School Funding

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and, equally, to see so many colleagues from both sides of the House filling the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon. It shows the strength of feeling on fairer funding for schools and that many colleagues want to see a fair and just system.

I want to place on the record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for the debate. The issue has support from more than 110 colleagues from both sides of the House; only a fortnight ago they signed a letter to the Prime Minister championing fairer funding for schools.

The premise of fair school funding awarded in accordance with a rational formula assessed on the basis of pupil need is a simple one and, one might think, uncontroversial. That statement, however, falls a long way short of the reality in England. The Association of School and College Leaders has calculated that this year the 10 best-funded areas will receive an average schools block grant of £6,300 per pupil, compared with an average of only £4,200 per pupil in the 10 most poorly funded areas. For a typical secondary school of 920 students, that equates to a budget of £5.8 million in the best-funded areas and £3.9 million in the least well-funded areas—a difference of £1.9 million in a relatively small secondary school.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member on Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)? She is of the view that the existing formula is wrong, is unsustainable and needs to be changed, and she is consulting on that. Does he agree that the Government should be congratulated on being prepared to look at the matter? Furthermore, does he agree that Conservative Members seem to be pushing against a door that is, if not fully open, certainly ajar?

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend met the Secretary of State. The delivery of fairer school funding was of course a manifesto undertaking by the Conservative party at the most recent general election and, I hope, played a part in securing the majority that our party enjoys in this Parliament.

Education and Adoption Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19, page 8, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State shall lay an annual report before Parliament on the use of the power to give directions under subsection (1), which shall include information on—

(a) how often directions were given;

(b) the safeguards put in place to ensure that voluntary agencies were not adversely affected by actions of local authorities or agencies complying with directions given and an assessment of the impact of the actions and the effectiveness of the safeguards;

(c) the impact of the directions on models of care other than adoption for children in the areas covered by the directions; and

(d) the extent and adequacy of provisions that have been put in place to ensure that post-adoption support, including in respect of mental health, is available for the children and adoptive parents who have dealt with a local authority or agency carrying out the functions within subsection (3) on behalf of a local authority, following directions from the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament containing information about how she has exercised the power given to her in Clause 13 and the safeguards she has put in place to protect voluntary agencies, other models of care and the provision of post-adoption support.

In Committee, the Labour Opposition sought to persuade the Minister that it was wrong of the Secretary of State to take executive power that would lead to fundamental changes in the country’s adoption arrangements without further reference to Parliament. Indeed, we sought to persuade him that such power should be subject to parliamentary orders, rather than under the right to give directions conferred by the Bill. I accept that we were defeated on that argument in Committee, so today I want to focus on safeguards.

If the Secretary of State is given unfettered power to intervene in our adoption arrangements, it is surely right that she should report to Parliament annually on the way in which she has sought to exercise that power and on its impact. In particular, she should report on the impact on voluntary adoption agencies, the whole area of children in care and the question of support for adopted children and their parents, especially in relation to mental health issues, which a great many people and child welfare organisations consider a major cause of concern.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is this proposal not unnecessarily bureaucratic? If something went seriously wrong, surely the facts would be in the public domain anyway.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The adjudicator could look into whether practices were all fair and whether the code had been properly complied with. Depending on the circumstances, competition law may also be relevant. The companies would have to assure themselves that any restrictions that they were placing were compliant with competition law. Through the new code and the adjudicator we will make sure that there is somebody who can look into the circumstances and arbitrate on whether what is being offered is fair and compliant with the statutory code.

For completeness, I shall touch on three other important areas of debate both here and in the other place where the Government have made important commitments to use existing powers in the Bill. On Report in this House, I committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the pubs code. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed that the Government would use the power in clause 68 to exclude from the code tied pubs that are operated on short-term tenancy at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. We intend to consult on the length of the period for exemption.

Hon. Members will remember that pub franchise agreements are in scope of our measures. They are, after all, tied pub agreements and share many of the characteristics of traditional tied pubs. Nevertheless, consistent calls have been made in both Houses to exempt certain franchise agreements from the code, or at least from MRO, if they do not charge rent and the price of products does not affect the tenant’s share of income. After much consideration, my noble Friend the Minister announced in the other place that the Government will use the power in clause 68 to exempt genuine franchises from the MRO provisions. The remaining code protections—for example, in respect of transparency—will still apply.

Given the differences between traditional tied pubs and genuine franchise agreements, we consider this a reasonable exemption. We will consult on the precise definition of “genuine franchise”, but we expect it to include criteria such as where a turnover fee rather than a rent is paid by the tenant and the share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products. This is important as these criteria can mean that the tenant’s interests are arguably more aligned with those of the pub company because both rely on a fixed proportion of turnover. The tenant in such circumstances does not face the combination of the wet and dry rent, as tenants do in traditional agreements.

There are other agreements in the industry which may be marketed as a pub franchise that display elements common to franchises in other sectors, such as common branding. But if they charge tenants a tied rent in the traditional way, they are not inherently fairer than a tied pub agreement. The consultation will allow us to set out the criteria for a genuine franchise.

In addition, I should clarify that where a franchise pub falls within the definition of a tied pub in clause 65, it will count towards the number of tied pubs that a company owns for the purposes of the 500 tied pub threshold. This will ensure that we do not create a loophole in the legislation. Furthermore, the Government would be able to amend the regulations should there be attempts to use this exemption as a means of avoiding the legislation.

Next, I come to the matter of investment. Hon. Members will recall that Government committed to avoiding unintended consequences in introducing this legislation. In the other place, and in discussions with stakeholders, concerns were raised as to whether investment in tied pubs could be discouraged because of uncertainty as to whether a tied tenant might trigger MRO. Views vary as to the extent of this risk to investment, but the Government consider that we should act to minimise any risk. We want to ensure that investment in pubs can take place and that pubs thrive. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House.

The Bill as drafted does not prevent pub companies from issuing a tenant with a new lease alongside an offer of investment, and no amendment to the Bill is necessary to enable companies to do so. This would, in effect, provide a waiver from the rent review and renewal MRO triggers for five years. However, the Government recognise that significant investments may warrant a longer period of return on investment. My noble Friend the Minister therefore announced in the other place that the Government will use existing powers in clause 41 to set out in the code different rent assessment periods for different amounts of substantial capital investment offered. This will have the effect of deferring the rent assessment trigger for MRO for a longer period. It is important to note, though, that the other MRO triggers—that of a significant price increase and an economic event that impacts on a tenant’s trade—will remain throughout the deferral period.

Alongside setting out the deferral periods for different levels of investment, the secondary legislation will set out important safeguards for tenants—for example, to ensure that they accept an investment offer only after taking proper advice and that they cannot be pressurised. This is an area where both sides of the debate recognise that the need to enable investment and the need to protect tenants must go hand in hand. It is important that we can consult fully on the details so that we get it right.

These commitments regarding exemptions for certain tenancy at will, temporary and franchise agreements, and for a deferral of MRO in return for substantial investment, are not on the face of the Bill. They will be set out in secondary legislation after full public consultation.

I shall touch briefly on a number of technical amendments in this group before turning to the second issue in the group. Amendments 34 to 37 are technical clarifications to the “no worse off” and “fair and lawful dealing” principles. The key change is to make it clear that tied pub tenants should not be worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie. Amendments 35, 36, 38, 42 and 48 to 54 are consequential on the changes made to clause 66 in this House to exclude family brewers from the provisions. This change means the legislation will apply only to a pub-owning business with 500 or more tied pubs. There are further minor technical amendments, on which I refer honourable Members to the explanatory notes for a fuller explanation.

Finally, amendments 136, 137, 138, 140 and 141 relate to adjudicator staffing and the point that I made earlier in response to the hon. Gentleman. They amend schedule 1 to enable the adjudicator to second staff from any source, in addition to the existing power in the Bill for the adjudicator to second from the public sector. The aim is to provide the necessary flexibility for the adjudicator to find suitable staff from a wider pool.

I am sure the House will agree that throughout our debates in both Houses all the pubs measures have been thoroughly scrutinised. Incorporating the market rent only option into the Bill in the limited time available to us and ensuring that it will work in practice has not been easy, but I believe that we have produced legislation that promises to be effective as well as targeted and proportionate. Crucially, these measures mark an historic moment for tied tenants of pub-owning companies. They will have the protections of a statutory code with a powerful and independent adjudicator to enforce that code. That the measures have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, CAMRA, Fair Pint and others is testament to that, so I hope the House will agree to the amendments.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I understand that the provisions on staff secondment require the Secretary of State’s approval. Can my hon. Friend give the House an example of the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might refuse such approval?

[Jo Swinson]

Clearly, the intention is to make sure that the adjudicator is able to recruit staff with the requisite expertise and experience, not only from the public sector pool. That is an important change and we have learned from the legislation that we have in place for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Understandable concerns were raised in Committee about whether staff would come with vested interests. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that everybody can have confidence in the staff who are seconded, and to ensure that up-to-date experience of industry does not entail a conflict of interest.

On amendment 86 and the important matter of pay transparency, I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for this amendment to the employment part of the Bill that was introduced in the other place. We have already legislated in this Parliament to ensure that companies which directly discriminate against women in pay matters can be required by a tribunal to complete a gender pay audit, as well as to pay compensation. The new provision requires the next Government to make regulations under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Section 78 requires mandatory reporting of gender pay information by larger companies.

It is 45 years since the Equal Pay Act, and although the gender pay gap is at its lowest ever level and has been virtually eliminated for full-time workers under the age of 40, it is simply not acceptable that in 2015 we still have a gender pay gap at all. We are determined to eliminate it entirely.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I do not think that there is any need to add to that observation.

When people work on a regular basis, that has to be accepted and provided for. That is what amendment 10 would do. If somebody genuinely does not want a permanent contract, nobody is saying that it should be forced on them. Amendment 10 says that people should be offered such a contract. If there really are all those people out there who would not want a permanent contract instead—I have to say that I doubt it—they would, of course, be free to turn it down.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there could be circumstances in which amendment 10 would affect an employer unfairly? For example, there is a requirement that if someone has had so many hours of continuous work in previous weeks, they can insist on the same number of hours in the future. What will that mean for people who work in the entertainment industry and those who work in a job that is seasonal, such as a job at the seaside, where there is a demand for continuous weeks for a certain period, but that comes to an end?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I cannot see any reason why somebody should not have a seasonal, fixed-term contract for a particular period. We are talking about people working week after week without knowing what work they will be given. That means that they cannot plan for their caring responsibilities and so on, and as they do not know what money is coming in, they find financial planning, such as budgeting for paying their bills, difficult. This is not about somebody working on Brighton pier over the summer season, and I do not think that the situation is comparable with a zero-hours contract. Using such jobs as reasons for continuing a harmful system is not a good idea.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Banks]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have seen larger businesses behave in a way that smaller businesses would never ever dream of doing. They might say, “We only take purchase ledger calls on Tuesdays and Friday mornings.” If a firm cannot get through on a Tuesday to ask about a cheque or an invoice, no one will take its call until Friday. The other issue about resources is valid too. I have worked in business since 1986, and have found that cash monitoring and cash control can almost become the things that the company was set up to do. As a by-product, it happens to sell stuff, but the real purpose of its existence is to get in the money for the goods that it has sold. That should not be the case. The real benefit should be the freedom to sell materials, and the expectation that one can get payment for the goods and services in a negotiated and agreed contractual period. Small businesses are not asking for anything more than that, but they should not be prepared to accept anything less than that.

The issue of resources, which enables small businesses to manage purchase and sales ledgers, is a really important point to make, as the bigger companies are always able to work things more to their favour. That goes back to the point that I made earlier, which is just how hard will I, as a company, push for that cash within 30 or 35 days if it means that that is the last cheque that I will get from that business, and I might lose 10%, 20% or even 40% of my turnover? A company will understand when a certain thing is in a vice, and how far they can go. That is another example of what is not fair.

Anyone in business will understand the experience of agreeing credit accounts, which are often paid in excess of the terms—but not by enough to kick up a fuss. So, we could have a 30-day account being paid in 35, 36 or 37 days, or a 60-day account being paid in 66 or 70 days. For that four or five days, that week, or that 10 days, when the small business is out of pocket, they are not just a supplier to that customer, but a banker.

What about delayed payments? I am talking about when invoices issued perhaps a month or six weeks earlier are queried, or when the cheque comes in and the payment for those invoices is missing. Some of these queries might be accurate, and in those cases the supplier has the responsibility and the right to rectify the error and, of course, get things right for the future. However, these are often simple ploys that are timed to delay payments and that result in even more work and cost for the supplier. If someone has issued their invoice and a statement to the company concerned, it is unacceptable for them to be told 30, 40 or 50 days later that there is a query about that invoice, or a problem with it, and that it cannot be paid.

Those actions are deplorable, but they go on every single day. Every small business in Britain will have encountered them. I want the Government—I would like the Minister to listen to this point, if he would—to consider setting a legal limit on the length of time that it can take to query an invoice. Although I appreciate that there might be some challenges to that, will the Minister consider the question before he makes his closing remarks and comment on it? It cannot be right for a small business to chase money for 30 or 60 days only to be told, “We need proof of delivery—proof that we received the materials,” when the proof of delivery has already been supplied but has become separated from the paperwork. I want the Minister to consider setting a legal limit on the period in which the content of an invoice can be queried.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is there not a problem with the hon. Gentleman’s idea? As I understand it, it is unlawful for any agreement to seek to exclude the jurisdiction of the British courts, and if, as he suggests, a provision was introduced to ensure that one could not query an invoice after a certain date, could that not be construed as not allowing the matter to be adjudicated on by the courts at a later stage?

[Gordon Banks]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I have asked the Minister to give the issue some thought before he sums up, and I have also said that I do not necessarily think that there will be a simple solution, but I am convinced that there is a way in which this can be developed so that small businesses—in fact, all businesses—can rest assured that 30, 35 or 40 days after they have submitted their invoice, that invoice will not be challenged. Is not 40 days long enough?

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Greg Knight Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

In my personal view, that is a fair point. The right hon. Gentleman has intervened at a good point, because I was about to say that our insistence on a five-year Parliament has resulted in delaying elections in the devolved Administrations. That delay was proposed because, when we had an election on the same date in Scotland, there was an unacceptable 147,000 spoiled ballot papers. I really do believe in devolution, however, and it is up to the devolved Parliaments to make that decision.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend saying not only that he is against fixed-term Parliaments but that the flexibility to go up to five years should be removed? Is he saying that, in a system in which an election could occur at any time, it should be called only within a four-year time frame?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I am not saying that. I think we should simply go back to the old system and the Prime Minister should be able to call an election when it is appropriate. I agree, however, that if we were going to have a fixed term, a four-year one would be much more acceptable. However, we are not here to honour fixed-term Parliaments; we are here to bury them. So I would rather go back to the old system, which worked perfectly well. Interestingly, in the previous century the average length of a Parliament was four years and 10 months—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This was the subject of a very good debate among experts in the Hansard Society. They pointed out that this Parliament will end on 28 March. We will have a record five-and-a half-week campaign and two weeks of negotiations, so we could have two months without a Government, which would be the longest time that this country in recent history has not had a Government. We could have a Belgian situation—I love the Belgians but they do not necessarily have the best sort of Government—with no Parliament and no Government.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I think my hon. Friend is factually incorrect when he says that we will not have a Government. We will have a Government, but it will not be open to scrutiny.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Yes, that is true, but we all know—my right hon. Friend has been a Minister as have I—that the moment the election is called, civil servants do not allow Ministers to do anything. In theory, we still have Ministers in charge, but in practice we do not have a Government who can do anything. It is worrying that under this Act of Parliament we could have such a long period of, effectively, no Government.

Education Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of apprenticeships, having been an apprentice himself. He understands the value of apprenticeships in providing people with the skills not only to get a job, but to lead more fulfilled lives. I hear what he says about his particular constituency interest and he will expect me to respond in a similar spirit by saying that I am more than happy to meet him to discuss that matter in some detail. However, I am sure he understands that you will not allow me to go into great detail about that tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I applaud what my hon. Friend has said so far. Does he appreciate that there is an ongoing demand for apprenticeships, particularly in the historic vehicle restoration movement, where expertise is needed? Any burning of red tape in that industry that would lead people to take on more apprenticeships would be most welcome.

[Mr Hayes]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a valued, wise and richly-coloured contribution to our affairs. His expertise in that field is unparalleled in this House and, of course, I take his recommendation seriously; indeed, he has raised the issue with me already. As he knows, I can tell the House that I am taking up the matter with an assiduity that is a mere token compared with his diligence, which has brought him such prowess in this place and elsewhere.

[Mr Knight]

Although I am delighted at what the Minister has said about me, I suppose he and I ought to declare an interest because we both may need the services of future apprentices in maintaining our historic vehicles.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right. We ought to declare that we share an interest in that topic and that we might have some personal interest in ensuring that there are sufficient craft skills to maintain our historic vehicles—although his demands in those terms are considerably more numerous than mine.

The sector has welcomed the proposals to offer colleges more freedom. Colleges have long called for such an approach. In the long years that I spent in the shadows before the electorate elevated me to the light, I remember hearing from colleges across the country that they hoped, wished and longed for a Government who would recognise that power is best vested in the hands of those closest to where it is exercised. Colleges should be able to respond to their learners and employers in the way the Bill facilitates. It is therefore unsurprising that, in the public evidence sessions of the Bill, the Association of Colleges said in written evidence that the legislative requirements removed by the Bill,

“will strengthen rather than diminish the historic community role of Colleges and strengthen the importance of strong governance”.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Lords amendments 47 to 71, changes which I recognise were made late in the Bill’s passage through the other place, have been made in the context of a changed further education landscape. In October 2010, the Office for National Statistics announced its decision to reclassify FE colleges to the public sector for the purposes of the national accounts. That decision exposes colleges to the full rigours of the Government expenditure regime and means that they will lose the flexibility to phase expenditure between different financial years and that they will need to work within a financial year that does not line up with their academic year. Such a decision also makes it likely that the very freedoms that were introduced to enable them to borrow without seeking permission will need to be taken away from them, and that even tighter constraints will need to be introduced.

I would like to thank Baroness Sharp for raising those issues in the context of the sterling work she is doing as chair of the inquiry into colleges in their communities. In debating these important amendments, it is vital for me to emphasise the significance of the ONS decision. We were already well on the way to freeing the sector from some of the diktats, bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation that had so hampered and inhibited people from exercising their long-cherished desire to respond proactively to the interests of learners in the way I have described. Nevertheless, the ONS’s reclassification has turned our desire into an imperative and we are working closely to try to persuade it to rethink that classification, because it will have profound effects on the FE sector. The late changes made in the other place, which we are debating for the first time in this House today, were made because of that ONS classification. Those and other controls would all act as significant barriers to college growth and would stifle innovation and creativity in our further education sector. As I said, it is our intention to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes to encourage the ONS to reclassify colleges back to the private sector which, as my noble friend Lord Hill said in the other place, is where successive Governments have wished them to be.

I want to mention the ability that Lords amendments 49, 58 and 69 will give colleges to modify or replace their instruments and articles of governance. In the world I have described—the picture I have painted—the additional freedoms that colleges will enjoy necessitate a new approach to governance. We need colleges to rise to the occasion. I am confident that they will, but it is partly a case of rethinking how colleges are governed. Colleges will continue to be required to comply with a statutory governance framework, but that has been significantly simplified to allow colleges the freedom to decide how best to shape their governance arrangements to meet the needs of their learners, employers and the local community.

May I say a word about the work that the Association of Colleges is doing in that regard? The association is working on a set of model instruments and articles that are framed in the new environment of greater discretion and freedom. There is immense human capital in colleges but, too often, it has been locked up because of the approach taken by previous Governments. There was a view that it was best to dictate, predict and provide from the centre. That is not this Government’s view. For example, as a result of the amendments, colleges will no longer have to seek the Government’s permission to add more members to their governing body or to determine whether a job vacancy should be advertised nationally.

Those are important aspects of a college’s governance, but they are not things in which the state should be involved. The use of that power will not be compulsory. If colleges are content that their existing arrangements support them to meet the needs of local learners and employers, they will not have to change them. The benefit of the changes is that the decision over when and how colleges exercise those powers sits firmly with them. I mentioned that such measures have been welcomed by colleges themselves. They were, for the most part, also warmly welcomed in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is the very antithesis of both ugliness and ubiquity; indeed, he is known for his integrity and truthfulness. As Keats understood, and Shaftesbury in the other place later, truth and beauty are intrinsically linked, and so my hon. Friend’s truthfulness has an aesthetic all of its own. On the specific point that he raises, the way in which colleges have, over time, been dictated to and controlled from the centre has largely been about funding mechanisms. Colleges have danced to a tune set around funding. He is absolutely right to say that greater freedom means being more flexible about funding. It means allowing colleges to devise the kind of offer that is right for their locality in the kinds of partnerships that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, and funding needs to reflect that.

We are on a journey, and not all of it can be done overnight. When I came into the job, I was able to put in place a number of important changes that stripped away some of the central control. Since that time, we have done more, and these amendments go a step further. But this is not the end of the journey. The destination we seek is what I began to describe a moment ago—a more eclectic, more responsive and more dynamic system. I am not, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one to overstate my virtues, but I would go so far as to say that what we are doing in further education is a model of public service reform: a deregulated system that is free to respond to local circumstances; dynamic and innovative; flexible and, in my judgment, imaginative—I make no apology for using that word—about exactly what it does and how it does it; and uses funding to feed that kind of new beginning. As I said, though, I do not want to overstate the case.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Every day a new invitation for me to visit a different part of the country arrives, each one more seductive than the last, but none more attractive than the overtures of my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. Tonight I will do what I rarely do in the House: I commit, from the Dispatch Box, to visit his college, because he has made this case so frequently and persuasively that I feel that I have been less than generous in my response thus far. I will certainly come to look at the specific circumstances that he described in his—as usual—pithy and well-informed intervention.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

That is wise advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is taken in the spirit in which it is given.

[Mr Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, I will make a little progress, if I may, and then I will give way again.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I have made it clear that I am not going to give way at this juncture, because I fear that my right hon. Friend is trying to encourage me to stray, but I will give way to him in a few moments when I have made a little more progress.

There was a debate in the other place on the importance of staff and student governors in colleges. Ensuring strong staff and student representation on a governing body is of importance to me. During the passage of the Bill, I have had positive discussions with the National Union of Students and the University and College Union on this subject, as has my noble Friend Lord Hill. We were anxious to ensure that staff and student involvement helped not only to inform good practice in colleges but to shape the offer in those colleges. As a result of those discussions, we continue to require colleges to have such governors on their boards. The House will want to be reminded that this requirement was warmly supported by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who was

“pleased…that this commitment”

was

“honoured in both spirit and practice in the amendment”

that was brought before the Lords and that we are discussing this evening. In fact, Baroness Jones went further and acknowledged that our amendment

“is indeed better than that tabled by those on our own Benches on this issue”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 332.]

How often does one receive a tribute as generous, but as deserved, as that?

I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

[Mr Knight]

I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous in giving way. He spoke earlier about taking us on a journey, and even earlier he quoted Rab Butler. May I remind him of what Rab Butler said about journeys—that it is best to get off the train before it hits the buffers? With the light-touch approach that the Minister is suggesting, is there not a danger that some colleges may move assets overseas, to the detriment of the British taxpayer?

[Mr Hayes]

It is true, of course, that as we free up the system, some of the controls that have previously been in place—some of the levers that the Government could pull—will no longer be there. Frankly, however, I have to say to my right hon. Friend, to whose assiduity, eloquence and wisdom I have previously paid tribute, that if the price of freedom is that loss of control, it is a price worth paying for the benefit it brings in the kind of innovation, exercise of imagination, responsiveness and dynamism to which I drew the House’s attention earlier. That was certainly the view of the other place and, in general terms, the view of the Committee as we went through the Bill. There is growing cross-party acknowledgement that we can no longer predict and provide—that we do indeed need to create a more responsive system. I say that because the character of our economy is changing. Economic need is increasingly dynamic, and a system that is controlled from the centre would never be sufficiently nimble to respond to that commercial need. That is now widely acknowledged. The difference is that we are going about this with purpose, energy and enthusiasm.

Let me return to staff and student representation. It is important that we see the statutory requirement that I have described merely as a baseline. There are all kinds of other good things that we can do in terms of staff and student representation, but representation on governing bodies, it was argued persuasively, should be a baseline. Lords amendment 51 extends those changes to institutions that are not college corporations, but that have been designated by legislation to receive public money for the provision of further education. It would come into effect should they decide to change their existing instruments and articles.

Lords amendments 50 and 58 give colleges the power to close themselves, which is known as dissolution. Currently, only the Secretary of State can dissolve a college. The amendments remove that power from the Secretary of State and give colleges control over their own dissolution. Colleges will also have the ability to transfer their property, rights and liabilities to another person or body for the purposes of education. These amendments and the regulations that will be laid in support of them include a number of safeguards to ensure that any dissolution decision is taken only when all those affected—staff, students and the local community —have been properly consulted, and that the process will be transparent, recognising that colleges are providers of an important public service.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is not in his place, but who was a diligent member of the Committee, raised questions about the likelihood that colleges would fail with these new freedoms. There is no evidence to suggest that the extra freedoms will increase the risk of failure. Notwithstanding what I said about the growing understanding of the need to allow colleges to be more locally responsive, it is worrying that there are those who believe that colleges will not rise to the challenge of the new freedoms and who believe that only through central Government control can we give the necessary protection to the common interest, which I have no doubt was in the heart of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he is right. Colleges have shown time and again that when they are given the opportunity to be their best, unrestricted, they can be so.

I am keen to address that point in more detail in relation to the amendments. Further education is a high-performing sector, with more than 95% of colleges judged satisfactory or better. Sometimes further education has been treated as what Sir Andrew Foster described as the “neglected middle child” of education, somewhere between schools and higher education. I see it more as the prodigal son, and not just that, but the prodigal son grown up. I want further education to be a favoured part of our education system because of the difference it makes to so many lives. The important thing is to ensure that where problems occur, there are robust monitoring and support systems so that colleges are given the opportunity and help to recover. It is right that we have in place the proper protections from failure because, as I have described, public interest is involved. A great deal of taxpayers’ money is involved too. However, we should not get to the point of creating an immense infrastructure to manage the college sector.

I think that it is correct to say, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that after incorporation and the freedoms that colleges enjoyed as a result, we responded in a heavy handed way to the occasional, rare incidents of failure. It is reasonable to conclude that the advent and actuality of the Learning and Skills Council was an overreaction to the challenges associated with the new freedoms.

Regulatory Authorities (Level of Charges) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That is a rather general example, if I may say so. Perhaps when my hon. Friend comes to respond to the debate he will address a specific profession, such as dentistry. Dentists are already regulated by their professional body. They are also regulated under health and safety legislation and so forth, but the CQC is now insisting that it too should regulate them. It is going to cost dentists a minimum of £800 a year, I think, to register with the CQC. I hope that the Minister will in due course explain what added value will come from that, as there is an enormous amount of scepticism about whether it will lead to any improvement in the quality of dentistry in this country. When one looks at the CQC report, one finds that the income from the regulatory fees for dentists will far exceed the amount that will be spent on regulating dentists. That is a good example of what I am describing as a “stealth tax” or an “additional regulatory burden”.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

May I gently chide my hon. Friend? It is open to someone who has a Bill before this House to provide explanatory notes to assist the House in considering the Bill. I understand from the Vote Office that he has not done so and perhaps he could tell the House why. It would have been helpful had he gone to the extra effort of providing those notes. Because he has not done so and because he has gone on about the Care Quality Commission, may I ask whether he intends the definition of “regulatory authority” in his Bill to encompass local authorities?

[Mr Chope]

The short answer is that I do not intend that definition to cover local authorities. On the lack of explanatory notes, my right hon. Friend is a lawyer of considerable repute and he is capable of reading a two-clause Bill just as well as anybody else. This is not a complicated 100-page, six or 10 schedule Bill. We know that you, Mr Speaker, are saying that we must ensure we get good value for money, and we want to reduce our costs, so I thought it would be an unnecessary burden and an additional cost to have explanatory notes for something that is self-explanatory. I hope, in due course, to take my right hon. Friend through the terms of this short Bill, so that if he has any doubts, he can ask questions in interventions and so on. Perhaps I shall do so now, as I am being prompted.

Clause 1 refers to:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England”,

so the Bill extends only to England. Although we have to say that it applies to England and Wales, it will apply only to England.

[Mr Knight]

Clause 1(1) begins:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England on behalf of a Minister of the Crown”.

My hon. Friend says that that is what the Bill is to cover and that he does not intend it to cover local authorities, yet I understand that the analysis of whether a property which is not connected to the water mains is receiving water of an adequate quality is carried out by the local authority, which is undertaking that duty on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, so surely his definition might include local authorities in some circumstances.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend may well be right. It may well be that there are certain circumstances in which local authorities are undertaking a responsibility given to them by the Crown and so this Bill would apply to them, but it is not intended to cut across the discretion of local authorities to set their own fees and charges for the services they provide. That would be contrary to the principles of localism, which are supported so widely across the House now.

Clause 1 states:

“No regulatory authority carrying out functions in England on behalf of a Minister of the Crown may increase, over any given period of time, the fees charged in respect of any of its services by more than the rate of inflation, measured by the Consumer Prices Index, over that given period of time.”

Recently, these charges have been increasing very much above the rate of inflation, and I shall give the House some examples.

Anyone who wishes to travel abroad must have a passport, so one can hardly describe this as an optional extra for most citizens. In 1997, a 10-year renewal for an adult passport cost £17.50 but in 2009 the cost had increased to £77.50, which is almost a fourfold increase in real terms in 12 years. Why? Is such an increase not rather unfair, given that everybody needs a passport and especially given that children now have to have their own passports and cannot travel on their parents’ passports? How can such an increase be justified? Clause 1 would make it impossible for the Passport and Records Agency to increase its fees above the rate of inflation over a given period of time without getting specific authority so to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

We now know where my hon. Friend the Minister gets all these references from, but that is another story.

Let me give an example of a good regulator. Some of us had the privilege of listening to Colette Bowe from Ofcom earlier in the week. She said that Ofcom had been asked by the Government to reduce its costs by some 25%. It has already reduced its costs by more than 20% and it has not increased the costs of regulation but reduced the size of the organisation so that it acts more proportionately. There is a message there for many other regulators whose minds are not concentrated sufficiently because they have the option of always being able to increase their charges. That is why I have these provisions in the Bill.

The Bill does not say that regulators can never increase their charges, but clause 1(2) states:

“No regulatory authority shall introduce a charge in respect of a service currently provided free of charge in England unless a report has been laid before Parliament setting out the reasons for the introduction of the charge and that report has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Other colleagues will have different examples, but at the moment the Department for Transport is actively considering charging owners of vehicles a registration fee just for having a vehicle in their ownership. The statutory off road notification, which is a means whereby an owner can keep a car off the main road without incurring a fee, will be changed and the owner will have to pay the fee that is being introduced, even if they are keeping the car off the main road and not using it on the highway. That would be an additional new charge. Would it be reasonable? I do not think it would, but if it were introduced under the Bill, it would be necessary for a report to be laid before Parliament setting out the reasons and justification for it. If that were to happen, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire would no doubt ask questions about the impact on those who have older cars that they do not use very often.

[Mr Knight]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of such a charge would be outrageous? In effect, it would be a tax on ownership, which would be unique in this country. Does he share my shock about the reading matter on the Minister’s bedside table? Would the Minister not be better advised to have a copy of the Jensen Interceptor Mark III workshop manual by his bed?

[Mr Chope]

I am sure the Minister will respond to that in his wind-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Later in my contribution I shall describe some of the ways in which the Government have done just that. They have taken a firm grip on these matters. Even in these early days of the long regime to which we can look forward and in which I hope to play a small part, we are making significant progress in the way that my hon. Friend wishes us to do.

It is not a question of the Government not intending to grasp the nettle—to take a grip on the subject, to use his terms—but of doing so in a way that is consistent, coherent and deliverable.

Lest I dwell too much on the first part of the Bill, let me deal with the second part. The Bill would stop a regulator, subject to specific conditions, introducing a charge for a previously free service. A regulator would be able to introduce new charges where previously there had been none on the condition that a report setting out the benefits of the new arrangements was laid before and agreed by the House. Were I a rather more sarcastic person than I am, and if I wished to tease my hon. Friend, which I would not do, as you know, Mr Speaker, I might say to him that he is himself in the Bill establishing a rather elaborate system, to put it mildly, for dealing with the test that he describes: a report to the House, which presumably will be debated, with no real clarity about the length or nature of that debate, and perhaps even referred to a Committee of the House. Who knows how long that process might take? It is absolutely right that these matters should be scrutinised, but the implication of my hon. Friend’s proposals is that we might lengthen, both in terms of time and substance, the mechanisms by which we assess, implement, gauge, and judge necessary regulation.

[Mr Knight]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the right hon. Member intervenes, may I say two things to the Minister? First, he is second to none in his respect for the courtesies of the House, and I invite him, therefore, to address the House and not continually to turn his back on the Chair. Secondly, although his preamble to his main thesis is of great interest to the House, I remind the House and those listening that there are two clauses in the Bill, which consists of one page and one line. I feel sure that it will not be long before the Minister wishes to address himself to the clauses of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Knight]

The Minister suggests clause 1 might lengthen the process, but does not subsection (2) increase democratic accountability, and should not that be paramount?

[Mr Hayes]

It is that part of the Bill that I am addressing, Mr Speaker, in very specific terms, and, yes, it could be argued that it makes the system more accountable, in the sense that it brings the matters before the House, but the spirit that lies behind the Bill and the powerful advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, not just now but for all time, of the need to place fewer burdens on business, is that rather than extending and elaborating the process by which we implement, consider and, indeed, devise regulation, we should simplify it.

That brings me to the final provision of the Bill, which focuses on the duties of responsible Ministers and sets out plans to prevent them from increasing funding for their regulatory bodies. That would mean not only that the charging framework within which regulations operate was restricted, but that regulators should not have any additional funding from central Government as a result. I can understand why my hon. Friend argues that, and why the Bill seeks to put that argument into practice, but a better measure of the quantity and nature of regulation is required to consider these matters as fully as they might be considered.

Let me find common cause with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely right that the House, and indeed the Government, should consider the impact of regulation. The CBI has argued that regulation is one of the key elements inhibiting growth. Its April 2011 survey described a Nigeria-style regulatory regime—its words, not mine, I hasten to add. It said that only that country had a similar regulatory burden to that of Great Britain. Apparently, according to the CBI, we rank 89th out of 139 countries for having the biggest regulatory burden. Its concern was that that regulatory burden had a powerful influence on growth, and unless we deregulated, as my hon. Friend’s Bill would, we would inhibit growth. This is not the first time that the CBI has argued this case, nor is it the only organisation that does so.

My hon. Friend and others will be familiar with the Institute of Directors’ regulation reckoner, which it produces regularly, and I have here the 2011 issue. The IOD estimates that the total administrative costs of regulation for business for 2011 are growing and have a considerable impact on business both large and small. It argues that directors spend 17 hours a month on regulation administration and that the annual cost of regulation administration is £7,664 for each director. It says that work forces spend 106 hours a month on regulation. To put that in crystal clear terms, the IOD argues that the burden on work forces is equivalent to one member of staff working continuously on regulation from 1 January until 26 August, which is 34 weeks, to complete a business’s annual regulation administration. That is the kind of evidence that stimulates my hon. Friend’s concerns and motivates him in his mission to address these matters and to encourage the Government to do so too. This is why it is important that we debate these matters, and it is absolutely why the Government also take them seriously. The CBI argues that in order to avoid a double-dip recession the Government must deal with regulation. My hon. Friend suggests that his Bill, which is essentially about the nature and cost of regulation, would help us to do that.

The arguments of others suggest that regulation does not emanate only from this place. It is the view of the Bruges group, with which my hon. Friend is familiar, that the cost of regulation to businesses that we in this country enjoy—or perhaps I should say endure—is about £100 billion, with EU regulation accounting for about half of the total. I know that you will be as shocked as I am, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear that, and as determined as I am that we adopt such regulation only where absolutely necessary, and that we certainly do not gold-plate it. Yet the IOD tells us that that is precisely what the previous Government did. That is the risk we face.

Not only must this House be diligent in ensuring that the additional regulatory burden I have described is not piled on to businesses large and small, but we must be even more mindful of the need to ensure that that which comes from other lands does not make the circumstances even worse. To that end, the Bill includes a definition of a regulatory agency in order to try to deal precisely with the matters I have described. However, I am advised by officials that the task of defining a regulatory agency, as the Bill does, is always a very complex one.

It might be helpful to build on that advice and start by reflecting on the range of agencies and organisations already involved in our system of regulation, because for the proposed agency to have effect it would need to sit comfortably with the existing framework of regulators and be consistent with the forms in which that regulation is constituted. The large number of organisations and individuals that play a part in securing compliance form a complex landscape. Businesses have the primary responsibility for meeting their obligations under the law, but a number of agencies in the public and private sectors, as well as civil society organisations, also play a role.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will know that national regulators secure adherence to the rules in many areas of modern life, including nuclear safety, pensions and health. He spoke earlier about some of the others, and I criticised him for using examples that would perhaps not be covered by the scope of the Bill, but none the less he made a powerful point about the range of areas of life and the range of activities and business on which regulation has an impact, and I understand his point.

Local authorities also have a role in enforcing the law in areas such as food safety, under-age sales and consumer protection. Were the Bill to proceed, the regulatory agency my hon. Friend seeks to establish would need an appropriate legal interface with those authorities.

[Mr Knight]

I wish my hon. Friend would use some of this cold water to wash his car, rather than to pour over the Bill. Why does he not see himself as a reforming Minister and grasp the issues so that he can take this matter forward, rather than using them as an excuse for doing nothing?

[Mr Hayes]

I am disappointed in my right hon. Friend, as a fellow owner of a Jensen Interceptor Mark III and member of the owners club, because what I have said is merely my preliminary remarks on why the Government cannot accept the Bill in its current form. I will move on to why we feel that aspects of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are worthy and compatible with the Government’s determination to reform these matters in a way that reduces the burden of regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) should not be so hasty in assuming that I do not share the reforming zeal that motivates him and others to make life more straightforward for our businesses so that they can add to the prosperity we all seek.

On the specifics of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch advocates a regulatory agency. However, unless that agency were to interface with the existing mechanisms for dealing with regulation, it would be impossible for the Government to accept its establishment as framed in the Bill, because there are many agencies that play an important role in the regulatory system, in both national and local government, and also agencies that play a role beyond the framework of the law. Trade associations, in particular, provide a service to businesses in the form of regulatory advice and guidance. Lord Young’s review of health and safety law, which has been referred to, highlighted the extent to which other agencies, such as the media and private consultancies, can create their own regulatory burdens. We are therefore dealing with diverse responsibilities.

In some areas regulation is effectively free to business, which is why, as the Bill deals with costs, it is important that we assess which types of regulation impose costs and which do not. The costs of the regulator and regulation are often met by the Government. My hon. Friend, in his speech and in the Bill, makes no detailed assessment of the balance between the costs absorbed by Government and the costs imposed on businesses. The Government’s view is that in many cases it is in the interests of fairness that the costs of regulation are met by those who are regulated. Where such fees are charged, they can take a variety of forms, from licences to levies and charges for specific services.

In those terms, the Bill, as I have said, starts from the commendable idea that businesses should be given as much certainty and transparency as possible on how they are charged by regulators and that appropriate controls should be in place to govern the way in which they are imposed. In that respect, I find common cause with both my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who call for a zealous approach to assessing those costs and measuring how Government activity might add to them. It is right that the system, with regard to the imposition of costs, how they are gauged and how they grow, is properly assessed.

Before I address the Bill’s specific points, I think that the House would expect me to put in context the scale and ambition of the Government’s approach to regulatory reform. Just yesterday I was looking at those matters with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to apprenticeships. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the Government’s intention to build more apprenticeships than Britain has ever had before, and we were looking at how some of the costs of putting in place the necessary regulation on apprenticeships could be lightened. For example, for large companies that are providing apprenticeships, we have announced that those costs—

St George’s Day and St David’s Day Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

We often hear from parliamentarians in this and the other place that radical and controversial ideas and legislation should be piloted before being introduced, so I am delighted to tell the House that 50% of my Bill was piloted this year. A quirk of the calendar meant that the nearest working day to St George’s day—23 April—was a bank holiday. Furthermore, thanks to the royal wedding and the Prime Minister’s generosity to the nation, we shall have nine, not eight, bank holidays this year.

Why should we make St George’s day an extra, permanent bank holiday? St George became the patron saint of England 661 years ago; his chivalry, values and story were seen by King Edward III as a better fit to the England he wanted to rule than the previous patron saint, Edward the Confessor. St George lived more than 1,000 years before that date. He was an immigrant, a Roman soldier born in Turkey, or possibly Kurdistan, perhaps with colouring a little closer to mine than most would imagine. We know him most famously as the dragon slayer, a man whose bravery freed a town from the tyranny of a vicious dragon. He was a man whose Christianity led him to be persecuted and eventually executed on the day we now celebrate in his name. He was adopted and taken into the hearts of the English people for the values he represented, not for who he was or where he was from.

Although celebrated before 1350, it was only after St George’s adoption as patron saint that he became ingrained in England’s national psyche. It is said that his popularity and the celebration of his name day increased substantially after Henry V rallied his troops by invoking St George before victory at the battle of Agincourt: “Cry God for England, Harry and St George” wrote the great bard William Shakespeare, in commemoration. It is perhaps fitting that the great bard himself was born on St George’s day in 1564, in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon; he died on the same date 52 years later.

Today, St George represents part of our often under-celebrated national identity.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

When I first saw that my hon. Friend intended to present the Bill, I rejoiced, and I agree with everything he has said so far, but when I saw the contents of the Bill I became alarmed. Does he not agree that the Bill is actually quite divisive? In clause 1, he tells us that the Welsh, but not the English, can celebrate St David’s day and that the English, but not the Welsh, can celebrate St George’s day. Is it not a nationalist measure that is likely to increase friction between England and Wales, rather than a Unionist policy, as I want, because I support the Union? Is the Bill not likely to be very divisive if passed in its present form?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, although I remind him that Scotland celebrates St Andrew’s day and Ireland celebrates St Patrick’s day. I do not believe that it is divisive in any way for England or Wales to uphold their saints. In fact, the more we can deal with such things positively, recognising their importance, the closer and stronger the Union becomes. When things are forced down people’s throats, they begin to become rejectionists. I am afraid that I therefore disagree with my right hon. Friend.

Further and Higher Education (Access) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is obviously demonstrating that he has an open mind on this subject, which is more than I can say for the Government in relation to another Bill that I have on the Order Paper, the Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill. Yesterday, before he had even had a chance to the listen to the arguments for that Bill, the Leader of the House said that the Government would be against it. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has an open mind on this issue.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is a lot of confusion at the moment, among universities in particular and other institutions of higher education, because the Government seem to be at sixes and sevens in developing their policy in this area. Originally, the Government said that they would publish guidance to the Office for Fair Access by the end of January to enable it to give guidance to universities by the middle of February on their admissions policies for the academic year starting in 2012. Despite full guidance having been issued in the middle of February, with the Minister for Universities and Science saying in a press statement at the time that OFFA would be able to advise universities by the end of February, as of now, in the first week of March, there is still no information from OFFA on the principles that universities should apply for next year’s admissions.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On the subject of guidance, may I ask why my hon. Friend has, unusually, not published explanatory notes and guidance to his Bill?

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. The reason is that I thought that my Bill was exemplary in putting forward an argument in simple language that everyone should be able to understand, and that it did not need any guidance. I will come to the detail of the Bill shortly. I hope that, having read the Bill, he accepts that it is plain about what it seeks to achieve.

[Mr Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. My point was that if he had issued guidance, the House might not need him to make such a long speech explaining his Bill.

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend has just succeeded in getting his Bill through its Second Reading, Committee stage and Third Reading very fast. I hope that my Bill will make similarly rapid progress. That is why I look forward eagerly to hearing what the Government’s attitude to it will be. As a general rule, I am not sure that the length of the explanatory notes, or the fact that there are explanatory notes, is a good guide to whether a Bill will make progress. If I recall correctly, the Wreck Removal Convention Bill, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and which we will discuss in a fortnight, has quite extensive explanatory notes. I am not sure that that is necessarily an indication of how much time will be spent discussing it.

I return now to one of the principal reasons for my concern about the guidance. The full guidance that was issued by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister for Universities and Science to the director of fair access in February was based on the draft guidance that was issued on 7 December 2010. Paragraph 6.1 of the draft guidance was very clear:

“There have been no changes in the legal constraints on your powers as Director of Fair Access. You are not empowered to interfere in institutions’ decisions about the admissions of students and you may only set conditions that clearly relate to promoting participation and access.”

When the final guidance was issued last month, that paragraph was omitted. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Universities and Science, asking why it had been omitted. Unfortunately, the fact that I received a holding reply rather than an immediate substantive reply makes it obvious that he had to think about why it had been omitted. Eventually, he came back with an answer pursuant to the holding answer of 16 February:

“Paragraph 6.1 was unnecessary as it provided no new information.”—[Official Report, 17 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 981W.]

I am not convinced by that and remain very suspicious. Indeed, the full guidance is more extensive than the draft guidance. The full guidance is some seven and a half pages long, whereas the draft was only five and a half pages long. That clearly expressed paragraph is omitted from the final guidance.

I share the concern of many people in universities that the Government are trying to increase regulation and interference to tick boxes on social engineering and social mobility, and that that is ill conceived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would ill-behove either you or me to bask in any glory as a result of that by-election result. It is a pity, however, that there is no Liberal Democrat representative in today’s debate to discuss these very important issues.

I turn to the measures being taken already to improve access. There is going to be a measurement system under the proposals for assessing the ability or willingness of OFFA to allow universities to charge higher fees. The system for measuring the success in improving access needs to include—it does not at the moment—access to other institutions as a result of the work carried out by a particular university. The Russell group welcomed

“the Government’s guidance that institutions should set their own targets and measures of progress”,

but was concerned that

“existing…widening participation benchmarks are unsuitable as targets against which institutions’ progress can be meaningfully measured.”

It quotes Lord Browne—the guru on this issue, who produced his report last year—who found that

“the benchmarks do not provide a sophisticated enough picture of the student population actually qualified to meet the entry requirements of many courses. For example, they take no account of the fact that someone with 4 A*s at A-level might have a high tariff score but would not have a strong chance of being accepted on a Medicine course if these A-levels are in the wrong subjects…Moreover, financial penalties for not meeting these targets would be unfair and unhelpful to our aim of investing in ways to help poorer students win a place at our universities.”

[Mr Knight]

We are having a very interesting debate, but underlying it is the question of whether we should support the Bill. I have to say to my hon. Friend, however, that the more I look at his Bill, the less I think of it. I do not see how it can achieve anything, because clause 3 on exemptions blows a hole in clause 1, under which a decision has to be made on the basis of merit alone. Clause 3 states that a course can be advertised where there are

“criteria additional to or in substitution for the criterion of merit”.

To use an extreme example, if this Bill was the only arbiter that universities have to follow, they could advertise a course for aspiring gentlefolk where the only requirement is that someone can pay the high fees.

[Mr Chope]

Exactly, but my right hon. Friend fails to appreciate the transparency of the measure. If an institution of higher or further education is going to give places on a particular course on criteria other than merit, it should make that clear when people are considering applying to that university. For example, if it offers a sports science course, and welcomes in particular people who are proficient at playing soccer, it should say so in the application so that people who cannot kick a ball at all will not apply, or understand that if they do so it is unlikely that they will be accepted. Clause 3 tries to make sure that where universities give places on criteria other than academic merit those criteria are spelt out openly and transparently. I am surprised that my right hon. Friend is concerned about that. Perhaps he will accept that his interpretation of the clause is incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I believe that it is pretty transparent, although some academic work has been done that shows that, inevitably, subjectivity is involved in assessing people’s suitability for going to university. There is no way in which someone who has been refused a place at a university can find out the specific reasons for that decision, although it is normally possible for them to obtain informal feedback from the university through their school or college.

I am not suggesting that the current system is completely transparent, which is why it would be better for it to be plain as a pikestaff that admissions should be made on the basis of merit. There is a feeling, borne out in research for Oxford university, that some admissions tutors for that university are inclined to choose pupils who do not come from independent schools, because they believe that independent school pupils have an unfair advantage and they wish to discount that advantage. They do so on the basis of subjective judgments, which very much runs against the principle of transparency. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. A problem with the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science on 17 February was that he misquoted some of the evidence from the Ogg, Zimdars and Heath report for Oxford. He used that evidence to suggest that there was a bias in favour of pupils from private schools, when a proper reading shows quite the reverse, with a bias against pupils from private schools.

With all these issues, the problems that concern me are problems of definition. If we are going to try to categorise schools, whether they are independent or private on the one hand, or state schools on the other, how do we categorise those pupils who move from the independent sector into the state sector in the last two years of their course, or perhaps leave an independent school and go to a tertiary college to resit their exams and apply to university? There are quite a lot of independent schools with pupils who came originally from the state sector, often with bursaries. Will those pupils be penalised when they apply to university—or do the universities accept those pupils?—because their last place of education was an independent school, even though they started off in the most difficult circumstances? Many pupils at independent schools are in receipt of education maintenance allowance, which may surprise the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and it may cause some people to say that that is another reason why EMA is ill-targeted. However, there are many pupils at independent schools whose backgrounds would be regarded as poor or disadvantaged in the context of the higher education access arrangements that the Government are discussing.

[Mr Knight]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has not convinced me. It is quite clear that clause 3 is so wide as to blow a hole in clause 1. In response to my earlier intervention, he appears to accept that it would be quite possible, if the Bill were the only arbiter, for a university to decide that it wanted to take unintelligent people with money. It could advertise a course for aspiring gentlefolk when, to use a colloquialism, all that it is interested in is money from rich thickos.

[Mr Chope]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read today’s press reports about the London School of Economics and one of its erstwhile postgraduate students from Libya. I am not sure whether his remarks would apply to that particular happening. If a university chooses to have a closed scholarship arrangement, as some do, there is no reason why that should not continue under the Bill, provided that it is set out transparently. Ultimately—this is why the desire for ever more Government regulation is ill conceived—why can we not trust those universities to do what is best for them in the great marketplace? No self-respecting institution wants a reputation, to use my right hon. Friend’s example, for taking on a lot of thickos who will not perform at university, because that will push the university down the league tables, and will affect its ability to attract research grants and the brightest and the best. The Government cannot second-guess all those decisions—they have to be made by universities or other higher education institutions themselves.