Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Monday 9th January 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 1280).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. The regulations were laid before the House on 6 December 2022.

We have already passed legislation concerning the energy bill relief scheme pass-through requirement for heat suppliers, which ensures that benefits from the scheme, known as the EBRS, are passed through to end consumers on heat networks. That legislation also provides for a route to resolve disputes between consumers and heat networks on the pass-through requirement. I say that by way of introduction while wishing all Committee members a happy new year.

I hope that Members will applaud the statutory instrument, which amends the existing pass-through regulations, introducing a requirement on heat suppliers to send a simple notification to provide information to the Secretary of State by 6 January 2023—a date that has now passed. That information, which includes the heat supplier’s name, business address and contact details, will be shared with the energy ombudsman and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to support their handling of domestic and microbusiness consumer complaints.

The information will also be shared with the Office for Product Safety and Standards for enforcement purposes. The SI strengthens the OPSS’s enforcement powers, enabling it to request information from suspected heat suppliers to determine whether they fall within the scope of the regulations. The OPSS may impose existing civil sanctions, including a monetary penalty, on heat suppliers that fail to comply with requirements to notify, to join the redress scheme or to provide information. The monetary penalty has been modified, providing for a maximum penalty of £5,000 to provide an effective deterrent to non-compliance.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Suppliers were required to notify by 6 January 2023 but, as the Minister pointed out, it is now 9 January 2023 and we are being asked to approve the SI today. What will be the status of a supplier that failed to notify by 6 January but does so before the instrument is approved by the House?

[Graham Stuart]

As I said, the instrument was laid before the House back in December. I cannot provide the Committee with an update at this precise moment, but I know that the information has been flowing in. If, through some wondrous form of refreshment, I am able to give the hon. Member further information about the precise legal status and the fines and so on, I will of course do so.

The SI also amends the existing regulations to reduce the administrative burden on heat network companies. It removes the requirement for heat suppliers to provide information about the calculation of the benefit when they first notify end users about the scheme, while retaining the requirement to provide those calculations in the next bill.

The EBRS, and the corresponding pass-through regulations, have been introduced as a critical component of support for consumers on heat networks, and the scheme complements other support that the Government are providing with energy and the cost of living. We expect that the notification requirements will facilitate the consumer complaints handling process and that strengthened enforcement powers will result in more heat suppliers passing on the EBRS discount to their customers, which is of course our aim. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he utterly mischaracterises the regulations. We legislate all the time for every kind of group in business and society without a database of who they are. We have simply come forward with supplementary regulation, which we are agreeing to today, the better to ensure that the consumer groups that I would have thought he supports enthusiastically are empowered and given the information they need to protect consumers. It is not some egregious error; this is a positive addition. The law applies to those that run heat networks, regardless of whether we know who they are and have their address. As it happens, in order to make it more practicable and quicker to intervene, we are discussing the regulations we have laid. They are supplementary to what was sound legislation in order to deliver a sound policy. Because I know he is an honest man, I think that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection—were he to do that this evening—might think that he somewhat mischaracterised the regulations.

As to what will happen after 31 March, we will make arrangements after His Majesty’s Treasury announces its review of the EBRS for what goes on after that date. Also, for the betterment of the information available to the Committee, on the question whether microbusinesses will be fined £5,000 if they do not notify, that maximum monetary penalty will apply only if a heat supplier fails to comply with a compliance notice or enforcement undertaking relating to failure to comply with the notification requirement. I hope that provides the hon. Member for Cardiff West with reassurance that there is not some automatic imposition of a £5,000 fine on a particular micro-supplier.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is useful clarification. Clearly, to be fined such a sum for a simple oversight under very new and rapidly introduced legislation would be a big burden on a very small business. If I missed this, I apologise, but did the Minister say whether the updated guidance referred to in the regulations has now been published and made available to businesses?

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Monday 7th November 2022 General Committees

[Graham Stuart]

I am indeed; I will be delighted to do so.

Since our departure from the European Union, flights between the UK and Switzerland are not covered in either the UK or the Swiss emissions trading systems, creating a gap in ETS coverage. The Government consulted on the policy in this draft instrument between May and July 2019 as part of a consultation called “The future of UK carbon pricing”. In the 2020 Government response to the consultation, we committed to include UK-to-Switzerland flights in the scope of the UK ETS if an agreement could be reached with Switzerland. The agreement has been reached, and Switzerland has amended the relevant domestic legislation to ensure that flights from Switzerland to the UK are included in the Swiss ETS from 2023. This instrument amends the 2020 order to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS for the start of the 2023 scheme year.

In 2019, UK-to-Switzerland flights amounted to approximately a quarter of a megatonne of CO₂—less than 0.2% of the UK ETS cap for the 2023 scheme year. The policy intent is to include flights from across the UK to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS. As the Northern Ireland Assembly was not able to consider affirmative legislation at the time this instrument began the legislative process, this legislation only brings GB to Switzerland flights within scope of the UK ETS.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. It is ironic that we have been able to reach agreement with Switzerland, but not with Northern Ireland. Leaving that aside, can he enlighten the Committee on how many flights will be covered by the scheme? I do not know whether there are flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland, but what impact might the order have? I apologise if the shadow Minister was going to ask the same question.

[Graham Stuart]

It is a most excellent question. When the hon. Member for Southampton, Test asks it later, I am sure I will be able to give a definitive answer, but it is a pretty small percentage. I look forward to sharing the exact percentage with the Committee.

Once the Northern Ireland Assembly is functioning, equivalent legislation will be proposed to the Assembly as soon as possible to ensure that all flights between the UK and Switzerland are covered.

In conclusion, the SI will close a gap in the coverage of the UK ETS, fulfilling the commitment set out in the Government response to the consultation on “The future of UK carbon pricing” and upholding the agreement with Switzerland. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate, and I am grateful for the broad support—so enthusiastic, so driven, so loud—for the proposals.

In answer to the various questions that have come up, I should mention that flights between the UK and Switzerland fell out of scope of ETS coverage following the UK’s withdrawal, although those flights were previously covered by the EU ETS following the EU-Swiss linking agreement, which came into force in 2020. We are looking to restore coverage of that gap. The majority of international flights departing the UK are covered by the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—CORSIA—and the UK continues to play a leading role in the work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, negotiating for ambitious global action to tackle international aviation emissions, including protecting and strengthening CORSIA.

In 2019, flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland made up just 76—my maths is functional, if that, but six flights a week would appear to amount to rather more than that—or 0.28% of the total 26,813 flights from the UK to Switzerland. That represented 1,081 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 0.39% of the total 277,814 tonnes. The impact of not including those flights is therefore small, but not negligible. As such, we aim to include those flights in the ETS as soon as possible.

As to why we cannot currently do so, legislation for the UK ETS is made under the Climate Change Act 2008. The powers are devolved, and therefore exercisable only by the Secretary of State for England and by the respective devolved Administrations for the other nations of the UK. Where all agree, joint legislation can be made for the whole of the UK by the Privy Council. The heart of the matter is that under the terms of that Act, scheme expansion requires an affirmative instrument. The Northern Ireland Assembly has not been able to debate and approve instruments, so it is not currently possible to make legislation that extends to Northern Ireland. The draft order has already been approved by the Scottish Parliament and by the Senedd. If approved by both Houses of Parliament, the order will be submitted to the Privy Council to be made covering Great Britain. Therefore, it is a function of the legislation.

[Kevin Brennan]

I understand that point; presumably, if an affirmative instrument is required, Ministers cannot make that legislation in the absence of the Assembly’s meeting. However, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that there were 76 flights in 2019, whereas the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, said that the actual figure is a return flight six times a week. My maths is not bad—I got a grade A O-level back in the day—and that is a lot more than 76. Will the Minister clarify that point and write to the Committee with the actual figure and, if there is a disparity, the true level of emissions?

[Graham Stuart]

I am sure every member of the Committee will be waiting to hear that, and I am happy to write to confirm it. As it is, it is a relatively small number of flights, given the overall number that go from the UK.

[Graham Stuart]

I have agreed to write with further information, notwithstanding the ability that any of us has to check Skyscanner, and I am happy to do so. However, it was 76 flights in total in 2019, so we are talking about a pretty small issue.

On CORSIA, which I know Members will be keen to hear more about, the UK Government, led by the Department for Transport, consulted on implementing CORSIA in 2021, including six high-level options for how CORSIA could interact with the UK ETS on flights in the scope of both schemes. We are carefully considering the approach to CORSIA implementation and will consult further in due course, seeking to have all legislation for CORSIA in force by 2024.

The UK ETS is regarded in legislation as a fiscal measure, not a regulation. We published an analytical annex with the initial Government response in August 2022. That examined the impact of applying the UK ETS to UK-to-Switzerland flights, so I think that only direct flights are affected. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West: it is hard to be more arcane than his hon. Friend the shadow Minister, or to have a more detailed grasp or inspection of the factors behind legislation, but on this occasion I think he has achieved it, and I know that he will be pleased to continue the discussion even further.

[Kevin Brennan]

To save me making another speech—of course, I could—I will just intervene on the Minister. Unusually for him, because he is always very thorough, he has left one loose end, which is my question about who the verifiers will be. I am perfectly happy for him to tie up that loose end later by writing to the Committee, in order that we can have that question answered and we can have properly and thoroughly scrutinised this particular fiscal measure.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am sure that, like me, when he was a small boy he was terribly excited when he received a letter addressed to him. I know that other members of the Committee will have a similar childish excitement when they get my letter, in which I will answer that point too, because the verifiers need to be identified properly and effectively.

With no further ado, and with what I can see is the great expectation of the Chair, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Student Maintenance Grants

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman told us in his speech how hard he has worked. Given that he is from Cardiff and that he has such an accent, I can absolutely acknowledge that he is a very hard-working individual. He will know that a general election was fought following that decision being taken and before they were introduced.

We all know that the Chancellor prefers governing from the shadows, and this shameless betrayal of previous promises and the shabby manner in which this has been handled in Parliament bear all the hallmarks of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. Being young in Britain should be a time of opportunity—a time when opportunity knocks. Instead, we have the Chancellor introducing an opportunity tax. His proposals are an assault on aspiration, on opportunity and on those who want to get on in life. That is why we oppose them and also why the Welsh Government, under Labour First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is keeping maintenance grants. By the way, those who say that these proposals affect only England should think again—I say this to Welsh Conservative MPs as well: of the 30,000 students studying at Cardiff University, nearly 9,000 are from England.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not wish to mislead the House, but he has just said that tuition fees were introduced not after the 1997 election, but after the following general election. That is not true. They were introduced in 1998. Having said that they would not introduce them, the Government started the process 12 weeks later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair. We have very little time.

Green Investment Bank

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Thursday 29th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. In so far as it was necessary to have a publicly controlled and funded green investment bank in the first place, what has changed so that such a bank can now be transferred to the private sector without ending up simply acting like and emulating all the other banks, even if it has a greater degree of green expertise than most? How do we know that it will continue to play this unique role? That is the nub of what we want to hear from the Minister.

A good deal of the GIB’s success has come in the form of delivering what its CEO has called “financing firsts”. To use Mr Kingsbury’s own words:

“We have taken on complex projects that would otherwise not have gone ahead and we have been innovative, helping new technologies into the financial mainstream.”

The Westermost Rough offshore wind farm I referred to earlier is a particularly good example of that. The GIB took a stake in the project in 2014. The project was unique, in that it was the first large-scale application of the new Siemens 6 MW turbines, which are significantly more efficient and better suited to the marine environment than previous turbines deployed to date. Of course, they had not been used in 2014, so there will have been natural caution about a move to a new technology.

The project will help to drive down the cost of offshore wind, which has already fallen by 11% in the past four years, and also has supply chain benefits—including, not least for me as the MP for Beverley and Holderness, the fact that Siemens will manufacture the turbines in Hull and East Riding. Over the coming years, we hope to see the supply chain develop around that initial investment. Indeed, there is hope that other manufacturers might see the supply chain and combination of specialties in Hull as something worth coming to and investing in.

The project simply would not have taken off if only private investors had been involved. When I spoke to Mr Kingsbury earlier in the week, he talked about the fact that DONG Energy, which was pushing the project, wanted to find a partner—it did not want to take on the responsibility and risk alone. It found a Japanese investor, but the partner company was looking for comfort. The comfort it sought came in the form of the Green Investment Bank’s expertise and particular positioning, which provided the reassurance needed for it to invest. The GIB got involved, negotiated—as Mr Kingsbury would say—high returns for high risk and used its expertise to help and give comfort to both the Japanese investor and DONG. The project then went ahead, with the positive ramifications being not only the lowering of the cost of wind energy but the delivery of investment in my local area and beyond.

Likewise, the GIB has joined Aviva Investors in financing NHS energy centres. A good example of that is the £18 million investment the bank made in the £36 million energy centre project for Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. That project is emblematic of the market failure affecting the financing of non-domestic energy-efficiency projects. It required the installation of a combined heat and power unit, a biomass boiler, efficient dual-fuel boilers and heat recovery for medical incineration. The project will lead to a saving of £20 million on the hospital’s energy bill over the 25-year project period and an annual reduction of 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

I know the Secretary of State is confident that the eventual purchaser or purchasers will want to buy the GIB precisely because of its expertise in that kind of work. That is the nub of the Government’s argument. In a helpful briefing earlier this week, Mr Kingsbury told me that he is adamant that the GIB is a marketable proposition precisely because the decision was taken not to use the bank simply to offer cheap Government borrowing to the renewables sector, but to develop specialist teams with deep-sector knowledge that are capable of managing sophisticated and challenging financial deals and negotiating high rates of return, as it did with Westermost Rough. Mr Kingsbury was clear that he believes that makes the bank a great business and an attractive proposition to potential purchasers.

Concerns persist, however, about the fact that in private ownership the GIB may yet come to resemble more conventional competitors, such as Bank of America or Macquarie. I do not want to criticise those institutions in any way, but they are driven by the shareholder value that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) rightly mentioned, and they come to different decisions, take different approaches and have different team assemblies from those of the Green Investment Bank, which has a very specific brief.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful presentation on this issue, and he has come to one of the key points. Ministers have responded to questions about the future of the green focus. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that the Government

“also want and expect a privately owned GIB to continue this clear focus on green sectors”.—[Official Report, 15 October 2015; vol. 600, c. 21WS.]

In a written answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise said:

“The Government wants a privately owned GIB to continue this focus on green sectors”.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to hear something stronger than that before we can be convinced that that will actually happen when the bank goes into private hands?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman, who has served in Government, will know that even within Government it is not enough to wish that institutions will behave in a certain way. We know that the incentives must be understood. For example, it is necessary to understand how schools will behave—the hon. Gentleman and I have experience of that. It is not enough for people to sign up in name to deliver a certain thing and for politicians to say that they will do it, because they will be moved by the complex sets of incentives in which they find themselves. If we do not understand how those incentives collectively impinge on those institutions, we will not truly understand how the institutions will behave. That is as true for education as it is for a bank.

It is not enough simply to say what we want and what should be aimed for; we have to understand how the framework of incentives for a private owner of the bank will lead them to behave in the way that Ministers and the rest of us want. I am impressed by the chief executive of the Green Investment Bank; I think he is passionate and honest in his belief about where the bank will go. Nevertheless, I want to understand how it will go there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, I agree. I am tempted to quote Kermit the Frog, who said, “It’s not easy bein’ green.” It is not easy, actually—why make it more difficult? That is the problem with the proposal. Everything that my hon. Friend said is absolutely right. There is nothing currently in the proposal that will make any of those things any easier. That is why all of us, in all parts of the House, are asking the Minister to go away and think again about the current proposal with his colleagues.

I do not intend to rehearse, once again, everything that people have said about the success so far of the Green Investment Bank. I remember it as a very embryonic idea when I was in Government, all those many years ago now. It was certainly mentioned by Alistair Darling in one of his Budgets and it was kicking around the Cabinet Office and BIS when I was a Minister in both those Departments during the previous Government. I was very pleased when the coalition Government brought forward proposals, the Bill was passed and the bank was set up and am also pleased about what a good start it has had—how well it has got under way. There have been criticisms about the straitjacket that the Treasury may have put on the Green Investment Bank. Nevertheless, it has genuinely been able to participate in the financing of projects that otherwise would not have taken place and which make a real contribution, as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said at the outset, to meeting our commitments under the Climate Change Act. Essentially, it is a good story.

[Graham Stuart]

It is touching to see the hon. Gentleman paying such tribute to this creation of a Conservative-led, now Conservative, Government, especially because at the end of Labour’s period in power, when he was a Minister, only Luxembourg and Malta had a lower share of renewables as part of their energy mix. I am delighted to say that whatever questions need to be asked about the Green Investment Bank, the record of this Government is a paragon compared with the abject failure of so many years of Labour, sadly.

[Kevin Brennan]

I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time. All I will say is that he has let himself down slightly by injecting a slight note of partisanship into our proceedings; I knew it would inevitably come. Given the sort of person I am, of course, I would never respond to anything of that kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

We were indeed, Mr Crausby. All I will say is this. The notion that, had the Conservatives carried on in power after 1997 we would have had a much greener Government than the Labour one, who passed the Climate Change Act 2008, is one that I find slightly difficult to believe. Anyway, without labouring the point too far, I was saying that in my view—

[Graham Stuart]

We have time. Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way one last time on that point.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous. A little partisanship does not go amiss. It is important to have the perspective that the current Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, was the first major party leader to call for a climate change Act. That same day, the Liberal Democrats followed, and it was only because it felt that it was going to be left behind that Labour joined in. It was thanks to the current Prime Minister that we got the Act, and it is within that framework going forward that we can have confidence that we can meet these challenges. That is why it is so important that Ministers get their policies right.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I will.

[Graham Stuart]

It’s all my fault.

[David Mowat]

It is indeed the fault of my hon. Friend; we can all agree on that at least.

We have the Climate Change Act—no other country in the world has come up with an Act that has also required an 80% reduction. It is also true that the level of carbon emissions in this country is lower than the EU average and one third lower than in Germany. We should be pleased about where we have made progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I most certainly will. I am sure that my hon. Friend will lend me his copy so that I can do that as soon as possible. I look forward to receiving it shortly in the post or perhaps by a more green method: he can hand it to me personally.

It is a myth that privatisation is necessary and is the only way the Green Investment Bank could go out and borrow in the marketplace. That could be done, as I understand it, under the current legislation in any case, but because of that financial orthodoxy and the desire, which I understand, for the Government to be able to say what they want to say about their deficit targets, they are extremely reluctant to allow the Green Investment Bank to do it.

As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, in a sense this is a notional concept; it is the sort of debt on the books that really is not of great concern to the City or to the markets. It is part of the obsession of the boffins at the Office for National Statistics that where the Government, in any minor way, have an influence over what an institution such as the Green Investment Bank does, by setting out to limit the types of investment that it makes in any way shape or form, it has to be counted as being in the public sector for the purposes of Government debt.

[Mr Andrew Percy in the Chair]

It is an incredibly esoteric and technical reason for requiring the Green Investment Bank to be privatised even though there is clear evidence of real problems with that process, as we have seen from today’s debate.

The decision to privatise the Green Investment Bank was announced in June. Was it a premature decision? I believe a lot of people thought it was. Many commentators expressed concern at the time. The Government were able at the time at least to give the assurance made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in his written statement on 25 June, in which he said that he was going to privatise the bank:

“This should bring a number of important benefits, giving GIB greater freedom to operate across a wider range of green sectors in accordance with its green purposes, which are enshrined in legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 27WS.]

A key part of the Secretary of State’s announcement, emphasised in that written statement, was the fact that the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank were protected by the legislation in which its duty to pursue them was enshrined. Obviously, something has gone horribly wrong in the meantime.

The advice from the Office for National Statistics that I referred to earlier has led the Government to say that they intend to repeal the very legislative protection that they prayed in aid when deciding to privatise the bank on 25 June. By October, they had to say, “Do you know what? That is not so important after all. It doesn’t really matter if we repeal all that to make sure that the Green Investment Bank doesn’t appear on the books.” That requires a great deal of thought, scrutiny and debate. I thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for pointing that out—and, indeed, for ensuring that we are having this debate.

I do not think it is unfair to say that so far, the Government have no answer to the question of how we can ensure that the Green Investment Bank maintains its green purposes. The letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills of 15 October, in which he announced his intention to repeal the relevant measures in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, offers no assurance that those green purposes will definitely be maintained. The Secretary of State does say:

“We want to ensure GIB’s green principles continue to underpin its business in future and this will form an important part of our discussions with potential investors.”

That is all very well, and I am sure that potential investors will come along and happily assent to the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank prior to privatisation. That is not the question, however; the question is what happens after privatisation. At that point, when the bank is either fully or partly in the private sector—we do not know the full details of the Government’s proposals for privatisation—how are we to ensure that it maintains its green purposes and does not, as other hon. Members have suggested, simply become yet another bank, albeit a very small bank that can easily be, and is likely to be, gobbled up by somebody else?

Although the Secretary of State says in the letter that the Government want to ensure that the green principles will be maintained, he cannot ensure that they will be. The Government can only entreat; they cannot ensure. We need to hear more about how Ministers will pursue this proposal, and how they will ensure that the green purposes remain if the current proposal is implemented. There has been no answer yet from the Secretary of State or Ministers.

I referred earlier to a written question from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. In response, the Minister repeated that the Government want a privately owned Green Investment Bank to continue the focus on green sectors, but she did not explain in any way, shape or form how the Government can ensure that it does. We need to know more about that, and I would be interested to hear more from the Minister when he responds to the debate. That absolutely central question has to be answered if we are to have any confidence in what is happening. Otherwise, the situation would seem to be a bit of an unholy mess, and we need to know how the Government will unravel it.

I will ask a few other questions, because there will be a reasonable amount of time for the Minister to respond when I have finished my remarks. Will he admit that he cannot guarantee that privatisation will not dilute the green purposes of the Green Investment Bank? Is the Government’s policy simply: “Fingers crossed”? Have the Government discussed or considered the possibility of some form of penalty for the privatised company should it depart from the green purposes currently enshrined in legislation when the legislative guarantees are removed? Can he confirm that the legislative lock on the green purpose is being repealed purely in order to get the Green Investment Bank off the books? Is that the only reason for removing that lock? Can he tell us a bit more about the stake that the Government expect to retain in the Green Investment Bank following privatisation? Some clarity on that would be greatly welcomed by the House and the country.

What about the £1.8 billion that the Government have set aside to fund the Green Investment Bank and its projects, which is yet to be committed? Do the Government intend that £1.8 billion to be committed to green projects as originally intended, or do they intend that money to be taken back into the Treasury during privatisation? If the latter, what will the Treasury do with that money? Will it simply be set aside against the deficit, or will it be used instead for other green projects and priorities? We need some clarity on that, because some of the claims made about the Green Investment Bank will ring pretty hollow if that £1.8 billion is not devoted to the purposes for which it was intended.

Can the Minister give us a ballpark figure for how much the Government expect to raise through the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank? I do not expect him to be precise, because it is impossible to be precise about that, but can he give us some idea of the parameters that we are talking about? How do the Government intend to avoid the sorts of criticisms that they encountered about the lack of value achieved for taxpayers in the privatisation of Royal Mail? I will not put it any more strongly than that, because we have raised the tone of the debate again since the partisan interventions of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness; I do not want to lower the tone again or tempt the hon. Gentleman out of his slumber. [Interruption.] He is not asleep; I apologise.

[Graham Stuart]

It is contentment.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman out of his contentment. What advice were Ministers given when the guarantee was first enshrined in legislation? Was there any suggestion at that time that putting the green purpose in legislation might jeopardise any future privatisation? Is it possible that when the bank is privatised and its purposes are widened, its funds might be used to invest in things such as fracking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[George Freeman]

I will take these two interventions, and perhaps I can then crack through the questions.

Schools Funding

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing this debate and on his speech, in which he outlined many of the problems with the current funding formula system. He was ably supported by many other hon. Members. He pointed out the reasons why the Government should spell out their longer-term intentions in relation to the national funding formula and why, although his hon. Friends might have criticised me for saying so, the Government should not hide the fact that there will be losers in the process or pretend that there will not be, just because we are a year away from a general election. I might have been criticised for saying that, but it is the truth. We must ensure that we are open and transparent about the journey that we are on in relation to a fairer funding formula for our schools.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

In a moment. I was just about to mention the hon. Gentleman, so I will do that first before giving way briefly. Other contributors to this debate have included the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who did in his remarks exactly what I did by pointing out that the timing of the announcement could be interpreted in a certain way if one were of a cynical bent, as some of us might be from time to time.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that in times of austerity, redistribution is harder. He said that we are on a journey. Is his party on that journey? Will he commit today to coming forward during the next Parliament, should his party form a Government, with a national funding formula that bravely reallocates funding and has losers as well as winners, in order better to match need with the funding that goes alongside it?

[Kevin Brennan]

I can absolutely confirm that we are on that journey. The last Government started the consultation process on that journey towards the end of the last Parliament, as the hon. Member for Worcester mentioned in his opening speech.

We also heard contributions from the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who mentioned Taoism in his remarks, and from the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who mentioned Deng Xiaoping. Perhaps I can also quote Zhou Enlai, who, when asked about the effects of the French revolution, said that it was too early to tell. It is also, perhaps, a little too early to tell exactly what the outcome of the funding formula for schools will be, but we would welcome some transparency about it from the Government.

I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for York Outer—

Teaching Quality

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It has been a good debate, although bizarrely one in which we have not been graced by the presence of the Government Minister responsible for teaching. Why is the Schools Minister not here? Is it an authorised or unauthorised absence? Will he be fined, as many parents are being fined around the country, for playing truant? We know that he is deeply conflicted about whether teachers in taxpayer-funded schools should be qualified. Last time we discussed the issue, I likened him to Odo the Shape-Shifter from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, but now having dissolved back into his bucket he seems to have re-emerged as the Invisible Man. The truth is that we have a part-time Schools Minister who is absent because he is performing his other job in the Cabinet Office of trying to hold the coalition together. He should be here in the House, answering for his policies in the Commons—even if he does not agree with his own policies, which when we last checked appeared to be his position.

The Government once tried to convince us that they understood the importance of teaching—they even released a White Paper with that title—but everything that they have done in office has been about an ideological obsession with structures and an easy headline about numbers of academies and free schools. They have undermined and neglected the teaching profession, alienated hard-working qualified professional educators and sent the morale of the profession into the cellar.

Last year, a survey conducted by YouGov found that 55% of teachers described their morale as “low” or “very low”. That figure had risen from 42% in just eight months. Sixty-nine per cent. said their morale had declined since the 2010 general election. Only 5% thought that the Government’s impact on the education system had been positive.

It may be that, for some of the lunatic fringe that the Secretary of State has employed as special advisers, those figures are fine because in their view teachers are just Marxist troublemakers, but they could not be more wrong. When YouGov asked teachers their voting intentions at the last general election, 33% said they would vote Tory, 32% Labour, and 27% Lib Dem. Actually, teachers—I think I am the only member of either Front Bench in either House who used to be a school teacher—are a politically moderate, sometimes conservative group of swing voters. However, the Secretary of State has worked his magic on them with his advisers. That important group of middle-class swing voters now says in the latest poll on teacher voting intentions by YouGov that the support among teachers for the Conservatives is down from 33% to 16%, the support for Labour is up from 32% to 57%, and the Lib Dems—actually, if their Minister cannot be bothered to turn up, I cannot be bothered to read out the figure. Let us just say that they are now neck and neck with the Greens and behind UKIP.

Teacher morale matters. Teachers’ professional status matters. The OECD has said in its PISA reports that schools in countries with high teacher morale

“tend to achieve better results”.

Teacher morale matters, not just politically but, more importantly, for the education of our country’s children. So why does the Secretary of State not understand that, by undermining the profession with his “anyone can teach” dogma, he is undermining standards in exactly the same way as they were undermined in Sweden?

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

Not at the moment.

We all remember the Secretary of State’s infatuation with the Swedish model. He even wrote about it in The Independent newspaper, under the headline “Michael Gove: We need a Swedish education system”. He was saying that we needed free schools—eventually to be run for profit, presumably, as in Sweden—and unqualified, low-paid teachers. His praise for Sweden was effusive. He went on to say that

“what has worked in Sweden can work here.”

We do not hear much about Sweden from him now. I think I can say, without fear of being accused by the statistics authority of abusing the PISA statistics—unlike the Secretary of State, who was rapped on the knuckles for doing so when talking about the PISA statistics for this country—that Sweden has plummeted down the PISA tables after pursuing the very reform programme that the Secretary of State is now adopting in this country, including the use of unqualified teachers. Perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), might like to look at that evidence with his Committee. Sweden is now as invisible in the Secretary of State’s speeches and articles as the Schools Minister is in this debate on teaching.

It would be helpful if the Government were willing to tell us what qualifications the teachers have in the schools that are causing concern. I have asked him about the Al-Madinah free school in Derby. On 16 October last year, in response to a parliamentary question about the qualifications held by teachers in free schools, I was told:

“Data on each qualification held by each teacher is not collected.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 746W.]

I thought that that could not be right, so on 18 November 2013 I asked whether the Secretary of State would

“publish in anonymised form the qualifications held by each member of the teaching staff at the Al-Madinah Free School”

at the beginning of last September’s term. I was told:

“It would be inappropriate to publish any details until the Secretary of State for Education has concluded the next steps in this case.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 729W.]

On 6 January this year, when those next steps had been taken, I asked again for details of the qualifications. I was told that it would be “inappropriate” to publish any details of staff qualifications. On 14 January, I asked why it would be inappropriate, and received an answer simply repeating that it would be inappropriate to answer the question.

Lloyd George was once driving around north Wales and he stopped his car to ask a Welsh farmer for directions. He said, “Where am I?”, and the farmer replied, “You’re in your car.” That is exactly the method used by the Department for Education to answer parliamentary questions. The answers are short, accurate and tell us absolutely nothing that we did not already know. The Secretary of State said today that he was going to release that information, and I know that he will do so because he is a man of his word. I look forward to receiving that information tomorrow.

A YouGov poll has shown that 89% of parents do not want their child to attend a school whose teachers do not have professional teaching qualifications. Before the Secretary of State goes on again about unqualified teachers in the private sector, he might want to reflect on the fact that the latest Ofsted report shows that 13% of schools in the selective fee-paying sector were judged “inadequate”.

As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. Before I finish, I want to turn briefly to the issue of the South Leeds academy. The Secretary of State has kindly passed to me the letter that he received yesterday, which he presumably solicited ahead of this debate. In the letter, the academy accepts that it placed the advert to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has referred, but says that it was

“placed in error by a new and inexperienced clerical assistant”.

We accept that explanation. What it also says in that letter, which the Secretary of State did not highlight, is that the academy trust involved says that the School Partnership Trust Academies

“always seeks to employ teachers with qualified teaching status.”

It agrees with us, not with the Secretary of State. We should be employing teachers with qualified teacher status. He is wrong; we are right, and the SPTA agrees with us on that issue.

Education Committee Report (GCSE Reform)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. The Government want to restore the currency of 16-year-olds’ qualifications, and restore confidence among employers and universities in the value of those qualifications. That is one of the Government’s aims and they are right to take that approach. Although I am not talking about the main, fundamental changes beneath the surface, it is interesting to note just how few people from the university sector or employers agree with the decision to abolish GCSEs in the core subjects. They worry about what that says about the other subjects left behind—I am sure that my hon. Friend will be concerned about what it says about GCSE religious education. How can it be right that those subjects are seen as second tier compared with the reformed EBCs?

We saw last year, with GCSE English, the turbulence and disruption that can happen when changes are made to a high-stakes qualification. The Government are proposing change on a much greater scale and the risks are correspondingly higher. We are concerned that rushing through multiple fundamental changes could jeopardise the quality of the reforms and the stability of the wider exam system. The Committee has particular concerns about how well the Government’s proposals will serve lower-attaining pupils, who are often the most disadvantaged. It is unclear how raising the bar will automatically help those young people, and we call on the Government to rethink their plans for a statement of achievement, specifically for lower-attaining pupils, as it could be less useful to young people than a low-grade GCSE or alternative qualification. It must not be allowed to become a badge of failure. One of the Government’s stated priorities—rightly so—is to narrow the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students. We have not seen evidence to suggest that EBCs will do that any better than GCSEs already do.

The Committee agrees that changes are needed to the way exams are run. We concluded in our report last year that the current system leads to downward pressure on standards. All options for reform, including franchising subjects to exam boards, have benefits and drawbacks. Our concern is that the Government need to give proper consideration to the likely unintended consequences of franchising, as well as to the complexities of the tendering process. Today’s west coast main line news shows how easy it is for Governments to get that wrong, and the profound and expensive consequences that can arise.

Significant concerns about the Government’s proposals have been expressed by curriculum and assessment experts, including the chief regulator at Ofqual, and by employers and key figures in the arts world. The Secretary of State told us that

“if a red light flashes, we will take account of it.”

What we are saying to the Secretary of State today with our report is that we believe a red light is indeed flashing, and we call on the Government to take time for careful consideration, slow the pace of change and ensure that their reforms are built to last.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair and the rest of the Committee for their report. Does he agree that the problem with the Secretary of State’s EBC proposals is that although there is a consensus that we need reform to exams at 16, this is the wrong reform, being done to the wrong timetable and being done the wrong way round, because we do not yet know what the curriculum is? As a former teacher and educator who went through this kind of change when GCSEs were introduced after O-levels, I cannot, for the life of me, see how this change can actually take place. Even if it does, I cannot see how it can last for long. Without proper piloting and proper consensus across the educational and political worlds, these major high-stake exam reforms just do not last, as we know from experience. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the Secretary of State listened to what the Committee said, scrapped this particular proposal and worked together across the piece for a lasting reform that will command a broad consensus and would be proofed against any future political changes?

[Mr Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invention and I certainly agree with his last point. Let us be clear that the Select Committee’s report says not that the Government should necessarily scrap the reforms but that they should make the case for them. They need to prove that the GCSE brand is so fundamentally broken that it cannot be reformed. It seemed to us to be difficult to see what was so intrinsic to the GCSE in the core subjects that could not be repaired with the right approach.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to highlight the need for consensus. Some 650,000 children a year move through our education system and there are nearly 500,000 teachers in state schools. This is a mammoth enterprise and not something to which we can make quick changes. The repercussions will go on for a long time and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it well if I chide his party by pointing out what happened with the diploma. Then, we had a Secretary of State who was determined to bring about change and who rightly identified the need to improve vocational education and qualifications in this country, but the assessment and exam experts said that he was going at an unrealistic pace, suggested that he slowed down and said that there was a risk that the tremendous legacy of transforming vocational education in this country could end up withering on the vine. That is exactly what happened. The children who took the diploma will have a certificate that employers will struggle to recognise in a few years’ time, vast amounts of public money were expended and those in the education system who marched to that tune and worked so hard to bring colleges and schools together to deliver the diploma have been left high and dry. We do not want to see that happen to these reforms, which are even more fundamental to the education system. We do not want the reforms brought in by this Secretary of State to go the way of the diploma.

We need only to look back to last year and the English GCSE furore. The judge in the judicial review has not yet pronounced, so I hesitate to talk too much about it, but many of the problems arose from the fact that the previous Government decided to change what was taught, how it was taught, who assessed it and how it was assessed all at once. That caused what happened in 2012 and whenever that many changes are made to a qualification, there is turbulence and volatility. That is why we saw so many schools with a history of doing well suddenly doing badly. The first EBCs will be taught in 2015 if the Government proceed according to their current timetable, so the timing will be tight. This will be a much bigger reform than that of the English GCSE last year and the risks and downsides are great.

We are not saying that the Government have necessarily got it wrong and we agree broadly with their critique of the existing situation. We also agree about the need for more rigour, for reform and for world-class qualifications at 16 to be put in place. We are questioning whether these particular reforms and the abolition of GCSEs in the core subjects need necessarily go ahead. We remain to be convinced of that argument.

A major secondary issue, which is probably less likely to be picked up by the press but could prove phenomenally significant, is the move to franchising. In effect, that gives us an insight into why the timetable is so truncated. Awarding bodies have not seen the outcome of the revised curriculum and therefore do not know exactly what they are supposed to teach, but they are having to design the new qualifications now. They will thereby effectively control the curriculum, rather than schools and educators. The awarding bodies are designing the qualifications now and the timetable means that a winner will be chosen for each of the core subjects by this summer. The Secretary of State will pick a winner who will stay in place for five years. What happens at the end of that time? It brings up a lot of questions.

If everybody who has expertise in assessment in English works for one board and if quite a lot of people retire because they are not prepared to move, meaning that we lose expertise, will there be genuine competition at the end of that five years? Or will we simply have created a monopoly in certain subjects for certain awarding bodies? What about flexibility during that time? What if changes need to be introduced? Will the spec that the Secretary of State chooses this summer have to be fixed in place for five years? We do not really know the detail—there is an awful lot that we do not know—and it important that we get this right.

I want this evangelising, driven, passionate and committed Secretary of State to be remembered as a tremendous, successful and reforming Secretary of State—there is every chance of that—but if he makes errors with the examinations that sit at the centre of our system, he will be remembered not in that way, but as having presided over something that did not work out. I do not want that to be the Secretary of State’s legacy and I certainly do not want it to be legacy of this Government, but I know that Education Ministers are champions who will want to ensure that we get this right, as will the Secretary of State himself.

Question put and agreed to.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stuart]

Time for a coffee and to let others speak.

However, over the last two years the Government have made a series of announcements looking to put greater rigour into the system. They announced the ending of modularisation of GCSEs, tackling the culture of re-sits, ending equivalences and promoting the English baccalaureate, which, of course, rewards those students who achieve good GCSEs in English, maths, two sciences, a language and either history or geography. However, at the end of that process, if the leak is to be believed—I am in a state of confusion now—they suddenly announced the scrapping of GCSEs altogether. That does not seem terribly coherent.

Just last June the Secretary of State said the following about GCSEs:

“So next year the floor will rise to 40 per cent and my aspiration is that by 2015 we will be able to raise it to 50 per cent. There is no reason—if we work together—that by the end of this parliament every young person in the country can’t be educated in a school where at least half of students reach this basic academic standard.”

He went on to say:

“A GCSE floor standard is about providing a basic minimum expectation to young people that their school will equip them for further education and employment.”

That was the direction of travel then; suddenly, a year later—if we are to believe the Daily Mail—that has been scrapped. On the other hand, if I understood correctly what the Secretary of State said today, that was an entirely false idea and there is no plan to do such a thing at all.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think we are all trying to decipher what the Secretary of State said. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that the Secretary of State said that he would expect 80% of pupils to sit this new single-paper GCSE, and if so, what does he think ought to happen to the other 20%?

[Mr Stuart]

As I have said, I think that increased rigour throughout the system is necessary and important. I think that the accountability system for schools needs to be changed so that it does not have perverse outcomes, such as putting people on courses that lead nowhere but allow the institution to meet its benchmark—we on the Committee have been critics of that for some time. Perhaps the announcement, or the leak, suggests a change in view by the Secretary of State on that front.

If we look across the system, where we need more rigour and we need to ensure that we end the perverse incentives, we find that the biggest problem we face in a global knowledge economy, where the first rung of the ladder keeps rising up, is what we do about people who are not getting those basic skills and that basic education. The Government have two priorities for education: raising standards for all; and closing the gap. Those are right, but when setting priorities it is terribly important to show what the top priority is. I am yet to understand how the changes specifically will help the least able, but then again I am unclear as to what exactly the proposal is—even if I have not quite fallen to the level of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who of course got so confused about percentages last week.

[Kevin Brennan]

I did get a grade A O-level—

[Mr Stuart]

That is a lot better than I did, so I will leave it there.

Ofqual now has a statutory duty to ensure two things, one of which is that we maintain standards over time. We shall see whether it does its job right; it is relatively newly empowered and we need to give it the chance to see whether it can reverse this grade inflation and keep us up there with our international competition. Has it said that there needs to be a restructuring of the examination system, not necessarily the administration of it, but the whole quality of it and the possible tiering of it? I would like to hear from the Secretary of State about that.

I have only a minute left, so I shall finish by repeating that the central problem is what we do about the young people, all too many of whom are now not in education, employment or training—NEET—and are being left behind. A more rigorous system is great, but the only way to raise standards ultimately—this is the only thing that matters in education—is through quality of teaching. We need to ensure consistent, high-quality teaching and an excellent institution for everyone, everywhere. At the moment, there are all sorts of incentives in the accountability system to focus on borderline pupils at the expense of those at the bottom, and within the system for people to move from a school that is very challenging to one in the leafier suburbs—a much more congenial place for many people to teach in. We need to look at re-gearing our whole system in a way that the Labour Government failed to do, despite efforts in that direction, to ensure that we provide opportunity for all, because both socially and economically we cannot afford to have so many children left behind, unable to get on the first rung of the economic ladder and thus be full members of our society. If any proposals from the Secretary of State are driven by that central insight, he can certainly look forward to my support.

Education Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I was indeed going to be generous—about the powers of persuasion of our Front Benchers in the House of Lords. They persuaded the Government—more effectively than my hon. Friends and I in the Commons did—to change their mind on one or two issues, which I shall come to in a moment.

The Minister has taken the trouble to talk us through the Lords amendments, as he said he would, but some questions emerge from what he said that, if he has the leave of the House to speak later in the debate, I hope he will answer. Lords amendments 1 to 4 relate to clause 8 and the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to teachers. The Bill abolishes the General Teaching Council for England. I note that some criticisms have been made of its operations. One year after the publication of the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, in which the Secretary of State said—I agree with him about this—that there was

“no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important than teaching,”

it is significant that he has taken the opportunity to abolish the professional body.

The Bill transfers some of the General Teaching Council’s functions to the Secretary of State, among which is the power to prohibit a teacher from teaching. In Committee in this House, we debated an Opposition amendment—which, surprisingly, was not successful—that would have required the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons prohibited from teaching. I note that Lord Hill confirmed in the other place that the Government believe that a database of teachers prohibited from teaching will be established. We tabled amendments here and in the other place to require the Secretary of State to keep a register of qualified teachers—again, to our surprise, without success—but Lord Hill indicated that he would consider the matter, saying,

“we have been persuaded by concerns raised in this House and elsewhere that there is a genuine need for the Government to help schools to know who has qualified teacher status and who has passed induction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 257.]

That is welcome. He went on to confirm that there would be an online database from 2012.

Another concern is the proposal to give employers discretion over which cases of misconduct—those that might lead to the prohibition of a teacher—to refer to the Secretary of State. Again, colleagues in both Houses raised concerns about transparency and consistency. I welcome Lord Hill’s notification to Baroness Jones that the Government are developing advice on the new system to help professional conduct hearing panels determine when a teacher should be prohibited from the profession and that such advice will be available publicly.

Lords amendments 1 to 4 would enable the Secretary of State to issue interim prohibition orders—quickly imposed orders that prevent a teacher from undertaking work while the Secretary of State is considering their case—where he considers it in the public interest to do so, and they must be reviewed every six months. The amendments were tabled in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, but I do not think they were debated there. Their rationale was not given, so when the Minister replies he might like to emphasise what the rationale was, what the amendments will achieve, why they are so important and perhaps why they were not included in the first draft.

Lords amendments 5 to 15 relate to restrictions on the reporting of alleged offences by teachers, about which we had an exchange earlier. We have supported the Government’s intention to help protect teachers from malicious allegations, but we have also been keen to ensure that the provisions are properly scrutinised, as there is a possibility of unintended consequences.

The Lords amendments would extend the reach of clause 13 to cover tentative allegations against teachers. As the Minister rightly pointed out, following advice from the trade unions and others, we argued that the clause’s reach could be extended so that the restrictions apply not only to teachers in schools but to other school staff. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—I am sure it is only a matter of time before he becomes a right hon. Gentleman—mentioned this earlier. In our view, other school staff and staff in further education colleges should be included. The impact of a publicly reported unproven allegation, which the Minister eloquently described, applies to those people, too, and is potentially equally damaging. I understand the Government’s general desire to limit the number of people on whom the provisions will have an impact, but I do not understand why teachers in FE colleges should not be covered when teachers dealing with young people of the same age group in sixth forms—quite possibly teaching exactly the same subjects—are covered. This seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill.

I note what the Minister said about extending the provisions to cover tentative allegations. I make it clear that we do not object to that, but we ask him to be absolutely clear about his motives for including the amendments at this stage. Does he have any further thoughts on the desirability of extending the scope to include non-teaching staff and all staff in FE colleges? If he has any compelling reasons why those staff should be excluded, we would like to hear them. Having listened to him earlier, I am not sure what his evidence is for excluding these staff from the scope of the provisions. I understand why he might want to limit the number of people covered—perhaps that is why he has put a ring fence around teachers—but I do not understand the rationale for failing to include the other staff.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman talks about extending the provision to other staff in schools. Do he and his party believe that it should be extended further to other workers? For example, a social worker dealing with children at risk could be equally devastated by publicity surrounding allegations against them—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful point but, as you have confirmed, Mr Speaker, it unfortunately falls outside the scope of the Bill.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 deal with Ofqual’s enforcement powers, which the Minister mentioned earlier. The Labour Government began the reform of the examination system in 2007 with the “Confidence in Standards” White Paper. It proposed the establishment of an independent regulator, Ofqual, which would be separate from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and would be able to fine exam bodies. Currently, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual only to direct an examination board to change its practices and, as the Minister said, to withdraw recognition.

I agree that it would be helpful for Ofqual to have more sanctions at its disposal to ensure that examination boards minimise their errors, but to an extent I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. This proposal has appeared at a late stage. I know that Christmas is approaching, but, as I am sure the Government Whips will confirm, using Bills as Christmas trees on which to hang whatever a Government wish to hang on them is not always a good way of legislating, and I had thought the Government had pledged not to do that.

[Mr Stuart]

As I debated the abolition of independent schools only a couple of weeks ago with the hon. Gentleman, who supported the motion, it is a pleasure to find something on which we can agree. He is right: we need to hear more from the Government to justify the measure. It is like the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Legislating instantly following an incident in the summer, rather than checking and thinking through the principles behind the proposed legislation, could be a mistake.

[Kevin Brennan]

Let us hope that this will not be another Dangerous Dogs Act.

I am not going to suggest that Labour has not been guilty in the past of hanging proposals on to Bills as they progress through Parliament, and, as a former Government Whip, I am not going to suggest that I have not occasionally tried to lecture Ministers about the practice, but it often causes problems further down the line. We can understand how it happens.

On 22 June 2011, a newspaper headline announced “Cameron promises ‘tough action’ over GCSE and A-level exam blunders”, and a sub-headline added “Prime minister says mistakes are unacceptable and assures Ofqual will rectify system to prevent further errors”. That was converted into a panic in Government, which rippled into the Department for Education, and the Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister was exercised about the issue. “What can we do? Oh, we have a Bill going through Parliament: perhaps we can dream up a few clauses to put into it. Wasn’t there a proposal at some stage to introduce fines? Let us use that: it is already half written.” However, the proposal was never properly scrutinised. It should have been subjected to proper pre-legislative scrutiny.

As I have said, we are not going to oppose the amendments, but I want to record our concern that something that the Government said they would not do is happening now, before our very eyes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Further, a school student might be attending an FE college as part of their school sixth-form studies, and the regulations would be different in those two institutions.

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, and Alison Wolf suggested in her report that more 14 to 16-year-olds should attend FE colleges, so this provision would affect them as well as 17 to 18-year-olds, for whom the provision might be less relevant. I hope Ministers will think about this anomaly and find a way of equalising the situation.

The Government make what seems like a very reasonable case on strengthening Ofqual’s enforcement powers. Ofqual does not have as wide-ranging powers as other regulators, and there is a very quick step from its making requirements on awarding bodies to the nuclear option of removing their ability to provide awards at all. It therefore seems reasonable to have more moderate powers in the middle, such as the power to make fines, but this Government are committed not to following such easy logic unless there is a very strong—nay, an overwhelming—case for giving new powers to some non-governmental, unelected quango, such as Ofqual, so in an intervention I asked the Minister to make the case. He made a brave effort, as he always does, being a highly esteemed colleague and an excellent schools Minister, but he really did not make the case.

We did not hear about the number of times that awarding bodies have deliberately flouted Ofqual’s requirements—that OCR, when required to do something by Ofqual, just ignored it, left it as long as possible and did it only if it felt like it; or that the lack of anything other than a nuclear button meant that OCR did not want to comply.

Following this summer’s examination paper errors fiasco, no one was more embarrassed and determined to put it right than the awarding bodies. They collectively and individually felt that it was embarrassing, and they wanted to put it right as quickly as they could. The numbers were somewhat higher than in previous years, but the attention paid to them this year was rather greater than the increase in problems, and I know at least one case in which there was only one error in 100,000 questions.

I want to see all such errors eliminated and to know that those bodies are straining every sinew to put the situation right, but I am not yet convinced that a fining regime, however conveniently it may fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to do something about the situation, is the right approach.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Education Committee.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in what is a witty and well-presented speech, although he is using paltry facts to great effect. The truth is that with funding for the NHS protected—unlike under Labour—along with funding for international aid, the threat to education was significant. People were talking about cuts of 10%, 20% and possibly higher. Therefore it must be seen as a good result that, in an extremely tough overall financial round, the education and schools budget, including the pupil premium, is being increased in real terms.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not increasing in real terms per head over the next few years, but that is not the point. I would accept that if that were the Government’s explanation for what they are trying to do, but they are trying to con people into believing that the pupil premium is truly a premium, an additional sum of money. That is what they promised; that is what the Prime Minister promised, but it is not what is being delivered.

What else do the Lib Dems get out of this?