriculum and are undertaking work to increase advanced digital skills in areas such as cybersecurity and data. We have introduced digital degree apprenticeships and are reforming technical education, including creating a specialist digital route with a clear pathway to employment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply and celebrate the £6.7 billion invested in tech businesses in this country last year, making us the leading European country in this sector, with a tech sector growing at twice the speed of any other in the economy. Nevertheless, I refer him to the government agency Tech City’s own report, which states that the tech sector employs proportionally more non-UK nationals than any other industry, and the report by the Coalition for the Digital Economy, which predicts an 800,000-person shortfall in skilled employees over the next three years in this area, an issue which is made far worse by the delay and difficulty in obtaining visas. I ask the Minister to meet me and others from the sector to discuss how best to plug this current gap in skills and enable the UK to sustain its present advantage in what the Prime Minister has called a key sector in our post-Brexit economy.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right to focus on the success of the digital sector. We are listening very carefully to the views and concerns of the tech sector. We already frequently meet representatives at senior civil servant level and ministerial level and have had a number of round tables to consider that. In the 12 months to December 2016, more than 30,000 people were sponsored as skilled workers in the information and communications sector.
Lord Razzall (LD)
Is the Minister aware of a very specific problem that will arise in this area caused by the so-called hard Brexit? Although British universities now teach only digital electronic engineering, many manufacturing companies still need analogue electrical engineers. Is the Minister aware that most of those people now come from the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria? Will he confirm that they will continue to be allowed to come and work here?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As many Ministers have said before in this House, we are very concerned that people who have the requisite skills continue to be able to come to work in this country during the negotiation process and after it. We are doing our best to make sure that those skills are analysed and that we come to a satisfactory negotiated settlement with the EU.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that there is a very simple way to solve this problem, which is to correct the gender balance. Only 1% or 2% of people in this sector are women. What special programmes do the Government have to correct this problem?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right. Actually 17% of people who work in the tech sector and 9.5% of students taking computer science A-levels are female, yet women make up almost half the workforce. We are taking forward plans. There are a number of programmes already in place to do that: CyberFirst Girls Competition, the TechFuture Girls programme, Code First: Girls, techmums, Mums in Technology, Microsoft’s DigiGirlz events and a number of others. It is absolutely on the radar screen.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the importance of the enterprise investment scheme in stimulating equity investment in a lot of these new digital companies? It is one of the reasons why so many have got off the ground.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am aware of the enterprise investment scheme. It is one of the ways that we can promote start-up companies. It is more risky, but there are advantages to it, so I take my noble friend’s point.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister pay particular attention to the unrealised potential and contribution to our digital economy of thousands of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds? The highest barrier to entry and to the realisation of their ambitions to set up their own business is having somewhere from where they can operate—business premises. Will the Minister undertake to convene a meeting of Ministers in other departments—the Department of Health, DCLG and so forth—that are overseeing an increasing number of empty buildings that could provide office space for these young people to realise their ambitions and potential?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Baroness is right to address those issues. One of the things we are doing as part of the digital strategy is to convene the digital skills partnership, and my department will be leading. That will bring other parts of government together in addition to businesses, national and local charities and local authorities to make sure that we address digital skills in a more collaborative way and that digital skills are better co-ordinated and targeted more effectively.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, since digital skills are becoming as important for our future competitiveness as literacy and numeracy skills, can the Minister give us an assurance that all new standards for apprenticeships and the new T-levels will be required to include a digital skills element?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
One of the things we are introducing is the Institute for Apprenticeships, which will be operating from next month, to make sure that employers and young people taking apprenticeships are able to input to make sure that the courses that are provided are up to the requisite standard and provide things that employers want.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have said they recognise the need to work with the creative industries, which have a global reputation for training, on how to increase apprenticeship levels but without destroying the four voluntary levies currently run by Creative Skillset. What progress have the Government made on this issue and, in particular, will they be able to protect the skills investment fund?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will have to write to the noble Lord on this. We are working, as I mentioned, with the Institute for Apprenticeships and are reforming apprenticeships. We have also established the National College for Digital Skills, which opened in 2016 and will train 5,000 students. In addition to our work with schools, technical education, higher education and, very importantly, lifelong learning, there is a lot going on in this sector.
Gene Editing: Agriculture and Medicine
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to encourage gene editing in agriculture and medicine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is a world leader in the understanding of genetics, which is already leading to significant advances in medicine and agriculture. Gene editing has the potential to accelerate progress in both areas, saving lives and improving quality of life. The Government continue to support the assessment, refinement and use of genetic editing techniques.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware of widespread concern that, although we are pioneering and leading this essential work using CRISPR and TALEN to edit genes so as to help in both agriculture and medicine, we are falling behind in the race to apply this technology because the use of gene editing in cell therapy for cancer and in producing better crop plants requires and could be encouraged by better regulation? I declare my interests as listed in the register.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend is a leading advocate of this technology and is correct that getting the regulation right is absolutely important. It is currently regulated at the EU level, and there is debate on and an inquiry by the European Court of Justice into current exemptions for gene editing. We support the current exemptions, although others have challenged them. But it is also important to recognise that any discussion about gene editing, whether in agriculture or especially in a human health setting, involves big ethical questions and it is only right that we tread carefully as we move ahead.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, given the potential of gene editing of non-reproductive cells for treating HIV, sickle cell, haemophilia and, as the noble Viscount said, cancer, what plans do the Government have to ensure continued research in this important and valuable area after Brexit?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right to talk about the important therapeutic benefits that can come. I do not think this has anything to do with Brexit, other than the fact that the UK has been and continues to be a leader in the world of genomic sequencing, which of course enables us to identify the genetic issues that lead to some of the diseases and illnesses she has described. Within our regulatory framework, it is possible to use gene editing for therapeutic reasons but in ways that do not impact on inheritability, which is of course ethically an incredibly difficult question.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government have no plans to extend gene editing to germ cells, as was suggested in the Times only three weeks ago, with the idea that we could wipe out genetic disease using gene editing? This seems an extremely dangerous idea, given that there are epigenetic and other issues with gene editing, which may not be quite as precise and effective as is sometimes claimed.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right to make that point. So-called germline gene editing, which creates the opportunity to pass on changes to later generations, is highly controversial. It is illegal in this country and there are no plans to change that position.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I would like to take the discussion about regulation further. The question that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, just asked emphasises that we need a regulation in place now that is balanced, so that we can allow the researchers to progress further, including if necessary to demonstrate why germline gene editing may be necessary but should not be allowed. We lead the world in immune gene editing, as shown in the example of Layla, a one year-old girl who was treated for acute megaloblastic leukaemia, which was the first such case in the world. Does the Minister think it right to ask the appropriate departments in those agencies to produce something now on the regulation of gene editing that would be appropriate for Parliament to discuss?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend is right to highlight the potential of gene editing by referring to that life-saving treatment of a girl with leukaemia. We have a world-leading regulatory climate and there are strict rules governing research in this area: for example, research involving the use of embryos is allowed up until 14 days but not beyond. We should certainly carry on with that research—indeed, we have a more permissive regulatory environment than in much of the world. As my noble friend rightly points out, we need to do that with the purpose of respecting life and of course reducing harm, driven by the desire to do so.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, HIV has been mentioned. The Minister will know that the results from the gene-editing clinical trial for people who are HIV positive have shown promise, particularly regarding the use of zinc fingers, which can find specific sites in DNA that can then be edited. Research is in its very early stages but has shown the potential to increase resistance to the virus, with the ultimate goal of weaning some people off antiretroviral drugs. What are the Government doing to support and take forward this important research?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
As we have discussed, there is huge potential regarding illnesses such as HIV. Clinical trials of gene therapies involving gene editing are still at an early stage, and are receiving support from the National Institute for Health Research. Any applications that go beyond the experimental and research stage would inevitably have to go through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency regarding safety and clinical potential. So the right system exists, investment is taking place at the early stage of research and before anything is done to any scale, it must be subject to the proper discussion and scrutiny.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister said, we have an enormously strong agriculture and genetic technology science base in this country. While this is not a magic bullet for food production, it could be a very important weapon in our armoury for meeting the world population’s future food needs. Given that, will he undertake that centres like the John Innes Centre in Norwich will continue to receive government support to develop genetic technology in agriculture, within a strong and ethical regulatory framework?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not stray too far outside my brief and into agriculture, except to say that the research councils are putting a huge amount of investment into the kind of research she is describing, both for agriculture and for human health, and that will continue.
Hereditary Peers By-Election
Criminal Finances Bill
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Criminal Finances Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 to 33, Schedule 2, Clauses 34 to 37, Schedule 3, Clause 38, Schedule 4, Clauses 39 to 50, Schedule 5, Clauses 51 to 56, Title.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords 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: HL Bill 107-I Manuscript amendments for Report, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 56KB) - (27 Mar 2017)
16:00 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:21 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 17 agreed.
19:23 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 24 disagreed.
“Financial support for students undertaking apprenticeships
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for—(a) making a person undertaking a statutory apprenticeship, as defined under section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, a qualifying young person for the purposes of child benefit; and(b) extending the Higher Education Bursary provided for by section 23C(5A) of the Children Act 1989 to a person who is a former relevant child undertaking a statutory apprenticeship, as defined under section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.(2) Statutory instruments under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, in the absence of noble Lords who have business other than the Technical and Further Education Bill to consider this afternoon, I shall move Amendment 1 and speak to other amendments in the group.
The proposed new clause was devised after debate in Committee and would enable families eligible for child benefit to receive it for children aged under 20 who are undertaking apprenticeships. It is slightly disappointing that it is necessary to debate the matter again on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, offered to set up a meeting with Ministers from both the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, but I regret that no such meeting has materialised, so here we are. We have altered our approach in the amendment to call for the Secretary of State to use regulations to make provision to ensure that apprentices are regarded as being involved in approved education or training.
We are now just five days away from the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships, the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and a changed landscape of technical education as the Government attempt to address the skills gap inherent in the economy. To achieve success in that, they have set the ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. I am certainly not critical of that target—it is better to aim high—but if it is to be reached, it cannot be in anyone’s interest for doors to be closed to young people keen to embark on an apprenticeship, but that is what is happening, at least for those from families reliant on some form of social security. In some circumstances, parents may prevent young people taking up apprenticeships because the economic consequences for the family of loss of benefit payments in various forms could be considerable.
This concerns a relatively small number of young people—primarily those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—but it touches on a broader issue: that of apprentices being treated like second-class citizens in comparison with their peers who choose to pursue courses at further education colleges or universities. Apprentices are denied thousands of pounds in financial support available to college or university students, and are excluded from other means of support available to their counterparts in further education institutions. This is on the basis that they are employed and thus in receipt of wages.
It might be instructive for noble Lords who are unaware of it to learn that next week, the national minimum wage for apprentices aged under 19 increases to £3.50 an hour—considerably less than for other workers of the same age. Even then, as reported by the Low Pay Commission in January this year, 18% of apprentices said that they were being paid less than their legal entitlement. Even that legal entitlement, based on a 37-hour week, equates to about £6,900 a year—interestingly, precisely the maximum amount of the maintenance loan available to students living at home. The student year lasts only 30 weeks, leaving them able to work full-time, should they choose, for the remaining 22 weeks—apart, that is, from the paid employment that many students are already forced to find during term time. Those earnings do not disqualify a student’s family from benefits, and the amendment is intended to achieve parity of esteem of all post-school young people who are setting out on a route of learning designed to equip them with the skills for a productive working life.
However, in addition to being ineligible for Care to Learn childcare grants, unlike further education students, some apprentices also missed out on travel discounts, council tax exemptions and student bank account packages. The reason is that apprenticeships are not classed as approved education or training by the Department for Work and Pensions, but apprentices must spend at least 20% of their contracted work hours off the job—or at least, they will after 1 April—which means at a college or with a training provider. What is an apprentice supposedly doing in such situations if he or she is not receiving approved education or training?
In the case of apprentices who live with their parents, the families could lose out by more than £1,000 a year in child benefit. Families receiving universal credit could lose more than £3,000. Why should families suffer as we seek to train young people desperately needed to fill the skills gaps that I mentioned earlier? University students receive assistance from a range of sources. Apprentices currently do not receive many of these benefits and are continually excluded from definitions of approved learners. How can an apprenticeship not be regarded as an approved form of learning? The Bill is aimed at unifying apprenticeships with technical education, yet obstacles have been placed in a way that will prevent the aim being fully achieved. The system must be changed so that apprentices and students are treated equally, and there is genuine parity of esteem between all educational and apprenticeship routes.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. The Bill has cross-party support; it is potentially the greatest engine of social change that can be imagined and rights the injustice of the many years when technical education has been regarded as much less important than formal academic education. The effect of cancelling benefit for 16 to 18 year-olds embarked on apprenticeships will be to deter a small but important group of these young people from taking them up. Since the apprenticeship is not just education but a route into a job, this would be entirely wrong. In families with very low incomes, budgets are extremely delicate. Allowing one child to do an apprenticeship when they are not fully funded could damage the rest of the family and is therefore not likely to happen. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on this.
I will also speak to Amendments 14 and 16, which provide slightly different versions of guarantees if trainers go bust. I remind the House that I am chancellor of BPP University, with 2,000 degree-level apprenticeships, and my sister company has 2,000 16 to 19 year-old apprenticeships. It is not very difficult for long, well- established training operations to contribute to a contingency fund, if that is what is wanted, or to get a bank guarantee. I am thinking of new people who may want to come into this field, whom I believe the Government want to encourage. I suspect that having to contribute to a contingency fund, which is difficult and requires special provision, is possibly a barrier to entry, whereas producing a bank guarantee is—as my noble friend Lord Watson said—a well-understood route and I believe a lot of banks know how to do this. I would, therefore, much prefer any measure to require providers to produce a bank guarantee rather than a contribution to a contingency fund, or their own private contingency fund.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I also support the amendment and share its concern for the small but important group of young people who may be denied an apprenticeship. I will also speak to Amendment 16 tabled in my name and lend strong support to the general argument that we must provide financial guarantees and security to young people in the training field. I declare an interest that, as a member of the Sainsbury review, I was part of the panel which lies behind other parts of the Bill. I also strongly welcome the provisions to ensure that, should an FE college fail, special arrangements will be in place to make sure that students are looked after; that clearly set out procedures will swing into place; and that they will not just go to the bottom of the list after creditors, in the hands of administrators whose responsibilities and skills are essentially commercial. It is absolutely right that the Government have recognised this as their duty. It is their duty because, by funding young people and adults, encouraging them to enter training—and, in very many cases, to take out loans—the Government have implicitly promised that an institution to which they are lending money will give a good-quality education and will endure to see students through. The introduction of loans is a mammoth change and lies under much of the Government’s conviction that they need to change the HE regime. We must recognise that the Government’s ambition for huge increases in adult learner loans changes the environment in which young people and adults are studying and training.
Many noble Lords will know that failures are not unheard of—one wishes that they were. In the United States, huge companies have gone under, leaving many thousands of people with loans. These are not all at degree level; they are often at associate-degree level, which comprises two-year courses. On the one hand, therefore, it is very welcome that we have these provisions for FE colleges, but, on the other, I find myself completely unable to understand why equivalent protections should not be introduced for people training and studying in institutions which are not FE colleges and which also offer—and are being funded to offer—technical education. Many of these people have loans, and many of them are not mobile. The loans represent large sums of money for them, and they have made big changes in their lives to undertake this form of training. Again, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are putting so much effort and money into technical education. However, we have to ensure that the promise, encouragement and—sometimes—pressure to enter technical education is matched by a guarantee that the Government will deliver on their implicit promise.
Against this background, the repeated failures—that is what it has felt like—in recent weeks of a number of private training providers should make us aware that this is not a hypothetical situation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I was not very convinced by the letters from the department and the SFA. My noble friend Lady Watkins will speak in a moment. She and I had a very productive meeting with the Bill team. We appreciated their willingness to listen to our arguments. However, the letters that we received seemed to amount to a combination of the statements, “We are muddling through” and “There aren’t very many of them anyway”. That is not adequate at a time when we are embarking on a major rethink—and, I hope, a major expansion—of technical education.
In Committee, the Minister noted that you cannot treat private businesses as though they were public organisations. That is indeed true. Although many private training providers are small charities, many others are commercial organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, said. Many of them survive entirely on government contracts and are very small. That is why I have proposed a mechanism which I think would be entirely appropriate for this situation. We have heard about it already, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for first bringing it to my attention. It is well established, costs the Government nothing and would not cost providers anything that would begin to wipe out their margins. It is well and frequently adopted in other sectors and I cannot see why it should not apply here.
That brings me to my final point—the idea that we do not need to worry about this matter because only a few people are involved and the risks of failure are quite small. Even if the figure is less than 1%, that is hundreds of people a year on current levels of loans. If we have the expansion that we hope for, thousands of people a year will be affected. To give a medical analogy, if 1% of life-changing operations were cancelled and eventually lost because people got older and were never able to have their operations and had to go back to the bottom of the waiting list, I do not think that anybody would find that acceptable. Therefore, I strongly hope that the Minister will assure us that at Third Reading he will be able to bring concrete proposals to this Chamber and that we will see the same acceptance of the importance of looking after students in the entire technical education sector that we so happily see in further education colleges.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and to Amendment 16, which is linked to that, and will say a few words in support of Amendment 1.
It is interesting that a large part of the Bill is about insolvency—what happens if a college becomes insolvent. Yet it does not say very much about what happens if a poor student, through no fault of their own, becomes insolvent because of debt problems arising from the fact that their college no longer exists. We also encourage private providers—I say right at the outset that there are many good private providers, who have an exemplary record and are very worth while. Sadly, however, some providers have caused immeasurable harm to young people, and we need to ensure that there is a proper safety net for those young people.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. It is very clear that many young people who take out government-backed loans believe that they give a quality indication to the provider, to which they then enrol to study. It seems extremely unfair that, in the event of such a provider becoming unable to continue, they would go to the back of the queue for the repayment of their loan.
When meeting the Bill team, who have been extremely helpful, we heard evidence that everybody tries to find an alternative provider so that the student can complete their programme, and that is clearly the most desirable outcome. The most undesirable outcome is if a student is unable to complete the programme and is left with debt, even if that debt does not have to be repaid immediately. Our amendment is intended to protect students in such circumstances so that their loan is repaid by a provider if they cannot find an alternative provider with which to complete their course.
We want to encourage people to undertake this kind of technical education, and I commend the Government on their Bill because it will encourage young people to do far more local-based technical education and should get both young and more mature people into work, which, after all, is the overall aim of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be in a position to take this matter away and to come back with something at Third Reading that will protect students in the future.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too will speak mainly on Amendment 16, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Wolf, although I regret that I am not able to support it, so I hope that that is not the end of a beautiful noble friendship.
I am concerned that Amendment 16 would make it harder for independent training providers, which provide a significant proportion of the technical education we so desperately need, to compete on fair terms with FE colleges. I should perhaps declare an interest as having been an independent training provider in the distant past.
The effect of the amendment as worded would be to increase the price of such courses offered by commercial and charitable contract-funded providers in order to cover the cost of underwriting the loans made to students with an external financial institution. This would mean that the cost incurred by the vast majority of loan recipients, who will not suffer curtailment of their studies due to insolvency, would increase, even if only by a relatively small percentage. It might also discourage high-quality independent providers from offering loan-funded courses, not just because of the extra cost but because of the extra administration and bureaucracy involved, thereby limiting the range of options available to learners and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, said, providing a barrier to entry for potential new providers.
The amendment would not apply to FE colleges and other bodies covered by the insolvency regime being created by the Bill, so learners at FE colleges, which might be at least as likely to fail, would be protected by a special insolvency regime without any extra cost.
FE college loan-funded courses already have the additional benefit of being exempt from VAT, so most independent providers are already likely to face a 20% cost disadvantage. Apart from that, the cost and complexity of setting up the sorts of schemes proposed in Amendments 14 and 16 seem likely to considerably outweigh their effectiveness or value. If some special provision for independent training providers were needed, it would surely be better to take a similar approach to that proposed for colleges based on government underwriting, as I believe has happened in practice in the past. Of course, in some cases, independent training providers may even be partly owned by further education colleges, as was the case with the provider First4Skills, which was 60% owned by the City of Liverpool College and had to call in the administrators. I am not clear how the amendment would address a situation such as that.
Finally, I know that many independent training providers would be happy to help put a clear mechanism in place so that learners could easily transfer to another provider if their existing provider failed. For all those reasons, I believe that the amendment is not the right way forward.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may remember that I spoke some weeks ago on this Bill at Second Reading and described the challenges that the UK labour market will face in the coming years and decades. Such times need flexible legislation, so as not to tie the hands of government, the UK labour market and private providers. I believe that it would be a mistake to complicate and overlegislate, and then expect any improvement on the current system.
I agree with the sentiment of Amendments 14 to 16. It ought to be our duty to make sure that students are not left stranded after provider failure, through no fault of their own. However, it is my fear that these amendments may do the very opposite of their well-meant intention. I am particularly concerned by Amendment 14, explicitly subsection (3). I want to stress that however well intentioned it is to demand that private providers set contingency funds that can be used only for the purposes outlined in subsection (2), it risks placing additional financial commitments and burdens on providers unnecessarily. It would also, inevitably, deter excellent private providers from offering loan-funded courses, given these extra commitments.
Given that the Government have made a commitment to helping students affected by provider failure by providing them with alternative providers, it is my belief that this well-intentioned legislative burden is not necessary. It will simply overcomplicate the system and deter private providers from offering excellent qualifications and training.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able today to speak about this legislation, which will help lay the foundations for transforming technical and further education, ensuring that all our young people have the same opportunities to travel as far as their talents may take them, move to a lifetime of sustained employment and provide the skills that British business needs. I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. I share her sentiment: this Bill is the greatest engine of social change that can be imagined, or at least we hope that it will be. I also express my thanks to noble Lords for their continuous engagement in the Bill, which, as the noble Baroness said, has all-party support.
In Committee, we had some very interesting discussions on some of the broader aspects of the Bill, and on the operation and delivery that will turn this legislation into reality. My ministerial colleague Robert Halfon and I have found this scrutiny extremely helpful in refining our thinking for this next stage of the legislation—the transition. Minister Halfon was looking forward to being able to join today’s discussion, as he has done previously, but unfortunately has been called away as he needs to participate in the public sector apprenticeships debate.
I turn now to the first group of amendments, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt. I welcome the sentiment behind this amendment: that young people who choose to take up an apprenticeship should not be financially disadvantaged and that, in particular, young people who leave care should be encouraged to enter apprenticeships. I believe, however, that we have already established sufficient safeguards and support to deliver these aims. Following a 3% increase in October last year, the national minimum wage for apprentices is now set to rise again to £3.50 an hour from April this year. Most employers pay more than this minimum. The most recent Apprenticeship Pay Survey, in 2016, estimated that the average gross hourly pay received by level 2 and 3 apprentices in England is £6.70 an hour. Moreover, apprentices receive training which, together with their paid employment, sets them up for increased earnings in the future.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I wonder whether the Minister is going to respond to the point I made about apprenticeship pay. At the beginning of the year, the Low Pay Commission reported that 18% of apprentices were not getting even the national minimum wage.
Lord Nash
The noble Lord has raised that before. As we discussed at that time, it is illegal to pay below the minimum wage. We and HMRC are focused on ensuring that it does not happen. We all share the noble Lord’s concern about this. I assure him that we will do everything we can to stamp out such practices.
One of the core principles of our reforms is that an apprenticeship is a genuine job. As such, apprentices are treated accordingly in the benefits system. Child benefit is intended to provide financial support to parents to help with the extra costs of raising a dependent child. It is payable to parents until the end of the academic year in which their child turns 16. After that, payment can be claimed for children up to the age of 20 if they are in approved education or training. From April this year, undertaking an apprenticeship at minimum wage will pay more than five times the maximum child benefit rate. Therefore, an apprentice’s parents are not eligible for child benefit for supporting that employed young person. These rules have been a long-standing feature of the welfare system.
Moving to paragraph (b), on extending the higher education bursary to statutory apprentices, while I understand the intentions behind the proposal, it is not correct to equate being on an apprenticeship to being in higher education, where a student is making a substantial investment in their education and has appropriate access to student finance. Apprenticeships, by contrast, are real jobs and those undertaking them are employees who earn a wage, unlike participants in HE who are students and treated as such by the benefits system. Although apprentices generally spend a fifth of their time in training, it is part of the minimum wage regulations that they are paid while undertaking that training, so I cannot share the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the training equates to being in HE. They are still being paid.
Consequently, our focus continues to be on ensuring that there are incentives for employers to recruit care leavers as apprentices. An additional £1,000 is paid to employers who take on a care leaver as an apprentice, as well as their training providers. Furthermore, the funding system ensures that, for all care leavers aged under 25, the full training costs related to undertaking an apprenticeship are met by the Government in recognition of their particular vulnerabilities.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance that reflects that apprenticeships are real jobs, pay a wage that is more than sufficient to offset any household income reductions through the loss of child benefit, and are funded to ensure accessibility for care leavers.
Amendments 14, 15A to 15C and 16 concern the protection of students at independent training providers in the event of their closure. I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments that the interests of learners must be at the heart of the system.
Turning to the detail of Amendment 14, I think that it will be helpful also to consider Amendment 15, which would amend it. As currently drafted, Amendment 14 would apply only to further education bodies, which the Bill defines as further education corporations and specialist designated institutions in England and Wales, and sixth form colleges in England. Private providers would not fall under the scope of this amendment, although we need to consider that Amendments 15A to 15C would make this change so that private providers are within scope of the amendment.
As noble Lords will be aware, the main purpose of this part of the Bill is the introduction of a special administration regime which will prioritise the needs of learners. It places an overriding obligation on the education administrator to take the action that best avoids or minimises disruption to the studies of existing learners. This will apply to all students—fee paying as well as non-fee paying. The special objective focuses, rightly, on giving learners the opportunity to continue and complete their studies having set out on their journey to gain new skills or qualifications. That is what individuals will be most concerned to achieve rather than the repayment of any money for which they have not received provision.
Of course, fee-paying students typically pay for their courses in stages, as they do via advanced learner loans, and quite often in arrears, so it is likely that the student will not be significantly—if at all—out of pocket. But, through the special objective, the education administrator will be working to identify opportunities for learners to complete their studies, whether by rescuing the college or transferring the individual to another provider, meaning that the learner can continue on their study path.
We know that noble Lords are interested in the idea of a fund or guarantee to support students in the event of private provider failure, especially where they have paid money in advance. Following recent cases highlighted in the press. I will now say a little about what we are doing to provide support for those affected. Our priority is to support learners whose providers have ceased trading. I want to make it clear that we will take every step we can to ensure that learners are given the opportunity to complete their studies, be that with their current provider if possible or with another provider. In the rare cases where providers fail, the Skills Funding Agency and the Student Loans Company work together to identify solutions for any individuals affected. They make direct contact with learners to inform them of the help they will get. I am happy to say that this is already current practice and is an integral part of the contractual arrangements between the funding agency and the provider. There are many cases where those learners who are affected are successfully transferred to alternative providers.
Students’ new providers may receive funding to deal with necessary administrative costs relating to transferred learners to ensure that they are not out of pocket. We have taken further action to protect learners due to recent cases of private providers going into liquidation. For those who have not completed their course, and while we work to make transfers happen, they will not be required to start repaying their loans during the 2017-18 tax year.
I shall now look at the detail of Amendment 16. I believe, as a number of noble Lords have said, that we should approach the regulation of independent private training providers with caution. These are mostly private profit companies and, unlike the further education bodies which are the subject of this part of the Bill, they are not part of the statutory FE sector and are created by their promoters and owners with no hand from government. They are not subject to the same intervention arrangements as the statutory sector. Furthermore, while they may receive state funding, that funding does not have the same breadth of purpose as the funding for the statutory sector and is paid on a different basis. In particular, the funding is contractual and normally paid in instalments linked to attendance, which limits the financial risk which this amendment is seeking to address.
There are around 400 private providers, of which the vast majority are financially sustainable. I am delighted to join with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in his comment that many of them provide very good quality education.
Providers must be listed on the SFA’s register of training organisations to receive advanced learner loans funding, while successful approval includes due diligence to assess providers’ capacity to deliver contracts to the required standard and to determine whether they are financially robust. Providers delivering only loan-funded provision must have a financial health assessment rated as good or outstanding. Once on the register, the SFA closely monitors providers’ financial health and achievement rates, with providers having to comply with robust funding and performance rules.
However, I accept that there could be rare cases where a private provider fails and students suffer as a result. Although learners choose their private provider as consumers, “buyer beware” may be thought an unduly harsh response to that predicament. That is the concern which noble Lords are seeking to address through this amendment. I understand the concern, but at the moment I am not convinced that the imposition of significant new regulation on a fully private part of the sector is either a necessary or proportionate response to it.
As far as I am aware, a banking or insurance market for the guarantees referred to in the amendment does not exist and would have to be developed. We do not know whether and how fast this might happen, or at what cost. However, much more significantly, the nature of this sort of financial protection is that it puts a burden on the vast majority of healthy providers, where it is not needed, as well as on those few where it is. In aggregate terms, it would mean substantial sums of money, much of it originally public money, moving from the education sector to the insurance and financial sector, which is not necessarily what the taxpayer would want for the sake of a safety net in very rare cases of failure. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, it would lead inevitably to an increase in the cost of these courses.
Private providers and their representatives will also have views on this of course, and there has not been the opportunity to seek them or reflect on these matters since the amendment was laid, so we are by no means ready to accept that legislation is an appropriate response to the risk that noble Lords have helpfully highlighted. However, I would be delighted to discuss this matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We are looking into this carefully, but we need to take proper time to consider our policy response, which may not require legislation.
I will now discuss Amendment 20. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, for this amendment. I understand their concerns, but I hope that I can reassure them that this amendment is not necessary. The Government are doubling investment in apprenticeships because we know that they provide employers with the skills they need to grow their businesses and benefit the economy. Through the funds raised by the apprenticeship levy, we will be able to invest twice what was spent in 2010-11 in apprenticeships by 2019-20.
The institute’s responsibilities include ensuring that the quality of apprenticeships available to employers reflects employer needs and the Government’s priority for apprenticeships to be a high-quality programme. It will need to work closely with the Department for Education, employers and other stakeholders to make that happen. Its responsibilities also include advising on the pricing of apprenticeship standards to ensure that government funding supports the delivery of high-quality training. The institute will work with employers and providers to understand the cost and value of apprenticeships to inform their advice. The institute does not have responsibility for the apprenticeship budget or how much of it is spent. This resides with the Secretary of State for Education and her department’s agencies.
The Government are fully committed to comprehensive investment in apprenticeships. The apprenticeships budget is set at the spending review. That provides certainty on the forward spending profile for the duration of the Parliament, as well as ensuring affordability of the programme and that the taxpayer receives value for money.
Tying a commitment on spending explicitly to the levy receipts could mean adverse funding consequences for the programme as a whole. The 2016 Autumn Statement revised down the projections for income from the apprenticeship levy over the next five years, but this does not impact on the agreed budget that the department already has as part of the spending review settlement. For example, the provisional budget for spending on apprenticeships in 2019-20 for England and the devolved Administrations totals in excess of £2.9 billion, versus the projected levy income of £2.8 billion. Having certainty over the funding for apprenticeship training is preferable to directly linking the funding on a year-by-year basis to the wider performance of the economy. As described earlier, levels of spending will be determined by the choices that employers make.
I hope that noble Lords feel reassured enough by my responses to these amendments not to press them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. On the three amendments that carry my name—our amendments to Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey—the Minister said that we will have an opportunity to consider that further. That is to be welcomed.
On Amendment 20, I feel the Minister rather overegged the pudding. I said that I do not think the levy will be undersubscribed or short of applications. He seemed to be saying that this would depend on monetary fluctuations. The fluctuation that would concern me would be, if not enough applications for the fund came forward, what would then happen to any so-called surplus that would remain? I am not unhappy with his response. I am optimistic that the levy will be fully taken up.
I am not so optimistic about the Minister’s comments on Amendment 1 and apprentices being described as approved learners, as I think they should be. He mentioned apprentices as being employed and receiving—or at least being entitled to receive—the national minimum wage of £3.50, but that is the figure that will apply next month. For any other worker aged up to 18 the rate will be £4.05; for those aged between 18 and 20 it will be £5.60. Despite that very low level, apprentices are paid less than their peers who, for whatever reason, are not in apprenticeships but are working. I do not think that argument carries a great deal of weight.
The Minister also said that he is not willing to support extending the higher education bursary of £2,000 for apprentices to those leaving care. Surely any barriers to young people taking up apprenticeships should be removed or at the very least mitigated. On those two issues, the Minister did not show any willingness to do so. He said there were sufficient safeguards to ensure that apprentices and their families do not lose out by dint of the young person taking up an apprenticeship. That is palpably not the case. Further education colleges have already drawn to the attention of the Association of Colleges a number of cases of would-be apprentices being dissuaded from applying for—or, having applied for, then taking up—an apprenticeship when the financial consequences become clear. That is through pressures within their families. Whatever the rates in place, there are not sufficient safeguards. That deters some young people from taking up apprenticeships. That they are not regarded as approved learners is surely a glaring loophole which the Government must at some stage move to close.
I regret that the Minister has demonstrated no willingness even to acknowledge that there is an issue, far less a willingness to find a means of resolving it. We regard that as unsatisfactory. For that reason, I wish to the test the opinion of the House on Amendment 1.
“Report on quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships
(1) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education must report on an annual basis to the Secretary of State on quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships.(2) A report under subsection (1) must include information on—(a) job outcomes of persons who have completed an apprenticeship;(b) average annualised earnings of persons one year after completing an apprenticeship;(c) numbers of persons who have completed an apprenticeship who progress to higher stages of education;(d) satisfaction rates of persons who complete an apprenticeship with the quality of that apprenticeship; and(e) satisfaction rates of employers which hire persons who have completed an apprenticeship, with the outcome of that apprenticeship.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, again, this is an issue that we considered in Committee. Indeed, it was also discussed in another place. But the fact that we continue to seek a greater level of reporting surely makes it clear to the Minister that we do not accept the responses given by him and his honourable friend the Skills Minister, Mr Halfon. We do not resubmit amendments without believing that they would enhance the Bill. I stress that there is no political point-scoring involved in amendments such as this. The Minister will know that when his arguments convince us—as, indeed, from time to time they do—we do not return to matters that have been taken as far as they usefully can be. But we do not believe that to be the case here.
The amendment is largely self-explanatory so I shall not rehearse the arguments that I used previously, but quality of outcomes will be absolutely key to the extent to which the skills gaps in the economy are able to be filled by UK workers trained for these jobs— initially in the decade ahead but also far beyond that point. The duties that would be placed on the institute by Amendment 2 are hardly onerous. The Minister stated in Committee that they are unnecessary as the Enterprise Act 2016 will require the institute to report on its activities annually. Of course that is the case—but not to the level of detail that we seek here.
The institute is about to come into being and will need some time to find its feet. But the Department for Education’s own website states that, according to the Bill, the institute will ensure, inter alia,
“high quality standards and assessment plans, which will lead to high quality apprenticeships”.
The extent to which the institute is successful will depend on assessing the job outcomes of those completing apprenticeships and the earnings that will result from those or from moving on to higher education. The rationale for the amendment is to go further than the basic reporting required by the Enterprise Act and to make public the extent to which both apprentices and employers believe that training and levels of employability are being strengthened and deepened as a result of the new landscape.
Surely the Secretary of State would expect nothing less than an annual report from the institute on the quality of outcomes from completed apprenticeships. So we ask, why not have that in the Bill? It follows, particularly when the Government are in pursuit of their target of 3 million starts by 2020, that Parliament should have the opportunity to receive and debate the report. If the Government want quality rather than quantity to be the driver, as they say they do, they should welcome the maximum amount of transparency in that regard. The fact that the amendment will require the institute to collect information from the department should be a positive and should be welcomed by the Government as a sign that it is meeting expectations. That is what Amendment 2 is designed to achieve.
Amendment 3 also requires reporting by the institute. I hope that the Minister will not again tell noble Lords that it is not necessary. Noble Lords will note that we are not asking the institute to do anything more than request from the department information which the department already holds. The purpose of doing so is to ensure that the institute is achieving success in turning round the situation identified by the Government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, as it was then known, a year ago. It warned that the Government’s drive on apprenticeships was failing to deliver for young people and pointed out that almost all the recent increase in apprenticeship starts related to people over the age of 24, with the number of young people starting apprenticeships showing little change since 2010.
It also noted that, unlike academic courses, youth apprenticeships typically do not represent a step up. Most A-level-age apprentices do GCSE-level apprenticeships and almost all—97%—university-age apprentices do apprenticeships at A-level equivalent or lower. The commission also highlighted that most youth apprenticeships are in sectors such as health and social care, business administration, and hospitality and catering, which are characterised by low pay and, often, poor progression.
The Commission on Social Mobility also welcomed the Government’s efforts to improve the quality as well as the number of apprenticeships but said that there needed to be a real focus on improving the quality of apprenticeships for young people. It called on the Government to increase the number of young people doing higher apprenticeships to 30,000 by 2020 compared to the present 4,200 19 to 24 year-olds. It also called for a UCAS-style apprenticeship gateway that would give young people much better information on what apprenticeships are available—and, crucially, where they might lead.
Some advantages will be identified as a result of the establishment of the institute, but throughout the passage of the Bill here and in another place we have heard many fears expressed that the drive to 3 million apprenticeship starts risks double or even triple-counting some apprentices. There is a need for improved data transparency so that it is clear how many apprenticeships the starts data relate to. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve and why it makes the connection with those in receipt of the pupil premium, so as to be able to monitor the effect that completed apprenticeships have on young people’s lives in comparison with their more advantaged counterparts.
The Government consistently say that they are committed to social mobility. On that basis, I would say to them that they should embrace this opportunity to demonstrate the success of that aim. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and add my support to Amendments 2 and 3 to which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just spoken. Our amendment came out of discussions with the CBI, which has a great deal of interest and expertise in the future of apprenticeships—indeed, its engagement is vital to the success of this scheme. It expressed the concerns of its members that the new institute will need monitoring and overview, particularly in its early days.
The amendment aims to ensure that there is regular reporting back to the Secretary of State on the quality of apprenticeships and technical education, calling for,
“a response … containing any actions to be taken as a result”.
Those “any actions” are particularly important because having action plans in response will surely make the difference. There needs to be ongoing communication. There is a weight of responsibility on the institute and high expectations that it will be a real engine for change and will counter generations of undervaluing practical, work-based skills. We need to ensure that there is transparency and accountability from the Government over the quality of technical and further education, and this amendment would help to ensure that the very welcome focus on the technical and further education sector is not lost after the Bill passes into law. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. They are very reasonable and it is difficult to find too many reasons for opposing them other than bureaucracy. When you weigh it up, the argument comes down very much on the side of the amendments on this occasion and not on the side of bureaucracy.
This is primarily about delivering good-quality apprenticeships for young people and adults. We all know that one of the challenges is to change the public discourse about apprenticeships and vocational training, and we are going to have to work really hard if that is to happen. When I look back at the reforms in schools over the past two decades, one of the changes that enabled us to have a more effective public discourse and empower people to ask the right questions, both for members of their own family and in general, was the availability of data. I hear good-quality conversations now from parents, teachers and young people about education, and that is because they have the information to ask the questions and have the debate.
However, I do not think it is there with apprenticeships and technical education. We do not have it yet, and we have a responsibility, if this system is to work, to build up the data and language so that the public can have a proper conversation and monitor what is going on with apprenticeships. Certainly in the medium term, this amendment would help deliver that. It would put information in the public domain every year, and in time, if not immediately, that would lead to discussion and debate. That has to be good for raising the profile of this area of education as well as holding the institute to account for what it is delivering.
I accept that entirely, but also want to emphasise a different point. Has the Minister wondered whether this does not in some way reflect the annual HMCI report, which is laid before Parliament and on which there is always a public debate? It gets on the “Today” programme, bits of information get into the newspapers and the media, and it becomes part of the national conversation that we have about schools. So having this information in the public domain is the right thing to do for accountability. But it would also help with the cultural change that we have to bring about to have a public debate about this area of education. This is not unreasonable. I can see that in years to come—say, in five years’ time—we might want to review the minutiae and the details. I do not think we ought to be committed to this for ever and a day, but I cannot see that the value of starting the practice of having an annual report, monitoring progress and building up confidence and awareness, would be outweighed by any bureaucratic burden that it might place on organisations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, has just said. As the House knows, I run the Good Schools Guide. We do what we can to spread information about apprenticeships, but that is extremely difficult because the amount of information available is not good. For universities, by comparison, there is one single source of information. Now, I do not wish the Government to hire UCAS to do apprenticeships, because UCAS is an extremely difficult organisation to deal with and does not let data out to anyone, but something like it which was a single point of information would really help schoolkids and schools because ordinary teachers, let alone career teachers, do not have time to learn their way around 150 different university apprenticeships, let alone all the others. They need a coherent source of information. There is a habit among employers of letting information out only in the two weeks when they want to hire apprentices, rather than all around the year when potential apprentices want to be looking. They are not adjusted to that kind of marketing yet; they are recruiting in penny numbers rather than the tens of thousands, as universities are. There are all sorts of reasons why we need more information and support.
If you want to know where children have gone on to from school, schools will give you—at least English schools will; Scottish schools are more tiresome—a long list of university courses that their students have got on to. Nowhere can you find those data for apprenticeships. You can get data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency so you can publish information from there if you want, but there is no equivalent available for apprenticeships. That makes the whole business of upping the status of apprenticeships, and of technical education generally, much harder than it needs to be. So while I hold no brief for the exact drafting of the two Labour amendments, I am very much with the spirit of them.
On the amendment that followed from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, there is scope for upping the prestige of the Institute for Apprenticeships in this way. It gives it that much more visibility in public, that much more right to comment and that much more right to be heard. At a time when there is going to be a lot of change, a lot of difficult decisions taken and a lot of need for what is going on to be in the public eye so that things that are not quite right get caught early and commented on early rather than being relegated to the pages of a few specialist magazines, an increase in prestige, as suggested in this amendment, is an excellent idea.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, we have not had very much information about what the annual statement from the Institute for Apprenticeships will be. As the institute is a quango, it will certainly produce an annual report—there is no question about that—and it is the usual practice of such reports to be debated in one way or another in the House. So we should accept that as a given, as it were.
As to the content of the report, I am encouraged by the fact that the quality of the directors will mean that it is not going to be a soft quango at all; it will be a very tough and well-informed one because they will be very aware of the fact that it is a great new departure in the education system to concentrate on apprentices, and they will want to ensure that the apprentice system that the country develops will be effective for both employers and students. So I expect the Institute for Apprenticeships to take an interest in nearly all the points mentioned in paragraph 1.
Whether that is needed in the Bill, I very much doubt. The best way to do it would probably be for the Secretary of State to formally write a letter to the chief executive of the institute when one is appointed, which I hope will be soon, indicating the range of information that the report should contain. That might be the best way out of it because the nature of the information will change over the years and you do not necessarily want to keep amending this part of the Bill. There are all sorts of other interesting things that the report should contain. I think the time has come for the Minister to make clearer what he thinks will be in the report. If he cannot do so today, perhaps he might be able to before Third Reading.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the amendments on reporting issues for the institute. I start by discussing Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt. Being able to assess how well the apprenticeship reform programme is achieving outcomes is of course essential. We need to know whether those undertaking apprenticeships or technical education qualifications are receiving the benefits that we would expect them to receive. To be able to do that, we obviously need the right information to help us make such an assessment. How the institute reports on its work is a topic that we discussed in Committee, but I remain convinced that the provisions already in the Bill are the right ones and that they are sufficient. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Watson, but I therefore still do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is necessary to achieve that objective.
As I have said, the amendment was discussed in Committee and on Report in the other place, and in Committee in this place, and both the Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills and I have given sound justification for why it is not necessary. The institute will be required to report on its activities annually under the Enterprise Act 2016, and the report must be placed before Parliament. This will include information on how the institute has responded to the statutory guidance. In addition, the Enterprise Act includes provisions enabling the Secretary of State to request information from the institute on any topic.
The information set out in the amendment is already collected and published by the Secretary of State on the performance of the FE sector, which includes apprenticeships. In order to inform its activities, we would expect the institute to make good use of these data in its annual report when it assesses its performance and impact each year. Indeed, the shadow institute has explained in its draft operational plan that it,
“will make more use of learner, employer and wider economy outcome data when reviewing the success of standards”.
The institute’s core role is to oversee and quality-assure the development of standards and assessment plans for use in delivering apprenticeships and, we expect, from April next year, college-based technical education. Much of the information that the amendment proposes that the institute provide goes well beyond what is in scope of its remit. It would therefore be inappropriate for the institute to be asked to provide this type of information, and an unnecessary duplication of effort, given that this information is already collected and published by the Secretary of State. It is right that the Government collect and monitor that information, but where it falls outside the remit of the institute, it cannot reasonably be expected to provide it.
I turn to Amendment 3. Improving social mobility is integral to our apprenticeship reforms. The Institute for Apprenticeships is supporting this by helping to create a ladder of opportunity based on quality apprenticeships for people across the country. This ladder will ensure that, no matter where you are born or who your parents are, if you work hard and apply yourself, you can get ahead, succeed and shape your own destiny.
To support this aim it is of course critical that reporting measures are in place to enable us to assess how well the programme is achieving positive outcomes for a range of groups, including young people. I agree therefore with the spirit of the amendment, which proposes that such information is monitored, measured and reviewed regularly. However, I believe this amendment is unnecessary to achieve that.
We want an education system that works for everyone and drives social mobility by breaking the link between a person’s background and where they get to in life. Our defining challenge is to level up opportunity.
On 18 January, the Secretary of State for Education set out her three priorities: tackling geographic disadvantage; investing in long-term capacity in the system; and making sure that our education system as a whole really prepares young people and adults for career success. That is why the Government are delivering more good school places, making school funding fairer, strengthening the teaching profession, investing in improving careers education, transforming technical education and apprenticeships and opening up access to our world-class higher education system.
The Department for Education already publishes a range of data on apprenticeships through a number of reports broken down by starts, achievements, sector subject area, framework and standard, geography, gender, age, ethnicity and other diversity and disadvantage markers. These data are published as national statistics by the department and intended to provide transparency.
It would be more appropriate for the head of profession in the department to consider how and where breakdowns of disadvantage for apprenticeships data are published, in accordance with the code of practice for statistics set by the National Statistician. Additionally, the department is considering publishing new data and measures required to support the Secretary of State’s three priorities. The department is committed to publishing disadvantage measures such as the pupil premium, but needs to be free to find the most appropriate for each age group, programme and purpose.
Data are already helping our work to improve social mobility. For example, we know that 10.5% of those starting an apprenticeship in 2015-16 were from a black and minority background, and we have set an ambitious target to increase the apprenticeships started by people from BAME backgrounds by 20% by 2010. In addition, the department publishes 16-to-18 performance tables that cover classroom-based provision within schools and colleges. The 2016 performance tables were reformed to report five headline measures for students taking A-levels and vocational qualifications at a similar level. Further reforms are planned for 2017 performance tables. This includes extending the performance tables to include outcomes for students still studying at GCSE level and reporting outcomes for disadvantaged students, the definition of which is those who were in receipt of pupil premium funding in year 11. This will have the effect of linking key stage 4 pupil premium information with 16-to-19 outcomes. In 2018-19, we will include only GCSE-level equivalent qualifications that are on the technical certificates list.
The institute has been given a clearly defined role, in which it will be responsible for setting quality criteria for the development of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans—reviewing, approving or rejecting them; advising on the maximum level of government funding available for standards; and quality assuring some end-point assessments. While we expect data to be at the heart of the institute’s operations, the collection and publication of the data in this amendment goes beyond that remit and would create an undue burden on the institute, preventing it from carrying out the range of its other duties effectively.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 21. I completely agree with the spirit of the amendment, but there are already measures within the Bill that require the institute to monitor, measure, review and report on performance on a regular basis. I hope that after I have explained this further, the noble Lords and the noble Baroness will feel able not to press the amendment.
The institute will be a sustainable and long-term governance body that will support employers, individuals and others and will, among other things, uphold the quality of standards. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker for his comments on the strength of the board and its governance. Although the institute will have wide-ranging autonomy across its operational brief, and will be able to carry out its functions in relation to apprenticeships independently, the Secretary of State will retain strategic oversight of the reformed technical education system and will be able to give directions and statutory guidance where appropriate. Of particular relevance to this amendment, the Secretary of State may direct the institute to prepare and send to the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably practicable, a report on any matter relating to its functions. It may be in that context that the idea to which my noble friend Lord Baker referred, of a letter, would be most appropriate.
The institute will be required to report on its activities annually under amendments made under the Enterprise Act 2016, and that report must be placed before Parliament. This will include information on how the institute has responded to the strategic guidance provided to it by the Secretary of State. While the institute will collect and report on relevant data and information, the Secretary of State will also continue to collect and publish a range of data on the performance of the FE sector, including apprenticeships. We would expect that, to inform its activities, the institute would make good use of those data when it assesses its performance and impact each year, and compiles its annual report. The Enterprise Act has made amendments that also include provisions enabling the Secretary of State to request information from the institute on any other topic that she deems appropriate in relation to their functions in relation to apprenticeships. Through this Bill, those provisions extend to technical education.
Therefore, although ultimately the Secretary of State will retain sufficient powers to ensure that government retains overall control in relation to technical education and will provide strategic guidance in respect of both apprenticeships and technical education, we would expect that, in the exercise of its functions, the institute would assess its performance and take action to address any issues identified. I am confident that, with the governance that it has managed to line up, that should happen.
I hope that noble Lords and the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough on the basis that I have explained not to press their amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply—almost half the debate on this group of amendments was from his lips—which in some ways was not unencouraging. I welcome the contributions of two former Secretaries of State for Education, which are always informative. Although my noble friend Lady Morris was very supportive, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was supportive only up to a point. He said that he did not believe this needed to be on the face of the Bill, but welcomed what Amendment 2 seeks to achieve. I noted that the Minister said it was likely that the request by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for a letter from the Secretary of State would be taken up, and that is to be welcomed.
I also welcome the supportive contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are trying to make the point—expressed strongly by my noble friend Lady Morris—that the institute is just being established and needs to build its reputation. One way it will do that is by being as open and transparent as possible. The Minister said that collecting the information mentioned in Amendments 2 and 3 would be an undue burden. However, Amendment 3 provides only for the institute to ask the department for information which it already holds, which is not particularly burdensome.
The transparency mentioned in Amendment 2 is important because it will build confidence, as my noble friend Lady Morris said. Many employers and training providers—all further education colleges—as well as putative apprentices, are looking to the institute to raise the quality of apprenticeships. Why not demonstrate that as effectively as possible by both assembling and publishing the information mentioned in Amendment 2? The Minister said that the activities of the institute will be monitored, measured and reviewed but not reported on in the detail we have asked for. The Department for Education will have the information but apparently it does not want to give it to the institute to publish in its reports, which seems slightly odd.
Nevertheless, the Minister said quite a lot. I need to read his words in Hansard but he seemed to be mentioning quite a lot of benefit which will be seized on by those in the sector who have a genuine desire to make the Institute for Apprenticeships successful—to get it off to a good start and then build from there. There was certainly some positive input from the Minister, which I welcome. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Establishment of an apprenticeship helpline
(1) Within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State must bring forward proposals for the establishment of a dedicated apprenticeship helpline to be overseen by the Institute.(2) The apprenticeship helpline in subsection (1) is to provide advice to persons who are undertaking, and persons who are interested in undertaking, an apprenticeship, on—(a) the technical routes operated by the Institute;(b) the courses available within these technical routes;(c) how to apply for the courses accredited by the Institute;(d) how to apply for any relevant financial support; and(e) how to complain about the quality of teaching or training.”
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I shall also speak to Amendments 7 and 19 in my name. Amendments 4 and 19 have the same intention and objectives. I support what the Government are trying to do and thank the Minister and his team for the meetings we have had and the information they have conveyed to us. I come at this from the point of view of constructive criticism and suggestions. Getting towards the target of 3 million apprenticeships in the lifetime of this Parliament is a formidable challenge and I welcome the Government setting it. We have said on many occasions, and the Minister has agreed, that although the target is there, the first priority has to be the quality of the apprenticeships. We must ensure that, in the minds of the public at large, potential apprentices, their parents and employers, this is a quality product and a worthwhile career path which would, in many cases, be an alternative to university. That emphasises the importance of maintaining the status and standing of apprenticeships.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green for submitting these amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 4. I do not think there is a great deal to add to what he has said, but some of this impacts on the arguments that I advanced on the previous group of amendments. It is about accessibility of information and careers advice on apprenticeships. It is also about the institute being seen as an open and accessible organisation. I think we all agree that we want it to meet its aims and to do so as successfully and quickly as possible. Asking it to provide information and to report to Parliament is not radical; it is about building the sort of confidence that I referred to on the previous group of amendments.
Monitoring how many small and medium-sized enterprises employ apprentices is also important because those employers will be key to the Government reaching their target of 3 million starts by 2020. Quite possibly this will be included in the list of categories mentioned by the Minister in his response to me on the last group of amendments, and perhaps he could say something about that in his reply. To some extent, SMEs have been the elephant in the room: they have not been referred to in our consideration of the Bill to anything like the extent they should have. They will play a very important part in apprenticeships—in small numbers, inevitably, and company by company—but overall they will make an important contribution.
I agree it is important that not just the number of apprenticeship starts but, as my noble friend Lord Young said, the number of employers taking on apprentices are listed. If those figures are not collected, how can the network being established by the institute be measured? The kind of information that I refer to will surely be collected, so I ask the Minister: why would the institute not make it publicly available and do so willingly?
I would like to add to what my noble friend Lord Young said by mentioning the apprentice contract and, to some extent, its status. He talked about complaints and the need for a helpline when apprentices need to pass on their concern about the quality of the apprenticeship being offered. There is no regulator in this sector and I ask the Minister whether the apprenticeship contract will be subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The contract will be fully entered into by both parties, and that Act will play a part in the higher education sector as a result of the Bill before your Lordships’ House. A preliminary investigation led to universities being required for the first time to produce information on the cost of courses and so on, and that would be helpful. If the Minister cannot reply immediately, I shall be quite happy to receive a letter on the status of the apprentice contract and whether it will be subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I would certainly like an apprentice who is having a hard time getting what they want or a proper education, particularly in an SME, to be able to communicate that, and unless there is an established route for them to do so, as described in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, it will be very difficult to ask someone to invent one. There needs to be someone the apprentice can talk to first; otherwise, it will be just too difficult and we will never get to know the quality of the apprenticeship. Anything that became a regular reporting mechanism might well take up a lot of time but not produce any good. However, something should be in place so that, when things are really going wrong, the person at the wrong end of that can have a voice. It seems to me that that is worth including.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Watson, for tabling this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, in particular for his kind words relating to the intent of the Bill.
I turn first to consider Amendment 4. Ensuring that apprentices get the support they need to make the most of their apprenticeship and to progress into an engaging and rewarding career is essential. This amendment provides that the Secretary of State should bring forward proposals for the establishment of an apprenticeship helpline, managed by the Institute for Apprenticeships. Such an amendment is unnecessary as such a helpline already exists.
The National Apprenticeship Service operates a helpline that does two things: it provides advice to employers who wish to offer apprenticeships on all aspects of the scheme, including information on training providers, funding and recruitment; it also provides support to individuals who would like to apply for an apprenticeship and signposts them to vacancies on the GOV.UK site “Find an apprenticeship”. The helpline also provides help and support for apprentices and employers who have concerns or complaints. Teams within the National Apprenticeship Service investigate these where appropriate. If an apprentice raises concerns about employment law, the helpline refers them to ACAS if necessary. Advice on technical routes is currently offered by the National Careers Service. However, with the expansion of the remit of the Institute for Apprenticeships from April 2018, we will consider whether one service should be expanded to provide a one-stop shop for apprenticeships and technical routes.
I would now like to speak to Amendment 7. I welcome the sentiment behind the amendment: that small and medium-sized enterprises are encouraged and supported to employ apprentices and that these apprenticeships are of high quality. The noble Lord, Lord Young, is absolutely right that small and medium-sized employers are crucial to the success of our apprenticeship reform programme. After all, only 1.3% of employers will be paying the apprenticeship levy. To that end, the Department for Education is ensuring that smaller employers understand the benefits of apprenticeship training for their business, and that they take advantage of the support available, including the substantial contribution of 90% of the training and assessment costs for an apprenticeship.
To raise awareness and support smaller levy payers and non-levy payers, every local enterprise partnership has been given £5,000 to work on employer readiness for the levy and to support campaigns to raise the profile of apprenticeships. We are undertaking a wide range of communications and engagement activity to ensure that employers of all sizes are aware of how they can make the most of the opportunities presented by apprenticeships. The Get In Go Far campaign, for example, has focused specifically on helping small employers understand the benefits of apprenticeships.
However, on the noble Lord’s request that the institute has a specific role to monitor this, I believe that we have already established a remit for the institute which will ensure that apprenticeship standards and assessment plans are of high quality for apprentices employed in organisations of all sizes. The institute has been given a clearly defined role in which it will be responsible for: setting quality criteria for the development of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans; reviewing, approving or rejecting them; advising on the maximum level of government funding available for standards; and quality assuring some end-point assessments. While we expect the institute to engage with organisations such as local enterprise partnerships and local authorities, formally to monitor their performance would create an undue burden on the institute, preventing it from carrying out the range of its other duties effectively.
I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized employers and that the institute is already assuring the quality of all apprenticeship standards and plans, regardless of the size of employer.
I turn finally to Amendment 19 in this group. There is evidence that, in the past, some apprentices have not been clear on what their apprenticeship entitles them to and employers do not always understand their responsibilities towards their apprentices. Ensuring that all parties involved in an apprenticeship have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities is essential for it to be a success.
However, an amendment is not necessary to ensure this outcome. Section A5 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which was inserted by the Deregulation Act 2015, provides that an apprenticeship agreement is an employment contract. It follows that all the safeguards which apply to employment contracts also apply to apprenticeship agreements. In addition, since the introduction of apprenticeship standards, we have required that apprenticeship commitment statements be signed by the apprentice, the employer and the provider at the outset of the apprenticeship. If the apprentice is under 18, it should be signed by a parent or guardian. This is required through the Skills Funding Agency funding rules.
The apprenticeship commitment statement sets out details of the apprenticeship and covers three areas: the name of the standard the apprentice is following and the start and end dates; the training that will be undertaken by the apprentice and who will deliver it; and the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. For example, for the apprentice this might include a clear articulation of when they should attend work and when they should attend training, as well as appropriate behaviours in the workplace—although I am not sure that it will mention the laundry basket. For the employer, it might include how they will ensure successful delivery of the apprentice and preparation of the apprentice for their end-point assessment, and for the provider it might include clearly setting out the advice and support they can offer both the employer and the apprentice. The statement should also include details of how the parties will work together and how issues will be resolved. This is in addition to the employment law requirements on employers to set out the particulars of employment. Turning to the point—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I welcome a lot of what the Minister has been saying, but is that formal signing process taking place now in all cases, or is the noble Baroness advising us that it will be a requirement from whenever? Can she clarify that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Unfortunately, I am unable to clarify that at the moment, but I will write to the noble Lord. I will also unfortunately have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on his point about the Consumer Rights Act.
As a requirement of the Skills Funding Agency funding rules, the training provider must ensure that a commitment statement and the apprenticeship agreement are in place before funding is released, which implies that these things are happening—otherwise, funding would not be released—but I will confirm that. This is monitored by the SFA, and duplication by the institute is therefore not necessary. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured enough on the basis of my explanation not to press these amendments.
Lord Lucas
Can my noble friend say whether the apprenticeship documents that an apprentice receives include the telephone number of the helpline?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Again, I am unable to confirm that, but I will write to my noble friend. If not, I think perhaps it should.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. A number of them seem extremely helpful. I am appreciative of the fact that she will consider the one-stop-shop approach.
I may be wrong and only time will tell, and I do not accuse the Minister of complacency because I do not believe that that is the case, but I think that the Government are erring on the side of optimism in relation to small and medium-sized employers. The feedback I am getting—and I am sure I am not the only one—suggests that, while employers welcome the training costs being met, along with some other contributions, it may be that they have underestimated the position of employers who are saying, “I have a business to run and I am having enough trouble keeping it going. Now you are asking me to take on the responsibility of an apprentice”. In many cases, small employers do not have any experience of dealing with the administrative side. They may exaggerate its complexity, but nevertheless they see it as a burden and a disincentive. They say, “I still have the wage costs, which are not insignificant, and for at least the first six months and up to a year I do not necessarily have a fully productive employee”. In these dialogues I always say, “The point you are making is interesting, but when a business takes on an apprentice and the arrangement is working well, I am told that the young person is making a positive contribution”. A fresh pair of young eyes is able to suggest to the business how to make a significant number of improvements, not least in areas like IT where the young person is often more knowledgeable than the employer.
I would urge the Minister to look at the situation again. There is still uncertainty about how the levy is going to operate and how it will filter through to small and medium-sized employers. On its own, I do not think that meeting 90% of the training costs is going to achieve what is needed. The Government should not take my word for it. They should talk to chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I think that they will be given the kind of feedback that I have set out today.
Obviously, I welcome what has been said about the contract of employment. While there are a couple of points on which the Minister will come back to us, overall it is good. I do not know whether the response has covered the point I was trying to convey—perhaps I did not set it out well enough. I referred to trying to ensure that the formal signing of the apprenticeship contract is marked as an occasion, because it should be. I look forward to the day when I can go into a secondary school and see on the wall not only the names of those who have gone on to Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions of higher learning, but also a board showing the young people who have achieved apprenticeships. Surely that is just as important and, in my view, as life changing a proposition for young people as going to university.
Overall, I welcome some of the information we have been given because it is positive and useful. I have indicated the areas that I think the Government should revisit and I thank my noble friends who have contributed to the debate. My noble friend Lord Watson made a point about consumer rights and I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Obviously, I anxiously await the replies to the issues we have raised, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Transition from existing qualifications to the new technical routes
Within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish detailed proposals for the transition from existing technical and further education qualifications, to the awarding of new qualifications approved by the Institute.”
Lord Young of Norwood Green
This is another area about which we have had a significant amount of dialogue with the Government during the interregnum between the Committee and Report stages, and we have had some correspondence from the Minister. At first sight the Bill seems to be a modest little measure, until you look into its implications. If there is one area with significant implications, it is around the transition to a new system of technical qualifications. One of the documents that we have received from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, says:
“The current system involves around 3,500 vocational qualifications, which can be hard to distinguish between—our intention is to streamline these options. The current landscape is confusing; for parents, students, careers advisers and employers. That is exactly why we are trying to reform and simplify it”.
It goes on to say:
“The Sainsbury Panel recommended that there should be a single exclusive licence for delivery of each new technical education qualification. The Institute will work with employers and other stakeholders to develop high-quality technical education qualifications, based on the knowledge, skills and behaviours that employers have identified as being a requirement for particular occupations”.
Again, that is a very ambitious objective. I agree that there is a bewildering number of technical qualifications out there. I would also agree that some of them are not of the highest standard, but that is not true of all those qualifications by any means. Some of them are well established and have a very good reputation, whether City & Guilds, HNC or HND. These have taken a long time to establish. We know—when I say “we” I mean the royal we—that is, the previous Labour Government know from when we tried to introduce diplomas that it was not exactly a primrose path to a new qualification. Once again, the law of unintended consequences applied: the intention might have been good, but the delivery was difficult.
When we asked what exactly would be the transition from the 3,500 to a number, depending on the 15 routes, that could possibly be just a single qualification, the response we had from the Bill team was that this is a work in progress. That is not intended to be a derogatory comment on my part because the Government are trying to achieve a complicated process. We have said to the Government to be careful—I was going to say be careful not to throw out some of these babies with the bathwater, but they are not exactly babies; these are very mature, adult qualifications that have been around for a long time and have a high reputation—about getting rid of those qualifications and to understand the difficulty of establishing new ones.
While we have been considering this legislation, a new description for the qualification has appeared: T-levels. I quite like it. I do not know who thought it up, but I thought that since we have A-levels, T-levels potentially sounded good. I and many others who have been looking at this problem are worried for a number of reasons. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and others will come in and expand on this. I do not know why this amendment has been taken as a separate group. The start of this, apart from all the other issues about intellectual property rights and other things that have been raised in the course of this debate, will be to get that transition process right. That will be a key part of establishing new technical qualifications. We do not want to be in a situation where suddenly we are introducing a huge level of doubt and uncertainty, where once again we are trying to create confidence in the apprenticeship brand and in technical education.
I understand that this is a work in progress, but I make a plea to the Minister and his team to recognise first the size of the task, which I think they do, and secondly the sensitivity of what they are dealing with and the need to get it right to ensure that there is adequate consultation, not only with employers but with all the other stakeholders, including the current awarding bodies and educational providers such as FE colleges. That is the basis of the amendment. Once again, I look forward to the ministerial response. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Lord, Lord Young, has tempted me, because I, too, bear the scars of the diploma, GNVQ and various other misguided projects of different Governments. He is quite right that my Amendment 28, which is in the next group, will be relevant here, too. I urge the Minister to consider just how sizeable this task is. We should not demolish existing vocational qualifications—as we were calling them—because many of them have great reputations and have served people well. If we are to build a new bright tomorrow for such qualifications, we need to use all the tools that we already have, which are serving the country well, and expand them into the next range of T-level qualifications.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young for moving this amendment, which I am happy to support. In broad terms, we believe that the recommendations of the Sainsbury review should be fully implemented and funded. In the short term, there are three clear funding needs from the skills plan: fair funding for colleges; costs associated with finding and managing work placements, because they involve an individualised service to young people and employers rather than education to a group; and the cost of the transition year. A two-year full-time course would be the standard model under the plan, but with the expectation that some school leavers would need to take an additional transition year. This implies a full-time three-year programme. The current 16-to-18 funding system assumes a full two years and then administers a 17.5% cut in the third year. A sensible step, therefore, would be to maintain the full rate for three years for those students taking the transition year.
In his letter to noble Lords dated 22 February, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, stated that there are currently around 3,500 vocational qualifications. Most professionals in the sector have cited a figure of more than three times that amount, but more important is how the transition to the new regime is managed and funded. The Minister also said in his letter that the reforms would be phased in progressively, with the first routes available for delivery from September 2019. That apart, the transition was not set out and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young would enable that to happen. It would be a positive move and we believe that it is incumbent on the Minister to commit to it by accepting this modest amendment.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Young, for tabling this amendment. I fully understand their concerns and hope that I might be able to provide an explanation that will put their minds at rest. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for his kind comments about our branding as T-levels.
We know that colleges, students and awarding organisations will need to know in good time the arrangements for existing qualifications as the new qualifications are introduced. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has just said, we plan for the first new technical routes to be introduced in autumn 2019, with the full range of programmes coming on stream soon after. Additional hours will be available for the new programmes as they become available and we will announce further details in due course following further engagement with employers, colleges and other key stakeholders.
In implementing the reforms, the Government will consider in consultation with the institute how best to manage the transition from legacy qualifications to new technical qualifications approved by the institute and intend to involve stakeholders and set out plans for this in due course.
Given that the new technical education routes will be subject to phased introduction, it would not be sensible or appropriate to commit to a fixed timescale for publishing detailed proposals for transition. I reassure the noble Lords, however, that once the institute has approved a new qualification, the Department for Education will consider future funding for the current, similar qualifications on a case-by-case basis. We will not withdraw funding for a student who is part way through their course. I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Young, will be sufficiently reassured to consider not pressing their amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I listened carefully to what the Minister said but am not sure that it entirely dealt with the transition process. Maybe I did not quite grasp what he said. I understand his point: I fixed upon a period of time that I thought would be sufficient for him to be able to describe to the various stakeholders how this would happen. Telling them at the end, “We’ve identified this particular new qualification”, seems a bit late in the day. It still does not seem to give the kind of reassurance that people would want: “This is the process we are to go through, how we will carry it out and how we will manage during the transition period”. I am not particularly fussed about the timing—I had to put something in there—but I am concerned about the detail of the transition process and a more detailed response would be welcome. Perhaps we will have an opportunity before Third Reading to meet again and get a more detailed assurance. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Technical Education Qualifications
In this Part “technical education qualifications” means the full range of work-based qualifications, whether technical, craft, creative, personal services, or professional.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Amendment 6 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey. I will also speak to Amendment 28, which is in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and my noble friend Lord Storey.
I make no apology for bringing back Amendment 6. It is very simple. As we discussed in Committee, it would cost no money but would make a great difference. Craft and creative skills, personal services such as care or hairdressing, and professional skills such as business or accounting are not automatically seen as primarily technical. I accept that there has been a move away from the long-standing term “vocational” to cover non-academic qualifications and that the decision seems to have been taken that “technical” is the word of the moment, particularly now as we seem out of the blue to have T-levels—as the noble Lord, Lord Young explained. It would be interesting to know what consultation went on before the arrival on the scene of T-levels from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In order not to narrow the Bill to purely mechanical technical subjects, an explanatory clause would be a helpful addition and ensure that this legislation is seen to be inclusive of all work-based qualifications and across the range of courses offered in further education.
Arts subjects should be held in the same esteem as other courses. It is of great concern to hear that creativity and the arts are being squeezed out in schools. Between 2003 and 2013, there was a 50% drop in GCSE entries for design and technology, 23% for drama and 25% for other craft-related subjects. It stands to reason that this will have a knock-on effect on the take-up of further education courses in creative subjects. We would like to ensure through this amendment that there is no doubt that the attempts to improve technical education, as outlined in the Bill, apply equally across all courses.
Amendment 28 is for clarification. As we discussed in Committee and as the noble Lord, Lord Young, set out, we would like to clarify the transition process between these schemes. There is already a comprehensive list of approved technical education qualifications in the Ofqual regulated qualifications framework. We seek to clarify the relationship between that framework and the list in the Bill. It would certainly introduce complexity and confusion to have multiple qualification lists. Can the Minister clarify that the institute’s list will be a transfer from rather than in addition to the Ofqual list? If so, what systems will be set up to ensure that the transition and transfers are as straightforward as possible? Does the Minister envisage any major differences between these two lists? I look forward to his reply and beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I add my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. If I remember rightly, in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, asked whether the word “professional” might be added to “technical” in the Bill to provide a broader and more prestigious view of what was covered. I think “professional” has a lot of attractions to it in bridging the divide between academic and vocational qualifications. “Technical” gets some of the way but not all the way. I thought it was a good suggestion. The Minister said that he would take it away and think about it. I am sorry if I have missed the results of those deliberations in the letters that have been sent out. But if I have not missed them and we have not had them, could we have them now, please?
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I rarely disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on technical education, where I highly respect her expertise and experience, but I confess to a certain unease about the idea that there should be only one list and that it should overtly include everything. One of the key things that we are trying to do here is to create a highly respected and distinctive technical education course which sits alongside the academic one, and therefore by definition it cannot include everything that has passed a basic set of requirements for being an acceptable qualification.
I remind noble Lords that I have an interest in this, having been on the Sainsbury panel, but also looking back to my experience when I was doing the 14 to 18 vocational education review. I completely agree that one could go round for ever on vocational to technical to professional. But there is a really important distinction here between a limited set of qualifications that have been identified as having a very clear purpose and the possibility—and, I would say, high desirability—of allowing a very large number of qualifications to arise and be offered and meet a minimum threshold in the vocational and technical area. It may be that the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment will not get in the way of that, but these distinctions are important.
When I made the 14 to 18 recommendations, I said explicitly that there should be a distinction between there being strong requirements before something could be offered in mainstream 14 to 16 education and a very different set of requirements which said that they could be out there and schools could offer them if they wished but they could not count in the league tables as being equivalent to GCSEs or A-levels. The same thing applies here with the task set for the new institute to identify qualifications which really meet the requirements of that distinctive high-status route. That is not the same as being on the Ofqual register.
This is not about whether it is craft or creative or technical, where I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, but about creating this “lost” route that we used to have without at the same time throwing overboard a large number of qualifications—some of them tiny, some of them big—which may serve quite different purposes. It is really important to recognise that one of the purposes of the institute is to create that alternative route and that part of that is about having a set of qualifications—probably not thousands long—that meet these criteria. Getting there is going to be difficult but if you do not have this end in view, it is hard to see how we will ever get out of what is at the moment a hugely confused and confusing mass of qualifications.
Again, to talk from personal experience, when I did the 14 to 18 review, I did not recommend anything like as much restriction at 16 to 18. What was recommended and adopted was this idea of a programme of study for each individual student between 16 and 18, which has worked quite well. I thought at the time that as a result of that we would move to a situation where a smaller number of good qualifications became clearly apparent as market leaders, and strongly established. I was convinced by Nick Boles, the Minister at the time the Sainsbury panel was set up, that this was just not happening; we needed to be more active and the programme of study was not enough.
It seems to me that a fundamental part of what the institute is about is creating a set of qualifications which meet the requirements for that alternative, high-status route from 16 on into adult life. Without talking to lawyers or drafting clerks, I do not know whether the amendment would have any negative impact on that but it is important to understand that one of the purposes of the institute, for which I think there is cross-party consensus, is to recreate that route. In my view, that means that you cannot just say that everything that is not an A-level can be on the institute’s list, because we need a list that is clearly part of this route without wiping out all the other many qualifications which may serve other and different purposes. That is what I wanted to say and I hope the noble Baroness and I do not really disagree.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the amendments in this group. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
I fully understand why the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have tabled Amendment 6, which seeks to define technical education qualifications as,
“the full range of work-based qualifications”.
I reassure them that all relevant and appropriate occupations in the economy will be covered within the technical education routes. What is important is that there is good provision for everyone and that the reformed technical education system focuses on occupations for which skilled technical training is a requirement.
The Sainsbury panel report has already provided a clear definition:
“Technical education must require the acquisition of both a substantial body of technical knowledge and a set of practical skills valued by industry”.
Trying to define these qualifications in this manner could restrict the scope of technical education qualifications, both now and in the future. In practice, technical education qualifications will be defined by the coverage of the 15 technical education routes. Each route will provide a framework for grouping together occupations where there are shared training requirements. An occupational map will identify all the occupations within the scope of each route.
When defining the coverage of the 15 technical education routes, it is important to highlight that not all occupations will be included. The Sainsbury panel was clear that unskilled and low-skilled occupations that do not have sufficient knowledge requirements would not warrant a technical education route. Rather, these occupations can be learned entirely on the job, often within a matter of weeks. For these occupations, it would not be appropriate to offer technical education qualifications.
I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that within the technical education routes there will be comprehensive coverage of the skilled occupations that are vital to the success—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I would like some clarification. The Minister said that the Sainsbury panel identified low-skilled or unskilled occupations that could be learned in a matter of weeks. We are talking about apprenticeships. The Government have already said that the minimum period for an apprenticeship is one year. That covers a very wide range of occupations. I would not necessarily call them unskilled or even low-skilled. Whether it is retail or anything else that is sometimes referred to in this manner, I do not think that is fair, especially if we are talking about an apprenticeship. We have said, I believe, that 20% of an apprenticeship should be off-the-job training. Which are the groups that do not require any technical qualifications whatever?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I think it is unhelpful to try to put things into the brackets of “low-skilled”, “high-skilled” and “medium-skilled”, particularly based on what we experienced when we were much younger, and to try to connect them with apprenticeships. We are talking about technical education qualifications specifically, which may not be related to an apprenticeship. Occupations at the higher skill level will have technical education qualifications. Other occupations, while equally valid, will not.
Within the technical education routes there will be comprehensive coverage of skilled occupations. However, it is important to be clear that as well as meeting the technical education requirements set out in the Sainsbury panel, there must be labour market evidence to demonstrate employer need and a genuine skills gap. We will review this regularly and will continue to listen to any evidence from employers.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and noble Lords for tabling Amendment 28 and for providing an opportunity to debate this issue. I hope that my explanation will put their minds at rest. The Ofqual register of regulated qualifications is a public-facing database listing the many qualifications that Ofqual regulates, including A-levels, GCSEs and functional skills. It is used as an indexing tool and includes information that helps employers, students and others understand the relative size and challenge of qualifications.
As noble Lords will be aware, new Section A2HA proposes that the institute will maintain a list of approved high-quality technical education qualifications based on the knowledge, skills and behaviours that employers have identified as requirements for particular occupations. When approving qualifications, the institute will need to ensure that the qualifications are at a level appropriate for the associated occupation or group of occupations. Qualifications will need to contain stretch and challenge that is commensurate with their ascribed level. They will need to be of an agreed size that reflects the amount of time involved in teaching and assessing them. This information will be clearly indicated in the list of qualifications maintained and published by the institute.
Once the institute has approved a new qualification, we will consider future funding for current similar qualifications on a case-by-case basis. We will not withdraw funding for students who are part-way through their course. Ofqual’s register of regulated qualifications and the institute’s register are both important parts of the system, but they have different purposes. If the institute’s register were to replace the Ofqual register, this would remove public information and a frame of reference for thousands of qualifications that would be outside the remit of the institute and which would have already been taken by students, including GCSEs and A-levels.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made a point about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about “professional”. We have given this some consideration, and at the moment there is no consensus on an alternative to “technical education”. We have had a conversation today about technical education versus the entire gamut of qualifications or tests that you might take to work, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. It is important that technical education retains a certain status within the minds of learner and employer.
There is a public need to maintain both registers. I hope that my explanation has reassured the noble Baroness to the extent that she is prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the Minister for her reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising the matter of “professional”. I thought it had gained a certain accord in Committee, but it has obviously not found favour. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, disagrees with me on things or that she has sought to clarify. The short answer to my amendment is that there will not be only one list; there will be several lists. As the Minister explained, the Ofqual list is much broader. Presumably the institute’s list will be bits of what is on the Ofqual list. It will include some of the things on the Ofqual list which are relevant to higher technical qualifications, but if the Ofqual list is supposed to be a comprehensive list of all available qualifications, it will need to include those which the institute approves—perhaps I have misunderstood that.
I am also interested that it appears that we now have an A-list and a B-list, which I do not think was made particularly clear before. We have an A-list of qualifications which the institute approves, but in order to encompass all the other qualifications—the lower-level ones, for instance—there will be another list of qualifications which somehow will not come under the institute. This is confusing because the institute is now not only the Institute for Apprenticeships but the institute of further education, and further education, by definition, covers lower-level qualifications as well as higher-level qualifications.
Lord Baker of Dorking
I warmly support what the noble Baroness is saying. It is not only lower-level qualifications; there are existing upper-level qualifications, for example, at level 4, which are very well regarded by industry and which are progression courses from level 3 to level 5 and a degree. We do not want them to disappear. They are a very important part of the technical education system of our country.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his comments. I am pleased that I am not the only one who is finding this amendment rather more confusing than I thought it was going to be. I thought it was going to be very straightforward, but it has brought in other aspects of the Bill. I hope it will be possible to have a meeting before Third Reading so that we can clarify what these two lists of qualifications will be and whether the B-list will be funded and recognised, or whether only the preferred A-list will lead on to apprenticeships and get the blessing of government. On the basis that further dialogue would be very welcome, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 9. These amendments are very simple. They pick up on my noble friend Lord Baker’s excellent amendment, which was accepted in Committee, to point out that it is not just the local FE college or other major provider that wants to get into schools. There are a lot of excellent organisations which need to get into schools. Women in Construction is one. In needs to get the message through that there are a lot of very good jobs for women in construction. There are similar efforts going on about women in engineering and women in computing. They are not education providers. They have been funded by education providers and employers to produce a flow of students to education providers in general. Those organisations need to get into schools just as much as individual providers, if not more, because in many cases they have a level of prestige and glamour which the local FE college lacks. I beg to move.
Lord Storey
Amendment 17 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lady Garden. I moved a similar amendment in Committee, when I talked about “good” or “outstanding” FE colleges being awarded either status only if their careers education was of a high standard. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke in a sort of roundabout way about the importance of careers education, but was concerned about straitjacketing through the use of “outstanding” and “good”. Having reflected on what she said, I have come back with a slightly changed amendment, which highlights the importance of careers education in further education and says that when Ofsted carries out inspections, it is important that the careers guidance in those establishments be of a high calibre.
One of the most important things that we need to do for young people is to provide that guidance and knowledge about careers. Many of us do it with our own children: if careers advice is not available, we have networks of people who can talk to our children and perhaps provide opportunities for them to do work experience. But many children and young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, do not get that network of support, and it must be down to the education system to provide that. Careers education should start in primary school. I remember that at my own school we had a careers session, where people from different jobs and workplaces would come into the school. There would be a carousel approach, and children could listen to them. That should go through to secondary schools, so I was delighted that the Government accepted the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on university technical colleges being able to come into schools. They will be able to go into schools and tell young people about the different opportunities. We do not want a straitjacketing approach but one which lets young people see all the different possibilities. We have talked about this for a long time and have heard all sorts of promises about what will happen down the road. The situation is getting slightly better, but surely, if we are going to do one thing, the most important thing we can do for young people is to get careers education right.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said on Amendment 4. Careers education is not just about careers advice and guidance, as important as those are, but about preparation for a career. If a young person has a career opportunity, I would have hoped that the educational establishment would prepare them for that, whether through techniques for interviews, filling out an application or preparing a CV—all those things come together in good careers advice. I hope the Government will listen to this, as I am sure they will, and that we can agree that careers advice should be part of the establishment of good FE providers.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is widely recognised, including in a number of reports published by some of your Lordships’ committees, that the quality of careers education and advice in both schools and colleges has hitherto ranged on a spectrum from patchy to poor. Surely one reason for that is the lack of any real incentive for schools and colleges to up their game and improve their offer. It seems to me that one of the most effective incentives that could be put in place is for schools and colleges to know that the quality of their careers education will be a significant factor in determining what sort of rating they get when they are inspected by Ofsted.
As we have heard, some good things are happening: the National Careers Service is developing its offer and in particular I am very impressed by what I have seen of the Careers & Enterprise Company and its effort to put a network of schools co-ordinators in place. None the less, we still hear constantly that, although schools are good at reporting their academic progressions and the number of people who have gone on to university or further academic education, they are not nearly so good at talking about students who have gone on to apprenticeships or further levels of technical and professional education. I rather like that term “technical and professional”, and thought the Minister in the other place was also rather keen on it, but that does not appear to be necessarily the case.
I very much support the amendment, particularly as it would go no further than requiring Ofsted to take account of the provision of careers advice in carrying out inspections, so it would not appear to be a huge burden on either Ofsted or the schools. It just sends a signal, as we always used to like doing. I support the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendments are an addition to the clause that I introduced in Committee, but quite a useful one. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that schools have a duty to accept—and cannot reject—various people going in and talking to students at the ages of 13, 16, and 18 about the various types of training and education they provide, which is the most effective way to improve careers advice. I have sat through several Governments who have tried to create careers advice by legislation, and it just does not work. You cannot expect many teachers to know a great deal about life outside because they leave school, go to a teacher training college and then go back to school. You have to have real, live people going into schools and talking about what life is like in a factory or a business complex and offering the opportunities—and we will now have this.
In September this year, for the first time, not only the heads of university technical colleges but those of studio schools, career colleges and FE colleges, as well as apprenticeship providers, will have a right to go and speak to 13, 16 and 18 year-olds and explain to them the opportunities that are available to them other than just getting three A-levels and going to university. That is a major change. I strongly support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Groups such as Women in Engineering spend a lot time trying to persuade more women to get into engineering. We have courses in the UTC movement to persuade more girls to go into engineering, and the numbers are going up all the time: we sometimes get over 20% or 30% girls. We like that because when a girl decides to be an engineer, she is usually very determined and confident, and in many cases the brightest member of the team. This will help in all of that, so I support it. Careers advice in FE colleges is largely an unknown area, frankly, and they should certainly improve their advice. But they have the advantage of being able to go in and talk to schools from September of this year.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, with Amendment 17, I am in the slightly alarming position of being the meat in a Liberal Democrat sandwich as far as the Marshalled List is concerned. This of course is a follow-on from the very valuable amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, just referred, which now forms Clause 2 of the Bill. We have just further benefited from his wisdom with his remarks on this amendment. I wholly concur with his view that there is a need not so much to improve as to establish careers advice in further education colleges. I very much agree also with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in introducing this group of amendments about this being about preparation for careers rather than just giving information.
The quality of what colleges are able to provide is key to so many young people, but much will depend on the ability of Ofsted to carry out inspections of FE colleges to make this amendment effective. It rather surprised me in the debate that followed the announcement of which providers had been successful in gaining access to the register of apprentice training providers last week that before the register came into force, there were 793 apprenticeship providers. The register has nearly doubled that, with 1,473 organisations now in the frame for inspection when the register goes live in May. But that is not the extent of the burden being placed on Ofsted and its responsibility to inspect, because the process for applying to the register is due to take place four times every year, and it is expected that the number will soon rise perhaps to well over 2,000. It was quite instructive that when asked about the implications of this, Ofsted’s new chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, responded:
“It is a huge challenge”.
I think she was being politic because she must have real concerns. Unless the Government plan to increase Ofsted’s resources to enable it to inspect the new environment effectively, there will be very real gaps, which will be a huge shame.
I hope the amendment will be taken seriously by Ministers. It is important that the very least they do is recognise that there has to be a proper system of careers advice being offered by colleges to ensure that young people get the start in life that they deserve.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I would like to ask a question that has just come to mind, mainly because I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Amendment 17 is far better because it allows a flexibility that we did not have before, and having it in the Bill would help to raise the profile of careers education during Ofsted inspections, so I am happy to support it. No doubt the Minister will let us know what the framework already says, but I think the intent is fine.
I support 100% the point that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been making about young people’s access to careers education. I have no problem with the way in which Amendments 8 and 9 were described, and in fact I have supported such amendments on previous occasions. However, it has struck me that although it is the right of the student to have access to the information, it is not the right of the person to go into the school. I know that sounds like a fine difference, but I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that and give some assurance that, although a head would not have the right to deny the information and access to the school from someone who was giving that information, they would retain their right as head of the school to choose who talked to their students.
The quality of a speaker is very important. If I were a head teacher, I would not want someone who I knew was a bad speaker and did not engage the children successfully or in a professional manner to have access to my school, even if they might be talking about something whose content was very important. Indeed, one of the reasons for not doing that would be because they would put the information over badly. My years of teaching experience might be from a long time ago, but I remember some horror stories of outside visitors coming into schools who just did not have the skills to engage and talk to children and young people. I am not opposed at all to the amendments, but I do not think we have discussed the right of the head to retain control over who is speaking to his or her students. I would like that to be considered, without taking away from the intent of the amendments we have discussed.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on Amendment 17, but I was on the Social Mobility Select Committee along with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the issue of careers guidance came up very strongly throughout our year of investigations and featured strongly in recommendation 2. Our report came out in April last year and the government response was published in July. I would like to read part of that response and then refer to a piece of evidence that we received from Sir Michael Wilshaw. The response, and I am cutting away a lot of it, says that,
“we will make the Gatsby benchmarks the focus of the statutory guidance that supports schools and colleges to implement the careers duty. This is in direct response to calls from schools to make it clear what government is expecting from them in terms of careers education”.
The tone of the response is pretty clear: the Government are saying, more or less, “Yes, we will do more”. It makes no sense, then, not to measure it, and I agree wholly with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said. I distinctly remember that Sir Michael Wilshaw made it very clear in his excellent evidence that Ofsted is already carrying out the assessment work on careers guidance, so not to include it in the marking scheme seems not to be using the fullness of the evidence and the data that are being gathered. Accordingly, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the whole of Amendment 17.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, if you want to change attitudes in schools and colleges, one of the most powerful influences you can have is to send in their peer groups to talk to them. I met a young woman today who had taken a degree in mechanical engineering. It was interesting talking to her about what her influences had been in taking that decision. More importantly for me, when I asked her whether she was going back into schools and colleges to talk to young people about what a successful career they could establish in engineering, the answer was a very clear affirmative.
When Ofsted is carrying out an inspection, I hope it will take into account the general approach of the school. It is not just about formal careers advice, as has already been stated, but about whether they have an open mind. I take my noble friend Lady Morris’s point about the quality of speakers; obviously you want someone who can engage in a positive way. But I hope that when Ofsted looks at schools and colleges it is taking into account the links with business, business people and people who have successfully completed their apprenticeships coming into schools, and the role of women in subjects like engineering, STEM and construction in changing attitudes and making young people, and especially young women, aware that there is a wide variety of careers open to them with lots of well-rewarded career paths. That is an essential part of any careers advice.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments, which relate to careers. I have to say I am still struggling with the concept of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, being the meat in anyone’s sandwich. He is a pretty tough piece of meat, based on my experience of sitting opposite him at the Dispatch Box. That is meant as a compliment, actually.
On Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, Clause 2 requires schools to ensure that there is an opportunity for a range of education and training providers to talk directly to pupils about the technical education qualifications and apprenticeships that they offer. The amendment is intended to ensure that such access is extended to people who represent groups of providers, such as women in construction or manufacturing. I remember attending an event held for women in manufacturing in your Lordships’ House a few years ago. I agree that we need a degree of flexibility so that pupils hear from the person best placed to inform them about the opportunities on offer. I recognise that in some cases that may not be the provider itself but perhaps it could be an ambassador, an employer or a member of a trade association or representative body, speaking on behalf of a number of small providers.
We will publish statutory guidance that will set out more detail and make it clear that we do not wish to impose unnecessary constraints. We are placing the onus on the school to develop their own arrangements for provider access, including agreeing with providers who will attend to talk to pupils. Clause 2, both as drafted and as we intend to clarify in underpinning statutory guidance, already provides for persons acting on behalf of a number of providers to access pupils. To get really technical and legal for a moment, I queried this in terms of statutory interpretation. The legal authority for our decision to resist the amendments is found on page 1019 of Bennion on Statutory Interpretation:
“Where an enactment refers to a person it is usually taken as intended to include that person’s agent authorised either expressly or by implication”.
The earliest legal authority on this is R v Symington (1895) 4BCR 323. It follows that the words “on behalf of” in the statute would not be needed to allow a person to act on behalf of providers.
Turning to the very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, regarding the amendment from my noble friend Lord Baker, it is certainly clear to me, and my officials have confirmed this, that the obligation on the school is to ensure that there is an opportunity for a range of education and training providers to access pupils, that they must prepare a policy statement and that that statement must include, for example, grounds for granting and refusing requests for access. Obviously it must be at the discretion of the head; if he feels that the people coming along are, frankly, not of quality and are not going to give their pupils the right advice, then it must be within the head’s remit to refuse access, provided that he is providing a range of education and training providers and has some other alternative that is better.
Amendment 9 is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is intended to ensure that the policy statement produced by every school will set out the circumstances in which both providers and persons acting on their behalf will be given access to pupils. The current provisions already allow for such persons to talk to pupils. As I said, we will publish statutory guidance which makes this degree of flexibility explicitly clear: the onus is on schools to liaise with providers to agree who is best placed to talk to them.
Turning to Amendment 17, which deals in more detail with Ofsted and careers advice, careers advice is a vital part of the role that every school and college must play in preparing students for the workplace. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that careers advice should start in primary school. Primary Futures does excellent work in this regard. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Careers & Enterprise Company, in which we are investing considerable money—£90 million—has made an excellent start.
However, the quality of the careers offer is considered carefully by Ofsted when conducting standard inspections of FE colleges. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Matters relating to careers provision feature in all four graded judgements made by Ofsted inspectors. First, in judging leadership and management, inspectors take account of the extent to which learners receive thorough and impartial careers guidance to enable them to make informed choices about their current learning and future career plans. Secondly, in judging the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, inspectors consider how far learners are supported to develop their employability skills, including appropriate attitudes and behaviour for work. Thirdly, in judging students’ personal development, behaviour and welfare, inspectors consider how learners benefit from purposeful work-related learning, including external work experience. Finally, in judging outcomes, inspectors consider information about students’ destinations and the acquisition of the qualifications, skills and knowledge that will help them to progress.
Ofsted also evaluates the education and training provision offered by the college, including 16 to 19 study programmes, apprenticeships and traineeships. In making these judgments, inspectors consider the extent to which each type of provision offers tailored careers advice and work experience opportunities to students and develops their employability skills. Noble Lords made some good points about Ofsted’s approach to that, and I will certainly discuss that further with Ofsted shortly. However, I hope that what I have said about its obligation framework reassures my noble friend that colleges are held to account properly for the quality of their careers provision and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his short CPD session, which I hope I shall manage to remember and will rehearse later in Hansard. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I can be very brief. I am delighted to be able to say that, because the procedures followed on the amendments have been so exemplary that I recommend them to the House and hope that they may be adopted by others in a similar situation. I raised an issue in Committee. It received a fair and interesting hearing from Ministers. I asked for and received a meeting with the Bill team at which the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, was present. We went through the issues together. There was a good dialogue and debate. We narrowed it down to two specific points, which are the subject of the amendments. On the first, Amendment 10, I think I am allowed to say that there may be some good news when the Minister comes to respond, so I shall be moving it in the hope that it will be accepted by the House.
I shall not be moving Amendments 11, 12 and 13, because in the letter that I received subsequently from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, there is an exact response to what I was looking for—which is not, as part of the letter seems to suggest, about the impact that the current framing would have on the operation of the special education measures. The point I was trying to get at, which comes up at the end of the letter, was that in a normal insolvency arrangement, there are rules for how creditors are dealt with. I was concerned that the drafting as it stood might interfere with that. That is a narrow point and I will not rehearse it here but, at the end of the letter, the noble Baroness writes:
“I hope that I have been able to reassure you”—
she had not until then—
“that the drafting of Clause 24(4) and (5) is not intended”.
I should be grateful if, when the noble Baroness or the noble Lord responds, they repeat that so that we have it on record that it is intended that the normal rules established for ordinary insolvency will be followed and that the drafting does not intervene on that. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments. I have made it clear that our priority in introducing the special administration regime is to ensure that the interests of students are safeguarded as far as possible. That is the purpose of the special objective, which places an overriding obligation on the education administrator to take the action that best avoids or minimises disruption to the studies of existing students. I am pleased that noble Lords recognise, and share, that objective.
I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the drafting of subsection (2), that the inclusion of the words “if possible” may be considered to cast doubt on the special objective. As he indicated, I can assure noble Lords that is not our intention. I have reflected on the noble Lord’s amendment. The regime that we are introducing is one which places students at the heart of further education, but does not demand that the education administrator achieves the impossible; nor does it disregard the interests of creditors. The words “if possible” in Clause 24(2) were intended to clarify this position, but I understand the noble Lord’s concerns that they might have the opposite effect. Let me be clear that our position remains unchanged and I am satisfied, on the advice of my lawyers, that their deletion would have no substantive effect on the application of the regime. I am therefore delighted to accept the amendment.
As for the noble Lord’s kind offer not to move Amendments 11, 12 and 13, I am delighted that he has been reassured by the letter from my noble friend Lady Vere. I assure him that the normal insolvency procedures would be followed and that there is no intention to disrupt those, apart from the overriding special objective.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“Providers of technical education: guarantee to students
(1) Any providers of technical education who are not covered by the insolvency regime created by this Act must provide a guarantee from a reputable financial institution to each Government supported student that, if the provider is made insolvent, the financial institution will cover the cost of operating that student's course until a suitable end point.(2) In subsection (1), a “suitable end point” means the completion of the course or the successful transfer of the student to an alternative institution.(3) In subsection (1), a “Government supported student” means any student whose education is funded directly by the Government through grants to the providers or student loans.(4) The cost of providing the guarantee under subsection (1) must be met by the relevant provider under subsection (1).”
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
I note that the Minister did not reply to my amendment in his response, and I hope we can have further discussions before Third Reading.
Lord Storey
“Further education colleges: careers advice
(1) In carrying out inspections of further education colleges, and giving a rating to colleges, Ofsted has a duty to take into account the careers advice made available to students by colleges.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “careers advice” means a combination of face-to-face careers advice and careers advice that is provided remotely.”
Lord Storey
I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply, for which I am grateful, but I do not think he went far enough and, given the importance of careers education, I wish to test to opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Constitution of further education corporations
(1) Section 20 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (constitution of corporation and conduct of the institution) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) An instrument must provide for the role of the Clerk to include providing advice to the corporation with regard to matters including—(a) the operation of its powers,(b) the conduct of its business,(c) matters of governance practice, and(d) general procedural matters.””
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we had a very interesting debate in Committee about the role of clerks in FE institutions. It is clear from our debates on the Bill that these institutions face many challenges. We have agreed that it is important to have the highest quality of people appointed to their governing bodies and that clerks can be very helpful in giving advice to them. The Minister said he would give some consideration to this and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to continue our discussion in Committee, about the importance of good governance in FE colleges, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has referred. As I said in our earlier discussion, I fully recognise the important role played by clerks as expert advisers to governing bodies of FE institutions. As the Minister responsible for governance in schools, I have made it a priority to improve this vital area, including the important role of clerks. However, we believe that it is essentially a matter of improving practice, not legislative change, for reasons that I will outline.
We are supporting the role of clerks through development programmes run by the Education and Training Foundation. The noble Lord will also have received a copy of a letter from the Association of Colleges setting out some of the steps it is taking to strengthen governance. Hard copies of that letter are available for noble Lords today, should they wish to see it. I note from the letter that the AoC is currently undertaking a review of the existing code of practice on governance, to which many colleges adhere. I will be meeting it shortly to hear what further action it intends to take. There is clearly a strong and shared aspiration across this House for strengthening governance. The sector is keen to engage and it is only right for others, including government, to take up that invitation, and to offer the right combination of challenge and support. While legislation might appear attractive, it should not be something that is reached for without good evidence as to the nature of any problems, and full consideration of the most appropriate solutions. In an area as complex as governance, simple legislative approaches are unlikely to be effective in delivering real improvement.
The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be to reinstate one element of model articles for colleges that applied prior to the Education Act 2011. That would deliberately limit the freedom that colleges currently have in respect of the contents of their instrument and articles, by requiring them to retain provision in those articles regarding the role of the clerk. I have significant doubts about the efficacy of such an approach. A recent sample of the contents of the instrument and articles of 10 colleges, carried out by my officials, found that in every case the relevant documents already contained a provision similar or identical to that proposed in the amendment. If that sample is representative of the sector as a whole then it would suggest that the amendment will have no substantive effect—certainly not in terms of delivering the improvement to standards of governance which I believe is the noble Lord’s intention—particularly as all 10 colleges in the sample had been subject to intervention by the Further Education Commissioner. In many cases, the commissioner found significant failures of governance. Although I will not read out the relevant sections from the commissioner’s reports, which are published on GOV.UK, there is more than one instance of unsatisfactory clerking arrangements being a significant contributory factor. Those failures occurred despite the role of the clerk being set out in the instrument and articles.
This evidence strengthens the argument that setting out the role of the clerk in the instrument and articles, as would be required by the amendment, is by no means a guarantee of good governance in practice. Nor, unfortunately, is it an effective protection against poor governance. Our focus has to be on good practice in governance, and what more we can do to share good practice, not introducing additional box-ticking measures.
In conclusion, I stress that strengthening governance clearly remains a priority for the sector and for the Government and we will continue to drive this. In the small number of cases where there are significant failures in governance, we will continue to intervene swiftly and effectively to ensure that governing bodies are held to account, and that lessons are learned. We must continue to drive up the performance of all governing bodies. This approach strikes the right balance in helping to ensure a robust and well-governed sector that is in the best position to deliver its important mission for learners, employers, and the community. For these reasons, I believe that greater statutory prescription, as set out in the amendment, is unfortunately unlikely to be effective in achieving those goals. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, as the Minister mentioned the ETF, I remind the House of my declaration that my wife is a consultant to it. I am grateful to the Minister, particularly because he is going to meet the AoC to discuss the outcome of its review. I accept that good practice is probably the best way forward. However, I hope the Government will keep up the pressure on the AoC and colleges to ensure that they employ good people who can provide robust advice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“( ) The group of persons that prepared a standard must have considered, including within the standard, a qualification widely recognised by employers for that occupation or for an aspect of it.”
Lord Lucas
There has been a problem with apprenticeships, at least historically, where people have wanted to include qualifications within them. I would be very grateful if my noble friend would make it clear that this has now passed and that the idea of including qualifications within apprenticeship qualifications, or indeed within qualifications at FE colleges, is now fully accepted. Generally, this is to the advantage of the learner. If I am doing a qualification within one of the 15 proposed Sainsbury routes, and that apprenticeship involves getting to know cybersecurity, I do not want to have a haberdasher’s qualification in cybersecurity: I want to have something which will be recognised in every single industry which might require that skill. The same applies to accountancy, marketing and other skills which are common across the routes, where these are things that you might wish an apprentice to learn in the course of their apprenticeship, or have experience of. It also applies particularly to technical qualifications in IT, where you would expect an apprentice to follow one or more international qualifications produced by the likes of Microsoft because that is what the industry as a whole demands and that is what produces a young person who can move from job to job because they have the qualifications that are recognised in their next job and not just those which are appropriate for the particular patch where they did their apprenticeship.
It is also important in this context that the specifications for apprenticeship should recognise that there are alternative qualifications in some circumstances. You may want your young person to be familiar with computer networking but there are two, maybe three, top-quality international qualifications in computer networking. Which one do you want to use? It will be the one that works with your business. However, the people in charge of the apprenticeship will recognise that these are equivalent and that either one can count and fit in place. I think this has been accepted now. There seems to be some residual difficulty reported to me. However, I would be very grateful for my noble friend’s assurance that the concept of embedding qualifications in apprenticeships or in further education courses is now fully accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking
I support my noble friend’s amendment. I suspect that individual apprentices will work on the basis that he mentioned as certain qualifications in certain industries are not in the regular run of FE colleges, or universities for that matter, but have been accepted by the industry as the accepted standard. My noble friend mentioned Microsoft. Cisco does this as well. It is particularly the case in the whole area of computing, where various companies have established qualifications which have become the standard. In fact, the Cisco qualification for schools is more demanding than GCSE computing, and many people work towards that. We have to make sure that these qualifications do not disappear when the Institute for Apprenticeships clears out a lot of valueless qualifications. These are not valueless, particularly the international ones. Given that the digital revolution is happening so suddenly, a huge variety of examinations and qualifications in artificial intelligence may come our way. Each area will want to protect its own interest. I would hope that the Institute for Apprenticeships would take this message on board. I do not know whether a statutory measure is required.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for this amendment, the effect of which would be to require each group of persons who develop a standard to consider whether an existing qualification ought to be included within it. Occupational standards will form the basis of both apprenticeships and technical education qualifications, and need to be suitable for each of them. The standard should include the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to form the basis of either an apprenticeship or a technical education qualification. Including existing qualifications in addition to the knowledge, skills and behaviours would cause complications when technical education qualifications are being developed using the standard.
One of the core principles of the apprenticeship reforms is to move away from qualifications. Under the framework model, apprentices collect a number of small, often low-quality, qualifications throughout their apprenticeship which often do not give employers much reassurance about apprentices’ ability to do the job. By moving to a single end-point assessment, the apprentice will be tested on the knowledge, skills and behaviours set out in the standard and their occupational competence to do the whole job, not just a small section of it.
This amendment does not require the inclusion of qualifications in standards but it is moving the approach back towards the system that we are moving away from. Although it is no doubt something that the awarding bodies would welcome, it could actively encourage employer groups to include qualifications where they may otherwise not have done so. That is likely to be contrary to the Government’s strategic guidance for the institute. However, I can reassure my noble friend and the House that in occupations where there is a qualification that is needed for an apprenticeship—for example, to achieve a professional status—they will not need to be prompted by this Bill to consider its inclusion in the standard, which is permissible as long as they meet set criteria for an exception. This is in line with the employer-led nature of the reforms. We therefore believe that this kind of direction is not needed in such a system. I hope that my noble friend will feel reassured enough on the basis of my explanation to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am mostly comforted by my noble friend’s reference to employer-led matters. If that indicates that if employers want a qualification and fight hard enough they will get it, that seems to me satisfactory. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 23 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey. The Government have introduced a raft of reforms to the apprenticeship system which they hope will contribute to the quality as well as the quantity of apprenticeships. One of the biggest departures, and among the most contentious, is the move to end-point assessment—EPA—as the sole formally recognised method of assessing an apprentice’s competence to do the job they have trained for. I am grateful to SEMTA and to Professor Lorna Unwin and Professor Alison Fuller from the Institute of Education for their work in this area and pay tribute to their expertise.
If we take the example of engineering, employers have looked to continuous assessment over three or more years, with formal qualifications used as the mechanism through which they can both assess and ensure that the full range of skills and knowledge has been learned, and that apprentices’ attainment has met national standards and earned national recognition. In overseas countries where EPA is used, it tends to be used in conjunction with other assessment and formal accreditation practices, with the assessment of skills taking place over the whole lifetime of the apprenticeship as well as in a summative form at the end of the programme and through formal qualifications. It is important that the assessment methodology is appropriate and is encouraging to the apprentice. Young people need to gain confidence as they learn that their skills are being recognised. The best way to do this is through continuous assessment. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that EPA will not be the only assessment used and that learners will be assessed continuously to ensure that they reach their potential and help to plug the yawning skills gap in the country. I beg to move.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss Amendment 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which would require all apprenticeship assessment plans to include continuous assessment.
Reviewing the role of continuous assessment in apprenticeships has been a very important part of the apprenticeship reforms following the 2012 Richard review of apprenticeships. It concluded that continuous assessment throughout an apprenticeship tested only incremental progress, not whether the apprentice is fully competent at the time of completing their apprenticeship. This approach also undermines our principle of ensuring that assessment is delivered by an independent third party with nothing to gain from the outcome of the assessment. The continuous assessment model often means that the same individual trains and assesses an apprentice—a conflict of interest we have sought to avoid.
An important feature of approved English apprenticeship standards and plans is therefore the move away from this reliance on a series of small and pre-existing qualifications making up an apprenticeship, and the move instead towards a single, independent end-point assessment, which tests the apprentice in a holistic and robust way. This test at the end of the apprenticeship proves genuine employability by demonstrating that the apprentice has acquired the knowledge, skills and behaviours needed to be fully competent in their occupation. The requirements for the end-point assessment of each standard are developed by employer groups and approved by the institute to ensure that it meets the needs for that specific occupation. In view of this, I hope the noble Baroness feels reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He said that the same people will be testing and assessing but the likelihood is that that will be the employer, who will know the standards they wish the apprentice to reach. There is a place for end-point assessment, but it should not be the only way of assessing these skills. They are learned continuously and should be assessed continuously. However, I hear what the noble Lord says, and we need to keep this under review to make sure that we are not putting off a lot of people with practical skills, who find the end-point assessment a real barrier to learning and accreditation. Meanwhile, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 26 and 29 to 33, which are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lord Storey.
This series of amendments is intended to limit the institute’s ability to acquire wholesale the intellectual property relating to materials developed by awarding bodies. We expressed serious concerns about this in Committee. This is a significant proposal, which was not canvassed in the skills plan. As drafted, it is unclear whether awarding organisations retain any copyright to potentially key documents relating to a qualification once ownership transfers to the IATE. It is further proposed in paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, proposed new Section A2IA—“Transfer of copyright relating to technical education qualifications”—that:
“The Institute may assign … or grant a licence to another person”,
in the copyright transferred to the institute. These are draconian proposals.
The arguments we have been offered include that the Government—that is, the taxpayer—will have paid the awarding body to develop the materials and are therefore entitled to ownership. Publishers often give advances to authors, but they do not thereafter claim copyright. The payment is for the skills and expertise; the contents should remain the property of the author organisation. Another reason given was that it would provide continuity. If awarding body A loses a contract to awarding body B, there could be a seamless transfer. This begs a few questions. If awarding body B has won the contract, how could it do so without providing its own materials, and what self-respecting awarding body would opt to take over a competitor’s materials? But what if awarding body A had gone bust? I find it sad and inexplicable that so much of the Bill presupposes that those involved with further and technical education are overly liable to go into insolvency. It is a pretty robust sector. Might it have gone into insolvency because the Government have taken over all its materials, one wonders? In any case, in the unlikely event that a key awarding body went into liquidation, I feel sure that measures could be taken to retrieve any materials which had not already been handed over lock, stock and barrel to the Government.
We have heard from City & Guilds and other awarding bodies that the provisions in the Bill on the ownership of intellectual property and qualifications are unclear. As many awarding organisations operate outside England and export their current qualifications overseas, this lack of clarity will have an impact on the development of qualifications. We note, as we did in Committee, that in both general academic studies and higher-level studies the Government do not attempt to own the copyright qualifications. We caution that this approach could have a disproportionate impact on the technical qualifications market in the UK.
We propose that institute-owned copyright is more appropriately applied at the level of national standards, allowing awarding organisations to retain their copyright in their own materials. The power of the institute is so uncertain that it makes it impossible to ascertain the value of investing in developing qualifications going forward. Further, it should be noted that there is no mention in the Sainsbury report, which was the progenitor of the skills plan, or in the skills plan, of the handing over of copyright to the institute in documents related to qualifications.
As to single awarding organisations, what evidence is there that the current awarding arrangement has led to distortions of the vocational market? As we pointed out in Committee, there is a certain inconsistency in government policy, which is going all out for more competition in universities—raising considerable concerns in this House—with a move to a monopolistic model for vocational awarding. The current mixed-market model may not be perfect but it supports and encourages investment and innovation, as well as giving choice and safeguarding learner interests in the event of any awarding organisation failure. A similar model was proposed for GCSE and English baccalaureate subjects, and was abandoned following robust evidence from the Education Select Committee and Ofqual. Why should these qualifications be treated differently? If a single-supplier franchising approach was deemed too high-risk for the general qualifications market, why should it be deemed suitable for technical qualifications? I wonder whether these restrictions might be connected with the fact that those in government—whether in Westminster or Whitehall—will predominantly have achieved their own success through academic routes. How many people in the DfE have followed an apprenticeship or a work-based route and understand first-hand just how relevant and rigorous those programmes are? The Civil Service used to have graduate and direct-entry routes, both of which could lead to the highest levels. These days, most will be graduates. It is therefore all the more important that those in government listen to the practitioners and heed their advice. I hope the Minister will be open to these important amendments, and I beg to move.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I completely support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I do not think that any Peer who has been involved in the Bill wishes it anything other than complete success. We are all behind the objectives and the methodology which is set out in the Sainsbury report and what has been built upon that. We want to ensure in the passage of the Bill that what we are producing will work well.
In the process of putting the Bill together, certain ideas have been developed which will not weather exposure to practice. When it comes to sitting down with industries, awarding bodies and others, the ideas that are being touted as the way things will be under the Bill will not be the things that work out. I want to make sure that the Bill has sufficient flexibility built into it so that, if things need to take a different turn to make this project succeed, they will be able to, and we will not find ourselves hobbled by primary legislation.
I have one separate amendment in this group that is aimed at the question of multiple qualifications within one particular sub-route—I do not yet know what they will be called; in the picture supplied to us they look like the fingers of a hand, although I do not think they will be called fingers. To restrict yourself to one single awarding organisation creates a monopoly in the short term, and in the long term it reinforces it. If you take one particular skill set within the universe covered by the Bill, and you say, “Only this awarding organisation can create qualifications for this for the next seven years”, what other awarding organisation will maintain the ability to compete? None of them will. Why should they? There is no business for seven years and they cannot afford to do it. It is all based on a collection of people, and anyway it is not something that stays still; it continuously evolves. There is no way that they will remain in a position to compete, so when you come up to the renewal of this single licence, there will be only one competitor.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I wish to say a few words about this group. My name appears on seven of the nine amendments before your Lordships, but I want to speak only on the question of copyright. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, spoke to this group most effectively and I will not attempt to repeat any of her remarks because that is not necessary, but intellectual property is an important issue and we believe it must be protected.
I am aware that the Government have quoted the OECD as stating that the area of course development is not suitable for the market. It is perhaps counterintuitive for a socialist such as myself to criticise the Government for turning their back on the market in favour of introducing a monopoly. However, on this occasion I have to say—perhaps somewhat grudgingly—that I believe the Government are wrong, as there appears to be no convincing answer to the question raised by noble Lords in Committee as to what would happen if an awarding organisation failed and ultimately collapsed. The Government appear to have no plan B for such a situation, which is a very real matter for concern, not just for noble Lords but for awarding organisations.
Equally, the universally respected City & Guilds has highlighted significant concerns about its future. I think it is fair to say that at various stages in our deliberations on the Bill noble Lords have commented on the need to have qualifications and awarding organisations with some immediate recognition among the population in general. If you went out on to the street and did a vox pop asking people what City & Guilds were, you would get a pretty high proportion giving a reasonably accurate assessment of it. Therefore, I do not think that we should enter lightly into a situation where City & Guilds could be compromised. The organisation has written to noble Lords—as indeed the Minister may have seen—setting out a worst-case scenario, which could mean the end of City & Guilds as an awarding organisation in England and could signal the end of it as an awarding organisation in the devolved nations and internationally. It has also pointed out the potential negative impact on it as an apprenticeship awarding organisation due to a diminished role in the technical education route.
We believe that that should not be allowed to happen. The Bill could be amended but still achieve the aims of the Government’s skills plan through the Institute for Apprenticeships retaining copyright of the occupational standards and common qualification design criteria but allowing licensed qualification providers to retain copyright of the individual qualifications, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the associated assessment materials.
The amendments in this group would provide some safeguards. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the spirit in which they are presented by noble Lords from across the three main political parties and take them on board, undertaking at least to come back at Third Reading with some proposals to mitigate those concerns.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I understand their concerns and hope that I might be able to provide an explanation that will put their mind at rest.
All these amendments relate to the copyright measures in Schedule 1. I know that how we implement the copyright measures is a cause for concern for awarding organisations, but it is important to understand that we would not be proposing these measures were they not vital for the success of the technical education reforms. I reassure noble Lords, on the record, that the legislation as set out in the Bill ensures that there is already a substantial amount of flexibility in how to implement the new system.
I should also say that it is not our intention to introduce legislation that disadvantages awarding organisations. They make a huge contribution and play a vital role in our technical education system, and we will continue to work with them to implement the reforms in the most appropriate and sensible manner. That work is ongoing and we are working with stakeholders to develop a commercial strategy that sets out in more detail how we will ensure a competitive and well-managed market for technical education qualifications. The Bill as drafted already allows us to do this.
I will take each amendment in turn. Amendment 24 would mean that the Institute for Apprenticeships could approve a technical qualification only when it had identified documents relating to,
“standards and common qualification criteria”,
and that these documents should be subject to the copyright transfer. As drafted, the legislation requires that copyright should apply to “relevant course documents”, by which we mean documents relating to the teaching and assessment of the qualifications. The Bill allows the institute the flexibility to define what is meant by “relevant course documents”. This will form part of the ongoing work to determine exactly how the measures will be implemented.
If the institute does not own the copyright for relevant course documents that are central to the delivery and assessment of a qualification, the reforms to technical education will be substantially undermined. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the new qualifications will be based on occupational standards and outline qualification content that have been developed by employers as convened by the institute. The institute will own the copyright for these. Documents relating to the teaching and assessment of qualifications that are developed by the awarding organisations will be extensions of these original documents.
Furthermore, the licensing model will succeed only if there is continuity in the system. Our intention is that, at the end of a licence period—and indeed if an organisation happens to fall into financial difficulties—there will be a new organisation, and the incoming organisation should not have to develop a completely new set of qualification documents, when the existing documents are likely to continue to be relevant or require only minor updating. In addition, it would simply not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to be paying for the development of a full suite of new materials every few years. Indeed, this defeats one of the aims of these reforms. The institute will make sure that the terms of the licence reflect the costs of developing and delivering a qualification. We have a duty to make sure that our skills system works in the interests of students and employers, and we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective manner.
Amendment 25 would require the institute to make appropriate inquiries into the persons entitled to a right or interest in any copyright that could transfer. While I appreciate the intention behind the proposed changes, I hope to persuade noble Lords that it is unnecessary. New Section A2DA allows the institute, if it considers it appropriate, to approve a technical education qualification. As the legislation is currently drafted, the copyright of relevant course documents would transfer to the institute.
We recognise that there might be multiple contributors to the development of a technical education qualification, and that they are likely to want a say in matters that relate to their particular part. It would clearly be impracticable for the institute to obtain the individual consent of multiple contributors—it may not know the identity of many and they may have been subcontractors. We therefore expect that the organisation granted a licence to deliver a qualification would ensure that the authors of documents have given their consent.
The provisions as drafted already allow for the intention behind the amendment to be achieved. It requires that the institute is satisfied that each person who it thinks is entitled to a right or interest in the copyright agrees to that right or interest being transferred to the institute. We expect this to be part of the licensing arrangements too. We do not think the institute could not be satisfied that persons have agreed to the transfer unless it has received the information, which may necessitate an inquiry. Therefore, the amendment does not add anything.
Amendment 26 would replace “transferred” with “assigned”. Taken in isolation, we accept that this is unlikely to have any material effect on the proposed measures relating to copyright. However, the measure makes a similar provision to the transfer of copyright for relevant course documents as we have already done for the transfer of standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. The use of the term “transferred” in both measures is therefore designed to assure the reader that these provisions are consistent with each other.
We anticipate that the institute will hold an open competition inviting organisations to submit outline proposals to develop a qualification against pre-set criteria. Once the qualification is developed in line with the institute’s requirements, full approval would be granted with certain terms and conditions attached, including in relation to copyright of the documents defined as “relevant course documents”. The contract is likely to be a concession agreement, whereby the successful organisation enters into an agreement with the institute to have the exclusive right to offer the qualification for the duration of the contract period. At the end of the approval period, the institute would run another open competition, giving both the incumbent and other organisations the opportunity to put forward a bid.
Lord Lucas
I am grateful for what my noble friend said on my amendments, but to turn to the main group, where she has adumbrated some new ideas in very few words, might we have a meeting between Report and Third Reading so that we can better understand the details of what is proposed?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her full reply on all this, but I am left as confused as at the start. There is this curious thing that the institute can grant a licence back to the awarding body that actually created the materials in the first place or can give them to multiple awarding organisations. I find that a curious concept given that awarding organisations have to have a commercial structure and to make ends meet, and the materials with which they trade are very often their assessment materials. The Minister has made great play of the fact that there is flexibility in the Bill. But the trouble is that, by the time the Bill goes through with these measures enshrined that copyright is transferred to the institute, there is not much flexibility there if copyright is once lost to the institute.
There were a number of other things that I will read in detail in the Minister’s reply. I will not go through the different points that I have scribbled down because they merit a lot of thought. I also pick up the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we will need some serious conversations about this because it will come back at Third Reading for a vote unless we can get some clearer reassurance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Can we be clear that this can be brought back at Third Reading and that we can have a debate on principles? That would be very important in bringing this to a conclusion tonight. It is essential that we know that we can bring this back at Third Reading.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Yes. It will definitely come back at Third Reading.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
There is no guarantee at all because the clerks are tight about what they will allow. The Government have to agree that they will allow us to bring it back. That is why I made the point.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
We were hoping that we could have a dialogue about this because these matters are key to the success of apprenticeships. But if that is the Minister’s approach, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 View all Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2017 - (24 Mar 2017)
Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017 View all Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2017 - (24 Mar 2017)
Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 View all Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 24 March 2017 - (24 Mar 2017)
Farriers (Registration) Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Farriers (Registration) Act 2017 View all Farriers (Registration) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:02 - Division on Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville’s Motion - Ayes: 75 / Noes: 164 - Motion disagreed.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, laid before the House on 23 February, be annulled (SI 2017/194).
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I begin by drawing the attention of noble Lords to my interest as the patron of South Somerset Mind. I am grateful to Mind, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Sense, Citizens Advice, Scope and Rethink Mental Illness for their briefings, which I am sure others will also have received.
Like most of your Lordships, I take my mobile phone into the Chamber set on silent to receive messages from the Whips’ Office. On the afternoon of 23 February, during the Report stage of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, my phone buzzed. Most unusually for me, I left the Chamber to answer the call. It was the Minister ringing from Copeland to tell me that, following the two High Court judgments, the Government were, that afternoon, going to alter the criteria for qualifying for PIPs. I and my colleagues searched around and eventually found the changed criteria relating to emotional and psychological conditions. What a perfect day to release bad news. While the Minister and his colleagues were knocking up voters in the fresh air of the Lake District, government officials were bringing forward regulations that would penalise people who, because of their very complex conditions, are not able to go out freely into the countryside or towns, and in many cases would now be confined within the four walls of their homes.
The essence of the changes proposed is to limit the higher mobility element of the previous disability living allowance for those people who find it difficult to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems. These claimants are as restricted in their independence as many people with physical mobility problems. They face higher transport costs because they are unable to use public transport or drive, as well as the costs associated with hiring a support worker. The Government’s changes to PIP will affect more than 160,000 people with mental health problems, both in and out of work, who face extra costs related to their disability. These changes mean that people who need help to make journeys because of psychological distress will not receive the same level of support as other disabled people. This is discrimination.
In 2012 the Government made a clear commitment that people who experience psychological distress would be eligible, but they are now changing the criteria. The Government further said that a person with a cognitive impairment alone would still be eligible for the highest mobility rate. Cognitive impairments are not the same as mental health problems. Specifically excluding psychological distress undermines the stated purpose of PIP as a benefit which treats disabled people as individuals rather than labelling them by their condition. The proposed changes create a legal distinction between mental health problems and other kinds of impairment when it comes to benefit assessments, again demonstrating discrimination.
This change is out of step with previous government statements. On 7 February 2012 the former Minister for Disabled People, Maria Miller, stated:
“The Government have made clear that they want personal independence payment … to take fairer account of the impact of mental, intellectual, cognitive and development impairments than DLA does currently… For example, when considering entitlement to both rates of the mobility component we will take into account ability to plan and follow a journey, in addition to physical ability to get around. Importantly, PIP is designed to assess barriers individuals face, not make a judgment based on their impairment type”.
Esther McVey, also a former Minister for Disabled People, stated on 26 November 2012:
“The personal independence payment assessment will look at disabled people as individuals, rather than labelling them by their health condition or impairment”.
As a result of the ruling by the Upper Tribunal, the Government have introduced legislation which would mean that psychological distress can be relevant only when considering two specific criteria for planning and following journeys. This would mean that people who experience psychological distress would be eligible for only the lower element. These changes undermine rather than restore the original intent of the legislation. The Government say they are committed to giving mental health the same priority they give physical health, but I am afraid that is not borne out by the changes to these criteria.
The PIP criteria are already too strict and have led to almost 50% of disabled people and those with long-term conditions losing access to some or all of their support when being reassessed for DLA. This is of particular concern in the context of the mobility component, where more than 750 people a week are returning their Motability vehicles because they are no longer eligible for support. The original descriptor does not go far enough in acknowledging the significant psychological impact that many people with long-term physical conditions also experience, for example, as a result of cognitive and associated mental health symptoms or their ability to follow a journey. This is substantially different from the impact of a person’s physical ability to walk, which is assessed under the “moving around” descriptor.
The high successful appeal rate demonstrates in far too many cases that disabled people are relying on tribunals to assess their condition accurately and then to interpret and apply the descriptors appropriately to capture the impact of their symptoms. For many disabled people, such tribunal judgments have improved a system that is too often ineffective as a test of their needs. The original intention behind the PIP assessment was to take a holistic view of the impact of disability, fairly taking into account the full range of impairments. The Upper Tribunal judgments do not undermine this approach; rather they ensure that functional impact is assessed accurately regardless of the symptoms of the condition causing it. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has looked at this change in criteria and warns that the regulations could have unintended consequences. It has called on the Government to review the PIP assessment criteria prior to the changes being implemented.
I shall give two examples of what we are talking about in practice. Mrs D suffers from severe depression with psychotic features, including auditory hallucinations. She is under the care of a psychiatrist, has irrational fears for her safety when outside and has not been out of her house unaccompanied since 2011. She needs assistance from another person to plan the route of a journey to get to either a familiar or unfamiliar location. When she goes out of doors her husband has to accompany her. She was assessed as not being entitled to any mobility support. Mrs D appealed on the basis that she cannot navigate any journey on her own and, because of her poor memory and concentration, she would become confused very easily. The tribunal thought that her complex mental health had been underestimated and awarded the enhanced mobility rate. This is one of the two tribunal decisions that led to the Government amending these regulations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I inform the House that if this Motion is agreed to, I cannot call the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, due to pre-emption.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion in my name on the Order Paper. Widespread concern has been expressed about these regulations. I am grateful for briefings from a wide range of organisations pointing out their implications. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, explained how we came to be here. In December the Upper Tribunal ruled on two cases that determined what could be taken into account when making assessments for PIP. Ministers’ response was to declare that if those judgments were allowed to stand they would cost £3.7 billion over five years. Therefore, they had no option but to rush to legislate without consultation. They did not pause even to allow the Social Security Advisory Committee to scrutinise the regulations in advance of their being laid, as would be usual.
The cases were slightly different. The case of LB was about managing medication, affects far fewer people and would cost only about £10 million a year. As the Social Security Advisory Committee pointed out, the impacts of that case are by no means clear. So why did the Government not do what the SSAC recommended: consult widely and improve the estimate of the likely impact before the changes were introduced, given that the numbers and the cost were so much smaller?
The judgment in the MH case meant that, in applying for the mobility component of PIP, someone could rely on their inability to plan or manage a journey solely on grounds of psychological distress. These regulations are designed to reverse that completely. Yet when PIP was introduced in legislation, Ministers claimed it would be very different from disability living allowance, which preceded it, because it would not judge someone simply on the basis of their condition, but on what an individual could or could not do. Yet now the regulations seek to exclude a key dimension of that very judgment.
Ministers claim that they are restoring the original aim of PIP, but we were told that the higher rate of the mobility component of PIP would apply where mobility is,
“severely limited by the person’s physical or mental condition”.
Yet many people with mental health problems will be affected by these changes, including people with schizophrenia or bipolar or post-traumatic stress disorders. Will the Minister please tell the House how this fits at all with the Prime Minister’s promise to tackle the stigma of mental health problems and the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health? It does not.
Ministers have been out there insisting that this is not a cut. However, 164,000 people with mental health conditions could miss out on mobility payments that they would have received under the Upper Tribunal judgment. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee warned,
“while this change may not result in an immediate ‘cut’ for people currently receiving PIP, they may lose out in future (despite no change to their condition), if they are reassessed under the new criteria”.
That committee called on the Government to make clear to the House the long-term impact of these changes. That is what I am trying to push them to do today. It also called on them to review all the descriptors for PIP, as did the Social Security Advisory Committee. Can the Minister assure the House that his department intends to act on the recommendations of both the SSAC and the scrutiny committee and report back to this House when it has done so?
Finally, the SSAC pointed out that it was not at all clear how tribunals or those making decisions would respond to changes in descriptors to exclude psychological distress altogether, particularly where that is a symptom of a condition; for example, an intellectual or cognitive impairment which would generally result in a higher level of need. It said that,
“where multiple factors made it impossible for someone to follow a journey without help, it would be difficult in practice to strip out the element of psychological distress from the other factors when making a decision. As a result it may well be that it is not consistently treated in these circumstances”.
The Disability Benefits Consortium highlights that by looking at the example of Parkinson’s. It is a highly complex condition with more than 40 physical and non-physical symptoms. Depression and anxiety can be a symptom of Parkinson’s as a result of chemical changes in the brain. At any point, up to 40% of people with Parkinson’s will have depression and a similar proportion will experience anxiety. Likewise, many people with MS experience significant cognitive difficulties and are more likely to have co-morbid mental health conditions. The Upper Tribunal recognised that someone who needs to be accompanied on journeys to avoid overwhelming psychological distress has needs which meet a higher descriptor, but these regulations will prevent that being recognised and that claimant getting an appropriate level of help. How are decision-makers supposed to strip out the element of psychological distress from other factors when making a decision, when it is quite clear to anyone who has looked at it that it will not be an easy task?
Even before the regulations, there was growing concern about the way PIP is working. The Disability Benefits Consortium points out that almost half of people lose access to some of or all their support when assessed to move from DLA to PIP. Sixty per cent of those who appeal succeed. We know already that more than 750 people a week are returning their Motability cars because they no longer qualify for the money that they previously used to pay for them.
The tribunal decisions highlighted some important failures in the way that the PIP assessment process is working for people with mental health problems. Instead of stopping to reflect and consult, Ministers have rushed out new regulations to overturn the effect of the judgments and to assure us that everything will work smoothly in future. It will not. The ambiguities remain. The flaws in the way the PIP process assesses people with mental health needs will not disappear. Their needs will now simply be officially ignored. If only the Government had accepted the amendment put forward during the passage of the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which we backed and which would have introduced a trial period for PIP, these issues might have surfaced, but sadly she could not get support from around the House.
As a result, some people who need additional support to overcome barriers to mobility will not get it. Others will lose it when they come up for reassessment. That means that thousands of people could be trapped and isolated in their own homes because they cannot travel alone without help. That could make their depression or anxiety worse.
The context for this change is that this Government and the previous Government have repeatedly cut benefits for sick and disabled people. They cut £30 a week from the ESA for the WRAG group. They introduced the bedroom tax—two-thirds of households affected by that contain a disabled person. Now we have another move which will hit vulnerable people.
The Government should withdraw the regulations to enable proper scrutiny and consultation. If they will not, the Minister should commit here and now to conducting a review of the impact of the regulations on those with mental health conditions, as my Motion demands.
Before I finish, I should say a word about the other Motion on the Order Paper. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, decides to push her fatal Motion to a vote, she will be well aware that we on these Benches cannot support her and neither will most of the House. There is a reason that the Lords has voted down secondary legislation only five times since 1945. It is because, unlike with primary legislation, if we vote against secondary legislation, it is dead, irrespective of the will of the elected House. The Cunningham convention sets out quite clearly the exceptional circumstances in which the House may do that and we are not in that territory. Even if the fatal Motion somehow passed, I presume that the Government would simply bring back something in a Finance Bill or in other financially privileged legislation on which we could have no impact. I regret that having on the table a Motion such as that must inevitably raise expectations that this House can do something that it could or would never have done.
However, we should not let the Government off tonight without making it clear to them that the House does not approve of what they are doing. We should make it clear that we are deeply concerned about the impact of the regulations on sick and disabled people and that we do not approve of a move that devalues mental health compared with physical health. I urge the Government to think again. If they will not, I urge the House to demand that they at least account for the impact of what they are doing.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I think that the House would like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to annul the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. I understand that such a Motion should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I will explain why I think that this is an exceptional circumstance.
People in my position, with a highly visible, severe impairment, tend to find it a lot easier to demonstrate and receive the support we need to get from A to B than those experiencing mental health challenges. To be honest, I probably find it a lot easier to get around than many in your Lordships’ House today. I think that you will all have witnessed those on the mobile Bench whizzing around the Palace estate with ease and speed.
But let us be in no doubt: the impact of panic attacks and anxiety, not to mention schizophrenia, dementia and autism, on being able to,
“plan and follow a journey”,
are equally fraught, if not more so, with profound obstacles than the effects of visual or physical impairments. As Jenna reminded me recently,
“Suddenly, for no reason at all, as I step out of my front door, the prickles in my chest get sharper and my head gets foggier. My heart pounds faster as it tries to defend itself from impending danger. My breathing becomes shallow as I desperately try to get air into my body and brain ... I try to grasp on to something, anything, to keep me tethered and whole”.
“Anxiety” may sound manageable to many, but unexpectedly and unpredictably collapsing in agony in public places can overwhelmingly restrict people’s mobility.
Speaking to a young woman with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome who lives down my street, I heard about her terrible journey on a train where she suffered a severe anxiety attack. The train had to be stopped and the emergency services called. This expensive scenario could have been avoided if her PIP had not been reduced from the high to standard rate award a couple of months ago, allowing her to continue paying for a travel companion or use taxis. Her life has now been severely restricted.
It is a fundamental tenet of the Equality Act that there shall be no hierarchy of disability: we define a disabled person as someone with a “mental or physical impairment”. We in this House have welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment to parity of esteem between mental and physical health. The amended regulations, sadly, completely depart from these vital principles. They state, in effect, that disabled people may be equal but, just like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some disabled people have become more equal than others.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, it a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. We heard from previous speakers why we are tonight discussing and debating the proposed changes to PIP. I refer to my interests in the register particularly relating to autism. It is about autism that I will speak in the context of PIP. I support particularly the regret Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Of course, autism is not a mental illness; it is a lifelong communication disorder. People with autism are born with it and die with it. It is also a spectrum, ranging from people who need 24-hour care for most of their life right through to a group of people capable of university degree-standard education and holding down demanding jobs. It is worth saying that only 15% of people on the autistic spectrum obtain paid employment. Perhaps that gives a clue as to why I want to raise their needs in the context of this debate.
An interesting but sad figure is that of people on the autistic spectrum in their 20s, some 7% are identified as committing suicide. The reason is not that autism is of itself a mental illness. Rather, as people with autism, particularly at the higher-functioning end, struggle to make sense of life, communicate with people and take their part in society as the rest of us do, they try and try but there is that glass wall that without help and support they never get through. That is what causes the mental illness to develop on top of the autism.
I was in this Chamber when the House debated the Welfare Reform Act 2012. As with others, I remember the assurances given in both Houses at that time. I particularly remember the assurances given to the late Lord Newton of Braintree who, colleagues will remember, rose from his hospital bed night after night, sometimes needing oxygen to support him. He made the case particularly for this group of people. When they walk into a room, it is not obvious that that have a serious disability, but they certainly have needs. That assurance that PIP would assess barriers that individuals face and not make judgments based on their impairment type was something we all clung to in the hope that that promise would be kept.
As far as the autistic community is concerned, another Act is very important to this Chamber: the Autism Act 2009. In both Chambers and across the House, Members agreed and put on to the statute book an Autism Act because it was recognised that people on the autistic spectrum fall through the gap. That gap is often about very simple, straightforward things that benefits such as PIP provide for them. It is about taking their place again in society. Anxiety and psychological distress are among the most common effects of being diagnosed with autism. People with autism experience levels of distress about things that the rest of us really never worry about. To them, they become huge problems.
I will share with the House a case study that came to my attention about somebody recently denied PIP. This is from a mum, Amanda, who has a 16 year-old son on the autistic spectrum. She says:
“My son recently failed his PIP assessment which we are now appealing. He has autism and dyspraxia which means he is highly anxious and has such poor spatial awareness that he can’t judge speed and distance for road safety”.
He can probably plan a journey but is actually quite at risk when he is out there on the journey. She continues:
“Currently he is unable to leave the house alone. He cannot attempt a journey as he is so anxious and scared of change and people that using public transport is out of the question. He is unable to speak to strangers and can’t even order a drink when out or sit alone when his carer goes to the loo. At the moment he’s very isolated because he can’t go out alone and can’t socialise with new people. Even for extracurricular activities at school he needs a parent to go and support him. For example on a field trip to Anglesey for three days he was not allowed to travel with the other pupils as he can be a danger to himself and others”.
It turns out that his dad was DBS-checked so he could take time off work to accompany his son so he could go on that field trip.
Educationally, that young man is potentially a university graduate, yet he has been denied PIP. This is why the Autism Act was brought in, because a lot of these people have huge potential, but if that potential is denied, your Lordships do not need me to spell out the consequences. I am very disappointed that we are having to have this debate tonight. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this to the attention of the House.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I think the House would like to hear from the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I have been asked to speak on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and a number of other Lords spiritual who are unable to be in their places today. Like them, I have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed changes to the personal independence payment on people with mental health problems. A number of the Lords spiritual wrote to the Secretary of State on 8 March seeking clarification on the rationale for the new legislation. I am not aware that they have received a reply. I wish to use this debate to reiterate these concerns and urge the Government to reconsider their position.
Our understanding is that the introduction of PIP was intended to create parity of treatment for people with mental and physical health problems by basing the assessment on a person’s ability to carry out certain tasks, irrespective of the nature of their disability. This is a fundamental principle that we strongly support, which has helped counter a long-standing bias within the benefits system against people who suffer from severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and autism. Explicitly limiting access to the enhanced rate of the mobility component for those who experience psychological distress undermines this fundamental aim by reintroducing an unhelpful distinction between people with physical and mental health conditions.
Crucially for this debate, this change appears to be inconsistent with the primary legislation, which makes it clear, as the Explanatory Notes underline, that people should be entitled to the higher rate of mobility component if,
“a person’s ability is severely limited by their physical or mental condition”.
Furthermore, it appears to be inconsistent with Ministers’ public statements at the time. People who find it difficult to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems can be as restricted in their independence as people with physical mobility problems. They face the same additional barriers and costs as other disabled people, and should be scored accordingly against the same criteria. The amended regulations, however, would mean that people with these conditions would be assessed against only two of the six criteria for “planning and following journeys”, even though they may be unable to make familiar or unfamiliar journeys without the support of another person.
I am aware of the issues through the work of local mental health charities in my own diocese of Winchester. I understand from Jane Harvey, the head of home support at Solent Mind, which supports people with mental health problems in Southampton and across Hampshire, that she is in no doubt about the social isolation of many of her clients. Getting out of the house can be an extremely stressful experience for someone who suffers from paranoia, lacks confidence in social situations or feels unsafe in noisy, crowded environments, such as public transport. But these daily interactions are also vital to their mental and physical well-being, preventing them becoming even more isolated and enabling them to eat properly, pay their bills and attend important appointments. That is why it is so important that we seek to remove as many barriers to their mobility as possible through financial and other forms of support, and that we do not differentiate in a way that seems to be against people with mental health problems, whose condition can be just as debilitating as a physical disability.
I realise that, in practice, many people with mental health problems have until recently missed out on the mobility component of PIP. But we believe that the clarification provided by the Upper Tribunal ruling is more in keeping with the original intent of the legislation than the amendment tabled by the Government, opening up additional support to around 160,000 people with severe mental health problems.
From these Benches we would not want to be seen to be resisting the aims of the original legislation, but we need persuading that the amendments to PIP are not undermining the intended aims of the benefit. I shall be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, Winchester is well represented this evening. PIP’s broad design flows from the Welfare Reform Act 2012. From the beginning it was intended not just to reset the DLA thresholds to determine who gets what but to decrease the overall expenditure on benefits by attempting to target them more effectively than DLA, and specifically to give more weight to mental health problems.
The department said that of those with mental health conditions receiving the mobility component of DLA, only 9% had been entitled to the higher rate, whereas 27% of PIP claimants receive the enhanced mobility rate—or 28%, according to the Minister’s letter this morning. The Government’s own consultee, the SSAC, asked the pertinent question: so what impairments do these 27% have? Are they a combination of physical and mental impairments? The department evaded the question, saying that perhaps 27% was “somewhat imprecise”. We do not know what is going to happen to claimants who may be reassessed quite soon, but we do know that the new regulations undermine the welcome support PIP can give to those with mental health problems, and I urge the Government to withdraw them for further consideration.
That is not the only reason I think the regulations should not be proceeded with. I hope other Members of the House will be as uneasy as I am at the Government immediately reaching for the statute book in order to negate a very careful decision of the Upper Tribunal. Ministers say they are restoring the original intention of the relevant descriptor regarding planning and following a journey, and insist that the legislation is clear, but they gloss over the fact that the Secretary of State said in the case of HL in December 2015 that,
“overwhelming psychological distress could depending on its nature, frequency, duration and severity make a person unable to navigate and so to fulfil the terms of descriptors 1d and 1f”.
Descriptor 1f gives the higher rate. We are now told that the Secretary of State made a mistake and had to explain to the court that a concession had erroneously been made. This is all very unsatisfactory and leaves a particularly bad taste in the mouth. Whose hand is round the Secretary of State’s throat? What he said sounds to me to be exactly what the original policy intention was. Why do the Government not come clean and say that they are changing the policy for enhanced rate mobility by not allowing psychological distress to be taken into consideration?
Why the indecent haste in changing the law? As the Secretary of State is appealing the Upper Tribunal’s decision, he could have used other powers he has to prevent the decision of the Upper Tribunal having immediate legal effect by giving directions to decision-makers and courts about how the descriptors should be interpreted. Why not wait for that outcome? The timescale is curious. If he was going to wait three months from the judgment, why not use that time to consult properly? The impact assessment estimates that 71,500 claimants in the current caseload will go from standard rate PIP to nil, the same number from enhanced rate to nil and 21,000 from enhanced rate to standard, so 143,000 claimants with an enduring health condition are estimated to lose the benefit altogether. The disorders likely to be affected, according to the DWP, range from schizophrenia and autism to bipolar affective disorder and cognitive disorder. So much for parity of esteem between physical and mental health.
There is another aspect which must be considered. The Secretary of State is keen to say that no one already getting an award under the old regulations will lose it, presumably meaning that no one will have the money clawed back, but some awards are only for a year before another assessment is demanded. Thousands of claimants are in this position. The new assessment will presumably be under the new rules, meaning that many existing beneficiaries of standard or enhanced rate mobility will lose all entitlement.
I accept that the reason the Secretary of State is making this change is not to make even more savings than have already been announced, but is it fair to tear up the carefully constructed mobility descriptors and the Upper Tribunal’s carefully explained judgment with such haste and without proper consultation? Is it not yet another tightening of the screw around the whole independent living project, which is assailed on every side? These regulations should be set aside to await proper consultation.
I shall end with a word about voting on SIs. I am particularly addressing my friends and colleagues on the Labour Benches. I shall quote from the 2005 Cunningham report Conventions of the UK Parliament, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, dismissed:
“The Government appear to consider that any defeat of an SI by the Lords is a breach of convention. We disagree. It is not incompatible with the role of a revising chamber to reject an SI, since (a) the Lords (rightly or wrongly) cannot exercise its revising role by amending the SI or in any other way, (b) the Government can bring the SI forward again immediately, with or without substantive amendment”.
We should have the courage of our convictions and vote to annul these regulations.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance, the precursor to the personal independence payment. I therefore have an interest in this type of benefit. Two simple and basic points make the case against these regulations, open and shut.
First, this is a clear breach of faith with the disability community. Back in 2012, when PIP was first introduced, Mind and other mental health charities raised concerns that people with mental health problems would be able to score points only under the criterion which used the words “psychological distress”. The Government gave reassurances that that was not the case and that people with mental health problems could potentially score points under a range of criteria if their condition meant that they struggled to plan and follow a journey. On this basis, PIP was welcomed by the mental health and wider disabilities sector, because for the first time people with mental health problems felt they would be given access to disability support equal to that of people with physical disabilities.
The Government made clear commitments that people who experienced psychological distress would be eligible under the very criterion that is now being changed. These commitments were underlined in statements by Ministers in debates on the Welfare Reform Bill at the time—the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has quoted the statements by Maria Miller and Esther McVey, so I do not need to repeat them. However, in practice, the DWP has not deemed people who experience psychological distress eligible for the full range of points, regardless of how severely that distress affects them. This has meant that 164,000 people have received a lower rate than they were entitled to.
This is the origin of the two cases which came before the Upper Tribunal at the end of 2016. The tribunal’s rulings did not extend the scope of PIP, as the Government suggest, but clarified it. That is what tribunals do: they do not make the law; they clarify what the law is. It is the Government who are now seeking to restrict the scope of PIP from what it has always been understood to be by removing psychological distress from criterion 1f as a reason for not being able to follow a familiar route without assistance, so that a claimant can only be awarded four points under mobility descriptor 1b. The regulations are in clear breach, if not of a manifesto commitment on this occasion, then certainly of pledges given to those with mental health problems in 2012. This change to the eligibility criteria also flies in the face of the statement in the Work, Health and Disability: Improving Lives Green Paper that the Government will not seek to make any further cuts to disability benefits following the already controversial cuts for those receiving employment support allowance in the WRAG, for new claimants from 1 April this year.
My second point can be made even more briefly: the proposed changes would create a legal distinction between those with mental health problems and those with other kinds of impairment when it comes to benefit assessments, a distinction which flies in the face of the Government’s commitment to parity of treatment for people with mental health conditions. The Government have said that a person with a cognitive impairment alone will still be eligible for the highest mobility rate, but the term “cognitive impairment” far from covers the full range of people with mental health problems.
I believe these regulations are trying to move the goalposts by excluding people who experience psychological distress from eligibility for the higher number of points necessary for the higher rate of mobility component. In doing so, they effectively discriminate against people with mental health problems. This is clearly against the original intention of PIP and runs counter to the commitment the Government made to people with mental health problems—that they would be assessed in the same way as other disabled people. I support the Motions before us this evening to oppose these regulations and if the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, moves for a vote, I will support hers.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, as ever, I have had a huge number of emails on this debate tonight. I had several hundred after the last debate tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, on the 20/50 rule, so I am expecting many more tonight.
I understand that many charities have written to the Prime Minister on this issue, and I am concerned about the way the question of who is eligible has been misunderstood. It has been suggested that this is not a big change, but like other noble Lords tonight, I have many concerns. To add to something that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton said about visible and invisible impairments, with something as simple as the use of a blue badge, there is huge misunderstanding about who can qualify for one—who should have one and who should not—and how people are treated if they are perceived as not disabled enough to need one. That is relatively simple compared to some of the intricacies of the PIP assessment forms.
I have issues with the name “personal independent payment”, because it is not terribly accurate. It is a contribution towards independent living but does not cover all the costs of someone with a disability living independently. I declare an interest in that I am a recipient of PIP, and was a recipient of disability living allowance. I went through the transfer process last year, which was interesting and arduous. Just the forms to tell you that you have to transfer are complicated enough, but when I made the phone call to register, I was left on hold for over 25 minutes. With each passing minute, you are worried that the phone call is going to drop out. Then I was asked a number of questions which could be construed as confusing. I have some understanding in this area, and they were really difficult questions for me to answer. I was asked the same questions repeatedly, back and forth. I was asked the name of the medical personnel who could best describe my impairment, which is really difficult because I am disabled, not ill—I cannot even remember the last time I went to the doctor. It got to the point where I was even doubting my own answers, and I am not exactly lacking in confidence when it comes to being able to understand and explain the challenges that I face with being mobile.
I have said it before and I will keep saying it: it is essential that we have a better decision-making process. The cost of mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals is simply too high. Scope has said that 89% of applicants who have gone to a tribunal for a mandatory reconsideration or appeal in the last quarter have received a new decision. Could the Minister say how much the mandatory reconsiderations and appeals are costing? If decision-making were better, how much money could be saved to plough back into the system?
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a recipient of the higher-rate mobility component of disability living allowance, which, as noble Lords will know, is being replaced by PIP. As someone with a severe, permanent and constant disability, I depend on DLA for my mobility because it enables me to lease a car through Motability. Indeed, it gives me great pleasure to put on record my profound personal thanks to Motability, and particularly its founder, my noble friend Lord Sterling of Plaistow, for the phenomenal difference that that organisation has made to disabled people’s lives in its first 40 years. Long may it continue.
And long may targeted support continue for those whose need is greatest for help with meeting the extra costs of living with a disability. The most help to those who need it most: that is surely a founding principle of our welfare state, and the enduring basis of public confidence in the system that underpins the public’s willingness to fund the welfare state so generously through their taxes. As the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, rightly said in 2012:
“One of the things about governing is it forces you to confront the inconvenient truths oppositions choose to ignore”.
One of those truths is that sustaining public trust in the welfare system is crucial to sustaining that system, which I and millions of disabled people rely on, so it is vital that the money gets spent where it is meant to and is seen to be so. I believe the taxpayer does not have a problem with someone needing assistance as a result of difficulties in navigating—for example, if they are blind. Taxpayers surely understand that conditions such as visual impairments and learning disabilities, where these are severe and enduring, are much less likely to fluctuate than, for example, psychological distress. Indeed, it makes sense that people who cannot navigate due to a visual or cognitive impairment are likely to have a higher level of need and therefore face higher costs.
Some noble Lords seem to believe that the world would be different if only their party was in power. Yet where their party is in power, running councils such as Lambeth, it is adding to the cost of living with a disability. One way in which it is doing this is by giving parking tickets to disabled people who come home late from work to find that there are no parking spaces available outside their home and therefore have to park on yellow lines. Will the council give them a designated disabled parking space outside their home, as would happen less than a mile away in Westminster? No, it is not council policy. So today, in 2017, Lambeth Council is penalising some disabled people and imposing extra costs on them for a need directly related to their being disabled. What a policy. How do I know it is doing this? Because I am the person who cannot find anywhere else to park after returning home late from your Lordships’ House, yet my request for a designated disabled parking bay has been rejected out of hand.
This is just one example of why we urgently need to join the dots on disability if more disabled people are, as we all want, to live independently and work. Until we join those dots, I cannot in all honesty justify expecting taxpayers to be even more generous in helping to meet the extra costs of living with a disability, when the state itself imposes such indefensible extra costs on disabled people. Despite my sincere and profound respect for the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Thomas of Winchester, I therefore cannot support the Motions.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I have been listening to the debate and am concerned that the nature of our discussion may not reflect the actions that the Government are taking. I understand that the Government are laying these regulations in response to a court case which has broadened the eligibility criteria of the PIP assessment beyond the original intent that this House voted for, at a potential increase in cost of £3.7 billion.
I want to be clear that I am pleased to be part of this House—a House that has done so much to ensure that the rights and needs of those with disabilities are upheld. That is why I have spoken on the importance of halving the disability employment gap, and why I have supported my noble friend Lord Shinkwin’s Private Member’s Bill.
Like all of us in this Chamber, I believe that a decent society should always recognise and support those who are most vulnerable. However, I have read carefully what the Minister said in the other Place, and I do not think that this is what is at stake here. Despite the wording of this fatal Motion and Motion to Regret, it is worth reflecting on the fact that we in this country rightly spend more on supporting people who are sick and disabled than the OECD average. We rightly spend around £50 billion a year to support people with disabilities and health conditions. However, if you listened to the speeches in the Chamber this evening, you would think that these regulations were about to reverse this level of support and the protections that are in place. Will my noble friend the Minster confirm that this is not the case and that the level of support that this House legislated for will be protected?
The wording of the regret Motion tonight suggests that the regulations discriminate against people with mental health problems and could put vulnerable claimants at risk but, again, it is my understanding that the Government have laid these regulations to address the impact of the court case which broadened the eligibility of PIP beyond the original intent voted for by this House. Will the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case and that there are no further savings beyond those that were legislated for here in this House that are being sought?
Both Houses of Parliament voted for the changes from DLA to PIP, and one key reason for this was a recognition that PIP focuses support precisely on those experiencing the greatest barriers to living independently. At the core of PIP’s design is the principle that awards of the benefit should be made according to a claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether claimants suffer from physical or non-physical conditions, and it has been good to see that 28% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced-rate mobility component, compared to 10% receiving the higher-rate DLA component, and that 66% of PIP recipients with a mental health condition get the enhanced-rate daily living component, compared to 22% receiving highest-rate DLA care. It is precisely because PIP improves support to those with mental health problems, addressing a discrimination inherent in DLA, that this House supported the legislation in the first place. Will the Minster confirm that this remains not only the intent of PIP but the reality, and that the regulations restore the original intention of PIP, which was to make sure there is a sustainable benefit to provide continued support to those who face the greatest barrier, whether physical or mental, to living independent lives?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall forgo the right to speak as extensively as I otherwise would, but I shall do three things. First, I very much support the Motion of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, and the manner in which it was spoken to. Then I wanted to ask the Minister a question about the original policy intent, because we have heard it as a justification for these regulations on a number of occasions. Can we be very clear on this? The Government pray in aid the PIP assessment guide as evidence to the original policy intent, but can we understand precisely when that and the detail were discussed by Parliament—not by officials but by Parliament—to be able to justify the claim that was made?
Finally, on the finances, we should not forget in all this that PIP was introduced against a backdrop of the predecessor, DLA, having a 20% cut in its budget. We talk about the implications of government costs of £3.7 billion, but let us just remember that forgoing that cost to government means resources to disabled people are lost as well. While £3.7 billion is what the Government might save from this, the losers are the disabled community, to a massive extent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I get the impression that the House would like me to move this debate towards a close, so I shall deal with some of the points that have been made during what has been a wide-ranging and, at times, an obviously impassioned debate all across the House. I recognise the concerns that have been raised and welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. I hope to make matters clear, and provide reassurances on a number of points.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and I thank all those who have taken part in this critical debate, as well as those who were not able to speak because of the time limitations. Time prevents me from commenting in detail on all the contributions, although I would have wished to do so.
Naturally, I am disappointed that the Government are reluctant to move their position so as to support people whose lives are blighted by psychological and anxiety disorders. That was not the original intention of the coalition Government’s move from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, and I do not believe that the changes bring either clarity or parity. The role of PIP as a successor to the DLA is to support disabled people to meet some of the additional costs of disability. Unlike other aspects of the welfare system, PIP is not an income replacer or booster; it is to help tackle the financial penalty of disability.
I regret that these regulations do not engender trust, and a great many people in the community and those charitable organisations that support people with mental health and psychological disorders will be bitterly disappointed by the Government’s response.
I understand the position of the Labour Benches and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her, as always, formidable approach to this matter. However, this is an extremely important matter that affects a whole range of people in society, including those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, panic attacks and psychotic disorders. The Minister may have spoken to charities but clearly he did not convince them, as Scope, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Sense, Citizens Advice, Rethink Mental Illness and Mind have all said the same—that this decision should be reversed. I therefore want to test the opinion of the House.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
21:14 - Division on Baroness Sherlock’s Motion - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 154 - Motion agreed.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government is implementing the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 without formal referral to the Social Security Advisory Committee; and that the Regulations discriminate against people with mental health problems, and could put vulnerable claimants at risk; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to allow proper scrutiny of these proposals, including a review of the changes that the Regulations make and their specific impact on those with mental health conditions, within two years of their coming into force.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful for the support from different Benches, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and my noble friend Lord McKenzie. I thank the Minister for his answers. I only wish they had been answers to the questions that I asked, or indeed any of those asked by the Social Security Advisory Committee or the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
We have had a long debate tonight. Concern has been expressed on every single Bench that these regulations will damage people with mental health problems and they go right against parity of esteem. The Minister’s response was not acceptable and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Technical and Further Education Bill
Monday 27th March 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords 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: HL Bill 107-I Manuscript amendments for Report, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 56KB) - (27 Mar 2017)
“( ) about permission for the use of the DfE logo and standard wording on technical education certificates;”
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I fear that this may be something of an anti-climax after the previous excitement. Nevertheless, I wish to move Amendment 34 and speak also to Amendment 35. They have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson, and of my noble friend Lord Storey.
As we set out in Committee, there are quite a few questions to be asked about the institute’s power to issue technical education certificates. We understand that this will not be done by the institute but be delegated to the Skills Funding Agency. Either way, public time and money will be used to duplicate a function which is already well covered under existing systems.
This proposal was not set out in the skills plan. It potentially removes any continuing link between the awarding body and the qualification that it has produced. We are here attempting to clarify the relationship between the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification certificates issued by awarding organisations. Are the Government proposing to issue these “technical education certificates” alongside the awarding organisation’s certificate?
We heard earlier from the Minister that employers would pay for the certificate. It would be helpful to hear more about who makes the application. Does it come from the employer, from the training provider or from the awarding body? Is it automatically triggered by attainment of a qualification?
I do not think that we have had an assessment of the resources required by the institute, or the SFA, to authenticate, print and send out the 3 million apprenticeship certificates to meet the government target. Will the institute require the addresses of all the candidates or will they be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute?
There is a very simple solution. Government issuing of certificates is not common procedure at qualification level in any other area of the education and training system and would appear to bestow unnecessary cost, duplication and complexity on to whichever body is tasked with carrying it out. Would it not be simpler if the certificate issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the institute or of the Department for Education? This has been common practice in the past, including with national vocational qualifications, and would have the benefit of adding government backing and status to a certificate already being validated, processed and issued.
I assure your Lordships that awarding bodies can produce some immensely impressive certificates to meet immensely impressive achievements. I hope that the amendment will be seen as positive and helpful. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these amendments. A fundamental reason for introducing the technical education reforms is to tackle the weakness in the current 16 to 19 education system caused by fragmentation and variation in the quality and value of the qualification certificates currently provided by many individual awarding organisations.
To address this, it is important that the technical education certificates are issued consistently by one entity under consistent branding so that they are recognised and understood by employers regardless of the qualification or where it was undertaken. The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue a technical education certificate to any person who has completed a technical education qualification and any other steps determined under new Section A2DB.
Those completing either an apprenticeship or a technical education course will receive a nationally awarded certificate from the Secretary of State. This will confirm that they obtained as many of the key skills and behaviours as the institute deems appropriate for a particular occupation. The technical education certificate will also recognise the other essential elements such as attainment in English and maths, completion of work placements and other route-specific qualifications. The certificate will demonstrate to employers that individuals obtained the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary to undertake their chosen occupation. It will provide clarity for employers and support the portability and progression value of the qualifications.
As currently drafted, these amendments will allow the Secretary of State to use the DfE logo and standard wording on technical education certificates—which of course she may already do. It is also right that only the certificate should bear the department’s logo and standard wording. This will also ensure that certificates for technical education align as closely as possible with certificates for apprenticeships. However, this will not affect any arrangements that the institute entered into with an organisational consortium that is approved to deliver a technical education qualification. These arrangements are likely to include the use of their own logo or branding on any certificate that they issue in respect of that qualification.
We expect costs to be incurred in issuing the certificates. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should be able to determine whether to charge for the first technical education certificate and a copy of it, and if so how much. This is consistent with the procedure already followed for charging for the issuing of apprenticeship certificates or supplying copies of them. Our reforms will ensure we operate a system for the future, providing a national offer that is recognised and understood by employers regardless of the qualification or where it is undertaken.
I hope that clarifies the situation for the noble Baroness. She made a point about how the institute will be aware of the addresses of recipients. That information will come via the awarding organisation to the institute. Students must apply to the Secretary of State for their certificate. If I have not answered all the points that the noble Baroness is concerned about, I am happy to discuss this with her further and to provide more information. In that spirit, I hope she will feel reassured to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am slightly bemused because employers seem to understand very well the previous certificates that went out, with NVQ and awarding-body logos. There was not a particular confusion about the standards there. As I say, given that the awarding organisations already issue certificates, it would seem a much neater operation if it was combined into one certificate instead of having the confusion of two. I thank the noble Lord for his offer to have further discussion on this and meanwhile beg leave to withdraw the amendment.