Further Education Colleges (North-east)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this debate. She outlined what is self-evident to many of us in the north-east: we have a good network of further education colleges.

I do not have a further education college in my constituency. My learners access Derwentside College in Consett and New College Durham. They also travel further afield to Newcastle and Sunderland and to other colleges in the region. As my hon. Friend outlined, some go to Darlington and Teesside. The colleges are an asset to our region. It is clear to anyone who speaks to or visits any of them that they are not inward-looking institutions—they are dynamic and forward-thinking. Derwentside College has a good liaison with local engineering companies, both large and small. It not only engages in recognising and understanding what further training is needed, but actively takes part in encouraging young people and adult learners to think of a career in engineering.

New College is an outward-looking institution that sponsors two academies: one in Stanley in my constituency and one in Consett, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). That initiative was spearheaded by John Widdowson, who is the chief executive of the college. He is working well to build the link between the school sector and the FE sector. He is giving great opportunities in Stanley to many young people. In addition, New College has 200 international students from across the world who come to study there.

I had the privilege last year of visiting Newcastle College’s new railway engineering academy. That initiative came from the college, which recognised that there is a skills shortage in the rail sector. It is now providing well-qualified people for jobs—in some cases, those jobs are highly paid—in the rail sector. That college is taking the initiative. In the north-east, we have colleges that are not just allowing the world to pass them by; they are taking the initiative to understand what the business community and their local communities require.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

While my hon. Friend is acknowledging some of the work across the region, will he pay tribute to Middlesbrough College’s work on its remarkable new science, technology, engineering and maths centre? That was launched recently, very much with the involvement of local employers, the manufacturing base and the supply chain.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I will. It is a good example of how local colleges are taking the lead, not by just putting on courses that they hope people will come to, but by working with employers to ensure that the courses they offer are needed by young people and adult learners and by local businesses. This might be an old-fashioned thing, but in our region, the colleges and the education sector are raising awareness that careers in engineering and manufacturing are a way forward and not a thing of the past.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point: further education colleges in the north-east already work together and are forward-looking. Newcastle College is engaging with new industries, such as the aeronautical industry and the energy industries. Does he share my concern that the area-based reviews may take the focus away from what is best for our industry and our young people? Too much time may be spent focusing on how to respond to the review. I would like to see more work on adult education in the north-east, particularly given the cuts to local services.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend, because one of the important points is collaboration between colleges. Looking back, one of the problems in the further education sector was where we had competition between different colleges. That network of working together, which provides opportunities for young people and adult learners, is important. Speak to anyone in the industry and they will say that the 16-year-old leaving school today is unlikely to be in the same job when they retire at 65 or 67 or whatever the retirement age will be when they come to retire. They will need constant on-the-job training and will need to re-access the education system, so the further education sector is vital.

I chaired a meeting last night at an event organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust to talk about the aerospace sector, which has huge potential for growth not only in engineering skills, but in the soft skills of process management and other areas as well. All our colleges, certainly in Durham, are encouraging not only engineering apprentices, who are vital, but the growth sector of tourism in the north-east. I know that Houghall college and also Northumberland deal with land skills and agriculture, which people might think are industries of the past, but they are very important to rural communities in the north-east, and certainly the tourism sector is a growth area across the north-east.

I understand that the Government will want to tackle bad performance, and I support that. If a college or any institution is failing its learners, it needs to be dealt with, but I am not sure how the review will fit in with the rest of the education system. For example, I have already mentioned New College’s sponsorship of two academies, because it saw a clear need to link back into education. The sector is not separate from the rest of the education system, so I want to know how local schools and suchlike will be involved in the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned travel, which is a stark issue in my area and many rural areas. Many young people have to travel quite long distances to access courses. It might be easy in large cities such as London or Birmingham where there is a choice of providers close together, but in my constituency and in hers—for example, in Northumberland—people have to travel long distances, so the issue is not just about the number of colleges, but where they are. I totally agree with her that the abolition of the education maintenance allowance had a huge effect on young people’s ability to access courses.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the problems in Northumberland? Northumberland College in my constituency is 60 miles from the Scottish border and 20 miles from the nearest fantastic city of Newcastle. Northumberland College has got fantastic results with 1,000 apprentices and £2.5 million invested in a new STEM centre. We have got fantastic results like we have never had before and a good rating by Ofsted. If there is any reduction in financing, or rationalisation, mergers or closures, does my hon. Friend agree that Northumberland could not be a part of that?

[Mr Jones]

I agree, but that is where the problem lies. I sympathise with the Minister. Having been a Minister myself, I accept that civil servants sometimes look at things through a London—not even a south-east—prism and think that if something is not happening in London or the south-east, it cannot be happening elsewhere. The idea that my hon. Friend has an outstanding college in Northumberland is perhaps something that they cannot comprehend. Any changes need to be right. One size will not fit all. We have a dynamic group of colleges. The issue is not about competition. That would be a retrograde step back to the bad old days when people were literally competing. That is not a good use of resources and not good for the learners themselves.

Another aspect that is important for the further education sector is to raise aspirations. If we are going to get people into engineering or hospitality and tourism, one thing that the north-east needs more than anything—the further education sector has a key part to play—is to raise aspirations. Sadly, in my own constituency, and in other constituencies as well, we have the problem of—it is a horrible word—NEET: not in education, employment or training. It is difficult to find out the numbers. There are individuals now who are not included in any statistics anywhere. They are not in the education statistics; they are not claiming benefits; and they do menial, part-time, casual work. That is okay while they are young, but they are missing out on the opportunities to get the qualifications that they need for the future, and in many cases they put themselves at great risk working on building sites or in conditions with no health and safety provision or any care for those individuals. Those are the people we need to reach. Sometimes, when the school system has failed them, the further education sector is a good way to access them.

I want to address two other points and how other Departments’ policies impact on the further education sector. Just outside my constituency, in the City of Durham constituency, is Finchale Training College. It was set up in 1943 for the rehabilitation and retraining of ex-servicemen. It does fantastic work with veterans who have mental health problems and physical disabilities. It has a long tradition of retraining them and getting them ready for work. It has also done other training work in the wider further education sector. It was a residential college until 2015 when the Government changed the rules in a move away from residential colleges, and we can argue the pros and cons of that.

In September 2015, the Department for Work and Pensions introduced the specialist employment service to help individuals who need extra help because of disabilities or other training needs. They would have gone into the residential system, but are now—I think positively—in the community. The system set up to deal with this is not only bureaucratic, but it has a detrimental effect on colleges such as Finchale. Contracts were issued nationally and large organisations such as the Shaw Trust, Remploy and others got the contracts. They have sub-partners and Finchale is a sub-partner for the Shaw Trust. The pathway for the people who need extra help into the system is via the disability employment advisers in local jobcentres. There are only two full-time disability employment advisers in the entire north-east; the rest are part time, and there is a problem. Access is gained through a computer-based system. On the first working day of each month, a number of places and contracts are put out. The employment advisers then have to match people to those.

In theory, there is a regional cap, so there should be 18 for the region, but that does not work in practice. So Finchale, which would have expected 70 students over the last period, has only got two, because as soon as a jobcentre in Croydon or south Wales logs on and gets in early, it can upload all its applicants to fill the places. So the idea that Finchale will access learners from south Wales or Croydon is not the case. There are an estimated 200 people in the north-east who need help.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech, but he has gone on now for 15 minutes. Several people want to speak, and I want to get everybody in, so can he now bring his remarks to a close?

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister ask his Department for Work and Pensions colleagues to change the system? The system needs to have a regional cap and to allow for people at least to access it, because at the moment it is having a detrimental effect on colleges such as Finchale.

Finally, I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on regional devolution. We are told that post-16 further education will be devolved to the new regional body, whatever that will be. Will he guarantee that, if that happens, any cash will be ring-fenced or immune from cuts? When the public health budgets were devolved to local government, the first thing to happen was that they were top-sliced. One of my fears, I think rightly, is that the devolution agenda being pushed by the Government is more about devolving responsibility—without the cash to go with it—and then the blame when the new local authorities have to make the cuts. I am interested to know the Minister’s thinking.

We have world-leading colleges and further education institutions in the north-east. The Minister needs to work with them and not to try and implant in the north-east some blueprint that might look nice on his civil servants’ spreadsheets. If something is not broken, why try and fix it?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We have a number of people wishing to speak. Please keep your speeches down to less than six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Hon. Members have asked a great many questions, and I want to try to answer as many as I can.

First, as well as seeming to think that my own educational background was a subject of interest for the debate, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland suggested that I have no understanding of rural areas and the issues they face. I point out to her and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) that the constituency of South Holland and The Deepings neighbours—indeed, borders—my own. Your constituency, Sir Edward, also does. I, too, have a very rural constituency. I, too, have a constituency in which there are three towns that are more than 20 miles apart, so I entirely understand the issues. I am afraid that in Lincolnshire, fine and wonderful county though it is, we probably do not have much better public transport between towns than in the north-east, so to suggest that I have somehow brought an urban or south-east view to area reviews is ludicrous.

Secondly, the whole point about area reviews is that they are locally based. They are run locally, with local colleges taking these decisions. We of course accept that for the lower level of training in particular—level 1, 2 and 3 training—it is simply impossible to expect people to travel significant distances if we want them to continue in education. We do want them to continue in education, so we will absolutely not be looking to do that.

Opposition Members might want to ask themselves why the great and much admired Newcastle College is able to do so well. One reason is that it is big. In a single year, it secures £38 million of grant funding from the Skills Funding Agency alone, whereas many other colleges in the north-east receive £2 million, £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. “Merger” does not necessarily mean the closure of sites. In fact, what makes the closure of a site much more likely is a small, financially challenged institution that simply cannot cope with the overhead costs of running a college for very low volumes of training—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

Thank you very much, Sir Edward, for confirming my understanding of Standing Orders. I just want to conclude by reassuring hon. Members—[Interruption.] I just want to conclude my argument by reassuring hon. Members that area reviews are not top-down impositions. They are not going to come up—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I have never seen a Minister fail to accept any interventions. When time is not on a Minister’s side, it is fair not to, but we have eight minutes left and he has refused to have any Opposition Members challenge him on anything he has said, which is absolutely outrageous.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Well, that is not a point of order, but there we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked the question again. He is right, of course, that sometimes when there are changes to banking arrangements, fees arise, but those will be visible and transparent, and a college will only undertake an operation that might trigger those fees if it considers that, overall, doing so is in its interest. He will be aware that the Chancellor made it clear in the spending review process that there will be a facility to provide transitional funding for the implementation of area reviews. We will have access to that facility if we need it to support, for instance, a merger or some other arrangement; but ultimately, we will only support such a merger or arrangement if the colleges believe that it is worth doing, even if there are some transitional transaction fees. I hope that helps a little.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that, despite the Minister’s arrogance, he has been shamed into accepting interventions. He is trying to portray the north-east colleges as somehow stuck in the mud and not wanting to change. I assure him, however, that he could not meet a more dynamic set of leaders who actually want change. I want to ask him specifically about the point I raised on the specialist employment service. Although I accept that that is a Department for Work and Pensions responsibility, will he assure me that he will raise it with his colleagues at the DWP?

[Nick Boles]

Of course, I am very happy to raise that with DWP colleagues; I regularly meet the Minister for Employment and actually I will meet the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People soon. May I just make it clear on the record that at no time have I suggested that colleges in the north-east are stick-in-the-muds? Indeed, I have singled out several as exemplar colleges. I absolutely have said that some Labour Members who have spoken in the debate seem to be stick-in-the-muds and attached to defending existing arrangements, and I happy to repeat that claim.

[Mr Jones]

What the Minister is highlighting is that it seems as though he has made up his mind what he wants: he thinks big is beautiful. He rightly argues, as I said in my contribution, that Newcastle College is a good, forward-looking institution, but he clearly wants large colleges with satellites. That is not what local colleges in the region want; they want to co-operate with one another, so I am sorry, but he is being disingenuous if he is suggesting that he has somehow not made his mind up even before he started this review.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the Minister give Helen Goodman a couple of minutes to wind up, please?

Trade Union Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill, but also to make a key recommendation to the Secretary of State for a later amendment on which I hope to speak in Committee.

In the time available to me today, I want to explain why I believe in the importance of workplace representation, and why faith needs to be built into it so that it can expand to help and support workers and move away from being a political plaything. I am a founding member of Unite, by virtue of the merger that caused my Manufacturing, Science and Finance union to become first Amicus and then Unite. I eventually resigned from Unite, because it stopped being a trade union and became a financial cash cow enabling misguided Marxists at the top to play with their members’ lives for their own political fun and games.

A trade union needs to be about much more than just strikes over pay, or Labour party politics. It should be proud of the achievements that it helped to bring about in health and safety law, and of the work that brilliant and dedicated shop stewards do to improve the wellbeing of their members. As a young worker some years ago, I was victimised in the workplace, and there was no union to turn to. I learnt a lot from that. Equally, I have seen shop stewards do fantastic work for those who have faced bullying and victimisation in the workplace. It is often the shop stewards who provide the best example of trade unionism—despite those at the top—but the common factor is frequently their lack of political ambitions, and it is political ambitions that have poisoned the workplace.

Let us consider Grangemouth. Where was the collective bargaining then? There was an attempt to stitch up a Labour selection process caused by the violent actions of a Labour MP in Westminster who was expelled, while all the time the MP’s constituents and the union’s members were left to be exploited and have their pensions destroyed by an unsympathetic employer whom no one stood up to until it was too late.

As in the 1970s, today's unions use hard-working people, through either their money or their work, to try to cause pain to the democratically elected Government because they do not like the verdict of the people. That is a twisted abuse of trade unionism, in which the workers are merely pawns in a wider political game played by some power-crazed leaders whose purpose is usually to disrupt not only the Government but the leadership of the Opposition, against most of its MPs’ will. They always want to call for strikes rather than sensible negotiations, even through those of us who have had normal backgrounds like everyone else, regardless of our party. [Interruption.] Well, I went to a comprehensive school. I know that Labour Members’ new leader went to a public school, but I did not.

Even a founding member of the Labour movement, Robert Blatchford, said:

“A strike is at best a bitter, a painful and a costly thing and no substitute for political action.”

Trade unionism did not start like that. By 1868, the many trade unions had formed the TUC, which had financial plans for sickness, accident and death payments based on contributions—literally the first social security. In his book “Speak for Britain”, Martin Pugh commented:

“Prudent management of union funds won approval from contemporary politicians, but was criticised by socialists”.

He went on to say:

“This was unfair as the Victorian TUC effectively pioneered a political role for workingmen.”

In 1885, with £4 million in the bank, the TUC hesitated in funding 95 working-class MPs as it felt bound to be cautious about introducing political divisions in order properly and honestly to represent all working men. Pugh says:

“They felt incurably suspicious about overtures made by small unrepresentative socialist societies anxious to milk their funds to promote hopeless candidatures.”

But today their funds built by hard-working people have been used for just that.

It is right that the Bill brings in protection for hard-working people who want proper workplace representation rather than just a cash cow to be milked by union leaders for their own political game.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s history lesson, but it is completely wrong because the early trade unions supported the Liberal party rather than socialist candidates. Is he aware that many trade unions have political funds but donate not a single penny to the Labour party? The Minister spoke of union members not having a say, but a ballot on political funds has to be held every 10 years. People can opt out of paying the political levy at any time during their membership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That is exactly what it is designed to do. This attack is to weaken the rights of trade union members. When it comes to political funds, it should be up to the trade union members to decide. If members have issues about who trade unions are funding, it is up to them to organise themselves and to take up the matter with their trade unions—just as I always do. When my union funds a campaign that I might not necessarily support, I am told, quite rightly, that it should be up to us to organise.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this area is much regulated at the moment? Not only do union members have to vote every 10 years on whether they want a political fund, but individuals also have a right to opt out of a political fund at any time they want. All the accounts of a political fund must be not only validated by the internal accountants but published. How much more transparency can we get?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

I have been generous to fellow members of the Johnson clan, but the hon. Gentleman must understand the difference. In those organisations and countries where a 75% threshold is set for industrial action, it is 75% of those voting. Perhaps there should be thresholds in some of the constitutional referendums that we have. Perhaps leaving the European Union should require a 75% yes vote because it is a major constitutional issue, but it would be 75% of those voting. That is the difference with this legislation.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some trade union rule books have the same provision—they need a certain percentage of those voting to take forward industrial action?

[Alan Johnson]

That is correct, and it should be something that we look at as part of a review of our democratic process, stretching from the other place to all the other aspects that Conservative Members have raised about the health of our democracy.

Electoral Registration

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

That is a very important point. In some constituencies the number of people using postal votes is incredibly high. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was not suggesting that the voters in Tatton are committing electoral fraud.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a complete red herring? The Electoral Commission’s report of 2006, when we had all-postal pilots—in my own constituency, for example—found that fraud was not an issue.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, he was not suggesting that there was huge-scale fraud but pointing out the concerns that exist. He is nodding, so I think he accepts that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Let us get this right. Academics, experts, the Select Committee, the Electoral Reform Society and everyone else says “Slow down”, but the Government go ahead. We warn them that it will go wrong, but who do they blame when it goes wrong? Somebody else. They are the same old Tories.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I must say that I take great exception to the Minister’s arrogance, because his letter—agreed with the Electoral Commission—missed off attainers, and that has led to the drop in the number of 17-year-olds being registered.

[Mr Gyimah]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister shakes his head, but he should read that letter. Even the letter he has now sent out does not ask households to include 17-year-olds. He changed the original letter. It’s your fault!

[Sadiq Khan]

Perhaps Ministers do not realise what officials in the Cabinet Office are sending out, but they have accepted that it was their mistake.

To be fair to the Minister, his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has finally woken up to the mess that this Government made by speeding up the process. That must be why, last month, the Deputy Prime Minister announced £9.8 million to help with registering voters who are currently under-represented. He accepted that he had messed up. Will the Minister confirm that that money is ring-fenced solely for electoral registration activities?

Another critical factor is the extreme pressure on local authorities because of the cuts imposed by this Government. Local authorities have to write to 48 million individual voters, instead of 20 million households. Unlike the Minister, who criticises them, I take my hat off to local authorities, most of which are doing a remarkable job dealing with this massive change in our democracy, all against a backdrop of enormous pressures on council budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Electoral Commission and the Minister have not learned. Even though the issue of attainers has been raised with him, the letter that authorities are sending out, to which he and the Electoral Commission have agreed, does not refer to 17-year-olds being electors. They have not learned the lesson, even though the issue has been pointed out to them by electoral registration officers all over the country and certainly by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I pay tribute to him and other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for working hard with the universities and young people in their constituencies to get young people on the register.

We need special provisions for this group of people. We should allow universities and colleges to block-register those who are in halls of residence, to meet the unique challenge presented by younger people, and students in particular. That could be done very quickly and in time for May. A similar case can be made for care homes and sheltered accommodation: large groups of people who are under the responsibility of an organisation, a local authority or a charity should be allowed to be block-registered.

A scheme in Northern Ireland called the schools initiative has proved to be successful in raising the registration levels of younger people. It places a duty on schools and colleges to provide the ERO with lists of those who are approaching the age of majority. The EROs then go into the schools and colleges with pre-populated registration forms and get the students to complete them. That is even easier now that online registration is allowed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

IER was the policy of your party to make the electoral process secure. The Electoral Commission has identified 16 local authorities at risk of electoral fraud. Just because you have not been able to point to it, it does not mean fraud is not happening. That is the point.

The same Labour party that introduced IER is now seeking to disown it. It is the same Labour party that said our long-term economic plan would lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. [Interruption.] Instead, 1,000 new jobs have been created every day of this Parliament. It said that reforming education maintenance allowance would increase the number of young people not in education, employment or training. [Interruption.] Instead, we have seen the biggest drop in the number of NEETs since records began.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to the rubbish the Minister is talking. It is quite embarrassing. We are discussing electoral registration, not the Government’s economic record, so could we get the Minister back on to the subject?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction; that number registered to vote online.

Despite the 900,000 young people who have registered to vote online, we are not complacent in our efforts. In January, we announced that an extra £10 million would be invested this year to maximise voter registration—in addition to the £4.2 million announced last year. Today, I can announce that £2.5 million of this funding will be used specifically to target groups that are under-represented on the electoral roll, including students, minority ethnic communities, overseas voters and members of the armed forces, while also tackling the issue of electoral fraud.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister keeps talking about money, but the issue is not about money; it is about the system that he is implementing. Why is it that, even though he and the Electoral Commission have been told about this, the latest letter Durham and other councils have to send out to households still do not include the old wording about registering 17-year-olds?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman has asked that question three times—twice to his own Front-Bench spokesman and now to me. What we have is a system of individual voter registration. Under the old system, parents would have put the attainer’s name on the form; under the new system, people have to register themselves. That is why we are funding “Rock Enrol!” to introduce students to the registration process at school, and why we are carrying out a national awareness campaign to introduce people to that same process.

[Mr Jones]

Not only have I raised the point four times today, but I have raised it with the Minister outside the Chamber as well. The fact is that those who receive these letters need to know whether they will become attainers. Under the old system, it was possible to ask for anyone aged 17 who was is likely to attain the age of 18 in the next 12 months to be placed on the register. It would have been simple to make the change. The money that is now being spent on sending the letters would have ensured that 17-year-olds in those households were registered.

[Mr Gyimah]

The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was tested and approved by the Electoral Commission, and in terms of users. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress now.

The £2.5 million that I have announced will be delivered through a number of organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens UK, Mencap and Operation Black Vote, to ensure that as many people as possible are placed on the register. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned data-matching. There is much more that we can do in that regard. We are currently running pilots involving the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there will be a report on them in September. Once IER has bedded in, we shall consider other ways in which we can use data that is gathered when people interact with other public services to help them to register to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ruane]

No, I will not give way.

Individual electoral registration was introduced by the Labour Government in 2009 with cross-party support. The issue was so sensitive that we sought that cross-party support. The deadline for its introduction was after the latest date for the next general election, which is of course this year. The reason for the long run-in period was that there were already 7.5 million people missing from the register, and we hoped that we could get them back on to it during that five-year period. The Electoral Commission was going to have marking points throughout the period, so that we could implement IER and assess its impact. This cross-party support, this cherished unity, was shattered, as one of the first aims of the coalition agreement, set out on page 27, was:

“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”

What was this massive electoral fraud that so concerned the Conservatives? Why was it so important that a new IER Bill took precedence over virtually all other Bills at the height of the economic crisis?

Let us look at the facts and figures concerning electoral fraud. The fraud that so exercised the Conservatives was one case in 2008 and one in 2009. In the six years from 2008 to 2013 there were three cases out of 45 million electors. That was the size of the problem.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Ruane]

No. I shall make progress.

That was the size of the problem—three cases of electoral fraud in six years. The Government, backed up by the Electoral Commission, claim that it is not the numbers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Let me make it quite clear that the Labour Government introduced the notion of individual electoral registration and the motion before us in no way backtracks from that, no matter how much bluster we hear from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the Minister for the Constitution, who should look at the detail of how his Department is working. By falling back on the Electoral Commission, the Minister is making a big mistake.

I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The original idea behind the process was to drive down the register, and we do not need to look too far to see where the Conservative party got it from. In the United States, the Republican party is doing exactly the same thing.

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) rightly emphasised what is being done to try to get people, particularly young people, on the register. I commend all those efforts, but it is not about working harder, to use the old BT phrase, but about working smarter. The Government are not doing that and I am afraid that the Electoral Commission is not doing it either.

The Minister asked why the focus was on young people, and I can give him the answer. According to the House of Commons Library, only 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds are registered to vote, whereas 94% of those aged over 65 are. I want to refer to one issue, which is the responsibility of the Minister and the Electoral Commission—he cannot get away from it—and that is the drop in the number of 18-year-olds who have been registered, particularly attainers.

In my constituency in 2012, there were 619 attainers on the register. In 2013 there were 701, in 2014 there were 632, and this year there are 114.

[Chris Ruane]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was the MP who discovered the drop in the number of attainers. Is he aware that 87% of attainers were registered nationally last year whereas this year the figure has gone down to 52%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am, and I shall explain why.

The drop in North Durham is quite clear and we must ask why it has happened. We all know that 1997 was a very strong and passionate political year for this country. We could put the fall down to a drop in the birth rate in 1997—clearly there was a lack of passion in North Durham!—but that is obviously not the case. I wrote to my local returning officer about this, and I must pay tribute to Durham county council for the work it is trying to do to get through the minefield laid by the Electoral Commission and the Government. The response I received says that under the old system, where the head of household registered, a section of the form asked for the name of anyone who was 17 and would attain the age of 18 within the next year to be added. The new letter that was sent out to verify who was in the household included a sentence asking for the name of anyone it was thought should be registered to vote, but there was no reference to 17-year-olds. The Minister likes to hide behind the Electoral Commission, but, frankly, on occasions I find the Electoral Commission completely incompetent. On this occasion, it is.

I have raised the question directly with the Minister outside the House. I accept that he has given extra money for registration to councils such as Durham, but that is no good. When I went to county hall last Friday, I saw all the boxes of new letters ready to go out. I looked at the letter, and it does not cover 17-year-olds. When I asked the returning officer why not, he said that the council had to use the letter agreed by the Minister and the Electoral Commission. This was a missed opportunity to correct a basic problem.

In my constituency and other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has shown, the problem will lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of 17-year-olds not being registered, although they will attain the age of 18 this year and would be entitled to vote. That is a scandal, but something that could have been sorted out quite easily. Frankly, it is due to a combination of the Minister and the Electoral Commission. I am not surprised by the Minister because I do not think he has a great grasp of most the subjects for which he is responsible, but one would expect a bit more from the Electoral Commission.

There is an opportunity to put this matter right. Most local authorities know their 16 and 17-year-olds, because they are registered with them for education purposes. I challenge the Minister to instruct all local authorities, with money behind this if necessary, to use such data to ensure that 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 this year are actually registered. That must be done, otherwise many 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before 7 May will assume that they will get a vote, but will not get it.

I make no criticism of the hard work that has been done by a host of organisations to try to get young people registered. I have written to my local schools and publicised the issue locally to ensure that we can get as many as possible of those 17-years-old on the register.

In a democracy, it is important to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That was why the Labour Government brought in the process, which I support. It was done on a cross-party basis, and that consensus should have been maintained. When the Conservatives came to power as part of the coalition, they shattered that consensus and departed from it for their own reasons. We have heard a lot of guff about fraud. I love the idea that the only reason we have not had many fraud cases is the time limits, but my answer would be, “Well, change the time limits.”

I refer hon. Members to the Electoral Commission’s own evidence. In 2004, we had an all-postal ballot in Durham as part of the pilot.

[Mr Gyimah]

Surely you would trust the Electoral Commission.

[Mr Jones]

I do not trust the Electoral Commission on occasion, but in this case I do. Its report said that there was no evidence of major fraud in the administration of postal votes. In a local council by-election in my constituency, the change resulted in a turnout of 67%. A problem of turnout was highlighted in certain communities, but that was not a reason for binning it entirely. However, the Conservative party and the Daily Mail frothed at the mouth about postal voting being open to widespread fraud, for which there was no evidence whatsoever.

I ask the Minister to address the issue of 17-year-olds, which I have previously raised with him. We have missed the opportunity of doing so in the recent letters, but something needs to be done before registration closes on 20 April.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I have little time.

If this were a plot, we would not be putting so many public resources into the process. There has been £500,000 to boost confidence in the electoral system, £2.5 million has been spent on students and overseas voters, £6.8 million has been given to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government for physical canvassing for registration, and there has been work on universities and housing associations as part of the Cabinet Office’s £9.8 million funding.

We accept that some people will be missed in the DWP data-matching. In the central ward in my constituency, about 40% of people were missed. We understand that, but it is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities to find the missing voters by physical door-to-door canvassing. In that way, we will have a full register with integrity.

For most of the time, the previous Labour Government were content to see the potential for electoral register stuffing.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jackson]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I have two more brief points to make. In considering this issue, the Minister should look again at bespoke funding to investigate improprieties and criminal activities in respect of election fraud, because it is difficult for a small constabulary to cope with such matters. We must look again at the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of ID at polling stations and the ability to challenge voters in cases of impersonation. That is an important issue.

Finally, the Government have done an excellent job—largely, I admit, with cross-party support—on postal vote integrity, which is still an important issue. For example, Peterborough city council threw out one in five applicants for postal votes in Central ward in May 2014. Fraud is still a problem and we must be vigilant and protect the electoral integrity of our political system. We should ensure that the right people are on the electoral register and have the opportunity to vote. That is above party politics, and it is a shame that the Labour party cannot rise above partisan point scoring in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I will make a little more progress.

That was on top of the £4.2 million invested last year. The Labour party has rightly wanted to know some of the detail of that, and I will come on to that. Most of this money has already been distributed to EROs, to support their work. Earlier today we announced how the rest of the funding will be used to encourage traditionally under-registered groups to register. If this was part of a Government conspiracy to stop either young people or poorer people registering, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members, then I do not understand why we would have spent £14 million over the last two years on trying to boost registration.

The funding will be provided to a number of national organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens Advice, Citizens UK, Homeless Link, the National Housing Federation, Mencap, Operation Black Vote and UK Youth. Many of these organisations work directly with the groups of people the Labour party has suggested the Government are trying to deny the right to vote.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I acknowledge the money being given to councils such as Durham to send out “cleansing” letters, which they are doing next week, but why was reference to 17-year-olds missed off those letters? That was not up to Durham county council; that is the letter it had to use, which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed and the EC has used.

[Tom Brake]

My understanding is that the Electoral Commission provides guidance that the EROs then act on, but they do have some leeway in how they interpret it. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue four times today and clearly wants a response, I will ensure that he gets a written reply.

I have listed the organisations that are going to work very actively on promoting voter registration among the people they work with. They have direct experience of working with unregistered groups and insight into what works. The £2.5 million campaign is funded from the £10 million announced in January to increase voter registration rates. From this we will also be funding student bodies, including the National Union of Students. As I said earlier, if the Government intended to stop students registering, as some of the more overheated Opposition Members have suggested, we would hardly be funding the NUS.

Durham Free School

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way. Does she agree that another scandalous aspect is that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been sunk into a school in an area, as she rightly says, of surplus places, where other local schools, such as the excellent St Leonard’s, which serves both her and my constituency, are crying out for resources? Is it not a scandal that just last Saturday this school was spending taxpayers’ money on a half-page advert in The Northern Echo? Is that a good use of public money?

[Roberta Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend reiterates a point that I have made many times. I have been greatly concerned about the amount of money the school has received, how it has been spent and the impact of that on other schools in the community.

Secondly, on lessons learned, how much money has the school received so far and has any analysis been made of how that money could have been better spent to assist local schools, especially as they had to accommodate the 400 children from the closed school with no additional resources? Why did the Department think it was better to support a free school for the few rather than invest in the planned academy, which would have supported many more children?

One of the first things the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), did on the election of the current Government was to cancel the academy for Durham city that was very much needed locally and that was supposed to raise standards for the school that closed. This is particularly concerning in the light of findings by the National Audit Office that

“the primary factor in decision making has been opening schools at pace, rather than maximising value for money”.

Surely it was wrong to put ideology before evidence-based education policy.

The shadow Secretary of State picked up on that in highlighting the deficiencies now emerging from the Swedish system, which saw a radical expansion of free schools, accounting for a quarter of all pupils by 2013. This seems to have come at a great cost for those pupils, as Sweden saw a massive drop in standards during this period. In 2003, Sweden was ranked 17th in the global league table for mathematics; now it is ranked 38th. I hope that the Department is keeping a good check on what is happening to overall standards for schools such as Durham free school.

I regret the accusation that some of us are turning this into a political issue. That is not the case. I want a rational debate about the school’s future. When parents approached me in 2011-12 for support to set up the free school, I did what I think was the right thing and pointed them to the Department so that they could get the information and support they needed. I do not know whether that happened in practice. What I do know is that when things go wrong, we need decisive action. I know that the local authority is trying to work with the school and with parents by offering alternative places. It is interesting that we always expect local authorities to step in and sort out problems; perhaps we should consider giving them a much bigger role in the management of all schools.

The main thing that I wanted to do this evening was put my concerns on record. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about how they will be addressed, but I hope that, before he speaks, I can crave the indulgence of the House and allow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) a few minutes in which to comment on the issue from the point of view of the Education Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) on securing this important debate. I know that, as a Member of Parliament and as a governor at Durham Johnston school, she is a passionate advocate for education in her constituency, and I also know that she has been concerned about Durham free school for some time.

We all agree that every parent should be able to choose a good local school for their child, and we are committed to giving parents a genuine choice between high-quality schools. Pupils and parents are let down when local schools are not of the highest quality, and we must act quickly and decisively when schools fail. That is precisely what we have done in the case of Durham free school.

There are currently 255 open free schools. Of those that have been inspected, more than two thirds have been rated good or outstanding and nearly a quarter have been rated outstanding, just three years after the first free school opened its doors to pupils. More than 100 free schools are in the pre-opening phase, and are due to open in 2015 and beyond. Once full, all open and approved free schools will provide 200,000 pupil places. Free schools have introduced new ideas and approaches to the school system. Schools such as Dixons Trinity academy in Bradford, Harris primary free school, Peckham, and Perry Beeches in Birmingham have been ranked outstanding by Ofsted less than two years after opening. They also give parents and local people a say in the type of education they want for their children, and they are helping to raise academic standards. Free schools also bring diversity into the system. Charities, universities, businesses, and teachers and parents have all opened free schools, and they are having a positive impact on the educational landscape.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The Minister mentions choice. In Durham there is choice. There is the very good St Leonard’s Catholic school, there is a choice of very good secondary schools, and a good proposal was put forward for an academy backed by the local FE college. This Government cancelled that. We should have added to the choice, instead of taking the ideological step of introducing this free school, which was not needed in the area.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman says that, but the local community in Bowburn says differently, and that is why it got together and formed a committee to open the free school.

Prior to opening, all free schools undergo a rigorous assessment and Durham free school was no exception, but the real test of a school’s effectiveness comes when the school is open. The leadership and governance of the school must be strong. The standard of education must be high and sustainable to realise the promises made as the school prepared to open. A key strength of the free schools programme is that we can act swiftly and decisively where we find schools that are not performing well. We closed Discovery new school within six months of an Ofsted monitoring inspection showing that insufficient progress was being made. Since then we have reviewed our funding agreements with proposers, improving our ability to act without delay.

The Government have a zero-tolerance approach to under-performance in our schools, which is why the Secretary of State took the decision last week to issue a notice of her intention to terminate Durham free school’s funding agreement just three months after receiving notification of the initial concerns.

Consumer Rights Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Spellar]

I understand, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an age-related thing.

I congratulate the Minister on moving the extension right up to the end of her period in Parliament. We wish her well in her future career. As she and the Opposition spokesperson said, this is an important Bill, in which case one wonders why the Government have taken so long to bring it to fruition on the statute book. What is their problem? It is not as though we are burdened with business. Week after week, the Government are filling time in this Parliament—not just since we came back after the Christmas holiday, but certainly since we came back in September. What have the Government been doing and why are they taking so long to pass the Bill? This Parliament has rightly now been described as a zombie Parliament.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the introduction of fixed five-year Parliaments, there is no excuse for not knowing when the general election will be, meaning that the proper programming of Bills should be a piece of cake for the Government?

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; it should be a piece of cake for any properly run Administration. We realise that there are substantial internal tensions in the Government. That is why several private Members’ Bills are held up in the proceedings, and why other important issues, such as one dear to his heart in his role as deputy defence spokesman for the Opposition—the failure to advance the programme on the renewal of the Trident submarine programme—are also held up. On those matters, we understand, although we do not agree, with the delay. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has several times drawn to the attention of the House and the Prime Minister some of the internal contradictions of the coalition. We understand those problems.

What are the problems with the Bill before us? There might be differences between the Government and the Opposition, as we saw with the Government’s disgraceful support for the ticket touts against the interests of supporters and fans of sport, music and the arts, but there are no internal differences to hold up the progress of the Bill. That brings us to the underlying point: the Government’s programme is in a bit of mess. We have to consider this point, because it is important for the constitutional arrangements of the House. Although there are strong differences of opinion within the Chamber, things really fall down when we have a Government who cannot handle their own business, do not know what they are doing and—equally important, although for some this is a more trivial issue—do not understand the dynamic of Parliament, not just in this House but in the relationship between the two Houses. We are seeing many examples of that.

It might be that the Minister can give us some clues as to where the problem lies. Who is in charge of Government business? Who should be steering the Bill through Parliament, and why have they failed so singularly to do so inside a year—a very long time? Normally, when there is good will in the House—as the Minister rightly said, the Bill has broad approval and is important—Bills can progress at a reasonable pace. Have there been unreasonable obstacles from the Opposition or within the coalition? Or is it that the Government are asleep on the job?

Many Members, including Back-Bench Government Members, have raised concerns about that issue. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the crew at No. 10 are not in charge of Government business. We have seen in the newspapers and heard personally many complaints from Members about his “chillaxed” approach, and we remember the comments about the fish rotting from the head down. He makes a virtue of his “chillaxed” approach to policy and, in particular, to administration and organisation—those dull details that actually ensure that government and Parliament run properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). I agree with him that this is an important Bill, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) stated, much should have been in it that is not in it, so it has been a missed opportunity. I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and others who have argued for greater transparency over ticket touts. I cannot for the life of me think why the Government think there are votes to be gained from ticket touts rather than from the mass of the public who buy tickets. My hon. Friend helpfully highlighted cases where people had clearly been ripped off or misled under the present situation.

The motion before us relates to paragraph (13) of Standing Order 80A, which states:

“Proceedings on a bill ordered to be carried over to the next Session of Parliament shall lapse on the expiry of the period of twelve months from the date of its first reading in this House and the bill shall be laid aside unless the House shall order, in pursuance of a motion under paragraph (14), that proceedings on the bill be extended for a specified period.”

This Bill had its First Reading on 21 January 2004, as the Minister mentioned—[Interruption.] I meant 2014.

Very little legislation has gone through Parliament over the past year. Another habit of this Government is trying to push things through the House very quickly, with limited days allotted for the scrutiny of legislation, which means that the other place has more time to examine a Bill at leisure. I have a fundamental objection to that, because this House is the supreme body for framing and scrutinising legislation and for tabling amendments. The rush to get everything through this House as quickly as possible has left us with what has been described in many newspapers as a “zombie Session”. The programme for next week and subsequent weeks shows that very few votes on legislation are going to be provided for. We are waiting on their lordships’ House to return legislation that has speedily been channelled through this House.

I do not believe it right that an amendment such as the one debated today to deal with ticket touts should have been agreed in the other place. It should have been agreed here. The Government should have taken more time to consider it in detail and to ensure that hon. Members understood the implications of what they had done. We have seen legislation—badly drafted legislation—rushed through this House time and again during this Parliament; it has then gone to the other place and been filleted like a fish.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend draws attention to a further aspect that causes difficulty. In the initial enthusiasm of the coalition, a number of ill thought through constitutional changes were brought through—changing the date of the Queen’s Speech and the five-year Parliament, for example. However, no consideration was given to the natural rhythm of legislation in this Parliament, either on a sessional or a whole-Parliament basis. In both cases, the coalition has run into considerable difficulties in respect of running through legislation in this place and of the inter-relationship between this place and the other place.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. After passing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for five-year Parliaments, it should have been easier for the Government to programme their business motions through this House. At the time of the last general election, the Prime Minister talked freely about reducing the cost of politics, but since then he has absolutely stuffed the other place with new peers and peeresses. He is obviously trying to ensure that the Conservatives maintain their in-built advantage in the other place.

It is clear that the whipping system in the other place is not working very well, which is laughable. Either Members who have just been ennobled are not turning up or other Members are rebellious, because they are clearly not voting along Government lines on every issue. The amendment on ticket-touting, for example, was tabled by a Conservative peer.

A five-year Parliament ought to ensure that programmes are completed, but motions such as this mean that Bills are stuck in the other place and we must wait for them to come back. That applies to some important Bills, such as the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, which would create an armed forces ombudsman and must be keenly awaited by members of our armed forces. It has been argued that there has not been enough time during the current legislative Session, but we should bear in mind the number of Opposition days and Thursdays devoted to business tabled by the Backbench Business Committee. I mean no disrespect to any of those debates, but space could have been made for debates on important Bills.

Moreover, during the current Parliament an unprecedented number of Committee stages have been dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee Rooms upstairs. That has used up days that could have been devoted to more lengthy consideration of Bills.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making one of his interesting speeches, but surely he is not suggesting that Committee stages of constitutional measures that have been dealt with on the Floor of the House should have been dealt with upstairs.

[Mr Jones]

No, I am not. I cannot think of an example at the moment, but a number of Committee stages that would previously have been dealt with upstairs have been dealt with on the Floor of the House. That leads us to ask whether the Government are simply trying to fill up time on the Floor of the House—and I think that that is exactly what they have been doing.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important Bill, and it will clearly be given a great deal more scrutiny and attention in the other place than it will be given here. Given the current logjam in the other place, we shall have a very thin February and March as we wait for Bills to return to us. There is also the broader issue of the reputation of the House of Commons. I do not think that headlines about, for instance, zombie Parliaments or MPs coming to the House on only two days a week do our reputation any good. We cannot expect the public to understand the minutiae of parliamentary timetabling, especially given the incompetent way in which the Government are handling it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend may recall press reports about a memorandum sent by the Government Chief Whip to his Members of Parliament, indicating that they were unlikely to be needed on Thursdays and, possibly, Mondays, and therefore, effectively, they had to be here on only two days a week. In fact, this level of inactivity was being “programmed in” by the Chief Whip, partly because of failure to run the business, but also for party political purposes.

[Mr Jones]

That is an interesting point. I do remember seeing press reports about the letter sent to Conservative Back Benchers. If I thought that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were well organised enough, I would say that there was obviously a plot, but I do not think that there was. I think that they have found themselves with time on their hands, and Conservative Back Benchers have been told not to come here on Mondays or Thursdays.

[Mr Bone]

May I state categorically that I have never received such a letter from the Chief Whip?

[Mr Bone]

He would prefer me to stay away much more often.

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me, given the hon. Gentleman’s record. I should not have thought that he was one of those whom the Chief Whip would hold close to his bosom in terms of communication. I imagine that if there was room for only one more person in a lifeboat, the Chief Whip would not get into it if the hon. Gentleman was there.

The point is that we have ended up with a slack programme, and the progress of Bills, including this Bill, depends on how sedately or otherwise the other place deals with them. Certain important Bills, such as this and the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, could be delayed until the wash-up, and could then fall. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, provisions in this Bill that are actually welcome could end up being dealt with in the usual meat-grinder sessions at the end when it is decided what can and cannot be agreed. I do not think that that would be satisfactory from the point of view of those who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill is passed, or when it comes to ensuring that it is scrutinised in a proper and just fashion. I note that there are other carry-over motions on the Order Paper, and I suspect there will be others, because it is within the Government’s remit to introduce them. As I said, under paragraph (13) of the Standing Order that has been invoked, paragraph (14) comes into effect, which states:

“A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to extend for a specified period proceedings on a Bill which would otherwise lapse under paragraph (13), and any such motion

(a) may contain provisions amending or supplementing a programme order in respect of the Bill;

(b) may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption”.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that this is not about the Government having a procedural or a timetabling Committee of the House for Bills. A competent Government should be able to put forward a legislative programme for a Session that ensures not only that they get their Bills through, but that it is done in a timely fashion and the Bills get proper scrutiny in this place. Clearly, now that they have discovered paragraph (13), it is going to be used far more to extend consideration of Bills.

The time period goes up to 30 March and it will be interesting to see what timetable there will be and whether or not, and when, we will get this Bill back from the other place. On the transparency issue around ticket touting, for example, Lord Moynihan was clear on the radio this morning that he would listen to what this House said, but there is a good chance that the Bill will be voted on again in the other place and come back to us.

The issue is whether the Conservative Whips Office in the House of Lords can get all these new peers whom the Prime Minister has added out of their sleepy slumber and ensure that they attend and vote in support of the Government. Their record so far is not very good. There is even a question as to whether they can be relied on to vote the right way, because there are Cross Benchers and Conservative peers who support the cause of greater transparency for the consumer which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has championed for many years. If the Bill comes back, we will get into a ping-pong session, and given that we are now getting a logjam of Bills, what real in-depth discussion will we have of any amendments that are brought back?

That brings us back to my central point about the role of this House as opposed to that of the other place. I could be unfair on the Government and think that all along, with the coalition in place, their plan and the Prime Minister’s plan was to rush everything through this House as quickly as possible, so that it gets to the other place where, because he has appointed so many new Conservative peers, he now has an in-built majority to steamroller through whatever he wants.

We have seen some examples of that. The coalition love-days of the rose garden at No. 10 in 2010 have now clearly gone sour. The coalition was described then as a shotgun marriage, and it has clearly not lasted the course. I know of occasions when internal tensions in the coalition have led to legislation being dropped—the latest example being the issues around surveillance on the internet, where there appears to be a clear divide between the position of the Liberal Democrats and that of the Conservative part of the coalition. It is important that we get legislation through in time, and we cannot second-guess the internal politics of the coalition. Let us remember the rights of this House. There has been a lot of talk about broken politics, and the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now drifting a long way from the subject before us. We are not discussing the internal politics of the coalition; we are concentrating on the proposal for the carry-over extension of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman needs to return to that.

[Mr Jones]

As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall heed your advice. The important point, however, is that a very strange dynamic has been created during this Parliament. Bills have been announced and put forward, and the first was the Bill relating to the Boundary Commission, which subsequently fell apart. That also happened to a House of Lords Bill. I use those as an example—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jones, it is fascinating to hear your explanation of why you should continue to make the points that I have asked you not to make, but I am now directing you to return to the subject before us. Members might be entertained by your contribution, but it is my job to keep you in order. You are currently out of order, so please return to the subject.

[Mr Jones]

I am quite aware of that, and I apologise for digressing into areas that are beyond the scope of the Bill.

The central point is that this Government have not been able to programme their Bills properly during this Parliament. Depending on where this Bill gets to in the stack of Bills in the other place, it could end up in the wash-up. If Lord Moynihan presses these matters to a vote again, as he said on the radio this morning that he would, we shall have ping-pong and this Bill and others could end up either being filleted or in a ping-pong session. That could result in important legislation not being put forward. The use of this Standing Order shows that the Government have failed in one of their basic tasks—that of timetabling their legislation in this House. It is an indictment of the incompetent and arrogant way in which they have acted.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does not this show precisely the reverse? Does not it show the ambition and forthrightness of the Government in having such a busy programme, even at the end of five years, that they need an extra 67 days? That dynamism is something of which the Government should be proud.

[Mr Jones]

I am glad I have woken the hon. Gentleman from his slumbers. In fact, the opposite is the case. The Government have had a year in which to get the Bill through, yet they have had to argue for an extension to finish the process for this and other legislation. They cannot hide behind the argument that there has not been enough time to consider the Bill; there has been plenty of time. This Government have an inbuilt practice of trying to get Bills through the House as quickly as possible, which is why they have ended up with a logjam in the other place. That is not good for this House, because the Bills do not receive proper scrutiny. This House should be the place in which amendments are tabled and discussed.

During this Parliament, we have seen some very badly drafted Bills. They have not only needed amendment in the other place but come back to this House, at which point the Government themselves have had to table reams and reams of amendments. That is about bad drafting of legislation. It says exactly the opposite to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, in that if the Government cannot get it through in a year, that shows either incompetence or, as I said, a strategy whereby they were trying to push everything to the other place so that when they have their in-built majority there they can bang it through as quickly as possible.

That does this House, or how the public see it, no favours. They do not understand the effectiveness of the other place and how it changes Bills. This House should be where amendments are introduced and things are changed. Without that, all we are doing is rubber-stamping the Government’s legislation—that should not be the position. Members should propose amendments and argue against badly drafted legislation and against things they feel strongly about, as on occasion have the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

I think that we will be seeing more of these carry-over motions, which is an indictment of how this Government have been managing legislation. The Procedure Committee needs to look at this practice in order to ensure in future that this House is the body that not only drafts legislation, but ensures that it receives proper scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Post Office Mediation Scheme

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) on securing the debate. The Post Office spokesman on the “Today” programme said that some postmistresses and postmasters have lifestyle issues, but may I explain what it has meant for my constituent Tom Brown, who lives in Stanley in North Durham? He has lost his home and an investment property he owned. He has been declared bankrupt and he now lives with his son. His reputation has been dragged through the mud and he has lost in excess of £250,000. He has been a sub-postmaster for 30 years. He has been held up at gunpoint on five different occasions. In 2008, he informed the Post Office that there was a problem with the system. I know many other postmistresses and postmasters did that. He was told, “No problem. It will be sorted out.” At the next audit, he was accused of stealing £85,000. He was arrested by the police and his home and his car were searched, even though he had explained to the Post Office about the problems that had arisen. The police interviewed him. His reputation was dragged through the mud.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, these people are known in their local communities, so they are not arrested quietly and without any publicity. The police dropped the case. There was no evidence to answer. The pernicious side of it was that the Post Office took him to court under its powers, accusing him of two charges of false accounting. It took until July 2013 for that to get to court. When it did, the Post Office offered no evidence and the case was thrown out.

Can the Minister say what the decision-making process was? Why was the Post Office pursuing prosecutions when the police had looked at some of these cases and found that there was no case to answer? The Post Office put these people through the further agony of being threatened with court action, even though no action was taken when the cases reached court, because it had no evidence. Mr Brown is now in the mediation service and he has a date in the new year. His solicitors advised him, quite rightly in my opinion, to continue his legal action against the Post Office. Like the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire, I think the mediation service is a bit of a joke,

The arrogant way in which the Post Office is dealing with this issue is astounding. Just before the debate started, the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary passed a letter around from the chair of the working group on the mediation scheme. He said:

“I am limited in the information which I can give because the Scheme requires the cases to be treated confidentially.”

What an arrogant way to address a Minister! Who does the Post Office answer to? That is a fundamental point.

This is a national scandal. The idea that more than 150 individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who have worked tirelessly in their local communities, for decades in some cases, have suddenly all worked out that they can defraud the system is complete and utter nonsense. We have seen the scandal in the banking system of the way in which LIBOR and other things have been rigged. Those bankers have basically been slapped on the wrist and asked to pay a fine, but these individuals have not only had their reputations sullied, but in some cases they have been dragged through the courts and put in prison. Others, such as my constituent, Mr Tom Brown, have had their lives completely ruined.

I am sorry that I have to say this to the Minister, but it is now time for action. I have been a Minister, and I know that Ministers get a lot of flannel from civil servants saying what can and cannot be done, but I will give her a word of advice: if she is determined enough to want to sort this out, she can do it. What we need from this debate is a clear commitment from her to get the Post Office not only to admit the mistakes it has made, but to sort this scandal out. People’s lives have been ruined—decent, honest and hard-working people. That is just not fair. If it happened in any other area of life, it would be a national scandal. It is a national scandal in my opinion. I am looking to the Minister to ensure that something gets done. If her civil servants come back and say she cannot do X, Y and Z, she should just keep challenging them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

My right hon. Friend is right to recognise that the accusation is a serious one—if true, it would be incredibly serious. It is difficult to know whether that is the case, which is why full investigation is needed. The hon. Member for North Durham made a clear challenge, and a fair one, about ensuring that we get some action and resolution on the issue. The point that I push back on is that many of the cases are incredibly complex, understandably so, because they are dealing with systems and many transactions—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

You’re the Minister, do something!

[Jo Swinson]

In order to do something, what is required is independent investigation that is done thoroughly and forensically—

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I want to make a few brief comments and ask the Minister some questions about clause 6 and schedule 1, and clauses 7 and 9. These provisions relate, as he said, to the petition officers who will be appointed.

My questions are about the costs incurred in this process. The Bill is non-specific and refers to the condition that

“the total of the officer’s charges does not exceed the amount…specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by the Minister”.

However, one of the interesting things about the Bill is that it is accompanied by a detailed impact assessment, which goes into such meticulous detail on the likely costs incurred during the process that it lists the estimated total costs of one recall petition, which include the cost for the petition officer, at £500, the cost of the petition signing place, at £734, and the cost of the petition notice card, at £20,891. I was wondering why, if that much work has been done, the Government are waiting for secondary legislation. Why not build it directly into the Bill, so we could see exactly the cost that is likely to be incurred? If we are committed to secondary legislation, when are we going to see the provisions for it coming forward? Will it be done quickly? I presume it will be, because if the work has been done, I see no reason at all why it cannot be brought forward immediately. Perhaps it is, in reality, already available and could be presented to us.

My second point relates to clause 7, which refers to a “maximum of 4 places” where the petition can be signed. To his credit, the Minister has said that he has taken into account the opinions of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but why has he not taken into account the representations made, not just by the Member who tabled the amendment, but by the Electoral Commission? The Electoral Commission has provided a circular, which has gone to all Members. It says that it sees no reason why there should be “a maximum of four” places in which to go and vote, suggesting there should be “a minimum of four” places. It makes the very good point that our constituencies vary enormously in their size and geography, so four places might be appropriate for a compact constituency, but nowhere near enough for more rural constituencies.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I imagine that, for the Western Isles or even parts of rural County Durham, four places would be quite inappropriate because people would have to travel long distances. In common with my hon. Friend, I cannot understand why we are having a maximum of four rather than a minimum of four places.

[Wayne David]

That is precisely the point; my hon. Friend puts it very well. Surely, given the extreme variation in the geographic nature of UK constituencies, it makes good sense to have a degree of flexibility. It would be very unfair, for example, if certain voters in large, geographically dispersed constituencies with a difficult geography felt that they were being excluded from a democratic process that we know has excited a great deal of public interest. I would be grateful if the Minister responded not just to what I am saying, but to what the Electoral Commission has said after taking the trouble to circulate information to all Members.

My third point relates to clause 9. The Electoral Commission has queried the wisdom of the Government’s stating on the face of the Bill the wording of the petition, suggesting that it would be far better to have a process of testing among electors to see what words would be most appropriate, most effective and best understood. I think that is a very fair point. We have seen in previous legislation, such as the recent Bill on the EU referendum, that the form of words used makes a big difference to the impression created for the electorate; and we want them to make a fair and objective choice about the pros and cons of a given situation as conveyed in a question.

I would personally question whether the Government have chosen the best form of words. Let me cite clause 9(4), which states:

“By signing in the box below, you are signing a petition for [name of the MP], the MP for [name of constituency], to lose [his/her] seat in the House of Commons”.

I question whether “to lose” is the best phrase to employ. Would not “to no longer continue” be better? It might make a difference to the way in which many people cast their vote. The only sure method of testing that would be an exercise involving a representative cross-section of people to see how they responded to different forms of words. That is important, because words are not simply objective statements per se. They can have certain implications, and lead to certain inferences. The word “lose” might strike some people as excessively strong, and might dissuade them from casting a positive vote.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a good point. The MP in question might not lose his or her seat following the signing of the petition. If a by-election followed, it would be up to the electorate to decide. If a very small number of people wanted to destabilise an MP, this would be the way to do it.

[Wayne David]

That, too, is a good point, which deserves careful consideration. I think we all know from our experience of various referendums in the past that the words that are used on a ballot paper can be very important indeed. I think that the Government should recognise that what they need to do is consult the people, and come back later with a properly thought through and broadly acceptable measure.

[Mr Jones]

We should bear in mind what has happened in the United States, where so much pressure is put on people who feel that they have done nothing wrong, or have been challenged because of their policy positions, that they resign at that point, and do not stand in the subsequent recall election. The phraseology in the Bill could be used in the same way. The pressure put on individuals could be so great that they would give up before the by-election even if they had done nothing wrong.

[Wayne David]

That concern was expressed during our last sitting, and it is a concern felt by many people in the House and beyond. We need a democratic process in which people can have confidence, and which fulfils a proper function. We do not want the Bill to be used, indeed abused, as a vehicle enabling external interests, perhaps well financed, to put undue pressure on democratically elected representatives.

I am pleased to say that the extremely well-prepared impact assessment refers to the costs that would be incurred for the Welsh translation of recall petition documents. It is estimated that the cost of a petition in one of the Welsh constituencies would be £100. I welcome that information, because—casting my mind back not too far—I remember that there was quite a hoo-hah in the House when the Government forgot that bilingual ballot papers would be needed for the elections of police and crime commissioners. Some of us said to the Government at the time that we thought it very likely that secondary legislation would be necessary. We were told “We have consulted our expert lawyers, and they have said that there is no need for it.” However, the expert lawyers were wrong, as is often the case, and there was a need for legislation at the last moment—literally just before the PCC elections. However, because the Government had made a mistake, they had to have extra forms produced in English in Wales just in case there was not enough time to get the new secondary legislation on to the statute book. The result was that at the end of the day the Government simply wasted £130,000 of taxpayers’ money because they would not take advice from us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship in the Chamber, Sir Roger, rather than being hidden away in a dark corner of the House.

I have a very modest amendment to bring forth: amendment 38, which I hope the Committee will consider. All I am doing is changing one word. I am changing the word “maximum” to “minimum”, so I am in fact changing only two letters; I am changing “ax” to “in”, so we are axing “ax” and bringing in “in.” The reason for doing so is because I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith): I think that if we are going to have recall we should do it properly, and if we are going to do it properly we should do it generously, and if we are going to do it generously, it should be easy for people to exercise their right under it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I know the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is unable to be here today through illness, but in the argument he was putting forward last week in Committee he championed the fact that people would have to turn up to one place to sign the petition, arguing that that would somehow make it very difficult to achieve the threshold. Is the hon. Member for Richmond Park now saying that that was not the case?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My amendment is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, and he kindly added his name to the list; indeed it appears immediately beneath mine on this amendment, so yes, indeed, it does have his support, which I am very grateful for. It is a recognition of the difference between constituencies and the fact that this point is already provided for in other areas of legislation. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said and he made some very important points in saying that there may be discrepancies between one constituency and another and raising the issues of cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The point the hon. Member for Richmond Park was arguing last week was that because people would have to turn up in person to one point—the town hall, for example—his proposed provisions would not often be used. Is the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) now saying that the hon. Member for Richmond Park is arguing we should have multiple centres to make it easier for people to take part in a recall?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to make arguments for somebody who is not here, which is a wonderfully hypothetical approach to be taking. I must make my own arguments for what I believe about this Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will make his arguments when he is here, as he did so eloquently last week in favour of his amendments to the Bill. I must focus on my amendment 38, and its purpose, however. I hope that clarifies the matter, Sir Roger.

I was saying that I completely understood what the Minister was saying on the issues of differentiation between constituencies and cost, but the first point is accepted in all our elections anyway, and is accepted in legislation that this very Government passed. The legislation providing uniform constituencies made exceptions for the very largest geographical areas, because it recognised that it is unreasonable not to make different arrangements for those beyond a certain size. Therefore, when there are thousands and thousands of acres—sometimes into the thousands of square miles—we make different arrangements from those that we have for the much smaller, more compact constituencies.

I do not fully accept the Minister’s point about cost. Clause 18 provides Ministers with considerable powers to make regulations affecting the opening hours of the places where the petition may be signed. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has raised this matter in the past. In my view, it would therefore be possible for people to sign the petitions in local post offices during their opening hours. This would involve minimal cost, while giving constituents in the larger geographical areas easier access to the process.

This is important because the difference in size between the constituencies is extreme. I have here a little list, at the top of which is Ross, Skye and Lochaber, whose area is 4,709 square miles. That is a little over 3 million acres, which is three times the size of the county of Somerset. To have only four places in such a vast area would place an unreasonable constraint on people’s ability to exercise the democratic right that we are proud to be giving them. We should be positive about the Bill; it is a good thing to allow constituents to have greater control over their Members of Parliament. Access to the process would be very easy in the smallest constituency, Islington North, which has an area of only 2.8 square miles. Such a constituency would hardly need more than one place, because it would not be too difficult for people to get around, unlike in Ross, Skye and Lochaber.

In my own area, God’s own county of Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—whom I am happy to see in his place—represents an area of 367 square miles. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) is even bigger, with an area of 417 square miles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I rather agreed with the hon. Lady when she expressed her concern about the difficulties of voting by post. It has become much too easy and is susceptible to high levels of fraud, and I do not believe that that is a problem only in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly a problem in England, and probably in Wales and Scotland as well. We have heard about the problems in Birmingham; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has made regular references to them. I would therefore prefer people to be able to go somewhere physically and add their name to a list.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is a Daily Mail myth that postal vote fraud is rampant. When the Electoral Commission ran its all-postal-vote pilots in, I think, 2006, it found that there was not widespread fraud, although there were problems in certain communities.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are undoubtedly greater difficulties with postal voting. My major concern is that it undermines the secrecy of the ballot. When ballot papers go into people’s homes, they are likely to be seen as a family affair, in contrast to the secrecy involved in going into a corner of a polling station to vote. As I was saying in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I believe that it is better for people to turn up to vote in person and that that should be facilitated. That would reduce the need for excessive postal voting.

I shall not go through all the constituencies on my list, but I should point out that my own has an area of 122 square miles, or about 85,000 acres. That is about the maximum area that could conveniently have only four registration places. Such an arrangement would simply be unreasonable in a bigger constituency, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.

There is a broader point to make: the rural areas often get forgotten. There is a polling station in my constituency that is in somebody’s porch. About 85 people go to vote there. There are even smaller polling stations across the country; some have only a couple of dozen electors who are eligible to vote in them. We used to make it easy for people to turn up and vote, and if we are introducing new democratic rights, we ought to make it similarly easy for people to turn up and exercise them.

We should think about the rural areas: they have fewer people, but their democratic rights are just as important as those of people who live in dense urban areas, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) so rightly said. There are differences between constituencies, and we recognise them in other ways. In passing, it is worth mentioning the great county of Yorkshire, which has a particularly large number of seats that cover large areas and have small populations. Yorkshire has more acres than there are words in the Bible, if the Apocrypha is excluded, and it is divided into very large geographical constituencies. Again, each of them ought to have more than four places for people to go to. I hope that the Government will listen on this matter, and understand the need for rural populations to exercise their rights as freely, properly and easily as the urban mass population.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I want to comment on amendment 38, which the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has just spoken to. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), I am generally sympathetic to the idea that having a maximum of four places would be disadvantageous and totally impractical in some large rural constituencies. In the Western Isles, for example, there would have to be a decision about which islands should have such a place. There is a genuine need for the Government to consider that problem.

[Thomas Docherty]

Is my hon. Friend aware that unlike for an election, where the returning officer is required to consult the political parties regularly about the location of such places, I understand that there is no specific requirement for the petition officer to consult political parties about the location of these offices?

[Mr Jones]

I was about to come on to that. The interesting thing is that even though the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) argued last week that recall would be used on very few occasions, he supports amendment 38 because it would be so difficult for everyone to go to one place.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, if there are more than the maximum of four, there needs to be some regulation or control over the number of places, otherwise a different situation may arise. I remember one council in the north-east where a certain person was in control of the location of polling stations, and it seemed as though there was one on every street corner in her ward. The hon. Member for North East Somerset told us that the amendment is designed to increase democratic turnout, but as in such a case, putting one on every street corner could be used to encourage people to oppose an MP.

I sympathise with the view that a maximum of four places is too prescriptive, but there must be some regulation or control for such places, otherwise a petition officer might be put under undue political pressure locally to have dozens and dozens of sites to make it as easy as possible for people to secure a recall. The Government need to change the provision, but they also need to add some guidance or regulations alongside it, because otherwise there will be abuses of the system. Having large numbers of these places might be designed to encourage people to turn out deliberately to undermine and remove the Member of Parliament not for any democratic reason, but for political reasons.

[Mr Heath]

I want to make a few observations on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), and on some of the clauses in this group.

My first observation relates to the number of places at which people can sign the petition. It seems to me completely impossible to equate the notion of fair access across the country with setting a maximum of four places for constituents such as mine, as my hon. Friend correctly said. It takes me about an hour and a quarter to drive from one end of my constituency to the other. Were there very few places, that would effectively disfranchise those who wish to attend a place of signing in person from being able to do so. Obviously, such an issue does not apply in urban or suburban constituencies, but it certainly does in the wide open spaces of rural constituencies, some of which are represented in the Chamber this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I do think that, because I have had the great pleasure, during nearly 18 years in this House, of serving on innumerable statutory instrument Committees and considering the wording of ballot papers and the like through statutory regulation. That seems to me the much more appropriate way to get it right. Such an approach might also deal with the specific issue about the Welsh language. I seem to recall, although I might be wrong, that we have on occasion examined the Welsh language version of what appears on a ballot paper as well, and it is prescribed; it is not left to someone to translate it as they choose. So the hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Government would be well advised to remove the prescription in this clause and say, “The Minister may, by regulation, prescribe the words that will appear on the petition signing sheets.” That will allow the Government to go away, talk to the Electoral Commission, get the words right and come back with a regulation that provides for that.

The last point I wish to make relates to postal and proxy votes, about which the hon. Member for North Down makes an incredibly important point. I cannot see why the regulations on applying for a postal or proxy vote, and for the execution of such a vote in an election, should be any different from those used for the petition. These things are equally important to our electoral and democratic process, so I would like to think that whatever applies to one will apply to the other, to ensure that we have a proper level of checking.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is there not a slight difference? In an election someone gets sent a ballot paper, but they would not be sent a ballot paper to say, “Do you want to sign this petition or not?” The two are slightly different.

[Mr Heath]

I am not clear what the process is. The hon. Gentleman may well have more information on this than I do currently, but I am not clear how the postal and proxy vote system will work in respect of a petition. The people registered for a postal or proxy vote for an election may not be the same people who would wish to exercise their right to such a vote in the case of a petition. Some people, particularly those who do not have a petition signing place within half an hour’s drive or a three-day bus journey from where they live, may well want to exercise a postal or proxy vote, whereas for an election they can just toddle down to the village hall or an outbuilding of the local pub to cast their vote. So a different group of people may well be involved, and I would like to know what the process will be.

[Mr Jones]

This is also about knowing what the process would be to ensure that the signature being sent in is authentic. Since we had the change on applying for a postal vote, a signature and a date of birth is required, and I understand that the signatures are scanned and have to match. If someone has just written on a small piece of paper that they want a recall and they send it in, is that good enough? How do we verify that the signature is from a legitimate person, one who might not have applied for a postal vote?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We all have experience of petitions where we look down the names and find people who are perhaps not resident in our constituencies, because they happen to be otherwise employed in a theme park in Orlando or as President of the United States; there are all sorts of reasons why they are not legitimate electors of our constituencies, but nevertheless the names have been appended. I believe the Minister’s answer to that is simply, “We have introduced an offence of providing a false signature in the Bill.” That is not a sufficient deterrent, as we know because we have seen the evidence for that many times. So we need some sort of checking procedure to make sure that when Mr Michael Mouse signs a petition it is the Mr Michael Mouse who is a resident of Railway cuttings, Cheam or a relevant address rather than a Mr Michael Mouse who may be a figment of someone’s imagination.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The signatures and names and addresses are not going to be published in the public domain, so how does anybody challenge whether the signature sent in asking for a petition is genuine? I am sure that during his 18 years in the House he has had many petitions where he has written back to people who then deny ever signing a petition. There has to be a procedure in place to ensure that there is at least some public scrutiny of those signatures. If there is not, the 10% threshold could be reached with bogus signatures.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right. Indeed, people sometimes forget that they have clicked to add their name to a letter that the computer generated the day before. When we contact them they know nothing about what they have apparently just written to us about in great detail and about which they feel passionately. We all encounter that; it is not an unusual experience. He and I share the view that we need safeguards to make sure that the names that appear are the right ones. There is, however, one point where I will disagree with him. He is still fighting the good fight about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) when he talks about the possibilities of people harassing a Member using this process. The two triggers we have at the moment—criminal conviction and the 21-day suspension —are very limited. Some of us believe the provision should be wider than that and there should be at least one more trigger, and we will pursue that, but I do not think it is open to the sort of abuse he suggests. I therefore see no reason why we should not make it as easy as possible for people to sign a petition if that is what they choose to do, where those trigger points have been satisfied. With that, I shall be interested in hearing what others have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

There is also the question of how one signs the petition. It has been suggested that it will be an offence to sign a wrong name. Is somebody going to be watching every name that is signed? In current elections using ballot papers, people are free to spoil their vote. People could well put a spoiled entry on a petition form, but they could do so in a way that spoils other people’s entries as well, so there are issues relating to the management and policing of the petition process.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but in Northern Ireland, I think, voters must show ID. In the UK they do not. What is there to stop someone putting someone else’s name on a petition? If the list of names and addresses is not made public, how could anyone challenge an entry and say, “I didn’t sign that petition”? That is a weakness. Even if, in the UK, a presiding officer is present, there is no guarantee of the identity of the person signing.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman raises another significant point in the Northern Ireland context. Yes, ID is required in order to vote. In a proper recall system, just as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested in respect of postal and proxy votes, the same standard should apply to them in relation to recall as would apply in relation to elections and ballot papers, and similarly as regards voter ID in Northern Ireland. If somebody is coming to take the power of a voter in respect of a recall petition, they should have to present the same provable ID as is required in respect of an election. It is not particularly arduous and people have got used to the system. There is the electoral ID card, which covers people who do not have the other forms of ID.

[Mr Jones]

I agree that in Northern Ireland that provision is in place, but in the rest of the UK it is not. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that people wishing to sign a recall petition in my constituency or any other constituency in the UK would have to provide some type of ID. Even if they did, because the names will not be made public, there is no way to challenge their authenticity. It is no good saying that signing a fictitious name is an offence. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience in Northern Ireland, voter fraud used to be quite widespread.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman’s point gives rise to the question of location. Whether there is a minimum or a maximum of four locations, can people freely choose, turn up to any of them and register their signature on the petition? Will there be anybody to check there and then whether they are eligible? Many people may be unsure who their MP is or which constituency they are in. When it comes to setting up petition points, somebody should be in a position to verify that people are eligible to sign the petition by virtue of being on the register for that constituency, whether there is a particular geographic catchment for that constituency or an overall register for the constituency. That would need to be managed by way of regulation or other instruments. We cannot take care of all that in the Bill.

I have some sympathy with the points made about clause 9 and the language of the petition. That does not need to be in the Bill. There are also questions about the couching of that language and the need to make it clearer. Whereas on polling day people have to garner a significant amount of support to be successful, those who are mobilising behind a petition have to get only 10% in a constituency over a long period of weeks. It is not a high challenge that they are set. In those circumstances, it is not too much to expect that voters who are being given that opportunity should make sure that they are eligible to sign the petition. I think the test should be higher than 10%, which is why I supported the three-stage proposal from the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

Whichever version of recall petition we are discussing and at whatever stage it takes effect on either model, people should know that the process surrounding the petition is managed properly. If they think petitions are managed in a way that falls short of what they would expect at election time, we are inviting a culture of abuse. I hope the Government will consider the arguments, which will be supported both by those who broadly support the scope of the Bill that the Government have provided and by those who would challenge it. All of us want to know that if there is to be a petition process, it will be durable and reliable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I thought the hon. Gentleman took the view that Her Majesty was the final authority; he is obviously becoming a republican in his older age.

We have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He was right to talk about having two constituencies side by side, or indeed one surrounding the other—I think that his constituency completely surrounds that of Bath—and made some valid points about the square mileage and number of hectares in each. We do not necessarily agree that the situation differs for rural and urban constituencies. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) pointed out, that would be determined more by public transport links, particularly the provision of bus services.

None the less, we think that the hon. Member for North East Somerset has raised a valid point. For example, we are concerned that Ministers are not at this stage able to give us greater clarity about opening hours, and that relates to a broader point. I refer the House to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which set out a concern about the use of Henry VIII powers. That simply means that the Government are seeking to state in primary legislation that all the detail will be covered by secondary legislation, and they have not yet had a chance to set out those provisions.

We are concerned that the Government do not have a clear position on opening hours. There is an argument that opening hours should be from 7 am to 10 pm, as they are in a general election. Equally, however, if the Government are proposing ultimately to use city chambers, town halls and council offices, perhaps it would be unreasonable to require additional opening hours over an eight-week period. My understanding is that central Government would pick up those costs, rather than individual local authorities, so I wonder whether the Minister, if he receives inspiration before having to reply, could say, when the Government worked out the £55,000 cost of running a recall petition, was that based on opening hours of 9 am to 5 pm in up to four locations, or opening hours of 7 am to 10 pm?

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) raised an important point about security—if I recall correctly, she made the same point last week during the Committee’s first day of considerations. The Government must accept that clearly more work needs to be done to answer those points. Several hon. Members have made the point, rightly I think, that the Government are yet to set out whether in practice they would use a marked register. If we take the example of having just one location for signing a recall petition—I am conscious that we are in danger of slipping into consideration of clause 18, but this relates to the question of where a petition can be signed—is it the Government’s intention that the petition officer would be sitting with the marked register and would cross off constituents’ names as they sign the petition, or would it not be made available?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I suggest that without it the process would be completely open to fraud, because anyone could go in and sign the petition, and nobody would ever know if those names and addresses were just made up.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We think that there are concerns about validity. The Member of Parliament and his or her supporters have a right, not unreasonably, to look at the marked register to ensure that there has not been fraud. Equally, the petitioners who organise a recall petition have a right to look at it. As in an election, we would be able to tell whether a person had voted, but not how they had voted. I hope that the Government will think carefully about that.

I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will not press his amendment to a vote this evening, but I also hope that the Government will be gracious enough to promise to look at all these concerns again and, at least before the Bill goes to the Lords, come back with more substantive proposals on the type of petition station, opening hours and the issue of security. I believe that Ministers are genuinely acting in good faith, but I hope that they appreciate that we simply cannot allow all this to be done through secondary legislation.

One suggestion put to me some time ago was that an order should be laid at the start of each Parliament, stating that in North East Somerset, for example, there would be six places where constituents could sign the petition, that there would be seven in East Surrey, and four in Dunfermline and West Fife. The other issue is that the opening hours for polling stations at a general election are set in legislation, but nowhere can I find the opening hours for recall petitions, and that needs to be sorted out.

[Mr Jones]

That suggestion would not get around the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the importance of where the petition stations are located. For example, if all the stations in his constituency were based in Orange lodges, I am sure that he and others would have something to say about it.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you will forgive me, Sir Roger, if I do not speculate about the popularity or otherwise of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in the various Orange lodges of his constituency—going down that path would not end well for any of us in the Chamber. However, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is absolutely right that careful consideration has to be given. Again, we have not had enough detail. We are working from a series of assumptions about petition stations being in council offices and polling stations, but Ministers have not set out in any detail where they are likely to be.

Finally, in relation to my earlier point about consultation, there is a requirement for returning officers to consult at least with political parties and other interested parties on the siting of polling stations, and indeed on the boundaries of polling stations within electoral wards. We have not yet seen anything that would explicitly require the petition officer at least to consult. There is more work to be done on that issue.

We also have concerns about proxy and postal votes. The Minister might like to say a little more about why existing postal voters will still have to write in to request a postal vote, rather than simply being issued a petition form by post. I press the Minister to give us some satisfaction in that regard. Will he also confirm that there is often a last-minute flurry of activity to join the electoral register? I appreciate that he has made it clear that one has to be on the register at the trigger date, but often there can be a slight administrative delay, as we saw in the recent referendum in Scotland. Can he confirm that the application, rather than its processing, will be taken as the cut-off point as there can sometimes be a few days’ backlog?

[Mr Gyimah]

Welcome, Sir Roger, to the Chair. A number of very good points have been made and I shall deal with them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) made many interesting points, and asked why the Bill does not go into the same level of detail regarding expenses. The AV referendum process and the petition process mirror a referendum process, rather than a general election process. The AV referendum gave us some hard facts to work with.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

In an AV referendum, postal voters would be sent a ballot paper. Here, we are asking people to come forward to sign a petition. Those are completely different things, and they are getting confused in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out from a sedentary position, we all want the same thing: we all want to ensure that this process works extremely well, and I will take on board the points that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) has made.

A number of references were made to the wording of the petition signing sheet. The wording is set out in primary legislation but can be amended by secondary legislation if some problems transpire, as I said earlier, but we would look to gain consensus for the process.

The decision on where polling stations should be located is normally made by members of the council for the local authority in question. All local authorities must review their UK parliamentary polling districts and polling places at least once every five years. To assist with this, the Electoral Commission has produced guidance on conducting polling place reviews. A number of Members said that the decision on where to locate the polling station could in some ways prejudice the result. The truth is that unless there is a polling station in every part of the constituency, we will be open to that charge.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is important to point out that these are not polling stations but collection points for petitions. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) said, we no longer have last week’s nonsensical proposal by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). However, it would be open to someone from a party in opposition to a Member of Parliament subject to recall to do exactly what the Minister just said. They could have a polling station on every street corner if they wanted to. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for example, let us say that the local party wanted, for unfriendly political reasons, to put a polling station in a certain building.

[Mr Gyimah]

The main point is that the person who determines where the polling stations are located is the petition officer, who is otherwise the electoral registration officer, and they have the skills and experience to determine how to run the process. It would be easy for the hon. Gentleman to make that charge if there were to be a petition station in every part of the constituency, but that is not what we are debating, because the Bill says that there will be a maximum of four.

[Mr Jones]

In my experience, it is possible to influence the outcome of these things. I remember that many years ago a council ward in the Newcastle city council area seemed to have a polling station on every street corner. When I became the Labour party’s local ward secretary, I asked why, and found—lo and behold—that the person in charge was a local councillor. I am not saying that this should necessarily be addressed in the Bill, but there should be some stronger guidance as opposed to just leaving it up to the local council.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the only way in which people can participate in this process is by turning up physically and signing the petition sheet. Let me be clear, by the way, that it will not be possible to see everyone’s signature on the petition sheet; in fact, it looks more like a ballot paper. People can participate by post or by proxy. It is not strictly accurate to argue that the place where the ERO decides to locate the petition station can, in itself, affect the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I will come to that point later.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked whether anyone can turn up at any location and sign, and asked about double signing. I assure him that these details will be set out in regulations. Constituents eligible to vote will be sent a petition notice card allocating them a location, and they will be able to sign only at that location. They will be marked off the register at that location when they are given a signing sheet.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Gyimah]

May I try to get through my speech?

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gyimah]

I will just carry on.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked about the requirement for translation into the Welsh language of the wording—

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I think that the purpose of a Committee is for the Minister to answer questions about what he is saying to it. When people ask the Minister questions, a lot of the time he clearly does not have a clue what he is talking about. He should accept interventions on these technical points—they are not general political points.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Member who has the Floor determines whether he gives way on any particular point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

What would be the purpose of a marked register if it were not public? If the public did not know who had signed it, what earthly use would it be?

[Mr Gyimah]

That is precisely why we are considering the issue. Obviously, the point of the register is to mark people off for verification purposes as they turn up at the petition station. Further to that, we are considering whether to make the register public. We have to recognise that this process is very different from an election and think about what happens when the register becomes a marked register.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about appropriate opening hours. I assure him that we will look into that when it comes to drafting the regulations. It may be possible for a petition officer to choose a location that is open in the evening, on weekdays, and so on. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a consultation to determine some of these questions every five years rather than doing so in the heat of a petition process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector on economic growth.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

20. What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the higher education sector to economic growth.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

Higher education contributes to growth. We have just had universities week, celebrating our universities’ contribution to the Olympics, to the economy and to national life, and estimates by Universities UK indicate that higher education contributes more than £31 billion to our GDP. University education is of course, however, also worth while in itself—in ways that cannot be measured by economists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Willetts]

One reason why we have protected the science and research budget and, for the first time, included the research funding going to universities via the Higher Education Funding Council for England is so that our universities can be confident that they have secure and protected research funding for the life of this Parliament.

[Mr Jones]

Durham university is not only world-class but, along with the other four universities in the north-east, a key driver of the regional economy. What assessment has the Minister made of the visa changes and the capacity of Durham, and those other four universities, to attract overseas students, especially when we read in the press that students from India and other countries are choosing Canada and the United States, rather than the UK?

[Mr Willetts]

Let us be clear about what the Government have done. We have tackled abuse in bogus colleges and the issue of overseas students who, sadly, did not have the necessary academic qualifications to benefit from coming into higher education in this country. That abuse had to be tackled. We now have a clear message that legitimate students are welcome, with no cap on numbers, to come from anywhere in the world to study at British universities. I work very closely with our universities, including the university of Durham, on trade missions to get that very positive message out across the world.

Education Funding

Lord Beamish Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I believe that Sheffield is one of the local authorities that has reached financial close, so I think that the King Edward VII school is unaffected.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I quite like him, but may I say that the way in which he has presented his statement today has been nothing but a disgrace? In so doing, he has treated the House and individuals in it with contempt. He said in his statement that the poorest communities will not be affected, but what will be gained in Stanley in my constituency—one of the poorest areas in this country—by reviewing an academy that has the support of the local community and will put in great work to change the lives of thousands of children in the years to come?

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words at the beginning. I have stressed that academy projects are those that, as we both appreciate, were designed to help children in the most difficult circumstances. If he would like to write to me, we will make sure that we do everything possible to help to support that academy project.