UK Drugs Policy
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas
What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely true. In a sense, this is not a party political matter: people from across this House and the other place believe that we should have an evidence-based approach, rather than an approach that for too long has been dictated by fear, particularly fear of the tabloids. It is important to have this debate.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her award, even though, as I was nominated for it, I feel some frustration. It has been a great pleasure to work with her on this issue. Her voice is, and I hope will continue to be, very valuable in this place. Will she confirm that many newspapers are now coming out in favour of change, and that the public want change? Today, The Sun shows that roughly two thirds of people want a reform of drugs policy.
Caroline Lucas
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being nominated, and I am sure he will win next time. His point is incredibly important. Until now, politicians often thought that they were reflecting public opinion, but they are now massively behind it, as the poll in The Sun absolutely demonstrates.
It strikes me that a time of austerity, with the Government seemingly looking under every last stone to find money to save, is an odd time not to consider drugs policy, given that so much money is invested in the current drugs regime. Yet drugs policy seems to be completely divorced from the usual considerations about public spending and the good use of taxpayers’ money, and we simply have no proper public mechanism for knowing whether the money spent on the so-called war on drugs has been put to good effect.
No one now buys alcohol in unmarked bottles from the back of a pub—that would be dangerous and unnecessary—but for 40 years we have left our children to do exactly that with drugs. There is no denying that drug misuse has the potential to wreck lives, but surely it is time to be honest about the damage caused by the drug laws, which can cause a proliferation of criminality and public harm. The entire drugs trade has been handed over to the worlds’ racketeers and gangsters. The drugs market has soared, and that has brought untold misery. Essentially, the current market is almost wholly uncontrolled.
From speaking to young people in my constituency, it is clear that many of them can get hold of drugs far more easily than alcohol, which is surely wrong. When someone tries to get hold of alcohol, they at least have to show an ID card if they are thought to be under age. Drug dealers do not care about someone’s ID or anything else; they care only about their profits. I believe that the current policy is based on a deliberate ignorance about the effect of drugs.
Disabled Students Allowance
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(10 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I will do my best to abbreviate my speech in deference to the large number of Members who have shown up. It is good to see everybody who has come here. We are united by a belief that everybody, regardless of who they are, should be able to aspire to go to university. Regardless of disability, whether it is physical or mental, visible or invisible, there should not be a barrier as a result of it. There have been improvements on widening participation. At the university of Cambridge, where I used to be and which I now have the pleasure to represent, in 2007, only 4% of students were disabled. That has gone up to 10% now, and it is a trend that we see across the country. Universities have worked very hard to try to get disabled applicants to apply, to support them and to get rid of barriers. As a former director of studies and supervisor, I have seen some of that work and engaged in some of it to try to support students.
We have to ensure that the progress continues, because there are challenges. In general, life costs more for people who are disabled, and the same applies to student life. The disabled students allowance is a lifeline for many students with disabilities. That is why I sought the debate and why I am pleased to have secured it, after having seen the Minister’s proposals and heard the concerns that many people have expressed to me.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he share my alarm that that National Union of Students has said that as many as 55% of students with disabilities have seriously considered giving up their courses, many of them precisely because of financial concerns?
Dr Huppert
I do indeed share that concern—I will now take that point out of my speech—and the key point is that that number is significantly higher than it is for non-disabled students. I have been working with the National Union of Students, Anglia Ruskin university students’ union and Cambridge university students’ union on that. I want to draw Members’ attention to early-day motion 48, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). It is a pleasure to work with him on that—I am one of the co-sponsors—and we have now reached 99 signatures to that motion. I hope we can get over 100 today, because it shows that the issue matters to Members across parties.
In 2012-13, the payments helped 54,000 students up and down the country, doing so at a slightly lower cost than was necessary in 2011-12.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure as ever to follow the Chair of the Select Committee. I welcome the comments of the Home Secretary on my amendment 74 on ending child detention. The Government were right to do it a few years ago and they are now absolutely right to write it into legislation. It was profoundly wrong that under the previous Government thousands upon thousands of children were detained purely for immigration purposes—7,075 children in five years, and not just for a day or so but in one case as long as 190 days. That was a disgrace to this country and I am delighted that the Government ended it and have made sure that, whatever the next Government and the one after that, they will not be able to reintroduce it. It was a great shame that the Labour Front-Bench team refused to be as pleased as I was that this had been written into law, and I look forward to the legislation in the Lords reflecting Government policy. That is excellent.
I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said on statelessness. I thank her for coming to talk to me and many of my colleagues about it; we had many questions. I have a lot of sympathy with the problem that she faces. There are instances in which citizenship should be taken away, and one is where fraud has taken place. I have no problem with someone who has acquired British citizenship by fraud not being allowed to keep it. That is easy. There are then issues about dual nationals—again, that is an easier case—and mono nationals who are in the UK. I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and many others about the problems of taking citizenship away from someone who is in this country. The Home Secretary hopes that they will be able to acquire citizenship of another country, and in some cases that may be possible, in which case they would not be stateless, but we cannot be sure.
It seems to me that the country that may be able to give someone citizenship may be less keen to do so when we have just ruled that they are a danger to this country. They would be far more reluctant in that situation. We would certainly be much less keen to grant citizenship to someone who had just been deprived of citizenship of another country. There is then the question of what happens to that person. The Home Office advice about people who are stateless is that they can have two and a half years leave to remain and can then apply for a further two and a half years, after which they get indefinite leave to remain. Are we saying that we will grant people indefinite leave to remain while they cannot leave the country? Do we really want people who are so dangerous, who have been involved in such awful gang behaviour, to be trapped inside this country? I find that deeply alarming.
I do not like the idea of creating two-tier citizenship. So while I respect what the Home Secretary is trying to do, I will not support the new clause; I will vote against it.
I will not talk in great detail about the other amendments that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) tabled about the interests of children except to say that it is odd that, in a time of austerity when we are trying to save money, we still spend a huge amount detaining people for a long time who will not be able to get out of the country in the end. It is costing us millions and millions of pounds and it seems to me that this is a saving that the Home Office should be keen to make. I hope that it will.
In the last minutes remaining, let me turn to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who spoke, as ever, extremely well. I agree with what the Home Secretary said about his new clause. It is clear that it would be illegal and would undermine what we are trying to achieve. She argued, and I see no reason to disagree, that it would weaken deportation. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about it, saying that it was phenomenal how far it ran against the interests of children. It is not something that I or that Liberal Democrats can support. All of us will vote against the proposal. We will stand up for the Government’s original proposal on this issue whether or not other Government Members do. I hope that hon. Members such as the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) will persuade many of their colleagues to stand up for the Government on this issue and vote against the new clause. I hope that he will be joined by colleagues in the Labour party; I believe that they have now finally settled their position. I look forward to the new clause being comfortably defeated.
Education Funding for 18-year-olds
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(10 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is right. I was going to say that next. I have debated this matter in the House, as have many other hon. Members. One big problem is that the general education sector does not have to pay VAT, but the sixth-form sector does. If equal money is given at the beginning but one sector has to pay VAT and the others do not, that is a huge problem. A sixth-form college’s VAT load is typically £300,000. If the Minister could fix the problem with the Treasury, that would be solved. Cambridge Regional college pays £1 million in VAT. That is a huge difference and there should be a much easier way to solve the problem.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it adds insult to injury that because the Office for National Statistics classifies free schools and academies as public, they have a much more favourable VAT situation than sixth-form colleges, which have, because of an anomaly, been beset with this problem? That ought to be sorted out now.
Dr Huppert
I agree. It is perverse to say that a free school or academy is more public than a sixth-form college or a regional college; it simply does not make sense and must be changed.
Long Road sixth-form college has its own problems. It has one of the lowest levels of funding of any sixth-form college; it has £480 per pupil per year less than the average. If it got average funding it would have an extra £940,000 and there would not be such a problem. It does not get protection, because it was not one of the high-funded sixth-form colleges, and it gets hit by another £70,000 or so, and pupils will miss out as a result. It was also hit years ago, because the Learning and Skills Council told it to put together a bid for new buildings that it desperately needed, but the calculations were done wrong and there was no money available, and it is stuck with poor buildings. Yet despite that it is in the top 10% of value added in the entire sector.
All three institutions do well and they would be delighted if the Minister visited—it is not a long distance—to look at what they are doing and at the problems they face. They do a great job, but this is the straw that can break the camel’s back, because it is not something that they can do much about.
Long Road sixth-form college does not have a way of changing its curriculum offer to students who are already enrolled in level 2 courses at the moment; it will not have the opportunity to take on a new system. It would be completely wrong to say, at the end of somebody’s level 2 year, “Sorry, you can’t do the course you signed up for. You can only do a 12-unit applied qualification: two A-levels rather than three.” That simply cannot be done; that would not be reasonable.
Intelligence and Security Services
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(11 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Huppert
I will give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but then I would like to make further progress.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that the focus on and obsession with The Guardian is extraordinary compared with what is happening in the US, where they are talking about the really important issues, such as mass surveillance and its implications for citizens’ privacy? Should we not get on with talking about that and worry rather less about what seems to have been a responsible use of data?
Dr Huppert
I agree. It is interesting that a clear effort is being made to focus on The Guardian rather than the wider issues, which affect more of us.
We must ensure that the laws and guidance available to the staff of our intelligence and security services are clear, and that we ourselves understand the framework in which we expect them to operate. President Obama put it well when he said that what they are able to do is not necessarily what they should do. He called for additional constraints on how we gather and use intelligence, and said we need to weigh the risks and rewards of activities more effectively. Our Prime Minister agreed in a European statement:
“A lack of trust could prejudice the necessary cooperation in the field of intelligence gathering”.
This is a global issue acknowledged by world leaders. We should be talking about it here.
Rail Fares
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She has been fairly consistent on this issue, which is not true of all those in her party. I was interested to note that the shadow Secretary of State carefully avoided making commitments on how the railway system is operated. At the time of privatisation, I was concerned about some aspects. For example, if I want to travel from Cambridge to London, I do not care if it is cheaper to go to Liverpool because I am trying to go to London. It may be cheaper—or wonderful—to go to Liverpool, but it is not the trip I wish to make. Having said that, renationalising now would create a huge amount of complexity in trying to move to that new world. I am not persuaded that it would be the right thing to do, but I would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.
Dr Huppert
I will take one last intervention on this point and then make progress.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be too difficult to bring the railways back into public ownership. If it were done on a case-by-case basis as the franchises came up, as with the west coast main line right now, there would not be any extra cost to the public purse; in fact, there would be a reduction in cost.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I congratulate her on her new-found freedom and hope that she will enjoy not having the responsibilities of party leader, with the flexibilities that that brings. I suspect that she will continue to be very influential on future leaders of her party. I am happy to talk to her in more detail about how such an approach would work, but I do not think that it is as trivial as she suggests. We must avoid doing something that seems very good on the face of it but does not deliver an improved rail system. For example, passenger usage numbers went up quite significantly at the point of privatisation. I would not want to do anything that jeopardised the growth in the number of rail passengers, and I am sure that she would not want to do so either.
So what can we do to bring down rail costs? We need a more modern and more efficient system. That is why I was so pleased that despite the huge public deficit and the ongoing problems in the eurozone, this year over £9 billion of investment was announced for our railways in the next five-year period. The Liberal Democrats and I were delighted to endorse that. The coalition has committed to electrifying over 800 miles of railways across the country, as well as to making a huge range of other improvements that will make a huge difference to passengers and to business. I was interested that last year’s autumn statement announced £1.4 billion of investment in our railways because, crucially, that provides £400 million more for railways than for roads. I cannot remember the last time any Government took the correct decision to prioritise expenditure on railways over roads.
As well as investing in lower fares for the future, we have to invest in lower fares now, as the excellent Campaign for Better Transport has pointed out. Over the next year, wages are set to rise by 2%, but fares could go up by as much as 3% above inflation—over 6%. Coalition means that one does not always get everything that one would most like to happen. I was pleased that last year the Government moved to RPI plus 1%, which is exactly in between our position and that of our coalition partners, but I cannot support the Conservative proposals for a rise of 3% above inflation for next year, nor the proposal in the Labour motion for above-inflation rises indefinitely. Liberal Democrats want a rate of RPI minus 1%, with fares coming down in real terms from now on. A lot of that would come from the 30% efficiency savings identified by the McNulty review. A previous Secretary of State announced that that money would be split between investment and money going back to the Treasury. We think that more of it should be used to bring rail fares down now and give the money back to people who pay. We would go further to simplify the fare structure and make it much more transparent, and make rail companies put forward the cheapest fares possible and pay refunds when services are below par. The Government are making some progress on that, but we will continue to push for more.
I am delighted that the Government have taken the difficult decision to invest in railways for the future. That is not an easy thing to do when times are tight; it would have been far better to invest more during the boom years. However, if we punish commuters and other travellers now, it could put people off railways altogether, especially those who are just starting work and those who are hardest hit by the ongoing squeeze. That would send out a terrible message about the affordability of public transport, drive down passenger numbers, and put our network on an unsustainable path. As the Campaign for Better Transport says, we cannot allow our railways to become a rich man’s toy. We need to find an agreement again over rail fares that will last for the rest of this Parliament. I strongly urge the Secretary of State to take up this cause strongly, as his predecessor did.
I hope that the Government will continue to look at the long-term strategic projects that are happening. To restore our railways to their Victorian zenith, we need a Victorian level of investment, and a vision to match. That is why I am delighted that the coalition is not only spending more on the railways than any of its predecessors since the Victorian era but committing to projects such as HS2. I am delighted that that is finally happening, but I am disappointed that, for decades, so many opportunities have been missed for greater improvements like that. Our lack of high-speed rail epitomises what has gone wrong in our railways in recent years, why fares are now so high, and why we face such capacity constraints. For years we watched European neighbours and Asian partners develop and build a comprehensive high-speed railway network. They have extended capacity, supported rail freight, released space on roads and reduced congestion. Despite calls over many years from Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, British Governments felt that the cost of doing so was too high. Why invest the money when there is nothing to be gained in the here and now? Transport investments take time to deliver.
Those Governments, over many decades, were wrong. We have waited so long that we absolutely have to go ahead with it now. The west coast main line will have already reached capacity before the new high-speed line can be finished, and the costs now have to be borne in a downturn rather than during the growth years, when money was more plentiful.
It is right that we are putting our railways on a sustainable footing. They need investment and they need it for the long term. The burden cannot be taken by fare payers. Constant, year-on-year fare rises are utterly unsustainable; they will ultimately force people off the railways and bring down revenues. Governments have found it much easier to just patch up old lines and force passengers to deal with the same old problems and pass on the cost of an inefficient system. That was a terrible waste of the boom years.
I am delighted that by the end of this Parliament, Liberal Democrats in government will have made some of the tough decisions to make sure that we will have the efficient and sustainable railway network we deserve, but it has to be affordable to people. I hope that over the coming months we can reach an agreement with our coalition colleagues to prevent an RPI plus 3% rate; otherwise, a long-term investment could be utterly undone as we drive people from our railways irrevocably.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Caroline Lucas and Julian Huppert(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I tabled amendments 42, 43 and 44, which deal with one aspect of admissions to academies of a religious nature. I understand the benefits that can flow from such schools. Indeed, I used to be a governor of a Church of England school in the ward I represented and it was a very interesting experience. However, I am concerned that the Bill may inadvertently lead to an increase in the proportion of religious places. It risks permanently entrenching religious segregation in our education system through irreversible changes that could permit wide discrimination in admissions and employment.
By “freeing” religious academies from the national curriculum without sufficient safeguards, the Bill also risks exposing children to extreme religious views, including creationism. Members will know that I have spent some time arguing for the scientific line on such issues. My concern is widely shared. A new ICM poll commissioned by the British Humanist Association found that 72% of the public are concerned that the Academies Bill could lead to taxpayers’ money being used to promote religion. A third of the public said that they were “very concerned” about that. The poll also found that two thirds of people think that religious academies should be required to teach pupils about other beliefs, including non-religious ones.
I seek assurances from the Minister on these issues and I have tabled three amendments to flush out their thinking in this area. Amendment 42 would prevent any form of religious discrimination in admissions policies. Many state-funded “faith schools” use privileges to have highly selective admissions criteria, giving preference to the children of parents with particular beliefs. The Government have so far made it clear that they intend to allow these schools to retain their admissions policies, and I have great concerns in that area. It can cause segregation along religious and socio-economic lines. Professor Ted Cantle, author of a report into community cohesion in Blackburn, describes religious schools as
“automatically a source of division”
in the town, which is not something we would wish to see. In other areas, faith schools, which are their own admissions authorities—as these academies will be—are 10 times more likely to be highly unrepresentative of their surrounding area than faith schools where the local authority is the admission authority. Separating children by religion, class and ethnicity is totally antithetical to the aims of social cohesion, and amendment 42 would ensure that no academy pupil is discriminated against on religious grounds.
That is an ideal to which I hope we all aspire. However, if amendment 42 cannot be accepted by the Government, I hope that amendment 43 can at least provide greater assurance. It would ensure that, at the very least, existing faith schools cannot discriminate more when they achieve academy status. During discussions in the other place, the Government confirmed that maintained faith schools will be able to discriminate in admissions. I hope they will change their mind on that. They said that a 50% quota would be imposed to ensure that 50% of admissions would not be religiously selective, and that was repeated on Second Reading. However, that provision is not in the Bill, the model funding agreement or any other official guidance or information. We need to know what would happen there. If amendment 42 cannot be accepted, I hope that amendment 43 will be, to ensure that things can get no worse than they currently are.
Finally, I turn to amendment 44, which deals with two issues, one of which I take to be a drafting error on which I seek reassurance, and the other is the desire to provide choice for current religious schools. I shall take the second part of the amendment first. The amendment would ensure symmetry. Currently a state-funded religious school becomes a religious academy, but there is nothing to confirm that a non-faith school becomes a non-faith academy. I therefore seek the guarantee, which I think the Secretary of State intended, that that is what would happen—that their nature simply would not change.
The first part of the amendment deals with schools that are religious schools now. Currently, a state-maintained school with a religious character is forced to become an academy with that religious character, but surely religious schools should at least have the option not to do that if they do not wish to. That would be popular with the local community: a recent poll found that 64% of people agreed that the Government should not be funding faith schools of any kind—but that is a debate for another time. However, some faith schools are only nominally of a religious character—that character being a residue of former connections. When taking on academy status with the possibility of growth, these schools may wish to free themselves of the restrictive status of being of a religious character which has ceased to be relevant to them. The amendment would allow them the choice, rather than compel them.
I hope my amendments will be considered carefully by the Government, and I hope that Ministers will comment on them. I intend them as probing amendments and will not press them to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them seriously and accept a number of them.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am the author of four amendments in this group, and their purpose is to try to make it mandatory for the new academies to comply with the schools admission code. Concerns have been expressed in this debate that increasing the number of academies will have major implications for admissions planning, and, as I said, the amendments seek to ensure that there is co-ordination and that it is mandatory for academies to comply with the code.
If the Government are serious that the proposals will not open up the back door to selection, as many of us fear—that promise was made in the other place—why not state very clearly in the Bill that academies should comply with the schools admission code, instead of only stating that academies will have to comply with the codes under their funding arrangements? Although required under those arrangements to meet the code, the levers to ensure that that happens still rest entirely with the Secretary of State. So all concerns about fairness keep being met with the reassurance that it is in the funding agreement, but that is not good enough. Parents must know, through a proper consultation process prior to the setting up of an academy, what the admissions arrangements for the school will be and how their chances of getting into the local schools will be affected. Furthermore, there must be mechanisms to ensure that funding agreements can be changed to ensure that academies follow any changes required in any future code on admissions.
Essentially, voluntary-aided schools, foundation schools, trust schools and academies all operate as admission authorities, able to set their own admission criteria. Research over a number of years has shown that where schools set their own criteria, there is more social segregation. In particular, the fact that grammar schools will be allowed to become academies is a serious concern. Selective academies will be able to expand in a way that grammar schools currently are not allowed to. That expansion will also take place after limited consultation with the local community. I would therefore like the Minister to reassure the Committee that all new academies, including former grammar schools, will be required to participate in local admissions co-ordination schemes.
Under the 2009 code, the schools adjudicators, as the independent enforcers of fair access to schools, also have a wider remit to consider any admissions arrangements that come to their attention, in addition to any complaints received through an objection. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the schools adjudicators will be reporting annually to the Secretary of State on the admissions of academies as well? We could debate at length the ability of an admission forum to ensure fairness, but will the Minister assure the Committee that academies will be represented on admissions forums? Currently, regulations allow for the administration of all admissions—in other words, dealing with the key administrative decisions on whether an applicant meets the admissions criteria, even if they are set by the school—to be carried out by the local authority. Is the option to allow the local authority to administer admissions still open to all schools, including academies? Finally, will the Government encourage a role for local authorities in administering admissions in that way?