Adult Learning and Vocational Skills: Metropolitan Borough of Dudley

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to have heard two very upbeat speeches, which come out of what has obviously been a very traumatic situation in Stourbridge.

I welcome the Minister to her place—I say “her place”, but we are still in some confusion about what the final settlement in the Department will be. We know that the Secretary of State has taken overall responsibility, but that does not really address adequately the need for a full-time day-to-day representative. The Minister has gallantly stepped into the breach as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) is on maternity leave, but we remain concerned about how further education will be covered permanently in the Department in future, especially day to day.

I give great credit to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for summating and taking us through the problems that there have been, but also for looking to the future. She is absolutely right to talk about the critical issue of adult learners. When policy makers and Ministers of whatever hue looked at further education colleges in the past, they sometimes saw them in silos: 14 to 18, 18 to 24, and post-25. Governments often forget, as I am afraid this Government have done on several occasions, that introducing policies that affect one sector—I am thinking particularly of the advanced learner loans’ failure to be taken up in any significant or meaningful quantity; about half of them go back to the Treasury unused every year—can affect the overall competence and ability of colleges to deliver. One of the strengths of the FE sector is the ability to put on courses that cut across the generations, and across other things too. That is a real issue.

The hon. Lady rightly said that adult learners are down 40% since 2010 and that skills gaps and digital gaps remain, despite her work as a Minister and that of others. Those things will be critical in the 2020s. She is also right to mention underspending local enterprise partnerships; when I was shadow Minister for regional growth, it was extraordinary to see the uneven way in which LEPs engaged with their local communities. It sounds as though the hon. Lady’s area has a plethora of overlapping organisations; one can only hope that the funding she would like to see will come out of that.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who was equally upbeat; given the statistics he cited, he was right to be. I am pleased to hear his apprenticeship figures, although sadly they are not reflected in many places across the country. He is absolutely right to praise Dudley College of Technology and to say how critical it is to engage with SMEs. The Government need to address the issues in the west midlands and the Black Country; as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the region has an enviable tradition of producing highly skilled people, but nevertheless people are being left behind without traineeships and so on. Those things are an important part of what we need to do.

The hon. Member for Stourbridge took us through a little of Stourbridge College’s history, and I have been able to read about it in the excellent columns of the Express & Star, which the hon. Member for Dudley North mentioned, and in FE Week. I do not want to go through that blow by blow, but it is encouraging that the other local colleges have come to the fore, wanting to take students on board. Having looked at the history of what happened, I think the hon. Member for Stourbridge was right to be critical of the position in relation to the BMet takeover. It is important to pay tribute to all the people who lifted their heads above the parapet and kept the issue alive, including councillors of different persuasions, with whom I know the hon. Lady has engaged. There was a major protest against the closure of the college, at the end of June, which attracted hundreds of people to the streets, and that shows what pride there is in the historical position and what concern there is about what will happen in the future.

The hon. Lady is right, and in different circumstances I too have campaigned when councils and others have thought that a closed site should just be developed for housing. It is clear from what she says that that is not a good use for the site, and it is my understanding that interest has been shown by potential training providers. That should not be dismissed because, of course, seven out of 10 of the apprenticeships that are still delivered in this country come from training providers. They are a critical part of the local economy. All those things are of particular importance.

The hon. Lady has asked the National Audit Office to look closely at the situation at BMet. That has resonance not only in relation to BMet, but in relation to how we look at the stability of further education and whether we have got things right in terms of the early warning. It would be useful if the Minister shed further light on one of the things that have become a problem in this area—which, indeed, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), whom I shadowed as Skills Minister for several years, has always pointed out: the importance for FE students of adequate travel and financial capability.

I have two or three questions for the Minister, although it is with some diffidence that I put them to her, as she is new in her post, and was not in it when the legislation was introduced. I want to ask her about the implications of what has happened at Stourbridge in the context of the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, which I took through Parliament with the then Skills Minister, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), in 2016-17. It established the principle of having an education adviser in circumstances where colleges were closed or sold off. We know what the trigger was in the present case—the report of the Further Education Commissioner. I should like to know whether the case is technically an insolvency or a sell-off. Those are critical issues with respect to the Act.

Does the Minister know how many of the students were SEND students? I know that special educational needs and disabilities are among her day-to-day occupations in her role. Do we know how many of those affected were doing apprenticeships? Are there any other vulnerable groups, in any number? The hon. Member for Stourbridge gave an admirable list of the various different types of people who have been affected by the transfer process and who have not yet been accommodated as they should have been. In Committee in December 2016, we moved amendments to the Bill to the effect that in the event of potential closures there should be full consultation with bodies representing FE staff and students. The Minister at the time said that such occasions, when colleges became insolvent or were disposed of, would be relatively rare, but sadly that has not been the case.

I will quote what the University and College Union has said in its briefing note for this debate about what has happened in Dudley. It made some of the points that the hon. Lady has made about BMet, but it also said that it had been

“extremely concerned at the lack of meaningful consultation with staff, students and the local community about the decision to close Stourbridge College.”

It goes on to say it was

“essentially presented as a fait accompli… with no real chance to look at alternative options”.

Significantly, UCU has also carried out a survey about the issues around travel to Dudley or Halesowen. Some students—quite a number—said that that travel could make their studies more problematic; some said it would require them to take two buses; and several staff members raised concerns about the suitability of facilities at Dudley and Halesowen to deliver the required scale of provision following the transfer of Stourbridge students. I have no detailed knowledge of what is happening on the ground in these areas, but those issues should be looked at.

More broadly, UCU is—I think this is a fair point—critical of the experience of Stourbridge, seeing it as

“symptomatic of a more widespread failure by the FE Commissioner to engage effectively with staff and students”

who have been affected by his recommendations.

In my view, UCU is absolutely right to say that, because it shows up some of the inadequacies in the 2017 Act. Of course, the FE commissioner can only work to the remit that the Government and the Education and Skills Funding Agency give him, but this illustrates how flawed and disconnected that system for colleges can become. It has become far too casual about how it engages with people in the colleges, and apprenticeships have not been engaged with in any meaningful way.

Failures such as Stourbridge are not isolated. In May 2018, The Times Educational Supplement said that there were inadequacies and that one college in eight was in poor financial health. In recent weeks, the columns of FE Week have been littered with accounts of problems at other colleges. At Brooklands College, ESFA ignored a whistleblower nearly two years earlier; it is planned that a flagship national college will dissolve, despite Department for Education bailouts; and indeed, Lord Agnew himself has been brought in as an enforcer.

I am afraid that those things are not signals of a healthy eco-sphere in this area, and the Government fail—they have failed, despite yesterday’s announcements by the Secretary of State about new technology colleges—to understand that axing grants and offering loans has been a disaster. There is no strategy from the Government for the staffing crisis, with retirement depletions. Again, I am talking nationally, but since 2010 24,000 teachers have left FE. In real terms, pay has fallen by 25%.

These issues are really serious and there is not much point in promising more shiny buildings if there is no money on the ground to effect the sort of major transformations in the 2020s that the hon. Members for Dudley North and for Stourbridge talked about regarding training. Continuing professional development, decent salaries and decent conditions are things that we in our party have considered—across the silos—in our new lifelong learning commission, in the promises that we made in our 2017 manifesto about properly funding and nurturing the FE sector, and in our commitment to a green new deal.

Stourbridge College was not failing, but it was still put into this situation. It had those buildings, which the hon. Lady is so keen to preserve in another capacity, but that did not save it from being shut down. And before the Government get too cock-a-hoop about the promises of new shiny buildings, I urge them to look at some of the issues regarding the staff, the teachers and the students of the 2020s.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (in the Chair)]

In welcoming the Minister to her new post, I remind her to try to leave one or two minutes for the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) to wind up.

Youth Services

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). She reminds us that in a digital world, where more and more young people spend time with their iPads or iPods and so on—as we all increasingly do—the need for them to have exposure to situations that those of us who were brought up in an analogue world took more for granted is extraordinarily important.

I want to make some remarks about the situation for youth services today, and I thank the Minister for her enthusiasm at the Dispatch Box. As shadow skills Minister, it was particularly interesting for me to hear her talk about the establishment of a new level 3 apprenticeship in this regard. I obviously welcome that, but we need to take into account the fact that many of the people who have previously qualified as youth workers have, for the reasons that we have discussed today, simply been unable to find jobs in that area. Another genuine point I make to her is that this needs to be taken forward very carefully because what happens at levels 1 and 2—I do not know whether the intention is to do anything preparatory in this area—is critical in getting the right sort of people to do this sort of thing.

I praise the very comprehensive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), the shadow Minister for youth affairs. She put her finger on so many of the disappointments and failings of recent years. She gave statistics on the amount by which spending had gone down and everything else, and all this is in the context of councils having had some of the worst cuts in recent years. I think particularly of my council in Blackpool, where we have lost about £700 million of funding. I say to the Minister and her departmental colleagues—her Department also focuses significantly on seaside and coastal towns, because of tourism issues—that small unitary authorities, such as mine in Blackpool, have suffered the most from that. The heavy toll of those cuts on children’s services, on social care and children’s care and on the number of young people who come to towns such as Blackpool sometimes looking for the proverbial streets that are paved with gold, but finding that that is not the case, is an additional burden and challenge for my local authority. That is why I welcome what my hon. Friend said, not just today but on other occasions, about expansion.

The main purpose of youth services under a Labour Government will be to provide non-formal education through personal, social and political development. It will be absolutely clear that young people will be at the centre of determining a new statutory youth service, because the issue is the same as it is in education. Too often, young people feel and find that education is done to them, or sometimes for them, and not with them. That needs to be taken on board, whether we are talking about the National Citizen Service or any of the other initiatives that the Government have introduced.

It is also important that local councils partner locally with organisations to develop a diverse universal offer to establish and submit long-term plans for local delivery, but they can do that only if there is significant security from long-term funding. That has not been the case with Governments since 2010. There is a whole list of things, including rebuilding the workforce, long-term proportionate evaluation and so on, that we need to take forward. I hope not least that the impetus provided by the most excellent report from the all-party group on youth affairs, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), will have made waves for this Government, and will do the same for the new Government. As many have said, we wait to see the colour of their money in this area.

There has been some discussion about the value of the NCS this afternoon. Clearly, it has done some useful work for lots of people. I would cite one of my former Blackpool apprentices who took part in two or three NCS initiatives that inspired in her an interest in public affairs and a confidence that allowed her to go to work in a pressurised office environment and has now taken her on to a university degree. There are such individual examples, but, given how much money the NCS has been getting, compared with the number of young people it has delivered for, it is not the ideal solution. This needs to be taken onboard.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, and others have referred to the work that voluntary youth organisations have had to take on because of the lack of funding. I think of uniformed groups such as the Scouts, Girl Guides, Cadets, the Woodcraft Folk, and so on. I pay tribute to the Scouts Association. I pay tribute to Ann Limb, the first woman chair of the association, who is a long-standing friend of mine, and to Matt Hyde, the chief executive, for the way they have reinvigorated and energised the association for the 21st century. I particularly praise their skills for life programme. We have talked about informal learning and inspiration. Those skills for life are precisely the sorts of enabling skills that young people need not just in school but out of school.

[Tim Loughton]

As one of those who helped to design the National Citizen Service, I am obviously rather protective of it. I pay tribute to Matt Hyde, as has the hon. Gentleman. The Scouts have been very supportive of the NCS, and obviously the NCS has had a lot of investment, but will he take it from me that that should not be seen as displacing investment from youth services? It is not just the cost of the project; the NCS is a recruiting tool for youth leaders of the future, including for the Scouts. The data also shows that those who have been through the NCS achieve better results at school. The payback from the investment comes over several years; it is not just about the cost of running that initially three-week summer experience.

[Gordon Marsden]

I entirely accept that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was an extraordinarily good Children’s Minister. He is absolutely right to make the point about the wave effects, if I can put it that way. I am not saying that the NCS has not done good work; I am saying that it is not to be regarded as a substitute for the sort of statutory process we will need in the future.

I am very proud to be a Scout ambassador in Blackpool. I pay tribute to the Scout district commissioner, Victoria DaSilva, and to the president, an extremely formidable lady and councillor from the Minister’s own party, Councillor Lily Henderson. They, and everyone in Blackpool, have expanded the Scouts in recent years. It is not all doom and gloom, therefore, but we know about the number of youth and community workers who have lost their jobs since 2008.

The situation in the careers services runs in parallel to the way in which Government have generally treated the youth service. The argument is the same. No one disputes that individual initiatives, properly carried out, can make a great difference, but they are no substitute for a long-term process, which is what we need. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood on the Front Bench talked about the fall in the number of degrees, including graduate certificates and postgraduate diplomas, in youth work programmes. That is inevitable when people cannot find decent jobs and are not given a structure.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) that not every space has to be a five-star building and that it is what goes on inside that matters. Nevertheless, it is a tragedy that many of the last Labour Government’s investments in decent buildings have not flourished because of post-2010 austerity. Many of those buildings could not be used for their original purpose. Before I came to this debate, I checked the dates. One of the last of those buildings was erected in Blackpool. The Oracle youth hub is a fantastic, new, modernistic building not far from my offices. Building started in November 2010. I have looked up in my local newspaper the date it was opened. It is a fantastic, dynamic building. We were told by the Blackpool Gazette in 2012 that the building was going to do wonderful things, but of course it has not because it has not had the money or the staff. That is a great shame, and similar situations should be avoided in future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood paid tribute to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for taking on the project. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department, however, I gently say to the Minister—to whom I mean no disrespect—that I know that DCMS has to cover a huge range of issues. I do not think things have changed that much since my day—they are probably worse, if anything—so I am sure the Minister will agree that DCMS civil servants are called on to undertake a considerable amount of work compared with those in other Departments. While DCMS takes this forward, it is important that every other Government Department, including the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, does not see it as an opportunity to say, “Oh well, DCMS is doing that.” I am sure the Minister does not need any lessons from me or, indeed, the new Secretary of State, if there is going to be a new Secretary of State, on lobbying in that regard. I gently say, however, that it is very important that DCMS should not be seen as being solely responsible for this particular area.

I want to turn briefly to the report’s recommendations. They have been covered extensively, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown will want to talk about them in due course. I want to pluck out two quotations from the report. The first is from the British Youth Council, whose executive I was a member of many years ago. It says:

“We believe properly funded youth services and agencies aid young people in their personal development and their ability to function in society.”

That is a huge issue in terms of citizenship.

The second quotation is from the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs. In comments that echo those made by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, she said:

“we lack a coherent approach to secure and sustain youth work, and a proper understanding of the levels and extent of youth work needed to achieve the best outcomes for young people.”

I want to close with two or three examples of what has been done on the ground in Blackpool in recent years. Last year I met a group of HeadStart apprentices; that is a Big Lottery-funded agency programme providing resilience for young people across Blackpool, particularly in mental health areas, and it does a fantastic job. It gives the apprentices themselves a varied and creative programme to qualify in, while helping empower hundreds of young people in Blackpool schools and also on a one-to-one basis and in conjunction with local charities such as mine. It has been doing things just in the last month. Blackpool’s Talbot road has been made into the country’s first resilience pathway. That pathway illustrates 42 different moves in life that might help young people and their families and friends to find a sense of belonging, and it was put together by young people in Blackpool themselves. Each paving stone is designed to represent an idea or suggestion that helps young people and their families and friends find a sense of belonging, and I am glad to say that that has received some funding from the Lancashire enterprise partnership.

I also want to touch on the fantastic work done by young carers in Blackpool; they need to be highlighted because they too are acquiring skills at a time when they are having also to attend school. I also want to highlight the Blackpool Youth Council and the body that organises the annual elections for it, URPotential, and to praise particularly Debbie Terras, the previous chief executive, who did a fantastic job and brought people from Blackpool on two occasions to this place to participate in activities here.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech the number of young people who come to Blackpool and find themselves in disarray not just with housing but with other issues as well, and I also want to mention our local charity the Streetlife Trust, whose chief executive Jane Hugo is now one of my councillors in a ward in the centre of town.

Finally, I want to talk about the work of the Blackpool Boys and Girls Club and its youth worker, Dave Blacker, who has worked for 43 years with the club. Its most recent initiative is an exhibition. We have had some problems with vandalism in our key park, Stanley Park, and those young people have put together an exhibition of their thoughts and images about that. Elaine Smith, doyenne and chair of Stanley Park, said it is all too easy to look at young people in the park and wonder if they are up to no good and that the exhibition

“shows that so many of our children really do care.”

We have a lot to be thankful for from initiatives in Blackpool started by individuals, and I am reminded of the old song “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves”; young people are doing it for themselves, but they should not have to do it all on their own, and there should be a proper statutory youth service to go with this.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It is a sad commentary on—or almost a tragic indication of or a metaphor for—our times that a Bill like this which every sane, sensible person would support wholeheartedly seems to have run into the mire of parliamentary procedure. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) normally exhibits a warmth and amity so typical of his Caledonian cousins, and he normally extends this warm cloak of friendship over all of us and wishes nothing more than to accelerate the proceedings of the House, but on this occasion there was a smidgen of sarcasm about his words; it pains me grievously to say that. He implied that somehow this was not a matter of great moment beyond west London—although west London is obviously a place of great significance.

Kew Gardens is a global treasure store. It is a world bank and a world centre of excellence, yet the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—one of the very few Members of this House to have exposed himself to the nation on “Top of the Pops” when he was playing with Runrig—somehow implied that this was not an issue that stretched beyond west London. I immediately thought of F. E. Smith during the Established Church (Wales) Bill, when he suggested that the eyes of the entire world would be on us. Hon. Members may remember Chesterton’s comment at the time:

“Are they clinging to their crosses, F. E. Smith,

Where the Breton boat-fleet tosses,

Are they, Smith?

Do they, fasting, trembling, bleeding,

Wait the news from this our city?

Groaning ‘That’s the Second Reading!’

Hissing ‘There is still Committee!’”

This is an important Bill, and I have to say that the Minister has exhibited many of the great skills of the horticulturalists. He has been patient and allowed the Bill to grow before us. He has battened off invasive species using only organic principles—

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Pound]

I was coming on to chemicals, but of course I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

In his encomium for the Minister, will my hon. Friend ask him whether he has done enough pruning?

[Stephen Pound]

The parliamentary secateurs—if not the snips—certainly should have been exhibited earlier on.

Kew Gardens is not just a world centre and seed bank; it is also a place of huge entertainment. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) talked about a concrete and steel part of the world that is illuminated and enlivened by this patch of green. Actually we are not all concrete and steel in west London, but we are grateful for that patch of green. Many of us will go along to the exhibitions, and not just the incredible Christmas celebrations—[Interruption.] What? I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it always hurts me when a voice from the Rhondda is in any way attacking me. Kew is not just a place of great entertainment and an extraordinary resource for the world; it also has a new function nowadays. All over London we have these pop-up gardens on large, soulless council estates, and it is Kew that people go to for information on this. It is Kew that provides the details of plants that do not need a huge amount of watering or that can be resistant to problems. I am glad to see that the leader of the all-party parliamentary group on horticulture and gardening, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is on the Front Bench today. I trust that that means she has been promoted. All I can say is that Kew is for the world; it is not just for us in London. The Minister has done an excellent job, and I hope that we can leave aside the sourness and bitterness that may occasionally have been exhibited this afternoon and celebrate the glory that is Kew.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Mortgage Prisoners

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I congratulate him not only on his speech here today but on the ten-minute rule Bill that he brought forward, which has given oxygen to this situation. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who is unable to be here today, and of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is in his place and who, with his all-party parliamentary group, has done a great deal to take this matter forward.

This is a situation where Members are drawn into a little-known and complex subject—certainly, as far as I was concerned it was a complex subject—by the real-life experiences of constituents, and that was how I got involved. One of my constituents—I shall refer to her situation shortly—wrote to me about this. In February we had the first mortgage prisoners roundtable, if I can put it that way, in the Jubilee Room; I was there, as were other hon. Members present. They were a very mixed group of people whose lives had been shattered by the process of being mortgage prisoners for anything up to six, seven, eight or nine years. It was clear from that occasion that what the Government, and indeed the FCA, had done so far was inadequate. I subsequently met my constituent and other mortgage customers from in and around the north-west and heard their stories as well. As a result, we now have an all-party parliamentary group specifically dedicated to this issue. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has also been taking it forward with his fair business banking APPG.

I also pay tribute to and thank—we do not often do this, but we should when it is required—individuals in the media. Cat McShane brought this matter to people’s attention in a “Panorama” programme. Hilary Osborne has written about it in The Guardian. William Turvill did a very lively and forensic assessment of Cerberus in The Mail on Sunday. In the other place, my right hon. Friend Lord McFall has taken a very distinct interest, given his previous honourable role in this House as Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Everything that the hon. Member for Dover said about the way in which this process has gone forward without proper due diligence is true. An estimated £9 billion of Northern Rock mortgages remain with the Treasury, and any decision on their future will inevitably affect tens of thousands of customers. In my view, taken from whatever I have been able to glean from the numerous written questions that I have put to the Treasury, there has not been proper due diligence throughout this process. I will explain later why I think that has been the case.

The proposals by the FCA that have been discussed, and will no doubt be touched on by the Minister, only give lenders the option to apply the modified assessment; they will not introduce an obligation. That is the point that we have heard regarding the situation with Tesco. There is the freedom to dine at the Ritz—to dine with responsible lenders—but this will not affect the cowboys and the vulture funds. As the figures show, they will still represent the main problem for the Government and for all the people who are involved with this matter. Other borrowers who had borrowed from now-defunct lenders found that their mortgage had been sold off to unregulated private equity firms that did not offer mortgages and so could not provide affordable deals.

Right from the beginning, this process was flawed and took little account of the position of the people we are talking about. Mortgagees with active lenders have been paying thousands of pounds more due to the ever-increasing gap between the standard value rate and the more competitive market rate. Those who now have a mortgage with an unregulated vulture fund are often forced to pay an even higher rate. This is a double whammy for constituents in places like Blackpool where there are lots of small businesses affected in the way the hon. Member for Dover mentioned, as well as ordinary residents.

Those are some of the issues that the Government need to get a handle on very urgently. A separate issue has been raised with Members of the House by the ME Group about people who were mis-sold their mortgages in the first place. It may well have a point, but that matter will have to go down the compensation route with the Financial Ombudsman Service or the FCA.

I did my best to try to get some further information out of the Government through a number of questions. One question that I posed to the Minister on 13 May was to ask

“what discussions…he and…Ministers…have had with the Financial Conduct Authority on whether Cerberus Capital Management is a fit and proper organisation to purchase mortgage loans from UK banks and his Department via UKAR.”

I must pay tribute to the industry of the person who drafted the reply, because it had eight paragraphs, but all I got was obfuscation of a very high order. The actual question was never responded to. I am afraid that the other questions that I and other hon. Members have asked have also shed more heat than light. Some of the replies that I have had seem to have a standard template that starts off by saying:

“Customers have always been protected in UKAR asset sales.”

It is fairly obvious that that is for the birds. This is another example:

“Whether to offer customers new mortgage products is a commercial decision for lenders and government does not intervene in individual cases.”

If there was ever a better definition of laissez-faire arrogance in a parliamentary question, I would like to see it. This shows that there is a clear and present danger, in market terms, that without intervention UKAR will carry on selling off NR loans to unregulated providers, and that will simply perpetuate the problem that we are all concerned about.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

In the Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s question about why the loans were sold to an inactive lender, or a non-regulated entity, he said that no bids were received from an active lender. Would another option have been not to sell that debt at all, rather than to sell it to an inactive, unregulated lender that could not provide a service to the people who are subject to these loans?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I suggest that Members stick to around eight minutes, because the people who will be punished will be those like your good self, Mr Hollinrake.

[Gordon Marsden]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to what he has done.

Many of my constituents are affected by this and have come forward with heartbreaking stories. The person I mentioned at the beginning of my speech said:

“I have worked hard to pay off just under 6k over the last few years but it is heart breaking to think I have paid over 20k more had I been able to access other products.”

Another constituent said:

“We got a Northern Rock Together mortgage literally weeks before the banking crash… The mortgage is now with… NRAM. No arrears, making the repayments has been a struggle… but we’ve always managed… we borrowed over the equity in the house and since the decline in the housing market we are in negative equity.”

This is particularly problematic in northern and midlands areas where the property market has not recovered since the crash in the way it has elsewhere.

There is a moral duty for the Government to act. It was George Osborne’s “flog it” approach to Northern Rock loans in the first place that failed to provide the safeguards for people who were then put into a transfer lottery, with horrendous results. We need to have proper movement. We need to have a formal inquiry, now that we realise the extent of this cover-up. Why were Ministers not prepared to take that forward? The contrast between the way in which the Treasury has dealt with this and how other Departments have dealt with scandals such as the Primodos scandal is deafening. The FCA’s behaviour is as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and it is time that this Government and this Minister came clean about what they are going to do in practical terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government about an issue which I know has caused widespread concern throughout the House. A range of matters have been raised in the 13 Back-Bench speeches that we have heard today. I will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the Members concerned.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for securing this important debate. He has worked tirelessly to raise awareness, both as a founder member of the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners and through his recent ten-minute rule Bill, the Banking (Consumer and Small Business Protection) Bill.

It may be helpful if I begin by briefly reminding the House of the background to this matter, and, in particular, the reasons why the Government have sought to tighten mortgage lending regulations in recent years. In the aftermath of the banking crisis, there was a consensus that the prevailing regulatory framework at that time had left UK borrowers exposed to lax lending practices, with lenders providing mortgages without adequately checking borrowers’ ability to repay them. That enabled some to secure self-certified mortgages, or mortgages with loan-to-income ratios of 120% or more.

The Government and regulators therefore substantially strengthened mortgage lending regulations to ensure that borrowers would be better protected in the future. The new regulations, resulting from the 2014 mortgage market review, require lenders to conduct thorough affordability assessments to consider evidence of customers’ income and expenditure before agreeing to a new loan. I believe that was the right thing to do. It ensures that consumers can only borrow what they can be reasonably expected to pay back, and in doing so it protects borrowers and lenders alike against future economic shocks.

A number of colleagues across the House have raised individual cases that they have encountered and meetings they have had with constituents who are looking in on proceedings today. It is undoubtedly the case that these strengthened regulations made switching to a new provider more challenging. That left some borrowers unable to switch even when they were up to date with repayments and had an unbroken repayments record. That has been mentioned a number of times in this debate.

I recognise that this is a hugely stressful and difficult situation for the individuals concerned, and it is clear to me that they face an unfair regulatory barrier. Therefore, it has been my priority as Economic Secretary to find a solution. That is why I instructed —not reluctantly or grudgingly, but determinedly and assuredly—Treasury officials to work with the FCA, which is ultimately responsible for regulations, to consider ways of helping trapped borrowers switch more easily in future. I recognise the frustration about the rapidity of the changes and I want to set out now where they are at and what we can expect in the coming weeks.

The FCA’s proposed changes will see its affordability test move from being absolute to relative. Questions have been asked about what that will mean but I cannot set that out today because the work is ongoing. However, I will say a little more about what is going to happen. It will enable lenders to accept switching consumers, providing they are up to date with repayments and are not borrowing more. The consultation for these changes will run until the end of this month and I then expect the FCA to implement these changes rapidly—later this year.

Let me give the House a practical example of the difference this will make for consumers. A borrower might have taken out a mortgage under the previous lighter touch regulations but their fixed rate deal has run its course and they are currently repaying their mortgage on a standard variable rate, in keeping with the terms of their existing mortgage contract—although I accept that these are terms that they never thought would lead to them being locked into that higher rate. If they are looking to switch to a new deal, the current affordability assessments may prevent them from doing so—and clearly they do—perhaps because the difference between their income and expenditure leaves little room for margin. However, under the new rules there will be no such regulatory barrier; instead a good repayment history can be used as the reasonable basis for a lender to offer them a new deal.

While I recognise that lenders will want to consider their commercial risk appetite to take on these borrowers, and I recognise and hear the calls from various colleagues across the House about assurances over who will provide these mortgages, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the lenders to think hard about how they might best support those looking to remortgage to a more affordable deal. I have had conversations about that with chief executives and industry representatives in recent months and I see plenty of innovation across the mortgage market.

[Gordon Marsden]

The Minister is giving some fairly strong details about what he hopes may come out of the consultation, but that does not alter two facts. First, this will simply be an option, not an obligation. Secondly, given the track record of Cerberus, can the Minister give the House today any assurance that such companies will sign up to this?

[John Glen]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the regulator is not making up these rules in isolation in an ivory tower. It is working with industry representatives to ensure that the changes it delivers will create an environment with an effective outcome. There is no point having a solution that does not solve the problem. I cannot set out the range of options that will exist, but I am confident that the work being undertaken by the FCA will lead to an effective outcome. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s second point later when I talk about the points that he and others made about Cerberus.

Dangerous Dogs

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I have two points to declare—they are not declarations of interest, but they are points of relevance. I have been the owner of two dogs, which came to me as a pair, inherited from a friend and constituent who died. One dog, whose name is Tweed, is a bull terrier cross—a rescue dog found wandering in the streets of Weeton in Lancashire, and taken to an animal shelter, where my constituent and her husband fell in love with her and took her home.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the Committee on such a comprehensive set of proposals and summary of how they came to them. The proposals are quite specific. The report, published on 17 October, spurred me to ask the Prime Minister 10 days later what the Government’s response was going to be. Having said to the Prime Minister that I was going to give her some brief relief from Brexit to talk about dogs instead, I said:

“Last week, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, with its specific breeds definition, was not fit for purpose, as hundreds of pit bull-type dogs are confiscated yearly and destroyed, with no impact on dog bite numbers. Will she ask the Secretary of State...to act urgently on the Committee’s recommendations and not take the approach of the Lords Minister, who told the Committee that even a good-tempered dog had to be put down as ‘collateral damage’? My wonderful bull terrier-type dog was rescued from the streets, and to think of her being destroyed because her face did not fit in court is chilling.”

The Prime Minister was positive in her response:

“I had not looked at the detail of the Select Committee report on that particular issue, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is a keen dog owner, as indeed is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting next to me, and that the Secretary of State will be looking at this issue very carefully.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 273.]

I come to the debate today to ask the Minister what the Secretary of State has done to fulfil the Prime Minister’s assurance to me last October, and to make some observations on what has happened since.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has drawn attention to the need for checks and balances and to the difficulties involved in any Government dealing with this broad range of issues. I want to be positive about one or two parts of the Government’s response, such as the approval for the need for a central database for dog bites and the speeding up of court cases, and their general support for and assurance with respect to the principles of education. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is for other Departments, and as a shadow Education Minister, I might be able to take it up with the Department for Education myself.

What I found distressing, disheartening and difficult to understand was why, having heard all the information, the response was so negative in this particular area. I place a great deal of store by what Select Committees do—I declare another interest: I was on several of them, for about 10 years. As the hon. Gentleman said, most of the time they are very cohesive and collaborative, and they and the Government should work on the basis of evidence-driven policy. Unfortunately, in this Government response, that approach seems to be notably lacking.

It is slightly beyond belief that nowhere in the response did the Government address the issues of consultation. That is what the Committee was asking for. I can well imagine the “Yes Minister”-style conversations that might have gone on in the Department: “We do not want to address the substantial evidence in the Committee’s report, Minister, that shows mission creep, which sometimes condemns a wide range of pit bull dogs in this area. Minister, we have a perfectly reasonable argument—there are so many other things to think about in the context of Brexit—so why do we not just try to ride it out, with the usual excuses about it not being a priority or not having enough legislative time?” Perhaps that is why that is exactly what they did.

On page 7, paragraph 22, on the very modest proposal by the Committee

“to amend the law to allow prohibited dogs which have no previous court approved owner to be rehomed, or to transfer a prohibited dog to people who have had no contact with the dog”

the Government said that that

“would require an amendment to the DDA and the supporting secondary legislation. The Government does not consider that it is a priority to amend legislation at this time.”

I can only say that given the stasis that there has been in the House in the last few weeks, they might want to revisit that particular reason for doing nothing. That was one of the Committee’s modest proposals.

We have had no consultation, as well as the complete ignoring of what the Committee had said, but, so that the Department did not appear to be ignoring the Committee’s thrust entirely, perhaps it thought, “What can we cherry-pick that suits us and means we do not have to do anything?” In paragraph 15, we have a classic twisting of something that the Committee never suggested, but which allows the Department silkily to slip in—tucked away, and without further justification of the policy—the fact that the Government “notes and agrees” with the Committee that it would not be right to implement the process immediately. The Committee never considered implementing it immediately, but on that basis:

“The Government considers that the prohibition on possession of such dogs should remain in place for reasons of maintaining public safety.”

That is an absolutely classic non-sequitur and it has not impressed the various animal charities that have given focused and comprehensive evidence to the Committee. In response to Members of Parliament on that debate and the Government’s response, Blue Cross said:

“We were… disappointed that Defra’s response failed to address some of the key welfare issues surrounding dangerous dogs and responsible dog ownership, and its refusal to consider repealing section 1 is an issue of great concern to Blue Cross and many members of the public.”

It went on to mention that even dogs that are in the index of exempted dogs are sometimes likely to suffer long-term welfare implications as a result of the conditions that are put on them and their owners.

Dogs Trust said something very similar. It is

“highly concerned about the impact of the current legislation on dog welfare”

and the protracted periods dogs could spend in kennels during the court process. It had serious concerns about how subjective the interpretation of the standard for identifying pit bull terriers can be, and about how a dog can be deemed dangerous based on physical appearance in itself. Battersea dogs and cats home said it was disappointed that the Government had chosen to disregard the Committee’s recommendation to review breed-specific legislation and whether breed is a factor in causing dog fights.

In the evidence session involving the Lords, the Minister’s colleague, Lord Gardiner, and the deputy director of DEFRA were quizzed very strongly on section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Their answers clearly did not impress the Committee, and in response the Committee stated at paragraph 22 of its report:

“We were concerned to hear that the Government considered the Dangerous Dogs Act to be successful on the grounds that it was impossible to tell how many attacks would have occurred without the law. This is not convincing… The increase in attacks—most of them from legal breeds—clearly indicates that the current approach is failing to protect the public adequately.”

The hon. Gentleman supplemented his concerns about the welfare of dogs with his concerns about the welfare of humans. This is not just an unevidenced and disproportionate application in the Act; it is missing some of the main points that are necessary to give the public confidence. That is why the Committee asked for the independent review of the Act’s effectiveness, which the Department has studiously ignored. It is also why the comments in the report came down rather hard on the Department. The Committee stated:

“We are concerned that Defra’s arguments in favour of maintaining Breed Specific Legislation are not substantiated by robust evidence. It is even more worrying that non-existent evidence appears to have been cited before a Parliamentary Committee in support of current Government policy. This lack of clarity indicates a disturbing disregard for evidence-based policy-making.”

It goes on to talk about the independent review.

I said that there were aspects of the Government’s evidence that were chilling, and I want to quote one of them. It might be the same one that the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee, referred to earlier—the case of the Battersea dog that was put down. On this occasion, after the Committee had heard evidence of how difficult it is to classify or identify pit bulls genetically, and that seizure could sweep up other dogs simply on the basis of appearance, the Chair of the Committee said:

“To get to the point about the Battersea dog that was put down, as far as you are concerned, that is just collateral damage. It was a pit bull type and it may have been good-tempered, but as far as you are concerned, just put it down. Is that where you are?”

Lord Gardiner, the Minister in the Lords, replied, “Yes.” So, it is not surprising that 80,000 people have signed a petition to this House—hopefully for the removal, but certainly for the examination, of what seems to be an extraordinarily defective part of the law.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that, when changing the law, Governments have to be very careful about unintended consequences and so on. However, it is worth remembering the climate that brought about the Dangerous Dogs Act. I will not go into the details, but in my view this is a perfect illustration of hard cases making bad law.

There is a way out for the Minister to rid himself of the incubus of complacency and callousness that he has been lumbered with in trying to defend the shameful response from his Department to the Select Committee’s measured and humane representations. The Department’s response largely ducks the Select Committee’s call for an independent evidence review on the factors behind canine aggression, because that would mean admitting the inadequacies in the evidence base for the original Act.

The defence given in the Select Committee’s report included a reference—the hon. Gentleman has referred to it—to the Middlesex University research that has been commissioned by the Department. Why not use this commission, which has already been set up, to widen the terms of reference for that research and review the adequacy of the breed-determinant evidence that justified four types of dog being included in the Act in the first place? That would cut the Gordian knot the Department has tied itself up in. Why not give a deadline before the end of the year for there to be some answers to what the Select Committee is asking? If the Minister and his Department need a face-saving mechanism and a deadline, let this be it. That would be far better than continuing the evidence-poor status quo on breed determination, which has condemned thousands of dogs in those categories for 30 years, and which the Select Committee’s report shines such a poignant light on.

This issue has aroused strong passions and it affects many personally. One of my constituents, Helen Harris, supports an end to breed-specific legislation. In an email sent to me on 1 March, she gives her perspective on what she saw when the Act was introduced:

“I worked in a pet shop in 1991 and we had quite a few customers with pitbulls and I remember the devastation this law caused. We allowed people to bring dogs into the shop and every pitbull I met was friendly and happy. Once the law came in and the dogs were no longer allowed off the lead in public places and had to wear a muzzle the dogs noticeably changed. I did not live with these dogs and only saw them when they were brought into the shop but they all went from calm happy dogs to very unhappy dogs in a few weeks, some of them were very hyperactive because of the decrease in exercise. They had done nothing wrong and did not know why they were being punished. Breed specific law is not working.”

I understand that that has to be weighed up against all the other issues, but this issue will not go away. Dogs might have been man’s best friend, but man has not always been dog’s best friend. In this case, the Department has certainly not been dogs’ best friend. It is crucial for us to reduce the terrible toll meted out to children and adults year after year, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but this is actually being aided and abetted by the misidentification of the causes of this particular position.

We are taking about statistics, but we should be talking about individual animals. Blue Cross cited the case study of a section 1 dog called Duncan:

“Duncan was brought to us as an injured stray. Unfortunately the Status Dogs Unit (SDU) confirmed he was of type and would have to be euthanised after serving his stray days. Staff who dealt with Duncan described him as a gentle giant who was very well behaved. He knew basic commands and had he been another type of dog would have made a great companion to someone. Duncan was put to sleep at our central London hospital after the mandatory period of seven days, during which no owner came forward.”

That should lie heavily on the Department’s conscience; the Minister should consider it.

My dog Tweed was fortunate, as she was picked up from the animal shelter within seven days. Duncan was not. Perhaps we need a Duncan’s law to rectify some of the problems and injustices that this excellent Select Committee report has highlighted.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying. He spelled that out very well in his speech and, with his permission, I will come to that specific point later, but I think it is important to set the context before getting into the meat of the issues that have been raised.

Prohibited dogs that owners are allowed to keep are placed on the index of exempted dogs, which is managed by DEFRA. In addition to restrictions on certain fighting dogs, under section 3 of the 1991 Act it is an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place. Severe penalties are in place for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. Those penalties were increased in 2014 to three years for allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog, five years if a dog injures someone and 14 years if someone is killed. We realised from the tragic cases that we had seen that the sentences needed to be more in line with the crimes committed.

Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) were absolutely right to raise the issue of postal workers. We need to get the balance right between public safety and animal welfare. The number of attacks on postal workers is absolutely to be regretted. It is unacceptable that people are unable to go about their business because of fear or actual attacks. We therefore work closely with police and local authorities to see how we can best respond to those attacks. I am sure that many MPs have worked with their local postal workers at Christmas or at other times of the year to better understand those situations and to make representations.

The Government are committed to public safety and to tackling the issue of dangerous dogs. We believe that communication and co-operation between the police and local authorities is vital. That is why we have endorsed initiatives such as the early intervention and partnership working scheme, Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs, or LEAD—that is not one of my hon. Friend’s puns, but the name of the scheme.

The scheme encourages police and local authorities to co-operate and share information when there has been a minor incident, provide advice to a dog owner on dog control issues, improve public safety around dogs and help to improve dog welfare. There have been strong endorsements of the initiative. The then deputy chief constable of North Wales police and recently retired National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on dangerous dogs, Gareth Pritchard, said:

“Problems regarding dogs can cause a great deal of anxiety in some communities. The new LEAD initiative aims to allay some of these fears to help educate dog owners and residents further by promoting responsible dog ownership.”

The Government also support an increase in awareness at all levels across society. We are aware, for example, that many police forces and welfare charities, such as the Dogs Trust, visit schools to raise awareness of responsible dog ownership. We fully endorse that work and I will come to how we will do more on the back of the EFRA Committee’s excellent report. I want to make it clear that the Government are keen to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. As I have explained, a number of changes were made to the laws and powers available to enforcement agencies in an attempt to improve responsible ownership of dogs. The Government acknowledge that the number of people admitted to hospital as a result of being bitten by a dog has risen from 6,836 in 2013-14 to 8,014 in 2017-18.

A number of concerns have been raised about whether it is fair to put particular focus on pit bulls, but as a nation we are not alone in doing so: France, Spain and Germany have also put restrictions on keeping a number of types of dog, including pit bulls. It is also worth looking at some of the evidence that I have seen and that has been submitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton in his capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, about section 3 incidents—the particularly difficult ones—involving pit bulls. There were 92 such cases in 2015-16, and those pit bulls were not on the dangerous dogs index. In comparison, there were 84 attacks by Staffordshire bull terriers.

We could say, “Well, there is not much difference,” but I think we would all accept that the number of Staffordshire bull terriers in the UK is sizeable—around 300,000, according to the latest estimates—whereas, although we do not know the exact number of pit bulls, there are about 3,000 on the DDI. We probably need to get more evidence, but the evidence that is to hand points to the fact that there is a greater likelihood of incidents involving pit bulls.

[Gordon Marsden]

That is what the Department says, but is it not ludicrous that it does not openly address the issue—it is an issue, and one that was put forcefully to the Committee—that it is very difficult for police on the ground to determine genetically what is a pit bull and what is not? The Minister spoke about Staffordshire bull terriers. What is the logic for having an investigation into attacks by pit bulls, which are covered by the Act—albeit many of us dispute that—and not into attacks by Staffordshire bull terriers?

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Gordon Marsden]

If the Minister looks only at the issue of the breeds in the 1991 Act, he will of course come to the same conclusion, because he is not examining the broader evidence.

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. When I appeared before the Select Committee, I said that we should remember that the Dangerous Dogs Act is trying to deal with two things: fighting types, which are bred specifically to fight, and dangerous dogs. That is my worry. The hon. Gentleman might have had cases of this in his constituency and, as I said at the meeting, I certainly did in Macclesfield, where a few years ago pit bulls were being trained to hang from tree branches. That is not what most people do with a normal dog. Certain types of dog are bred for a specific purpose, and that needs to be tackled, because there are people who carry out that practice, which I abhor. Dog fighting is a separate issue, and we could have a separate debate on it. The legislation tries to recognise both those aspects. I understand his point, but I hope that he understands at least that there are differences in why dogs are being bred. As long as dog fighting goes on, there will be such challenges.

We understand the concern about dog control and the need to reduce the number of dog attacks. People are of course not the only victims of dog attacks; other dogs and animals can be the victims of such attacks. Dog attacks on livestock have caused suffering to animals and misery for farmers, and we want to reduce all such attacks and to improve responsible ownership of dogs. That point was made well by the hon. Member for Workington and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.

I emphasise that section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 also applies to attacks on other dogs, livestock and any other animal, and the High Court and the Crown Prosecution Service have made that clear. There has been a lot of talk about amending the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but our advice is to use the Dangerous Dogs Act because it is more up to date and applies anywhere. We are working with the CPS and the police to ensure a universally accepted position on that, which we will promote.

The Government do not want to reduce dog ownership. Dogs have been a part of our lives for hundreds of years, and we certainly do not want to change that. However, owning a dog comes with responsibilities. Ownership means that we have to provide a dog with its welfare needs—at all times—and that a dog must be trained. The owner is responsible for looking after the dog as well as its behaviour. The more irresponsible ownership of dogs we have, the more calls we and local authorities receive to introduce restrictions such as banning dogs from parks and beaches. The Government therefore agree with the vast majority of good, proper owners and stakeholders that we need more responsible ownership of dogs if we are to see a reduction in the number of dog attacks.

Last year, the EFRA Committee conducted its review into controlling dangerous dogs. The review focused on section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The report was welcomed by the Government and, again, I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, and the rest of the Committee for publishing the report. We are all in agreement that we are not looking to increase the number of types of dogs that are named in the legislation, nor are we looking to remove any types.

The report made 16 recommendations to improve dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. The Government responded positively to the recommendations, which reflects how in tune the Government, the Committee and most stakeholders are on the issue of dangerous dogs. There are, obviously, a few exceptions, which came out in the debate today, but on the vast majority of issues we all want to see positive progress. The EFRA Committee’s report was published in September 2018 and the Government’s response was published by the Select Committee in January this year. Last month, the Committee had another sitting, also on dangerous dogs.

I will take this opportunity to update hon. Members on the Government’s progress with some of the recommendations. Rehoming of pit bulls is an emotive and difficult issue. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton—instead of Tiverton, I keep almost saying Tytherington, which is in my constituency—I do not want to see healthy and well-adjusted dogs being put to sleep. For the reasons I have set out, however, we are subject to what is legally possible. Recent case law has interpreted the legislation, so the court may decide to give possession of a pit bull to a person who has had some contact with it, such as taking the dog for a walk. Ultimately, the courts will make the decision on whether the dog is safe, and the prospective person is fit and proper.

The difficulty is putting a stray dog that has no owner with a person the dog has not met before the court case. That is not feasible under the law. We continue to discuss with stakeholders what can be done, and we will involve my hon. Friend in those discussions, as I promised following my recent evidence to the Committee. We are happy to meet him and relevant welfare groups for further discussion and greater clarity. It is a tricky area, but the case law needs to be explored fully. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the invitation to meet as sincere. He knows that I want us to do all we can to address the concerns that he has expressed.

In the course of the debate, a number of specific issues were raised. If the owner of a dog dies, it can be transferred under article 12 of the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015. If an owner moves and abandons a dog, it can be rehomed to a person who can be considered the person in charge of that dog for the time being—but remember that abandoning a dog is in the first place a criminal act. If someone got to know the dog before the owner moved—this is important, with an educational aspect—that person could apply to be the person in charge of the dog, and the new person would need to be considered fit and proper by the court. There are opportunities therefore for such dogs to be rehomed. We need to look through all such opportunities.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) asked why we are not recommending a change in the law. That would require primary legislation and, as I said, there are concerns about public safety. We need to explore the issues that we have just discussed. However, I point out that while there may be disagreement on that issue, the Government are absolutely committed to the welfare of dogs and cats: we have looked to increase sentences for animal cruelty, and are trying to find the right legislative vehicle to do so quickly; third-party sale has been banned; and we are reviewing our approach to the licensing of rehoming centres. All those issues are being taken forward with conviction.

Continuing the theme of preventive action, the EFRA Committee recommended more research on the causes of dog attacks. In December 2018, therefore, DEFRA in collaboration with Middlesex University commissioned further research into responsible ownership across all dog breeds, with a budget of more than £70,000. Middlesex has five main researchers to consider different approaches and the effectiveness of existing dog control measures.

The research seeks to identify and examine factors and situations that might cause dog attacks, and how to promote responsible dog ownership. The initial stage of the project, which is a literature review, is nearly complete. Middlesex has started initial stakeholder engagement to inform a number of focus groups, which is the next phase. We expect an interim report at the beginning of September, with a final report at the end of the year. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The project, as I said, will include a review of dog control measures.

Related to that research is the need to educate children in particular, and the public more widely, about safety around dogs. The Government are committed to developing a plan of action with stakeholders on the most effective way to reach children across the country, in order to make them aware of dog safety. We have had early discussions with stakeholders and are developing the delivery plan, which is due later this year. We are working with the Department for Education, and are keen to ensure that that links with our wider work on communications and engagement about how to take forward responsible ownership and purchasing of dogs, and education regarding them.

Hon. Members can be assured that the Government will continue to take forward the actions I set out in response to the EFRA Committee with speed and conviction. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for bringing this debate forward and giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and proposals.

Equitable Life

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and his co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke earlier, on bringing this debate to the House today. I commend them for their longevity in this process, because this has been the “Bleak House” of the bleak house of scandals. I cannot remember how many people from the beginning of Charles Dickens’s novel were still alive at the end, but this makes the point sharply.

I, too, think about all those people who have lost money in this process, with more than 2,000 of them in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said that she had had a modest plan with Equitable Life, and so did I, probably along with lots of people in this House. But it is the people we have heard about this afternoon—those who thought this was a safety net, not a passport to riches or even comfortableness, in some cases—who have missed out and been let down. We have heard of the sorts of people that group included. I am not going to go through the whole list, but I do wish to pick up on the reference to small business owners and the self-employed, because this is a specific and important issue for my constituents.

In my constituency, we still have more than 400 guest- houses, bed and breakfasts, holiday flats, people in the visitor economy and hoteliers. We are talking about precisely the sort of people who would want to put money into a company like Equitable Life when times gave them a little extra money. Why shouldn’t they? After all, one could look at the nice little crest on the front and everything else. This was a company founded, I believe, in 1759. I am told by the briefing from EMAG—I did not know this before today—that even Coleridge and Wordsworth were early investors in it. For someone looking for something that might do what it said on the tin, this was the sort of company to go for, but, sadly, as we have heard, that was not the case, so many of these people have missed out—the people who did that sort of thing.

Over the years, I have had dozens of people come to my surgeries who wanted to retire from their hotel or small business background but simply did not have the money to do so. Inevitably, that was not to do with Equitable Life for all of them. One of these people has written to me saying:

“I came to Blackpool 17 years ago with my wife and granddaughter to open and run a new Care home for mental health rehabilitation…For health reasons (and I was well past retirement age) we had to close the business…I really would appreciate any input you could bring to the debate”

with my example.

He continues:

“It would change our lives from having no spare money whatsoever every month. I suffered a seizure 7 weeks ago and am no longer allowed to drive. My wife is suffering from acute nerve pain…and is on morphine.”

Another constituent wrote to me saying:

“In my own case, my losses…were £28,942.

I received a payment of £6,483.

This means that the money I am still owed amounts to £22,459….The token 22.4% payment is a good start but does not solve the drastic depletion of my retirement funds....A debt is a debt and if the government sidesteps every obligation by claiming unaffordability there would never be any public expenditure. The government regularly chooses where and when to shake the magic money tree.”

I absolutely concur with my constituent’s indignation in that area.

I also want to pay tribute to the local co-ordinators, who have worked hard to identify those involved and keep their spirits up. The Blackpool South EMAG co-ordinator, Mr William Fray, has written to me to ask me to press these points today.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gordon Marsden]

I will but briefly, because we do not have a lot of time.

[Matt Rodda]

I fully concur with the points my hon. Friend and Conservative Members have made about the importance and dreadful nature of this scandal, and about the hard work that has been done by many local people. We have a group in my constituency, and its co-ordinator wrote me a moving and poignant letter about the problems that local people have has as a result of the Equitable Life scandal: some 2,000 people in my constituency have suffered. Once again, I concur with what he is saying and thank him for making this valuable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes a point of which everybody in the House will be cognisant. It is important to recognise the people who, totally off their own bat, giving their time and, in some cases, at their own expense, have taken this process forward.

I am not going to repeat the sorry history of the comings and goings and everything else. It is true that the coalition Government did accept the ombudsman’s report, but neither they, nor their successors, including the current Government, have complied properly or fully with the ombudsman’s judgment. I have been in this place for a long time, under Governments of all persuasions, and one develops a certain amount of cynicism as to when the shredder comes out. It is really important that the Minister guarantees today, in plain English, that the Government and their relevant agencies will retain the necessary data indefinitely. I would not like people to come back to the House in three or four years’ time only to be told, “I’m terribly sorry, we thought we had the data but somehow it got shredded.”

The Government have sold their interest in Lloyds and are reducing their stake in RBS, as we have heard. It would be fitting to use a small portion of the money recouped finally to settle the acknowledged debt to Equitable Life victims. From what we have heard today, it is absolutely clear to me that we need to deal with the people in an annuity situation. It is important that the Treasury does not leave money in its back pocket. It has great form in this area: I know from my Front-Bench role about the advanced learning loan money, only half of which has been spent by the Department for Education, with the other half now sitting in the Treasury’s back pocket, to use the expression we heard earlier. One wonders what “affordability” means, and whether it is simply a case of the Government waiting for many of the people affected to become too enfeebled or no longer able to press their views. This issue is not only terrible morally, but foolish practically, because of the negative vibes it sends out.

Let me give the House an anecdote from many years ago, when I worked as a public affairs consultant for a number of clients. As part of the process, we very often employed self-employed people—perhaps journalists doing a public awareness campaign—or small businesses. I was relatively young at the time, so it took quite a bit of pluck to go and talk to our director of finance, but I had a distinguished medical journalist who had not been paid for ages for doing these public things for my clients. I went along and explained the situation, and I was told, “Well, we pay large businesses within around 30 to 40 days, we pay smaller suppliers within 60 to 90 days, and we pay self-employed people when we feel like it.” I am not casting aspersions on any particular Minister, but for many of the people affected by this, it must feel like that is the case now.

I concur absolutely with the three demands made by the hon. Member for Harrow East at the beginning. Pensioner poverty is a key issue for so many of my constituents in Blackpool South, for a whole range of reasons, and for those in many other parts of the country, too. If we make progress in this area, those people will at least receive some of that safety net comfort that they should have had a long time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a privilege to respond to the debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their tireless work on this issue, which has helped the Government to achieve so much. I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders last September, and the respect of colleagues on both sides of the House for those Members’ work was clear.

This well-documented topic has been explored once again in detail today, with 10 eloquent and measured speeches by Members on both sides of the House. I need to declare an interest. My father worked in a glasshouse nursery all his life and paid in modest sums each month to Equitable Life. He received the compensation of 22.4% to a bond that he was paying into. Sadly, he died of mesothelioma aged 69, just two years ago. I know that it was a matter of grave concern for him, and he took the money and invested it somewhere else. I am very familiar with the long history of this case.

I want to take this opportunity to remind Members that, on this issue, this Government have taken more action than any previous one. Using the ombudsman’s findings, we determined the reduced returns that policyholders received to be £4.1 billion. That is significantly more than the £340 million arrived at by the previous Labour Government in the Chadwick review, which was then dismissed. That increase is because we generously assumed that every new investor consulted the incorrect regulatory returns and, on the sole basis of those returns, made an investment.

In 2010, we announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payments. Those payments were tax-free, which increased their value even more. Out of that £1.5 billion, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, we decided to pay the group of with-profits annuitants in full. The total cost of those annual payments was estimated to be around £625 million. As several Members have mentioned, there is an additional £100 million contingency fund in place to provide for annuitants should they live longer than their actuarial forecast, and we expect the contingency to be drawn on from the middle of the next decade. The remaining funding was distributed pro rata to remaining eligible policyholders. The scheme operated successfully for around five years, and in 2016 the operation was wound down.

There has, reasonably, been a degree of repetition in the asks made today, and three key points were raised. I have listened closely to those representations, and I would like to deal with some of them in turn. First, I have received suggestions that all policyholder records should be retained indefinitely, in case further payments are made. There has been correspondence between the Treasury and the APPG on that matter, and I can assure Members that relevant records are currently retained and will continue to be as long as it is legal. I can reassure the House that there are no plans to destroy any records.

Secondly, I am aware that some are dissatisfied with the £1.5 billion and suggest that it is incompatible with the ombudsman’s report. However, Members will be aware that the ombudsman wrote to the APPG on that issue and said that the Government’s decisions could not be said to be incompatible with her report. That spending decision was taken in the wider context of other spending priorities. I recognise that there is a whole range of opinions about spending priorities. That is what we do—we make relative decisions. This decision needed to be fair to the taxpayer, who funded these payments, and £1.5 billion was, on balance, judged to be the most appropriate figure.

I want to be clear: when this settlement was made, it was not subject to future review by the Government. I note the inference by the APPG and Members from the statement at the time, but no specific commitment was made to return to that calculation. No obligation linked it to the future state of public finances. There have been representations that this issue should be reopened and that a further £2.6 billion should be paid to policyholders. The Government’s position on this is clear, and I have set it out in my letters to the APPG and my meeting with it last year. Being in government is about making difficult decisions. Our decision was to spend £1.5 billion, reversing and multiplying by four the previous Government’s dismissal of a commitment to £340 million. These difficult decisions are about how to be fair to both hard-working taxpayers and those in receipt of public spending and services, and where the need to spend public money is greatest.

I acknowledge the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) concerning the imperative to provide for the next generation and, as several Members said, to restore trust in pensions and pension savings. There is cross-party consensus on that, and both parties have worked hard to achieve a lot in terms of auto-enrolment. There is more work to be done in that space. None the less, the House will recognise that the opportunity cost to the Exchequer of paying a further £2.6 billion is funding the salaries of 67,000 teachers, or 112,000 new nurses.

[Gordon Marsden]

I am listening with some concern, as I am sure other Members are, to what appears to be an edging further and further away from the commitments that we have all asked for this afternoon. The Minister talks about priorities. We could spend three hours in this Chamber talking about the priorities that this Government have given to tax cuts and other things. He needs to choose his words carefully in responding to what has been said.

[John Glen]

I will choose my words carefully, but it is undeniable that after 13 years in government, the previous Labour Government—

[Gordon Marsden]

Stop playing party politics.

[John Glen]

It is not about party politics; it is about saying that when we came into government, in the absence of a resolution to this matter, we increased the figure from £340 million, which the last Labour Government were proposing, to more than £1.5 billion. In the light of those facts, it is a bit unreasonable to criticise what I am saying. While I appreciate and empathise with the fact that some policyholders who have invested their funds have not received the funds that they hoped for, like my late father, and that this impacted on their plans and futures, we have taken the best action that we could have to resolve the Government’s part in these reduced returns. We have done more than any previous Government.

I draw colleagues’ attention to Equitable Life’s own research from 2011, which suggested that their policyholders wanted the Government compensation to draw a line under this issue. I agree with them. The Government’s view is that this issue is now closed, and as a Minister I have never been in the business of offering false hope.

Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points, which some of you may be familiar with. Please switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but you may drink water. Today we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions, and then a further motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. There is an amendment to the programme motion, because one of our witnesses, Poppy Wolfarth from the National Society of Apprentices, has had to pull out because of a family illness.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On that point, we all try very hard to get the apprentice voice heard, so it is unfortunate that the witness cannot come today. On the original list of witnesses was the name of Baroness Wolf, which has since disappeared, so she is obviously not giving evidence to us today. Do we know the background to that?

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (David Evennett)]

I believe she is unavailable to come along today because of other commitments. We are disappointed, but obviously people have full diaries.

[Gordon Marsden]

Indeed, and she is a very busy lady.

[The Chair]

In the Minister’s absence, I call the Whip to move the programme motion and the amendment to it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 22 November) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 November;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 November;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 November;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 1 December;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 6 December;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday 22 November in accordance with the following Table:

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings set out in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session we have until 10.10 am, so if we are approaching 10.10 am please do not ask a long question that the witness would be unable to answer before the knife falls. I call Gordon Marsden.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Thank you, Mr Bailey. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to welcome our witnesses, both of whom have a distinguished and long-standing interest in this area, which we will pursue.

Lord Sainsbury, these issues about technical education, which you have campaigned and lobbied for hard over many years, have finally reached some form of catharsis—if that is the right word—in terms of the statute book, which for you must be somewhere on the spectrum between huge delight and moderate satisfaction. However, the Bill has avoided committing to the 15 routes that you suggested in your review. Are there any specific additional provisions that you would like to see in the Bill?

Lord Sainsbury: No. It seemed to me to be a very sensible approach to this issue. Always, in these things, you have to combine the basic requirements, but you also need to leave room for flexibility. I do not think that there has been a great argument about the 15 routes, but in the end one needs to have some flexibility built into a piece of legislation, if it is going to last as we hope it will.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Yes. I am sure that in later discussions the Minister will want to elaborate on this issue, but there have been statements by Department for Education and Skills Funding Agency officials on the extent to which the routes themselves might be rather flexible, in terms of what they could include, even within the 15. It makes me think of the line:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions”.

We hope that some of those mansions will be explored further on.

I want to press you further, because you said that you are perfectly content with the position as it is, but you have been—forgive the English, or the French—“banging on” about this for years and years. I remember at least two excellent addresses in the past decade that you have given to various organisations on this issue. Yet we know, according to Baroness Wolf and the pamphlet, “Remaking Tertiary Education”, which she has just been involved with, that:

“Technical education, at Level 4 and Level 5, is on the verge of total collapse due to a steep decline in numbers.”

I also note that you have called for more funding for the technical route and for implementation. Would you like to comment further on those two points?

Lord Sainsbury: I think that funding is absolutely key to this whole area. I think that we have organised our system of technical education extremely badly over the years, but it is also true that we have underfunded it on quite a substantial scale. What has been proposed in my report, and what is in the Bill, will greatly improve and clarify the system, but there is still an issue of funding. If you look at the number of hours we fund further education colleges to do this kind of training, you will see that it is extremely low by international standards. So there is a funding issue here, as well as the bits of funding that we have suggested, for example for work placement, which is clearly fundamental and which I hope we can get movement on. There is a more long-term basic funding issue.

[Gordon Marsden]

We may or may not get some clarity on that in the autumn statement, but I am grateful to you. Mr Bailey, I would like to ask Mr Lauener some questions in due course.

[The Chair]

Are there any other takers? While other Members dwell upon that, I will invite you, Mr Marsden, to ask your question of Mr Lauener.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Mr Lauener, it is a great pleasure to have you with us today. You have an enviable record of longevity in this area of activity. When I was going over your CV and looking at the various things you have done over the years, I was reminded of the famous French statesman Talleyrand. When asked what he had done during the French revolution, he famously replied, “I survived.” You seem to have survived several revolutions in this area, and several Governments. Could you start by saying what the key issue is for you in your new position, as opposed to the variety of positions you have held in the past?

Peter Lauener: Thank you very much; that was a very interesting introduction. The Institute for Apprenticeships does have a key role, and of course as a result of this Bill it will morph into the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—subject to Parliament. The key thing for me is, first, that it demonstrates employer leadership of apprenticeships and technical education. That is not just about the body at the head of the institute, where we have been very pleased with the high calibre of applicants for positions, but it also refers to all the route panels and other bodies that will bring expertise to the institute.

We have estimated that overall that should amount to between 250 and 300 employers involved in all parts of the institute. The number itself, if it is managed badly, could just become a bureaucratic process, but I think it is vital that those employers bring expertise and credibility, and that when the institute says we need a new standard in this, it is because employers are saying that.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I could not agree with you more on that; it is extremely important, going back to the original review in 2012, which talked about the whole area being employer-led, that that is the case. Unfortunately, following a series of untoward events, that has not exactly been demonstrated in the institute’s leadership so far, has it? Because you are the second shadow chief executive who has been there. The first was a lady who had a significantly long civil service career in various Departments, but she did not stay terribly long—I think she stayed about a couple of months. Now you have taken over. I pay tribute to your versatility, because you hold a number of other positions.

The message that has been sent to the outside world, which may be unfair, is that although the Government have talked about the institute being employer-led, they have not put that into practice thus far when it comes to its shadow chief executives. What confidence can we have that the new board, chair and chief executive will have a very strong employer focus?

Peter Lauener: To make an obvious point, the institute does not yet exist—legally it will start on 1 April next year—so the preparations and appointments are being made. When people see the calibre of the board, and the employers on route committees supporting that and bringing particular sector expertise, everyone will see that the institute has employer knowledge, skills and behaviours—to take that phrase—built into every aspect of its operation.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Can I just stop you there? You talked about the recruitment process, but can you give us any clarity on when it will be completed and when we might expect to see, as it were, white smoke coming out of the chimney? We are on a terribly tight timescale for this process, with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and the formal setting up of the new institute.

Peter Lauener: The process for appointing members of the institute is substantially complete. I expect an announcement will be made about that shortly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Is that a civil service “shortly” or a general one?

Peter Lauener: There is not yet a planned date for it. There are one or two items—

[Gordon Marsden]

Before Christmas?

Peter Lauener: I would be surprised if there was not an announcement before Christmas. Incidentally, we are also planning to publish for consultation the Government’s remit letter in draft to the institute, and I would also expect, again before Christmas, a draft of the institute’s first strategic plan. The intention is that that would then be open for discussion with a wide group of employers and stakeholders, so that the institute, when it is formed, with the employer members and the shadow chair—I will say something about that in a moment—will be able to start its operation with an agreed plan for the 2017-18 year, which has already been subject to wide consultation and which is owned by the institute.

The other thing to add, of course, is that Antony Jenkins has been shadow chair. In my experience, having had several discussions with him, he has brought very visible employer leadership to this set-up phase, and I have been very happy to support him during that. The advertisement for the post of permanent chair is now closed. I expect interviews to take place shortly and an announcement to be made in due course. That might well take a bit longer.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q It is helpful to hear that you want to keep the employers in a prominent position. It is also important for the wider FE sector, which you are trying to encourage to take up apprenticeships. The Minister’s predecessor, perfectly rightly, exhorted the sector—not with significant success—to increase apprenticeship numbers. On the subject of increasing numbers, I want to ask about capacity—not your personal capacity, which obviously encompasses quite a few areas already, but the capacity of the institute to do some of the things said on the tin.

One of the Bill’s important provisions is the extension to the area of technical education. We welcome that and think it is very important. I am sure Lord Sainsbury does as well. However, that area has capacity issues, too. The Minister and, for that matter, you, have been rather coy about putting out any figures for the staffing of the institute, so we have had to rely on rumours and leaked papers. We were told originally that there were going to be 40 employees, and there is now some suggestion that there will be around 100. Are you able to give any more clarity on that?

Peter Lauener: I expect that when the institute starts at the beginning of April next year, it will have about 60 employees. The planned running costs next year are about £8 million, but the number of staff will need to build up as the additional responsibilities, subject to Parliament, are added. That will probably be another 30 or so staff. I should emphasise that those figures are provisional at this stage. We need to keep them under review. One thing I am looking at is the roles and responsibilities of the Skills Funding Agency and the institute. There may be some marginal adjustments.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q So you are interrogating yourself on a daily basis.

Peter Lauener: I constantly challenge myself by saying, “Am I using the resources available in the best way possible?”

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Well, at least you will have a convenient and convivial conversation, because you are one and the same thing, are you not?

Peter Lauener: I am indeed. As I am sure you are aware, I am also chief executive of the Education Funding Agency. It would not be at all appropriate for these three things to be combined on an ongoing basis. As I said at the start, I am very pleased, because of a lifelong interest in and commitment to apprenticeships, to have the responsibility of helping to set up the institute for next April and to ensure that the governance is—

[Gordon Marsden]

Indeed, and we will not commit you to the two further roles that FE Week cartooned you as having: taking part in the “Great British Bake Off” and “Strictly Come Dancing”.

Peter Lauener: No one has contacted me about those.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q As we know from Vince Cable, people from this area have a good track record, so you might want to put that on your list.

You talked about the numbers. I think there will be considerable concern in the sector as to what skills these people bring to the table. With that in mind, and given the staff reductions in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—of course, this is a machinery of government change—do you expect to be moving across or recruiting people from either the SFA or BIS who have previous experience in this area?

Peter Lauener: We have advertised externally for the key role of deputy directors, where we are looking to fill six posts. We have been very pleased, again, with the quality of applicants, which I think is an indication of the widespread interest across employers and the training and skills sector in the institute being set up. We have had a very good set of applications. From memory, we had 90 applications for those six posts, and we are very confident that we will be able to appoint a broad range of experienced individuals.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Can I take you up on that point about a broad range of experienced individuals? That can cover a multitude of abilities or a multitude of sins. Many stakeholders have expressed concern throughout this process—indeed, the Opposition expressed it during the passage of the Enterprise Act 2016, which gave birth to the concept—that the new institute’s board might be too narrow in its experience and focus, as we believe the apprenticeship delivery board has been. Do you have any views on the importance of having, for example, an apprentice or someone from the apprenticeship coalface, as it were, on the board?

Peter Lauener: I think that the institute should certainly be clear how it is going to secure the voice of apprentices in its understanding and deliberations. I do not think that I should comment about the particular membership of the institute, but the principle of having knowledge, understanding and the live voice of apprentices is really important for the institute’s work. Inevitably, there is a lot of focus on employer leadership, but I think we need to look at apprenticeships from the perspective of employers and individuals.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q My final question is not so much about the membership of the board as about the reception that you want the new institute to get from providers and employers. As you know, a big question that is still being discussed vigorously in the FE sector is the extent to which small and medium-sized employers will be able to benefit from the apprenticeship levy. It is widely believed that gaining acceptance in the SME sector will be critical for the Government to reach their 3 million target. What confidence do you have that the new board will be able to reflect and respond to the SME sector’s continuing concerns that it is not exactly at the front of the queue in terms of the apprenticeship levy?

Peter Lauener: I would extend that beyond the board itself and to the route committees that I have talked about. There needs to be a wide range of employer experience, both from large employers and small and medium-sized employers, in these critical bodies—the route committees—which will be looking at the right standards. Of course, the standard that we are talking about is the standard wherever it is applied; it is about the standard for an occupation and about the knowledge, skills and behaviours that an individual needs to be able to do a job properly for the benefit of the employer. You need the context both of large employers and of small and medium-sized employers to make that work properly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q But you understand the point that I am making, I hope. Without becoming too technical, one issue historically for SMEs in taking on apprenticeships has been the lack of back-office support. In my experience—I have employed three apprentices over a three-year period, and being an MP is like running a small business; you juggle all sorts of things—SMEs constantly say that they would love to take on apprentices, and when they do and the apprentices are successful, no one is a stronger advocate for them than SMEs. However, they struggle with back-office support, red tape and all the rest of it. I am not trying to commit you to a specific SME place on the board, but do you understand why those concerns persist? Do you intend to try to provide reassurance about them and, if possible, given your years of unrivalled experience in this area, cut some of the red tape?

Peter Lauener: First, the new technical system—the digital apprenticeship service—that will be introduced from the beginning of next year will be much easier for employers of all sizes to navigate and for individuals to see apprenticeships on the system. That will be open to only large employers at the start, but we would expect to extend it over time.

Secondly, we should not underestimate the role of training providers. Again, under the digital apprenticeship system, most employers will still be using a training provider. They will be able to choose from the training providers on the system. In my experience—I speak partly as an employer in my own organisations of apprentices—organisations are heavily reliant on the training provider to make sure that the training is relevant, well managed and that the trainee is supported through the apprenticeship. I would expect that to be a continuing pattern in the future.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Q I want to build on some of the comments Mr Marsden has made. I used to run a small business, and by accident I employed someone on an apprenticeship because I stumbled across an apprentice, and I benefited greatly. One of the biggest challenges in us reaching the commendable target of 3 million apprenticeships is that lack of awareness from small businesses. I have repeatedly pushed that we should use the business rate mailer to include a rather nice, glossy A5 flier.

It is encouraging that you are talking about this digital portal where there will be a one-stop shop for all the information, but you said at the beginning that that is just for the larger employers. How quickly do you see that being cascaded down to the smaller employers? The reality is that, whatever the political persuasion of the Government of the day, the large employers will re-badge their ongoing training packages to match what is going. If we really are to create some great opportunities, we must include those small and medium-sized businesses that can offer those unique, more bespoke jobs that can fit apprentices’ individual skills and give them a real opportunity to progress. However, those businesses are waiting to be told of this fantastic resource. How quickly can we cascade that information down?

Peter Lauener: I should make it clear that the ability of small and medium-sized employers still to be involved in apprenticeships does not depend on day one of the digital apprenticeship system. We would expect to continue the allocations of funding to training providers—to be clear, that is through the Skills Funding Agency rather than through the Institute for Apprenticeships—which we have operated for many years, for small and medium-sized employers. That will ensure significant continuity in the system. I would expect no risk to the target for growth in numbers.

That will apply for the 2017-18 year. We will need to review that in the context of how quickly the levy-paying employers take up the opportunities to secure apprenticeships under the levy system, so we will monitor that closely. The 2017-18 year is secure, and after that we will review how small and medium-sized employers should be brought on to the core digital apprenticeship service. But even from day one it will be a public-access system and people will be able to see what is on it, so I think it will be a good way of conveying the richness of apprenticeships available.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from the Association of Colleges, the Further Education Commissioner, the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the Collab Group and Professor Alison Fuller from University College London. We have until 11.25 am. Welcome. Please introduce yourselves for voice transcription purposes.

David Hughes: Good morning. I am David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges.

Professor Alison Fuller: I am Alison Fuller, professor of vocational education and work at UCL Institute of Education.

Richard Atkins: I am Richard Atkins, the FE Commissioner.

Bill Watkin: My name is Bill Watkin and I am chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association.

Ian Pretty: I am Ian Pretty, chief executive of the Collab Group.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I warmly welcome all of our panel, each distinguished in different areas. Who to pick on first is an invidious choice, but given the context of the previous conversations, perhaps I could start with David.

We have just heard from Peter Lauener an expansive view of where the institute is going. He talked about its digital abilities and I think the words he used were that standards would continually need redefining. As that was going on, hammering in my brain was “capacity, capacity, capacity”. You have expressed some concerns about the capacity. Would you like to elaborate on that?

David Hughes: Thank you for picking on me first. The capacity issue is partly about timing as well. I am concerned—we are very concerned—that the changes are being rushed because of the timing issues. Sixty people sounds like a small organisation to deal with 15 routes and 250-odd employers. There is a big job to be done and it does feel as though a lot is changing at the same time.

What we have been doing with Peter and his team and with officials in the Department is trying to think through the risks and to work with them to make sure that we can address any problems that occur very early on. When you are fundamentally changing the funding system, there are lots of unknowns. The big unknown is how employers will behave in the new system—nobody can predict that. It is in all our interests to make sure that we do not lose capacity in the whole system, let alone in the IFA itself. We have offered to work closely with Peter and his team to try to address any problems at a really early stage, and I am really pleased with the response so far.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q That is good, and highly valuable. One of the things I did not mention is the fact that the Government used to be able to use the UK Commission for Employment and Skills as a backstop—sometimes a very short-term backstop—in terms of delivery mechanisms out of the Department, but of course they rather unfortunately abolished that earlier this year. On that point, because as you well know there has been a lively debate between Ministers and your membership in the past as to whether they are doing enough for apprenticeships, are you confident now that your members have got the message about the new institute, or are there particular issues that you would still like to highlight?

David Hughes: I think there are three key issues. One is funding, and it was good to hear Lord Sainsbury talking about the funding issues. If we want a really high-quality system, we need to invest in it. I still find it completely illogical that we fund 11 to 16 at something like £5,500 per head, 16 to 18 at about £4,000, apprenticeships at about £1,500 per head and higher education at £9,000. In HE, we have index linking coming in with the new teaching excellence framework which we do not have in FE. If we want a high-quality offer at 16 to 18, which we do, we need to get the investment right.

Two other issues that go with that investment, and are really critical to allow colleges and other providers to invest in quality themselves, are stability and certainty. The thing that we want more than anything else, both on the technical education side and on the apprenticeship side, is some stability rather than constant change and churn, and certainty about those changes, so that my members and others can invest over the long term in the equipment, the people, the relationships and the outreach to students and potential apprentices. We have had a blizzard of changes over the past 10 or perhaps 15 years, and that causes my members and others to be cautious about the investment they make. The biggest risk to all this is the lack of certainty for the future. It is difficult, because how do you provide certainty? Some big statements from Government would be really helpful.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You are absolutely right to make that point. The old joke used to be that when the Minister for HE sent a letter to universities it was more like the opening gambit of a conversation, or, “Would you like to do this?” whereas the letter that went to FE just said, “Do it.” I think and hope that we have moved on from there, Minister, and I hope that will not be the case in quite the same dirigiste way in the future. One of the issues that employers and other sectors are raising with me is just how rapidly some of the things, such as the digital system, are going to come on board. If that does not work to start with, that is going to be a further downer and concern for your members, is it not?

David Hughes: There are lots of concerns. The comparison with HE is quite interesting. Last week, the Higher Education Funding Council came out with a report on the financial picture for the sector; it is very concerned that there is only a 4.3% surplus predicted for next year. The FE sector has no surplus. That is my investment point. Quality needs investment, and FE colleges do not have that investment capacity at the moment. Issues around the digital service would and could be overcome by providers and colleges working closely with the employers they already work with, and that is one of those issues of timing and capacity. So there is a partnership approach that we are trying to push very strongly.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Ian Pretty, you have been in post for about a year now. You have come to what we used to know as the 157 Group, now Collab, from a distinguished background as a career civil servant and also having spent time in the private sector. Having been in post for a year, what have you learned and what are your members telling you about capacity issues that is relevant to the Bill and particularly to the specific questions we have raised about the institute’s capacity to do all the wonderful things Peter Lauener told us about?

Ian Pretty: I agree with a lot of what David said. In terms of the capacity issue for the institute, you have to get the right resources in there. As you said, I am a former senior civil servant and a tax inspector, so I have a lot of experience in those things. I would focus on capability as well. You can have 60 people or 100 people in the institute, but have you got the right capability? I would be nervous if the institute was completely staffed by civil servants. If this organisation is about co-creation with the private sector and the education sector, you need people with the capability to understand how business thinks and how business operates. You also need people who understand how the education providers operate. On the capacity issue, in terms of raw numbers you will cite something, but capability is more important.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You have to drill down, basically; that is what you are saying.

Ian Pretty: Yes, and you have to have the right people sitting in that institution. If the institute is focused on the skills plan, as the Government propose, that is sensible to me. Given my background, one thing I am mindful of is that we spent a huge amount of time—displacement time—on the area-based reviews. If we had had the skills plan and the insolvency regime in place, the ABR process might have been a smoother and easier process, because there would have been a logic to it.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Your members include a significant number that have HE capacity. We were talking yesterday in another place about HE issues. One concern that has been expressed to us is the institute’s ability to grapple with the HE dimension of higher skills, which I am sure Lord Sainsbury would think is important, and treatment in terms of HE in FE colleges. Sometimes, dare I say it—I certainly felt it in the White Paper—it is an afterthought, rather than an integral part of the solution. What do you think the institute and Ministers need to do to ensure that the role of HE in FE is more fundamentally understood by Departments?

Ian Pretty: In terms of the institute’s capabilities and the people who are in there, it is important; you are right. Most of our members have HE as part of their remit. This goes back to the whole issue around the skills plan and the Sainsbury review. If you create the right technical pathways, you need to understand through that, from level 1 up to 6-plus, where that will be delivered and the role of HE within that. It could be HE in terms of the universities sector, but in our case it is HE sitting within the FE sector. That is a growing business for us, particularly around things like degree apprenticeships. It is important that the institute understands HE and plays an active role in understanding how HE operates within the FE sector.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Finally, I will come to you, Professor Fuller. I am not going to credit you with quite the longevity—perhaps I should, but never mind—that I gave to Peter Lauener, but you have been around for quite a long time in this area. You have seen promises and Select Committees come and go. In the things you have seen and heard so far about the new architecture that the Government are proposing, which do you think are good and positive steps forward, and which are you feeling a bit more queasy about?

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly welcome the renewed focus on what we used to call vocational education but now call technical education, and the seeming rise of it up the public policy agenda. However, today and in this Bill what we are trying to scrutinise is what stands behind that. We have been concerned about that for years, and it is about the seriousness with which this is taken. My colleagues have talked very clearly about capacity and capability issues. When we look at comparative countries, we see much more stability and longevity about arrangements for drawing in all the key constituencies to the decision-making processes. That kind of stability is there.

In addition to the stakeholders that have been mentioned, I would also say that the professional bodies and associations are key to this as well, because we are talking here about how these new routes will articulate during a career with the ladders of progression that exist. The professional bodies and associations are essentially the guardians of that kind of area.

In terms of concerns, it is really the substance and significance of the routes that are being proposed that concern me, if we are going to try to create something that is really high quality and which begins to address the parity of esteem question, which one of the panel was talking about earlier. The reality is that we are talking about a proposal for two-year programmes, which are called full time, but if you dig into what full time means, the definitions can be as little as 12 to 14 hours a week. If you phone up a college and say, for example, “I am looking to do a level 3 course in business administration. How many hours would that be?” you will typically be told 12 to 14 hours. If you look at the benefit rules, full time is defined as around that time. Potentially, we are looking at trying to help young people to reach a much higher level—level 3, hopefully, after two years—but with very little input. That is a real concern for me. That raises questions about how the routes are articulating downwards with the GCSE and upwards to higher education.

There is a big issue about intensity. Again, when we compare with other countries, we see that the full-time vocational routes tend to be longer. They may start a bit earlier. We have at the moment 16-plus, 16 to 18; they may start at 15, but they will typically have three or even four years, ending up at a good level 3 standard. That is an issue and has huge implications for resourcing and funding, which David and others have raised.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q You are talking about length. There have been a lot of conversations, some of them a bit semantic, about the pre-apprenticeship route, particularly if we want young people to get good-quality apprenticeships. There is obviously the traineeship issue, or call it pre-apprenticeship, or whatever. Are you saying, Professor Fuller, that the actual process needs to be longer or that there need to be more preparatory steps to get young people—not only them, though they are the key component—who would not otherwise be able to compete for some of the high-quality apprenticeships that will be on offer?

Professor Alison Fuller: Probably both. If you look at attainment at 16, we have just had recent figures that show that still it is only just over 50% of young people who are achieving five GCSEs A to C grades, including English and maths. We know that those who are achieving that benchmark tend to stay on in the school route and take A-levels or a combination of A-levels and BTECs, which are sometimes called applied A-levels. That particular route has been quite successful in supporting social mobility and particularly progression to higher education.

Unless we start to eat into that population, we are talking about young people who have not attained that level at 16. We are proposing what we would all want to be a very high-quality technical education route within two years to get to what point? That is where we need to take a check and be realistic about what we might be able to achieve in two years on those kinds of numbers of contact hours and that kind of period.

We know that a good-quality level 3 standard is a really strong platform for career progression and engagement with employment. So for a good majority of our young people at 18 or 19, that is the kind of real aspiration we should be aiming for. It seems to me that without a much stronger commitment to what the resources are going to be, and what the container is going to be, if you unpack what a route is, we could end up with young people who have not made sufficient progress to reach the platform where they are going to have a secure stepping stone into the labour market and good-quality apprenticeships.

We know that at the moment 60%-plus of apprenticeships are at level 2 and that not many 16 to 18-year-olds are doing them—I think it is about 130,000. So there is quite a lot to do to ensure that all apprenticeships are as good quality as the fantastic ones that we know do exist.

[Tracy Brabin]

Q David, I have been told that in some circumstances members of staff such as receptionists without relevant qualifications or training are carrying out careers guidance in colleges as a tick-box exercise. Are you concerned that there is no careers guidance provision in the Bill?

David Hughes: I am very concerned if that story about reception staff is true, because it is an incredibly important area of education and, of course, it does not start at 16; it starts a lot earlier. I would echo a lot of what Alison was saying. We need to think about key stage 4 rather than just look at age 16-plus, because the decisions that get made by young people and their parents and carers are critical to their future. We need to think about introducing them to the world of work rather than just providing them with some information about courses, so the work experience and work placements that the Sainsbury report and the skills plan rightly concentrate and focus on are really important to consider for key stage 4, rather than just waiting until 16. We want some of the best young people with good achievements at GCSE at 16 going into the technical route and apprenticeships rather than what we have now, which is mostly that if you do well at GCSE at 16, you take an academic route.

We know that probably about £1 billion is wasted when young people go on an academic route for a year and then move off it because they find it is not suitable for them. We need to stop that happening because that wastes money and, more importantly, young people are using up a year of their life on something that does not stimulate them or motivate them. We have got to go back into key stage 4 rather than just wait. It is critical that we get college information, advice and guidance right, but let us think about careers education through school, not just right at the end, and let us think about persuading the best young people to do technical if that is the right thing for them, because it should be high-quality to attract them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Q Richard, may I just challenge you a bit further? Say you have two successful FE institutions and the recommendation from the area review is to merge—this scenario is not a million miles away from what is going on—but they say, “No, we are independent institutions. Forget it.” We know that they can stand alone, but the review said that they should come together. What is the stick? What is the incentive? How do you get from the world as it is, to the world as you want it to be?

Richard Atkins: I have two points. If they were both very successful and could produce the sorts of data that David referred to, they would probably be stand-alone anyway. If they could produce five-year data that showed that they would be financially sustainable and would continue to be very successful, they would probably opt for stand-alone and we would probably support that. We have got one or two cases like that.

If they cannot produce those data and we and the steering group think that merger is the best solution—this is possible, and we are doing it in at least one or two cases at the moment—we will put that recommendation in the report. The college can still opt independently not to do it. That means it will never be able to access the restructuring fund; if something went wrong in future, it would not get access to the large restructuring fund that is currently available. Of course, it would be subject to the new insolvency regime if this legislation goes through, so the world looks quite a lot tougher for it post-2018 if it chooses to ignore the evidence-based work that my team will have done and will have shared with the local steering group.

It is possible to bury your head and say, “We don’t accept the evidence that you are putting in front of us. We can’t produce robust plans for the next five years, but we are going to go it alone anyway. We won’t co-operate with anyone.” By doing that, those governors would be taking a big risk—a risk for their learners as well as for themselves. Let us say that the insolvency legislation goes through. I am generally supportive of that legislation in this role, and as a principal—as you probably know, I stepped down from being a principal earlier this year, after 21 years—I would have been supportive of it. You are taking quite a risk if you are prepared to confound the recommendation that we would make, along with the other members of the steering group. But you are right to say that ultimately these colleges are independent, and as a long-serving principal, I got the highest level of job satisfaction when my college enjoyed a degree of independence.

David Hughes: We need to be a bit careful on this. I remember twice being asked by Ministers when I was in the civil service to try to show the evidence that large colleges were more effective—well, once with Bill Rammell and then with John Hayes to show that small colleges were more effective. There is no evidence of size making that much difference. Leadership makes the difference, and context is king. The competition that I talked about can undermine the best led college, but leadership is the key thing.

When the area review comes through with a recommendation for merger, the right thing for the colleges to do is to go through a due diligence process to examine the proposal further. In some circumstances, it is very correct that they make the decision not to go through with it, because they have to have at their heart the interests of their institution, their learners and their community. The area review will not always get that recommendation right. We have to have a degree of realism: the colleges are independent institutions, making their own decisions, and sometimes not to go forward with that recommendation might be the right thing.

Ian Pretty: The area-based reviews, as a general process, struck me as reasonable. Where it has become more challenging is that the key objectives were that you wanted fewer, larger, financially sustainable colleges; that was the premise on which the ABR process was set up. As I said earlier, the key thing for me is the extent to which you have looked at things such as the skills plan and the pathways first, putting in place things such as the insolvency regime, and then perhaps the ABR process would have been an easier process for many.

I think that it is absolutely right that further education colleges are allowed to be independent and remain independent. I recognise that that creates frictions in terms of their not necessarily agreeing to things, but that was how they were set up back in 1992. The risk with all this, in terms of the ABR and the current lack of an insolvency regime, is that I do not think you have the flexibility to be able actually to create the merged institutions that you might or might not want. I have a personal view that a solvent college merged with an insolvent college is not a solvent college; that causes problems afterwards.

Speaking as an organisation, I know that the association has representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—we have five colleges altogether there—and I think there is a lot that the Department for Education and Government can learn from the experience, particularly in Scotland, which did bang them together to create regional colleges. They could look at the successes and the failures. There are strong successes there, and there are colleges where the merger has not been so successful.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q I would like to continue on the theme of the implications of the area reviews and to come back to you, Richard, if I may. As you have already said, you have had a distinguished career as a college principal and have held leadership positions in the Association of Colleges, so at least for the moment, until you are covered in the bureaucracies, you can see from both angles. I want to ask you about the implications of 88 colleges moving towards merger. Sir Francis Drake famously said that

“it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same, until it be thoroughly finished, which yields the true glory”.

Although, the question here is whether there will be glory or lots of pain along the way. I want to press you on two particular points.

The context of this, as Ian Pretty has alluded to, is two things: first, the critical National Audit Office report, which really bashed the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills right around the head over some areas and set off alarm bells about financial stability—I am sure that played a major part in the insolvency regime set out in the Bill—and secondly, on a year-on-year basis, when we exclude apprenticeship funding, the trajectory of funding for FE colleges from Government has been going down.

The situation is febrile and, in some cases, is producing that number of mergers. Once they are merged, there are then of course the consequences for the staff and students. For example, when two colleges merge in a suburban or rural setting, the implications for them being able to maintain their courses, which are after all the viability of those colleges, will be significant if issues such as travel do not come into it. I see nothing in the Bill at the moment—and little has been said by Ministers—about where the funding to support that process will come from.

My second point picks up on what my colleague Mike Kane said earlier about his experiences with Greater Manchester—I am a native Mancunian by birth, so I understand the area’s issues well, and the cohesion that already exists, and lots of other areas will not have that cohesion. We are going through a period of significant devolution from Government of responsibilities and funding—for what it is worth, I am wholeheartedly in favour of that—and skills and FE will be affected. We have a situation in which things are beginning to be set in stone in combined authorities or mayoralties that are likely to have significant powers in the next couple of years, but they might well come along and say, “Actually, this didn’t include us. We want to unpick it.” What do you have to say to that?

Richard Atkins: May I take the first question first? Thanks for setting it in context. If I may do the same, you are right that I had a long career as a principal, and when I started there were 469 FE and sixth-form colleges; there are 321 today. Some of those mergers have been very successful, but not all. But just as in business and other walks of life, some mergers do succeed. For example, takeovers are often more successful than mergers, but some have been very successful. I remember when towns such as Derby had two or three colleges, but now they have one strong college. So I think that in a number of cases the mergers we are proposing through area reviews may well strengthen college provision in that part of the country, but I do not for one minute think that every one of them will work out as if a magic wand has made it all brilliant and successful immediately.

There is continuing work for me and my team as the agency calls us in to support the implementation of the area reviews, to work out where things are going in the right direction or how to get them back on track, or to come up with alternatives, if necessary, to keep the process going. I do not think that it will be a cliff edge as such. I am talking to colleges a lot about the fact that it is not a cliff edge. I do not see 31 March and the end of the area review steering groups as an absolute cliff edge.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q That is a fair point, but may I press you a bit further? I am not necessarily saying that all these mergers will be a disaster; what I am saying is that they will be challenging—I gave you two particular examples—and what I wonder is whether you think the Government have given this enough attention, in terms of contingency funding or, for example, support for travel for students who might be affected. Or do you think it is part of your job and that of your fellow commissioners, when you are deliberating on these things, to send a stronger message to Government on these matters?

Richard Atkins: There are two points. Mergers do not necessarily mean the closure of sites, so they do not mean the end of provision for students locally. Clearly, in rural areas, for example, the history of the sector has been that provision has not gone even when there have been mergers. When Truro and Penwith came together, that did not end provision in Penzance. In fact, it regenerated the provision in Penzance to a higher standard. You can see that across the country.

Certainly, in any recommendations for area review that I am involved in—I have said this a lot—the interests of the learners would be paramount in my mind. I know that finance is one of the factors driving this. I do not disagree with you about the fact that there are pressures on colleges. Non-apprenticeship funding has been challenging. The cuts that colleges have faced in terms of the adult skills budget have been as big as any across education, and of course we have had a demographic downturn in 16-year-olds that goes on for another five years, and more competition. So colleges are under real pressure.

However, when I go out and intervene—the second part of my role, as you know, is intervening in colleges that have had either an inadequate Ofsted assessment or serious financial concerns—I actually find that what is missing are some of the basics of governance, leadership and financial management. I do not always find that it is a lack of funds.

I would like to see more investment in the sector. As a long-standing principal, I spent a long time arguing for that. I hope that in the future we will see greater investment in technical education, but when I go out to look at some of the most acute cases, what I find is—you will see this from my predecessor’s reports as well and the lessons I share with the sector—lack of a costed curriculum plan, staffing costs well above average compared with turnover and so on.

Part of my job is to share that practice, both good and bad, with all the colleges so that people can keep on track. I do think that is part of my job. It is also part of my job to represent the interests of learners. I hope the insolvency legislation proposed in the Bill does not have to be used, but if it did, I hope that the administrator would call in our team. I hope that we would act in the interests of those learners to ensure that the right solution was found with the institution and, most importantly, the right solution was found for the learners.

I do not think that merger necessarily means rationalising the number of sites; it may do in an urban area. My first college, I seem to remember, reduced from 11 sites to two. In a reasonably small town there was plenty of room for rationalisation. The idea that you close provision down in a particular district, borough or town is not something I would be in favour of at all. I would be looking for merger solutions that bring together back-room services, avoid duplication and so on.

Equally, particularly at levels 1 and 2, I would ensure that provision continues to be delivered locally where those learners can best access it. I do not see merger as necessarily meaning a rationalisation of locality and sites, particularly at levels 1 and 2. When you get to level 3, just look at the distances that students travel to Bill Watkin’s sixth-form colleges around the country. If you go to levels 4 and 5, which I hope we are going to see more of, I find that learners are very happy to travel considerable distances for the right provision. I do not see mergers as necessarily wiping out, but I do see my role as representing the best interests of the learners, and I hope that is what I have brought with me from being a principal all those years.

I would love to see more investment in the sector, but that is not what I find when I go out and do interventions at the moment—I have done several already. I am not walking into the problems being caused simply by underfunding; I am walking into areas where there is room for considerable improvement in governance, leadership, management and financial management.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q But you will be aware, with the eagerness of people to travel distances, as you say, that they might be eager but, if they do not have the money to travel, they will not be able to.

Richard Atkins: Sure. Coming from a county such as Devon, I am acutely aware of that: there are the lowest take-home wages in the country in place such as Torridge and west Devon. I am very aware of the travel. That is why I say that provision at levels 1 and 2, in particular, needs to be as local as you can get it to the learners, whether in an urban or rural area. I agree.

[Gordon Marsden]

Q Indeed. We will keep a close eye on that.

Finally, I will come to Ian. We have been talking about insolvency provisions. You have experience in other areas that may be useful for taking an overview here. Let me say straightaway that I very much welcome the new provisions, but there seems to be a tension, which no doubt we will explore in our line-by-line scrutiny, between the role of the administrator and the natural commercial demands and pressures that will come from the traditional insolvency process. Have you had any thoughts about that? I am mindful that we do not want to paint a picture of the whole area being ripe for insolvency—David, you made that point to me not that long ago. Nevertheless, we must plan for the worst. Are you confident at the moment, notwithstanding welcoming the new provisions, that the balance is right regarding securing the interests of the staff and the pupils at the college that might be in trouble alongside those of the people who are the traditional creditors?

Ian Pretty: Broadly, yes. That is the slightly negative answer. It is right that we very much welcome the insolvency regime. I think that part of it has been adjusted. One of the concerns we had initially was with things such as winding-up orders. It looked like anyone from anywhere could issue a winding-up order on a college, which would have created some real dangers, particularly to the learners, in that they would suddenly have had nowhere to study, and to the employees, who would have had no jobs. I see that the proposed legislation has made adjustments to that, which is welcome.

On the role of the education administrator, it looks like a fairly standard role that you would see in any winding-up or any receivership or administration in the private sector. The biggest concern I have at the moment is about governance and liability in terms of disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. I still have real concerns, as do our members, particularly as we are colleges that are very commercially minded, that, depending on how that is interpreted and perhaps put into secondary legislation, you might be at risk of ending up in a situation in which you deter private sector people from being on boards of governors.

You might also deter politicians and people from the third sector—from charitable trusts—from being on boards of governors. It is absolutely essential that the sector has that insight and know-how brought in to help it through the processes. If there is a risk of someone being told that they will be disqualified as a director, you can imagine that that is quite material in the private sector. That is the area we are most concerned about at the moment. On executive functions, on people like principals being disqualified, we have no problem with that.

On creditors and bankers—I know that you will be speaking to the banks this afternoon and I am sure that they will be able to tell you whether they are supportive of the provisions—

[Gordon Marsden]

I will not ask you about your experience with the banks.

Ian Pretty: Don’t ask! There are sections of the proposed legislation that talk about indemnities and guarantees given by the national authority, be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government. Again, that is fine. I am sure it must be giving some comfort to the creditors, but the risk, of course, is that the Government become the guarantor of last resort. It is noticeable that other sections of the legislation refer to the college that is in administration having to re-fund. It depends on the sums of money that are involved, but if you do that you run the risk of never getting out of the insolvency cycle.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Q Two issues have been raised in the past few minutes. One is mergers, and I think that David Hughes suggested that there could be a case for not enormous colleges staying as independent colleges; some might merge, but each could be judged on its own merits. But that should not be elided with the issue of sixth-form colleges doing A-levels and the contrast with small school sixth forms. I should say that I am a 25-year governor of a sixth-form college, a former teacher in further education and the chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges. The statistics produced by the Sixth-Form Colleges Association overwhelmingly show that sixth-form colleges do better in educational achievements and in value for money, and the Government would do well to persuade schools, local authorities or whoever to pool their sixth forms and create many more sixth-form colleges. That would be enormously advantageous to the country, to education and to young people.

The other issue is governance, which Ian Pretty talked about. I agree strongly that we ought to have breadth in our governing bodies. I have to say that the governing body of which I am a member has invariably had at least two members qualified in accountancy and at least two with legal qualifications, as well as members from the education sector, including primary and secondary schools, and from local businesses. It is small, tightly knit, monocultural governing bodies—perhaps drawn only from small local businesses—that tend to get out of control and that do not do too well. There was one glaring example of that in my constituency—I will not mention its name, but many of you will know about it. It got into a disastrous state, although it has now been picked up by a superb new principal. That breadth of governance, with all sorts of skills as well as commitments, is crucial. I wonder whether you accept that that is a sensible way of doing things.

Richard Atkins: Shall I begin? First, on interventions and area reviews, the quality of governance is critical to the success of the college—more critical than many governors realise. I see that when I go into colleges that are not doing well. Getting the sort of governing body that you describe, with a broad base of skills and knowledge, is essential. I pay tribute to the chairs and to the role they play in the area review. They are giving up a huge amount of time and showing enormous commitment to their colleges by coming to all the steering group meetings and taking part in this. Governance is critical to the quality of colleges. I agree with David that the size of a college is not the key determinant; we have some successful big colleges, but we also have some very successful small, niche colleges. Logically, you would think “How do they survive?” but actually they are doing very well.

Another point that I did not make earlier is that, although area reviews are leading to these 88 mergers—I am thinking about the area review that we are about to start in your constituency; I was talking to the two principals last week—in some areas we are simply generating collaboration short of a merger at a level that we have not seen for a long time. I happen to know that those colleges in your area have already been to see me to talk about a new form of collaboration. If that is the best solution for that area, and the data underpin that, we will support it. Merger is not the single blind answer in every case; collaboration short of a merger may well be the best solution in certain cases.

David Hughes: I want to assert that governance in the FE sector is very strong. I know that the Minister is very interested in helping to improve it, but we have a sector with very strong governance. These are independent organisations taking big business decisions over the long term, and in the vast majority of cases they deliver a very high-quality service and achieve a surplus. For many years, in the Learning and Skills Council and the Skills Funding Agency, I did a job that was not dissimilar to the FE commissioner’s: overseeing all the colleges that were getting into difficulties. It is quite striking that, despite all the funding cuts and all the competition, there are still only 20 colleges in financial difficulties. That is a very familiar number; it was not dissimilar through the noughties and into this decade. Despite all those challenges, FE and sixth-form colleges have proved incredibly adaptable and have responded really well to the funding environment.

Let me just go back to the fact that higher education is generating a surplus of more than 4% every year. The Higher Education Funding Council for England thinks that that is a problem, because it is only 4%, but FE has had a deficit in the last two years. That is not a commentary on the lack of good leadership and governance, but on the competition and the funding levels. We need to address that; otherwise, we still will not have the technical and academic education we need for young people and adults in this country. These are really important issues. It is not easy, because the economy is not doing as well as anyone wants. We are looking to the autumn statement this week and perhaps the Budget in the spring. As Lord Sainsbury said this morning, how do you properly fund technical education in this country, possibly for the first time ever?

Bill Watkin: I will respond to your comments about the growth of sixth-form colleges in the context of the economies of scale they offer, the quality of qualifications, their outcomes and their support for young people. I would also add that, with the population shift, the number of 11 to 16-year-olds is growing.

There is an interesting example of a proposed merger between a sixth-form college and an academy chain. The school, which has a large sixth-form provision, is looking to shift all of its sixth form across to the sixth-form college, and then to build capacity for 11 to 16-year-olds to serve the community. That is an example of a successful outcome of an area review recommendation. There is also the opportunity for sixth-form colleges to roll out their successful brand and open up a free school 16-to-19 provision, as happened in Pontefract.

I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the approval process for small school sixth forms. We have been invited to contribute to that review. I sincerely hope that there will be a different way of considering applications to open up schools’ sixth forms.

Professor Alison Fuller: I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of governance and efficiency—we are talking about public money, after all—but I do not want us to lose sight of the issue of efficacy and quality, which we started the session off with. The initiatives in the Bill will potentially achieve a step change in quality if we get this right. We know how much this matters, because the population performs very poorly in the OECD’s programme for the international assessment of adult competencies survey—the adult skills survey, which is administered to 27-year-olds. The added value from 15 to 27 is very weak, in terms of the age range, when you compare us to countries that have strong upper secondary and strong vocational and technical systems. The legacy effects that we are suffering as a consequence of the current system and what happened historically are playing through into the economy, life chances and wellbeing more generally. The prize is huge, but so is the challenge. I am a little concerned that an over-emphasis on governance may deflect from the really difficult thing—the quality issue.

Ian Pretty: Can I build on the discussion on mergers, which I think is a healthy one? To me, the merger is the merger. It is very easy to say, “We are all going to merge together. It’s all going to be wonderful, and the world is going to be fantastic,” but if you look at the statistics across all sectors—commercial and public—only 25% of mergers ever achieve their objectives. Post-merger integration is the most difficult thing. Part of that is that you have to understand the logic of the merger—is it a logical merger or a “shotgun” merger?—because that can have an impact. The studies show that, when they are successful, it is because of culture and cultural fit. Within the FE sector, some colleges are more likely to be able to culturally fit with another than others.

Having been on the receiving end, when I was in government, of ministerial decisions to merge, I can attest to the fact that it is difficult. The merger between Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise was an interesting experience, to say the least—I promptly walked out the door and went to the private sector.

You have to look at the logic of the merger, and then there is the whole point about post-merger integration. We have talked about whether there is enough funding, and all that sort of stuff, but do you have the right leadership? Do you have the right cultural fit that will make the merger work? Does the merger have the right objectives?

The other thing that is worth looking at is that we see regional college groups merging, and we see alternative versions of collaboration. Devon recently announced the launch of the Devon Colleges Group. The colleges have not merged together; they are collaborating. That is quite significant. You will then see that some college groups are working very well as merged entities or as groups. Hull, for example, is a successful college that has HE sections and FE sections. Warwickshire has merged a large number of colleges together, but it has not got rid of the place. It can therefore maintain community.

Going back to one of my earlier points, it is worth looking at the experience of places like Scotland. North East Scotland College has been a highly successful regional college group around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and it has campuses that are 40 miles apart and still work—it still succeeds. It is worth looking at those models, but it is about the objectives of the merger. There must be a clear post-merger integration plan, because that is where you are going to get more success, rather than just saying, “We need to knock this together to get a smaller number of colleges.”

Summer Adjournment

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling). As the proud owner of a collie-Staffie cross, now sadly deceased, I wish Watchman V well.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about something that happened today, and to which I alerted the House earlier in a point of order: the Government’s announcement, via a written statement—alongside 29 other written statements—of major increases in tuition fees for the year 2017-18. I want to speak in particular about the impact that it will have on students who either study in my constituency or come from my constituency and study elsewhere.

I think that the way the Government have dealt with this matter is thoroughly reprehensible. Only two days ago, we spent five or six hours in the Chamber debating the Higher Education and Research Bill. We engaged in a vigorous discussion of whether it was right to link fees to the Teaching Excellence Framework, but at no time during that process did Ministers take the opportunity to say anything about the issue. Today, however, it has been announced that from 2017-18, students at universities and colleges that pass a test, which I shall say more about in a moment, will pay £9,250 a year.

That underlines the fact that, as I said in the debate on Tuesday, the Teaching Excellence Framework is being used as a cash-in coupon. It demands no evidence of excellence in year 1; instead, it demands that providers achieve a “rating of Meets Expectations”. I think it would be mangling the English language to say that “Meets Expectations” is the same as achieving excellence, which is what the Teaching Excellence Framework is supposed to be about.

The Minister himself—the Minister for Universities and Science—spoke about the potential for increases in the debates on the Queen’s Speech:

“I can confirm that the rate of inflation applying to maximum fees for institutions demonstrating high-quality teaching is 2.8%.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 559.]

I am not suggesting that the Minister has been economical with the facts, or that the statement has been economical with the facts, but I think that making the link in that way could be regarded as being economical with the truth.

I said that I wanted to talk about the impact that the increase would have. It is not just a question of increasing the fees; it is also a question of increasing the loans by 2.8% to match that increase in the fees. That will, in due course, hit all the students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There are about half a million of them in the country, of whom nearly 34,000 are at further education colleges that provide higher education courses. Those colleges include my own excellent local college, Blackpool and the Fylde, whose higher education institute was built in 2008 with funds from the Labour Government. More than 2,800 students are now studying at the institute. Those students are now going to be hit by a double-whammy: not only will they have their grants taken away—and future students will as well—from 2017-18, and have to pay, as they knew, a fee of £9,000, but they are now going to have to pay 2.8% on top of that. If we are interested in getting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education, and in getting their contribution to local regional economies like the north-west’s, this is not the way to go about it.

Let me quote some other figures about students doing HE at FE colleges: there are 1,800 students in that position at Blackburn college, and 1,000 at the Manchester group of colleges. With regard to universities catering to large numbers of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, there are 14,000 students in this position at Manchester Met and 8,000-plus at Manchester University.

I have chosen those examples because they are all within the catchment area that young people in Blackpool who might not be able to go to a university or FE college further away are likely to choose. It really is not satisfactory to proceed in the way the Government have done. Apart from anything else, it will tarnish the reputation of the Teaching Excellence Framework, and it is not good for this House’s processes. This should have been discussed and voted on—it will be eventually—later in the year. Instead, the Minister had a golden opportunity to discuss it on Tuesday but failed to do so. Clearly, the Government did not feel that they had a very strong case.

I ask Members to reflect on not only the damage this is going to cause to the sorts of young people I am talking about, but the dangerous slope that we go down, and which we went down earlier this year, when major issues that are going to affect people are dealt with by statutory instrument. That is what is being indicated in the small print of the Government’s statement today.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that another announcement sneaked out by the Government today was the decision to abolish the student nurse bursaries, which again is going to have serious implications for social mobility in higher education and the health service?

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and very germane point, because the abolition of NHS bursaries in the round and their replacement by loans will have a similar dampening effect on social mobility, particularly in the north-west where there are large numbers of students and institutions—Edge Hill University and others in Chester and elsewhere—where students have been turned out very successfully for the benefit of our national health services, including in Blackpool. I can think of one member of my constituency Labour party who has gone down that route.

I want to end by juxtaposing all those issues and lives and careers I have talked about with the necessity to do proper process in this House. If we are going to make decisions like this, they should not be sneaked out in a written statement when Ministers do not have the opportunity to deal with any discussion or debate for at least six weeks.

I put this on the record to the duty Minister on the Front Bench: when this matter comes to the House for proper decision, I and, I am sure, many of my colleagues will expect it to be dealt with on the Floor of the House, not squirreled away in some statutory instrument along the Corridor.

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 General Committees

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951).

May I add my appreciation to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central at being able to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Percy?

The bundle of measures before the Committee are a miscellany, to put it politely, but at their heart is the proposal to scrap maintenance grant support for disadvantaged students and replace it with a loan system. I will address the specifics of the regulations shortly, but for now I observe that the policy change is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern that is also happening across other areas of Government. It is mirrored by the changes that were debated in the House on Monday, which removed NHS bursaries for nurses and other staff, and it has been foreshadowed by changes that the Government have made to education support and protection over the past three to four years. That included, of course, the scrapping of 24-plus loans in further education, which is particularly relevant to the case before us today.

As the Minister will be aware, the Government released figures in October 2015 showing clear evidence of the deterrent impact on learners that I and others warned about when loans were introduced as replacements for grants in January 2013. The figures showed that in 2014-15, only £149 million of the £397 million allocated for the process had been taken up, or 62% less. Not surprisingly, people in the further education community lamented the lost opportunity of £250 million that could have helped some of our most disadvantaged learners. With that in mind, my first question to the Minister is whether he took any of those figures into account, particularly their impact on older learners, when formulating the proposals in these regulations.

The truth of the matter is that the Government have ducked and dived to avoid further debate on their direction of travel, and particularly on freezing the threshold, which is not specifically part of these regulations, although it is referred to in the assessment that comes with them. We have seen how they have dealt with the regulations before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has referred eloquently to the failure to bring the debate to the Floor of the House, but I also draw to the Committee’s attention the equality impact assessment that the Government have produced, which is on the table at the back of the room. It runs to some 60 pages, so I am not sure how many Members will have the opportunity to consider it in detail today if they have not read it already. The equality impact assessment was slipped out without ceremony at the end of November, and it came out only after a campaign and legal moves.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

That was several weeks ago.

[Mr Marsden]

Well, there might have been weeks to read it if the Government had actually made it available, but they did not.

This is the document that almost dare not speak its name, not least because the detailed evidence of impact tucked away in its pages, to which I will refer later, is belied by the bland conclusions appended to it that it will be all right on the night. What is driving panic measures such as the threshold freeze is the Government’s dawning recognition that their whole set of financial assumptions about repayment in other areas that underpinned their swingeing fees increases is producing a black hole for them and for future taxpayers.

Mr Percy, I am sure that you and those of us who have been here under all sorts of Governments will have observed the rule of thumb in this place that there are two ways for Ministers and their advisers to present and package things that they feel might be unpalatable. One is to bundle in the controversial bits with more technical or anodyne measures that might lull the reader into a false sense of security. Here is an example of such wording in the impact assessment:

“The following maximum grants and loans for living and other costs will be maintained at 2015/16 levels in 2016/17”.

Another way is to entitle the document innocuously, to increase the camouflage. Both methods have been employed on this occasion.

This is not a bit of incidental tinkering with existing financial regulations. It represents a major departure and reversal of policy, only four years after the Government hailed maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds as an essential element in their strategy for fairness and in the acceptance of tripled tuition fees. I am afraid the measures are typical of the ideology-driven but evidence-light approach that this Government too often employ. They will affect probably 500,000 of England’s most disadvantaged students and define their futures for good or ill. Has the Minister made, or had given to him, any breakdown, geographical or otherwise, of that total figure and its impact on higher education institutions? If not, why not?

The statistics about those institutions helpfully provided to me by the House of Commons Library amount to a Domesday Book listing the numbers of students who will lose their grant under the new rules. Institutions in all parts of the country will be affected, both old universities and new ones. Further education colleges will be affected, of course, because they make an increasingly valuable contribution, 10% and more, to higher education for the group of people affected. Of course—this is not irrelevant in today’s circumstances—Scottish students who are taking courses at English universities will be affected.

There are a number of disadvantaged students studying at higher education colleges, and the Association of Colleges tells me that many of the colleges that deliver higher education are in northern towns—Blackpool and Blackburn are cited. Cornwall and the south-west also help to provide the large number of places at HE colleges. The association has said in specific response to these regulations, “We have real concerns about the proposed change as many of the students may never earn enough to pay back the money and the policy does appear to penalise poorer students. The new system therefore needs careful monitoring to ensure it is as fair as possible.”

These changes will affect significant numbers of students, from the north to the south. On the basis of the figures for 2014-15, for example, 14,728 students at Manchester Met University will be affected; 8,167 at the University of Manchester; 1,527 at my own excellent further education college, Blackpool and The Fylde College; 10,924 at Nottingham Trent University; 4,897 at Bournemouth; and 3,738 at King’s College. The other institutions that I have not had the opportunity to mention are far from incidental. The list will be a roll-call of lost opportunities if this issue is not handled carefully.

However, despite this being such a major issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has observed the Government have refused to bring the changes to the Floor of the House and prefer to try to sneak them through the delegated legislation route, whereby it can be debated and voted on by only a handful of MPs. As he said, there is cross-party support on the issue.

Importantly, the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), in her letter to the Secretary of State explaining why there needed to be a full debate on these measures, wrote that scrapping maintenance grants for lower income students and replacing them with loans would have a regressive impact and should therefore receive further scrutiny from Members of Parliament. That was why she went on to call for a debate on these measures in Government time. She also made the practical point, which I will come on to, that the change would not improve Government finances in the long term, and she also made the link with the adverse impact of freezing student loan repayment, which I have touched on briefly.

Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State did not deal adequately with any of those points in his reply? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has asked, will the Minister also explain why his Department has ignored the words of the Leader of the House in December and is prepared to break the precedent of debates in the House under these circumstances?

Turning to the impact of the regulations, of course we can only speculate on the future cohorts of people who come in, but we have some reason to make those speculations on the basis of existing experience. The National Education Opportunities Network, which is the professional organisation for widening access to education in England, and the University and College Union are currently undertaking research with more than 2,000 final-year A-level and level 3 students to look at how costs influence the HE choices they make. The interim findings from that research show that more than half the students who are deciding not to go into HE are taking that decision because of the lack of direct financial maintenance grant support that they had envisaged for the year ahead. If research suggests that a large number of students are deciding not to go to university due to that lack of support, why are the Government risking even more students dropping out by introducing the regulations?

A study by economists at the Institute of Education in 2014 showed that a £1,000 increase in grants would create a 3.95% increase in participation, and that the removal of grants would see participation levels fall. In fact, the institute said that it should also be of grave concern that more than a third of students had told a recent survey that they would not have chosen to go to university if they had not had access to maintenance grants. Does the Minister not fear a severe drop in participation levels, given that statistics indicate that the accessibility of a maintenance grant is a deciding factor for many when choosing whether to go into higher education? His equality assessment, which has been circulated, as I have said, states:

“At an aggregate level there is currently no evidence that the 2012 reforms, which saw a significant increase in HE fees and associated student debt levels has had a significant impact in deterring the participation of young students from low income backgrounds.”

That is debatable, because the safety net of maintenance grants, introduced in 2012 with that tripling of fees, is now being removed.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote in her letter praying against the regulations:

“Labour are concerned that this change won’t improve Government finances in the long-term.”

Hon. Members might say, “You would say that, wouldn’t you?” but perhaps more cogent is the view of the Institute for Fiscal Studies:

“The replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016–17 will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve government finances in the long run.”

The IFS states that in the short term, Government borrowing will drop

“by around £2 billion per year. This is because current spending on grants counts towards current borrowing, while current spending on loans does not.

In the long run, savings will be much less than this. The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3 billion for each cohort, but only around a quarter of these additional loans will be repaid. The net effect is to reduce government borrowing by around £270 million per cohort in the long run in 2016 money—a 3% decline in the government’s estimated contribution to higher education.

About two-thirds of those eligible for the full maintenance grant will repay no more as a result of this reform because they will end up with the additional debt being written off.”

There is the rub. Will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the Treasury about the accuracy of those predictions, and why his Department is embarking on a leap in the dark that will, as the IFS makes clear, diminish the contribution to higher education and do little to address the black hole?

The IFS states:

“Students from households with pre-tax incomes of up to £25,000 (those currently eligible for a full maintenance grant) will have a little more “cash in pocket” whilst at university. But they will also graduate with around £12,500 more debt, on average, from a three-year course. This means that students from the poorest backgrounds are now likely to leave university owing substantially more to the government than their better-off peers.”

It also states:

“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.

The removal of those grants threatens access to higher education and, importantly, follows on from the removal of the national scholarship programme, which was designed to help students from low-income households. The programme has been scrapped, just as the Government are doing to maintenance grants.

In 2012, when the Government tripled tuition fees, they tried to sweeten the pill by talking up the centrality of the maintenance grant to ensuring that the most disadvantaged could still access higher education.

“The increase in maintenance grant for students from household with the lowest incomes, the National Scholarship Programme, and additional fair access requirements on institutions wanting to charge over £6,000 in graduate contributions should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately.”

That is what the Conservative-led Government said in 2011-12 through the Minister’s predecessor, but the regulations will disadvantage the same groups of students the Government promised to protect two years ago. In June 2011, the Minister’s predecessor, David Willetts, pledged in Parliament:

“We want students from a wide range of backgrounds to benefit from the reforms. We are increasing maintenance grants and loans for nearly all students”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 770.]

He had previously defended the measure as a quid pro quo for the trebling of tuition fees, saying:

“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant, and because of the higher repayment threshold. That crucial commitment to taking progressive measures is one of the reasons we commend these proposals to the House.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]

Does the Minister accept that the Government have now broken both those promises? His colleague, who is now Lord Willetts, must be revolving in his ermine at the way his promises have been so lightly regarded by the Government.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a bit of a non sequitur in what he says? On one hand he says that the debt will be increased, but on the other he says that it will be written off. If both propositions are true, there should be no detrimental effect on the students involved.

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Lady needs to look more carefully at the differential impacts. The point that I, and I am sure my hon. Friends, would make about this is that debt aversion depends on where someone is coming from. It is perfectly possible to have a situation with those common factors. It is not, however, at all clear from any of the evidence that has been put forward that that would not be a significant disincentive.

I was talking about the things that were said previously: those words will do little to enhance the Government’s alleged commitment to increasing social mobility. The Government and their predecessors set great store by the principle of “nudge”—actions that persuade people to change their behaviour for the better. I remind the Minister that is possible to nudge people away from desirable outcomes such as getting higher education, rather than towards them. The question that the Minister and his colleagues must answer is what attention they have devoted in the regulations, which are highly specific, to preventing that.

A new BIS study included in the impact statement by the Government says that more than half the applicants said they felt put off by the cost of university. Also, for poorer applicants, tuition fee loans and the income-contingent repayment threshold were more important in persuading them to apply, despite the costs. However, the Government seriously underestimate the effect that the grant and the cost of universities have on student decisions. That is backed up by what the Sutton Trust has said:

“Shifting grants to loans may move them off the balance sheet, but it could also put off many low and middle income students and tip the balance against their going to university. Since grants were reintroduced, there have been significant improvements”—

and we welcome that—

“in participation from full time less advantaged students, and this will be put at risk by today’s Budget plans.

The reality is that the Government has miscalculated the levels of repayments it will get from its student loans under the new fees system. Rather than penalising poorer students, it should have a fundamental review of the repayments system. We need long term solutions not a short term fix.”

Research from the NUS that was published yesterday by Populus shows that parents are concerned that the Government’s plans to scrap the maintenance grant will discourage their children from applying to university. Two fifths of those with a combined income of £25,000 or less believe that their children would be discouraged from applying to university if grants were replaced by loans. More than half the parents believed that the plan to scrap grants undermined the Government’s objective of increasing access to university for poorer students.

I want to deal with some other surveys that have been conducted. The changes may well pile even more pressure on to students to alter their work-study balance while pursuing a degree. According to the 2015 Endsleigh survey, produced by a company that has specialised in the area for many years, already 77% of students must work to help fund their studies, using time that could be spent on academic work. That already high number looks set to increase further with the removal of maintenance grants.

The Government claim that they want to strengthen our skills base and that they have given more support for postgraduates. The initial steps that were announced on that are welcome; but there is a risk that they will be undercut because of the debt aversion of the group of students who will lose their grants. The NUS found that after a student finished their undergraduate degree, access to a maintenance grant could also influence their post-study choices.

I want to turn my attention to the specifics of the equality impact assessment that BIS produced for the regulations. It concedes, for example, that black and minority ethnic students, in particular, will be disproportionately worse off than others following the removal of maintenance grants:

“We believe that the proposed changes will disproportionately affect people from ethnic minority backgrounds. This is based on evidence of debt aversion in this group and the increased likelihood for these students to receive the full maintenance grant. We have assessed that there is a small risk to the participation of students”—

given participation rates—

“both from high and low socio-economic backgrounds”.

Additionally, there is risk to the outcomes of these students if they choose not to take out the additional loan available.”

However, a recent BIS study also stated that non-white applicants were likely to cite the importance of maintenance grants in overcoming their concerns about costs. Thus the removal of the maintenance grant will seriously discourage BME students from attending HE institutions.

There is potentially bad news for older learners as well. The equality analysis states:

“Mature students will be disproportionately impacted by the policy proposals to remove the full maintenance grant and replace with additional loan as well as the freezing of targeted grants. The proportion of students aged 21 and over that claim maintenance grant support is significantly higher than their representation in the population of all student support claimants. The available evidence points to the cost sensitivity and debt averseness of this group. The policy change presents a risk for the participation of older students in higher education.”

The assessment has worrying words for disabled students as well:

“As for all students from low income backgrounds we expect the risk to participation of low income disabled students…to continue to be mitigated by the high average returns to HE investment and the repayment protection for low earning graduates.”

That, of course, assumes that current ratios quoted in that respect will remain the same with the massive expansion of the cohort entering full-time work in the next 10 to 15 years. There is no evidence whatever on that.

However, the Government have conceded in the assessment that disabled people will also be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect the real value of disabled students’ allowances. The assessment says:

“Students from low income backgrounds will be able to access DSA at same level in cash terms but may be disproportionately affected by the freezing (real terms reduction)”—

a term the Government were reluctant to use at the beginning of the equality impact assessment—

“of DSAs and dependants grants.”

For all of the groups that I have cited so far, I and the rest of the Committee want to know what the Government propose to do to mitigate those disproportionate impacts, which their own equality impact assessment so candidly concedes will be the case.

In addition, there is the separate worrying implication that a significant number of would-be students may be discriminated against under these regulations because of their religious beliefs. The impact assessment states:

“There is evidence to suggest that there are groups of Muslim students whose religion prohibits them from taking out an interest bearing loan. This means that this group of students will no longer have access to funding for living costs as non-repayable finance is no longer available. This could lead to a decline in the participation of some Muslim students.”

The complacency about the failure to have available a sharia-compliant alternative to grants that will be withdrawn borders on discrimination. Does the Minister agree that the regulations as they stand will restrict Muslim students from accessing valuable finance, while the removal of grants threatens to weaken further their ability and capacity to carry through their higher education studies?

The Government claim that they are making an alternative to traditional loans available that is sharia-compliant, but it is not there yet, is it, Minister? Yet the Government have known about the issue since April 2014. Will the Minister guarantee that the change will not be implemented until there are firm regulations in law for an alternative finance proposal that will be acceptable to people of the Muslim faith?

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I want to share my own example, because these matters are often seen as hypothetical. I started my undergraduate degree in 1990, the first year that voluntary loans were introduced. I did not take one of those because Muslim students are very risk-averse and debt-averse and do not want to carry interest-bearing loans. Does my hon. Friend agree that these are real people, not just hypothetical examples?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely real point. We are not just dealing with statistics—although the statistics of potential discrimination and deprivation are frightening—we are dealing with lots of individual case histories. In the area my hon. Friend mentioned, she precisely underlined why the Government need to get a grip on that particular issue, which they have not so far.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I, too, want to talk about a real situation. I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but, as somebody who failed my 12-plus, came from a very low-income family, went through university, just missed out on a grant, went to bar school, took out loans, worked all the way through it and was able to do so, I find it somewhat patronising to be told that it is not possible to do that. These loans will not be paid back before the person is earning. If they are earning money, it seems only fair that they give something back so that more people from backgrounds such as mine can go to university.

[Mr Marsden]

It is always dangerous to draw general a conclusion from ad hominem examples. I and other Members of this House can quote lots of examples. I can quote examples from my casework of people who have come to me at a later age who have been deterred. The onus is on the Government when making these changes to demonstrate that they will work, not by making ad hominem arguments—however much I applaud the hon. Gentleman for doing what he did to get to where he is today—but by looking at the broad statistics and the analysis that has been put forward today.

[Lucy Frazer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Marsden]

I will not take another intervention from the hon. Lady. She has had one. [Interruption.] I did answer the first. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to speak later if she wishes to.

The equality analysis makes reference to the damaging effect that the proposed regulations will have on female students. As my colleague, the shadow Equalities Minister, said to me, the changes will have an unfair impact on women—especially mothers. When the Government increased fees, the number of mature students fell, so I think we can expect exactly the same effect with these loans. The impact assessment also states that female students will be particularly affected by the freeze to childcare grants, parents’ learning allowances and ESAs, given their significant over-representation in these populations. What action does the Minister plan to take to protect female students from the cumulative negative impact that the change could have on their ability to pursue higher education?

Those details from the Government’s own impact assessment should surely give them pause for thought, given that they threaten to affect the most debt-averse groups. Worryingly, it appears that the Government are yet to produce an up-to-date estimate of the impact that the shift from grants to loans will have on the resource accounting and budgeting charge, which calculates the cost to the Government of the higher education funding system, based on—this is relevant to the issues that other Members raised—how much students are expected ultimately to repay of their loans.

In November, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), asked about that issue in a written question. She received the following bland reply:

“This estimate will be updated in Summer 2016, alongside publication of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills accounts.”

Given, as I have already emphasised, the IFS’s scepticism about the savings that the changes will make, will the Minister tell us why his Department did not obtain an up-to-date estimate before proposing the changes? Is that not a dereliction of duty on a key question, both for sound government finance and for cost-benefit analysis? Summer 2016 will be way too late, as by that time the new regulations could have deprived 500,000 or so young people of their grants and set a potentially perilous alternative in motion. This Government proposal was not in the Conservative party manifesto. For all those reasons, I and my colleagues will vote that the proposal has not been adequately considered.

[The Chair]

There is only an hour left. I will call the Minister towards the end of the debate, and, as Mr Marsden indicated that he would like to respond, he will have five minutes at the end. Many Members wish to speak, so I ask that they limit their speeches as much as possible so that we can get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy. I welcome the chance to set out the case for this statutory instrument, which details the higher education student support arrangements for the 2016-17 academic year. It is, as hon. Members said, an important instrument, and its provisions touch on some of the principles that guide the Government’s higher education policies.

The instrument includes an increase in loans for living costs for current full-time students, as well as a number of policy and technical changes to ensure that the student finance system remains fair. The most significant provision is the change to the student support package for new students, and I will devote the majority of my remarks to this.

Before discussing the content of the instrument, I would like to clarify the parliamentary process—an issue raised by a number of Opposition Members. Changes to student support are made annually through secondary legislation, through amendments to the Education (Student Support) Regulations 2011. There are a number of hon. Members here who are not able to vote in the Committee, but who have none the less made valuable contributions to this important debate, illustrating the fact that Parliament is having an opportunity to examine this measure.

These regulations are made under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was passed under the previous Labour Government. Today’s Delegated Legislation Committee therefore follows the procedure agreed by Parliament. This debate follows an early-day motion in the Commons, and I understand that the other place will also get the chance to consider this instrument following the tabling of a motion yesterday by Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

[Mr Marsden]

I share other Opposition Members’ respect for the Minister and I sense that he is in a dilemma because he is not entirely comfortable with this process. He is trying to justify it by saying that it is due custom and practice. He is absolutely right about that, but any Government have the ability to break due custom and practice. I know that only too well, because I sat in this House in 2006, when we had the great casino debate. That measure was obviously going to affect Blackpool and could have been brought to a Delegated Legislation Committee, but because of the strength of feeling on the matter in the House, the Government of the day allowed a 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House. If we can debate casinos on the Floor of the House for 90 minutes, why cannot we debate this issue?

[Joseph Johnson]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we are following due custom and practice. I will carry on explaining the Government’s intentions in bringing this instrument before the Committee.

The instrument provides that those students beginning courses in 2016-17 will qualify for increased loans for their living costs while studying, instead of maintenance grants. An eligible student whose family income is £25,000 or less and who is living away from home and studying outside London will qualify for up to 10.3% more living costs support in 2016-17 than they would receive under current arrangements. That is an additional £766 of support, and that increase in support for living costs has been called for by individual students. Indeed, the 2012 report by the National Union of Students entitled “The Pound In Your Pocket” indicated that there are two main considerations for students when deciding whether to go to university. The first is whether they have the means to meet their costs when needed, and the second is whether the eventual benefits of higher education will outweigh the costs. With these regulations, we are ensuring that students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have access to more support than ever before. Students understand the value of obtaining a degree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

We published the full equality impact assessment on 5 December, which, in reference to the earlier comments made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South, gave the Committee plenty of time to analyse it and go through it closely before today’s meeting. The Government have been fully transparent with respect to the equality impact assessment.

[Mr Marsden]

On a point of order, Mr Percy. The Minister is playing with words in terms of 5 December. Actually, the date on the impact assessment is November, so obviously they got it out even later. The fact of the matter is that the membership of this Committee, with the exception of himself and myself, was drawn up only a few days ago, so how Members could be expected to know that they would need to look at it in December is another matter.

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think it is more a point of debate, and he has made his point on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

I thank all my hon. Friends, and Government Back-Bench Members, for their contributions. I am sorry that time does not permit me to draw more on them. I want to make two or three points before we close. First, the Minister moved into very broad territory at the end that was not related to these Committee proceedings at all. I put a list of specific questions to him, not least on the sharia issue. I hope that replies to those questions will be forthcoming promptly for the sake of all Committee members, particularly the Government Members who have expressed concerns.

Let us be straightforward: nobody is accusing the Minister—I certainly am not—of having bad faith in this matter, or of not wanting to proceed in a proper and progressive manner, but there is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If we will the ends of social mobility, we must also will the means. The whole point that we have made in this debate is that this process was not in the manifesto. Frankly, I thought that what he said about the generalised point was fairly risible; I thought it was only the Chancellor of the Exchequer who worked on the principle “Always read the small print, even if it’s not there.” I hope that the Minister will not follow that particular principle.

The truth of the matter is that if the Government stretch the process and nudge people away for too long, the envelope being stretched will eventually be broken. That is what we are saying. If the Minister and his colleagues are so confident about their policies, why did they not bring them to the Floor of the House? More to the point, why did they not consult independent experts and various representative organisations? Why did they not commission some research from any of the reputable independent policy bodies?

Last month, with a number of other MPs, I sat in this corridor listening to the hundreds of students who came to lobby us. Their message was a constant one: scrapping maintenance grants will leave people struggling to go to university. Incidentally, when the Minister answers, I hope that he will answer the points made by Opposition Members about the Barnett consequentials.

If the Minister and his colleagues believe in their case, why have they not brought it to the Floor of the House? There is an old saying that a speaker who knows he has been given a poor brief marks the paper at a certain part of his response, “Argument weak here—shout like mad”. The Minister is a courteous man, so shouting like mad is probably not on his agenda, but the brief that he has been given has simply folded up the Government’s tents. The proposals should have been made to the whole House, and no amount of the bravura and bluster that the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in the House yesterday while dodging his question about the grants will alter that fact.

We have talked about consequences. We have talked about our own experiences. I was a tutor for the Open University for 20 years, and I know that the experience of many of the students whom I taught was that they had been put off higher education at an earlier age by the costs. Such things do not alter just because we are in the digital world of the 21st century. I appeal to the Minister to think again, to consider specifically the issues brought today and, for goodness’ sake, if he really thinks that he has a good argument, to put it on the Floor of the House.

Consumer Rights Bill

Gordon Marsden Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

There are already criminal elements to what we are talking about. What we are talking about in this legislation is the information provided to a consumer—this is, after all, a consumer rights Bill—that could help address the problems caused by ticket touting, and it reflects the work being done by the all-party group. [Interruption.] Well, this is a separate issue about what we can do for consumers, and with that in mind I want to move on to new clause 22 because, as I have said, there is a lucky dip element to the amendments before us and it is about letting fees.

I pay tribute to the work done in this area by my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East. I see first hand in my constituency the problems caused by increasingly difficult access to housing and affordable housing, particularly within the private rented sector. We know that 9 million people in England are living in rented homes and they are paying on average over £1,000 more a year in rent than they did in 2010. That is why we have to reform the private rented sector. The costs that people are facing are unsustainable. I have families in my constituency spending between 60% and 70% of their monthly income on rent alone. They cannot make ends meet.

There is a wider debate to be had about the length of tenancies and the levels of rent, but this amendment, like the previous amendments I was speaking to, relates to consumer legislation, and in particular the specific issue of fees and whether they should be charged.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The issue my hon. Friend is outlining, and that our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the current shadow Housing Minister, has raised, is very important. It is particularly an issue for us in Blackpool and many other seaside towns, where, because of degrees of internal transience, some families have to move two or three times a year. That exacerbates the whole issue of letting fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

If I have a ticket to the Lords test match, for example, or to the rugby world cup final, and I go into my local pub and someone says to me, “It is my lifetime ambition to go there, I would give £4,000 for a ticket,” what is wrong with my saying that I will give up my ticket and they can go instead? Everybody is happy, nobody has lost out, but Labour want to interfere with people’s aspirations. Why should that be banned? If someone does not want to pay the higher price, they should not pay it. Nobody is forced to pay the inflated prices if they do not want to.

If the secondary sale of tickets bothers event promoters so much, why do they not do something practical to stop it? Why sell all the tickets in one go, for example? Why not hold them back? Why put them all on sale so that they are sold within 43 seconds, meaning that they can be resold at inflated prices? If promoters are so bothered, why not sell tickets bit by bit, week by week, month by month so that there are still tickets available the week before the event? That would remove the secondary ticketing market, but they choose not to do it. That can only lead me to presume that the event organisers are shedding crocodile tears, as they are happy to get all the money from the tickets being snapped up.

An ICM poll showed that 83% agreed with the premise:

“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it to just as I can any other private property.”

[Mr Marsden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way.

This situation is very similar to the one I experienced when I was at Asda and we broke the net book agreement. Publishers had the right to set the price of books and nobody could undercut it, but Asda went to court and broke that agreement so now books can be sold at any price the retailer wants. It seems to me that Labour wants to go back to a time when publishers of books could set the price for books and ticket providers could set the price for tickets and nobody could do anything about it.

New clause 12, which guarantees that an event organiser must give somebody a refund up to 24 hours before an event, is essential if the Opposition want to get their way. If they want to ban somebody from selling on a ticket for the rugby world cup final, the only option for somebody who has bought a ticket and cannot go would be a refund. On too many occasions, event organisers will not allow refunds for events so what on earth is the customer supposed to do in such circumstances? The Opposition will not support insisting that they get a refund and they want to ban them from selling the ticket on, so somebody will be left with a ticket that they can do absolutely nothing with. How on earth can that be in the best interest of the consumer?

On the subject of the rugby world cup final, if people from New Zealand buy a lot of tickets for the final in the expectation that their team will get there only for it to be knocked out in the semi-final, we need a mechanism by which those fans can sell on their tickets to the fans of the team that will be in the final instead. It seems that the Opposition have not even thought about that prospect. The secondary market in tickets is an efficient way of getting tickets from one group of people to another so that the real fans can go. If Labour had its way, the real fans would not be able to go because they would be blocked from using any mechanism to get there.

I want to concentrate on new clause 13, which says:

“All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.”

For the purposes of the new clause, I have defined a food outlet as

“anywhere where food is served to the public.”

I have done that because I specifically wanted to include places such as schools and hospitals, as I think many parents and patients are concerned about food that they do not know the provenance or background of, and that information is important to them.