House of Commons
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have a short statement to make on progress towards the establishment of an informal liaison group for the House of Commons and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
The purpose of the group will be to provide a forum in which Members of Parliament and members of the board and officials of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority can, on a consultative basis, raise matters of interest or concern.
Following consultation with the parties in recent weeks, I have invited nine Members of the House to represent the House of Commons on this liaison group. They are the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Warrington North (Helen Jones), for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker).
Members who wish to raise matters should be in touch directly with members of the liaison group.
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
1. What recent progress the big society ministerial group has made in its work.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government have an ambitious agenda for the big society. We want to decentralise power and put it in the hands of local communities. We want to open up public services to small and medium-sized enterprises, voluntary organisations and mutuals, and support the growth of civil society organisations.
The ministerial group, which is co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and myself, is helping to drive forward this agenda and has already contributed to progressing our vanguard areas, the renewed compact, the right to provide for mutuals, and our giving Green Paper.
Graham Jones
Hyndburn citizens advice bureau has seen a 50% cut in its funding and four job losses, and I think that it is a similar tale at Rossendale citizens advice bureau. I am waiting for its job losses, but it is expecting a 50% cut. The Minister should be mindful that his Government might leave the legacy of a little society. What warm words would he have for Rossendale and Hyndburn citizens advice bureaux?
Mr Maude
We urgently hope that local authorities, as they deal with the financial consequences of the budget deficit that the Labour Government left behind—when the Government were spending £4 for every £3 in revenue, having to borrow £1 out of every £4—will ensure that a disproportionate burden of those reductions does not fall on the voluntary sector. That is a matter he should take up with the local council.
Mr Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Have Ministers considered how to avoid duplication in the work of existing volunteer bureaux, often supported by local councils, and the new community organisers who are being recruited by the Government?
Mr Maude
I would expect community organisers to work closely with those organisations and to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. These community organisers, many of whom already exist and do great work in communities, will not carry any kind of bureaucracy or organisational structure with them. Their job is to put people together, give support to organisations and make connections where they are not already being made.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
This morning, figures showed that youth unemployment has rocketed up, and this afternoon we expect the Government to confirm that they will cancel the education maintenance allowance. Without work and without study, surely we need our youth charities more than ever before, yet the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services says that three quarters are now cutting projects. Just what have the Government got against young people, and why is there such a narrow place for young people in the Government’s vision of the big society?
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to prevent fraudulent charity collections.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Stealing from charities is a repulsive crime, but a growing problem, with suspected links to organised crime. It is estimated that up to £50 million a year is lost to bogus collections, which deprive charities of vital income and damage public trust and confidence in them. We are determined to take robust action against people who carry out such crimes.
Last week the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who has responsibility for civil society, and apologises for not being able to be here today, chaired a very positive meeting with charities, their collection partners, and the licensing and enforcement agencies to consider ways to tackle the issue. We want to review the licensing legislation and put much greater emphasis on the co-ordination of enforcement action to combat these criminals.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the Minister for his answer. What assurances can he give the House that in our efforts to clamp down on fraudulent collectors we do not create an overly burdensome system that makes it harder for volunteers, on whom many of the charities in my constituency and across the country rely, to give up their time?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Charities Act 2006 is due to be reviewed, in the ordinary course of events, later this year, which we will do. It seems to us that the current laws are outdated; they date from many years ago, from a different world. They are not particularly effective at preventing fraudulent collections, yet they can already be very burdensome on legitimate charities. We want to reverse that to make the law easier for legitimate charities but more effective in controlling fraudulent collections.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In taking that important matter forward, what consultation does the Minister propose to have with the devolved Administrations so that best practice might be adopted in tackling that serious issue?
Mr Maude
I am confident that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, who has responsibility for civil society and is taking the initiative forward, will want to collaborate closely with the devolved Administrations in just the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What proportion of the budget of the national citizen service he expects to be spent in the 50% least disadvantaged areas of the country.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Analysis by Cabinet Office officials shows that NCS pilots are taking place in more than 190 locations across England and that places are evenly distributed among the most and the least deprived areas of England. Just under half of the places are in the 50% least deprived areas and just over half are located in the 50% most deprived areas. The key criterion for selecting pilot providers was the quality of proposals, including their plans to attract a wide cross-section of 16-year-olds and to support disadvantaged young people to take part. The bidders themselves nominated areas where they wanted to deliver the 2011 pilots as part of the competitive commissioning that was completed in November.
Cathy Jamieson
I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the research published by the university of Strathclyde, since it was the Conservative party that commissioned it, which highlights the danger that the proposed NCS would in fact benefit more middle-class and well-off young people, rather than those in disadvantaged areas. What account is he taking of that research and how is he changing the programmes to deal with it?
Mr Maude
The essence of that programme is that it is designed to bring together young people from a genuine mix of backgrounds. It is not designed particularly to help disadvantaged young people. It will benefit all young people and help to create a much more cohesive society by bringing together people from all backgrounds at an important and formative stage in their lives, during the rites of passage to adulthood. The social mix is an absolutely crucial ingredient of the programme.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is it not true that the national citizen service requires that the voluntary sector has adequate capacity to deliver additional volunteering, which is contrary to the unequivocal statement made at the last Cabinet Office questions by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), that the sector would expand? Will the Minister now admit that that statement was untrue. The latest figures for the voluntary sector show a decline of 13,000 jobs in a single quarter. Does he agree that the House was misled and that the statement—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant to say “inadvertently misled”.
Jon Trickett
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House was inadvertently misled, even though the facts show what actually happened. Finally, would the Minister say that the job losses are a clear disaster for his big society aspirations?
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman asked in particular about the capacity of the voluntary sector in relation to the national citizen service. I can tell him that the number of interested providers massively outweighed the number of places that we were able to fund. There is huge interest in the voluntary sector in taking part in the programme. The point that my right hon. Friend the Minister was making was that our approach to public service reform will open up areas of public service delivery to the voluntary and charitable sector and to social enterprise in a way that has not been done before, for all the talk from the previous Government, and the opportunities going forward will be considerable. My right hon. Friend made the point, as we all have, that there will be a tough time immediately, and we have some steps in place to try to help over that period, but the opportunities down the track are considerable.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
4. What progress his Department’s behavioural insight team has made in its work.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the behavioural insight team is now well established. It is beginning with work on three areas: improving the nation’s health; empowering consumers and encouraging people to give money; and protecting our environment.
Damian Collins
“Nudge” author, Richard Thaler, has said that he believes that groups of friends can reduce their alcohol consumption by ordering from a bar tab rather than buying rounds of drinks. What savings from the national tab is the Minister making by applying behavioural economics at the heart of Government instead of creating yet more legislation?
Mr Letwin
I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that extremely interesting and important question. Of course, there has to be legislation about some things, but legislation has strict limits. The Opposition should be well aware of that, as they wasted £1.1 billion on ID card legislation—a totally ineffective example of authoritarianism. They also proposed to engage in bin taxes, and the evidence is now very clear: those measures would have increased fly-tipping and burning at home and have had counter-productive effects. The comparison with the RecycleBank initiative that Windsor and Maidenhead council and others are taking up, which nudges people into successfully recycling, is very striking. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that we can do—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just very gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose mellifluous tones I always enjoy—
Mr Speaker
Yes, I shall try to nudge him. What we want is an answer, not an essay.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Has the insight team considered an independent think tank’s judgment that the Government’s health reforms are like trying to resuscitate a corpse, which has not been done successfully since the time of Lazarus? How will the Government’s reforms help the nation when they are imposing chaos on the health service?
Mr Letwin
I do not think that the national health service is anything like a corpse at all; it is a living, breathing body that does a fantastic amount of good for our nation, and we are trying to improve it. The behavioural insight team has, as a matter of fact, been involved with the Department of Health—I was hearing about it just this morning—in thinking through ways in which we can nudge improvements in the health service, too, and try to make it more effective without imposing additional regulation on it.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the civil society organisations on the implementation of the big society initiative.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
All Cabinet Office Ministers meet civil society organisations regularly. I was present recently with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), the Prime Minister and other members of the Government at a round-table meeting with a cross section of voluntary and community groups and their representatives. We had extremely fruitful conversations about the new opportunities opening up for the sector and the way in which we can encourage those.
Mr Slaughter
Yesterday, my local Tory council announced that 22 well-regarded voluntary organisations would be evicted from their home in Palingswick house, which they have been in for 25 years, to provide a site for a free school run by the self-publicist Toby Young, most of whose pupils will come from outside the borough. Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his deliberations and come to Hammersmith to sort out the broken big society there?
Mr Letwin
I have of course heard about the Palingswick house events, but it is hugely in the interests of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that there should be a free school there, as it will improve education standards, I have no doubt. That is of course entirely a matter for the local council, not for the Government, because we believe in localism, but I understand that the council intends to find other ways to house the voluntary and community groups that are involved, and I am sure that it will do so with his help.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, Mr Speaker, and ask the Minister what the likely timetable will be for local voluntary organisations to access the big society bank?
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend has a distinguished record in financing voluntary and community groups, and the big society bank will make a difference to that area. The bank is a quite a complicated proposition, and we have to organise it and find the funding for it, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is at work on that at the moment. Although we hope to be able to progress it at a reasonable rate, I certainly do not want to give my hon. Friend the impression that it will happen overnight, but I anticipate it being up and running in the not too distant future.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
What reassurance has the Minister given civil society organisations that the big society agenda is being driven not by marketisation principles and the desire to see the voluntary and community sectors bid for public sector contracts simply to reduce costs, but by the desire to enable genuine community empowerment?
Mr Letwin
If the Speaker will permit a little essay, I would say two things in response to the hon. Lady’s important question. First, this is not all about money, in any dimension. The Localism Bill that we are bringing before the House has a huge effect on building social capital, and it does it by empowering people to make decisions about really important things such as their neighbourhood planning. That has nothing to do with saving money and everything to do with building social capital and empowering people.
Secondly, I fear that the hon. Lady shares the error that many of her colleagues have exhibited in thinking that the issue is one of services versus money. We are actually trying to find ways of getting more for less, and we believe that the innovation, enterprise, intelligence and social capital in the voluntary sector will enable us to do that.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
6. What savings have been achieved under the Government's programme of rationalisation and abolition of public bodies to date.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the effect on public expenditure of his proposals for non-departmental public bodies.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The proposals for reform that I set out in the House last October are the most major change to the public bodies landscape that any Government have made in a generation. They will make a significant contribution to reducing the baseline of Government spending as part of the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan.
Mr Bradshaw
While “The King’s Speech” is rightly being feted all around the world, the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are abolishing the organisations here in Britain that helped to make that film happen, as part of what even the Conservative-dominated Public Administration Committee has described as a “botched” bonfire of the quangos. Given that he cannot even say how much, if anything, this is going to cost, is it not typical of what the Government are doing in so many areas—ill considered, ill thought through, rushed and damaging?
Mr Maude
Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared to make those decisions and defend them themselves—that is what democratic accountability is about, and that is the primary aim. However, we will save money. The changes to the public body landscape planned and announced by the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the changes that we are undertaking. That Government claimed that those changes would save £500 million a year; our changes are much more radical and will save a great deal more.[Official Report, 2 February 2011, Vol. 522, c. 10MC.]
Gordon Banks
I will tell the Minister what the real effects of his proposals are going to be, according to the Public Accounts Committee. There will be no savings. In my constituency, between his actions on Consumer Focus and the Scottish National party’s actions on Waterwatch Scotland, we have a shambles of job losses, reduced protection and no gains. Is the Minister going to be a man, step up to the plate and do the right thing, or continually try to defy gravity?
Mr Maude
It would be quite interesting to know which of our plans for reforming quangos the hon. Gentleman disagrees with. His own party had in its manifesto a commitment to cut the number of quangos. It had such plans when it was in government, but sadly, as with so much else, it did not give effect to them. We will save money, but much more importantly, we will increase accountability, which is what this is really all about.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Public expenditure by quangos includes expenditure on lobbying, which is an abuse of public money. Will Ministers ban quango lobbying?
Mr Maude
The code for public bodies already purports to make it impossible for quangos to employ lobbyists from outside in order to lobby the Government. However, that code has not been effective, and considerable amounts of taxpayers’ money have been spent by public bodies, frequently in order to lobby the Government for them to spend more taxpayers’ money. We will make absolutely certain that the code is watertight and that that becomes impossible.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
One of the list of quangos to be dealt with in the Public Bodies Bill is S4C. There is genuine anxiety in Wales about the future of S4C. Although there is a debate to be had about funding, can the Minister at least assure the House of S4C’s continued existence?
Mr Maude
There is no question mark at all over the continued existence of S4C, which plays a valuable part in the life of the Principality. I will convey my hon. Friend’s concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, S4C appears in the Public Bodies Bill in the schedule to do with funding arrangements, and that has nothing to do with its continued existence. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber, and far too much noise.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the social enterprise sector of reductions in Government expenditure.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the social enterprise sector of reductions in Government expenditure.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
11. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the social enterprise sector of reductions in Government expenditure.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
There is no doubt that the cuts that we have had to make as a result of the huge deficits that were piled up in government by the colleagues of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) have made and, in the immediate future, will make life difficult for some voluntary and community sector bodies, contrary to the way in which I was misrepresented by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). However, we have put in place measures that will vastly increase the opportunities for voluntary and community bodies to participate in public service delivery and earn money by doing so, and we have established a £100 million transition fund.
Sheila Gilmore
Will the Minister explain to the House what discussions he has had with his Treasury colleagues about extending and reforming community interest tax relief, which many social enterprises want to happen? That might be a way to enable social enterprises to flourish, despite the reductions that are contemplated.
Mr Letwin
Tax relief is, of course, an issue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Budget time, and I would not dream of trampling on his front lawn. The hon. Lady should recognise two important facts. First, charities already receive about £3 billion in tax relief, including a VAT exemption for trading activities for their main purposes and gift aid. Secondly, we are reluctant to create an unlevel playing field between social enterprises that are not charities and the private sector, because we want to ensure that there is a fair contest between the two and that social enterprises are fully involved in competing for public service delivery.
Tom Blenkinsop
I take note of the Minister’s reply. In opposition, he said that the creation of a social investment bank was a priority, and last July the Government said that such a bank would be making loans by this April. We now know that that will not happen until the end of 2011. Is he frustrated by the Government’s dithering?
Mr Letwin
It is certainly true that we would like that to happen as fast as possible. We would have been much assisted in that if the previous Administration had not spent three years talking about it without setting up anything and without allocating any money to it. We have made arrangements for the bank to have some money. We hope to get more into it and to set it up in the very near future.
Mrs Glindon
Given what has been said by my two colleagues and the Minister, will he explain more fully what immediate help the Government will give to the voluntary sector to help it create more social enterprises?
Mr Letwin
I hope that the hon. Lady has already gathered that we are trying to do two things. The first is to provide immediate assistance to voluntary and community groups that have had a tough time because of the spending review. The transition fund of £100 million is open. We are waiting for the bids to be completed, and they will then be judged and money will be handed out. Secondly, we are opening a wide terrain of public service delivery functions that can be carried out by voluntary and community groups, resulting in a huge potential for them to earn.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to ensure that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds participate in the national citizen service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
One of the main aims of the national citizen service is to create a more cohesive society by mixing participants from different social backgrounds. To ensure that that happens, organisations bidding to deliver national citizen service pilots this summer were scrutinised on their plans for supporting the broadest possible range of young people to participate. A number of the organisations that were successful in bidding to run the pilots have a strong track record in working with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and we will closely monitor the success of the pilots in working with those young people.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Given that education maintenance allowance is being scrapped and that the Connexions service in my constituency faces huge cuts, how can disadvantaged young people in Houghton and Sunderland South be confident that they will benefit from the national citizen service?
Mr Maude
The hon. Lady will be glad to know that a number of NCS pilots are taking place in and around her constituency. The Prince’s Trust is running a pilot in collaboration with local partners, including Sunderland football club, and Catch22 is running pilots in Sunderland and Washington. I hope that she will engage directly with those organisations to ensure that the widest possible range of participants is attracted to those pilots.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effects on the big society initiative of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished head teacher in Scotland, I believe, and if his question relates to the effects in Scotland, he should of course address it to Scottish Ministers, as we do not have responsibility in that field.
For England, £470 million a year has been allocated to the Office for Civil Society, a considerable amount in light of the spending review. We have also allocated £100 million to the transition fund, and as I have mentioned repeatedly, there are huge new opportunities for voluntary bodies.
Lindsay Roy
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he reassure me that ultimate responsibility for providing a safety net for the most vulnerable people in society still rests with the state?
Mr Letwin
Of course responsibility for ensuring that people are cured, taught and protected from criminals rests with the Government and the state. The question is how that responsibility is best fulfilled. In our view, there are some areas in which things should be done by innovative and enterprising voluntary and community groups, rather than being delivered directly by public authorities.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andrew George
The NHS is facing massive reorganisation, while at the same time seeking the greatest savings in its 62-year history. Respected professional medical bodies warn about the risks to public service of giving private companies the easy pickings. Before pursuing that gamble will the Prime Minister reflect carefully, informed by clinicians and the coalition programme that we agreed last May?
The Prime Minister
We will listen very carefully to the professionals, but the reason for making modernisation of the NHS such a priority is simply that this country now has European levels of health spending but does not have European levels of success in our health service. Of course, what we want is a level playing field for other organisations to come into the NHS. What we will not have is what we had from Labour, which was a rigged market.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister think it is a sign of success or failure that unemployment is rising and employment is falling?
The Prime Minister
Of course every increase in unemployment is a matter of huge concern, and that is why we are launching the biggest back-to-work programme that this country has ever seen, the Work programme.
There are some very disappointing figures today, particularly on youth unemployment, and I am sure we will talk about that in a moment, but there are some mixed pictures. The claimant count has gone down for the third month in a row, the number of vacancies is up and the average of the independent forecasts published today sees growth revised upwards. The biggest task for this Government, and frankly for this country, is to get to grips with the long-term structural problem of youth unemployment, which has been going up for years in our country and went up by 40% under Labour.
Edward Miliband
After that complacency, when 50,000 people have lost their job, it is no wonder they rumbled the Prime Minister in Oldham. The truth is that he is cutting too far and too fast, and British people are paying the price.
The Prime Minister mentioned youth unemployment. It is at its highest since 1992, yet he is abolishing the future jobs fund and the new programme does not even come into force until the middle of the year. After these figures, why does he not change his mind, reinstate the future jobs fund and help create an extra 100,000 jobs this year?
The Prime Minister
First, I think it is a good idea to listen to the answer before reading out the next question. Let me deal specifically with the future jobs fund. We looked very carefully at it and found that it was expensive, badly targeted and did not work. We now have the figures for the future jobs fund. It was five times more expensive than some other employment programmes, it lasted for six months and, within one month, 50% of those taking part were back on benefits. Hardly any of the jobs under the future jobs fund were in the private sector. The scheme in Birmingham, for instance, had just 2% of its jobs in the private sector. Far too many were make-work jobs in the public sector, and they were not solving the problem.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
This week, a parents’ campaign group in Battersea moved a big step closer to starting a new free school. Their campaign is supported by Wandsworth council and enjoyed cross-party support before the general election. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me not only in wishing the new Bolingbroke academy well but in saying to the unions and other people running a campaign of vilification against those parents that it is time to back off.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks for many in supporting the opening up of our education system and saying to academies and free schools, “You are welcome to come in and provide a great education for free to children and parents in our country.” I have to say that it is a very big choice for the Labour party whether it sticks with the programme of reform and opening up education, or whether it sides with the trade unions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Q2. Leaked figures that I have managed to get hold of show—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Calm down. The leaked figures show that police forces in Wales must cut their numbers by 1,600 police officers and staff. The South Wales police force told me this morning that in that one force 688 officers are going to have to disappear. The Prime Minister said on 2 May last year that he would outlaw any front-line cuts. Why is he backing down on his promise?
The Prime Minister
I find that the best way of calming down is by reading the hon. Gentleman’s poetry—I find that very instructive. All police forces are facing a difficult financial settlement. I accept that. The context for all this is the vast budget deficit that we were left and the huge mess that we have to clear up. I have the figures for the South Wales police force. Next year, it must find a 5% cut. That will take it back not to some figure of the 1980s, but to the spending it had in 2007-08. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that it is quite possible to make those sorts of reductions—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he should have the manners to listen to the answer. The fact is that HMIC said that it is possible to achieve those reductions while not losing front-line officers. That is what needs to be delivered.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s social security reform programme is the first serious attempt since Beveridge to get back to the principle that—to coin a phrase—we should be offering people a hand up and not a handout?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is a very bold and radical reform that basically will mean that every single person who is on welfare will always be better off in work or always better off doing more hours of work. Even the Opposition would accept that so many reforms have simply moved the poverty trap up the income scale. We should always make it worth while for people to work harder or to work more, and that is what our reforms will do.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Q3. Fuel prices in Northern Ireland currently average 135p per litre and rising, forcing many motorists to go into the Republic of Ireland to fill their vehicles, which is a major loss to the British Exchequer. Because of the land border, will the Prime Minister consider introducing in Northern Ireland a rural rebate scheme similar to that in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
I understand the cross-border problem that the hon. Gentleman raises and that fuel smuggling between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been a real problem. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury would have heard him ask for the expansion of the scheme that was in the Budget. Obviously, we are looking hard at how we can help families and motorists with their fuel and motoring bills. However, I would say this: everyone should remember that the last four increases in fuel duty were all put through in the last Labour Budget.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I know that, like me, the Prime Minister is a fan of the teaching of British history in schools. Does he think that when the political history of the past 13 years is written, it will advise pupils to borrow, borrow and borrow through the boom, or will it advise them to learn from Labour’s mistakes?
The Prime Minister
I hope we can get into the curriculum the idea that we should fix the roof while the sun is shining. What we heard at the weekend from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was interesting: he has now had nine months to digest Labour’s mistakes, and he has come up with the answer that they did not spend too much and they did not borrow too much, and his message to the British people is, “Vote for me and we’d do it all over again.”
Edward Miliband
Can the Prime Minister guarantee that under his NHS plans hospital waiting times will not rise?
The Prime Minister
We want waiting times and waiting lists to come down. [Interruption.] The whole aim of these NHS reforms is to make sure we get the value for the money we put in. [Interruption.] I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman this: it is clear now that Labour—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. A 10-year-old constituent of mine came to observe Prime Minister’s questions last week, and asked me afterwards, “Why do so many people shout their heads off?” It is rude and it should not happen.
The Prime Minister
I would love to know what your answer was, Mr Speaker.
The point is this: we are putting the money in—£10.6 billion extra during this Parliament; money that, by the way, the Labour party does not support—but we want to get value for that money because, frankly, today we do not have the right outcomes for cancer and for heart disease. We want to do better. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of reform, or is he going to oppose it all?
Edward Miliband
I notice that the Prime Minister did not answer the question. Patients want to know something quite simple: how long will they have to wait for treatment? They all remember waiting for years under the last Conservative Government, and they know that we now have the shortest waiting times in history because of what the Labour Government did. If the Prime Minister thinks his reforms are so good, why cannot he give us a simple guarantee that waiting times will not rise?
The Prime Minister
Waiting times will rise if we stop putting the money into the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman’s shadow Chancellor is not here today, but this is what he said about our plan to increase NHS spending by more than inflation every year: “There is no logic” or rationale to it. That is the answer: we get investment in the NHS from this coalition Government, but we would get cuts from the Labour party.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister cannot make a guarantee because he has abolished the guarantees. He has abolished the guarantees that Labour brought in, such as the 18-week waiting list guarantee. He is taking the “national” out of the national health service. Patients are worried, and doctors and nurses say his reforms are extremely risky and potentially disastrous. Why is he so arrogant as to think he is right and all the people who say he is wrong are wrong?
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong: the waiting time points he made are written into the NHS constitution and will stay under this Government. So, first of all, he is wrong. The second point is that we will not be able to get waiting times down and improve our public health in this country unless we cut bureaucracy in the NHS. That is what this is about. We are spending £1.4 billion—a one-off—to save £1.7 billion every year. That will save £5 billion by the end of this Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman opposes the reforms, where will that money come from?
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister has obviously not noticed that people are not convinced by his reforms. Even the GP sitting on his own Benches said this is like tossing a hand grenade into the NHS. Is not the truth that, just like on every other issue, we get broken promises from this Prime Minister? He is breaking his promise on no top-down reorganisation of the NHS; he is breaking his promise on a real-terms rise in NHS funding; he is breaking his promise for 3,000 more midwives; and he is breaking his promise to put patients first. It is the same old story: you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.
The Prime Minister
It is the same old feeble pre-scripted lines. The right hon. Gentleman practises them every week; I am sure they sound fantastic when they are spoken before the bathroom mirror. The facts are these: this Government are putting the money into the NHS, but the Opposition do not support that; this Government are cutting the bureaucracy in the NHS, but they do not support that; and this Government are reforming the NHS so that we get the best in Europe, but they do not support that. So this is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy: no to the money, keep the bureaucracy, do not reform the NHS. I would go back to the blank sheet of paper.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Prime Minister, our Government say that we want to help disabled people back to work. Two years ago, my constituent, Mr Robert Oxley, a father of four, had a serious motorcycle accident, which resulted in one leg being amputated and the other leg no longer functioning. A year later, he recovered and his firm gave him back his job, which he has been able to continue for a year through disability living allowance and Motability. Regrettably, those in charge, including callous cretins on the tribunal, have taken away his DLA and took away his Motability car on Monday, and he is now out of work—or he will be. May I ask the Prime Minister where in that story the words “fairness” and “all in it together” feature?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s case. We have all seen cases in our constituencies where tribunals have come to conclusions that completely fly in the face of common sense. I am very happy to take up that case, have a look at it and see what can be done. We should do what we can to help disabled people, particularly with the mobility needs that they have. Having filled out those forms myself, I know just how soul destroying and complicated it can be and how much we need to help people who cannot get around to make sure that they do.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
Q4. The Prime Minister will be aware that my constituents in inner-city Manchester have some of the worst health and, brutally, die younger than people in other parts of the country. If he will not give a guarantee about waiting lists nationally, will he make a solemn and binding pledge to my constituents that at least in the inner cities waiting lists will not go up, either in number or in time?
The Prime Minister
The pledge I would make is this. As the hon. Gentleman has just revealed, we have health inequalities in our country that are as bad as those in Victorian times. Let us be frank: we have those after a decade of increased money going into the NHS and we are not getting it right. That is the reason for carrying out these reforms. If we just stay where we are, as seems now to be the policy of the Labour party, we will lag behind on cancer, we will lag behind on heart disease and his constituents will die younger than mine because we do not have a fair system. Let us reform it and sort it out.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister of France last week that Britain will never permit fiscal control of its economy by the European Union?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q5. The Prime Minister has repeated his claim that the Government are putting more money into the NHS, yet the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has been told that it must make cuts of 16% over the next four years. Why?
The Prime Minister
Let me remind the hon. Lady that her own shadow Chancellor said that there is “no logic”—[Interruption.] This is an answer. He said that there is “no logic” or rationale to our policy of real-terms increases in the NHS. What we are cutting in the NHS is the bureaucracy of the NHS. Since 2002, under Labour, the primary care trusts and the strategic health authorities increased their spending on themselves—on their bureaucracy—by 120%. We can go on spending this money and not put it into patient care and better public health, but I think that that is wrong. That is why we are making these changes.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Q6. Severe disruptions to train services in the winter of 2009 led to David Quarmby carrying out an urgent service and severe weather audit. This winter saw massive disruption to services, with Network Rail leaving trains stranded south of the river, causing a 75% cut in peak services over Christmas for my constituents. What steps are the Government going to take to shake up Network Rail and bring about a radical improvement to our train services?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned an independent audit of how transport operations performed during the worst weather in December. We have to look at some particular issues, such as the frozen third rail that affected so many services. She is right to call to account Network Rail and the train operators. We want to make sure that they improve the service that they provide and the way in which they communicate with the public when things are not going right.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Q7. Does the Prime Minister see the conflict of interest in private health care companies, which stand to benefit most from his health care reforms, donating £750,000 to the Conservative party? Is that what he means by “We are all in it together”?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman the big difference between the health reforms that we are proposing and what the Labour Government did. The Labour Government rigged the market in favour of a few hand-picked independent private sector suppliers. That is what they did; what we are saying is that there should be a level playing field. Before the hon. Gentleman complains about it, he should have a look at his own party’s manifesto—and I quote it almost directly— which said that the private sector should be allowed into the NHS alongside the NHS. Those are the words from the Labour manifesto, written by his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will Tony Blair’s correspondence with George Bush be published before Mr Blair’s next appearance in front of the Iraq inquiry?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will know that there is a long-standing convention, quite rightly, that a serving Prime Minister does not and cannot order the release of papers that refer to a previous Prime Minister. That is why the Cabinet Secretary will be looking at this issue, which is a matter for him. Anyone unhappy with the conclusions is clearly able to write to Tony Blair to make their views known. For my own part, I hope this inquiry can be as open and clear as possible so that we get to the bottom of the very important issues it is looking at.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Q8. As the Prime Minister will be aware, I spent most of my working life in schools and colleges, so I have overwhelming evidence of the benefits of the education maintenance allowance. It brings benefits to teenagers from modest backgrounds in terms of their employability skills and in raising their achievement. May I urge the Prime Minister to go back to the position when he pledged to support EMA, so that we can support our economy as we move forward?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the problem is that we want more people to stay on in school, but we have to look at the working of the current system. The Labour Government commissioned research and found that 90% of those on EMA would have attended school in any event. We also have to look at the context in which EMA was introduced into this country. Let me cite what the hon. Gentleman’s parliamentary colleague, the former Prime Minister said at the time:
“We will fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings that we have made from our success in reducing… debt.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 29.]
Is it any surprise that we are having to look at these spending programmes and work out how to get better value for money to clear up the mess we have been left?
Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)
Q9. My constituents in Corby and East Northamptonshire are still suffering today from the disastrous top-down housing targets imposed by the Labour Government. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Localism Bill will restore planning power to local people in Corby and east Northamptonshire?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The failure of top-down housing targets was that they not only created huge unease around the country but did not result in the building of very many houses, as house building fell to such a low level. Our more local version will make sure that where councils go ahead and build houses, they will benefit from doing so.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
While we all welcome the comparative calm during the referendum in southern Sudan, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that hundreds of thousands of southerners are seeking to move back home from the north? Will he ensure that they have the maximum protection as well as the maximum of humanitarian aid?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight what a relative success the process has been so far, given some of the warnings made about the dangers of the referendum and the process being followed. Part of the reason for that—I pay tribute to previous Governments as well—is that the countries that care about the Sudan and want this to work well have put in a huge amount of effort. I include my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who chaired the key meeting on the subject at the United Nations. I will certainly listen to what was said, and we should make sure that the movement of people is carried out in the best way possible.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Q10. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the NHS reforms we must tackle straight away the fact that senior management in both NHS trusts and primary care trusts are being rewarded for failure by being promoted or given large pay-offs and that it should stop now?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. There have been too many occasions on which a manager in the NHS has failed in one PCT or strategic health authority and gone on and failed in another. One answer to this issue is the greater transparency that we are bringing to all such arrangements so that people can see how much they are paid, what the results are and how successful they were before they go on and land another well-paid job.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Government announced this week that they will not extend to Northern Ireland the UK rules on political party donations at this time. Will the Prime Minister clarify what was the greatest driver for that decision? Was it the security concerns or the lobbying of local parties that simply do not want to be exposed to transparency?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady says. The security situation in Northern Ireland is a very difficult and sensitive one at the moment and the Government are giving it a huge amount of time and attention to try to help the devolved authorities in everything they are doing to combat the terrorist threat, but in terms of the specific question she asks perhaps I can write to her and give her a considered response.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Q11. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there have been some pretty disgraceful delaying and filibustering tactics at the other end of the corridor in an attempt to delay the introduction of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Will he assure the House that the Government will make no concessions to those who filibuster?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right: we should not make concessions to a bunch, mainly of former MPs, who are supposed to be supporting the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who wants the AV referendum to take place. I have to ask him how, if he is so in favour of the referendum and thinks it so important and so wants to stand on a platform, he has lost control of his party?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Q12. Owens Road Services, a haulier from south Wales working in Blaenau Gwent, has a fleet of 270 lorries. Last year, it bought nearly 11 million litres of fuel, paying more than £6 million in fuel duty, and it has shouldered a 14% increase in fuel bills in the past year. What is the Prime Minister going to do about high fuel bills?
The Prime Minister
Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, there is the point that the fuel duty increases were all part of the previous Labour Government’s Budget. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads; they all supported the Budget and voted for it at the time. However, there is another answer, which is that we should look at Britain’s hauliers and see how we can help them with a discount for those that are British-based. We are looking into that and at what can be done, because for many years British hauliers have been disadvantaged against their continental counterparts and we would like to put that right.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister agree that what has happened in Burnley with the closure of our accident and emergency unit and the transfer of a children’s ward to Blackburn will not happen when people power takes over, with our GPs, to change the national health service?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Under the previous Government and the previous arrangements, hospital closures and decisions were driven by bureaucrats in Whitehall, strategic health authorities and PCTs, and they did not depend on decisions that patients and GPs were making about the structure of health services in this country. That is the big change we are making. In future, the success of hospitals and health centres will depend on the choices that people make with their GP; that is the big change and it will drive a better health service.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q13. The north-east illegal moneylending team has a record of catching loan sharks and setting up credit unions in Easterside, Middlesbrough to encourage saving and safe lending. Worryingly, after all that hard work, the Department for Communities and Local Government website has signposted vulnerable people to loan companies offering rates of up to 2,689% APR. In the light of that, will the Prime Minister please meet me to review his decision on the closure of that team?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and the DCLG to discuss this issue. I think there is unity across the House that we should try to encourage credit unions and try to get people out of the hands of loan sharks. That is our policy and that is what we want to do, so I shall happily arrange that meeting.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Q14. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments earlier about the Localism Bill. Can he confirm that its provisions will apply to applications for onshore wind farms such as those on the Dengie peninsula in my constituency? One of them has already been described as harmful to the local environment, and it is deeply unpopular with the local community.
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend a positive answer. The Localism Bill addresses that issue. As well as doing that, it is important that where local communities are affected by things such as onshore wind, they should make sure that they benefit from those developments. The Localism Bill brings a whole new approach that will much better settle this difficult debate than what has been done until now.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q15. Today, there is an order before Parliament to proscribe the TTP—Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan—the Pakistan Taliban. Just one week into the term of office of the Prime Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the right hon. Gentleman demanded to know why my right hon. Friend had not proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. Just eight months into the Prime Minister’s term of office, can he explain to the House why he has not fulfilled his manifesto commitment?
The Prime Minister
We could put it another way round: why did the last Government have 13 years, yet the Pakistani Taliban were never banned? It has taken us eight months to do what they failed to do in 12 years.
Mr Speaker
Order. We now have a statement. I ask right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that we can hear the Minister.
Education Maintenance Allowance
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from the students of Walsall college.
The petitioners oppose any reduction in weekly education maintenance allowance payments in this Parliament. They further oppose the loss of financial support to 14 to 19-year-olds from low-income families who wish to stay on in further education. They therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take all possible steps to continue the payment of education maintenance allowance.
There are 402 signatories to the petition in similar terms.
[Following is the full text of the petition:
The Petition of students of Walsall College,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose any reduction in weekly education maintenance allowance payments in this Parliament and notes that the Petitioners further oppose the loss of financial support to 14 to 19-year-olds from low-income families who wish to stay on in further education.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to continue the payment of education maintenance allowance.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.]
[P000878]
Sustainable Transport
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to accompany the publication today of the coalition Government’s White Paper on local transport, and the simultaneous publication of bidding guidance to accompany our new local sustainable transport fund. Both documents are available to colleagues in the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library of the House.
This Government’s vision is for a transport system that helps create growth in the economy, and tackles climate change by cutting our carbon emissions. The launch of the White Paper, and the associated local sustainable transport fund, represents a significant step towards meeting those two key Government objectives.
In both the Budget and the spending review, the Chancellor pledged to make the tough choices that will allow us to maintain investment in new and existing infrastructure to support a growing economy, while eliminating the structural deficit over the lifetime of the Parliament. The spending review reflected transport’s vital role in this. I am pleased that we were able to secure significant investment to allow us to go ahead with important transport initiatives. The investment we have committed to in rail, low-carbon vehicles and public and sustainable transport reflects the determination to secure growth while cutting carbon.
In the medium term, our transport decarbonisation strategy centres on the progressive electrification of the passenger car fleet, supported by policies to increase generation capacity and decarbonise the grid. By also prioritising spending on key rail projects such as high-speed rail and rail electrification, we will be providing travellers with attractive new options instead of the plane and the car.
In the immediate term, addressing shorter, local trips offers huge potential in helping to grow the economy and tackle climate change. Shorter trips are important— two thirds of all journeys are less than five miles. Walking, cycling and public transport are all real, greener alternatives for such trips. What is more, we know that people who travel to the shops on foot, by bicycle or by public transport can spend more per head than those who travel by car, and research shows that improvements to the public realm can increase turnover in the high street by 5% to 15%. Increased sustainable travel also helps tackle congestion, which is a drag on business causing excess delays in urban areas at a cost of around £11 billion per annum.
Let us not forget the further benefits that follow a shift to more sustainable transport—benefits to the air we breathe and to our levels of fitness, and the money in our pockets as well. Investment in sustainable transport helps make our towns and cities healthier and more attractive places to live, work and shop.
The White Paper sets out how we can encourage the uptake of more sustainable modes at local level, and the unprecedented £560 million we have allocated in our new local sustainable transport fund will support that. Our commitment to helping local authorities with this vital agenda is reaffirmed by the amount of money we are making available. The local sustainable transport fund forms part of a wider picture of more streamlined and simplified funding for local authorities. That will give local authorities more power and flexibility to meet local transport needs.
Across Government, we have demonstrated our commitment to ending top-down decision making and the tendency in Whitehall to develop one-size-fits-all solutions that ignore the specific needs and behaviour patterns of local communities. The Government have already taken significant steps to hand back power to local communities, including replacing regional development agencies with local enterprise partnerships, giving communities a much greater say over planning decisions and ending the top-down imposition of housing targets. Today’s White Paper is about extending the decentralisation of power to local transport and putting into context what that means for local authorities.
We are particularly keen to receive bids for the local sustainable transport fund from local authorities that are in partnership with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and that have the support of local businesses. We believe that by encouraging bids in this way, we will be able to capture innovative solutions to local transport needs in all areas—rural and urban. An example I often cite is the Cuckmere community bus in my constituency. Individual residents in Cuckmere valley have come together to run regular and frequent bus services that take people in rural areas to their nearest towns. The services are provided entirely by volunteers. Wheels to Work schemes provide transport to people who are unable to access training, employment or education due to a lack of suitable public or private transport. The schemes can therefore particularly benefit people living in isolated rural communities, and they can play an important role in helping people to come off benefits and regain their independence. Those real examples are happening right now, and we want to enable similar stories to unfold in other areas across the country.
In addition, we recognise that some initiatives benefit from a single national approach. They include the provision of £11 million of funding for Bikeability cycle training next year to allow 275,000 10 to 11-year-olds to benefit from on-road cycle training. There is a commitment to support Bikeability for the duration of the Parliament, which will allow as many children as possible to undertake high-quality cycle training.
We will also improve end-to-end journeys by encouraging transport operators, and those involved in promoting cycling and car clubs or sharing, to work together to provide better information and integrate tickets and timetables. We are delivering with operators and public sector bodies the infrastructure to enable most local public transport journeys to be undertaken using smart ticketing by December 2014. We will work with the transport industry to support the development of e-purses and other technology related to smart ticketing, and we will support the infrastructure to make that happen. The way in which transport investment decisions are made will be reviewed to ensure that the carbon implications are fully recognised. Responsibility for local roads classification will be transferred to local authorities to give them the flexibility to determine the status of their roads. We will also be setting out in a strategic framework for road safety by spring 2011 how to ensure that Britain’s roads remain the world’s safest. Traffic signs policy will be modernised to provide more flexibility and reduced costs and bureaucracy for local authorities to enable them to develop innovative traffic management solutions.
We want to build a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, and also one that is greener—one that creates growth and cuts carbon. By improving the links that move goods and people around, by encouraging people to travel sustainably, and by targeting investment in new projects that promote green growth, we can help to build the balanced, dynamic low-carbon economy that is essential for our future prosperity. The White Paper and the associated local sustainable transport fund demonstrate our commitment to taking that agenda forward, and I commend them to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement earlier today. However, I am afraid that he has given us nothing more than a re-heated and re-packaged announcement to cover his embarrassment at the devastating impact that the speed and scale of his Government’s cuts is having on local transport throughout the country. Despite all his warm words about the importance of local transport, this Tory-led Government, of whom he is a hostage, are decimating bus services, putting rail travel out of the price range of many and crippling local government’s ability to deliver vital local transport improvements.
The hon. Gentleman talks of his “new” £560 million local sustainable transport fund, yet he knows full well that the fund, which he announced in the comprehensive spending review, is a sticking plaster over the gaping hole left by his massive 28% cut to local government transport spending. Will he confirm that while he is front-loading the cuts, he is providing only £30 million of capital spending and £50 million of revenue spending for the next financial year, which in effect means that local government transport was cut by £309 million this year, and he is giving back £80 million next year? It is no wonder that he told The Daily Telegraph:
“I don’t like George Osborne very much”.
For all the Under-Secretary’s good intentions and personal commitment to sustainable transport, is he not operating with one hand tied behind his back—doubtless tied there by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? Now we know who he was talking about when he told The Daily Telegraph:
“I mean, there are Tories who are quite good and there are Tories who are, you know, beyond the pale, and, you know, you have to just deal with the cards you’ve got”.
The truth is that the Under-Secretary has had a bad hand to play—a Budget settlement that will mean a significant reversal of the improvements in sustainable local transport schemes that were made during Labour’s period in office.
Does the Under-Secretary have any idea about what is actually happening to public transport around the country as a result of his policies? Does he realise that the 20% cut to the bus service operator grant, combined with changes to the concessionary fares scheme, is having a devastating impact on local bus services? With fuel prices at record levels, does he understand the impact of cutting the fuel cost subsidy on enabling bus operators to sustain unprofitable services?
Has the hon. Gentleman seen today’s reports that councils throughout the country are withdrawing services? Half the subsidised services are being axed in Somerset; more than 70 rural services are being scrapped or reduced in Durham; nearly 30 services are threatened in North Yorkshire; and 60 are being reviewed in Suffolk, while Kent has warned that all unprofitable routes will be axed. Does he have any idea of the social consequences of those cuts?
Has the Under-Secretary seen this week’s report from the Association of Colleges, which shows that 94% of colleges believe that the combination of scrapping education maintenance allowance and cutting local transport means that students will be unable to get to college and therefore unable to complete their courses? It is all well and good the Government’s telling people to get on the bus to find work, but they have to be able to afford to do that, and the buses have to be there. The impact of the cuts will be especially felt by those who are out of work and looking for a job, two thirds of whom do not have a driving licence or access to a car.
Does the Under-Secretary agree that all his good intentions are undermined when he prices people off the roads and off local public transport? Is he aware that his Department’s figures show that, without the bus service operator grant, there could be a 6.5% increase in fares and consequently a 6.7% fall in bus usage? He should be aware of it, because he signed off the parliamentary answer that gave the figures.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, by hiking rail fares by more than 30% across the spending review period, he is driving people off the railways and back on to the roads? [Interruption.] Instead of whispering in the Under-Secretary’s ear, the Secretary of State could have delivered the statement himself . Before the election, the Under-Secretary was going around the country, promising to cut rail fares. Now he is overseeing record increases. Does he understand that people will find his claims about investment in rail hollow at best when he has scaled back the planned electrification, cut the number of new carriages, and delayed the completion of major vital schemes, such as Thameslink and Crossrail? Does he accept that the consequence of hiking the costs of using public transport will force people back on to the roads, where they will be hit again by rising fuel prices, thanks to the increase in VAT on fuel to 20%? He is adding to the pressures faced by families who are already feeling the squeeze.
The Tory-led Government, of whom the Under-Secretary appears to be a frustrated and reluctant member, are reducing the amount of funding for local government transport schemes by more than a quarter. They claim to be green, to care about sustainability, to want to support public transport and to believe in localism, yet they give back with one hand to local communities today a fraction of what they have already taken away with the other. For all the warm words today and everything positive in the White Paper, we are seeing the localising not of transport decisions but of the blame for the Government’s cuts to local transport.
Norman Baker
I am afraid that the hon. Lady was her usual churlish self. There was not a single practical suggestion on how we might improve sustainable transport, and not a single admission that the deficit has caused any of the problems with which we are dealing. If I may say so, having had plenty of experience in opposition, the skill of opposition is not to oppose everything indiscriminately, 100%; it is about making positive suggestions as well as identifying problems. I am afraid that she has to learn a bit about opposition, as well as about other matters, perhaps, to do with how her party operates. She ought to be taking fewer lessons from Tom Baldwin about what language to use, and should concentrate more on transport matters, rather than on spin, as still happens with the Opposition, it seems.
The fact of the matter is that £560 million is a very substantial sum to invest in this area. We did so because we were interested in creating growth and cutting carbon—two matters that appear to be of little interest to the hon. Lady, judging by her peroration. I looked at the figures for sustainable transport grants for 2010-11—money spent in the Labour Government’s last year on cycling, school travel, smart ticketing and so on. It came to £120 million for that year. Next year, 2012, we will spend £140 million on the local sustainable transport fund, and that will rise to £180 million by 2014-15.
I point out that the previous Government’s spending was characterised by wasting money on reports, tick-box exercises and setting targets that were never met. For example, £150 million was spent on the travelling to school initiative, and the final evaluation report, which I shall publish next week, shows it to be very poor value for money indeed, in terms of changing behaviour in any shape or form. Our approach is different: set a clear vision to empower local authorities, and provide them with the funds to get on with the job that they need to do.
As for the matters that the hon. Lady actually raised, if I can discern any in her diatribe, the bus service operators grant, to which she referred, is not being cut this year; it will be reduced from the following year, and the reduction is less than the average reduction in revenue budgets across Government. She will know that the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents most bus companies, said that it thought, by and large, that the reduction could be absorbed without fares having to rise. She also pays no attention to the fact that the vast majority of bus services are commercially driven, so what councils have or do not have is irrelevant to the majority of the bus network in this country.
The hon. Lady paid no attention to the very good initiatives taking place, some of which I referred to in my statement. An example is the Wheels to Work initiative, which is busy giving people the opportunity to get back into work on a lower-carbon means of transport, helping the economy to grow, helping people out of unemployment, and helping to reduce carbon emissions at the same time.
I am very sorry that the hon. Lady chose to be so negative when the proposals were put forward, because if she listens to some of her party’s Back Benchers, she might find that there are matters in the statement that are welcomed by Members in all sections of the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is a heavily subscribed Opposition day debate to follow, and there is therefore a premium on time, so brevity from Back Bencher and Front Bencher alike is essential if large numbers of colleagues are not to be disappointed.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the details of the local sustainable transport fund. Three Holme Valley councillors wrote to him last week, telling him that First Bus has recently cut local bus services in Holme Valley, leaving many people without much-needed rural bus transport. Will he meet those councillors, some local people and me to see how the announcement today can help to give them the services that they need in their local area?
Norman Baker
I am grateful for that positive intervention from my hon. Friend, who recognises that working together—working with other Members of Parliament and with local councils—can help. Of course, I would be happy to meet him and his councillors.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the emphasis on sustainable local transport, but could the Minister explain how local needs will be met, as the fund partially replaces major cuts in local transport funding, where decisions are made locally, with centralised decision making in a competitive system?
Norman Baker
The Government are entitled to set high-level strategy targets to help create growth and cut carbon, but beyond that we are making powers available to local councils to a greater extent than hitherto. For example, the Department for Transport operated 26 funding streams for transport under the previous Government; that has been reduced to four. In respect of the local sustainable transport fund, to which the hon. Lady refers, I can assure her that the assessment process will be very light touch, with a view to getting local authorities’ money out there as soon as possible to help with their plans. Provided that they can demonstrate that they will create growth and cut carbon, we will be happy with what they put forward.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating British companies such as Transport Design International, which designs cheap, green, popular, ultra-light trams. Does he, like me, regret that most of its designs are currently going overseas, and hope that some of the very welcome funds that he has announced today could be used to support innovative ultra-light tram systems at local level?
Norman Baker
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government support light rail. In the spending review we announced extensions to the schemes in Nottingham and the Midland Metro. We are always open to ideas that will benefit people by providing extra public transport and which reduce carbon emissions. With my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has responsibility for rail, we are discussing, for example, issues related to tram-trains. We are keen to take that agenda forward.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
In Newcastle, bus transport is an essential and valued part of our economic infrastructure, but in the evening many services stop, leaving the vulnerable, particularly women, unable to use public transport at night and forcing many to use cars, which is unsustainable. The White Paper and the cuts to the subsidy for bus transport do nothing to address the issue. The Minister spoke about volunteers. Can he outline how he expects volunteers to play a role in giving Newcastle evening bus transport?
Norman Baker
The hon. Lady raises a valid point about safety on buses and the accessibility of those bus services in the evening. Depending on the ingenuity of the local city council and others, it is perfectly possible that measures could be taken to improve that. For example, end-to-end journeys, joined-up transport, through-ticketing and the safety of bus stations could all, in theory, be eligible for grants under the fund, so I encourage her to talk to her local council and see whether she can come up with a scheme for submission.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Yesterday, I visited Menorah primary school in my constituency. Its green travel plan is being hampered by the lack of electric charging points. Can the Minister confirm that the local council could bid for transport fund moneys to introduce the infrastructure that would allow an expansion of electric charging points?
Norman Baker
We are open to bids and we have no preconceptions about what those bids would include. Providing that they demonstrate that they create growth and cut carbon, we are open to suggestions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under this Government the Secretary of State has been personally involved in moving on plug-in places. We see that as a key element of the future of transport in our country.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Public transport in this country remains more expensive than almost anywhere else in Europe, yet the service that people get is one of the worst. What would the Minister tell my constituents in Brighton, Pavilion who struggle daily with poor, expensive and crowded rail services?
Norman Baker
I am familiar with Brighton, as the hon. Lady knows. I would say that the public transport system in her constituency is extremely good. Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company is one of the best bus companies in the country, and Southern has invested recently in new rolling stock and is one of the better train companies. The frequency of services will be further enhanced by the Thameslink programme and the Government are committed to 2,100 new railway carriages, so people in Brighton and on the south coast can have confidence that the public transport system is serving them well.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. It is timely for my constituency, as Milton Keynes council is consulting on local transport needs and priorities in the coming years. To ensure that that consultation is properly aligned with the new fund, will he say a little more about its time scale and the greater flexibility that local authorities will have?
Norman Baker
The guidance for the bidding process has also been released today and is available to Members in the Vote Office. Essentially, there are two bidding rounds for smaller scale projects of up to £5 million and another bidding round for larger projects of up to £50 million. The objective is to make them as quick and as easy as possible, subject to securing value for money and making sure that the money can be released as a consequence of that. The shorter projects will be progressed more quickly than the larger projects, but the time scale has been made available as part of the guidance.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I was interested to hear in the statement about the funding for Bikeability, but members of British Cycling, like me, will want to know whether the Minister will take this opportunity to update the out-of-date transport regulations that are hampering the growth of the sport on the road.
Norman Baker
I am happy to say that the Government are fully committed to cycling. It features in the coalition agreement and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the reference to £11 million for Bikeability this year and a further guarantee for the rest of the Parliament, for example. In respect of the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about racing on the road, I am happy to tell him that I had a meeting earlier this week with officials and key interested parties, and we are close to moving that forward to a satisfactory solution.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
As the Minister knows, cycle and bus usage tends not to follow local government boundaries. Will the guidance in the scheme encourage cross-border bids, such as to turn the A380 between Newton Abbot and Torquay into a cycle-bus expressway once the Kingskerswell bypass has been built?
Norman Baker
I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to introduce his proposed bypass into the question. The answer to the question about the guidance is yes, it expressly allows councils to work together across boundaries. Indeed, it encourages them to do so.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with his Liberal Democrat colleagues on Bristol city council the contribution that the Severn Beach railway line makes towards the sustainable local transport system? May I urge him to do all he can to work with them to ensure the survival of the Severn Beach line?
Norman Baker
I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that I shall be in Bristol tomorrow, so I will have an opportunity to take that forward then.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the focus on and the new funding for sustainable local transport that the Minister described. There is a particular issue of transport for people in rural areas, such as mine in Herefordshire. Will the Minister meet a delegation from Herefordshire to discuss this important local issue?
Norman Baker
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I shall be happy to meet a delegation. We are conscious of the need to recognise the importance of rural areas. That is why the White Paper today and the associated guidance gives indications to rural counties in particular how they might be successful in the bidding process.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the House, but I have probably had enough birthday wishes. I am very thankful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the reduction in carbon emissions. That is good news. In better weather conditions it would be more attractive to walk or to use a bicycle. The Minister outlined a number of incentives to draw people away from cars and encourage them to use alternative transport, but at a time when fuel prices are coming to their highest level and transport charges are rising and are set to rise again, is there not a balance to be struck between the carrot and the stick approach? Can he tell us how he proposes to get people out of cars and on to alternative transport?
Norman Baker
I should make it plain that the local transport White Paper relates to England only, but it is reasonable to draw attention to that matter. One of the ways that we encourage use of public transport is making it more attractive by making it safer and more convenient. We are doing a lot of work, for example, on through-ticketing and on smart ticketing, as all the evidence suggests that if people have confidence that they can leave their front door and arrive at their destination without worrying about the last two miles, they are more likely to use public transport for the majority of the journey. A great deal of work is being done on that. Making public transport attractive is a key to achieving modal shift.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
What an excellent way for you to remember this special day, Mr Speaker, by calling me to ask a question.
I commend the Minister for the statement. In my constituency, we have two schemes that are before the Department. As far as I can see, they are entirely compatible with creating growth and cutting carbon through their benefits to the local economy and taking people off the roads. Those are the Croxley rail link project and the Watford junction project. May we have a decision on them as soon as possible? I hope that my hon. Friend will be favourably inclined to grant them.
Norman Baker
I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to link that to the statement. I can assure him that the matters to which he refers are under active consideration. A timetable has been published and we will shortly be able to give him and others in the House detailed information about the decisions to be taken.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Has the Minister had time to look at the Blyth and Tyne rail link that runs through my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)? The line is used principally by Alcan and for coal. It is a shame that it is not used for transport in our area of south-east Northumberland. Will the Minister look into that?
Norman Baker
We are always happy to look at potential public transport improvements. I am not familiar with that line myself, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State who has responsibility for rail is sitting next to me and has carefully noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
Penblwydd hapus, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that when the Minister visits Bristol tomorrow he will receive a warm welcome from people from all parties. If he is travelling by train to Bristol Temple Meads, he may be disturbed by the cost of the bus service into the city. Does he agree that to address the huge potential for shorter journeys that he mentions in his statement we need seriously to address the cost of a single bus journey from a main railway station?
Norman Baker
I absolutely agree with that. From memory, the train company that operates in Bristol is the same one that operates the bus service, and it is in the commercial interests of FirstGroup to ensure that the bus is attractively priced to encourage a through journey by rail and bus, rather than encouraging people to drive the whole way, which may be the consequence of that particular pricing policy.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
One issue that neither the Government nor the Mayor of London’s office can continue to ignore is the daily congestion at the Blackwall tunnel and the need for a third crossing to relieve that congestion. If there is the slightest incident, the whole of east London and south-east London comes to a standstill. Will the Minister ensure that in every future discussion between the Mayor’s office and his Department, that issue is on the agenda, because we cannot continue with this logjam in our capital city?
Norman Baker
I understand that additional capacity is being considered by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that London falls outside the White Paper’s remit.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
May I join the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) in recommending the expressway along Kingskerswell for a bus and cycle route? I welcome the local sustainable transport fund. Will the Minister meet a delegation from Littlehempston and Totnes, to consider not just how funding is crucial in advancing cycling schemes, but also some of the unnecessary roadblocks that such schemes come up against?
Norman Baker
It is often the roadblocks, as my hon. Friend puts it, the pinch points, that cause disruption to the transport system, congestion and unnecessary carbon emissions. It is certainly important to deal with such issues, and the fund that I am announcing today is well designed to do that. Of course, I will be happy to meet her and her colleagues.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Will the Minister be a little more specific and say in what way his policy will improve bus services in Greater Manchester and make them more responsive to my constituents’ needs?
Norman Baker
This is not a top-down approach. We are setting high-level targets for local authorities to create growth and cut carbon, and we are leaving it to them to come up with the solutions that fit their patch. The answer for Manchester will be very different from the answer for Bristol, so it is not for me or other Ministers to say what is best for Manchester. Our job is to set the vision and to provide the money and let local councils get on with it. If Manchester wants to come up with something that helps bus services in that way, it is welcome to do so.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement. One of the key elements to encouraging economic growth in York is cutting traffic congestion, and the Minister recently visited York to look at the park and ride sites across the city. Will he outline in further detail how the new fund will encourage such projects?
Norman Baker
It certainly can encourage such projects. As I said in my previous answer, it is up to the local council to come up with a scheme that meets those objectives. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will pursue those objectives, which seem quite sensible, with the local council, and suggest that it submits a bid.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, three times as much money is spent on public transport in the south as in the north. Will this programme do anything to redress that balance?
Norman Baker
Obviously, the population of the south is different from that in the north, which is one factor in question. We are keen to ensure that we achieve the two targets of creating growth and cutting carbon, and we also recognise that there are particular areas where unemployment is a problem, which we are keen to help as far as possible, so we will bear those factors in mind when bids come in. We certainly want to see a reasonable balance to the money that is distributed.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
My hon. Friend has already agreed to visit the High Peak to discuss the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass—a visit that we are all looking forward to with great anticipation. While in the High Peak, will he meet officials from our local authorities to discuss the best way in which they can take advantage of the new local sustainable transport fund?
Norman Baker
I fear that my diary is filling up, but yes, I will be happy to do so.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I welcome the commitment to continue funding cycle training for young people, but one of the things that puts families and children off cycling is the lack of cycle routes, both on-road and off-road, that are properly safeguarded. Will the Minister consider prioritising that from central funding to ensure that the training leads to actual cycling?
Norman Baker
It is certainly true that in this country 43% of people have a bicycle and only 2% of journeys are made by bike, which suggests that there are bars to people cycling which they wish to overcome, having bought the bicycle in the first place. People often feel safer off-road than they do on-road, so the creation of cycle paths can be particularly useful. I am thinking of safe routes to school in particular, and I hope that local authorities will want to consider such schemes when submitting bids to the Department. As well as the money for Bikeability for this year, in 2011-12 we are also providing £30 million from the centre for links to schools, for bike club, bike it, and walking to school initiatives.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
What impact, if any, does today’s announcement have on the development of small-scale rail extensions, such as the Burscough curves? We have hoped for very little and got very little.
Norman Baker
The fund is not designed to reinstate railway schemes, because they are of a size and nature that it could not sustain. As I said earlier, we are keen to see what we can do to improve and enhance the rail network, where it makes commercial sense to do so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has noted the point made.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
School traffic enhances peak-time congestion during term time. The United States seems to run a successful yellow school bus scheme. Why cannot we have something similar here?
Norman Baker
I am advised that the Secretary of State’s constituency has a yellow bus scheme, which perhaps he has been helpful in introducing. The school run is certainly one of the major reasons for congestion and delays in the morning, and it is an important point to look at. That could in theory be something that the fund that I have announced today could address, but I am not against having a further look at the yellow bus scheme on a national basis—although these matters are best decided locally, as my hon. Friend would accept.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent statement, which contains many good things. Issues such as local powers over signage, for which I have campaigned for many years, the funding for Bikeability and a real valuation of carbon are much to be welcomed. Will he do any more to encourage councils to really make it easier for people to cycle to work, either by providing infrastructure, or by providing extra information such as the CycleStreets website set up by my constituents.
Norman Baker
We are doing more to make information on cycle routes available on the Transport Direct journey planner. That is now being rolled out across the country, giving information on a progressive basis, to make that available to people who want to cycle safely and are not necessarily familiar with the routes. It is plain from the guidance that one way of cutting carbon and creating growth is to invest in cycling, so I hope that local councils will bear that in mind when submitting bids.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Thamesdown Transport bus company in my constituency runs an excellent service, but does the Minister agree that local bus companies need to do more localised, estate by estate marketing, to explain the benefits and services on offer?
Norman Baker
I certainly agree that some bus companies are better at drumming up business for themselves than others. We have some excellent bus companies around the country, including the one I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company. Other bus companies do not do so well, but frankly, they are missing a trick in not capitalising on the market that is there for them.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The local Little Red Bus company provides vital community bus services across North Yorkshire. May I press the Minister a little further on how the fund will be targeted on the most rural areas of our country?
Norman Baker
It is up to local councils to decide which bids they submit and what is included in those bids. The pattern of bus services varies considerably across the country, and I believe that I am right in saying that North Yorkshire has been subject to some cuts which have not been undertaken elsewhere, which suggests that the council has made that decision itself. We have also recently amended the Department’s guidance on concessionary fares to reflect the importance of rural routes and long-distance routes in rural areas, and that should help bus companies as well.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. London’s future depends very much on sustainable low-carbon travel. Back on the subject of bikes, although I realise that is a devolved matter, there is much to be learned from the Mayor of London’s popular cycle hire scheme, and I hope that the Minister is working with that team to make sure those lessons can be passed on to other towns and cities that might want to go down a similar path.
Norman Baker
I very much welcome the innovation in London with the cycle hire scheme. Being based in a capital city, that scheme now has some traction and coverage elsewhere in the country, and I very much hope that other towns and cities will feel that it is worth emulating.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I sincerely hope that in due course the coalition Government will be able to reinstate some of the tram and light railway schemes that were axed by the previous utopian Labour Government, and perhaps add a few new ones. They are quite commonplace on the continent. I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the coalition Government’s commitment to support Bikeability cycle training for the duration of this Parliament. With that in mind, would he like to come to cycle town Colchester to see how cycling is being promoted?
Norman Baker
I shall be happy to attend the event in Colchester to which the hon. Gentleman refers after I have been to Mottram and Tintwistle and everywhere else I am going in the High Peak area in the near future. On light rail, we have already committed to enhancements and extensions to the tram light rail system in the Midland Metro area and in Nottingham, despite the difficult financial situation that we inherited from the party now in opposition. My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that I have initiated a review of light rail costs, which is one of the first things I did upon my appointment, and it is due to report soon. The objective is to get the costs of light rail down so that we can have more light rail in future.
Mr Speaker
I must thank the Minister and all colleagues, whose succinctness enabled everyone who wanted to take part to have the chance to do so.
Points of Order
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are just about to start an extremely important debate on the scrapping of education maintenance allowances. By my calculation, five Members will now be unable to take part in that debate because we have just had a statement that could perfectly well have been made yesterday. Have you been notified by the Minister’s office why it was necessary to have the statement on an Opposition day, and do you not agree that it is highly desirable that statements should not be made on those days unless absolutely necessary?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge is no. It is, of course, for the Government to decide whether and when to put on a statement, but my answer stands. I hope that is helpful to the House.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some of the brightest and best potential teachers risk being lost to our schools because universities do not know whether they will have places for them. In short, that is because universities that train future teachers do not know how many places for teacher training they will have, five months after the Teacher Development Agency should have told them. Is there anything you can do to end the confusion between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education on that issue, perhaps by securing a written statement on the matter?
Mr Speaker
The matter can of course be raised at business questions tomorrow. The Government will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. If any clarification is required, that is a matter for the Government. My concern now is to protect Opposition time.
BILL PRESENTED
Health and Social Care Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Lansley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Eric Pickles, Danny Alexander, Mr Simon Burns and Paul Burstow, presented a Bill to establish and make provision about a National Health Service Commissioning Board and commissioning consortia and to make other provision about the National Health Service in England; to make provision about public health in the United Kingdom; to make provision about regulating health and adult social care services; to make provision about public involvement in health and social care matters, scrutiny of health matters by local authorities and co-operation between local authorities and commissioners of health care services; to make provision about regulating health and social care workers; to establish and make provision about a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; to establish and make provision about a Health and Social Care Information Centre and to make other provision about information relating to health or social care matters; to abolish certain public bodies involved in health or social care; to make other provision about health care; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 132) with explanatory notes (Bill 132-EN).
Consumer Protection (Postal Marketing)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision relating to the regulation of postal marketing; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such an important but sometimes under-reported matter. Every day, criminals worldwide send millions of unsolicited, mass-marketed letters to UK residents. As defined by the Office of Fair Trading, a mass-marketed scam is:
“A misleading or deceptive business practice where you receive an unsolicited or uninvited contact and false promises are made to con you out of your money”.
Although I appreciate that many such contacts might arrive by e-mail or telephone, I wish to focus today on those that use Royal Mail to deliver their message to potential victims. Consumers losing money in that way is a significant problem in the UK. Those activities are often targeted specifically at vulnerable or disadvantaged consumers, such as the elderly and those already in debt, and those individuals can suffer disproportionate levels of harm as a result. Although anyone can fall for a scam, the elderly and vulnerable are more likely to be targeted and to become repeat victims.
Members might be aware of the Nigerian 419 scam, which involves a letter asking the recipients to help in removing a substantial sum of money from Africa using their bank account, for which they will receive a smaller amount in return for their assistance. Inevitably, the money never arrives and the recipient will find that their bank account has been used fraudulently and, in some cases, that their identity has been stolen and cloned. That is one of the most popular and recognisable scams, but others involve fake lotteries, even clairvoyants and fictitious prize draws. After replying to the first “taster” letter, the victim’s details will be sold to other criminal networks and the deluge of mailings will begin.
Across the UK, postal workers deliver more than 100 pieces of mail every day to some victims, but there is no comprehensive system in place to report such activity. Nearly half of the UK adult population has been targeted in that way, and while it is easy for us to advise them to delete the e-mail, hang up the telephone or simply tear up the mailing, more than 3 million adults—6.5% of the UK population—will be taken in, losing a total of £3.5 billion every year. Should one have the misfortune to become a victim once, it will only get worse. Chronic victims have their names added to a so-called “suckers” list and will find the number of mailings increase exponentially as their details are sold on again and again.
We should not underestimate the effect that such mailings have. Scam mail is designed to shut down the normal thought process and dazzle the mind. Chronic victims can focus only on the fictitious prize, not on the money that they are sending to claim it. Many will not understand modern technology and how it allows mass mail to be easily produced, despite looking like important and personally addressed correspondence. They might fall out with their families, who are desperate to help their relatives stop what can become an addiction but cannot make them understand that sending yet more money will not make a fictitious prize appear. It is also worth noting that the Mailing Preference Service can help only if victims themselves come to understand that there is a problem and register with it. One of the biggest difficulties is in helping the victim realise that the offers are not genuine.
Scam mail should not be confused with perfectly legitimate direct marketing. Indeed, I seek to assure Members that I have no desire to prevent either legitimate businesses from communicating with potential customers, or Members from using direct mail to communicate with constituents. It is a complex area, because in seeking to afford greater protection to vulnerable constituents I do not wish to advocate measures that are excessive and cross the line between consumer protection and civil liberty.
Currently the principal protection comes from the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Fraud Act 2006. The former contains both criminal offences and the option to take injunctive action using the Enterprise Act 2002. Both can be used with a degree of success to deal with scams originating in the UK, but normally only once they are in full operation and vulnerable people have already suffered. Those originating in the European Union can be tackled using cross-border injunctive action procedures under the 2002 Act, but that is time-consuming, costly and rarely used. When scams originate from a country outside the EU, it is down to the authorities in that country to take action against the perpetrators. The level of co-operation will obviously vary from country to country and is fraught with difficulty. I have met Hampshire trading standards, which has been proactive in tackling the problem—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. It is only courteous to allow the hon. Lady to be heard with a degree of quiet and respect.
Caroline Nokes
Hampshire trading standards has made some constructive suggestions on the changes that it thinks would be possible. The police are also well aware of how and where scam mail enters the country, but they are currently unable to stop it. As I have mentioned, those who know best how to identify victims are postal workers. Many know their rounds and residents extremely well and can quickly identify when patterns of mass-marketed mail deliveries change and increase. Consequently, Hampshire trading standards is asking for measures to be introduced to enable the police, customs officers or the National Fraud Authority to identify and intercept scam mail when it enters the country, and to allow Royal Mail to disclose the details of potential victims to their local trading standards service, so that support can be offered to those financially abused and vulnerable people. One significant difficulty faced by Royal Mail is that passing on consumer details contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998. As I mentioned earlier, there might also be a conflict with human rights legislation, but even though it is a difficult process, it does not mean that we should not try.
The proposal to allow the police or other enforcement officers to intercept mail is a very difficult one, requiring changes to both the Postal Services Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Under current law, the police need to apply to the Secretary of State for a warrant under RIPA and the Police Act 1997 in order to intercept and open a postal packet lawfully in the course of its transmission.
I do not suggest for one moment that there should be a blanket power to intercept mail without a warrant, but such mail is easy to identify, the same victims are being targeted hundreds and hundreds of times over and it ought not to be impossible to introduce appropriate safeguards against breaches of human rights, controlled using the RIPA authorisation process at a sufficiently high level, while ensuring that the tests of necessity and proportionality are satisfied.
There is some disagreement between trading standards authorities and the Royal Mail about whether the disclosure of victims’ details is permitted under section 29 of the 1998 Act. There is no disagreement about whether postal workers are best placed to identify the victims. Indeed, they want to help. It might be appropriate, therefore, to introduce an amendment to the Postal Services Act to provide a legal gateway for the release of such information.
In a trial in Hampshire, the Royal Mail has worked closely with Hampshire trading standards to identify potential victims and to introduce a card that postmen and women can put through the doors of those whom they believe are being targeted, encouraging them to contact trading standards and to seek assistance. Of 44 cards delivered, however, only five victims came forward, suggesting that many people are not being given the support to tackle the problem that they face.
When I visited trading standards, I heard horrendous tales of victims’ houses, stuffed full of scam mail, with many thousands of pieces of paper stacked up in their living rooms; relatives in despair because they could not help their loved ones understand that the offers and promises were not genuine; and examples of Hampshire residents having lost more than £100,000.
This is a timely proposal. Next month is the Office of Fair Trading’s scam awareness month, which seeks to highlight and tackle the extent of that fraudulent activity. This proposal represents a proportionate approach and recognises the need to support the victims of such activities, who have suffered considerable financial loss and distress. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Nokes, Lorraine Fullbrook, Simon Hart, Caroline Dinenage, Simon Kirby, Justin Tomlinson, Andrew Bingham, Nick de Bois, Jack Lopresti, Rebecca Harris and Mike Weatherley present the Bill.
Caroline Nokes accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 June, and to be printed (Bill 134).
Opposition Day
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education Maintenance Allowance
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 258 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 256 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that disadvantaged young people should gain greater access to further and higher education; recognises the valuable role that the education maintenance allowance (EMA) has played in supporting young people from less well-off backgrounds to participate and succeed in education; further recognises how EMA has supported choice for students in post-16 education, allowing them to travel to the best institution for their studies, which is of particular importance in rural areas; further notes that EMA is used by the majority of recipients to fund travel to college, as well as books and equipment, and allows recipients to focus on their studies rather than taking a part-time job; notes that EMA has been retained in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; further notes research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies stating that EMA costs are completely offset by its benefits in raising participation; further notes the inquiry into educational access announced by the Education Select Committee; and calls on the Government to rethink its decision on EMA, retaining practical support to improve access to, interest in and participation in further and higher education.
Over the past decade, we have debated the funding of higher education on many occasions. Today, we rightly focus on an equally, if not more, important prior question: whether hundreds of thousands of young people from less well-off backgrounds are to stay in education long enough to have a realistic dream of going to university.
To know what is at risk, we must look at how far we have come. Twenty-five years ago, the staying-on rate in England was 47%; throughout Merseyside, where I left school in 1986, the figure was even lower; and today it is 82%. Those figures tell an incredible story of human and social progress from the mid-1980s to today. A deep-rooted culture in some communities whereby employment at 16 years old was the norm, not education, has begun to be broken.
Students and families who in the past might well have felt that education was not for the likes of them now see it as a viable route, and in the past 10 years the education maintenance allowance has played an important part in that progress. It has sent out an empowering message of hope—that we can dare to dream, whoever we are and wherever we come from. It was one of the best policies of our Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who brought it in.
Sustaining that progress must be worked at; instead, it is about to be thrown into reverse. In the real world, the debate about tuition fees is already changing views on university, but for the least well-off the full impact becomes clear only when it is set alongside the abolition of EMA. To those young people, it feels as though we have a Government who are stacking the odds against them—a Government who talked about social mobility in their early days but have now launched an all-out attack on the aspirations of those facing the biggest obstacles in life. They see a Government who are kicking away the ladder of opportunity. Today, the House has an opportunity to change that message and to make Ministers change course.
Before we get into the detail, however, I want the House to focus on the 650,000 young people who receive EMA. They have a strong sense that many Members do not have any idea what their lives are like.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that every single one of those 650,000 recipients should receive exactly the same amount of money that they currently receive, or does he believe that there is any scope for saving and better targeting?
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Gentleman used to believe in EMA, because he stood right where I am standing now and told the House that he would keep it—no, that he would build on it. So it is pretty desperate—
Andy Burnham
I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but a little more humility might serve him well during the course of this debate.
Those young people feel that Members here—
Andy Burnham
I shall not give way; I am sorry. Those young people feel that Members, and indeed that the right hon. Gentleman, have no real idea of what their lives are like.
Some 80% of recipients come from homes where the household income is less than £20,800 a year, and many live difficult lives. Many are part of larger families and go without the basics during the average week, because they know that anything they take off their parents deprives younger brothers or sisters. Many others are young carers who face some of the toughest circumstances imaginable—like the one whom I met, caring for both parents, at Lambeth college—and try desperately to keep their own hopes alive of a better future while supporting loved ones on meagre resources. Some are young parents who might have missed out on an education and want a second chance, like the young mum from Gateshead who came to our hearing here in Westminster. Some have special needs and disabilities, like Daniel in my constituency, who is on the autistic spectrum. I helped him to find appropriate supported accommodation when he was in his early teenage years, and his grandmother told me at the weekend that EMA had been a vital part of his transition from residential care to mainstream college—vital in helping him to learn the everyday skills of managing his life.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says that there are 650,000 or so EMA claimants, but he must also know that only about 12% of those people—66,000—say that they would not go into A-level education if they did not have it. EMA costs £564 million. Does he not think there are better and less expensive ways of targeting money on the kids who really need the help? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are in a very excitable state today. I know that the matter arouses great passions, but we must have some semblance of decorum in the debate. I also remind colleagues that interventions should be brief.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman is talking about 78,000 young lives—those of the people the Government say would not stay in education were there to be no EMA.
Let me come to the heart of the Government’s misunderstanding of this issue. They talk only about participation, but for the others—the Secretary of State does not seem to understand this—EMA provides the chance to fulfil themselves in education because it means that they can devote themselves to their studies.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is building a very powerful case for the defence and protection of EMA. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate the Scottish National party Government in Scotland on retaining EMA and ensuring that we are fulfilling our pledge to the most vulnerable and poorest students in Scotland?
Andy Burnham
My knowledge of Scottish politics is okay, but I think I am right in telling the hon. Gentleman that it was the Labour Administration who brought in the education maintenance allowance in Scotland, so I warn him off that subject.
I have detailed the lives of some of the young people I have met in recent weeks who are receiving EMA because it is important that the House focus its mind on those young people before we get much further into the debate. I want to clear up one myth at the beginning. EMA is overwhelmingly used to provide the basics to support education—travel, books, equipment and food.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lib Dem-Tory run Warrington borough council recently passed a motion asking the Government to think again on tuition fees and EMA? In their letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Liberal leader and the Tory deputy leader said that the removal of EMA would cause real hardship. If the Government’s own allies do not support them, how can they go ahead with this?
Andy Burnham
I am aware of that, as I represent a neighbouring authority area. It shows that some Liberal Democrats at local level have more guts than some of their colleagues in this place, because they are prepared to say what is right and what is wrong and to stand up for the young people in their area who they know will have their dreams shattered if this help is taken away from them.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is entirely possible that an alternative, more targeted approach to providing support for young people might provide a better solution while still meeting the needs of deficit reduction?
Andy Burnham
The Government talk of an alternative scheme, but it is a tenth of the size of EMA, which they have closed to new applicants. They have never made a statement to Parliament or set out any details of that alternative scheme. It has taken Labour Members to bring those Ministers here to account for themselves this afternoon, and that is quite disgraceful. We do not have an alternative to judge EMA against, and EMA is a scheme that works.
Andy Burnham
I will make further progress before giving way.
EMA is one of the few practical policies that has directly supported social mobility and equality of opportunity, so today I will set out a comprehensive case for its retention—the educational case, the social case, the economic case and the democratic case. The Government wanted to close down EMA quietly. They have closed the scheme to new applicants. They have not begun to replace it, as their amendment claims. We have called this debate because EMA has worked and is worth fighting for.
Margot James
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the enhanced learner support fund, which is the Government’s proposed replacement for EMA, will help many of the hard cases with which he illustrated the earlier part of his speech? Some 90% of students are telling us that they do not need EMA and will continue with their studies without it. If he does not accept that figure, what would he accept as the dead-weight figure?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Lady has just shown how hopelessly out of touch Government Members are. Is she telling me that nine out of 10 young people in her constituency who get EMA are saying they do not need it? If so, she has been speaking to some very different young people—although I am glad that she has at least been speaking to them, unlike those on her Front Bench. She needs to answer this question. The Government are proposing a scheme that is a tenth—
Andy Burnham
I am about to do that. The Government are proposing a scheme that is a tenth of the size of the previous one, so a fair assumption is that it will help one in 10 of the people who are getting help today. How is that compatible with the full participation in education of all 16 to 18-year-olds, to which the Government amendment refers?
I have never set my face against changes or savings to the EMA scheme. I proposed a change last year—that of giving young people between 16 and 18 the choice of unlimited free travel or EMA. Today I say this to the Secretary of State: I am prepared to discuss changes while keeping the principle of a national weekly payment scheme to support young people in education, but I am not prepared to see a successful scheme, which brings a huge range of social benefits, dismantled and replaced with a residual scheme a fraction of the size. He will have to work very hard to convince us that a scheme a tenth of the size will, in the words of his amendment, improve
“access to, enthusiasm for and participation in further and higher education.”
How can it possibly do that?
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I met students at Dudley college, 78% of whom receive EMA. More than 90% of them told me that they would be unable to continue their education if EMA was withdrawn. They are not using it for luxuries but for their books, bus fare and lunch. In particular, those on vocational courses who are studying construction, catering, hairdressing and so on need to buy uniforms and equipment. That is what they are spending it on, and if it is withdrawn they will not be able to continue their education.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend represents a constituency with one of the highest take-up rates of EMA in the country, and he is absolutely right. Some of the sneering comments about recipients of EMA show a complete failure to understand what their lives are like and underestimate the determination of those young people to make a success of themselves and to get skills that will stand them in good stead throughout the rest of their lives.
Andy Burnham
I will give way in a moment.
The Government’s answer is, “We are raising the school leaving age to 18.” What kind of answer is that? Do they really think they can simply mandate that young people will have to stay on and then provide no practical support to make it work? Perhaps that is why the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education said yesterday that he thought the removal of EMA would be damaging. The Government have a lot of convincing to do as regards senior voices on their own side of the House.
Andy Burnham
As I said, 80% of people get the £30 higher level. I also said that I am not opposed to talking to the Secretary of State about changes. However, if he is to fulfil his goal of keeping young people in education, he will have to talk about a scheme on a much bigger scale than he is proposing, and he will have to do that today.
Let me set out, first, the educational case for EMA. EMA has had a positive impact on participation in post-16 education: that is accepted by all. The Government’s figures suggest that EMA makes all the difference for 78,000 young people. However, as we enter 2011, the financial outlook for many families is changing for the worse. Calculations about the affordability of staying on will have to be redone when the loss of EMA is set alongside changes to other benefits and wages. New research released yesterday by the University and College Lecturers Union suggested that seven in 10 EMA recipients will drop out of education if EMA is taken away.
Mr Graham Stuart
I regret the removal of EMA and the necessity to remove it, which was caused by an orgy of overspending by the Administration of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a part. A diet of cold, hard decisions now has to be taken by Ministers, and I have some sympathy with them. Choices have to be made, such as between providing nursery education for two-year-olds in the poorest areas or retaining EMA. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there can be changes to EMA. Is there any reason why a slimmed-down version, such as that proposed by the Government, with constructive input from all sides, cannot deliver for the most needy and minimise the negative impacts?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman is having it both ways. He started by saying that he regrets the removal of EMA, before going on to make his attack. I will make two points to him. First, he said that EMA was essentially unaffordable. Why then does the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the costs of EMA are “completely offset” by the wider benefits that it brings? He might want to reflect on that point.
Secondly, why did the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State promise young people that they would keep EMA? More than that, why did the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), stand at the Dispatch Box after the general election and say that EMA would be retained? Why did they do that if it is now such a bad idea? Will he answer that?
Mr Stuart
On that particular point, following our joint interview yesterday, I looked up the Prime Minister’s interview on Cameron Direct. He expressed some concerns and talked about the mixed messages that he had received from students on EMA. He said that the Conservative party had no plans to remove EMA. That is not a matter of pure semantics. There was no promise, and the right hon. Gentleman should not put out an untruth about the Prime Minister on this subject.
Andy Burnham
We will leave those kinds of points to Back Benchers; we do not expect them from the Chair of the Select Committee.
The fundamental point that the Government are missing is that participation is only part—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) does not have to put his hand up—he can just stand up. Participation is only part of the story; EMA helps students to succeed once they arrive at college. It stands to reason that young people do better if they can afford the books or equipment that support the course. As many young people have told me, EMA means that they do not have to take a part-time job, so they can focus all their energy and attention on their studies. College after college reports that EMA improves attendance, helps people to stay the course, reduces the drop-out rate and, in the end, brings a higher rate of achievement.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The infamous Cameron Direct meeting that has been raised took place in Hammersmith on 6 January last year. Sadly, I was not at the meeting because I was handing out leaflets outside, but this morning I spoke to the person who asked the relevant question. The Prime Minister said:
“We’ve looked at Educational Maintenance Allowances…no we don’t have any plans to get rid of them.”
Where does my right hon. Friend think the Government now stand with their credibility on this issue?
Andy Burnham
I think that it is very difficult. The Government’s access to education adviser, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and I were at an open meeting last week in the Commons. A young woman from Cornwall said that she had been at a meeting where the Prime Minister had made a personal commitment that he would keep education maintenance allowance. The Government have some very hard questions to ask themselves this week. Now that the voters of Oldham have told them what they think about broken promises, the Government need to reflect on whether they will carry on in such an arrogant and high-handed manner, thinking it fine to say one thing to young people before the election and change the script afterwards. I am afraid that they will lose those young people for the rest of their lives if they do not change course.
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley).
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is entirely unacceptable that the Government still have not done a full equality impact assessment of this policy? If they had, they might be rather less cavalier about the devastating implications of scrapping EMA.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Lady makes a point of such importance that it must be addressed by the Secretary of State. In going about his business, he is wiping away important initiatives that work and are providing real opportunity for young people, with no assessment of the damage that the policies will do and no real understanding of how they might set back social mobility and equality in our country. The Government seem to have dispensed with some of the norms of government that we took seriously, such as equality impact assessments and consultations on the major changes to educational provision. Instead, they promised to keep EMA, and then simply pull the plug when it suits them. It is not good enough.
Joan Walley
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Education maintenance allowance was piloted in Stoke-on-Trent and other cities, because we needed to give additional help to students, such as those who have come down from Burslem and Tunstall today to make the point that they need that additional money. Our staying-on rates have improved from 56.3% to 80.5%. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State how it can be that people who currently receive EMA will not get that money, when people in the areas of deprivation that we represent need it for their travel costs and everything else? If they do not get it, they will not be in higher education, they will not get jobs, and there will be no solution to youth unemployment.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend brings me back to the point that I was making: EMA is not just about participation, as the Government say, but about helping people to make the best of themselves when they are in education and bringing out their full potential. The Government’s one-sided argument about a 90% dead-weight cost fails to acknowledge that it helps young people with one of the biggest challenges in life—to shine academically. It is very hard to put a value on that. It might open doors that would otherwise have remained closed.
Crucially, EMA supports the important principle of student choice for all in post-16 education. It means that the best sixth-form colleges, which are often some distance away, particularly in rural areas, are within the reach of young people. In most places, they do not get help with travel and transport costs, so EMA means that the doors of those fantastic institutions are opened to young people from ordinary working-class backgrounds.
Paul Maynard
It is kind of the right hon. Gentleman to give way, I am sure. I listened carefully to the powerful case studies of people he has met over recent weeks. I am concerned, however, that he might be out of touch with some of his constituents, and that he does not fully understand the needs of those with complex needs. Is he seriously arguing that a capped payment of £30 a week will fully meet the needs of the people he described? In that case, why does he not support a discretionary learner support fund that would allow individual schools to tailor provision to the needs of their students? Why is he so scared of that?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions, because many Members want to speak.
Andy Burnham
All I can say is that I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. I said that EMA makes life possible, and makes the calculations that young people have to do to stay in education that bit more doable. Is he seriously arguing that taking it from those young people will help them to make a success of their lives and circumstances? I find that hard to believe.
The vast majority of EMA is spent on travel, as a survey for the Association of Colleges confirmed this week. It states that
“94% of Colleges believe that the abolition of the EMA will affect students’ ability to travel to and from College.”
The survey also suggests that some students may be at risk of not being able to follow the college course of their choice due to the cost or availability of transport. That goes to the heart of student choice in education. If students do not have the ability to travel, they cannot get on to the courses that they want to study. The Secretary of State needs to come up with a convincing answer to that.
I want the Secretary of State also to think about the effect of the change on the aspirations of young people who are still in secondary school. I want him to reflect on what a young woman from my constituency told me this week—that her 15-year-old brother had already given up at school because, without EMA, he could not see any way that he would be able to go to Wigan and Leigh college to study the motor engineering course that he had planned to do. Is there not a real risk that taking the lifeline of EMA away from young people will lower the aspirations of children in secondary school? Better participation, attendance, retention and results, supporting choice and keeping hope alive for all kids—surely it all adds up to a compelling educational case for keeping EMA.
Elizabeth Truss
Is not the No. 1 factor in education teacher quality, which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned? The UK has one of the worst records of having qualified teachers for low-income pupils. Why did his Government not do anything about that when they were in power?
Andy Burnham
We did plenty of things to improve the quality of teaching, including through Teach First. I spoke about giving all young people the chance to get into the best sixth-form colleges in the country, so that they can access good teaching. Would the hon. Lady care to explain how, under her party’s plans, those young people will carry on being able to benefit from the very best teaching and get the best opportunities in life? I do not think she can do so.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
EMA was being piloted when my right hon. Friend and I joined the House, and it has been a real achievement in the 10 years since. Some 1,700 students at Newcastle-under-Lyme college benefit from it, and it has raised staying-on rates. Where is the fairness in removing that income from those students and their households? Is it not the case that the impact of that will be felt not in the likes of Surrey Heath but in Bermondsey, Sheffield, Leigh, Manchester, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent?
Andy Burnham
It will be felt keenly in such places. Combined with the trebling of tuition fees, my worry is that it will have a depressing effect on the aspirations of young people in the former industrial and inner-city communities that we worked so hard to lift during our time in government. That is why today’s debate goes to the heart of why I and many of my hon. Friends came into politics. We care passionately about people’s opportunities in those areas, and we are not prepared to see the ladder kicked away from under young people in the way that the Government propose.
The evidence that I have given on the educational benefits of EMA demolishes the claim that it has no benefit to society beyond persuading 10% of students to stay on. Until recently, I was at a loss to understand how Ministers could make that one-sided argument and use such selective facts to back up their decision, but maybe I have stumbled on the answer. Last week, I came across a parliamentary question answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), asking how many further education and sixth-form colleges the Secretary of State had visited since he was appointed in May. I shall share with the House the revealing answer:
“The Secretary of State has made no such visits since this date.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 342W.]
The Secretary of State was quick to get to his feet a little earlier, and I trust that he will rise again now to correct what surely must have been an inaccurate answer.
Michael Gove
I certainly will. All those who saw me at Farnborough sixth-form college, when I had the privilege of opening the John Guy building, will know of my great commitment to that superb college, at which so many of my students are educated.
Andy Burnham
Either that is a school sixth form or the answer that the Secretary of State’s Department issued was wrong, but it is an appalling state of affairs if he has barely ever managed to take himself along to a sixth-form college to speak to the staff and students who will be affected. [Interruption.] Yes, he has been to one in his own constituency but no one else’s. That is very helpful of him. I might remind him that he is responsible for everyone’s constituents. At a stroke he is axing a £500 million scheme, which will have a profound effect on 650,000 young lives and on the viability of 230 FE colleges and 95 sixth-form colleges, for which he has policy responsibility, without so much as troubling himself to go along and hear at first hand what the decision will mean.
The Secretary of State needs to climb down from his ivory tower once in a while and get out in the real world. How many students has he met who will be directly affected by the changes? Has he met any? I am not sure whether he is nodding, but if he had met some I am absolutely sure that, if nothing else, he would long since have asked his Ministers to stop implying that those high-achieving and talented young people can be described as “dead weight”.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Through my right hon. Friend, may I issue an invitation to the Secretary of State to come with me to City of Westminster college? Its principal has written to me to say that 1,500 of his students will lose their EMA, which in his experience has transformed attendance and achievement at the college.
Andy Burnham
I will do so, but I cannot answer for the Secretary of State. I have been to sixth-form colleges in London, and that brings me to my case about social mobility. If he visits a sixth-form college while he is in the job, may I suggest that he could do worse than visit the one that my hon. Friend mentions, or indeed Newham sixth-form college, which I visited yesterday? If he does, he might meet the young man who told me about the practical effect of losing EMA. He feels that he will have to lower his ambitions in the universities to which he applies, because he thinks his exam grades will undoubtedly suffer.
Andy Burnham
The Chairman of the Education Committee cements the impression that the Conservatives have not really thought about what it is like to be a young person in the circumstances that I have described. It is hard to put a value on the self-confidence and peace of mind that financial security gives a young person. It creates the conditions for their academic potential to be realised.
The Secretary of State talks frequently about social mobility under the Labour Government, citing the number of young people on free school meals gaining a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Time and again, he has used that figure selectively to paint a misleading picture of Labour’s record, and I wish to set the matter straight.
First, I politely point out to the Secretary of State that Oxbridge is not the be-all and end-all. If he examines the university system as a whole, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has taken the trouble to do, he will see that between 2005 and 2007 the number of young people on free school meals gaining a place at university increased by 18%, double the rate of increase for all young people. Does the Secretary of State recognise those figures and, if so, does he accept that EMA has played an important role in securing that social progress? Does he further accept that the proportion of children on free school meals who stayed on in full-time education at 16 increased from 60% in 2005 to 70% in 2009? That is why more are applying to, and getting into, universities.
Michael Gove
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many children eligible for free school meals made it into Oxford and Cambridge in the last year for which we have figures, and in the year before that, and whether he considers it to be a triumph of social mobility or an indictment of his Government’s record?
Andy Burnham
Is the Secretary of State worried about anything else, or is that it? The figure is 40, which came down from 44. It did go down, but I have just told him that if he looks at all universities, he will see that the rate of increase in successful applications from children on free school meals was double the rate in the rest of the population. Is he not proud of that fact, and why does he talk only about Oxbridge? If his real passion in life is helping young people on free school meals to gain places at Oxford and Cambridge—as mine is, by the way, as somebody who took that route many years ago—can he tell the House how on earth scrapping EMA is more likely to make that happen? Precisely how does he imagine those kids on free school meals will get to Oxford and Cambridge when there is no EMA?
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman makes his case with his usual passion and makes some important points about empowering student choice. He says that the Government are going too far in reducing the scheme by 90%, but acknowledges that some savings can be made. In these difficult times, what would be a safe reduction in the budget?
Andy Burnham
I said that I am prepared to sit down and talk about making savings as long as we maintain the principle of a national scheme that supports the kids who most need support. I made the same offer on school sports. I will have that discussion, but I am saying to the Secretary of State do not just dismantle the whole scheme and lose all the benefits that come with it. If we had been asked to make a reduction in EMA commensurate with the rest of public spending, we would have struggled to argue against it, but that is not what the Government propose. The hon. Gentleman stood alongside the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State at the last election promising young people that they would keep EMA. They are the ones with the questions to answer.
The truth is that the Secretary of State cannot will the ends without the means. That will not happen. However talented those young people are, they cannot live off thin air. They cannot have a part-time job and walk miles to college and still get straight A’s. I wonder whether he has much idea of what their lives are like. In 2003, he wrote an article in The Times that acquires a new significance in the light of this debate. He wrote that
“anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place.”
Those are difficult sentiments for an Education Secretary to be associated with, as are these, which appear in the same article:
“Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good.”
How genuine is his commitment to those people who want to get in to Oxbridge?
I have worries about the Secretary of State’s elitist instincts, but I read in The Times last week another interesting piece—from Mrs Gove—which contains insights from home that raise further questions about whether he is living in the same world as the rest of us—[Interruption.] He should listen to this. She says:
“Like all angst-ridden working mothers, I live in terror of upsetting my cleaner.”
Angst-ridden mums in Leigh talk of little else. I sympathise with Mrs Gove’s predicament, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State could pass on a bit of advice to all the wives of his Cabinet colleagues who fret about the same curses of modern living. May I respectfully suggest that the best way to stay on the right side of the cleaner might be not to clean the oven oneself, but to press one’s other half not to remove the cleaner’s kids’ EMA?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on exactly what percentage reduction he would make to EMA? He said he is open to reducing it, but by what percentage?
Andy Burnham
I said that I would make a reduction commensurate with the overall reduction in spending. I would be prepared to sit down and say, “Can we make the EMA scheme work for young people at that level?”, but the Government are not proposing that. They are proposing a scheme that is a tenth of the size of the current one. If the Secretary of State is making offers and rethinking, and if he has been ordered into yet another U-turn by the Prime Minister, I am prepared to talk about it, but the onus is on Government Members to tell us the details of what they are offering.
Gavin Barwell
In answer to my previous question, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of preserving a national scheme, but he has made the powerful point that different students face different costs. Does he agree that if a sufficient pot of money is available, decisions are better made by individual schools that know their pupils’ circumstances, rather than through a national standard scheme?
Andy Burnham
My brother is the vice-principal of a sixth-form college, and I have asked him that question. He says that it would be an impossible task for his college to decide between one student and another. Colleges want to help students, but they would have to make those decisions with an inadequate fund that covers only a tenth of the amount that it currently covers. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion would mean passing on an impossible problem, but I welcome the spirit of his remarks. He will notice that I have deliberately moved a broad motion that invites the support of all hon. Members who want the Government to think again. It sounds as if he is one of them.
Let us not throw out everything about EMA that is a success, and that brings me to the economic case for keeping it. In short, EMA is good not just for the individuals who receive it, but for all of us in building a higher-skilled and more prosperous society, in which the costs of social failure are lower. Yesterday, the chief executive of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers called on the Government to rethink their decision. He said:
“Tough decisions have to be made, but the UK economy will increasingly need skilled engineers and technicians over the next few years. Our long-term economic health depends on making the right decisions now.”
Haroon Chowdry of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that even taking into account a dead-weight cost of 88%, the costs of EMA are “completely offset”. He said:
“The initial outlay of the EMA policy is likely to be more than recouped by the increase in productivity that we expect to result from the 16- and 17-year-olds staying on in education for longer”.
Has the Secretary of State made an economic impact assessment of his policy alongside an equality impact assessment? I have not seen one. Has he assessed how EMA helps to build a skilled work force that benefits us all? If we take that support away, we lose not just those skills—taxpayers must also face the higher costs of social failure as young people drop out of education. Has he made an assessment of that?
On the Government’s own figures, around 78,000 are unlikely to be able to stay in further education without EMA. We cannot know for sure whether all those young people will end up unemployed if they lose EMA, but given today’s figures showing record youth unemployment, it does not look good for them. Will not the Government have to provide support for them in some other form—perhaps a less constructive form—when they have reduced hope for the future?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In view of my right hon. Friend’s point about improved qualifications, will he note the figures that East Berkshire college has provided to me? It has a number of students on EMA. I have worked out that its figures on improved retention would mean that 45 or 50 young people in the town that I represent would be unlikely to complete their course if they did not have EMA.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is exactly right—that is borne out by the experience of many colleges around the country. Some of those young people are at risk of ending up in the benefits system. Will not the Secretary of State’s policy lead to an increase in 16 to 17-year-olds seeking to claim jobseeker’s allowance in exceptional circumstances, or certainly to an increase in the numbers claiming JSA at 18? We know that every young person not in education, employment or training costs more than £55,000, according to research for the Audit Commission. The IFS has said that EMA successfully reduced the number of NEETs. Will it not therefore cost more to get rid of EMA?
Those costs will add up on many levels. As Paul Gregg at Bristol university has found, youth unemployment imposes a “wage scar” that can last for decades. He suggests that scrapping EMA fails to take account of other benefits, such as lower crime. That adds to the fears that through a combination of the Government’s policies, they are taking hope away from a whole generation.
I have set out the education case, the social mobility case and the economic case for keeping EMA, so let us now deal with the democratic case. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State made personal promises to young people to keep EMA. Failing to honour them will do great damage to young people’s trust in Parliament and politics. From this Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State said:
“We are entirely in favour not only of the existence of the EMA but of the provisions in the Bill to secure an extension to it.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 669.]
Weeks before the general election, he said:
“Ed Balls keeps saying we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
On the back of these statements, does the Secretary of State not accept that young people embarking on a two-year course in September 2010 had a reasonable expectation that they would receive EMA support for the duration of their course, and that they could not have expected that the rug might be pulled from under them?
Beyond that, do the Government have a democratic mandate for this change? This time it is not the yellow Tories, but the real Tories who have broken their promises to young people. However, did any of the people who voted Lib Dem in May vote to curtail the life chances of the least well-off in this way? Unsurprisingly, the Government’s amendment shifts the ground on to deficit reduction, but if that is now the Government’s main argument why did the schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, say to the House in a holding answer dated 7 June:
“The Government are committed to retaining the education maintenance allowance”?—[Official Report, 14 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 307W.]
What changed after June? Did the full costs of the risky, unwanted reorganisation of the NHS become known, or did the Prime Minister choose his marriage tax break—costed before the election at £550 million, which is almost the same amount as EMA—as a priority above EMA? This confirms the growing impression that this is a shambolic ministerial team that changes its argument and does not know what it is doing.
The House may be forgiven for feeling a certain sense of déjà vu. This is a rushed decision with no warning, no consultation with those most affected, no evidence to support the decision, a growing backlash as the implications sink in, and a desperate rearguard action to justify it with dodgy statistics. If this is starting to sound familiar, it is because we have been here before with, for instance, Building Schools for the Future, school sport partnerships, and Bookstart. The fingerprints of this repeat offender are all over the scene of the crime. My question today to Liberal Democrat Members is this: how much longer are they prepared to carry the can in their constituencies for the disastrous decisions of this Secretary of State?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I respect both his passion and his commitment on this issue, and he also knows that there is concern on both sides of the House about the policy to get rid of EMA without an adequate replacement. I repeat now what I have said privately, however: I will work with him, as I am working with the Secretary of State, to make sure, as far as I can, that the successor scheme achieves the objectives that are expressed in both the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. If together we can do that, then together we will improve the reputation of this House and politics in this country.
Andy Burnham
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s intentions on this issue, but what he has just said will not be good enough for young people listening to this debate whose lives will be directly affected by the loss of EMA. A vague promise to work with the Secretary of State, with an unspecified amount of money to produce an unspecified result, is not going to do the job for them. The Lib Dems have to decide whether they want to keep the benefits of this successful scheme. Do they want the same numbers of young people in their constituencies to enter further education, or are they prepared to take a risk on this Secretary of State and this Tory-led Government?
Today’s debate provides the House with an opportunity to change the message that this Government are sending out to young people. They feel bewildered and angry that they have been singled out to bear the brunt of deficit reduction, and do not understand why they in particular are to face higher costs than generations before. In Newham, they ask why they are paying with their life chances for the mistakes of others a few miles away in the City of London. In Leigh, they cannot understand why the Government want to turn the clock back to an education system based on social class, with places at university going only to those with money and connections. Today, we can show that we are listening to them. We can make a stand for equality of opportunity in education, and stop these moves towards a more elitist education system. We can call a halt to this all-out attack on the aspirations of those who have least, and keep hope alive for the hundreds of thousands of young people who will be cut adrift if the Government get their way. We can tell all young people that we value them, and stop a Government who are gambling with their life chances. I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that many Members wish to speak, and if we have fewer interventions, we will get through contributions more quickly.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“believes in full participation in education and training for young people up to the age of 18 and considers that support must be in place to allow those who face the greatest barriers to participation to access this opportunity; notes that the previous Government left this country with one of the largest budget deficits in the world and that savings have had to be made in order to avoid burdening future generations; further notes that the Government has increased funding for deprivation within the 16 to 19 budget and has already begun to replace the current education maintenance allowance system with more targeted support for those who face genuine barriers, including travel; and commits the Government to working with young people, schools and colleges and others outside and inside Parliament on arrangements for supporting students in further education and on improving access to, enthusiasm for and participation in further and higher education.”
It is always a pleasure to debate education with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). In previous Opposition day debates and on other platforms, I have always been impressed by the passion and commitment he brings to the aspirations of extending opportunity and advancing social mobility, and I believe he is right to focus in particular on what we can do better to support children in the 16 to 18 age range, whom we want to succeed in the examinations they take, and to whom we want to extend broader opportunities. In that respect, I welcome both the opportunity this debate provides and the wealth of interest it has provoked.
I may also say that it was uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection, to make a personal comment about a member of my family in the course of his speech. I am sure that, on reflection, he will recognise that it was inappropriate and beneath him, and that he will withdraw it.
I also recognise, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was motivated in bringing forward this debate by his passion to increase social mobility. I also recognise that his bringing this passion to bear allows us all to consider what the right policies are for generating a greater degree of social mobility and for making opportunity more equal in our society.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
Not yet.
Let us consider policies on vocational education. One concern I have is that in a debate about staying on in education, the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of specific proposals to improve vocational education. I therefore have this question: does he back or oppose the policies we are putting in place? Does he back or oppose the additional investment that is going into university technical colleges? If he backs that, it is welcome, and shows that he recognises that action is being taken. If he opposes it, however, he will have to answer for saying no to reform. Does he back or oppose the expansion in the number of studio schools, specifically targeting disadvantaged young people who need a special type of education in order to encourage them to stay on? Does he back or oppose the growth in apprenticeships—the 75,000 additional apprenticeships that we are providing? All of these questions are to do with decisions about investments in improving education and the life chances of the very poorest, and we do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour or against.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
In a few seconds.
This is not just about improving vocational education. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe in aspiration. I believe that other young people born into circumstances similar to our own, whose parents never went to university, should have the chance to go to university. That is why we are putting in place policies to improve academic education. Again, however, we do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman supports or opposes the investment we are putting in to improve it. Does he support or oppose our reading check at the age of six, to make sure every child is decoding fluently, and will be literate by the time they leave primary school? Is he in favour of that, or against? Does he oppose or support our position on GCSEs? Does he believe it is right or wrong to get rid of modules in order to make them more rigorous? Does he back or oppose the English baccalaureate? Does he believe it is right to encourage more students—[Interruption.] There is only one answer that he and some—some, I stress—Opposition Members have to the question of how to increase aspiration, and it is represented by three letters: EMA. It is important that we remove barriers and that we have the right support, but in respect of social mobility it is also important that we have a coherent and inclusive widespread education policy. From the Opposition, on all these areas we have either mulish silence or reactionary opposition.
Is the right hon. Gentleman for or against our drive to ensure that more students get good GCSEs in English, mathematics, sciences, languages, modern history and geography? I could not tell last week. At the beginning of last week he was against, in the middle of last week he was almost in favour, and towards the end of last week Labour MPs were telling me that it was now their party’s position to support our English baccalaureate.
Michael Gove
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me which of these policies he supports or opposes.
Paul Farrelly
The one thing that I can tell the Secretary of State is that 1,700 students in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be affected by the withdrawal of EMA. This is his policy, so can he tell the House how many students in Surrey Heath will be affected?
Michael Gove
Overall, 45% of students are eligible for EMA. The proportion is smaller in Surrey Heath than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but of course the number of students who will receive enhanced support depends on the new improved provision that we hope to bring in.
Emily Thornberry
Ten youngsters from City and Islington college have come to Westminster to listen to this debate on EMA and they would very much like to have 10 minutes with the Secretary of State. I warn him that they are articulate, clever and very persuasive—but may I ask him to give them 10 minutes this afternoon?
Michael Gove
If the hon. Lady will join us, I would be delighted to talk to them at any time. Perhaps I should visit their college so that rather more than 10 of them can have a word with me.
Michael Gove
No, thank you. It would be a pleasure to spend time with the hon. Lady and her constituents. I know how many of them in London schools are passionately committed to greater equality.
Michael Gove
I will give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will try to make some progress.
Hazel Blears
The Secretary of State has said time and time again that he supports breaking down the barriers and that he supports aspiration. Is he aware that Salford had the lowest staying-on rate in the whole of Britain before the introduction of EMA, but within months of its introduction the number of young people staying on at 16, not just to go to university but to get the vocational qualifications they need to have the chance of a decent future, increased by 10%? I am at a loss to know why he thinks that abolishing EMA will give young people in Salford the same opportunities as they have had for the past few years. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State is setting out on a deliberate path to limit the aspiration and social mobility of young people in Salford.
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady knows that I am a fan of her and her policies. [Interruption.] It is a pity that more of them are not adopted by the Labour party now. However, she will also be aware that a number of things have helped to improve the staying-on rate and ensured that children have more opportunities. Central to that is ensuring that the right offer is in place in terms of the nature of qualifications, and that we improve both vocational and academic learning, as well as teacher quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said, policies to improve teacher quality were not mentioned in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leigh, which lasted for nearly an hour. He did not make it clear, at any point, whether he backed or opposed our investment in expanding Teach First.
Michael Gove
Not yet. That was a choice and it costs, so does the right hon. Gentleman support it? We do not know. Does he back our expansion of Future Leaders? That is an investment, it costs, and we chose. Does he back it? Our expansion in the number of national and local leaders of education costs, and we invested, so does he back it or oppose it? On all those policies, we hear silence. On policies to tackle underperformance, we are extending academy freedoms to 400 new schools. Does he support that extension of opportunity? Does he support, or would he reverse, our policies to get stronger schools to help weaker schools? Does he support, or would he reverse, our policy on getting the schools commissioner back in place to turn failing schools around? Those are all policies being introduced by this coalition Government to extend social mobility and opportunity, but on every one the right hon. Gentleman is silent. He has only one policy: to spend money that we do not have.
Ms Buck
The right hon. Gentleman visited Westminster academy, in my constituency, which was established by the previous Government and which introduced and piloted Teach First. Some 80% of sixth-formers at that school receive EMA, but how many will receive a version of EMA when he withdraws 90% of it?
Michael Gove
I did have the great pleasure of visiting Westminster academy, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so again later this month. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me then, when we will have a seminar on how we can extend school autonomy and freedom in order to drive up standards for the poorest. The number of children who will receive support, which may be enhanced support in some cases, depends precisely on their circumstances. The point was made in research commissioned by the previous Government—not by us—that the current arrangements for EMA are poorly targeted. Some who need more support do not receive it, and some who receive support should not be receiving the amount that they do.
Michael Gove
I wish to make some progress, because I wish to discuss one big factor that is referred to in our amendment and lies behind our position, but which the right hon. Member for Leigh completely ignored: the elephant in the room is the dire economic situation that we inherited from his Government. I know that various Labour Members—not all, because some of them are reasonable—will say, “EMA, EMA”, as though they were on the benches at Goodison Park—[Interruption.]—or anywhere else. But any policy involves a choice, the choice is dependent on the money, and the question is: where is the money coming from?
Michael Gove
I shall not give way at this stage, because every Labour Member needs to be reminded of the mess that the Labour party landed this country in. I am not going to be put off, deflected or diverted from spelling out these facts. They are the facts that determine every decision that a responsible coalition Government have to take. Seven days after this coalition Government were formed, the International Monetary Fund said that this country had the largest deficit of any G20 country. Why was that? Labour Members say that it was because of the financial crisis, but the truth is that we entered that crisis with the largest structural deficit of any country in the G7. The fault for that debt and deficit lies—
Michael Gove
No, not yet. The fault for that debt and deficit lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The OECD said that in 2000, thanks to Conservative policies, the UK had one of the best structural fiscal positions in the world, but by 2007 we had one of the worst in the G7. Why were we in such a weak position? It was because Labour had doubled our debt. In 1997 our national debt was £351 billion, whereas in 2010, by the time the Labour Government had left office, it was £893 billion. You cannot spend money that you do not have. The truth was revealed in a statement secreted in a Treasury desk by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). In a note to the succeeding Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he said “There’s no money.” Not a single member of the Labour party has yet had the courage to accept that truth, and to atone and apologise for it.
John Woodcock
The Secretary of State is talking about things that have been written down. Does he also accept that this is also about values? Will he therefore clarify for the House whether he wishes to apologise for the remarks, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred, that he made in his article in The Times about the attitude to debt and the consequences for people going to university?
Michael Gove
That article in The Times was actually in favour of the previous Government’s efforts to improve access to university. Unlike many Labour Members, I supported what Tony Blair was doing on university tuition fees; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman did. But never mind that, because the truth is that no Labour Member has atoned or apologised for the huge economic mess in which we have been landed. This is appropriate, because the motion stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Leigh, and he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the ship was steered towards the rocks, so he cannot point the finger at anyone else—
Michael Gove
Not yet. Between June 2007 and January 2008 Northern Rock collapsed, the international banking crisis began and the global recession started. All of that happened while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury.
Michael Gove
Not yet. That may just be coincidence, but what was deliberate was that instead of getting control of public expenditure—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not like being reminded of what happened under her Government and on her watch, but as long as I have breath in my body I will remind the people of this country of the devastating mess that the Labour party made of the economy. It is rank hypocrisy—
Michael Gove
Sit down. It is rank hypocrisy—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman voted for it; we all know the role he played.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The Secretary of State is getting very excited. Members are trying to intervene, but I will decide when they have stood on their feet too long. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to carry on putting his points across to the Chamber.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Yes, I am passionate about this. Why should young people be saddled with the economic mess left by that lot? That lot then come back here to say that we are taking opportunity away, knocking the ladder away and increasing youth unemployment, but who created this mess? It was the guilty men and women on the Opposition Front Bench. When the right hon. Member for Leigh was Chief Secretary to the Treasury—
Michael Gove
No.
When the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the first three months—we should remember that the economy was growing at the time—he borrowed an additional £7 billion, and in the next three months he borrowed an additional £21 billion. For every hour that he was Chief Secretary, our debt rose by £5 million—and as I said, the economy was growing at that time. Perhaps he will now take the opportunity to defend his impressive stewardship of this nation’s finances during those seven magical months.
Andy Burnham
I was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who produced the spending review that was described by the Prime Minister as “tough” in 2007. If the right hon. Gentleman is so clear about all those “facts” that he is setting out for the House, why did he promise in March 2010 to keep the education maintenance allowance?
Michael Gove
Since coming into office, I have had many opportunities to look at the devastating mess that was left to us. I have also had the opportunity to reflect on the number of interviews and books written by those who sat alongside the right hon. Gentleman in government. One is a chap called Darling—do we remember him as Chancellor of the Exchequer? He pointed out that in autumn 2007 we had reached the limits of what should have been spent, but when the right hon. Gentleman was still in the Treasury he was spending and borrowing more.
It is also the case that a gentleman called Blair—Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, the former Member for Sedgefield—said:
“from 2005 onwards, Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the structural deficit”.
Mr Blair reflected on what should have been done and said that we should have taken “a new Labour way” out of the crisis. First, he said that we should have kept direct tax rates competitive, which we have done. He thought there should be a gradual rise in VAT and other indirect taxes, which we have brought about, and that we should have pushed further and faster on reform of public services, which we have also done. Why? Because, Mr Blair said, the danger is that
“If governments don’t tackle deficits, the bill is footed by taxpayers, who fear that big deficits now mean big taxes in the future, the prospect of which reduces confidence, investment and purchasing power. This then increases the risk of a prolonged slump”.
And that is precisely what the policies of the deficit deniers on the Opposition side would do—increase the risk of a prolonged slump, with economic policies that make no sense, at a time when we all need to focus on helping the poorest by getting the deficit down.
Michael Gove
It is now a pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
Mr Winnick
At one moment the deficit is cited as the reason for the abolition of EMA, and in another moment we will no doubt hear the educational reasons. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seem to make up his mind. I wrote to all the secondary schools in my constituency asking what percentage of 16 to 19-year-olds were receiving EMA—in a constituency and borough where incomes are considerably lower than in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. In every case the heads replied that it was more than 50%. In one school it was as high as 75%, and in Walsall college it was nearly 60%. These were matters that I raised on the Adjournment last week. What will happen to those who now receive EMA, and young people in the future, who want to stay on beyond the compulsory leaving age but find it very difficult, financially, to do so?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose commitment to this issue I know to be profound, which is why he raised it on the Adjournment last week, when the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) had a chance to reply. I would, of course, expect that in any disadvantaged constituency such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents so well, a significant number would be in receipt of EMA. Nearly half of students receive EMA.
I put that to the right hon. Member for Leigh, but I received no reply. He grudgingly acknowledges, under questioning from Government Members, that there is a case for reform—so far, so good—but when put to the test and asked what sort of reform, what numbers, what tests and on what basis, he did not—[Interruption.] Is he now retracting? Free bus travel is mentioned, but has the cost to the Exchequer been taken into account? [Interruption.] Look, I am asking the right hon. Gentleman questions, but once again he is ducking and diving, dodging and weaving, and refusing to address the vacuum where policy should be.
Michael Gove
I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).
Gavin Barwell
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion made by the shadow Secretary of State—that the cuts to every budget should be proportional—would have been the wrong course to go down, because that would have prevented the Government from protecting the schools budget in real terms?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was interesting to hear the shadow Secretary of State arguing for the equivalent of the Geddes axe, with every service receiving the same cuts. That would presumably mean cuts to the NHS, cuts to the schools budget and cuts to Sure Start simply in order to satisfy his desire for consistency on this policy. As the right hon. Gentleman should have discovered when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to govern is to choose, and to have priorities.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
There are 1,200 students in my constituency who receive EMA. My right hon. Friend is giving them a very good lesson about who is responsible for the difficulties they will encounter over the coming months: the previous Government. Will he also teach them two other lessons? First, the shadow Secretary of State was part of the Government who spent all the money so that there is nothing left. When it has been spent, there should be some answers about what needs to be done with the wreckage left behind. Secondly, there is the lesson that when we are in tough times, we need to focus resources on those who are most vulnerable.
Michael Gove
I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for—Nuneaton, I believe. [Interruption.] No, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher).
Christopher Pincher
Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost 80% of institutions offer tailored support to disadvantaged young people quite separately from EMA, yet only 11% know about it? Is it not more sensible to target help by increasing knowledge about that alternative funding that is available, as it comes from institutions and so will not cost the taxpayer as much?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One point identified by the previous Government’s research commission is that one of the biggest barriers to participation is inadequate advice and guidance.
Michael Gove
I am now confronted with an embarrassment of riches. I would like to give way to ensure that as many Members as possible have the chance to intervene. I give way first to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Erdington has high youth unemployment, but excellent young people who want to get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is the combination of soaring tuition fees, the abolition of EMA, the scrapping of the future jobs fund and now the cuts forced by his Government on local youth services—a toxic combination—that will dash hopes, deny aspiration, fuel rising youth unemployment and lead once again, as in the 1980s, to a lost generation of young people?
Michael Gove
That is a passionate intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has devoted his whole life in the trade union movement and elsewhere to trying to secure a better deal for the worse-off. I take nothing away from the force with which he makes his case, but practical steps are being taken, including in his own constituency, to provide a better deal for the worse off. That includes a new arrangement with a comprehensive in Sutton Coldfield to sponsor a school in his constituency so that they can both enjoy academy status and both have their standards driven up. I hope that I can co-operate with him and secure his support on that policy, alongside many other policies that we wish to introduce so as to target support better on the disadvantaged.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
In response to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), the Secretary of State mentioned the discretionary support fund that is available for schools, but one of the most common questions that I have been asked by principals of colleges and schools in my constituency is whether the fund is available for transport. EMA is vital to give young people a choice of college and school courses, so will he comment on whether funds will be available to help young people with the cost of transport?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point. The hon. Lady has alighted on something that is critical and constructive. I shall say a little more about transport in my speech, but one thing I should say is that local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there is no barrier to participation for 16 to 18-year-olds because of transport. Currently the discretionary learner support fund cannot be used to fund transport, but I would like to ensure that any replacement for EMA can cover additional transport costs. However, we must ensure that local authorities cannot shirk their responsibilities in law.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State give some assurance that the reform will mean that the people who have been highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State as being most in need will get more help, and that the new system will be better for those people, whom we should care about most?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The aim of the coalition Government is to target support better on those who need it, and our first concern is for those with special educational needs, those with learning difficulties and those who face real barriers to participation. I have had an opportunity to talk to my hon. Friend, who I know is passionate about these issues, and a number of his colleagues to try to ensure that the solution we frame, in keeping with the principles outlined by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), captures exactly those most deserving cases.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Some 1,400 students at Lewisham college, most of whom are from ethnic minorities, receive EMA. Would it not be invidious for the principal of that college to have to choose just 140 of those students under the Secretary of State’s revised scheme? More importantly, what does the Secretary of State have to say to students on two-year courses, 229 of whom will be cut off at this moment without any possible hope of continuing their courses, without the £30 a week that matters enormously to very low-paid families in my constituency?
Michael Gove
Any Member of Parliament representing a Lewisham constituency is dealing with a huge range of difficult educational and social issues. I had the opportunity to visit Haberdashers’ Aske’s Knights Academy, which has a sixth form, in Lewisham last Friday. I had a chance to talk to the students and principals there and they would like to see several changes, broadly in line with the coalition Government’s education policy. One position that I think is shared between the right hon. Lady, me and the students to whom I spoke is the belief that any replacement for the EMA needs to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, targeted on those in the most need. Of course, those people will be more heavily represented in a constituency such as the right hon. Lady’s.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I shall have something more to say on EMA if I am called to speak later, but on transport let me set out the situation in north Lincolnshire. When our Labour-run council came to power it increased the cost of the post-16 travel pass by 500%, so it was giving money with one hand through the EMA and taking it back with the other through the transport passes, which went up from £30, when the Conservatives ran the council, to £180—and they are now £195. Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever replaces EMA will provide for people in constituencies such as mine who live in very rural areas, for whom getting to college is a great expense?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good case. As he is a former teacher and he came to the House to advance social mobility, I take seriously everything he says on these issues.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is tweeting from the Chamber right now that the shadow Secretary of State has refused to meet the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but in fact the shadow Secretary of State has already met him, and is prepared to meet him at any time. Is it in order for a Member, in the course of a debate, to make points about participants in the debate without doing it here so that everyone can hear the point they are making and have an opportunity to rebut it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
What I can say is that it is for me to keep order in the Chamber. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought this to my attention, and I am sure that no hon. Member will be tweeting from the Chamber to let people outside know what is going on.
Michael Gove
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point, but I do not know what it says about my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) or the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that while they were making their interventions, he thought his own Twitter feed was more intriguing than the points they had to make. However, he is a genial soul and I know they will forgive him everything, as will I.
Let me return to the central theme of many of the interventions we have just heard—the need to target support better on the poorest. In the context of everything we are doing in education, the coalition Government have already made a series of decisions, with constrained resources, to make sure that the poorest benefit from our policies. We are extending free child care to 15 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds. That did not happen under the previous Government and I had hoped they would support it, but we have introduced it. We are also extending free child care to 100,000 of the poorest two-year-olds. That happened on this watch. Those 100,000 children would not have received free child care and preparation for school if it had not been for the commitment of the coalition Government. I am grateful that some Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), support us, and I am sure that many others recognise that this is a progressive step that all should applaud.
We are also implementing a pupil premium—£625 million this year, rising to £2.5 billion by the end of the comprehensive spending review. As a direct result of that, every poor child will have thousands more spent on their education. That money will be invested in better teaching, one-to-one tuition and catch-up learning, all of which is additional money on top of the schools budget. That policy was rejected by the Labour party in coalition negotiations. In order to make sure that all those interventions to help the poorest could be funded, the coalition Government had to take some tough choices, one of which is to replace EMA with a new system of support.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Michael Gove
In a second.
The reason we are replacing EMA—beyond the desperate financial situation that we inherited—is that we are making our policy based on evidence that was commissioned, sifted, prepared and analysed by an organisation that was working for the previous Government. The National Foundation for Educational Research was commissioned by my predecessor to look at the barriers to continued participation in education for 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. I shall go into some detail about what the report argued. It concluded that EMA or any replacement for it should be targeted better at those young people who feel that they cannot continue in learning without financial support. That argument has consistently been made in the debate by a number of people from different parties. Yes, we acknowledge that there will have to be cuts—although the right hon. Member for Leigh will not say how many—and, yes, we acknowledge that some of the people who currently receive it might not be the most deserving. If the economy were growing it would be fantastic to offer that incentive, but given that it is not, let us make sure that those most in need are supported.
Half of young people receive EMA, but only 12% of them—so 6% of students overall—said that they needed financial support to stay in learning. The NFER says that financial support should be increasingly targeted at those most in need, and I could not agree more. Specific financial barriers to learning—which have, I must in fairness add, been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leigh—are faced by particular students. I am particularly conscious of the need to support students who have learning difficulties, and I am aware that when students have caring responsibilities they need more support. I am particularly aware that when students are teenage parents, additional financial support will be required because of their specific circumstances. In the scheme that we are developing, all those considerations weigh heavily with me.
There are also individuals in specific circumstances who need additional support, as the right hon. Member for Leigh has also pointed out. Additional support sometimes depends on the course one pursues. If one is pursuing a catering course, the cost of buying whites and knives and so on will be more than the cost of an academic course in a sixth form where the books are supplied and the costs of participation are less. We need to take that into account, as well as the need for straightforward support. There are poorer students at school who will be eligible for free school meals—and quite right too—who will not have that support in FE colleges. One of the questions in my mind is how we can ensure that the basic maintenance needs to keep body and soul together, which poorer students require, will be available, whatever institution they attend.
There are also students—particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas—who face barriers to participation because of transport costs and transport sparsity. Again, I am looking at all those areas. I am helped by the detailed work that has already been undertaken by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. His job as access advocate is not just to explain how our policies can help social mobility at every stage; he is making sure that the replacement for EMA deals with all the real-world issues. I am grateful to him for his support, as I am grateful to any hon. Member who can make constructive suggestions about how we can better target the money given the constraints under which we operate.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the research about students staying on was flawed? It was narrow, talked only to young people in sixth forms and did not talk to their parents, who actually make the decision about whether the child can stay on at school.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. In fact, the survey was wide-ranging; more than 2,000 people were approached. It was scientifically conducted, and the organisation was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State. I had my differences with him, but I think the research is impeccable. However, the hon. Lady makes a good point about parents. As I am sure all Members are aware, any child who stays in education beyond the age of 16 makes their family, and of course the mother, eligible for child benefit. One of the things that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) explicitly stated when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he envisaged, in the first instance, that child benefit would go in order to pay for EMA. He said subsequently that actually they could pay for both child benefit and EMA because of the success of the Labour Government in removing our debt. Now that we have a massive debt, there is a tough decision to be made, and this Government have decided to keep child benefit for those over the age of 16. The question for Opposition Members who want to maintain EMA at its full level is whether they would cut child benefit to pay for it.
Barbara Keeley
I want to take the Secretary of State back to the subject of vulnerable young people, particularly young carers. I have raised the point in debate on a number of occasions, for example in the Christmas pre-recess Adjournment debate. Removing a national scheme, from which a group of young carers in Salford benefit, particularly because almost all of them are in receipt of EMA, and replacing it with a scheme one tenth of the size and at the discretion of college principals, will not be the answer. College principals do not know who their young carers are. The right hon. Gentleman needs to be clearer, and more work needs to be done, because those young people deserve the support offered by EMA and they will not manage without it. They will struggle and their caring work load will swamp them.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We want to ensure that learners with caring responsibilities are looked after. They are a small but growing number, who face enormous challenges and are living heroically, attempting to balance their responsibilities. In any replacement scheme, we need to ensure better targeting. The truth is that the current scheme does not effectively target those people.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The NFER data that the Secretary of State has highlighted are startling, in that they demonstrate the amount of dead-weight and inefficiency in the existing arrangements. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has had any helpful suggestions from the Opposition as to what changes could be made to target support more efficiently, particularly in light of the needs of many students that he has highlighted?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have had a couple of helpful suggestions from Opposition Back Benchers—I shall not name them—who recognise that we need to make reductions and believe that support can be better targeted. I have looked at their submissions and they have helped to shape my thinking. In the same way, I have been fortunate in that a number of Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues have made points to me about how a replacement scheme should be targeted. Many of the arguments had occurred to me beforehand, but many were made with such force and passion and were backed up with such persuasive facts that they have certainly shaped our policy. The opportunity exists for other Members to make such points, and although I am not sure that the seminar-style atmosphere of an Opposition day debate is necessarily ideal for such submissions, I am always grateful to receive them.
Julian Smith
On behalf of students and staff at Craven college in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State. They made strong representations to me about the need to look at travel in the reworked EMA, so I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to do that.
Michael Gove
I want to make some progress.
On travel, it is important that we recognise that local authorities are under a statutory duty to support young people aged between 16 and 19, and, up to the age of 24, any young learner with learning difficulties, to get to school or college. It is the law. Local authorities are failing in their statutory duty if they do not provide support. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 strengthened that duty. Local authorities must consult young people and their parents, publish an appropriate plan and ensure that there is access.
I appreciate that local authorities, like all of us, are having to deal with the consequences of the desperate financial mess the previous Government bequeathed us, but the best local authorities are showing the way. Oxfordshire provides transport and totally waives the cost for any student whose family is in receipt of income support, housing benefit, free school meals or council tax benefit. Essex waives travel costs for children in receipt of a range of benefits. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Hull, any student in receipt of education maintenance allowance also receives a travel grant to cope with the full cost—
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
They won’t now.
Michael Gove
I suspect they won’t if a Labour council takes power, but if people are wise enough to vote Liberal Democrat at the next local election in Hull—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]—or for the Conservatives in any seat where we are well placed to defeat Labour, they will have a council that is fulfilling its statutory duty. It is no surprise that there are Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils that ensure that all students receive the support they deserve. It is striking that that is in addition to EMA.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Transport costs are obviously a major factor for students all over the country. Can the Secretary of State explain why under the Transport for London fares rise approved by Boris Johnson, EMA-receiving students are charged 65p per bus fare, whereas under the previous Ken Livingstone regime they all had free bus travel to encourage young people in London to stay on in education? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his friend the Mayor of London?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that opening salvo in the Re-elect Ken campaign. Behind it, there is an important point, which is that in London transport and travel costs are significantly less—whoever the Mayor is—than those faced by people in rural constituencies. I was particularly struck by the testimony of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that students in his constituency may need to undertake a round trip of two hours a day to reach a further education college. In constituencies such as those represented by the hon. Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) or for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), significant journeys have to be undertaken. I am also aware that because of the nature of sixth-form and FE college provision, many students will travel further for their sixth-form education than they would for school education. That is why the statutory duty exists. I am grateful that the Local Government Association has been so positive about so many coalition policies, and I shall work with local authorities to ensure that we can continue to provide that support. Let us be clear: EMA was designed and implemented to augment an existing statutory duty, not to replace it.
Michael Gove
I shall not give way at this stage. I am conscious of the amount of time that has passed, and conscious too that many hon. Members want to speak in the remaining part of the debate.
If we are to increase participation, and if we are to generate greater social mobility, we need to be clear: we need to remove barriers. We also need to ask who faces the largest barriers. How can we help them better and what are the other barriers, as well as the financial one? The research shows us that, yes, the cost of transport, the cost of equipment or the cost of some maintenance can be a factor for some students, but it also shows us that there are bigger barriers: poor guidance, with students not being offered the right advice; poor choices, with an inadequate range of courses available; and above all, poor attainment. The real barrier to participation in education after the age of 16 is the quality of education that a person has received up to the age of 16. Yes, half this country’s students are in receipt of EMA, but by the time that half this country’s students reach the age of 16, they do not have five good GCSEs. We discovered the other week that barely 15% of students have GCSEs in the five essential areas of English, mathematics, science, languages and the humanities.
If we really believe in generating social mobility in this country, we must ask ourselves how every pound is best invested. Graham Allen is quite clear: spend it at the beginning. Frank Field is quite clear: spend it early on. The coalition Government are quite clear—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to refer to Members of the House in that way.
Michael Gove
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North—a Labour Member—and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead are quite clear that we should invest in the early years. That is what the coalition Government are doing, and at a greater rate and in a more powerful way than the previous Government. The investment in early years, the reform of education, the investment in the pupil premium and the range of reforms that I mentioned earlier—the right hon. Member for Leigh has remained silent about them—make up a powerful package to generate greater social mobility.
The question for all hon. Members is: are we going to be sufficiently grown up to acknowledge that we have a deficit, or are we going to be deficit deniers? Are we going to be progressive enough to target support at those who need it most, or are we going to say that the existing system is perfect and need not be reformed? Are we going to say, “Let’s get our whole school system right,” or are we just going to spend more on one unreformed benefit? There is a basic choice today: vote with the Opposition, and therefore vote for reaction, complacency and deficit denial; or vote with the Government, and therefore vote for progressive policies, an education policy that will really change things and an opportunity, at last, to kick-start social mobility in this country.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish that the Secretary of State would stop the nonsense of talking about deficit denial. We know that the bankers caused the crisis. We invested in the economy to ensure that we could keep people in work and in their homes, and so that we could fund education—that is the difference between us and the Government.
We are considering not only cuts to EMA, but the Government’s wholesale betrayal of balancing their cuts towards young people. EMA has been a lifeline for young people, especially those from less well-off backgrounds, of whom there are many in my constituency. However, the cut must be considered in the context of what has happened to the likes of Halton under this Government. In addition to the cut in EMA, we have faced a massive £180 million cut in Building Schools for the Future. The tuition fees policy will have a particular effect on my constituents, and we experienced a £1.2 million education cut last year, although Tory-controlled Cheshire West and Cheshire East councils had a cut of only £600,000. We must not forget that the Government have made a deliberate ideological attempt to make cuts in Labour authorities and areas.
EMA has been an important tool to support young people in education and to encourage them to stay on, succeed and realise their aspirations. It also supports choice because it allows young people to choose the institution that is best for them, not just the nearest one. Ending the payment stacks the odds even more against those who have least but want to get on in life.
Halton benefited from being one of the original pilot areas for EMA. There was a 55% increase in EMA recipients between 2004 and 2010, with last year’s numbers exceeding 2,000 recipients. From talking to young people, I know how important EMA has been to them, so its withdrawal will lead to students dropping out and becoming NEETs—those not in employment, education or training—which will have a significant economic and social impact in deprived areas such as Halton. That would go against the so-called coalition’s policy of reducing the number of NEETs, and it would also reverse the marvellous progress that has been made in Halton to reduce its proportion of NEETs from 8.3% in 2007 to 4.5% last year.
The Association of Colleges reports that the National Foundation for Educational Research estimates that 12% of young people who received EMA believed that they would not have participated in their courses if they had not received it. In some colleges, half the students surveyed said that they felt that they would not be able to continue their course following the withdrawal of EMA, while a further third thought that they would need to weigh up the pros and cons of staying on at college.
Mike Sheehan is the widely respected principal of my constituency’s Riverside college—the college I attended. He has turned round a number of failing colleges and is achieving great things at Riverside college. He says that the withdrawal of EMA on new year’s eve has adversely affected recruitment to the college’s January programme. The figures are down by almost three quarters—just 25 students compared with 106 last January. He is worried about the students who enrolled on two-year courses in full expectation of receiving EMA throughout their course. It is unfair that EMA is being withdrawn partway through courses, and the Association of Colleges says that that will affect 300,000 young people throughout the country. Mr Sheehan says:
“Attendance, retention and achievement have risen drastically at Riverside College in recent years. We are absolutely convinced that EMA has played a significant part in bringing about these improvements. It has provided a real incentive for young people to attend fully and to stay at college.”
Some surveys have pointed to higher attendance and take-up rates for courses among young males from disadvantaged backgrounds who receive EMA. That is especially important in deprived areas such as Halton, and that is to say nothing about the higher earning potential of better-qualified students who complete college and the contribution to the economy that they can therefore make. According to this month’s Commons Library statistics on EMA and the Government’s research figures, that contribution more than offsets the costs of the EMA programme.
Both the Secretary of State and his shadow spokesman touched on a fundamental aspect of EMA for students from poorer backgrounds: the ability to pay for meals, books and educational equipment. One of the main uses of EMA, however, is the funding of transport. In December 2010, the Association of Colleges commissioned a survey to detail the accessibility of transport to people aged 16 to 19 attending college. It found that 94% of colleges believe that the abolition of EMA will affect students’ ability to travel to and from college. The support given by local authorities is extremely varied. Some 29% of authorities provide transport while 20% give financial support. Around 18% provide both, but 27% provide neither. Existing local authority transport provision is extremely patchy, and local authorities cannot be expected to pick up the tab for the withdrawal of EMA.
The Secretary of State might wish to examine Halton’s case. We had £30 million taken out of a £130 million budget as a result of the local government settlement, in-year cuts and other changes to programmes. If he thinks that any council, let alone a small one such as Halton, can bear such a cut without services being affected, he is in a different world. Councils cannot find additional funding to fill that sort of gap.
Paul Farrelly
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as with the rest of the cuts agenda, the Secretary of State’s debt argument is simply a spurious decoy? Estimates of the debt position improved following the election, so the position was better after the election than when the Secretary of State promised that he would not abolish EMA.
Derek Twigg
We worked hard on the economy to keep people in work and to give them housing support. Today’s unemployment figures show the effect of the cuts that have already taken place, and we will see the real effects in the next year or two. The Government’s position is a red herring.
I will make another point to the Secretary of State, if he will listen for a second: if he is to bring forward another policy, when will we see it? As Mr Sheehan told me, the situation is causing a lot of uncertainty in colleges.
This is another example of the Government’s broken promises, as we have seen with the economy, health and transport. We have heard that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that they would keep EMA, so this is a big broken promise on education. They are letting down hundreds of thousands of young people throughout the country, and at least 2,000 or 3,000 young people in my constituency will be affected over the next few years. This disgraceful policy discriminates against the poorest and the most deprived communities, so the Secretary of State should apologise for it today.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that many hon. Members wish to speak. The previous speaker set a good example by not using the full eight minutes. The fewer the interventions, the more speakers I can call.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate about scrapping the education maintenance allowance. I share the frustration of many Opposition Members about the potential impact of abolishing it. However, although they may deny the relevance of the deficit, my anger is directed at the Labour party and the state in which the previous Government left the public finances.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
You should remember you’re the Chair of the Committee.
Mr Stuart
I am entirely happy to chair a Committee and to bear witness to the reality of education funding. I am involved in education and serve on the Committee because I care passionately about improving the quality of education and opportunity in this country. We may hear from others later, but the shadow Secretary of State did at least have the goodness to recognise that there was room for reducing the deficit. However, he would not tell us where, what, when or how. When I consider the attempt to make more effective interventions in the early years and I look at the nursery education opportunities for two-year-olds, I ask myself whether I would prefer to cut that or keep the EMA.
A Labour Member suggested that there might be differences between Members. In my constituency, some students travel for an hour and 40 minutes each way to attend Bishop Burton further education college. That is a real issue for a rural area such as mine. However, I know that half of all 17 and 18-year-old full-time students are eligible for EMA, and I am aware of the chronic crisis and pressure on education budgets—the desperate desire to deliver the outcomes that we have struggled to provide from our system. I have said it before, and I will risk repeating it: I know that the Labour Government were utterly committed to trying to close the gap. They had will and they had resource—a resource which has sadly gone—yet too often the gap widened rather than narrowed. I do not blame the Opposition for using this issue today, but I hope that we will collectively, not in a party political way, take the limited funds that are available—the deficit is not an irrelevant fact but the fundamental elephant in the room—and look to do what is best. We had a lot of spending previously, and we have a diet of hard decisions now. They must be faced.
The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the best approach was to cut everything by the same amount. Is that really the strategically sensible way to ensure that we improve outcomes for people in our society, not least those with least? I do not think that it is. So I am interested to know how the discretionary learner fund—the replacement for EMA—will work, because of the realities faced by my constituents, who travel over three hours a day to get to an FE college, and who then achieve at the end of that. If those people manage to do that in the face of great difficulty and personal inconvenience, I want to be sure that colleges such as Bishop Burton, which run private enterprises to make profits so that they can have a fleet of vehicles, are not disadvantaged. Despite those vehicles, the college is worried that the students, who often live in small hamlets, need to travel from their home to the pick-up point for the college bus. We need to ensure that we have a system—whether financed by local authorities or the replacement for EMA—that covers that.
It is hard to believe that EMA as it stands is the most sensible use of scarce resource. I am not trying to make a party political point, and I am mindful of my position as Chair of the Select Committee, but I want us to devise the system that works most effectively and yet does not deny the reality.
When I was first elected as a councillor—in Cambridge—many years ago, I went to a budget survey meeting with the public in a local shopping centre, which the then Labour council had arranged. I was handed a form which gave a list of spending areas for the budget debate. It said, “Please tick all those areas where you would like to see more spending.” I am a small-state Conservative in some ways, and I found many items on which I wanted to spend more. I was terribly aware of what went on in my ward—the lack of provision for young people, the need to do more in many areas—and I wanted to tick many boxes. However, the Labour council had sensibly included a proviso, which said, “All we ask is that for every box you tick to give more money, you identify another item on which you want to spend less.”
That is the challenge that faces the Select Committee, which will look under the bonnet of the new fund. It will examine engagement and participation by 16 to 19-year-olds. We want to ensure that the dire warnings by the shadow Secretary of State are not fulfilled and that young people are not put off education, but we must realise that we are in a highly constrained position because of this Government’s financial inheritance. Like that wise Labour council many years ago, every time we say, “Let’s save EMA”—Opposition Members have not made it clear so far whether they want to save all or half of EMA—we should ask, “What will we cut?” Just as, in that shopping centre, members of the public, like me, were told, “It’s not enough to say you want better youth services; you’ve got to tell us where to save the money too,” if hon. Members are to do justice to the young people, whom we all want to see given decent and proper opportunity, we must ensure that we do so in a financially responsible manner.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an interesting debate, but I found it hard to concentrate on the Secretary of State’s speech because I was expecting a speech that was focused particularly on the motion and on EMA, but he seemed to want to talk about almost everything else. He spoke endlessly about the economy but said little about EMA.
In my brief speech, I want to make a couple of points. First, as a former Chair of the Education Committee, I say to the current Chair that, as Nye Bevan said, it is a question of priorities, but he and I, and other hon. Members, served on the Committee when it conducted an inquiry into NEETs—one of our last inquiries under the previous Government, and I believe that the impact on NEETs of the removal of EMA will prove very much more expensive than the NEET budget.
I beg the Government to think in terms of the broader picture. The previous Government introduced EMA because we knew that if we could keep a young person on in education from 16 to 18, we had got ’em—they stayed on, and not just to go to Oxford and Cambridge, which the Secretary of State is obsessed with. The one thing that annoys me most is the obsession with which kids who had free school meals went to Oxford and Cambridge. I am a London School of Economics graduate, but I must point out that there are many much better universities than Oxford and Cambridge. There are brilliant universities—the university of Huddersfield in my constituency is fantastic. It has one of the best design and engineering departments in the country. So please, Secretary of State, do not be obsessive about Oxford and Cambridge.
The record is there to show that as a result of the successful policy of introducing EMA, many more young people—a tremendous number—now stay on from 16 to 18. They do not do all the posh things such as going to Oxford and Cambridge or the Russell Group universities, but they stay on for apprenticeships and training; they go for craft training and become technicians. The Secretary of State shares my desire to get more kids to become technicians. There is nothing wrong with that, and EMA has meant that many more have come through. We know that without EMA, many young people will be put off doing so.
With EMA, we have changed the educational culture; it is the one area in which we have done so. Kids now stay on until they are 18 and that opens up their lives to new opportunities. The abolition of EMA will change the culture back to what it was before.
Mr Sheerman
In a moment.
We must also consider the long-term implications and the unintended consequences. I pray in aid a recent report from the Equalities Commission. It showed how many young people from ethnic minorities were unemployed and the sort of employment those who worked had. For example, 25% of Pakistanis are taxi drivers. It showed how many Pakistani, Bangladeshi, black and white working-class young people have been brought into education and stay in education because of EMA. If those young people are not in education or training, they will not get jobs. The long-term cost to our communities will be frightening.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
In the local college in my constituency, 50% of young people surveyed who receive EMA have said that they are unlikely to be able to stay on in education. That is a damning indictment. Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware that it is predicted that the Government will spend some £40 million trying to cancel EMA? Young people will feel very let down if it is true that so much money will be spent doing that. It is appalling.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I agree with it, but may I press on and say two more things? The first is that when I chaired the Children, Schools and Families Committee, it always believed in evidence-based policy. That means listening to all the evidence, not just taking one bit that we like and saying, “I’ll base the policy on this,” and ignoring all the other evidence. I ask the current Chair of the Education Committee, when he has an inquiry on the subject—he will have one; it will be too late, but he will have one—to bear in mind that we always took all the evidence.
I have not heard one mention today of Professor Alison Wolf, whom the Secretary of State appointed to look at 14-to-19 education and vocational opportunities. What on earth happened to that? This is just like the increase in student fees; we are to have a White Paper, after the Government have decided what they will do about student fees. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. The fact is that the Secretary of State has got one of the country’s leading experts—Professor Alison Wolf from King’s College London—to look at the issue, but he will make all the major decisions that will influence how many young people stay on in further and vocational education before she brings forward her report in spring.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that the coalition Government enjoy the support and advice of the leading figure in the world of vocational education. I am aware of two detailed reports on the effectiveness of the education maintenance allowance: the 2007 Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which showed that the allowance had a marginal impact on both attainment and attendance, and of course the National Foundation for Educational Research report, which was published in the autumn last year. Can he tell me of any other serious reports, from the NFER or anyone else, that make a contrary case?
Mr Sheerman
May I remind the Secretary of State of what one of his favourites, the Policy Exchange, said?
“The only possible remaining argument for the EMA is social justice—that young people from poorer backgrounds deserve to be supported from 16 rather than at 18. This is a pretty weak argument”.
So that is another one, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked again at its original research, as he well knows.
Michael Gove
Has the hon. Gentleman actually read the 2007 IFS report, or the 2010 NFER report? If he had read those, and the Policy Exchange report, he would have seen that those three serious academic reports all say that EMA does not produce the benefits that he, in his passion, would like it to.
Mr Sheerman
The IFS report, taken on its own, shows that even if only 8% to 10% of people took up EMA, that would pay for its cost, in terms of the fuller picture. Today, we are talking about the full cost and impact, and the change in the culture in our country. It is interesting; I thought that the Secretary of State was going to tell us what the hell had happened to the Alison Wolf report, and why he was introducing policy before he had even bothered to listen to the leading expert, who he has working on the issue. A lot of us have actually contributed to her inquiry. What was the point of talking to the Government, and giving one’s advice and experience, when the Government ignore it because the Secretary of State has introduced his policy before Alison Wolf introduced hers? We will wait and see what the report brings us.
We are at a pivotal moment. I think most people in the House would agree that we have to make some changes—extraordinary ones. If I sat down with a group of people who care about education in this House, and we discussed what we were to cut, we could think extraordinary things. If I were really pushed and wanted to defend EMA, I would go for larger class sizes, because there is real evidence that slightly larger class sizes do not make all that much difference. That might upset some of my colleagues, and I agree that there are priorities to be set and choices to be made, but this Secretary of State has never given us a chance to set priorities.
Mr Sheerman
I will not give way. The fact is that we could have that negotiation and discussion. It is right that there should be priorities, but removing EMA will hurt all communities, up and down the land. In my constituency of Huddersfield, two FE colleges, Kirklees college and Huddersfield New college, depend heavily on education maintenance allowances; they do a wonderful job in bringing young people who would not otherwise have the chance into education across the piece.
I am reminded that many people on the Conservative side do not actually know much about FE. [Interruption.] Listen a minute. Only last June, the Association of Colleges gave a golden award to six people who went to FE colleges. A person could not get through the Conservatives and Liberals who were gathered around Colin Firth as he got his award. He never went to university; he went to an FE college. Those people in this House who understand the wonderful job that FE colleges do will share my feeling that this is a shameful day in education policy—a day on which the Secretary of State did not have the courage to defend his arguments, but instead first used the lifebelt of taking more and more interventions to save him making a speech, and secondly went on about the broader economy. This is a shameful day, and the Secretary of State should be ashamed of it.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
May I say how pleased I am that the Secretary of State is working with schools and colleges on how the enhanced learner support fund should operate? The few comments that I shall make today are intended to feed into the work that I understand is going on in the vital area of supporting participation in 16-to-19 education and training, and into the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is carrying out. I believe that there should be a comprehensive view across all education and training for that age group.
Over several years, I have received a number of representations about the unfairness of the EMA system, and I am quite convinced that there is a need for reform, but equally I am concerned that its replacement should provide sufficient support. On the point about unfairness, I would like to quote just one constituency case—a rather unusual one. A single parent, earning just over £30,000 a year, had triplets in a local sixth form. I wrote pleading letters to the relevant Labour Minister, saying that surely there should be more flexibility to take into account individual circumstances, but to no avail. Of course child benefit is not very helpful when one has triplets, either, because for the second and third triplet, the rate is considerably lower.
There must be many cases where a family has two or more siblings in post-16 education, yet the system that the Labour party is defending so vigorously did not have the capacity to respond to individual circumstances. I believe that we need something that is individual and targeted. It is clear to me that we need to address potential barriers to entry faced by individual students in accessing the most appropriate courses of their choice, and how those barriers can best be overcome.
Like the Secretary of State, I believe in choice and social mobility. That means access to the right institution that offers the right range of subjects for the particular student. I represent a constituency that is relatively affluent, but it certainly includes young people who need and deserve our support. It has a mix of urban and rural areas. I concur with the points made about the very long journeys that have to be undertaken by some students.
I shall deal briefly with the main barriers, as I see them. I see transport as a major barrier. It is not enough to say that local authorities have a statutory duty. The local authorities that cover my constituency have long since abandoned providing transport for sixth-form students, and have taken the attitude that EMA replaced the need to cover public transport. They have been quite gruelling, saying, “Ah, there’s another school or college that is closer, where you could do more or less what you want to do.” That is not good enough.
Poole local authority, for example, has grammar schools. If a young person has gone to a secondary modern school from the poorer part of town, it is right that they should have access to the grammar school if they have worked hard to get the qualifications. I ask the Secretary of State to look at that. We believe in social mobility, and with the grammar school system there is a particular problem.
With reference to FE colleges, we need to take on board why young people go on to further education. It is often because it offers a totally different type of course from those they were able to do at school. Again, there is a problem with a local authority funding transport because somebody wants to go to a college of further education rather than to their local comprehensive school. School might have been a bad experience. I have lectured in further education for many years. It is inspiring to turn around students who have had bad school experiences and turn out to be brilliant students in a different setting. I am concerned that we may be depriving some children of those opportunities.
My constituency has no FE colleges, which inevitably means a great deal of travel for youngsters there. Students from my constituency go further afield, beyond Bournemouth and Poole college, in the opposite direction to the specialist college, Kingston Maurward, which has incredibly interesting courses. Originally one of the agricultural colleges, it offers many courses that are suitable for particular interests, such as work with animals. It is extremely important that transport is paid.
I am concerned that the issue of transport costs is not as simple as it sounded when the Secretary of State was talking about it. I would support the introduction of a young people’s travel card. I would make a sacrifice. I am eligible for a bus pass although I do not have one. Even if I had it, I do not think I need to be able to travel all over the country for free. I believe many people would accept a cut there.
A further barrier is the cost of equipment. Bournemouth and Poole college has an amazing reputation for catering and hospitality, as hon. Members might imagine. Of course, the equipment is expensive, and students must have help with that. We have discussed the fact that some courses need more expensive books than others—for example, students going on to study art will need expensive materials.
Annette Brooke
I had better not, given the time.
There is a big difference between school, where free school meals are available, and the local college. Young people’s life chances can be transformed by going to college, but they need to have enough food.
I draw attention to the young people who are vulnerable and particularly disadvantaged—those not living in a family home for whatever reason, children in care, care leavers, young people who are homeless, children and young people with learning difficulties, teenage parents and young carers. We need some red lines: some groups of young people must be protected, come what may. In future, we must enhance access, ensure success and allow our young people to achieve their potential, regardless of background and financial circumstances.
I have two specific questions. One is about young people who are part-way through courses and who may not have EMA for the next year of the course. How will that be tackled? Will there be ring-fencing? I am worried about colleges and schools having pots of money and its going off into other activities. Finally, we seem to be facing a big threat today, but together we could work on the opportunities arising from it.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The Government’s decision to abolish EMA will damage young people’s prospects throughout the country, but in a constituency such as mine in east London, the results will be frankly disastrous. Removing seven eighths of the money and establishing, possibly, a residual discretionary support fund will be no compensation. It will place colleges and schools in the impossible position of allocating resources thinly but fairly among many deserving students.
At present, more than 5,000 students in my local borough of Newham receive EMA—more than two in five of all of our 16 to 19-year-olds. It makes a real difference to them and to their families. Our 16-plus participation rate is up almost 13% since EMA came on-stream, from 81.4% in 2003-04 to 94.1% in 2008-09. Newham sixth-form college is the largest in London, and more than three quarters of students receive EMA. The vast majority are on the full £30 weekly allowance. Students I met reported giving the contribution to their parents for their keep, so let there be no mistake: this money will be sorely missed.
Newham’s average household income is £455 a week. Only three other English local authorities have higher levels of child poverty. Silver spoons are in short supply in Newham. For most of the students at Newham sixth-form college, EMA is not just nice-to-have pocket money but a financial necessity. It helps with the costs of travel, buying books and other course requirements, and contributes to household incomes. EMA is not a bribe, as has been claimed, but a pathway to further and higher education for young people in low-income families. EMA offers a lifeline to many against whom the odds are already stacked. But now, EMA recipients who are halfway through their courses say they do not know how they can carry on when their funding is withdrawn. Others worry about the motivation for younger brothers and sisters to keep attending school and doing their best.
Do we really want a country where young people have to worry about the significant sacrifices that their parents will have to make to allow them to undertake further education? Do we really want young people to have to forgo their lunches a couple of times a week, or walk miles to college because they cannot afford the bus fare? Do we really want them to spend every spare minute they have in part-time work?
Since its creation, EMA has sent a strong signal to teenagers that a positive future is available if they work hard and play by the rules. We can contrast that positive and inclusive message with the hugely discouraging signals we are now sending to our young people: the abolition of EMA alongside the cutting of Aimhigher, the trebling of tuition fees and the ending of the future jobs fund. It is obvious that we are storing up problems for the future, and the Government’s decision to slash the support for young people to stay on in education will be viewed by future generations as a betrayal—a costly mistake—as well as another broken promise.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Lyn Brown
I am sorry, but I promised not to give way.
The Government, and even the Prime Minister earlier today, try to justify the abolition of EMA by relying on a single research study. But as ever with this Government, when it comes to their use of statistics it pays to read the small print. The research that they point to was carried out by the highly reputable National Foundation for Educational Research, but that study was not an evaluation of EMA; it was a much broader project, looking at barriers to learning for all 16 to 19-year-olds. The research sampled only year 11 students—students not in the sixth form, with no experience of the additional costs associated with further education—so the study cannot legitimately bear the conclusion that the Government want to draw from it. The research is an excuse for their decision to abolish EMA, not a reasoned explanation.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, other independent studies found that EMA does increase participation in post-16 learning, particularly among young people from families on low incomes. Members do not have to take my word for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—that well-known left-wing organisation!—looked at the Government’s case and found it wanting, stating that it was based on selective assumptions. It concluded that EMA is an effective use of public money. I do not believe that cutting EMA is inevitable in the light of the financial situation. I am not a deficit denier; I simply believe that abolishing EMA is not economically sound. Bankers’ bonuses flourish, yet ordinary young people pay the price. There is no policy justification for the cut. Let there be no mistake: the abolition of EMA is a political choice.
Let me tell those who still think that the allowance is a bribe about Tom Chigbo, a London boy, and the first black president of Cambridge student union. He lives in my constituency. He tells me that he would not have got to Cambridge without EMA: he used it for travel and food and to attend additional lectures and seminars in London, which made his personal statement stand out and gave him something to talk about at interview. Members who will vote in the Government Lobby should remember Tom and the others up and down the country whose future they are blighting and whose potential they are capping.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Today we are debating a scheme introduced by the previous Government that has done some good for poorer students but is also wasteful and inefficient. We need to work out how to maintain and support poorer students while cutting overall costs. Sadly, this is a typical tale of the previous Government’s waste and the current Government having to mop up the mess.
Much of the discussion has been about access, but I firmly believe that raising the school-leaving age to 18 by 2015 will address the issue. I want to concentrate mainly on looking at how best we can give money to students in genuine need. The system currently costs £565 million a year, at a time when, we all accept, the Government are short of money. We cannot pay for everything, so we have to find savings. Of those receiving the allowance, 10% have parents earning more than £25,000 a year, and 47% of those in full-time education are claiming it. Are we saying that all those people need it?
The 18 October 2010 edition of The Observer reported on a Local Government Association report published that month suggesting that 90% of those claiming did not need that benefit. That means that only £56 million gets into the pockets of the poorest in our society, whereas we want to increase discretionary payments to £78 million by 2015.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Morris
No, I am short of time.
Under our proposals, poorer students in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale will be better off, while we will save the taxpayer money. I thank the Secretary of State, who sadly is not here, for the £250,000 he recently put towards Morecambe college.
EMA was a typical Labour scatter-gun approach: some people benefit, but money is given to many who do not need it. Of course students oppose our proposals, but they aim to support the poor and not give money to everyone who wants it. We must put dogma to one side, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said, and sort this mess out where it counts. I believe that together we could do that constructively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before calling the next speaker, I must inform Members that—would Members please resume their seats?—52 of them still wish to speak. To be fair, and to try to call them all, I will reduce the time limit to six minutes. I hope that they will bear it in mind when speaking that many Members wish to contribute.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This happens again and again. We are given a restricted time limit, and in the course of the debate it is reduced. One reason why is that the two Front Benchers’ speeches took 50 minutes and 46 minutes. If Front Benchers, taking interventions again and again, are going to reduce the opportunities of Back Benchers to make speeches of reasonable length, we ought to look at the whole system, because it is unacceptable to reduce the length of speeches in the course of a debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Sir Gerald, I understand your frustration and anger at the reduction in the time limit. As you will know, it is beyond the power of the Chair to curtail the opening speeches or to prevent Members making interventions in the first place when they have their name down to speak in that very debate, but I am sure that other Members will want to take up your point with the Procedure Committee. It is not a matter for me, however. I am trying, with this debate, to be as fair as I possibly can, and even with six minutes not every Member who has asked to speak will be called before the winding-up speeches. I am afraid that I can do nothing more at this stage, but I will certainly draw the issue to the Speaker’s attention.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I shall endeavour to take less than six minutes, and I shall not take any interventions. I urge colleagues who do want to make a point, however, to raise it during the winding-up speeches. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) about how—by ten-minute rule Bills and other things of that nature, too—these debates are curtailed.
I have just turned to page 30 of my list of broken Tory promises to look at where we are up to so far, and sadly the book still has many pages to go. The footnotes refer to, “We’re all in this together”, yet the burden continues to fall on children, young people and those on the lowest incomes. The burden that falls on the bankers is a bonus of £2 million-plus. That’s justice, that’s fair—I don’t think. I am very interested to hear what Government Front Benchers have to say about where the burden falls. I am sure that they will duck that question, given that they have become so good at ducking.
What example are our young people being set by the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister? What fine role models they are. The sixth-form student’s claim that the dog ate his homework seems positively saintly in comparison with what we keep hearing, so let us look at why the Tory-led Government are scrapping EMA.
The decision is based on dodgy guesswork. There is an assumption of 90% dead-weight, but let me just pause on “dead-weight”. Are we seriously describing 90% of our young people as dead-weight? That is atrocious and absolutely abhorrent. Using that phrase, as we seemingly must, I suggest that the figure might have some credibility if the report were based on more than a handful of respondents to a survey that excluded college students and heard from predominantly white respondents. The figures also vary according to how much EMA the respondents receive, so it is hardly surprising to find that those who receive the lowest amount, those who do not receive it at all and those who are not sixth-form students might have gone to college anyway. It is not surprising that we have such a speculation.
I shall look at Stoke-on-Trent specifically. Our city, which has been referred to already, was one of the first pilot areas, and the results have been dramatic, with an impressive increase in the staying-on rate from 56% to 85%. Students have a choice of various excellent options, including the sixth-form college, many high school sixth forms and the excellent further education college, but that choice will be taken away with the removal of EMA, because students will have to attend whichever college or school is closest to their home, assuming that they can afford to go to one at all. That is because Stoke-on-Trent, unlike other cities in this country, is in the unique position of being not concentric but longitudinal, which means that getting from north to south or east to west is not simply a case of jumping on a single bus. Despite the improved bus service in Stoke-in-Trent that has developed over the past decade, more than one bus journey is still required. At the moment, students can use their EMA to travel around the city to go to the sixth form or college that provides the courses that best suit their requirements, but that choice will be taken away from them.
EMA is very important to students in Stoke-on-Trent, with 55% of students at the sixth-form college alone receiving it at the higher level. In the light of all the challenges that our city has faced, education is rightly held up as being the best way for it to grow and to move forward.
Some of the students to whom I have spoken will be looking for part-time jobs to enable them to study, but where are these mythical jobs? The December 2010 employment figures for Stoke-on-Trent, released today, show rising unemployment in the city, and the job cuts flowing from this Government’s reckless handling of the economy spell even tougher times ahead. Even if students manage to get part-time jobs, that can have an adverse effect on their studies, with homework and assignments not done because of work commitments. What of the student who says, “You know what, I can’t afford the student fees under this Tory Government, and there’ll be no jobs, so I’ll just sign on instead.” We are seeing yet another wasted generation under a Tory Government, as in the 1980s. They just cannot help themselves, can they? In fact, never mind the 1980s—I sometimes think they are trying to take us back to the 1880s. What of the students who are part way through their courses? How cruel to pull the rug from under the feet of such vulnerable young people.
Let us look at the economic case. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the costs of EMA are completely offset by rising participation and other benefits. One of the costs of scrapping EMA is that jobseeker’s allowance suddenly looks a lot more attractive. This cruel and unfair decision to steal away EMA is based on dodgy data and a flawed economic case.
Sadly, I am having to skip to the end of my speech. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I apologise—I can hear the groans of disappointment. The catalogue of broken promises goes on and on. The weight of the burden of debt repayment continues to fall on the shoulders of the youngest and poorest members of our society, and Government Members should be ashamed of themselves.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I, too, will attempt to keep my remarks brief to allow as many hon. Members to speak as possible.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the former Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the tough choices that face the Government. I welcome that, because although he has come to a different conclusion—he suggested bigger class sizes—at least it shows that he is thinking about these ideas and putting forward alternatives. Perhaps he has a firmer grasp on reality than his Front Benchers, who seem to be ignoring the pressures and pretending that we are living in an ideal world.
I certainly do not want to see changes that would lead to what Labour Members are intimating, which is that all the young people who could receive EMA will suddenly find themselves unable to go into post-16 education, but I do not believe that that will happen. Many young people are fighting hard to stay in education and to take the opportunities that are available to them, and there needs to be support for them in the form of the advanced fund that the Government propose. Support also needs to be given by working with local authorities to get them to face up to their statutory responsibilities to provide access.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the advanced fund. A constituent of mine who has two disabled children at City college Plymouth is unsure whether she will fall within the remit of that fund. Does he share her concern, and does he agree that it would have been helpful to see exactly what its criteria are before having this debate?
Dan Rogerson
The debate was called by Opposition Front Benchers. Perhaps if they had waited until we had that information, we could have had a more informed debate, but that was their decision.
EMA has undoubtedly made a difference to some people. The important thing is that whatever replaces it reaches those young people and keeps them in education, and empowers people who are in a similar situation in future. It is also clear that there are issues with EMA and examples of it not working, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). It is right for the Government to consider doing something slightly different, and I hope that that is better at reaching people and makes a difference to those who have not received the support that they need.
We are in an incredibly tough financial situation. It would be far easier for the Government, in terms of popularity, to ignore that, as the Opposition seek to do, and to carry on borrowing to fund spending that there is no money to meet, but we have chosen not to do that and to face up to some of these things. It is right for the Government to open up this issue and explore it, and for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to work on it and discuss ways forward.
Stephen Williams
One issue that needs to be looked at, which we pressed the Labour Government to address on many occasions, is the anomaly that those who are eligible for free school meals receive them if they are in school, but those who go to sixth-form or FE college at 16 do not. I was potentially in that situation when I was at school. The Labour party refused repeatedly to address that anomaly in the previous Parliament, so we should take some of its anxiety with a pinch of salt.
Dan Rogerson
I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. Some crucial issues have been raised, including those on food and the cost of living as people continue their studies. I will come back to those in the questions that I ask the Minister.
Transport is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Many students stay on in the excellent school sixth forms and others explore different opportunities, such as travelling to the fantastic Cornwall college, which is dispersed across the peninsula of Cornwall. Its excellent chief executive officer is concerned about what may happen because of the proposed changes to EMA. I welcome his contribution in talking to the Education Committee about those concerns. The fact is that changes and cuts in spending are needed, and the Government have decided to focus the money on the kind of early intervention that the Secretary of State spoke about.
I want to put some questions to the Minister on his deliberations about what will replace EMA. First, will he assure that House that he will work with other Departments, as well as considering the resources at his disposal, on issues such as transport; access to higher education, which is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; and how local authorities can do more to help young people, which should be discussed with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association? The issue of free school meals is also important, and has been raised by several hon. Members. I would welcome his comments on that.
Will the Minister ensure that in the discussions that he and colleagues have with local authorities, the availability of transport is considered? We are not talking about a token provision of resources that will allow some people to access transport. In some rural areas, the existing network of buses will just not get people there in time. That needs to be addressed.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of young carers and young people in care who need extra support. It would help if strong guidelines were set up for these funds to ensure that such groups are protected and given every support that they need to access education. Those people need it the most. Action for Children raised that problem and suggested those guidelines in its briefing.
If there is to be a discretionary element, with college and school principals being able to consider how resources should be used locally to achieve access, we should ensure that there are clear guidelines about equality of access. For example, if two students apply to a college, one of whom looks likely on the basis of past performance to achieve grades that mean it will be good for the college to have them on board, and one of whom will need extra support to achieve such grades, the college should consider their home situation, where they live and so on rather than just their academic attainment. We need such safeguards in place.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, mine and Nottingham North were identified 10 years ago as having the lowest staying-on rates and the lowest levels of access to higher education in the country. The evidence of the Higher Education Funding Council for England demonstrated that the barriers to staying on, including income disadvantage and cultural barriers, needed to be addressed, and that we needed a transformation of aspiration in schools. That transformation has taken place in my constituency, as it has across the country. There has been a 15 percentage point increase there, and a 20 percentage point rise overall, in young people staying on at 16, and there has been a transformation in the most deprived parts of the constituency.
When Sir Robert Ogden, a business man and philanthropist, first introduced bursaries in the mid-1990s in the south Yorkshire coalfield areas, he was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) described, addressing the cultural barriers to young people staying on in education. He was addressing the culture in the community and the family as well as the attitudes of schools and young people. On that basis I was proud to introduce the education maintenance allowance pilots and subsequently the whole scheme, with the support of the then Chancellor. Of course improvements could be made to it, but it has literally transformed the life chances of children.
Children at the moment are currently the disadvantaged and unlucky generation. Child trust funds have been abolished; Sure Start ring-fencing has been lifted and cuts made to the scheme; Aimhigher has gone; youth and career services have been decimated; entitlement funds, which very few people have heard of, are being done away with; the future jobs fund has been abolished at a time of 20% youth unemployment, which is a catastrophe for young people and their families across the country; university fees are being trebled; and now the EMA is going too, including for young people who are already receiving it. That is a terrible blow for them and their families.
Yes, we do have a structural deficit, but by the time of the June emergency Budget it happened to be £10 billion less than had been projected in the Budget the previous March. There has been an increase in Government income above and beyond the result of the measures that the Government have taken, not least from north sea oil and the fuel escalator. We have substantially more money than expected coming in, but there are major cuts, each of them being justified by the same deficit reduction strategy. That means that any cut to any budget at any time can be justified simply by referring to the deficit.
Let us consider what we might have done instead. We could have included post-16 child benefit in assessable, taxable income. That would have been much fairer than cutting the EMA, but would still have been universal. We certainly cannot rely on the expansion of the discretionary learner scheme, because one sixth form in an affluent area receives as much for eight pupils as Longley Park college in my constituency does for 937. In other words, it is completely skewed.
For Gemma Darlow—she has given permission for me to use her name—whose parents were faced with eviction because her mum lost her job, for Yasin Yusuf, who is now at Sheffield Hallam university having come from Somalia, for Jade Fletcher and for Bianca-Jade Titchmarsh, the transformation in their lives, which they have told me about, is testament enough to why it is necessary to maintain EMA in some form, with a massive expansion in the £75 million currently planned. Some £4.2 million is needed for Sheffield college and Longley Park sixth-form college students alone, never mind the sixth forms in the most affluent areas. That is why the National Foundation for Educational Research material should not be misused; it took more account of those going through to school sixth forms than of those going to sixth-form college and FE college—a sector which, as was rightly said earlier, is the Cinderella of the education system.
We desperately need to get the message across that there can be a solution, because the abolition of EMA is bad for young people and families, bad for social mobility, and bad for the local and national economy. It is unfair and unfocused, and it will lead to the exact reverse of what everybody in this House preaches, which is improvement in staying on, attainment and the future of our country.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to Mr Callum Morton, the president of the students union at Amersham and Wycombe college, where about a third of the students receive EMA. He has made his case with great force and maturity, and I am sure that Amersham and Wycombe students will agree that he has served them well.
I should like to address the case advanced by the Opposition. The shadow Secretary of State said that Government Members had no real idea what EMA recipients’ lives are like, but how would any of us know? Members on both sides of the House may naturally radiate youthful beauty, but not too many are aged between 16 and 18. What about income? If hon. Members look at the much quoted Institute for Fiscal Studies website and enter their salary into a tool called “Where do you fit in?” they will find that they are in the top 3% of the income distribution of this country. My salary now is just my parliamentary salary, and I will take no lectures on having a silver spoon and particular privileges from those who are on the same income. How are any of us to understand, as the shadow Secretary of State asked, what it is really like to be in receipt of EMA?
Steve Baker
No, thank you.
In the end, each of us must read our correspondence and try to walk in the shoes of our constituents. I will therefore take no lectures from those who pretend that they have some special connection to a particular group.
I shall not bore the House with my own background, but I would certainly have qualified for EMA when I was a sixth-former. How did I cope? The answer is that I coped with a mixture of commercial sponsorship and weekend work. I listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). We must wonder where the jobs will come from, but there is a case for saying that people should look to themselves.
Further to the comments made about being out of touch, I must tell Opposition Members that a breadwinner on the minimum wage would work about six hours to earn that £30. None of us should take for granted the importance of what amounts to the best part of a day’s pay. Are we out of touch? Certainly not.
Opposition Members like to believe that some infinite pool of funds can be dipped into at will, which is certainly not the case. The measure cannot be considered in isolation. We must bear in mind that whatever we spend must be taxed or borrowed, or indeed debased. It is absolutely wrong to attempt to bribe 16 to 18-year-olds with their own money at interest, as Opposition Members have sought to do.
One hon. Gentleman suggested that we were going back to the 1880s, but I am afraid that that is facile. A paper from the Centre for Policy Studies, “A shower, not a hurricane”, showed that from the top level of spending, all we shall be doing in five years is going back to the real levels of 2009. That is the tragedy of Labour’s profligacy. Labour left us in such a situation that just mitigating the worst of its spending excesses is causing thoroughgoing misery across the country, and yet we are only going back to 2009.
I will not talk about the waste in the programme as I am running out of time, but I am happy to be able to inform the House that I have had frequent discussions with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning about social mobility and aspiration and the role of further education in helping people to enjoy social mobility, and I have discovered that, like me, the Minister came from an ordinary background, and that, like me, he has a ferocious passion to help people from ordinary backgrounds get on, go to university and make the most of their lives. It seems to me that Opposition Members are determined to oppose every change in isolation, without regard to the context of this country’s situation. They are putting the worst possible construction on every Government policy, and that is simply not fair to a dedicated and passionate Minister.
What has upset me most about the debate is that the shadow Secretary of State has sought to sow fear and despair and to write off young people. It is not for the shadow Secretary of State to tell young people that they should not aspire. He has suggested that the Government’s policy is robbing them of their future, but I say no. Rather, I echo his words to every single 16 to 18-year-old and everyone who might be about to go into further education: “Believe in yourself, because you do matter, and yes, do dare to dream, whoever you are.”
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the country. Today’s unemployment figures show that my Gorton constituency has an unemployment rate of 9%. Very few jobs will be available for those who are going to be thrown on to the streets by the Government’s decision today, particularly when we take into account the huge job cuts that have been forced on Manchester city council by the grossly disproportionate Government cuts in local government funding for Manchester and other needy areas.
I have come to the Chamber to speak in this debate because the principal of Xaverian college in my constituency, just around the corner from where I live, wrote to me in a tone of huge anxiety and agitation about what the Government are doing. I also received a letter from the assistant principal of Loreto college in Manchester, a constituent of mine, who wrote that
“the EMA has been the most significant Government instrument to encourage marginalised and vulnerable sixteen year olds to remain in education.”
I do not know whether these people vote Labour or Conservative—I cannot imagine that they are stupid enough to vote Liberal Democrat—but whichever way they vote, they contacted me because of education issues.
In order to understand what is going to happen to the 300,000 young people whose EMA will be cancelled part way through their course, we can return to the letter from the assistant principal of Loreto. He wrote:
“the loss to our economy will be measurable, and further I believe that it is in no one’s interest to have disaffected young people on the streets.”
The Government have decided to do this. They have chosen to do it; it has not been forced on them. They could have dealt with the bankers, with bankers’ bonuses and with a host of other issues, but instead they chose to do this, for socially discriminatory reasons. Some 66% of those on full EMA are from single-parent families, and 21% of those on EMA are living with both parents.
This proposal is also racially discriminatory. Some 84% of Bangladeshis receiving EMA and 70% of those of Pakistani heritage who do so receive the full EMA. They use it for all kinds of utterly essential reasons. We must also note that the participation rate in higher education in disadvantaged areas is only 19%.
Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), young people who are on EMA miss fewer courses, are more likely to stay in education, are socially responsible and have good achievements at their colleges. EMA has made all of those things possible, and this Government are going to take it away from them for socially discriminatory reasons based on the kind of Government they are.
Let us be clear that we are looking at a Government who cut money and cut benefits right across the spectrum of those who can least stand it. Members of this Government have never needed these benefits. They abolished the health in pregnancy grant, which Ministers have never needed. They abolished child trust funds, but Ministers have inherited wealth. They reduced the scope of Sure Start, but Ministers have never needed Sure Start. They are scrapping 500,000 school meals. How many Ministers in this Government have had to get free school meals for their kids? They are interfering with housing benefit, but they live in affluent owner-occupation, in houses that, often, they have inherited. They are taking away social housing rights from our constituents—a huge proportion of my constituents live in social housing—but Ministers have never had to worry about the kind of house they will live in and their right to go on living there.
The Government could have decided on other polices. This callous and heartless Government are the most right wing since the 1930s. They are targeting the weakest when they could have gone for the strongest. The Government could have gone for Sir Philip Green, with his tax-dodging in Monte Carlo, and Lord Ashcroft—but no, those people get away scot-free. It is the poor, the deprived, those in single-parent households and the ethnic minorities that this Government go for. That tells us what the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are really like. Oldham made a judgment about it last week, and the rest of the country will do the same as soon as it gets the opportunity.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The one thing that I have grown to dislike since I came to this place is the entrenchment that always appears in debates on this subject, and the previous speaker gave an example of that. Nobody comes into politics to target the weak or the poor deliberately; we may have disagreements about how we assist those who need support and in what form it is given, but nobody comes into this place with those aims and those desires. The one thing that I gave really grown to dislike about this Chamber since my election is the constant view that everybody on one side is elitist and determined to attack the poor, and everybody on the other side is virtuous and has only the best interests of their constituents at heart. I like to think that most people come here with the best of intentions for their constituents, even if we disagree about the way in which we get there. That is how I approach this debate.
I am not interested in the politics of this debate in the slightest. I know that there will be people on both sides who will try to hit each other across the head with the politics, but that is not of any interest to me. All I want from this debate are some answers on what we will replace EMA with and what support will be in place for the young people who most need it. I have read both the motion, much of which is perfectly reasonable, and the amendment, which I have no problem with because it talks about supporting young people who are most in need of this help. It is a shame that we have had to get into such a divisive debate.
My view on EMA has changed over the years. The trials started three years after I left sixth-form college, and I recall thinking when EMA was introduced that I had funded my way through sixth-form college by getting a job at McDonald’s. That was my approach to begin with, and I believe that many Members still think like that. However, I then got into the teaching profession and started to see the impact of some of the support. Over time, I started to realise that doing as I had done is not a sustainable way for many people to fund their further education from 16 to 18, and that it is not a possibility for many people—it certainly is not since the changes in employment legislation. Although those changes have advantaged part-time workers, they have in some ways made it harder for teenagers to get part-time jobs.
EMA has therefore been positive in many ways. There have been a lot of problems with it, but it has been positive and has certainly raised participation. I personally never agreed with the raising of the compulsory participation age to 18.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some good points. Surely the key component to any post-16 education should be a focus on accessibility and choice, which he has already mentioned, but is not the best way to improve accessibility and choice through targeted funding, which is what we are talking about? If we get better targeted funding, we can get better accessibility.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, with which I would not disagree, but it is also about what size of pot is available to provide that targeted supply. I have no problem with targeted support—so long as the pot is big enough.
I was mentioning some of the advantages of EMA. It has certainly raised participation and it has also raised attendance. I do not believe the figure of 90%. “Dead-weight” is an unfortunate word to use. We are saying not in any way that young people are the dead-weight, but that there might be some dead-weight in the system.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not accept that there has been a 90% take-up rate. In my constituency, 934 young people at Bolton sixth-form college receive EMA—75% of the college intake, which is the third largest in the country—while 1,188 people at Bolton community college are taking up EMA. For those young people and those colleges even to function, the continuation of EMA is vital.
Andrew Percy
I was questioning not the take-up rate but the study apparently showing that 90% of young people would have continued with their studies without it. From my own limited experience in the education field, I certainly do not believe that to be true. We should not get too hung up on that.
In my intervention on the Secretary of State, I mentioned that I represent some very deprived communities in Goole, which certainly need support, and some largely rural areas that also require it. It is a shame, as I said, that our local council has made it more difficult for young people in the north Lincolnshire part of my constituency by raising the cost of their travel passes by 500% in one year and again in subsequent years. As I said to the Secretary of State, I hope that whatever replaces EMA will take into account those costs.
I also try to take account of the views of local colleges on this issue. There is Goole college—a small college in my constituency—but most of the young people in my patch have to travel into Scunthorpe or go to colleges in Hull, Selby or York. All those colleges have written to me, asking for support to continue in some form and requesting more information on what will replace EMA. They advanced a powerful case for how EMA support has enhanced not only attendance and participation, but the commitment of young people to their studies.
I confess that I am not so obsessed about whether the replacement of EMA stays in the same form, as there have been some negatives, which I saw as a practitioner. I once did a period of supply teaching in a private school. That was not really me, although the kids were wonderful. One kid there was receiving EMA through certain mechanisms, but I did not think that that was right by any stretch of the imagination. A young lad came to my surgery not so long ago who complained about not getting EMA despite the fact that his friends were—
Andrew Percy
I am not giving way any more, as others want to speak.
The lad came to see me because he was not getting EMA, yet his friends who were getting it were also receiving a great deal of support from their parents. It is not a perfect system. Similarly, a lady came to see me who, despite having five jobs as a cleaner, does not receive EMA for her children. She could not understand why other people living in the same houses in the same streets who enjoy the same quality of life and drive the same kind of cars and go on the same kind of holidays are receiving it for their children. There certainly need to be some changes.
As I said at the outset, my concern is not about maintaining a national model, but about ensuring that support is in place that truly supports our young people. I would like to hear more information from Ministers about how big the pot is going to be. There is an argument not so much for a strict national model—I am certainly not in favour of that, as it puts everybody in a straitjacket—but at least for a sign that certain principles will automatically be taken into account as colleges and their administrative institutions make their decisions. That also means that the pot has to be big enough. It is no good removing EMA and not replacing it with a pot big enough to support the young people who so desperately need it. I urge Ministers, when they sum up and respond to the debate, to give us more advice on that.
Similarly, I say to Opposition Members that, like the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I hope we can work together, because we should all have the same aim of supporting the young people who most need it. I wish we could take the politics out of this issue and get some agreement. We are in a difficult situation financially—everyone knows that tough decisions have to be taken—and the Government are doing some very good things in that regard. I would like us to lose the politics a little and work together to find a system. I would vote for any system that would guarantee young people, such as those it has been my privilege to teach, the support they desperately need to stay in further education.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy)—what a great name for a Conservative constituency that is. If ever there was a greater name than Goole, I do not know it.
I was brought up by my mother, my sister and my grandmother—my father died when I was three—so going into further education and following on into university was not an option for me. I knew that as soon as I finished school, I would be going to work. Fortunately, back in 1969, in the Harold Wilson days, we had near-enough full employment and getting a job was not a problem. The company I was employed by, where I worked for 31 years, sent me into further education. I would like to thank Langside college and Stow college for the education they gave me, which helped me to become the person I am today, eventually ending up in this place.
I never attended university but I do not consider that to be a loss to me, although I have aspirations for my children and my grandson, who I hope will have that kind of education. I certainly want to make sure that people get the same opportunity to get that education, whether they fall on the rich side or the poor side of society. I disagree with the previous speaker about targeting the weak and using politics, because I do not have a problem with targeting people or politics. I would like to use my politics to make sure that we do target, but that we target the poor. We should target the people who need to be targeted and make sure that they get that help. We should make sure that we supply the money that gets them into education, including the further education that we have fought so hard for over the years. When I left school, only 7% of people went to university; the figure is now approaching 50%, but not for long—not with that crowd in charge. It will not take long for the figure to go back down, but I hope it will never get below double figures.
I have had opportunities. People might think it strange for a Glasgow MP to speak on this subject, but I got involved in EMA before the general election. I had an Adjournment debate then, and I have had one since. When my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is in his place, responded to the first debate, he guaranteed that if Labour won the election not only would it look after those people but EMA would be maintained for the length of the next Parliament. In the following Adjournment debate, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who is also in his place, writing feverishly, dispelled that notion right away. All the promises that were made before the general election by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education have been broken. The breaking of those promises affects the people I believe we are here to represent—those who cannot vote, who are looking to people like us to promote them and make sure that they get the education and proper start in life that some of us did not get.
What do we have now? In Scotland, we have a system that pays only the £30 rate and we have now found out that because the £10 and £20 rates have been done away with, about 8,000 students will not be students. They will be lost to the further education system in Scotland, thanks to a Scottish National party Government who did away with the allowance. They only kept the £30 rate because an election is coming up and the Labour party is so far ahead in the polls. We said we would keep the allowance, so the SNP had to match it—I do not care how or why they do it, just as long as they do it.
The Conservatives thought they would be coming into power alone. They did not. As for the other party, some Liberal Democrats would sell their soul to get into power; others sold their soul once they got into power. Those are the kind of people we have to deal with. Labour Members have to stand up and fight for the rights of the people out on the streets. Do the Government honestly believe that those young people out in the streets are there for fun? Do they honestly believe that those young people want to be herded and corralled just because they are demonstrating? Those young people think they have rights, and I believe we all—on both sides of the House—fought to give them those rights. Apart from the idiots and the malcontents, the proper students out there demonstrating should be listened to; they are our future and we should give them the chance to move on.
I am nearing the end of the time and I did not even use the speech I prepared—I do not even know why I wrote it. The Government took the flawed view that 90% of young people did not need the money. That is a lie. We know it is a lie. The Government should take a proper look and make a proper assessment of the people who now have EMA and what will happen to them if they no longer have it, and then tell us that the number should be reduced by 90%.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It ought to be a pleasure to discuss in the Chamber ways in which we can overcome barriers to access to further and higher education. It ought to be a pleasure to discuss how I can tackle the deprivation in my constituency, but sadly, having sat here for most of the afternoon, I can conclude only that debate in the House has ceased to be a pleasure. The discourtesy and personal rudeness from Opposition Members demonstrates why Parliament and this Chamber have lost credibility in the eyes of people outside.
It is extremely important that we discuss how to overcome barriers to accessing further and higher education, whether we believe that scrapping education maintenance allowance is the right way to do that, or whether there are alternatives that we can look at. EMA was introduced in 1998 in the comprehensive spending review as “an incentive” to encourage more people to stay in education. It was an experiment—a new departure for this country—and one I watched with interest.
After a few years, the then Government decided it was time to try something else—to introduce compulsory education from 16 to 18. Young people were to be obliged to stay in education until the age of 18, so why would we want to continue with an incentive to do something that would become compulsory? Indeed, we are supporting the aspiration of the previous Government to expand compulsory education. We have increased the budget for 16-to-19 education by 1.15%. We are funding an extra 62,000 places in the 16-to-19 sector. I am disappointed that the Labour party does not feel able to support that and would rather retain EMA—an instrument that I believe, the more I discuss it with people in my constituency, is a blunt one.
I object strongly to EMA for a number of reasons, which I hinted at in my intervention on the shadow Secretary of State. The allowance is capped at £30 a week. It is related solely to household income, yet I speak to many people in my constituency who are eligible for EMA but whose needs far exceed £30 a week. If we listened to the Opposition, we would think that EMA was the answer to every social problem.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
If £30 is not enough for people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, why is the solution simply to take it all away? I am not sure that I follow his line of argument.
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention demonstrates why he should have been in the Chamber earlier to listen to the debate—[Interruption.] He was not here when I made my intervention. The hon. Gentleman asks a question, however, so I am happy to explain. Rather than having an education maintenance allowance that is capped at £30 a week, it would be far better to have a discretionary learner support fund sited in the college that the pupil attends, where the principal and teachers best understand the needs of that pupil and can therefore address their particular barriers. I do not accept that household income has any meaningful correlation with the barriers to accessing further education that someone faces.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) pulls a face at me, so let me explain why. Blackpool and Fylde college is on Ashfield road in my constituency. Right at its front door is a large council estate where some of the most deprived residents in my constituency live. Do they have the same needs as someone in a slightly higher income bracket living two or three miles further up the road? They do not. Household income is not the indicator that must be examined when determining the barriers that must be overcome.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) who, like me, is a passionate defender of young carers, was right to point out that there are groups of young people who face complex hurdles if they are to access further education. I do not accept that the education maintenance allowance is the magic wand that Labour Members seem to believe it is. I join other Government Members who have asked for further information about what form the discretionary learner support fund will take and how it will enable those with complex needs to access further education, because it is vital that they do so.
Labour Members cannot keep simply backing structures rather than people. It is horrifying that, in a modern democracy, we have a Labour party that still likes to think that it can keep people under its thumb, say, “You’ll get £30 a week and no more; we’re going to keep you where you are,” and then expect people to be grateful. I want a further and higher education system in which all people can participate without being restricted by a barrier of £30 a week and no more. The discretionary learner support fund will enable an individual student’s needs to be properly assessed and met, because we will focus on what the need really is, not on the mythical universal provision for which the Labour party hanker, albeit not because Labour Members wish to support their constituents any more. I have never before seen a political party further from the people whom it seeks to represent or that has so forgotten the people from whom it allegedly came.
Paul Maynard
I am sorry that the hon. Lady says that, but I can say only what I observe in the Chamber. I am saddened that democracy has reached such a level.
I am running out of time, but I leave hon. Members with this thought: in this day and age, we need to ensure that every person who wishes to go into further education is able to do so, and this Government will enable that.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I want to address the question of the impact of EMA head-on. Three colleges in my constituency—St John Rigby college, Wigan and Leigh college and Winstanley college—have approached me to oppose the scrapping of EMA, and there is clear evidence that EMA has had a considerable impact by attracting young people into education and persuading them to stay on. Such evidence comes from not just Wigan, but throughout the country. The view is shared by the Association of Colleges, and it is borne out by research from the Learning and Skills Council and the CfBT Education Trust. That evidence shows that EMA not only attracts young people into education, but when they are there, spurs them on to succeed and achieve. I am therefore disappointed—but not surprised—that the Secretary of State has chosen to base the decision on one unrepresentative and deeply flawed study. It leads me to wonder whether the decision was made a long time before any evidence was considered.
I want to echo some of the concerns have been raised about the language that we bandy about, such as “dead-weight.” The term is deeply offensive to the thousands of young people out there who are so concerned about their future. I urge hon. Members, if they are not prepared to support them, at least to show them some respect when they talk about them and their future.
Ministers have missed the point about EMA. It did not just encourage people into education and get them to stay there, but said to students that they should be able to learn without suffering extreme hardship. The vast majority of students who claim EMA do so for travel and food. Are we seriously saying in 2011 that the extent of our ambition for a generation of young people is telling them that if they walk long distances and go hungry they can have the same opportunities as some of their more privileged peers? It is a poor ambition and I am ashamed that we even have to debate it.
It was a sign of confidence in our young people that the previous Government said, “We will give you that money, and we will trust you and leave how you spend it up to you.” The Government talk a lot about getting rid of centralised prescription. Why will they not show the same confidence in young people as us when we were in government?
At the heart of the debate is the question whether EMA is necessary. I tell Ministers that it has become an essential part of household income. If they are serious about getting people to stay on in education until they are 18 by raising the participation age, which I support, they are making a big mistake in removing the mechanism whereby young people can do that.
I urge Ministers again to consider the impact on looked-after children, homeless young people and young carers. I know that they are concerned about that, and I urge them to meet a young person, Shinea, who lives in a homeless hostel run by the charity Centrepoint, for which I had the privilege of working many years ago. Shinea is entirely on her own. She exists on benefits and EMA, and she is trying hard and doing her best. I ask Ministers to meet her before they make a decision that will wreck her chances for good.
The EMA was never just an allowance. It was a contract between the state and young people, which said, “If you work hard and try hard, we will back you and support you, regardless of your background because we think you’re worth it.”
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Sixty-seven per cent. of young people aged 16 to 18 who attend New college in my constituency receive EMA, and 560 will lose the funding halfway through their course. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that they heard nothing from the Secretary of State today about whether they will receive any support in future and how much it will be?
Lisa Nandy
Apart from agreeing with my hon. Friend, I am also grateful to her for bringing me back to my point, which I had lost in my anger about the Government’s decision. Shinea, the young person from Centrepoint, whom I urge Ministers to meet, is midway through her course, as are many young people in my constituency. I tell Ministers that the issue is pressing and needs to be resolved now. At Wigan and Leigh college, 75% of young people in their first year who get EMA say that they will have to drop out next year. I urge Ministers to make a decision and give clarity not only to those young people, but to the many who must decide now whether to go into further education and do not know whether they can afford it. Those young people said to me very clearly that they were told that if they worked hard and tried hard, they would get EMA. They have kept their side of the bargain; they cannot understand why their Government will not keep their side.
I went to Winstanley college and talked to some young people who are very concerned about the issue, and about tuition fees and the abolition of the Aimhigher initiative—concerned not for themselves, but for the young people who come after them. They told me they felt that their Government were not only not trying to help them, but were actively putting barriers in their way. The last time I heard young people talk like that was when I was growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, when the Conservative Government left an entire generation of young people without hope. It was devastating, and the Government are about to create exactly the same thing all over again. The progress made in the past 13 years is unravelling before our eyes. I urge hon. Members, before they walk through the Lobby, to think about their part in that.
Finally, if colleagues will not be persuaded by the moral case, I ask them to be persuaded by the clear economic case. The EMA pumps millions into local economies, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies states clearly that EMA is an investment in young people that will be recouped in the long term. It will pay for itself. It is precisely in such difficult economic times, with youth unemployment predicted to reach 1 million in the next few years, that we should be investing in our young people. We should be sending them the strong message that we value them, and that they matter to us.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Today we are discussing the important subject of EMA, an extremely well-intentioned product of the previous Government that, at its most effective, helped young people to continue their education. At its worst, though, it is just another in a series of policies adopted by the previous Government with a lot of dead-weight. I am sorry if that offends the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), but we have to acknowledge that, in the case of many policies of the previous Government, a lot of money was spent and very little achieved, after a certain point. EMA is one of those cases. It is one of the factors that led the previous Government to rack up such a large deficit for the country—a deficit that the coalition Government now have to sort out.
I do not want to dwell on the debt argument, but it currently costs this country £564 million a year to provide EMA for our young people. As I say, the scheme is well-intentioned, but when a policy lacks targeting and loses its focus, as EMA seems to have done in certain ways, all we are doing is building up a credit card of debt for our young people. We are actually encumbering the generation that we are giving EMA with a massive debt—and we are encumbering their children with huge debts, which they will be paying off, through higher taxes, for years to come. They will suffer reductions in service as a result of the debt interest that this country is paying.
Any sensible Government would want a targeted scheme to allow young people to access further education. That is what I hope the current Government are trying to achieve. Rather than concentrate on the inputs, and tailoring the programme of support for young people on the basis of how much money we put in, we should first set a target for what we want to achieve and what outcomes we want, and then look at what money we need to support that programme. To that end, we need to look at the impediments to some of our younger people gaining access to further education. Gaining that access is a problem, in some ways, for many young people; 12% have clearly said that if they did not have some sort of financial support, they would not be able to continue their studies, which we need certainly to address and overcome.
I have two fantastic post-16 colleges in my constituency, King Edward VI college and North Warwickshire and Hinckley college. I have met a number of students at North Warwickshire and Hinckley college, and had a detailed discussion with them. Their biggest concern, and the biggest impediment that they saw to young people continuing their studies, was the issue of travel to and from college. We have to address that, and not just for people from rural areas; it is a problem for people from urban areas as well.
We also have to address the fact that, as has been mentioned from the Opposition Benches, during the current academic year many students have been used to receiving EMA and benefiting from it, especially for their travel. The Government must make sure that young people who have gone to college on that basis this year do not drop out next year. We need to clear up quickly what the system will be next year, to make sure that our young people make informed choices about their studies once they finish school this year.
Many local authorities have reduced or stopped the discretionary travel supplement that used to be provided. One or two schemes are still available, but across the country many have disappeared. We need to look into that and see how, as a Government, we can help young people with their travel.
Earlier, the shadow Secretary of State was rather derogatory to our young people, saying that it was not appropriate for them to do part-time work. That is not a concept that we have covered in the Chamber today. Part-time work is extremely important not just to earn money to provide things over and above those that young people need for their education, but to help young people develop soft skills to bridge the gap between education and employment. I speak to many people in commerce who say that younger people need the best soft skills they can get to integrate into the workplace. It is extremely important that that is encouraged in our further education system.
To conclude, as I do not have much time, I wholeheartedly support the Government amendment, especially as it relates to travel, but I have concerns about how the new scheme will look and the amount of money to be put into it. I hope that tonight the Minister will dispel a few of those hares that have been running—
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The decision to abolish EMA is an act of educational and social vandalism. It has caused huge distress and anger among young people, who do not see, as I do not see and the Opposition do not see, why they should carry a disproportionate burden of the deficit reduction strategy.
We have heard from some speakers about early intervention, particularly in respect of young people. We all believe in the importance of making further progress on early intervention in the early years to pay off in 16 years’ time. To abolish EMA is to do away with an early intervention that will pay off in two years, because EMA is a means of preventing young people from leaving school and failing to obtain the qualifications that will enable them to get jobs and go on into higher education. That will cost money. We know it will cost money, and we know from the IFS that there is research to confirm that measures that leave more young people unemployed and without qualifications will cost us in the short term—this year, next year and the year after. There is no economic case for the abolition of the education maintenance allowance.
Has EMA worked? We hear from Ministers so often, “Let’s devolve the responsibility to heads. Let’s hear what is being said at a local level.” Listen to my heads and to the principals of my further education colleges. They are saying, “Don’t do this.” Jo Shuter, the principal of Quintin Kynaston school, is an award-winning head teacher who has transformed a school that was extremely challenging a few years ago. She said to me that at a school where 84% of young people are on the education maintenance allowance in the sixth form, abolishing it will be extraordinarily damaging and will wreak havoc on her sixth form. She is not alone in saying that.
The City of Westminster college, which I mentioned earlier, quoted the figure of 250 students this year, every year, who are obtaining qualifications, who were not staying on in school and obtaining qualifications without EMA. Those 250 pupils alone justify the expenditure on EMA. But EMA is not just about staying on into the sixth form, as we heard from many other speakers; it is about giving head teachers a tool to manage attendance and progress at school, and it is much valued for that. It is also about reducing the need for part-time employment. I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) that part-time work can be a valuable thing. I did it; many of us did it. I also know that in the school that my child attends, which took over from a failing secondary school where just 18% of pupils were obtaining 5 A to C GCSEs, that figure has now increased to 63%. The school did that with Saturday schools and sessions in the school holidays. It is a similar picture at Paddington academy and Westminster academy—some of the most deprived schools in the country.
If we encourage pupils to lose their focus on their studies—another point emphasised by the principal of Quintin Kynaston—they will not work. It is all very well in the high-achieving schools, all very well for the pupils who do not need to be worrying about transforming their educational results, but it is not satisfactory in those schools that are on a journey, and which we know most need the improvements. We have heard from other speakers about how this impacts most severely on large families, on black and minority ethnic families, and on lone-parent families. The removal of EMA is not fair and it is not proportionate in its impact.
I want to spend my last couple of minutes on a particular concern. The reduction of funding for a more targeted programme poses a real question about what we seek to achieve. Are we looking for that money to maintain the staying on at school rates in those groups of people who currently do not, or are we looking to provide additional financial assistance for those pupils who are most challenged? Two into one will not go. There are schools in my constituency where 80%-plus of pupils are on EMA. At City of Westminster college, 75% are on EMA.
Last week, the principal of Westminster academy, which has been so transformed in recent years, told me that 60% of students who have been through the school—almost two thirds—have had multi-agency involvement from the mental health trust and social services because they are children in need and at risk. That figure is extraordinary. How are we targeting resources to that school, and how will we leave that responsibility without imposing a cost and a burden on the head teachers and principals who will be deciding between all those competing claims—the students who are under financial pressure and that overwhelming number of school students who have challenging circumstances, such as mental health problems, children who are themselves homeless, children in families who are homeless, and children from families where the parents are in prison or have drug or alcohol or mental health problems? An invidious pressure is being put on those schools. It will increase costs and increase the burden, and without doubt it will result in fewer children obtaining educational qualifications, fewer children staying on and great hardship for the families who most need help.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I thank the Labour party for initiating the debate. It is certainly a subject that warrants a debate. Between the wild statements that have at times been made by Members on both sides of the House, some useful points have come out, and they needed to.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for the work he has been doing. I may be privileged to know some of that more than others, but a lot more work still needs to be done, and I hope that he will come to Bradford and talk to us about the implications of the withdrawal of the education maintenance allowance. There is a lot more work to do, but my right hon. Friend has done enough for me for now. However, my continued support for his work is dependent on the success with which he deals with concerns that I and many hon. Members have about the proposals. The Labour motion is tempting, but it fails to recognise that although EMA has played a valuable role in supporting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is very costly.
Mr Ward
No, I will keep going. With or without a national economic crisis, the operation of EMA is far from perfect. Although they are not in the amendment to the motion, I welcome the comments that have been made on this side of the House about looking at whatever replaces EMA. The Labour motion mentions a rethink of the decision. Had it included a review of EMA, I probably would have supported it. We must look at the scheme and its weaknesses. I thank all those who have campaigned against the withdrawal of EMA, who have undoubtedly made a difference. I did not need convincing that a well thought through and adequately funded replacement was necessary.
Mr Ward
No, I will keep going. I hope that we all start from the same standpoint: that we have made a social contract with young people and their parents to provide free education for those who want it up to the age of 18. When young people must decide at 16 what to do with the next couple of years of their life, the continuing benefit from that social contract is not available equally to everyone. I think we can also agree that as far as possible we want that decision to be completely unfettered by financial limitations. In plain English, I am sure we all agree that the respective costs, whether for apprenticeships, school, college or for going into employment, should not be allowed to distort and unduly influence the decision-making process.
For those families that are sufficiently well off to be able to keep their child at school or college for a further couple of years, it is a straightforward options analysis: what is best for their son or daughter, what do they want to do with the rest of their lives and what are the local employment opportunities. For youngsters from low-income families, however, the options appraisal is often constrained because they cannot afford to stay in education without EMA.
We have been told that 88% of young people from low-income families would stay on in education without EMA and that it is a dead-weight calculation. On that principle, if the Secretary of State was willing to do his job for two thirds of the salary, would that be a dead-weight? If people are still going to provide some food for their children when they go to school, does that mean that free schools meals are a dead-weight cost? There are so many ways one can look at that concept. I think the proposal shows, more than anything else, a failure to understand that it is not about EMA being so important in getting young people into a situation in which they can do what they want, but the experience of the people who would say, “Yes, we would do it even if it was not available.”
Young people from low-income families might face a more serious decision. Affluent families will say, “We’ll put our kids through another two years of education, which might mean we go to Tenerife for 10 days rather than 14, or replace the car after four years instead of three.” However, for many families that decision is about food and clothing, or whether to send the eldest or youngest child to college because they cannot afford to send both.
Is that over-egging the pudding? In Bradford, 9,000 people receive EMA, 90% of whom receive the top rate, which means that they come from families that earn less than £21,000. We have already decided that anyone who earns less than that should not pay a penny off the student loan as a graduate, and that is not for households, but for individuals. So why are we not really looking at the consequences of the decision we are making on EMA? We need a thorough review. I welcome the work being done, but it must go much further if we are truly to support the new scheme, not only in terms of the content but with regard to the funds available.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
There have been times this afternoon when, apart from losing the will to live while listening to speeches from Government Members, I thought I must have slipped through a glitch in the space-time continuum and landed on another planet. We have been told that, because £30 is too small an amount, we need to abolish EMA; and someone from a sedentary position on the Liberal Benches told us that because the Labour Government refused to extend school dinners, we should abolish EMA. I have heard many Liberal MPs speak. They in particular have an important decision to make, because when they talk about the 90% dead-weight they should worry not about offending us but about offending those people outside who are included in that 90%.
Last week, I was at a meeting with about 120 students from throughout Britain and the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) indicated clearly that if the Opposition motion was moderately worded and—as I think he phrased it—sufficiently friendly, he would consider going into the Lobby to vote with us. It will be interesting to see whether he does, because if he does not he will have misled those students last week and others at other meetings over the past few weeks. He has a consistent record of doing so, and I shall be interested to hear what he says when he returns to the Chamber.
I was under the impression that today’s debate was about EMA, but according to the Secretary of State it is really about the economy, so let us get one or two facts straight. The real spark for the financial crisis was when BNP Paribas posted its figures on the north American market in autumn 2007. At that point, the British deficit was below 3% of GDP, which I mention because it is the figure in one of the convergence criteria written into the Maastricht treaty by Conservative Ministers, who at the time said that it was quite tight—but achievable. We achieved it year after year, as we did the 60% debt figure that is also in the criteria, but, after the events involving BNP Paribas, followed by Lehman Brothers and Northern Rock, the deficit had to mount because we had to intervene continually. That was the root of the financial crisis
John Cryer
I am not going to give way, because I am short of time.
In my borough, I note that 63% of students at Leyton sixth-form college in my constituency receive EMA, and well over 1,000—1,100—receive the top rate of £30 a week. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Dr Creasy), who was in the Chamber earlier, 47% of students at Waltham Forest college receive EMA, and more than 800 are on the top rate. Those students and their college principals have told us not to get rid of EMA.
Principals from other boroughs have said the same thing. Eddie Playfair, who has been on television and radio repeatedly over the past few weeks, lives in my constituency but is the head of Newham sixth-form college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). He has one of the highest numbers of students on EMA, and he has consistently said, “Don’t get rid of it.” My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said the same in her remarks, yet the Government say, “We know best; we’re going to get rid of it.”
John Cryer
No, I will not, because I need to crack on.
The “enhanced discretionary learner support fund”—if ever I heard an Orwellian phrase, that is it—is so far unclear. We have not been told how it will work, but we do know that funding will drop from half a billion—£575 million—a year to £75 million a year, and it is absolute fantasy to suggest that with such funding we will be able to cover all the students who need assistance. I have attended meeting after meeting with students, principals and lecturers, and they all say the same thing: “This will deter people, particularly from poorer backgrounds, from continuing in education.” Yet the Government, and Liberal and Tory MPs, have engaged in a process of mendacity and misinformation, saying, “We’ll work together and do our best to come up with some scheme that will actually work.” The way to send a signal to the Secretary of State, however, is to join us in the Lobby tonight and vote for our motion.
At a time when bankers’ bonuses are being doled out to the tune of £7 billion, it is an obscenity to see a Government refusing to intervene with the banks yet at the same time taking money away from some of the poorest students in this country. However, there is one thing that we should be grateful for, and that is that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are managing to do what many of us have wanted to do for a long time by politicising a generation of students. I can promise the House that those students who are being politicised by the abolition of EMA and by the tuition fees debacle will not be voting Liberal Democrat and will not be voting Conservative.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and thank the Opposition for this debate on EMA. Historically, they have been vexed about how to pay for the scheme.
If we are to have a credible debate today—[Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. My tie to support the campaign against bowel cancer was making that noise—it is a musical tie that the campaign was giving out.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps next time the hon. Gentleman will be more selective in the ties that he wears in the Chamber, and then we will not need to have the musical accompaniment.
Nadhim Zahawi
Your words of wisdom are taken on board, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to you.
If we are to have a credible debate, we must look at this issue in the round, and that means that we must look at the economic legacy we inherited from the previous Government. Our structural deficit is one of the largest in the world, and it is simply unsustainable. We are having to borrow £500 million a day. Every time we go to sleep and wake up in the morning, we rack up another £500 million. The debt interest—the money that we have to pay in interest to foreign banks and foreign countries to build their own hospitals and schools with—is £120 million a day, every single day.
I come from a rural constituency with some areas that have no post-16 provision, so I am all too aware of the additional costs that students will have to bear. Shipston high school in my constituency has lobbied me very hard on this subject, as has Martin Penny, the head of Stratford-upon-Avon college—a fantastic institution in my constituency with 5,000 students and 450 staff. I addressed the students during the week of the tuition fees debate, and after we had cut through the misinformation they understood why we were having to make these decisions.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of this very important debate.
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the economic realities. Does he agree that when there is a dire economic reality, the correct moral thing to do is not to bury our heads in the sand and carry on spending unsustainably, which will end up damaging the very people we want to protect because in the long term it will do the country no good, but to be really rigorous and focused in ensuring that the resources that we do have are absolutely focused on the most vulnerable?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is exactly right. In fact, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), when he was Prime Minister, hoped to pay for EMA by reducing the debt on the young people of this country.
Transport is an important issue that was raised with me by Martin Penny from Stratford-upon-Avon college and has been aired by Members on both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said, it is an issue not only for rural constituencies but for urban areas too. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has made some encouraging remarks about opening up the discretionary fund to allow such colleges as Stratford-upon-Avon college—which are best placed to judge because they are closest to students and their families—to target some of that money on those who most need it.
In the spending review, the Government committed to refocus the support, because all the data show that the £560 million spent on EMA every year was not well targeted. I am pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed in his opening remarks that the Government will target the money on those with special educational needs. I was a governor of a special educational needs school that was shut down by the previous Government and I know how important it would be to those families if the money was targeted in that way.
I ran a research company for 11 years, and I am passionate about evidence-based strategy. The National Foundation for Educational Research report commissioned by the previous Government, which we have heard about today, found that almost 90% of young people who receive EMA would have completed their education or training course if they had not received it. In an interview, the shadow Secretary of State admitted that some of the money went towards students buying drinks and partying. He therefore probably agrees with me that the money is not well targeted. I see him leaning forward, and am happy for him to intervene.
Andy Burnham
I will intervene, because I did not say that, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman corrected the record. I said that young people should be able to play a full part in the life of the college. If that means trips to musical events, the theatre or political events in the evening, they should be supported to play a full part in them. I would be grateful if he was a bit more careful with his language in future.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the shadow Secretary of State, but let me quote him:
“Yes, they may spend some of it on food and even the occasional time out with friends… But part of being in a college means taking part in the whole life of a college, and why should we say to young people from the least well-off backgrounds, well, ‘you can’t have those things’.”
That settles that one. We also know that almost 50% of students are in receipt of EMA. That fact demonstrates that it is not well targeted.
In my old profession, when the research has been done and there is evidence for a strategy, if one does not like the findings, one should not throw them away and go into denial about them. Several Opposition Members have trashed the research because it does not suit their argument. As well as saying that he hoped to pay for the EMA through a reduction in debt, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said that he would pay for it by scrapping post-16 child benefit. I wonder whether that will become Opposition policy.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment, as we heard clearly today, to invest in the young people of our country. They are investing £7 billion in a fairness premium designed to support young people of all ages. The introduction of the all-age careers service will improve the information, advice and guidance that the National Foundation for Educational Research said needed to be improved. The Government are continuing to invest in providing apprenticeships, and have committed to improving the apprenticeship package so that level 3—the A-level equivalent—becomes the level to achieve.
In government, tough choices have to be made. We on the Government Benches have made those tough choices. We have chosen to safeguard spending on the national health service and education. I urge the Opposition, if they want to have a constructive debate, also to safeguard the national health service and education.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to compete with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) as regards our ties, but I rather hope that I will surpass the arguments that he made.
Before I get into the meat of my argument, I wish to express a debt of gratitude to Frank Gill, the principal of Knowsley community college, of which I am a governor; to the director of children’s services in Knowsley, Damian Allen; and to Jette Burford, the principal of Hugh Baird college in Bootle, which some students from my constituency attend.
The points that I wish to make have been shaped by a number of conversations and briefings that I have had, but also by a very interesting meeting that I had last year with some students at All Saints centre for learning in Kirkby, in my constituency. They talked about their hopes and aspirations and said that EMA had been a help to them and would continue to be. They also expressed their concern about the reduction in spending on Aimhigher, which had inspired some of them to go to university when they had not previously thought it possible.
The Secretary of State seems to have three arguments about EMA and his replacement for it, the pupil premium. The first is that EMA does not have any real impact on participation and on young people staying on in education. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon cited a piece of research that does not quite indicate what he thinks it does. It was based on a flawed sample, as several of my hon. Friends have said.
Nadhim Zahawi
The right hon. Gentleman claims that the sample was flawed. Can he explain why he believes that? It was a representative sample of at least 2,000 interviews, taken in a scientific way.
Mr Howarth
I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber, but several of my hon. Friends have gone through the flaws in the report’s methodology in great detail.
Mr Howarth
I am not going to repeat them. I do not want to make a speech about that particular issue, but I raised it because the hon. Gentleman used flawed research to support his argument.
On participation, I know that 80% of those attending Knowsley community college who are in the relevant age range receive EMA, and the figure is 84% for Hugh Baird college. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary of State can gainsay that. Since 1997, the number of young people from Knowsley who have gone on to higher education has gone up by 187%. EMA was not in place for all that period, of course, but those figures indicate to me that it was part of the package of things that enabled people to stay on into further and higher education.
The Secretary of State’s second argument is that there are better ways to reward young people and improve attainment. When he first made his announcement about EMA, I was prepared to accept that that might be the case. I have waited patiently since October for him to explain how it might be, but he has failed to do so, including today. I sat and listened carefully to his speech, but as several hon. Members have said, he chose to make a speech that was more about economic policy than about EMA. Other ways of supporting young people might work better, but unfortunately we have not been told what his case is and nobody has yet demonstrated it.
My final point is that some on the Government Benches seem to believe the argument about the 90% dead-weight, but there is something wrong about saying to young people in less favourable circumstances, “You don’t need any support.” Actually, it is a real struggle for families on low incomes. It is a struggle for young people not only to get to college—there has been a lot of discussion of transport costs—but to live anything like a decent life without some support. I find it deeply offensive when people use phrases such as “dead-weight” when we are talking about people who are struggling to realise their potential and to gain academic qualifications and, in many cases, to go on into higher education when that would have been inconceivable a generation ago.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said that he regretted the tone of this debate, but I regret how the needs of those young people seem to have been jettisoned without any real thought or debate whatever. The Secretary of State had to prove that the changes would work, but he did not do so, and he should now withdraw his proposals.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A huge number of Members still wish to participate in this debate, and the Front Benchers have given an indication of relatively short wind-ups of 10 minutes each at the end. I am therefore reducing the time limit again—to five minutes from the next speaker I call—in the hope that I will get more speakers in. I hope that all hon. Members will take note of that.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I wish to declare an interest in that one of my children was in receipt of EMA to do A-levels at college, and I was very grateful for that help. I should also like to thank the Opposition for the opportunity to debate this matter.
I shall concentrate on the situation for the 655 students at Strode college in Street, the 1,813 students at Bridgwater college—41% and 50% of whom respectively are in receipt of EMA—and the 2,615 children living in poverty in the Wells constituency. I am grateful to Tom Strode-Walton, James Staniforth, the principal of Strode college, and Fiona McMillan, the principal of Bridgwater college, for the information that they have provided to me for this debate.
If students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have the right help to access education for AS and A2-levels, there is no chance of them accessing university education until later in life. Strode college estimates that its students have claimed £500,000 in EMA this year. Bridgwater college surveyed its students and estimates that they have claimed in the region of £1.5 million.
The learner support fund at Strode college is currently £17,000, and at Bridgwater in this financial year it is £42,000. The Government propose to triple the current learner support fund for each college to address the loss of EMA to students from September 2011 onwards. That would mean that next year Strode college could expect £51,000, and that Bridgwater college could expect £126,000. It is difficult to understand how those colleges will make that funding stretch to meet students’ needs so that they can continue to fund their education.
The Minister should look to remove the main barriers to FE and HE. Many of the arguments that I would wish to make today have been rehearsed already, but in a rural area such as mine, one main barrier is transport to and from college. A county bus ticket in Somerset costs £600 a year. That is likely to increase as Somerset county council stops concessions for students—it will withdraw its subsidy in April—and as the various fuel price increases are included. Public transport in many rural areas is non-existent, and it is difficult for students to work because they cannot get home on public transport later in the evenings or at weekends, when there is a reduced service. A taxi fare from my village, which is four miles from the main town, is about £15 one way.
The mother of the twins Rhiannon, who wishes to be a vet, and Ayesha, who wants to be a psychologist, wrote to me last night. They live in a very rural part of my patch, and their mother is recovering from an illness. Consequently, they will be caught in a situation in which they have to pay £1,400 or £1,500 each year to get through college.
The other main expenses for which EMA is used have been mentioned: books, kit and clothing. Studying hairdressing at Bridgwater requires £200-worth of equipment. The equipment needed for plumbing, bricklaying, car mechanics and all the other trades is also extremely expensive. Chefs need knives; art and photography students need a constant supply of materials; and those on sports courses need clothing, footwear and equipment, none of which are cheap. Many other courses require textbooks and supporting literature, and all students need to cover those costs.
In my part of rural Somerset, there are several schools without any sixth forms: Whitstone school in Shepton Mallet, St Dunstan’s community school in Glastonbury, and Crispin school in Street. Students aged 17 and 18 will be required to stay on in full-time education or training from 2013 and 2015 respectively, and the choice of which school or college to attend must lie freely with the student. It is important that students are not required to attend their nearest A-level provider, as that could lead to their choices being limited. Year 11 students at Whitstone school, for example, might want to study a specific subject that means they will want to go to Frome college, Radstock college or Yeovil college, travelling 18 to 42 miles a day. It is important that future students have the ability to plan, budget and know exactly where they will be. For that reason, the Minister must address the issue of transport. I received advice from the Department for Transport this morning, saying that the local authority must provide home-to-school transport but that it has no legal requirement to help the over-16s, and that only 21% of local authorities use their discretionary powers to offer concessions, over and above the statutory requirements.
I ask the Secretary of State for Education to consider all the issues affecting my constituents in rural Somerset. EMA is not perfect; it needs to be reviewed. I am not wedded to it therefore, but I am sure that if we address the transport issues—
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate and to represent the concerns of my Darlington constituents.
More than 100 people in my constituency will lose their jobs as a result of the Government’s decision to scrap EMA, and about 1,300 students will lose out. Providing EMA of £30 a week to the children of families whose combined earnings are less than £21,000 is the simplest, fairest and most effective way of keeping young people in education and training.
We have two outstanding colleges and one excellent school sixth form in my constituency. College principals have spoken to me of their concerns about the impact of the removal of EMA on their students and their institutions. The college I attended in the early ’90s served at that time a far smaller cohort of young people than it does today. Most came from the well-off areas close to the college. Results were adequate but not great, and admissions to Oxford and Cambridge—which the Secretary of State cares so much about—were rare. Today, the college’s biggest challenge is to accommodate the ever-increasing number of young people from across the region who wish to study there. Queen Elizabeth sixth form college in Darlington is consistently among the best performing sixth-form colleges in the country, and one of the secrets of its success is that it can recruit from a wide geographical area.
I was a governor at QE before the introduction of EMA, and recruitment from secondary schools in the less affluent areas was often either non-existent or in single-digit numbers. That has changed and the situation is continuing to improve thanks to EMA. Because many current QE students travel more than a mile and a half to get to college, they rely on public transport to get them there, which has a cost. Those young people are not able to go home for their lunch, so they need money to buy food. They also need money to benefit from participating in the rich array of important extracurricular activities that are on offer but which need to be paid for. Many students on EMA work to supplement their allowance, but in Darlington students are explicitly encouraged to limit the hours they work, which I think is good. Although having part-time jobs brings many benefits to young people, they must not distract them from the aim of getting a qualification.
It is particularly cruel to remove EMA from students who will be only part of the way through their courses when they lose their allowance. With EMA, students could be certain of the support they would receive, and they could make their choices accordingly. There is a predictability to the scheme that allows families to plan ahead. It shifts horizons and encourages the setting of longer-term goals. The idea that my old college could now be using its budget to provide buses to transport students to it from further afield is a credit to the college, but it is inefficient and it disempowers individual students. With EMA, young people had choice; they were responsible for managing their own bank accounts and for making their own financial decisions. If young people spend all their money on beer and cannot afford to get to college the next day, they lose out on future payments—this is a conditional allowance. It is a tough lesson, but one that young people understand and sign up to.
Few things in life are more expensive than a NEET. The number of NEETs in Darlington has reduced and the level of participation in further education there has increased from 82% to 91%. As a former lead member for children’s services, I think that EMA is very good value for money.
The Government do not understand social mobility. In fact, they have had to get my predecessor and friend, Alan Milburn, to explain it to them. I just hope that they listen, because social mobility is about making choices and living with the results of those choices. Scrapping EMA does the opposite of saying, “We are all in this together.” It says to our young people, “You are on your own.”
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I have very much enjoyed listening to many of the speeches in this excellent debate, which has been well worth having. I listened particularly closely to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who is not in his place, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who made some powerful points.
I understand the reasons for the changes—the deficit of £23 billion in November brings things sharply into focus—but I am concerned, as many Members are, about the consequences. I shall briefly make two points that need stressing, although they have been alluded to by a number of hon. and right hon. Members. The first relates to fairness. Those who entered sixth form in September 2010 will cease to receive EMA in September 2011, and the Secretary of State needs to examine that closely, because it is not fair.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Sixth-form colleges in Birmingham are trying to assess how much the lower sixth-formers need their EMA. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a useful process?
Jeremy Lefroy
I think that that is an extremely useful process. I should also mention, in this regard, the people who just joined in January and have no particular scheme available to them.
My second point, which has been made by many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), is about transport. I have an 18-year-old daughter and I find it strange that she pays for her bus fares to and from school whereas others who could well afford not to have free bus passes receive them. We need to examine that seriously. Today I met a couple of students from Stoke-on-Trent, in Staffordshire, one of whom said that she was paying £7.60 a day in bus fares because she had to take two buses; the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) mentioned that situation earlier. I also wish to pay tribute to the work of the colleges in my constituency, in particular South Staffordshire college and Stafford college. They have brought the figures to me, and have shown me the importance of making these points and representations on their behalf.
Finally, I, like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), wish to stress the importance of evidence. I agree that evidence is vital. This subject is too important to ignore evidence, because the prospects of young people are at stake. So my final request to the Secretary of State is that he be guided by the best possible evidence in this matter.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Without doubt, the removal of education maintenance allowance will have an enormous impact on the young people of my region of the north-east, including those in my constituency in Gateshead. It is irrefutable that since its introduction, EMA has changed the landscape of young people’s aspirations in Gateshead. Staying on became an option for many, when it had not been before. Now it is being abolished—an action that will come as no surprise to my constituents, as it is entirely consistent with every other action by the coalition since it was elected in May 2010. It is now in the process of redirecting resources and wealth from the least advantaged to the most advantaged, and of crushing and removing opportunity for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, including in my community.
Ian Mearns
I will not.
I am proud of my local authority’s role in improving the educational outcomes of young people in my borough and of the fact that it was an EMA pilot authority, prior to which it had invested in bursary awards for poorer students.
I asked all the local colleges in Newcastle and Gateshead about the impact of this proposal and its effect on them and their students. This is the response I received from Gateshead college:
“Our statistics show that 60% of our learners receive EMA”,
but among 16 to 18-year-olds it was 70% of students, with
“80% of those in receipt receiving the full payment”,
one 10th receiving two-thirds payments, and one 10th receiving a one-third payment. All those young people will be delighted to know that they are regarded by some in this Chamber as waste in the system, and by others as “dead-weight”.
The college principal told me:
“I believe that the Department of Education has made the wrong decision and that disadvantaged young people in Gateshead will suffer as a result of this decision and Ministers’ ambitions to raise the participation rate to 18 will fail.”
He continued:
“EMA is predominantly taken up by those with low achievement levels at school, those from ethnic minorities and those from single parent families and those whose families are just plainly and simply poor.”
He saw EMA as
“a vital tool for increasing social mobility… I believe that stopping EMA will result in many of these young people, from disadvantaged backgrounds, not continuing their education after 16.”
Many of these young people will simply not have the money to travel on public transport, never mind buy books—or even to eat. There is also a significant danger that many students will, on losing their EMA, be forced to drop out of college after their first year. What a potential waste when they have done a year of study!
The views I cite are not those of just one college in the north-east, as many colleges take the same view. Many Members will have received the briefing from the Association of Colleges, which represents colleges across the UK. The briefing clearly states:
“The vast majority of colleges and their governors…across the UK, oppose the abolition of EMA...94% of colleges believe that the abolition of EMA will affect students’ ability to travel to and from college.”
The Association of Colleges also estimates that up to 300,000 young people will lose their EMA part way through their two-year studies. EMA has provided a real incentive to increasing levels of attainment because payment has been tied to levels of attendance and completion of course work.
Let us be honest: none of this is a surprise to Ministers, who know that it is the young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds who will suffer most. They know that many will not be able to start or continue education beyond 16; they know that there will be a rate of attrition—collateral damage—from their policy. Ministers know this, but I am afraid to say that they appear not to care about it. If one were completely cynical, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is precisely what those Ministers want to do. For them, further and higher education is not for the disadvantaged, not for the poor, or for those whose parents or carers are on modest incomes.
I noticed with interest that the Secretary of State earlier offered to visit the local college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Will he make the same offer to me in Gateshead, or to my colleagues in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sunderland or Darlington—or would it be too inconvenient for him to travel? The coalition Government talk about building a stronger and more vibrant economy, but I am sorry to say that it looks as if they are going to wreck it.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
This is the latest in a series of debates initiated by the Opposition on education issues. We have heard a number of lengthy speeches on various subjects, but we do not seem to have heard about issues that get to the core of what education is about, such as the quality of teaching. Instead, the debate seems to have focused on other issues. That is not to say that transport is not important, and I am very pleased that Norfolk county council confirmed yesterday that despite its budget reductions, it will provide transport support for further education students in Norfolk. That is great, but we must focus on getting the greatest bang for our buck.
We have £500 million in the budget, and I am very concerned that the No. 1 factor in terms of the quality of education should be the quality of teaching. The reason the previous Government failed to make progress on social mobility is that they did not focus enough on teaching quality. Last year’s results in the OECD’s programme for international student assessment, or PISA, tables showed that the UK had fallen to 28th place in mathematics, to 25th in reading and to 16th in science. A major reason why there was such a big gap in Britain’s performance was the differential between low-income and high-income students. Britain performed particularly badly on the education of low-income students, despite having doubled the budget per pupil between 1998 and 2008. The Opposition need to ask themselves whether this is about finance or about where they focused their policies when they were in government.
The issue of teachers’ qualifications is important, but the UK has one of the largest gaps between the qualifications of those teaching low-income pupils and the qualifications of those teaching high-income pupils, particularly in mathematics. We have less qualified teachers teaching those from low-income backgrounds compared with those from high-income backgrounds. [Interruption.] I am being corrected on my grammar; obviously, I did not go to the right kind of school. [Interruption.] I went to Roundhay comprehensive school, as did the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]
Under the previous Government there was also a push towards equivalence of qualifications, and people from low-income backgrounds ended up taking fewer academic qualifications. There was a reduction in the percentage of students taking modern foreign languages from 79% in 2000 to 44% in 2008. That had a commensurate effect on the ability to enter top universities in our country.
Labour’s record on social mobility was not good either. [Interruption.] I am sorry—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) can intervene on me if he likes.
John Robertson
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me this opportunity, which I did not expect. Is she saying that only the good high-level students should be allowed to have education, while the rest of us should get on with things and not get an education?
Elizabeth Truss
I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying, which is that we have been failing, as a country, to give the same level of education to low-income students as to high-income students. By not focusing on core issues such as improving teacher quality, the previous Government failed those students. I should like a debate on education standards—indeed, I have asked the Backbench Business Committee for one—because that is the most important thing we should address as a country. We need to debate what goes on inside schools rather than just how people get to school.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the core issue of how we set up and run our schools that is important? The core subjects that we teach in those schools are also very important.
Elizabeth Truss
Absolutely. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I am very pleased that the Government have introduced the English baccalaureate, which will help us to encourage more students from all backgrounds to study subjects that will help them to get to university. That is a good thing.
I shall finish by talking about the record of the previous Government in getting low-income students to university. Nineteen per cent. of students going into higher education were from families in the lowest income quintile, compared with 30% in Australia and 50% in the United States. That is a shameful record—[Interruption.] Members will note that both those countries have a proper tuition fee system. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We cannot have all these sedentary interventions.
Elizabeth Truss
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As a country, we need to stop comparing ourselves with what we were in the past and start comparing ourselves with countries that are making innovations. Our debate on education has been too insular; we are not looking at what is happening internationally. That is what the shadow Secretary of State for Education should focus on, rather than holding an insular debate that is only about our country. We are not just competing against ourselves; we are competing against other nations in the world. The £500 million being spent on EMA could be better targeted. More of it should be used to reform teaching qualifications, so that there are better qualified teachers to help low-income students get ahead in life.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, especially as the scrapping of EMA is second only to the rise in tuition fees as the issue on which I have received the largest amount of correspondence. The Government are certainly politicising vast numbers of young people, albeit in the worst possible way and with the worst possible policies.
The Government’s decision to scrap EMA represents a vicious attack on the aspirations of young people in our country, especially the most disadvantaged. The scale of support that is being withdrawn is shocking. Our young people will bear a very heavy burden indeed; the Chancellor once stated that he would not balance the budget on the backs of the poor—a statement that fell apart as soon as he uttered it—but it seems that in addition to balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, the Government also intend to balance it on the backs of the young. The message from the Treasury Bench today is clear: if you happen to be young and poor, you’re stuffed.
The scrapping of EMA has particular resonance in my constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood. My constituency has the highest rate of unemployment in the country, and one of the reasons it is blighted by long-term unemployment is the legacy of the recession of the ’80s. The decision of the then Tory Government to walk away from young people and to say that unemployment was a price worth paying created a lost generation of young people in Birmingham, Ladywood, and across Birmingham as a whole. Now, as a result of the decisions of this Tory-Lib Dem Government, the children of that lost generation will become the new lost generation of our time. That is a cruel and deplorable state of affairs, and represents a dereliction of the Government’s duty to the young of our country.
The EMA has three main purposes—increasing participation, increasing attendance and thus increasing attainment—and achieves them because of how young people use EMA. They use it primarily for travel, which learner support funds cannot be used for. Being able to travel to the institution that offers the best course for each student is crucial; it may be the single most important reason why attainment rates have improved. Students also use EMA to buy books and other materials.
Because EMA provides additional financial assistance, students have the financial leeway either not to take a part-time job or to decrease the hours they work, enabling them to focus on getting the best possible grades and qualifications to make a better future for themselves. That is a point made forcefully to me by staff and students using the Connexions service in Birmingham, which supports young people in Birmingham to go into education, employment or training. The service has already faced massive cuts, including the closure of the Aston branch in my constituency, but it does crucial work.
Students supported by Connexions staff have written to me with their views about EMA. All those students and the staff who work with them tell me that without EMA they would not have stayed in post-16 education, or would not have done as well. All of them have used their EMA for help with travel and equipment. My discussions with them have shown me that EMA is especially crucial for students on vocational courses.
As someone who represents a constituency that is 60% non-white, I am also especially concerned about the effect that removal of EMA will have on ethnic minority students and their post-16 participation and attainment rates. Some 70% of British Pakistani students in full-time education receive EMA. The figure is 84% for Bangladeshi students, 56% for black African students and 50% for black Caribbean students. In that context, it is totally unacceptable that the Government have failed to carry out an equality impact assessment on its policy of scrapping EMA.
The Birmingham and Solihull principals group has told me:
“There are going to be a lot of casualties out of this who will never escape poverty as a result of this cut”.
I hope that Government Members will bear that in mind when they vote.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State was right to open the debate with his characteristic passion. I come from a borough that is diverse in every sense and in which there is a shocking gap between the educational qualifications and life chances of the haves and have-nots. I cannot think of an issue that is more worthy of being passionate about than widening access to education and closing that attainment gap.
The coalition Government have done good things in that regard already, such as introducing the pupil premium and school reform. The English baccalaureate will ensure that children from less well-off backgrounds will study academic qualifications that they will need in the workplaces of tomorrow, and the Government have also taken action on apprenticeships and investment in the early years. However, given the economic situation that we are in, not every budget can be protected, so the Government had to take a painful decision on education maintenance allowance. It was right in principle to examine that budget, but I have several concerns about the detail.
EMA is an archetypal Labour policy. Its aim, objective and principle were absolutely right. It is laudable to attempt to widen participation in education, so the previous Government should be congratulated on trying to do that. However, the execution of their policy was expensive and extremely centralist. People have talked about the impact on the poorest in our society, but EMA is paid to people in households earning up to £31,000, which is significantly above average national earnings.
There is some debate about the exact number of people who would not have gone on to further education if they had not received EMA. We have heard about the two reports that have been produced and there is a dispute about the figures. However, everyone to whom I have spoken accepts that some money is going to young people who would have stayed on in further education anyway.
Nadhim Zahawi
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the targeting were somehow linked to those who are closest to the students, the system would be much better?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend neatly brings me to my next point, which is about centralism. I tried to make this point to the shadow Secretary of State. One of the points that has been effectively raised in speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House is the differences among students. Young people who have a caring responsibility, a special need or a long distance to travel to college, or who are young parents, have much greater needs than some other students, so a national scheme that makes a flat-rate payment to everyone who comes from a household that earns a certain amount is not necessarily the best way to address the problem.
Nicky Morgan
Does my hon. Friend agree with the principal of Loughborough college, who has put it to me that he is best placed to understand the needs of students and to administer the discretionary learner support fund, but that he needs some certainty about what the fund will be in the next academic year so that he can start planning?
Gavin Barwell
I agree with my hon. Friend, who helpfully takes me on to the next point that I wish to make to Ministers.
The principle behind an enhanced discretionary learner support fund is exactly right. Responsibility should be devolved to people at the front line who know which of their students need help and how much help is required. There are two important caveats, however. First, we need to ensure that sufficient funding is available nationally to deal with students’ needs, and it is clear that there is a debate about how much that quantum should be and whether an adequate amount has been allocated by the Government. Secondly, we need more detail—I hope that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), will be able to give this in the limited time he has to wind up the debate—about the system for allocating the fund to schools and colleges throughout the country. That system will be critical, given that our debate has made clear the extent to which different parts of the country are dependent on EMA funding at present.
Despite the fact that I have some concerns about what the Government are doing, I will support the amendment. I have been a Member of Parliament for a relatively short time—about eight months—and during that period, I have had to vote for several measures that I would not support in an ideal world. I have sat through several debates in which Opposition Members have set out their objections to some of the things that the Government are doing. However, it seems to me and to most of my constituents, many of whom are also concerned about some of the coalition’s policies, that those objections hold weight and credibility only if there is a clearly set out alternative.
We know that the previous Labour Government were committed to reductions in spending of 25% in unprotected Departments. I have sat through debate after debate, in which we have met opposition to coalition proposals, but I have never heard one single alternative. I have never heard an Opposition Member saying, “Here is something that the Government are not cutting that we would cut.” Until we get an overall package that adds up from the Opposition, we cannot have a serious debate.
I am conscious of the time and of the fact that several Opposition Members still wish to speak, so I simply end by saying that the Government are right to look at the EMA budget. There is clear evidence that the current scheme is too centralist and that money is being spent on people who do not need the support. Like some Opposition Members, I do not like the term, “dead-weight” and I do not think that we should use it.
Clearly, we can get better value for money from the scheme and it does not need to be so centralist. The Government are right to consider it, but there are points of detail about which my constituents, many people throughout the country and I need reassurance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As you can see, no Government Members are standing, but many Opposition Members wish to take part in the debate. If you show self-restraint, several of your colleagues will get in; if you do not, they will not. It is up to you.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is unfortunate that so many Government Members have tried to deflect the debate and create a smokescreen of talk about Labour overspending. I do not recall the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats opposing the money that we spent on building new hospitals and new schools and on investing in our universities and our police service as we set about repairing the broken Britain that we inherited in 1997. If our spending was profligate, and if Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members thought that at the time, why did the then shadow Chancellor commit himself to matching our spending plans until the banking crisis hit internationally?
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) has just challenged us to come up with alternatives. Here is one alternative: if the Government abandon their plans to halve the tax on bankers’ bonuses, they could spend the money on EMAs three times over.
Paul Blomfield
No, in the light of the time, I will not give way.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central also said that we should pay attention to the expertise of those on the front line of educating our young people. Every head of institution in Sheffield to whom I have spoken has made it clear that they oppose the Government’s plans. Let us consider Silverdale school, which is not in my constituency, but in that of the Deputy Prime Minister. When he next pops to Sheffield, I hope that he will take the time to talk to teachers and students there. It is a successful school with a real commitment to reaching out beyond the leafy suburbs in which it is located. It draws on many young people from the parts of inner-city Sheffield that I represent, provides them with an outstanding education and transforms their lives. When I was there recently, presenting GCSE certificates, the head and deputy head had no doubt that getting rid of EMA would undermine that work for the 25% of students who attend the school from my constituency and depend on EMA.
The biggest provider of 16-to-19 education in our city is Sheffield college, with just over 3,300 learners. Of those, 51% claim EMA, and—this is a measure of their needs—84% of them are awarded it at the full rate. In my discussions with her, the chief executive of the college made it absolutely clear that EMA has a significant positive impact on learner retention and achievement, and that its withdrawal would lead to a significant cut in student numbers. That, along with the money lost through scrapping Train to Gain and the reduction in funding for adult learners, will have a significant impact on the college budget, its curriculum and its work.
One of the students at the King Edward VII school in the heart of my constituency, Elicia Ennis, was so moved with anger by the double whammy of the Government’s policies on EMA and university fees that she wrote an article for our local newspaper, Sheffield’s The Star. She wrote:
“I completely disagree with the idea of cutting the EMA.
Some students may have abused the system but that’s no reason for the entire idea to be axed.”
She went on to say—with a full knowledge of the subject, having talked daily to those around her in her sixth form—that
“with fees rising and EMA being cut, people will leave school at 16”.
She also went on to say:
“as a…former Lib Dem supporter I will think twice about voting for the party when we get a chance. More so if Nick Clegg represents them.”
We Labour Members know that many Lib Dem Members—and, indeed, some Conservative Members—share our concerns about the abolition of EMA, just as they shared our concerns about tuition fees, but instead of angsting, and turning to principled abstention or regretful support of the Government’s proposals, they should use this opportunity to join us in calling on the Government to rethink their decision on EMA.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The Government’s website, Directgov, states:
“If you are struggling with the costs of learning speak to student services at your school, college or training provider about financial support you may be able to get.”
However, we are here to discuss the removal of this benefit—a benefit designed to help those whom the Government recognise as struggling, and designed to encourage young people and assist them with education and access to training.
The motion recognises the different situation in devolved Administrations, but it would be naive to think that the removal of EMA here will not have an effect in Northern Ireland, just as the recent increase in student tuition fees had an effect there. Indeed, my understanding is that the appropriate Department in Northern Ireland is considering introducing further restrictions on the provision of EMA in Northern Ireland, and perhaps even abolishing it. That is all the more likely given the Treasury’s recent removal of end-of-year flexibility, which places an even greater strain on the Department in Northern Ireland, and on the Department for Education.
The withdrawal of EMA comes on the back of the decision to increase student fees. It would appear that the coalition Government are adopting an education policy for the well-heeled, and ensuring that from an early age the less well-off are unable to participate in further and higher education. A few weeks ago, this Government made it impossible for many to attend university in future years, and today they will make it impossible for many who live in disadvantaged areas to take the first step on the further and higher education ladder.
Given the particular historical lack of access to further education for the poorest sections of society in Northern Ireland, we must do all we can to protect EMA and access to education and training opportunities, which offer vital help to those most in need of it. That will lessen the number of people who are economically inactive and ensure that more have access to educational opportunities.
In 2009-10, nearly 24,000 students were in receipt of EMA in Northern Ireland. That figure increased this year, but there have been smaller numbers in previous years. However, those figures are not the full story. There are a large number of students who depend on the provision, and for whom it has an integral bearing on their decision to apply for further education and to stay in further education once there. It gives them a sense of stability. The recent survey conducted by the University and Colleges Union and the Association of Colleges found that seven out of 10 students felt they would have to drop out of their course if EMA was withdrawn, and nearly two fifths stated that they would not have started their course without the provision of the grant.
There are many students in my constituency in Northern Ireland who have written to me declaring their opposition to the withdrawal of EMA here in Britain, because it is their fear that a similar path will be followed in Northern Ireland. This is the wrong direction to go, because it penalises, deprives and ensures that those who need that path to education and training will not have it. My party and I will support the Labour motion this evening and oppose the amendment.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In his speech at the beginning of the debate, the Secretary of State suggested that the Opposition have only one answer to the questions that we are addressing in this discussion, and that that answer is the education maintenance allowance. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who is not in his place, suggested that we were arguing that that was a magic wand. Another Member on the Government Benches suggested that the Opposition’s view was that all we needed to do was to throw money at the problem.
The education maintenance allowance was one of a set of reforms that Labour introduced in government, with the objective of closing the achievement gap between the richest and poorest and supporting those who have not traditionally participated in education to do so. That is why we invested extra money in schools, including the academies programme, and it is why the Labour Government were the first to give support to the excellent Teach First programme, to which the Secretary of State referred. It is why we introduced the 14 to 19 diplomas, and why we focused on literacy and numeracy in primary schools. I could go on.
We are not talking only about money. We are talking also about reform and improvement in our schools, with a focus on teaching and learning. The argument has been made strongly from the Opposition Benches and by some Members on the Government Benches about the increased participation that EMA has enabled, particularly for those from the poorest backgrounds. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said, it was never just about increasing participation.
EMA was also about increasing the attendance of those in that age group attending school or in further education. It meant that people were not forced to work while they were studying, so that they would have more time to study. Importantly, it was about getting better qualifications while studying in that age group so that more young people from those backgrounds got the opportunity to go on to higher education. It remains the case that not enough young people are getting that chance, but the numbers doubled in the poorest cohort while Labour was in power. That progress was in large part due to the education maintenance allowance.
EMA is crucial in Liverpool. More than 7,000 young learners benefit from it. Shortly before Christmas I had the opportunity to visit Liverpool community college and meet young people, who told me that they would not be there studying both academic and vocational courses if it were not for the education maintenance allowance. Maureen Mellor, the principal of the college, has written to all the Liverpool MPs to say that there is now great uncertainty for next year. She wrote:
“It is difficult to plan . . . or to reassure current and prospective students.”
One of the schools in my constituency, St John Bosco, is an outstanding school. It is in Croxteth, one of the most deprived wards in Liverpool. Two thirds of the sixth-formers at this outstanding girls’ Catholic school are on EMA. Anne Pontifex, the head of the school, said to me this week:
“The removal of EMA may also mean students having to take up additional part-time employment. This will result in many students not giving studies the time and energy required.”
I have no problem with an evidence-based review of EMA. The problem is that the Government have already decided to make an 85% cut in the funds that are available. All of the wonderful alternatives that Government Members have referred to would be funded out of 15% of the money that is currently available. The Government have decided to abolish EMA first and then have a discussion about the alternatives. Yes, let us have a discussion about what the alternatives might be, but let us make that decision first and then see where we go, rather than in the order that the Government propose.
The Government have talked about all of us being in this together. They have talked about deficit reduction and the need for fairness. There is no fairness in this 85% cut represented by the abolition of EMA. It will hit the poorest parts of the country hardest. It will hit the poorest people in the poorest parts of the country hardest, and once again it is another cut from the Government that will hit young people and children harder than the rest of the population.
We have heard some thoughtful speeches from some Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I would appeal to them to follow the logic of their speeches and join us in the Lobby, and I would appeal to the Government to think again because the cut could cause great social and economic damage, undermine their stated intent to promote social mobility, and further widen the achievement gap between the poorest and the richest in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will say it one more time. If hon. Members show restraint, more will get in. If not, they simply will not.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
In 1997, the year I was first elected to Parliament, there were two high schools in my constituency where less than 10% of pupils got five GCSE passes. That is not five A to C grade passes; that is five simple passes. It was absolutely crystal clear that two decades of unremitting unemployment and poverty had created a mood of low expectation and a complete collapse in confidence and aspiration. If it is true that it takes quite a while to begin to change that mindset and culture, it is equally true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said earlier, that the efforts that have been made in the years since have made a real difference.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have evidenced that in their speeches this afternoon. The Sure Start centres have clearly been a major step forward, as have the four brand new high schools built under Building Schools for the Future in my constituency in the last few years. There is also the determination of many teachers to ensure that young people get the right message and build up that confidence and pride. All of that together has made a real difference. There is still a long way to go. Certainly in schools in my constituency and throughout the Manchester area in particular, there is still room for huge improvements to be made, and I support the schools in my constituency when they are making those efforts, but the direction of travel is the right one.
In trying to sustain this educational improvement, it is crucial that we encourage all our young people to stay on at 16. It has therefore been a welcome development that The Manchester college has opened a new campus in the Benchill area of my constituency, one of the most disadvantaged parts of it, for sixth-formers. In the first phase of the college, 180 students have enrolled this year, and it is hoped that 800 will enrol in September next year. Of those students, 85% receive EMA at the moment. If we roll together the students at The Manchester college and those at Trafford college, where many of my constituents also go, we are talking about £4.6 million a year being taken away from those students and their families. This really is the grotesque nature of the decision, which makes it an even worse decision than the decision about tuition fees. That is an issue about the future and about debt, and that is serious enough, but this is about real cash now. It is £4.6 million taken out of the pockets and purses of the poorest families in my constituency and elsewhere in the Manchester area, and it is wholly and utterly unacceptable.
We know that EMA has made a real difference in terms of retention, attendance and achievement. For example, The Manchester college tells me that in 2003, one in five 16 and 17-year-olds left quoting financial problems as their reason for leaving. Last year, that was one in 20. That is substantial evidence of the real impact of EMA.
Loreto college, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) mentioned, last year sent three EMA students to Oxbridge. This year, three in the upper sixth form are destined for Oxbridge and 25 in the lower sixth form intend to apply, two of whom claim EMA and live in my constituency. Like many other Members, I have met and talked with students in my constituency and am impressed by their confidence and aspiration. They all talk about the practical difference that EMA makes, as with it they can buy an £11 Megarider bus ticket and the equipment that they need to get their qualifications and move into work. Some of them said that they would not continue their courses if they lost EMA, and those who would carry on said that they would have to do more part-time work and that they would not focus as well on their studies or do as well as they otherwise might. All of them felt guilty about the fact that if they had to take more money from their families, who are not well off, their brothers and sisters would suffer as a result.
I will close by quoting an e-mail that I received yesterday from a young constituent. For me, it says it all, so I hope that the Minister will respond to it in his winding-up speech:
“I’m 17 years old and…receive full EMA. Why do I receive it? Because there isn’t enough income in my house. Why isn’t there? Because my parents didn’t go to college.”
He is trying to change that cycle, yet the Government are taking the ladder away from underneath him.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
City and Islington college in my constituency is a great college: Ofsted believes so and gave it a Beacon award for excellence in 2005. Perhaps more importantly, young people in north and east London know it to be a great college, which is why they go there if they get half a chance. On Monday, I went along to the college to speak with eight politics students. I asked them about their backgrounds. By coincidence, six of them had received free school dinners when at secondary school. I asked them about EMA and the effect that the cut would have on them. They were a cross-section of the college. Henry, a sixth-former currently taking his A2s, wants to be a pilot. He works hard, has good grades and sits on the college board. Because of his efforts he was offered an assessment day at Oxford aviation academy, which is the best place in the world to become a pilot, but how did he pay the fare to get there? He paid with his EMA.
Asheen is from Leyton and comes to City and Islington college because, as I have said, it is one of the best colleges around. She does not travel by bus because they are unreliable at that time in the morning, so she needs to go by train and, lo and behold, needs her EMA to do so. Ismail is studying computer science and relies on his EMA to pay for his core textbooks. The “Learning Java” textbook, which is absolutely necessary for his course, costs £30. He cannot rely on his parents to be able to pay for it, so how would a boy from his background be able to pay without his EMA? Those are real students at the City and Islington college who will have their EMA taken away. Zaynab is doing four A-levels and is also one of the children who received free school dinners.
Emily Thornberry
No, I will not give way.
Zaynab must spend £20 a week on travel. She said:
“The Government says that we should eat healthily, but how are we supposed to do that? It comes at a price.”
If she spends £25 a week on food and £20 on travel, how does she pay for her textbooks? How much does she need EMA? She needs it strongly, yet the Government are about to take it away. Those are illustrations of real children at colleges in Islington, and they show that the Government are completely detached from reality. I am pleased to have heard from the Secretary of State that he will visit City and Islington college and I can assure him that we will hold him to that promise—we have a reputation for determination and single-mindedness in my area, which he will see when he visits.
The Government’s amendment to the motion states blithely that they are committed to
“working with young people, schools and colleges and others…on arrangements for supporting students in further education and improving access to, enthusiasm for and participation in further and higher education.”
That sounds good, but why are they cutting entitlement funding? We will also want to talk with the Secretary of State about that. Entitlement funding allows the kids at City and Islington college the sort of help that they really need, such as one-to-one tuition, or having someone sit down and help them sort out UCAS forms. It allows them to be taken to see colleges and the sort of work that they might be able to do. It allows trips to the theatre or places related to their courses. Those students are here today and have sat upstairs doggedly throughout the debate. That is the sort of entitlement and enrichment that my college gets, and I am proud of it. When the Secretary of State comes to visit City and Islington college, he will be proud of it too. If he comes with an open mind, he will change his mind.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I take personally this proposal to abolish the education maintenance allowance, because I can remember being utterly skint between the ages of 16 and 19, as my dad died at about the time that I was doing my O-levels. My mother was determined that I should stay on at school, so she went out to work again, but my situation was also eased by a small grant that I received from the then East Riding county council, which, I have to say in fairness, was Tory-controlled.
That small grant made a huge difference to me. The few extra bob that I received meant that, as a sixth-former, I could play a normal part in sixth-form activities, and I did not feel left out or as much of a burden on my mother as I might have felt. I am sure that the same applies to many young people who receive EMA now, because they are simply able to play a full part in growing up and going to college.
Some people seem to think that EMA is a social payment, but it is not. If a student does English literature, they will probably want to go to the theatre, but they have to pay to do so. If they do music they might want to buy—or these days, rent—an instrument, or go to a concert. That is a vital part of education, and EMA rightly makes its contribution. If a student studies civil engineering, they might want to go on a visit to see some great tunnelling equipment somewhere, but they have to pay. The EMA makes a contribution to such things, and students are able to function like everybody else; they are not regarded as poor relations.
Young people do not want to be a burden on their parent or parents, or on their sisters and brothers; and they do not want to diminish their family’s status by reducing them to poverty after taking too much money in order to continue going to college. We have about 1,750 such young people in my constituency. Many go to Camden’s excellent schools, but quite a lot do NVQs and other vocational courses at King’s Cross construction skills centre, the Working Men’s college, Camden Jobtrain—where literally 100% of young people receive EMA—and Camden Itec. All those young people work hard to better themselves—the sort of thing that Mrs Thatcher used to go on about endlessly. They are doing exactly what she would have wanted and are the epitome of aspiration, so to end EMA for such people is to kick them in the teeth. It will leave them with a stark contrast. They are being kicked in the teeth, but they see billionaire bankers and tax avoiders and hear millionaire Cabinet Ministers prating on about them being a dead-weight—a dead-weight.
There is a real danger, not just for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats but for our whole society, that we will turn those young people from aspiration to alienation, which will be very damaging. So, we are not just concerned about the people who might drop out, although that would be bad. We should also be concerned because if we get rid of EMA we will impoverish not just those young people who manage to stay on despite its disappearance, but many of their families at the same time. The Government and the people supporting them should be ashamed of themselves.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate in the context of a series of attacks by the Government on young people and their aspirations. The Government’s policy on EMA represents a particularly dangerous attack on young people, because over the past few years the allowance has acted as an incentive—a really effective intervention—at a key stage in life, encouraging young people to stay on at college to gain the necessary skills to succeed in an increasingly competitive labour market.
As an incentive, EMA has been effective. Contrary to what Government Members have said, participation rates have increased by more than 7% for young women students and more than 5% for young males. Research is unequivocal in indicating that the allowance has reduced the drop-out rate by more than 5%. As somebody who worked in FE for more than 10 years as a lecturer, I know that that key statistic means everything in terms of the chances of young people succeeding not only at college but in life.
It is therefore astounding that the Government have even thought about axing £500 million from the EMA budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, that is a massive 85% cut in funding support for young people. It is on a par with other cuts to Government funding and support for higher education, which is why Labour Members feel so strongly that this Government are determined to focus all their attacks on public spending on young people.
Angela Smith
I will not.
The impact on my constituency will be particularly stark. Just under 60% of young people who attend Barnsley college receive full EMA, and more than 30% of those students have indicated in an independent survey that they would not have started their courses had EMA not been available. Much was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) about the story relating to Sheffield. All I would add is that in the last academic year the success rate for students receiving EMA at Sheffield college was 79%—5% higher than for those who were not receiving it. If ever a statistic outlined the importance of this allowance, that is it.
If Government Members do not want to listen to my arguments, perhaps they would like to listen to my constituent Steve Hanstock, who tells me that his son Tim would not have been able to access full-time higher education post-16 had he not received EMA. A female student from Sheffield college has just gained a place at the university of Sheffield. She is adamant that she would have pursued her studies without EMA—I admit that—but she is clear that it enabled her to complete her course, alongside a relatively small amount of part-time work. The allowance enabled her to concentrate her mind on her studies in order to achieve her remarkable success. That underlines the experience that I had as a lecturer when I had to deal with students coming to college in the morning unable to study or participate in class because they had done a night shift at Tesco. That is exactly why EMA is such an important allowance—it enables students to focus on achievement and not to have to worry about whether they can buy the books, get to college or feed themselves.
I want to refer to some of the statistics bandied about by the Government. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and a Conservative MP have sent literature to their constituents stating that EMA costs £924 million and that only 400 more students on free school meals have accessed further education than would have been the case without the allowance. Those stats are wrong. The figure for free school meals students staying on in education is 10,000 and the reduction in the budget is £580 million. The Association of Colleges is very perturbed by the use of these stats by MPs in these letters. It says that they are wildly inaccurate and should not have been used without being properly sourced. The Government are pulling the wool over our constituents’ eyes.
Mr Speaker
Order. A number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye, but there are fewer than six minutes to go.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I support the motion tabled by the Labour party. All hon. Members are aware of the reasons for the introduction of education maintenance allowance. It was set up to encourage young adults to stay at school. If we change it, we will reduce its impact and discourage the people who need it from continuing in education. It was created to give people an incentive not to give up on school just because their part-time job—if they could get one—offered them only some of the money that they needed. It was created to help families that could not afford bus fares or lunches, and to ensure that children could stay on at school if that was their desire.
I wholeheartedly support EMA, and I put that on record. I have seen its importance in my constituency. Although I understand that it is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, it is clear from the parents and students I have met that EMA is critical to the students for continuing their schooling and education. That cannot be ignored. I am here to support the 16 to 18-year-olds who clearly would not be able to remain in education and continue their studies if they did not have this help. Members from across the Chamber have recorded the issues in their constituencies, and those are replicated across the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland and further afield.
An interesting report by the Association of Colleges states:
“Whilst we understand that the Department is taking action to protect institutions from the full effect of this budget cut in 2011-12 through the use of a safety net which limits the cuts to 3% there is concern in Colleges at the scale of the cut over the next four years which will remove £500 million from the education of young people.”
That £500 million, which has also been quoted as £555 million, should certainly be there to encourage those who would love to stay in education, but are restricted in their ability to do so by the lack of money.
I will give an example from my area that illustrates the situation across the United Kingdom. I asked the chief executive of South Eastern regional college, in Newtownards in Strangford, for figures that would enable a greater understanding of the difference that EMA makes to disadvantaged students. Many Members have indicated the number of students who will be affected by the change. In my area in Northern Ireland, it will impact on 1,708 students who need EMA to continue their education. The people who will be affected the most are the most deprived people in the community, who represent almost 50% of those students. Only 30% of the students in that group are affluent, and it could be argued that they could pay, but that leaves 70% of the students who cannot continue without EMA. It is clear from those figures that EMA has encouraged those in disadvantaged areas to stay in education. The evidence is clearly there. I have read the Association of Colleges report and visited the Save EMA website, and it is clear that those are not local figures found just in Strangford and Northern Ireland; they are found across the United Kingdom. I have read some touching stories and have spoken to pupils with a real desire to learn who rely heavily on EMA to continue learning.
There is an indication that the learner support fund that is administered by colleges and school sixth forms will receive additional money. However, the amount of funding is not clear. Until that is clear, we have to try to understand how the system works. My fear, as the MP for Strangford, and that of a great many Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches—in fairness, it exists on the Government Benches too—is that if the coalition are not careful they will create a generation of young people who feel disadvantaged, and perhaps even abandoned. As was said earlier, there will be a lost generation if we are not careful, and a generation that feels angry. What can we do to stop that happening? It must be inherent in any strategy on child poverty that young people are educated and have an opportunity to stay in education to escape the poverty trap.
Claus Moser, a German-born British academic, who was once a warden of Oxford, said:
“Education costs money, but then so does ignorance.”
I urge the coalition to go back to its doctrine of last year, under which it supported EMA. It should help to raise a generation of educated British young people—experts in academic and practical fields—and not foster people who have no proper outlet for their energy. I support the motion and urge all hon. Members to do the same.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry not to be able to call any more Back Benchers, but we must move on to the winding-up speeches.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This has been an important and good-quality debate, characterised by knowledge, determination and passion. It has been crowded and busy, with many more Members wishing to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, than have been able to speak. That reflects the importance of the matter and is a sign of the intrinsic unfairness that hon. Members and people outside see in the Government’s decision to scrap EMA. It reflects the number of young people who benefit from it who feel angry, betrayed and let down by the Government’s broken promises.
The Government’s approach to EMA, like their record throughout their education policy so far, is a curious mix of ideological zeal and simply making it up as they go along. On the one hand, their rhetoric is that they are keen to help young people to raise their ambitions and break down social, cultural and economic barriers to help them succeed. The whole House could agree with that, but on the other hand, as hon. Members have exposed time and again in the debate, the Government have disregarded clear evidence and gone back on their promises by scrapping one of the most successful policy interventions for decades in helping to achieve fairness.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Bailey
Since EMA was introduced in my local authority area of Sandwell, the number of students getting A-levels has doubled and the number of students from my constituency going to university has increased by 78%. Does my hon. Friend agree that those statistics underline the importance of the matter?
Mr Wright
Absolutely, and I shall come in a moment to how young people have benefited from impressive ways of raising attainment, encouraging increased participation and encouraging better behaviour.
I wish to take the House back to the points that the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), made in June. As has been mentioned a number of times, he confirmed categorically in the House that the Government were committed to retaining EMA. A matter of weeks later, they scrapped it. I have to ask, is anybody in charge at the Department for Education? Does anybody have a clue what is going on there? What utter incompetence!
The justification for scrapping EMA keeps moving, from “It hasn’t been successful” to “Its impact has been limited” to “It hasn’t been an effective use of public money.” I suggest that the Government simply fail to recognise the improving life chances that it has provided. It has been a success, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) has just mentioned and as many other Members have said. It has started to break down the link between participation and success in further education and household income, as my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said.
For far too long, there has been a direct correlation between post-16 participation rates in education and household income. Frankly, moving on from school to the sixth form or an FE college depended not on whether a person was bright enough but on what their parents earned and where they lived. We have started to break that link with EMA. It has been subject to one of the most extensive and robust evaluations of any education policy ever undertaken in England, begun and presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He made a fantastic contribution to the debate, and I thank him for the points that he made.
An evaluation by Ipsos MORI concluded that the majority of providers believed that EMA had been effective in reducing the number of NEETs, increasing learners’ attainment and having a positive impact on their attendance and punctuality. It has raised participation by about 5% and attainment by about 3%, and the Government seem to acknowledge that. In a ministerial answer in another place in July, the Under-Secretary Lord Hill acknowledged that
“the monetised benefits of EMA outweighed the costs”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. WA118.]
Sadly, the Secretary of State did not acknowledge that today.
We heard from the Secretary of State an elegant, articulate and incorrect argument about the economic picture. We heard about academies, free schools, the English baccalaureate—everything, in fact, except EMA. I seem to recall that it took 19 minutes for those letters to pass his lips. Frankly, we saw alarming mood swings in him. It got to a point where we were really quite concerned about his behaviour. He had a bit of a hissy fit—a bit of a moment. It got to the point where the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said that it was slightly unfair of the Opposition to hold the Government to account.
The Secretary of State rather lost control, just as he has lost control of his Department. Given his comments before the general election and the comments of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in June, to which I alluded—he committed to retaining EMA—what has the Chancellor done to wreck the economy that means they have to go back on their word? The Secretary of State said this afternoon that to govern is to choose, and that to choose is to prioritise, but it is very clear from his remarks that young people—or children, as he patronisingly referred to 16, 17 and 18-year-olds—are not the Government’s priority.
The Secretary of State made encouraging noises. He acknowledged that greater flexibility is needed in the system, and spoke of individual circumstances, courses that might be selected, rural areas and travel costs. The Opposition are keen to work with him to look at the matter again. However, I was surprised and shocked when in one of his more surreal, bizarre and psychedelic moments, he urged the good people of Hull to vote Liberal Democrat. That is a worrying trend among senior members of the Government. We saw it in Oldham East and Saddleworth. We look forward to the formal merger of the Conservatives and Lib Dems—or is it a takeover of the Conservatives by the Lib Dems?
Moving away from the Secretary of State’s more psychedelic moments, let me go back to his point about flexibility in the system. I agree with him that more flexibility is needed, but by introducing more flexibility, he runs the risk of making the system more complex, more bureaucratic and therefore more expensive.
Michael Gove
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech—I am loving it—but in the four minutes remaining to him, will he answer the question that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) conspicuously failed to answer? If he acknowledges that fewer people should receive EMA and that less money should be spent, will he say how many fewer people and how much less money? Until he can answer those questions—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has his own suggestion. As they say on “University Challenge”, “No conferring; answers please.”
Mr Wright
When I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, difficult decisions were made with regard to the £100 bonus that students received. We are prepared to talk about this. We want to ensure that we have the best possible system, but frankly, we cannot reduce a scheme of £600 million to around £50 million without a devastating impact on many communities, which was mentioned many times, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Huddersfield.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a very passionate speech, as she is prone to do in this Chamber, mentioning Newham sixth-form college, which I have visited. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has always stood up for her constituents and particularly for young people, highlighted the poverty of ambition that the Government’s decision produces. She also said that EMA is a something-for-something initiative, because students sign a contract and are bound by certain conditions in respect of attendance, punctuality and behaviour, which is an important point.
It was nice to see a number of my hon. Friends from the north-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) mentioned Queen Elizabeth sixth-form college and Darlington college. In a former life, I audited those colleges, for my sins. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead told how in his part of the world—I think I audited Gateshead college too—EMA changed the landscape of ambition with regard to staying on, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) mentioned the stance of the Liberal Democrats. Although they are taking over the Conservative party—as we heard from the Secretary of State—they have an important decision to make, as they did on tuition fees. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that he is willing to work to ensure that we have the best possible system and that it is adequately funded, as the Opposition are. The Government need to think again. He is quoted in The Times Educational Supplement as saying:
“If what Labour is saying is a call for the government to rethink its plans, I will support that. There’s some careful brokering to do.”
I absolutely agree with that, and I hope that he walks with us through the Lobby tonight.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him and value his judgment. I have been working with his colleagues openly, and with Ministers, and I think that the Government’s amendment shows, as the Minister will say in a minute, that they are rethinking what they are doing, and that they are committed to trying to come up with a decent replacement. We will see whether we can deliver that, but I will try to do so, and I hope the shadow Minister will work with us.
Mr Wright
I greatly respect the right hon. Gentleman, but I am disappointed by his response and I hope he does not suffer too much from the spelks in his backside that he will have from sitting on the fence. The good people of Bermondsey and Southwark, and every single young person in the country, deserve better than that, and I hope we can work together in a consensual way.
The sudden scrapping of EMA, together with the trebling of tuition fees and the abolition of the future jobs fund, constitutes a systematic assault on young people. On the day it was announced that the number of unemployed young people had risen again to reach its highest level since records began 20 years ago, it is clear that the Government have nothing to offer young people. Because of the Government’s decisions and actions, there is a risk of a lost generation of unfulfilled potential, undeveloped talent and missed opportunities. We will be paying the social and economic price for this short-sighted decision for decades to come.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister not to make the same mistakes they made with Building Schools for the Future and the school sports partnerships. Botched decisions, and a care-free attitude to the facts and the proper procedures of government, have all led to humiliation for the Secretary of State. I say to him, on behalf of 600,000 young people: please listen to advice, think again and retain the education maintenance allowance.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
We have had a good debate on EMA, and by and large—there were one or two exceptions—a well-tempered one. There were excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for Wells (Tessa Munt), for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). There were also passionate but temperate speeches by the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).
I listened carefully to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). It is easy to oppose a cut in spending programmes. I was in opposition for 13 years and know that it is always tempting for an Opposition to back a campaign and jump on the proverbial bandwagon, but as every accountant knows, wherever there is a credit there has to be a debit. If hon. Members oppose the ending of a half-a-billion pound spending programme, they would have to find that money from elsewhere, but not a single one of the 20 Labour Members who spoke said which cuts they would make to fund that spending commitment.
Mr Blunkett
As a matter of fact, I did make an alternative proposition, which might not be universally welcomed by my party colleagues, which was that post-16 child benefit should be assessable for tax purposes.
Mr Gibb
I will not give way now, as the speech by the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool, went over time slightly.
We have been determined to protect the money that goes to schools and the front line, and we have managed to ensure that school funding is protected in cash terms and will rise to cover increases in pupil numbers.
Perhaps the Opposition are arguing that there should be no cuts elsewhere, however. Perhaps they are arguing that they would cut the deficit more slowly, and allow it to remain a little longer—another half a billion pounds here, another billion there—so ensuring that we continue to pay enormous interest charges, which now stand at £120 million every day. That could be the Labour party’s approach: challenging the capital markets and calling the bluff of the people who invest the pension funds in sovereign debt to pull the plug or downgrade Britain’s credit rating.
That is not a risk that the coalition Government are prepared to take. Greece provides an example from not too far away, and Ireland is nearer still. We are not prepared to risk this country’s future. We are not prepared to plunge Britain into a currency and debt crisis, and we are not prepared to delay our economic recovery by failing to take the action that is necessary to get the public finances back under control. If we were to do so, young people—the people whom the Opposition purport to be representing today—would bear the brunt of the consequences of this failure. It is young people who suffer when companies freeze recruitment, and it is ensuring that our recovery happens sooner rather than later that lies at the heart of every difficult decision on spending taken by every Minister in this Government.
The overriding tenet of the coalition Government is to close the attainment gap between those from the poorest backgrounds and those from the wealthiest, so in making these changes to EMA we have been determined to ensure that no student is prevented from staying on in education because of genuine financial hardship. The hon. Member for Wigan made a passionate and thoughtful speech, but all her arguments can and will be addressed by the replacement support that we intend to put in place. It is wrong to undermine the research that was commissioned by the last Labour Government and carried out by the highly respectable National Foundation for Educational Research. It had a representative sample size of more than 2,000.
Mr Gibb
I will not.
At the moment, EMA is paid to 45% of all 16 to 18-year-olds who stay on in education. That is not a properly targeted system and it is an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money in the current economic climate. Our intention is to focus resources on those in real financial hardship to ensure that every young person can continue their education. We are consulting the Association of Colleges, the National Union of Students, the Sutton Trust, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and college principals and others to work out the best way to use those funds.
We are putting in place measures to ensure that the least well-off receive the support they need to stay in education, and the determination of the coalition Government to close the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest backgrounds and those from the poorest lies at the heart of all our education policies. That is why we are focusing on raising standards of behaviour in our schools; it is why we are tackling reading and literacy in primary schools; it is why we have introduced the baccalaureate to ensure that more children receive a broad education; it is why we are expanding the academies programme and free schools, particularly in deprived areas; and it is why we have introduced the pupil premium.
Mr Gibb
I will not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made a thoughtful and constructive speech, reflecting her expertise and passion. Her comments about the most vulnerable and disadvantaged students were right. She said that some groups have to be protected come what may, and they will be. It is precisely those groups that we intend to target with our support fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) was right when he called for support for poorer students and said that we need to work with local authorities on their transport duties. He asked a number of questions, and I can tell him that we are working with other Departments, particularly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Transport. I take on board his point about the lack of timely scheduled transport in rural areas. He is also right to ask about young carers, looked-after children and young people, because they are some of the very vulnerable groups that we are particularly concerned about. Many other hon. Members also raised the issue of student transport costs, and we are going to build those into the discretionary part of the support fund.
The Government have a duty to tackle this country’s record budget deficit, which is the largest in the G20.
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.
There remains a severe and sustained terrorist threat to the UK and its interests abroad. The Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise this threat. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan—the TTP—to the list of 46 international terrorist organisations that are listed under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the ninth proscription order amending schedule 2 to that Act.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism—that includes the unlawful glorification of terrorism—or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may, at her discretion, proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, she takes into account a number of factors, which were announced to Parliament during the passage of the Terrorism Bill in 2000.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is not on the particular organisation that I want to intervene, but as I understand it, the debate is restricted to that organisation. Can the Minister tell us whether he has any plans to review any other organisations that are on the list, such as those representing the Kurdish and Tamil communities, as a way of promoting political dialogue and discourse to bring about peaceful resolutions to conflict, rather than people resorting to violence?
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He will understand that, for obvious reasons, it is not the Government’s policy, and never has been the policy under any Government, to discuss whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. It would clearly be foolish for any Minister to give running commentaries on what is going on with individual organisations, so I do not propose to start now.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that this was the ninth in a series of proscriptions. Bearing in mind some of the reservations that were expressed at the time that the original legislation was enacted, can he reassure the House that there has been no sign of any previously proscribed organisations seeking to get round the proscription by such devices as changing their names?
Damian Green
Indeed, that is one of the activities that concerns Ministers and it is one of the things that has happened in the past. Organisations have sought to reappear under different names and have been re-proscribed. We are extremely aware of the very serious problem to which my hon. Friend refers.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I take the Minister back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)? I do not think my hon. Friend was challenging the subject matter before the House. He was raising the issue of the process. The Act under which the proscriptions are laid before the House is 10 years old. Is the Minister satisfied that the way in which proscription is challenged is robust and will give organisations the opportunity to put their case to the tribunal? That is the point being made, not a challenge to the subject matter.
Damian Green
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As he knows, all proscribed organisations are reviewed on an annual basis by a cross-Government group that assists the Home Secretary to come to decisions on these matters. Each case is carefully considered, taking into account all the detail as time passes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point that organisations can change over time. There is an appeal mechanism not just to the Home Secretary, but beyond the Home Secretary to an independent committee, so I am confident that organisations can present a case that they have changed. The system and the Act allow for that.
Proscription is a tough power, as is clear from the various interventions, but it is necessary. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. Proscription means that it is a criminal offence for a person to belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, as well as intelligence material, legal advice, and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is also right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that the TTP is currently concerned in terrorism. Although hon. Members will, I hope, appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, I am able to summarise. The TTP is a prolific terrorist organisation that has committed a large number of mass-casualty attacks in Pakistan. It has announced various objectives and demands, such as the enforcement of sharia, resistance against the Pakistani army and the removal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. Examples of recent attacks include a suicide car bomb attack outside a courthouse in Mingora in March 2009 that killed 14 people and injured 130. Another attack on a police station in Lakki Marwat in September 2010 killed 17 people. Although the majority of attacks have been against military and Government targets, the TTP is also known to target religious events. In September 2010, a suicide attack on a Shi’a rally killed 50 people.
The group has also claimed responsibility for attacks on western targets. For example, in June 2010 an attack on a NATO convoy just outside Islamabad killed seven people and destroyed 50 vehicles. In April 2010, an attack on the US consulate in Peshawar killed at least six. The TTP has also threatened to attack the west and was implicated in the failed Times square car bomb attack last May.
Proscription will align the UK with the emerging international consensus against this murderous organisation. The TTP is already designated by the United States and proscribed in Pakistan. The proscription of the TTP will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and show our condemnation of the terrorist attacks the group continues to carry out in Pakistan. Proscribing the TTP will enable the police to carry out disruptive action more effectively against any supporters in the UK.
I should make it clear to hon. Members that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. The TTP is not representative of Pakistani or wider Muslim communities in the UK. The organisation has carried out a large number of attacks in Pakistan resulting in large numbers of civilian casualties. It is clear that these actions appal the vast majority of British Muslims.
As a final point, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. Will he confirm that the Government are looking, as they have said in the past, at proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, and the political wing of Hezbollah, which still operates in the United Kingdom?
Damian Green
I can only repeat to my hon. Friend what I said to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). For obvious reasons, it is not this Government’s, nor was it the previous Government’s, policy to discuss whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. He will be aware that Hizb ut-Tahrir is an organisation about which we have real concerns, and I can confirm that its activities are kept under review. But as I say, it would be unwise to promote a running commentary on any individual organisation.
Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, has an appeal mechanism, as I was saying to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. They can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed, and if the application is refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal that is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. A special advocate can be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission. I hope that gives some reassurance to those who were concerned about that.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
With respect to any running commentary from the Home Office, my recollection is that we gave something approaching a commitment, at least in opposition, that Hizb ut-Tahrir was an organisation that we wished to proscribe. I understand that there may be difficulties, but it is reasonable to press the Minister for a clearer understanding of the process with regard to this organisation.
Damian Green
With respect to my hon. Friend, I really do not think that it is sensible in such sensitive matters for Ministers to give running commentaries at the Dispatch Box on whether organisations might be about to be proscribed. That applies to any organisation of any kind and background, for obvious reasons that I think he will recognise. That would not be a sensible course of action. There is ample evidence to suggest that the TTP is concerned in terrorism.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Given what the Minister has just said, is it his view that the Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, made a mistake when he said that he would ban Hizb ut-Tahrir?
Damian Green
No, it is not. The Prime Minister had, and has, concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, as I hope did previous Prime Ministers, and as I hope does the shadow Home Secretary. As I have just said, its activities are kept under review.
Damian Green
No, because the hon. Lady has already intervened and is about to speak. [Interruption.] I regret that Opposition Front Benchers regard the matter as humorous. Many people have been killed by the TTP, which is what the House is debating this evening. There are clearly serious issues about how this country attacks terrorism and defends itself against terrorists, so it is not the time for Opposition Front Benchers to regard something as amusing. There is ample evidence to suggest that the TTP is concerned in terrorism, and I believe that it is right to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I hope that Members on both sides of the House, particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench, will support the Government in that action, which is designed to promote the safety of the British people.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s reasons for the order. Let me clarify that no one on the Opposition Front Bench finds these matters amusing in any way whatsoever. I note, however, that the Minister was somewhat under pressure when the Prime Minister’s conduct in matters of national security and the banning of organisations was cited. We were merely pointing out that the Prime Minister does not have a glorious record in that regard.
Let me reiterate at the outset for the benefit of the House the approach adopted to counter-terrorism matters by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls):
“We, the Opposition, will take an evidence-based approach which gives the greatest importance to national security in coming to a view on counter-terrorism issues, and therefore wherever possible we will seek to work with the government and will seek consensus.”
To that end, I can tell the House that, despite frequent earlier requests, my right hon. Friend received only in the past hour a Privy Council briefing on the organisation that is the subject of the order. As I have said, we are happy to seek a consensus-based approach on matters of national security, but I point out to Government Front Benchers that that would be helped along somewhat if they provided Privy Council briefings in a more timely manner.
Robert Halfon
To be fair, given what the hon. Lady has just said about Hizb ut-Tahrir, it was Tony Blair who first said that the organisation should be proscribed, and nothing ever happened subsequently.
Shabana Mahmood
I will return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir shortly and hopefully deal with the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
I have a number of questions about the order for the Minister. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The Secretary of State has regard to additional criteria (announced by the Secretary of State in 2001) in deciding as a matter of discretion whether or not to proscribe an organisation. These are:…The nature and scale of the organisation’s activities…The specific threat that it poses to the UK…The specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas…The extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK…The need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism”.
Those criteria seem to be perfectly sensible in providing the basic test against which a Secretary of State may decide to exercise his or her discretion, but will the Minister shed some light on how, in this particular case, they have been applied? The 2001 criteria are not contained in primary or secondary legislation, so in light of that are they under regular review by the Home Office? Will he give us some details about how the Government intend to keep them under review? How frequently will that be done?
Given that the criteria were stated first in 2001, does the Minister consider them to be fully comprehensive still? Could they usefully be added to, and are there any plans to do so? He will be aware that there is a large and settled British Pakistani community in this country, and many British citizens from that community travel regularly to Pakistan to visit family and friends. What is his assessment of the threat that Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan poses to them? That will be a matter of some interest to the British Pakistani community, so I hope that he will take this opportunity to address it. Related to that, is Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan operative in this country? How has the threat that the organisation poses in this country changed since it was set up in 2007, and what is the extent of its operations in this country?
The Minister will also be aware that, as a result of the devastating floods in Pakistan last year, the effects of which are still being felt by the Pakistani population, a large number of British aid workers operate in Pakistan and are involved in vital efforts to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to the flood affectees. Soon after the floods, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan made a number of statements, widely reported in the British media, threatening British aid workers. Will the Minister update the House on the threat posed to British aid workers engaged in flood relief work in Pakistan, and will he give some detail about the efforts being made to provide the maximum possible security and support to them?
The organisation was set up in 2007, proscribed by the Pakistani authorities in 2008 and designated by the United States in September 2010. What prompted the Government to follow suit now? How was the timing of the decision arrived at? There is, of course, necessary and close co-operation between the Pakistani authorities and the Government in combating terrorism. Is the Minister confident that the Government are doing enough to support the Pakistani authorities and society as a whole to prevent the rise of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan.
Keith Vaz
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Is she satisfied about the current process for challenging decisions? We understand that once the House makes a decision, an organisation is proscribed, but there is a process for challenging such moves, and that is right in a democratic society. Is she satisfied with that process, or do the Opposition wish to make any changes to it?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. In fact, I intended to put that question to the Minister in relation to any plans that the Government might have to look again at the legal process of appeal for an organisation that has been proscribed. I know that, in previous debates when the previous Labour Government proscribed organisations, my right hon. Friend raised the potential deficiencies in the processes for proscription and for challenging proscription, so can the Minister state the Government’s plans in that regard?
Do we know whether other countries intend to proscribe the organisation in the near future? What co-operation has there been between the Government and our allies engaged in operations in Afghanistan and other parts of the world in terms of proscribing it? Will there be continued co-operation, and what is the extent of such work?
Will the Minister give the House some details about the procedure by which the Government intend to keep the list of proscribed organisations under review? Will such reviews take place monthly, quarterly or less regularly, and can we be confident that all organisations that pose a threat to our national security are proscribed?
The House will be aware that during today’s Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked the Prime Minister about his plans to proscribe another organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir. This was also mentioned by the Minister. Although Hizb ut-Tahrir is not subject to this order, the Prime Minister’s comments about it raise questions about the Government’s policy on proscription as a whole.
Further to what was said at Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has written to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Let me refer to his letter, because it is important for the House to know this. His letter points out that last year the Prime Minister made a commitment to banning Hizb ut-Tahrir
“despite having not seen any of the evidence”.
He continues:
“The clear suggestion was that proscribing this organisation was a simple act that could be made without any legal obstacles on the basis of the…evidence”
that was available in the public domain. He asks the Prime Minister a number of questions, which I will repeat for the Minister to comment on. He asks the Prime Minister when he intends to fulfil his commitment on Hizb ut-Tahrir and on what dates the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have met to discuss the matter. He asks:
“Will you share with me, on Privy Council terms”—
and, one hopes, in a timely way—
“the latest available evidence about”
Hizb ut-Tahrir’s
“activities?”
He says:
“On the basis of the available evidence, is it still your intention to proscribe this organisation?”
and asks whether the Prime Minister has
“any plans to amend the relevant legal tests”
as set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 and amended in the Terrorism Act 2006.
Perhaps the Minister could shed some light on the Government’s response to those questions, because it is important that the House has placed before it the Government’s exact procedures and intentions in relation to proscription. Proscription should be a matter of last resort in order to safeguard our national security, and not the subject of off-the-cuff remarks or ill-thought-out pronouncements by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.
As I have said, we will work with the Government to protect our national security, and in that spirit we will support the order.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Minister for setting out the reasons for proscribing Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan. I have a couple of questions that I hope he might be able to answer, although I accept that if there are security considerations or the information is not in the public domain he may well be unable to do so. I will understand if that is the case.
First, on the catalyst for making this decision, was it prompted by the attempted car bombing in Times square in May 2010? As the Minister will know, the briefing from CTC Sentinel makes it clear that this organisation had been very active in Pakistan since 2007. Secondly, has there been any evidence of any activity in the UK, or any expectation that any assets may be seized?
I want to stress again that I will understand if the Minister is unable to respond to those questions, because clearly there may be security considerations attached. I think that the Government are taking the appropriate action. If he is able to answer them, that will benefit all those in the Chamber, but I am confident that the matter will be sorted out very shortly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I hope not to detain the House for too long. I know this is a special day for you, Mr Speaker, and I would not like to keep you away from the birthday celebrations that are no doubt being planned for you in the Speaker’s house once you vacate the Chair.
This is a very important debate, and it is right that there is a full House to hear what the Minister has to say. In previous debates of this kind, the House has been almost empty; there is an assumption that such orders will go through automatically. That is why I am grateful for the way in which the Minister put the Government’s case, and for the way in which the Opposition said—I think—that they will support the Government.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend nods. It is right that the questions that she put forward should be answered at some stage—not necessarily this evening, but as soon as possible. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who raised issues that have to be addressed.
I sat through a number of debates on such orders on the Government Benches, when the Labour party was in power, in which Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and made the case for proscription. It is difficult for the House, because it cannot really challenge Ministers when they make such a case, because they come in good faith and they are in possession of all the information, much of it confidential and much of it given to them by the security services. We therefore accept what the Minister says in good faith.
Just the name of the organisation, the Pakistan Taliban, makes one want to ban it immediately because of the word Taliban. It is obviously not a friendly organisation. Although I know nothing about the organisation—I have heard as much as I know about it from the Minister tonight—I am happy to support what the Government are doing.
However, I caution the Minister and the Opposition—a number of Members raised this point when the Labour party was in government—to look again at the process that should be adopted when organisations want to challenge the decision. I was in the House when Mujaheddin-e-Khalq managed to get its proscription lifted. As the Minister knows, it was proscribed in March 2001, it challenged the decision in June 2001, and it was deproscribed seven years later. It took the organisation seven years to make its legal case against proscription. Therefore, from the point of view of the public, as opposed to that of the organisations, it is important at this time in the life of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has been with us for 10 years, to review the processes. I would offer a review by the Home Affairs Committee—I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is here—but because the Government’s agenda on home affairs is so exhausting and plentiful, it is difficult to find the time to look at this issue. I am sure that we will do so, and certainly in the life of this Parliament.
It is important to consider the process. I will use the example put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which involves a constituency interest for myself and others, of the previous Government’s decision to ban the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As you know from visiting the island of Sri Lanka, Mr Speaker, the war is over. The LTTE has been defeated, its leaders have all been killed, including Prabhakaran, who was killed as part of the conflict, and the Sri Lankan Government have said that the LTTE no longer exists. However, members of the community who wish to support charitable causes in Sri Lanka are still sometimes questioned about their involvement, including those who take part in the annual ceremony that takes place on 26 November each year to celebrate the lives of those who have been killed.
Although this is, of course, a narrow order and the proscription applies to those who support the Pakistan Taliban, it is possible that other members of the community who are completely unassociated with this terrible organisation will in some way be caught up in the problem. I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) was trying to allude to when she put her questions to the Minister.
I do not expect the answers tonight. After all, the Minister present is the Minister for Immigration, not counter-terrorism. I therefore do not expect the answers, although he is obviously very well briefed, a highly intelligent Member of this House, a hard-working Minister and all the other nice things I could say about him. I have mentioned your birthday, Mr Speaker, but it was also the Minister’s birthday on Monday, so we have to be nice to him. The questions that I have asked must be considered, and I hope that if the Minister cannot give me the information that I want today, the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism, perhaps in a letter to my Committee, or the Home Secretary next time she addresses the issue, will be able to put my mind at rest.
I fully support the order and hope that the whole House will. We look forward to ensuring that these matters, which by their nature have the possibility of affecting the civil liberties of citizens of this country, are kept under review as closely as possible.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his opening statement and acknowledge that we have to accept such recommendations with a degree of trust because we cannot have access to all the information that he and others have. I know that he will have sought and listened to legal advice, as his comments reflected.
I welcome the Minister’s saying that the order is not about targeting the Pakistani community or the Muslim community; it is about a group of individuals whose activities need to be addressed and challenged. The Minister’s clear statement of that reassurance is really important for a community that has gone through a long period of feeling that it is targeted at every level.
As the Minister said, there is disgust and revulsion at the violence that has been carried out by the individuals in question, against civilians in the vast majority of cases, because cowards like to target civilians. Families and individuals have suffered as a consequence of that violence, and the leadership shown by the House in supporting the order will send out a clear statement about our solidarity in the desire to fight terrorism wherever in the world it manifests itself.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, broadly agree with the system that we have in place for proscribing organisations. It is important not only for protecting ourselves and the security of those whom we represent but for playing our role in the international community in preventing terrorism and the spread of terrorism.
It is perhaps worth noting that the organisation whose terrorism I have personally experienced is Euskadi ta Askatasuna—ETA—in Basque Spain, where I grew up as a child, which is one of the proscribed organisations.
I agree fully with the addition of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan to the list, but I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the full implications of the system and how we arrive at the decision to proscribe some people and organisations and not others. The 2000 Act is pretty clear in its interpretation of what terrorism is. It states:
“In this Act ‘terrorism’ means the use or threat of action where…the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public”.
Section 2 adds that action is included if it
“involves serious violence against a person”,
and section 4 states that it
“includes action outside the United Kingdom”.
That is obviously vital in the case of many of the organisations that we proscribe, although I note that the elements that the Government consider include not only the specific threat that an organisation poses to the UK but the need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism.
I suggest, as others have this evening, that we have perhaps not quite got the full list yet. I say that not as a reference to Hizb ut-Tahrir in particular but because those involved in the arrest, torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, and all those involved in the corruption that he unveiled in Russia, are and have been engaged in a form of economic terrorism against this country. I hope that the Home Office will therefore look at whether such an order is precisely the right vehicle to use to seize any of those people’s assets in this country, or to proscribe them from coming to this country. Sergei Magnitsky was working for a British company in Russia. He unveiled a vast nexus of corruption in the Russian system—$230 million-worth—and he was murdered in prison, having been put there without trial, and there has been absolutely no investigation since his death.
There have been moves similar to those allowed for by this order in other countries. In the United States, Senators McCain and Cardin have co-sponsored a law—the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act 2010—that will impose visa-entry bans and asset freezes on those Russians who took part. On 16 December 2010, the European Parliament recommended a very similar set of proposals—a vote on which was carried by 318 to 163.
The Minister may think that such an order is a wholly inappropriate way in which to proceed in relation to those people, but I very much hope that he will keep the matter under review.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I hope you are enjoying your birthday, Mr Speaker, and that this is an appropriate way to celebrate it.
I hold no brief for Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, and I do not wish to defend or support them in any way this evening. However, I want to follow the points made by other hon. Members on the process, which is not satisfactory. We add to the list of banned organisations during a Parliament, but the additions cannot be amended and the subject of the proscribed list is not open to general debate. There is therefore an argument for reviewing that process, and I hope the House heard what the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee said—he seemed to indicate that his Committee might well be prepared to conduct an inquiry into the process.
The legislation is now 10 years old. According to the list that I have just downloaded, 46 organisations are proscribed under the 2000 Act, and a further group of organisations are banned in Ireland—presumably that ban applies in this country too. The list contains organisations that clearly no longer exist, and organisations that have changed their names and exist under others. It therefore seems to me to be high time to review the whole question.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). Proscribing an organisation from a particular country or community affects that country or community, and it affects the attitudes that officials take towards them. It is therefore necessary to consider such things very seriously. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about the LTTE, but it no longer exists and the situation in Sri Lanka has changed dramatically. I would have thought that we ought to look at that as a way of promoting political discourse and dialogue to ensure that the Tamil community has a place for negotiation, representation and political action. That is surely what we are trying to achieve.
Jeremy Corbyn
Indeed we must, because proscription puts a requirement—not just a pressure—on the police to do those things. Therefore, there is the potential for an enormous waste of resources, not to mention damage to community relations. After all, in this country, as I understand it, we try to include and incorporate, and to build good community relations rather than divisions.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
As somebody of Pakistani origin, may I say that the wider expatriate Pakistani community will fully support the decision to proscribe this terrorist organisation—there is no other way to describe it? Also, the people in Pakistan want a safe, prosperous Pakistan, whereas this organisation is committed to everything that works against that. This organisation was proscribed in 2008 in Pakistan, in 2010 in the United States of America and now in the United Kingdom. Should these periods not be shortened? As the host country of Pakistan proscribed it in 2008, should it not then have been proscribed in other countries soon after, so that it does not have the chance to launder money in other countries?
Mr Speaker
Order. Subsequent interventions should not imitate that which we have just heard, in terms of length at any rate; it was very erudite but also a bit long.
Jeremy Corbyn
I also think it is an intervention that ought to have been directed at the Minister, not me, and perhaps the Minister will respond to it.
Obviously, there is a point in what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I also think it is important that this country does not just automatically proscribe an organisation because Government X, Y or Z has said so. If we did that, our history would be very different. Apartheid South Africa banned the African National Congress, yet the ANC had offices in this country, organised in this country, was completely open in this country, and eventually apartheid fell and the ANC became the Government of South Africa. I think we have to be a little careful about making instant responses all the time to banning requests made by particular regimes. I hold no brief whatever for the organisation under discussion tonight; I just think one should be slightly cautious.
Kongra Gele Kurdistan is listed, together with a number of Somali organisations. I have a very large Kurdish community in my constituency, as well as a very large Somali community. None of the people I speak to or represent holds any brief for violence or terrorist actions. They want a political development and a political solution to their problems in Somalia and Kurdistan. I suspect that the Minister will have difficulty in replying to this point tonight, but I urge him to look seriously at those organisations and to review the need for a positive democratic dialogue and process with the Kurdish people to bring about a peaceful resolution in Turkey, and the same goes for Somalia.
Banning and proscription do not necessarily work. What works is political dialogue. Let us consider what happened in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams and John Hume came to an agreement and we eventually brought about a whole peace process there. It is important to look for positive solutions, rather than instant banning and the use of the state apparatus to suppress legitimate political activity.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman argues that the democratic process and dialogue cannot take place because some of these groups have been proscribed. He seems to suggest that that in some way hampers democratic dialogue. Clearly, these organisations do not speak for their communities as a whole, however. He mentioned that many of these groups no longer exist. Is it not the case that they no longer exist simply because they were proscribed?
Jeremy Corbyn
There are various reasons why they are not in existence; some are to do with proscription, but some are to do with military activities in the countries concerned. There is a whole host of reasons.
My point is that proscribing organisations that probably do not exist, and in some cases naming people or suggesting naming people who are alleged to be representatives of those organisations, in turn limits their opportunity for legitimate political activity and political dialogue. I have drawn the parallel with what happened in Northern Ireland, and the parallel of the attitude that was adopted not by this country but by others towards the ANC in South Africa when the apartheid regime wanted it banned worldwide. I just think one has to look to bring about a solution to such problems, rather than having too simple a process.
I hold no brief whatever for the organisation under discussion, and the will of the House is clearly that the order should be passed. I just wanted to use this opportunity—I thank you for allowing me it, Mr Speaker—to encourage the Minister to consider the points that have been put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), myself and others who have concerns about the process involved in this order.
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister to reply to the debate.
Damian Green
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and felicitations.
I am grateful to the House for the many important points raised and, in particular, for the tone of the debate on the key issue of the process. Clearly, the Government are exercising very serious powers, so it needs to be done carefully and kept under proper review. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that I very much share their feelings about that.
I should gently say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) that I am genuinely bemused by her point about the timeliness of the briefing given to the shadow Home Secretary. I understand that he asked for a briefing on Privy Council terms early this afternoon and received it later this afternoon. I genuinely do not know how much faster the Government could have been expected to react to that request, so I am puzzled by the point she made.
The hon. Lady asked a number of important questions, some of which were about the criteria and the process. Those legitimate questions were echoed by other hon. Members, not least by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). There seems to be a slight misunderstanding involving the absolute nature of proscription for ever, because this arrangement is not like that. I think it will help all those who asked the questions if I simply go through what has to happen under the Terrorism Act 2000 for a body to be proscribed.
The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes
“that it is concerned in terrorism.”
What “concerned in terrorism” means under the Act is that an organisation
“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism”—
that includes “unlawful glorification”—
“or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”
If that statutory test is met, the Secretary of State will take into account other factors when deciding whether or not to proscribe. Those criteria are: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.
Most importantly, the Home Secretary comes to this decision after having received advice from a cross-departmental group. That group reviews the proscription of all proscribed organisations on a rolling 12-month basis, so there is a permanent rolling programme of checking which groups are proscribed and whether it is appropriate to continue with the proscription. That seems to me to be a proper process, because I take the points made by hon. Members on both sides about how groups can change and how, in all these areas of this world, it is of course in the interests of the British Government and the British people not only to combat terrorism—that is clearly important—but to try to foster a democratic dialogue so that troubled countries can move into the democratic ambit.
I wish to answer some of the other detailed questions, in so far as I can. I was asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about TTP’s activities and presence in the UK. I am sure that the House will understand that I cannot comment on intelligence matters and details, but I can say that the TTP aspires to mount attacks in the west, as was demonstrated by its involvement in the failed Times square car bomb attack, and TTP leaders have publicly threatened the UK in the past. The group also threatens this country by targeting our interests and allied interests overseas: for instance, the group claimed responsibility for a suicide bomb attack on the United Nations World Food Programme office in Islamabad in October 2009, which killed five people.
The hon. Lady rightly asked what the UK Government are doing to help to stabilise Pakistan. We actively engage the Government of Pakistan to implement political reform in the tribal areas. In addition, through the conflict prevention fund, the Foreign Office is spending £3.65 million a year on reducing the governance and security vacuum that evidently exists in that part of the world, improving Afghan-Pakistan relations and co-operation, and reducing insecurity in Balochistan. So we are playing a very active role.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am still not quite clear about one aspect. Surely the banning of an organisation in this country is carried out because there is reason to suspect that it is going to try to be active in this country. It is not simply a matter of trying to perform a terrorist act, which would be a crime in any case, but of trying to function in this country. Is there any evidence that either this group or its sympathisers are currently active in this country? There are of course all sorts of terrorist groups around the world that are not active in this country which we do not seek to add them to our own proscribed list.
Damian Green
If I were to answer my hon. Friend in detail, I would reveal intelligence information. I am sure that he, with his distinguished background in defence, would not want me to do that. I would refer him to the list of criteria I mentioned, which includes attacks on British citizens and British interests, along with those of our allies around the world. I think it would be beneficial if he studied those criteria carefully.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked about the review. I hope she is reassured not just by what I said about the rolling 12-month review programme, but by the fact that there is an appeal mechanism—first to the Home Secretary and then to an independent committee. The legislation allows for that. She asked whether the discretionary criteria are still appropriate, and we believe that they are. Counter-terrorism policy is, of course, kept permanently under review. She asked about the time scale; she will be aware that the Home Secretary is currently reviewing the most sensitive and controversial counter-terrorism and security powers and measures. It would be particularly inappropriate to speculate on the outcome of the review, as we are going to announce the findings shortly. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by that.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised a particular case. I take his point, but say simply in response that the Government have a wide range of counter-terrorism tools at their disposal, including asset freezing, exclusion and so forth. It would obviously be improper for me to comment on an individual case.
Chris Bryant
Would the Minister be prepared to meet me about this particular case to talk through what might be done regarding the people who murdered Sergei Magnitsky?
Damian Green
I would be happy to do so, although the hon. Gentleman might prefer to meet the Minister of State with responsibility for security and counter-terrorism. If he wants to meet me, however, it is always a pleasure. I would be happy to do so, as I said.
One of the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Islington North was that proscription does not work, but dialogue does. Of course we all want to move towards dialogue, but proscription does send out a strong message that we do not tolerate terrorism, and it deters terrorist groups from operating here. It should in no way prevent peaceful dialogue. The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The Tamil community in this country and elsewhere can express ideas it feels strongly about without supporting the LTTE.
Having heard what I thought was a good debate, I strongly believe, as I think every hon. Member does, that the TTP should be added to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I emphasise once more that the TTP has carried out a large number of mass casualty attacks within Pakistan against the Pakistani military and Government and against civilian targets. The number of the group’s victims runs into the hundreds. It is important that we make the UK a hostile place for such terrorists and that we show our condemnation of this organisation’s activities. The TTP has also attacked western interests within Pakistan and has stated its intention to carry out attacks in the west—a threat given credence by the attempted attack in Times square. It is now right to align the UK with the emerging international consensus condemning this group and its activities. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to,
Ordered,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.
petition
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from the students of Walsall college.
The petitioners oppose any reduction in weekly education maintenance allowance payments in this Parliament. They further oppose the loss of financial support to 14 to 19-year-olds from low-income families who wish to stay on in further education. They therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take all possible steps to continue the payment of education maintenance allowance.
There are 402 signatories to the petition in similar terms.
[Following is the full text of the petition:
The Petition of students of Walsall College,
Declares that the Petitioners oppose any reduction in weekly education maintenance allowance payments in this Parliament and notes that the Petitioners further oppose the loss of financial support to 14 to 19-year-olds from low-income families who wish to stay on in further education.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to continue the payment of education maintenance allowance.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.]
[P000878]
Rail Service (West Anglia)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)
So long ago is it, Mr Speaker, that I last took part in a debate in the House—almost 15 years—that you may forgive me for feeling that this is something like a maiden speech, although I realise that it is not, in the technical sense. Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I hope my return to Back-Bench advocacy may yield a rewarding response this evening.
I want to highlight the needs of all the people who make the 34.5 million journeys a year on the West Anglia railway line, which is part of the Greater Anglia franchise. The West Anglia line is really a cluster of lines, the main spine of which serves Cambridge from Liverpool Street as well as 14 other stations. Along that spine are 10 inner-London stations and spurs to Chingford, Enfield, Hertford and Stansted airport. I am grateful for the visible support of my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who are present, and I also pay tribute to those who, over the years, have worked together as a group to act as promoters of the need to improve the service on that line. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), all of whom have had similar problems in their constituencies in relation to this line. If it is not provocative of me to say so, we are all in this together.
Let me give a little history. In 1977, when I started commuting from Audley End, which is one of the big commuter stations on the West Anglia line, the best journey time to Liverpool Street was 47 minutes, but today it is rarely possible to do that journey in under an hour and it usually takes more than an hour. I am not criticising the current train operator; in fact, National Express East Anglia can point to increased punctuality levels in what has become a more relaxed timetable. It is the extra demand on the line due to the growth in passenger numbers, notably caused by the introduction of the Stansted Express, that has been behind the slowing down of the journeys that our constituents undertake.
I do, however, criticise successive Governments. The Government of my noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher, set the ball rolling so far as the expansion of Stansted is concerned, by agreeing to it being developed to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum. The Government of Tony Blair decided that the M11 corridor should be a centre of expansion and also supported a second runway at Stansted with the capability of quadrupling the number of people using that airport.
One might have anticipated some joined-up thinking. If more houses were to be built, whether in the inner or outer-London areas, and there was to be a third London airport, with possibly 80 million passengers per annum, surely to goodness attention should have been given to rail access to that airport. But no; there has been absolutely nothing doing in terms of train and track capacity. The only thing that can be shown is construction of the spur to Stansted airport.
Inevitably, the result has been that overcrowding is worse, journey times are longer and even the Stansted Express has become less express, but of course fares have continued to rise. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, some relief on overcrowding is in prospect. I am grateful for the fact that the previous Government did, at last, agree that 120 new carriages should be provided. The only fly in the ointment, as far as that was concerned, is that they were destined to be used largely to satisfy passengers to and from Stansted airport. That would include some of my commuters, but substantially the extra seating capacity covered people travelling only occasionally on the train. Regular commuters from other stations on the line—typically, commuters from Audley End pay about £3,600 a year for a standard season ticket—would have to make do with the type 317s, the principal stock used on the line.
“Tired” would be the politest word that could be applied to that type of train; it has a quixotic heating system and there are times when the doors stay closed, or, alternatively, stay open, neither attribute being particularly helpful to the running of a railway. During the recent cold snap, no fewer than 30 of the 60 four-car units that National Express had at its disposal for the West Anglia line were taken out of service as a result of problems in the traction motor caused by the snow.
I recently discovered that another threat is looming. Apparently, EU regulations in the making will forbid trains having their lavatory waste emptied on to the line. That is a particularly odious situation, especially when seen at Liverpool street. To fit what are politely known as retention tanks to the 317 stock would cost about £3 million, which is hardly an incentive to keep the carriages in service much longer.
The only way to improve journey times is of course to create more track. I am all in favour of a fast service to the airport. It ought to be possible to get to Stansted in 30 minutes, just as it is possible to get to Gatwick in 30 minutes. I am not against that in the slightest degree, but it cannot be done at the expense of improvements to services to stations in my constituency and beyond. It is important that a regular service be maintained for inner-London stations. The mix of fast and slow trains is impossible to achieve on a two-track system, so there has to be—at some point soon, one hopes—more track laid.
Network Rail, in the rail utilisation strategy on which it is working, has options for four-tracking certain sections of the line. There are what I describe as minimal and maxi options. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not think the thing is worth doing unless one has four-tracking from Coppermill junction, south of Tottenham Hale, as far as Broxbourne. That will enable proper separation of the different types of service. However, it is being contemplated only for the control period that covers 2014 to 2019, so the implementation of even the minimal option is some way ahead. For a long period of years, we shall still suffer the restrictions that currently exist. Even then, of course, any movement on four-tracking will require finance.
With that tale of woe told, I now see the prospect—an opportunity—for improvement. The Department for Transport is working on a new franchise for Greater Anglia, which I believe is due to come into effect in 2013. I hope that the Government will construct a franchise that will place a requirement on the successful bidder to commit to new trains across the network, rather than just the few that we are going to get, which might all go to the Stansted Express. I also hope that there will be a commitment to helping with the implementation of some four-tracking along the stretch of line that I mentioned. If the Government do not want to go quite that far in the terms of the franchise, at the very least let the franchise encourage the provision of an incentive to the successful bidder to help to bring those things about.
The length of the franchise is absolutely crucial if the train operator is to be encouraged to become a partner with Network Rail on improving the railway line. That has been my opinion for some time, but I note that it is also the opinion of the Association of Train Operating Companies. I was delighted that, by happy coincidence, my right hon. Friend made a statement today indicating that the Government believe in longer franchises. I do not know whether the franchise could be as long as 20 or 22 years, but it is a crucial point, because the longer the franchise, the better our chance of ensuring that there will be more investment soon for the benefit of our passengers. My right hon. Friend has the chance tonight—the omens seem propitious—to provide words of comfort to many long-suffering passengers by saying that a faster and better train service will be delivered soon, and foreseeably soon, for people using all the stations on the West Anglia network.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on making a distinguished contribution on his return to debating from the Back Benches. I also congratulate him on securing a debate on such an important topic and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the West Anglia rail line and the future for the franchise on the network.
My right hon. Friend assiduously defends the interests of his commuting constituents, and I am grateful for his frequent representations and suggestions for ways to improve how our railways are run. His long-standing interest and expertise on transport matters no doubt aids him in being such an able and effective advocate for his constituents.
Before I respond to the points made by my right hon. Friend, I shall update the House on the franchise arrangements on the West Anglia route. Last September, the Department for Transport issued a notice to National Express East Anglia exercising the Government’s contractual right to extend the current franchise by a little over six months. A written statement to the House in December announced that a short management contract would be let for the Greater Anglia franchise, which would be in place from February 2012. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it was expected that a long-term franchise would begin in July 2013. The competition to let the short-term interim contract started last week.
The timetable has been put in place so that when we let the long-term Greater Anglia franchise, we can take on board the outcome of the recent consultation on rail franchising and the findings of the rail value for money study, which is chaired by Sir Roy McNulty. The study is aimed at reducing the costs of running the railways, thus making it easier to deliver the kind of improvements that my right hon. Friend has passionately called for in the debate.
Sir Roy McNulty’s work to date indicates that better alignment of incentives between Network Rail and train operators is a vital way to get costs down on the railways. We believe that the Greater Anglia franchise is a promising candidate for such a reform because it is less complex and more self-contained than some other lines, and there is already some alignment between the area covered by the franchise and Network Rail’s internal regional structures.
My right hon. Friend clearly highlighted the crowding problems on the lines serving his constituency and his general concern about the quality of the rolling stock that his constituents use every day. The Government are funding increased capacity on the National Express East Anglia franchise. One hundred and twenty new carriages will enter service over the next few months, with the first of the new rolling stock in operation from March. Although, as we have heard, those will be deployed primarily on the Stansted Express route, it is worth noting that during the peaks, that line serves commuters as well as airport passengers. I also note that my right hon. Friend mentioned his concerns about the growth of Stansted and the sufficiency of the supporting infrastructure.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and heartily endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in improving the rolling stock. Obviously, hard-pressed Harlow commuters who are crushed every day, particularly in the rush hours, would welcome any signal that the Government can accelerate the plans to improve the rolling stock.
Mrs Villiers
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. As I said, the rolling stock is due to come into service pretty soon—in the next few months in the case of the Stansted Express. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement about the provision of rolling stock elsewhere on the national rail network. Negotiations are under way with various train operators about those additional carriages.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden will appreciate that, had the previous Government’s misguided plans for a second runway at Stansted gone ahead, it would have placed even more pressure on the surrounding infrastructure. That is one of the many reasons why the coalition has firmly ruled out a second runway.
As my right hon. Friend knows, National Express has also decided to operate some of the new units, which were originally destined for the Stansted Express, on Cambridge services. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s successful lobbying on that, because I am sure that it played an important part in the decision to deploy some of the new rolling stock carriages on Cambridge services. The introduction of new units on the Stansted Express and Cambridge services will, in turn, free up carriages that will be used to strengthen services across the Anglia network.
On 12 December National Express East Anglia introduced a new timetable, which saw 68 additional carriages brought into service, providing more than 4,000 additional seats for passengers during peak times. In addition, I can confirm that my officials are in discussion with National Express East Anglia to determine whether some Cambridge services can be speeded up from December 2011.
My right hon. Friend expressed his concerns about the relative speed of services. The change in times is largely due to the fact that the trains are stopping at more stations to meet the increasing demand from passengers at different locations. That is part of the reason for the change in journey times that he highlighted.
My right hon. Friend also set out his grave concerns about the poor performance of National Express East Anglia rolling stock during the sub-zero temperatures in November and December. Unfortunately, he is correct that the type of rolling stock operated on the West Anglia route has problems during the kind of severe weather that we experienced before Christmas. I am afraid that that has also been apparent with other train operators who use the same kind of vehicles.
Problems include snow ingress into traction motors and freezing door mechanisms. In some instances, the Kilfrost used to treat platforms affected door runners, stopping doors from closing. Those problems were compounded by issues with Network Rail’s infrastructure, including freezing points and icicles forming under bridges and interfering with overhead lines.
My officials met National Express East Anglia to discuss what actions they had taken to mitigate the effects of the extreme weather. Those include applying antifreeze to doors and deploying additional staff at stations along the route to try to deal with problems as they arise. Modifications to the traction motors are being investigated, and other mitigating actions are being urgently considered by the train operators in preparation for any recurrence of severe weather. Throughout the crisis, officials were in constant touch with the rail industry. The Secretary of State and I were in contact with the senior management of Network Rail and of a number of different train operators. Although disruption is inevitable with extreme weather conditions, we need to ensure that transport operators work as hard as they can to secure the best service deliverable in the circumstances.
In December, the Secretary of State asked David Quarmby to conduct an urgent audit of transport operators’ performance in England and their compliance with the recommendations that he made earlier in the year on winter resilience. The audit emphasised the importance of improving the information given to passengers in the event of disruption, and concluded that the rail industry is rather over-dependent on electronic provision of information. The Department for Transport expects transport operators to act on David Quarmby’s report.
As demand on the West Anglia route increases, changes will need to be made to the way in which services are delivered. Our response will depend on the extent of demand growth and, of course, on affordability. When competition is under way for the long Anglia franchise, starting in 2013, we will run a consultation to hear from local stakeholders what their priorities are for the rail network. I do not propose pre-empting that competition, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden urges bidders to consider putting forward proposals for new rolling stock on the line. Bidders may well want to make such proposals. I am sure that they will be interested in hearing from my right hon. Friend and other MPs what local people’s priorities are for the much needed improvements to the railways. Bidders for the longer franchise will also need to evaluate likely growth and passenger demand over the coming years.
We believe that our new approach to rail franchising, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, with longer and less prescriptive franchises, will incentivise train operators to invest in improved services, and better stations and rolling stock, as he suggests they should. We will require bidders to take into account stakeholder aspirations in the improvements that they propose making to passenger services under the Greater Anglia franchise. We will need to be confident that those competing for the franchise have fully understood which improvements matter most to the communities served by the line. We also want them to generate ideas on how to deliver those improvements in an affordable way.
My right hon. Friend hinted at the range of upgrades to the Anglia network that have been discussed. He felt that there was a need for additional tracks to deal with the overcrowding problem and to improve services. Network Rail’s route utilisation strategy recommended that the number of tracks on the route between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne be increased from two to four, which is what my right hon. Friend called for. However, there may be alternatives that address the issues that the project is designed to solve, such as passing places on the line. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there are mini and maxi options. The relative cost of all the options would have to be carefully assessed. As he acknowledged, no funding has yet been committed for delivering Anglia route utilisation projects beyond 2014, but our goal is to improve services for passengers, and that may well include infrastructure works in the next railway control period. I am sure that he will agree that decisions will have to be based on affordability, given the crisis in the public finances that we inherited from our predecessors.
A key goal in letting the Anglia franchise that commences in 2013 is to generate ideas for improving services, and to listen to the representations of people such as my right hon. Friend, who know well the concerns of their commuting constituents. The coalition’s franchise reforms, announced today in a written ministerial statement, are designed to ensure that the rail industry performs more efficiently and invests more in the kind of improvements highlighted by my right hon. Friend this evening.
We believe that our predecessors tried to exert too much control from Whitehall through lengthy and detailed specifications and complex management regimes. On too many issues they attempted to second-guess the professionals whose job it is to run train services. A significant downside of this command-and-control approach is that it provides the private sector with only limited incentives to invest in the facilities and improvements that passengers want. It also leaves the private sector with little scope to deploy innovation and enterprise in responding to passenger concerns.
That is why we have proposed a new approach, which chimes in with much of the appeal that my right hon. Friend made this evening. We will set demanding outcomes for the rail industry to achieve, but we will give the industry more flexibility and freedom in deciding how best to deliver those outcomes for passengers. We intend to reduce the involvement of the Government in the way services are configured, while continuing to mandate the provision of core levels of service.
I firmly believe that I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that longer franchises will provide a stronger incentive for private sector investment in rolling stock, in stations and even potentially in broader infrastructure improvements. They will also make it easier for operators to invest in the long-term relationships that are so crucial for delivering reliable services and a successful railway—relationships with the work force, Network Rail, local authorities and, of course, passengers. As well as forming part of our strategy for reforming the franchise system, strengthening these pivotal relationships will be part of the valuable work being done under the auspices of the McNulty review to reduce the cost of running the railways for the benefit of both groups that fund them, taxpayers and fare payers.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fuel Poverty
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Gray, for the opportunity to speak in my first debate in Westminster Hall—this is, I suppose, almost like my second maiden speech.
The topic of the debate has been brought into sharp focus by the fact that the recent cold weather has left many constituents struggling to pay household energy bills. Last December was the coldest on record for 100 years. As a result, every home owner used more energy to heat their homes, resulting in more households falling into fuel poverty.
Fuel poverty is a serious and complicated issue. It is defined as affecting those who spend more than 10% of their income on energy bills. It is caused by unaffordable fuel prices, combined with poor housing stock, which is often characterised by inadequate insulation and inefficient heating systems.
Fuel poverty has more than doubled in the UK since 2003. The “Annual Report on Fuel Poverty Statistics 2010” estimated that fuel poverty affected 2 million households in 2003, and the figure rose to 4.5 million in 2008. Official predictions say that that is only the tip of the iceberg and that the worst is yet to come.
On 16 December 2009, an Ofgem presentation forecast that 6 million households would be in fuel poverty. On 24 February 2010, Ofgem warned the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change:
“there is a real chance that as we go towards the middle of this decade prices will not only go up but will become fantastically volatile. That is not good news for the consumer”—
quite. Age UK says that, between 2003 and 2009, average household gas bills doubled and average electricity bills rose by 60%. The latest estimate of fuel poverty in the UK shows that more than 3.5 million older people are in fuel poverty. Surely that must be a worry for us all.
Fuel poverty is not spread evenly throughout the UK. Nearly a fifth of households in England, more than a quarter in Wales, nearly a third in Scotland and more than a third in Northern Ireland are in fuel poverty. In Wales, the November 2010 fuel poverty figures showed that 332,000 households were fuel-poor in 2008, and that the figure had risen by 198,000 since 2004, representing a 15% rise. In 2008, 26% of Welsh households were estimated to be in fuel poverty. That is despite measures undertaken by the previous Government to address fuel poverty and to improve the energy efficiency of homes.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
One lesson that we all have to take on board is that the previous Government put too much reliance, especially in the early stages, on cutting energy prices and on the market delivering lower prices, so when the market put prices up, many people went back into fuel poverty. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that it is important that we permanently deal with the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
Chris Evans
Yes, I agree, and I will develop that argument further.
The measures introduced by the previous Government included the winter fuel payment, central heating programmes, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, and the energy efficiency commitment. All those have played a role in tackling fuel poverty, but their impact has been eroded by the financial crisis and what seem to be annual energy price rises. With rising fuel prices and lower disposable incomes, householders must make a tough decision between heating their homes and paying for other essential household expenses.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this important debate. He said that 6 million were in fuel poverty, and he mentioned Northern Ireland and that a third of households there are in fuel poverty. Does he agree with organisations such as Action Cancer and Macmillan Cancer, which are concerned that those with cancer-related diseases are more susceptible to the cold weather and that extra focus needs to be put on people with serious disabilities and illnesses?
Chris Evans
I am always happy to take interventions, but the hon. Gentleman has just raised one of the major points I am going to make. I will come to that, thank you very much.
In quite a cynical move, when people were about to celebrate Christmas, British Gas, Southern Electric, ScottishPower, and Scottish and Southern Energy, introduced a price rise. In fact, five of the big six suppliers have now announced increases, which have taken effect, although EDF has announced that it will hold its prices until March 2011. Those increases mean that average annual electricity and gas bills are now £1,239.
In November, the regulator, Ofgem, announced that it was reviewing whether the profits made by the industry were too high, but I have to admit that I am quite sceptical about that review. Since 2001, 18 reviews have been conducted by Ofgem, Members of this House, the European Commission, the Competition Commission and the Government, all of which have had little or no impact on prices.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is right to be sceptical about those reviews, but will he spend some time talking about those who rely on fuel from sources that are not regulated? In many rural areas, including my constituency, for example, about a tenth or a fifteenth of constituents are on off-mains liquefied petroleum gas or oil supplies. Over the past 18 months, their fuel bills have gone up by more than 100%—they are not regulated at all. Should the Government take steps to ensure that such fuel providers are regulated, just as mains providers are?
Chris Evans
Yes, I agree. I will come to off-mains gas later, but let me just say that fuel poverty is really bad in rural areas, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue.
The impact of price rises on fuel-poor consumers, many of whom are in low-income households, will be devastating. It is likely to push thousands more people, including many pensioners, into fuel poverty.
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned that Wales is one of the parts of the UK that is most badly affected by fuel poverty. Many pensioners in Wales have illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes, and many living in constituencies such as mine are former miners with lung diseases. They often have high fuel bills because of their health problems and need to keep their homes at a much higher temperature than other people. That problem is made even worse in older and poorly insulated houses.
Older people in Wales bear the brunt of increases in fuel prices. In my constituency, there were an average of 41 excess winter deaths between 2003 and 2008. Across Wales, more than 1,700 people die in winter every year as a result of fuel poverty, and that figure is certain to rise.
National Energy Action estimates that about 28% of households in Caerphilly county borough, where my constituency is situated, are in fuel poverty and have to spend at least 10% of their income on energy to keep warm. Some 20% of the population does not have access to mains gas. About 40% of fuel-poor households in Wales are pensioner households, and 28% contain single pensioners—often widows and widowers—who are desperately trying to make ends meet. Those pensioners face a double whammy, because electricity prices in Wales are up to £25 a year higher than in England.
A recent report on fuel poverty among vulnerable groups produced by Consumer Focus Wales found that 75% of those with a long-term illness or disability suffer fuel poverty. Some 62% of those aged 65 and over were concerned about paying their winter energy bills and were also more likely to cut back on their energy use at home to save costs. Across the population, the figure was 54%. What is more, more than 50,000 households in Wales are in debt to electrical suppliers and more than 46,000 are in debt to gas suppliers. It should be pointed out that the report was compiled before the recent energy price announcements.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned cancer sufferers, and Macmillan got in touch with me to say that cancer patients, in particular, are struggling to pay their energy bills. According to its research, seven out of 10 working-age cancer patients suffer reduced household income, losing 50% on average. It is estimated that about four in 10 cancer patients of working age do not return to work after treatment.
Higher utility bills are one of the major additional costs that cancer patients face. One in five people with cancer turn off their heating in the winter, even though they still need it on. One in four wears outdoor clothing indoors to stay warm and reduce energy bills. Cancer patients have higher heating bills. In a survey for Macmillan, 59% of respondents said they had used more fuel since being diagnosed with cancer. Three quarters of those said that that was because they felt the cold more, and a similar number said that it was because they spent more time at home after being diagnosed.
A statement by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 15 December muddied the waters further. He informed the House that the budget for the Warm Front scheme in England is fully allocated for this financial year. We are told that the scheme is fully subscribed and will be unable to take new applications for the remainder of the current year. The reason is that the scheme has a substantial order book of work, which will take until at least March 2011 to complete.
Essentially, the major problem with fuel poverty is that people who are victims of it do not necessarily know that they are. That may seem a strange statement, but many accept the difficulties they live with. When I worked for the previous MP for Islwyn, Lord Touhig, we prepared for a debate on this topic, and spoke to the secretary of the National Old Age Pensioners Association of Wales to ask what effects fuel poverty had on his members. We were both surprised to discover that members simply accepted that rising fuel prices are a fact of life. Whey they get cold they simply have to slip on an extra pullover, or heat just one room. Therein lies the great problem with fuel poverty. It can be difficult even for energy companies to identify customers who are fuel-poor.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about vulnerable groups such as pensioners. Indeed, prior to coming to the House, I worked with several agencies, including Age Concern, as it then was, to identify them. That is why a universal benefit such as the winter fuel payment is important. For all its flaws, it gets to those people, who are often very proud and do not make claims. They are difficult to get to. All hon. Members should work with agencies to maximise benefit take-up so that people can get the benefits they deserve to help them with fuel poverty.
Chris Evans
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The dignity of pensioners is astounding, but in many respects they do not help themselves, because sometimes they are too proud to claim the benefits they are entitled to. I have said to every pensioner I have spoken to: “If you are entitled to it, claim it.” Those people have served this country. Many are veterans. Some people have devoted their lives to industry. If there is a benefit and they deserve it, they should claim it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the previous intervention, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of similar cases to what happened in my constituency, where, in the area where I live, the temperature dropped to minus 7° C: it went down as far as minus 19° C in other parts of the Province. The cold weather payment helps, but there was also a severe weather payment of £25. We had fluctuations of temperature in my area but there were places where the temperature was below 0° for a period. It seems that the system does not always work to the advantage of elderly people. Does he agree that perhaps the Government should be thinking about clarifying the system and improving it for people who need the payment most, at the time they need it, so that they do not miss out?
Chris Evans
I shall be making a point about the specific targeting of benefits. The severe weather payment is a difficult one, because it is supposed to relate to the temperature dropping at the local weather centre. It may be difficult to work out who is experiencing low temperatures.
To return to the point I was making, when energy companies target support to customers there should be additional support from the Government. That could be through the sharing of data; alternatively, local authorities and other community groups, which often have a better understanding of where support is needed, could be encouraged to work in partnership with energy companies to deliver energy efficiency programmes to vulnerable groups. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, putting schemes in place is all very well, but if people do not know about them, the opportunity to assist them is lost. Members of Parliament should be doing much more to publicise the availability of existing schemes and to encourage people to take them up. The complexity of fuel poverty means that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution to tackling it. It is important that we look for long-term, sustainable solutions for families in fuel poverty.
One way to combat fuel poverty is to increase the income of many of those who are at risk of falling into the fuel poverty trap. There should be a review of the winter fuel payment and it should be better targeted, to reach those in need. Perhaps the payment should be targeted at the fuel-poor of all ages, including children and young people, those living in hard-to-treat homes and those with long-term health conditions, as well as older people. Another effective and sustainable way to tackle fuel poverty is through improved energy efficiency. The provision of energy efficiency measures and advice must be at the heart of all Government programmes, whatever the colour of the Government, to help vulnerable people to heat their homes adequately.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a timely debate. He touches on the question of ensuring that every person who is eligible and vulnerable should try to get help from whatever form of warm homes scheme they have in the part of the UK where they live. Does he agree that perhaps we should consider upgrading the scheme, to target the older properties that he referred to earlier, which are particularly hard to heat, so that elderly and young people can have a warm home, rather than an additional couple of inches of roof space insulation, which some schemes offer?
Chris Evans
The point that I am trying to make is that one way to solve fuel poverty is to make sure people do not use so much energy; it brings the price of their energy bills down and they will have a warmer home. They will come out of fuel poverty and will not be in so much danger.
The welfare and public sector cuts that have been announced by the Government together represent a threat to the lives of millions of people. I worry that the number of people in fuel poverty will soar over the coming months as a result.
It is all very well quoting figures, and my telling the House how wicked I think the Government are, but what does it mean to live in fuel poverty? It means that families will have to cut back on essential items to allocate money for rising fuel bills, or will have to turn down their heating, risking their health by increasing the chances of contracting common ailments such as colds, flu or bronchitis. Fuel poverty causes stress in children and adults as well as long-term depression and anxiety. To many individuals and families it can be the main cause of social exclusion, and deteriorating life chances and educational achievement.
I welcome the independent review of fuel poverty targets that the Government have said they will initiate before the end of the year. Making the nation’s housing stock more energy efficient should be at the heart of the Government’s energy strategy in the Energy Bill. The Government have set out plans for their green deal, whereby loan-funded insulation costs pay for themselves through efficiency savings. However, at the same time, as I have said, the coalition have announced that they are cutting Warm Front funding to a third of its current level. That threatens to leave many fuel-poor households even worse off, because they are likely currently to be under-heating their home, so any savings from improved energy efficiency will be taken in additional warmth, and their energy bill savings will not be enough to cover the green deal finance repayments.
Furthermore, some vulnerable customers may be nervous about taking on a fixed charge on their energy bill, despite promises of lower final bills, as that will reduce their option to budget. I fear the green deal is unlikely to be sufficient to help the fuel-poor. That has been confirmed by Age UK, which states that while the Government’s plan to have loan-funded insulation costs pay for themselves through efficiency savings
“is likely to benefit mid and high income households, there remains a big question mark over whether it will work for those in fuel poverty.”
It is therefore vital that the energy company obligation should meet the needs of the fuel-poor. That is particularly important for the fuel-poor, as in some cases existing heating systems may be inefficient, but the existing carbon-focused schemes mean that it is not possible to install a new more efficient system.
In conclusion, given the pain that is being inflicted on people by energy companies, it should be remembered that, unlike consumer prices, wholesale energy prices are half of what they were in 2008. It is a matter of some urgency that the Government should intervene to curb excessive fuel price increases.
Sir Robert Smith
I certainly agree that the regulator, and everyone, should try to ensure that we have the lowest possible prices, but in tackling fuel poverty we must confront the fact that the underlying pressures of carbon reduction and world energy scarcity mean that we shall have to have a fuel poverty strategy that will cope with higher prices. We cannot just rely on low prices to get us out of the problem.
Chris Evans
As I said earlier, fuel poverty is a complex matter, and there is no magic bullet to solve the problem. We have to consider it in a holistic manner.
If the regulator does not have sufficient power to intervene to prevent huge price increases, the solution is clear. It is time for energy companies to be made to serve society again, rather than the other way round. In February 2010, Ofgem published the findings of its Project Discovery. One of the most radical proposals was to have a central energy buyer, on similar lines to the old Central Electricity Generating Board. At present, the big six energy companies own most of the UK power plants, which supply the majority of the country’s consumers, but a central Government-controlled body could require power plants to sell electricity at fixed rates that would then be sold on to customers, thus bringing an end to the dominance of the big six once and for all.
It is important to remember that fuel poverty is not simply about schemes and programmes. It is a matter of life and death for the many people who are forced to live in cold and damp conditions. We need a new, far-sighted fuel poverty strategy to ensure that fuel-poor households have a decent income and that sustainable energy-saving measures are prioritised.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is timely and well-intentioned.
Given the harsh weather conditions leading up to Christmas last year, fuel poverty has never been of such concern to the people of Hexham. I represent well over 1,000 square miles of rural Northumberland, and the subject is most important to my constituents. It is no exaggeration to say that many people have to make a straight choice between heating and eating. They are in a difficult situation. If that does not sound primitive enough, NFU Mutual, the rural insurer in my part of the world, found in its annual rural crime survey last year that domestic fuel was sixth on the list of the top 10 items most commonly stolen from homes. The “Crimewatch” scene in Northumberland is astonishing for the number of people who are suffering rural crime with the loss of their fuel.
Although there are ongoing recommendations on how to discourage thieves, this crime wave is something that the country cannot tolerate. Is it something that we can deal with or, in reality, do we need assistance in the March Budget? I certainly hope that we shall get such assistance; I believe that it would be right, because the problem is putting an unacceptable strain on people’s incomes.
I have extensively gone through the approximately 20-plus providers of heating oil in rural Northumberland. In excess of a dozen of them are owned by one company. Hon. Members will be amazed to hear that they are all using their old names, and that they are all operating and selling as if they were perfectly independent. Some people have been buying from these companies for 30 or more years. It is only when one starts digging that one realises that there is a significant problem, which affects well over half the population. It is well known that the company behind this is DCC Energy, a Dublin-based provider. The company’s fuel oil customers are less able to negotiate a good price, as the cost of oil continues to rocket.
Sir Robert Smith
A more serious problem in the working of the market is that, at times of stress, quite a few of these supply companies say when asked for a price, “We can’t give you a price now; it’ll be the price on the day that we make the delivery.” How can the market work efficiently if people cannot shop around when placing an order? Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that aspect?
Guy Opperman
I would: the simple truth is that customers, wherever they are and whatever problems they face, need to shop around. If they do not, they will face the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes, which I and others in Hexham have come across. They will be deprived of the ability to buy fuel on an ongoing basis.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that affects rural users of heating oil. He will not be surprised to hear that all the companies on a price comparator website were owned by one company—DCC. It is hardly surprising that there is no differential in the prices that they offer, and that customers are unable to make an informed decision.
Guy Opperman
A number of independent organisations in Hexham provide fuel—WCF, Wallace, Par Petroleum and Johnson Oil. Those four are the last independents that supply the area. It is amazing to chart how such companies have been bought up over the years.
What worries me most is that, without a strong local and competitive market, it is a lot easier for companies to hike up prices, delay things and move people on, explaining that they will produce a fair price at some stage or the right price only when they turn up. I am in negotiations with the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that it does investigate these matters. However, the reality is that it needs information from those whom we represent. I therefore urge individual constituents to write to the OFT, bringing such information to its attention, and I am doing so for people in my area that have complained.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Many families in Northern Ireland are trapped, as they have no alternative to oil for heating their homes, as gas is not available in many areas.
Guy Opperman
I accept that. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), roughly 10% of my population is being provided by particular companies, with the market narrowing whether or not they like it. We need to help them in whatever way is possible. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
Costs are clearly getting out of control for the residents of Hexham. Fuel is a necessity in a constituency of 1,000 square miles, not a luxury. People do not spend their money on it because they think it would be jolly to go for a drive. Last week, when I filled my petrol tank, I was stopped by the garage owner, who unluckily recognised me and said, “What are you going to do about this?” [Interruption.] Yes, I did pay him—a lot of money. I pointed out that we are trying to address the problem. There is much that I hope that the Minister will do.
The trade body has made a statement justifying the price increase. It is long on generalities and short on specifics. I would have liked it long on specifics and short on generalities. I accept that DCC and other companies are perfectly entitled to a fair return, but the market has gone up and people—it matters not where—are at their mercy. That is not right.
Although wholesale costs have increased, the situation has been made worse by the extremely cold weather. Temperatures have been as low as minus 19° in my area. I am worried about the market in my constituency, which gives residents too little choice when trying to find the best price. The price hike is unacceptable, and the Government can do more about that. I hope that the status quo does not continue.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who made an important point about off-grid supply. Before I touch on that matter, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on proposing and sponsoring this debate. Given the time that he has been in this House, tribute should be paid to him for the way in which he has battled with this matter on behalf of vulnerable people—Lord Kinnock and Lord Touhig in the other place also have a strong record on standing up for the vulnerable. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution.
I pay tribute to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, the report of which many hon. Members must have read. I am a current member of the Committee and cannot take any credit for the 2009-10 Session. It conducted an excellent inquiry into fuel poverty, and two members of that Committee are here today—the Minister himself and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). I pay tribute to them for their work and to the organisations and agencies that have worked long and hard to alleviate fuel poverty in our country.
In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn mentioned Macmillan Cancer Support, which is carrying out pioneering work on identifying the hardships that are suffered by people with terminal cancer, and Consumer Focus. I will not make many political points today, but I will enhance some of the points that have already been made.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that the previous Government were right to give such a high priority to fuel poverty. Although the target for 2010 was not met, it was a bold one—to reduce the fuel poverty in England of vulnerable households—and the Government were right to set it. The Committee’s 2009-10 report said that average domestic fuel prices pushed the Government off their target. According to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, some joint electricity and gas bills went up by as much as 125% during the period from 2003 to 2008. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has said that we cannot rely on just keeping prices down, but we cannot turn a blind eye to such rises either. We need to keep our foot on the pedal and keep the pressure on the energy companies that have been making excessive profits, which is why this Ofgem inquiry is so important. We must continue to work with the Minister, the Government and the devolved Administrations on the matter.
Dr McCrea
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the appalling statistics on fuel poverty in Northern Ireland? For example, National Energy Action has found that in Craigavon borough some 44% of households are unable adequately to heat their homes. In Magherafelt and Ballymoney, there is 40% fuel poverty. We must not forget that behind every one of those statistics is real human hurt.
Albert Owen
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was not aware of those specific statistics. The hon. Member for Hexham was right to say that this matter affects not just parts of the country but all the country. We all have semi-rural and rural areas in our constituencies. Indeed, I represent a periphery area, which is something that I shall discuss in more detail later. Such areas face a double whammy in that they also have to get in fuel supplies. Cumbria faces such a situation, so I agree with the hon. Member for South Antrim. What connects us all across the political divide is that we are talking about not only statistics but real people. We are talking about how we can alleviate hardship for people. Indeed it is a common endeavour of all political parties to do that, although we disagree on the mechanisms by which to achieve it.
Earlier, I referred to how it is essential that we work with the devolved Administrations. I have been working with the Welsh Assembly Government on delivering energy efficiency, and they have a good record in that regard. Although provision is patchy across many parts of Wales, there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn has highlighted, some good work being done by organisations in the areas of energy efficiency and loft insulation. None the less, we need a mechanism to deal with hard-to-treat properties. Some older rural properties do not even have proper insulation in the foundations, let alone in the walls, windows and roofs.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
When we discuss rural areas, it is right to consider how to deal with hard-to-treat housing. It is also important to consider the fact that average wage levels in rural areas are significantly lower—that is certainly the case in north Wales. As a result, fuel poverty is a larger issue, because a larger percentage of income is spent on heating and housing. Fuel is also more expensive in rural areas. Therefore people in such areas suffer from both low income and high fuel prices, so there is an issue relating to economic development in rural areas and a need to create economic opportunities for people, so that they can enjoy an income level that is sufficient to allow them to meet fuel costs.
Albert Owen
Of course household income is an issue. In areas in which GDP is low, household incomes are not necessarily low; such indicators do not necessarily go together. There are joint incomes in rural areas. Many people feel that they have to have a supplementary income to pay the bills. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right; in some of the more deprived areas of the United Kingdom, fuel poverty is worse. There are also other factors such as rurality and the problems faced by areas on the periphery of the United Kingdom, which is something that I will discuss later.
I welcome the Ofgem inquiry into the big six, which looked at their price mechanism and their excessive profits, and we must keep up the pressure on the companies. Indeed the Select Committee, of which I am a member, met Ofgem yesterday. A few weeks ago, we spoke to the big six. I make no bones about it; excessive profits are being made and they should be curtailed. We must give the regulator teeth to bring that about. We have peaks and troughs, and the inquiries always seem to come when the prices are subdued for a period of time and then there are the excessive profits. We have not been able to prove that through the Competition Commission and various other mechanisms, but it does happen and real people are paying the price.
Jim Shannon
One example can be found in Northern Ireland. The oil comes in through Belfast. We have variations in price across the Province. The price for 800 litres of fuel can vary by as much as £20 to £25. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that it is an obscenity that companies are making excessive profits while people are experiencing difficulties. We need an extensive inquiry and some rules and regulations from the regulator.
Albert Owen
Yes. I will come on to the off-grid as well to provide some balance. I stress that Ofgem is doing a good job, but it needs more teeth. I know that we will have the opportunity to discuss both that matter and how we can beef up the regulator’s powers in forthcoming energy Bills.
I am a big supporter of winter fuel payments. The previous Select Committee included that matter in its report, to which this Government provided a response. Some people think that such payments should be modified, targeted or means-tested, but the benefit is a huge success. It is a substantial payment that is easy to claim and easily understood. I believe in universal benefits. As a nation, people contribute to the national pot, so that benefits can be given to people in need. I understand that we need a mixed package of targeted benefits in addition to the universal benefit. This particular benefit has been a huge success, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the Government have no intention of changing it. I know that there is a cost element to it, but the benefits far outweigh any negatives in this area.
I realise that there are other Members who want to speak, but it is important to highlight some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hexham about off-grid gas supply—indeed, a number of interventions have been about that matter. Households that are not connected to the gas mains experience a double whammy; many of them are in periphery areas and pay extra money for petrol and diesel, as well as having to pay more for domestic heating fuel. We need to consider that issue. For instance, liquefied petroleum gas is far more expensive than on-mains gas, and we have heard much anecdotal evidence in many debates about the huge rise in price for domestic oil and domestic LPG.
I do not believe that the Office of Fair Trading has been sufficiently proactive on this issue. I heard what the hon. Member for Hexham said about the importance of giving the OFT anecdotal evidence, which is one way forward although it is a cumbersome process. There should be a single regulator to look at gas and electricity prices, and it should consider both the grid and off-grid supply. We should have a single regulatory body, and I ask the Minister to consider that proposal for the future. There should be a single regulator looking at all domestic fuels with a view to regulating the off-grid supply as well as the grid supply, and that regulator should have real teeth and real responsibility to look after the most vulnerable people in our society, which is what the existing regulator was set up to do. In many areas, a huge number of people are not on the grid—in some areas, a majority of people are not on the grid—and they are suffering disproportionately as a result.
As the Minister may know, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. However, I have been frustrated by the responses that I have received from the regulator, from this Government and previous Governments, and from the gas distribution networks, agencies and energy retailers. There is no joined-up thinking on this issue—there is a blockage and things just do not happen. People who live within a short distance of gas mains are not connected to them. I am not talking about isolated properties. I am talking about villages of considerable size and hamlets that are close to the gas mains, but there is no incentive for them to be joined up, although to be fair to the Department of Energy and Climate Change the Government have had some schemes, agencies and partnerships over a number of years that have worked on that issue.
The differential between those who pay off the grid and those who pay on the grid is so great that there should be some real investment and a mechanism to provide connection to the grid, so that those people who are not on the grid can have additional choice. Choice is what I am talking about. If people wish to remain off the gas mains, it is a matter for them, but at the moment those people do not have any choice in the matter and are being hammered by domestic oil and LPG prices.
I hope that the Minister will act on this issue. I understand that new developments will need renewable sources of energy built into them when they are constructed, which I fully support—ground source pumps and other measures may be the future. However, we are talking about hamlets and villages that have been off the gas mains for an awfully long time. When coal was cheap, for historical reasons, it was okay for those communities; there was not the disparity that there is now between the price that they paid and the price that those on the mains supply paid. Today, however, because of the lack of regulation and the inability to connect people to the gas mains, there is a huge disparity between those who are on the mains supply and those who are not, and there is a huge amount of extra fuel poverty in those areas that are not on the mains supply. So it is something that we need to work on collectively. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that issue.
I want to make an overtly political point about fuel prices, which concerns the price of petrol at the pump in periphery areas. The extra fuel poverty that I have just referred to was made worse in January, because of the additional 2.5% hike in VAT, which is really hurting people. I am not talking about people who use their cars just for pleasure. I am talking about people who use their cars because there is a lack of adequate public transport in their areas and because they have to take their children to school or to leisure activities on a daily basis and the only means of transport is a larger car. Also, those people work in a communal fashion, as it were, by giving lifts to other people. Those people are paying—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. We are drifting slightly away from the topic of the debate, namely fuel poverty, and it might be better to come back to it.
Albert Owen
I will certainly bring the debate back to fuel poverty, because petrol is a fuel, people are in poverty and the VAT hike is compounding the problem of the increase in their daily household bills, because they have to pay extra fuel duty on top of paying extra money for the off-mains supply of gas. It is a big issue in my area; people who are already paying additional money for their fuel also have to pay extra for their travelling costs, and as a result their household budgets have been squeezed considerably. That is the point that I am making. It is a serious point about fuel poverty and not just a political point about the VAT rise, although in my opinion that rise could have been avoided. It was a political decision and on top of the duty escalator it has hurt periphery areas the hardest.
I support the Government in looking for a stabiliser mechanism, because the peaks and troughs in prices are too great. I want to see some stability in prices, so that we can hold household bills down. I also welcome the proposals for a freeze on duty when there is hardship. I lobbied for that for a long time, and we achieved limited success under the previous Government. However, we need some stability because of the volatility of the prices. I want to see some sort of stabiliser mechanism, and I also want to see periphery areas receiving some benefit from that mechanism, which is an issue that the Government propose to re-examine. The pilot schemes that the Government are talking about for diesel and petrol are limited to the Western Isles and to St Ives and other parts of Cornwall. I want to see a Welsh and Northern Irish dimension to that programme, to include periphery areas in those regions.
Albert Owen
And west Wales. I am calling for that extension, because those of us in those periphery areas are paying so much extra for fuel. The argument that we hear about petrol and diesel delivery is the same one that off-grid providers use; they say that they pay an extra amount to deliver fuel to those periphery areas. I do not think that we should be paying that extra amount for fuel in periphery areas.
I hope that the Minister will take that point on board. I am supportive in principle of a stabilising mechanism, although I would like to see how it works in practice. I also want to see area rebates extended to Wales and Northern Ireland in addition to England and Scotland, because they will help to alleviate poverty.
The differences between us on this subject are small, although I do not agree with scrapping the Warm Front programme, which was a success. I am not sure about the details of the green deal, but I will support those measures that help to alleviate poverty. As I have said, it was wrong to raise the VAT on petrol and diesel, just as it was wrong of a previous Government to try to introduce VAT on domestic fuel. Governments can disinherit some of these measures. I hear the Government saying now that they have to go ahead with the fuel duty price rise because they inherited it. However, the previous Labour Government disinherited the plans to put additional VAT on domestic fuel, and we are all comfortable with that move now. It was wrong to propose such a rise, which is why we should re-examine VAT and fuel costings.
We need to have a proper regulatory system, and we need to bring Ofgem and the OFT together in a single body when it comes to off-grid supply. That point is important, and I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. I believe in the retention of the winter fuel payment, which is a universal benefit that helps to alleviate fuel poverty. I also want to see an extension to the gas mains, whereby we have a proper, clear way of moving forward and a mechanism that allows people to choose whether to connect to the gas mains.
I am conscious of the time, so I will leave it at that. We have a common endeavour here to alleviate poverty. I know that the Minister, as a member of the previous Energy and Climate Change Committee, is at one with me on that issue, and I look forward to hearing his responses to my points. Finally, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn for securing this important debate.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate. He has said that this is his first time in Westminster Hall. I have spoken a few times in Westminster Hall, where I always find the level of debate enlightening. The first time that I stood up to speak in Westminster Hall was in a debate that I secured on fuel poverty, with a focus on rural Britain. It is nice to see some of the same faces again for today’s debate, adding new issues for us to consider and re-emphasising the issues that make fuel poverty a constant topic for debate in our constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has said.
In the debate that I secured, I focused on people off the mains gas grid, concentrating on oil and LPG. I am pleased to say that, as a result of that debate, electricity companies were falling over themselves to let me know what they were doing for my constituents. If this message has not got out I will repeat it now: anyone who does not have access to mains gas is allowed to claim for a dual fuel discount from all their suppliers. The electricity companies made their position on that scheme clear, and if any constituent of mine, or indeed of anybody else, is not taking advantage of that scheme at the moment, they should alert their electricity company to that fact.
Since then, we have also had the oil price spike, and both the Minister and I have homes that are heated by oil. He was already taking action on the matter when it was raised in December, and I commend him for some of the work that he has done, but there is no question in my mind but that the spike has plunged more people into fuel poverty. We are talking about a significant differential of hundreds of pounds between the cost of heating our homes with gas and the cost of heating them with oil or LPG, and I encourage the Minister to think more creatively. I do not want to sound like a socialist, but when the market is not operating efficiently, regulation is at times necessary—or just the threat of regulation might help.
We have already heard stories about prices rocketing; they have now fallen back a bit, but not to where they were in October and November. Some of that is due to the oil price rising. The spikes were of 70 or 80%, although some people say that they were higher. Rises of 50 to 70% were typical in my constituency.
The price has now dropped back to about 62p per litre, from an average, at its peak, of about 72p. Considering, however, that in October the price was about 40p, that is still a significant increase. In my view, if the price of mains gas or electricity leapt by 50% in a matter of weeks, there would be more action than we saw over student tuition fees.
I do want to pay some tribute to the previous Government’s Warm Front programme. It would be wrong to dismiss it entirely as it did quite a lot of good but, as I have said previously, I encourage the Minister not to repeat some of its mistakes, because it was inflexible and took no real account of the housing stock. Several of my constituents took advantage of the programme, seizing the opportunity to get more efficient boilers and similar equipment, but they were in properties that were already connected to the gas grid. Most of my constituents who fall under the fuel poverty definition missed out on an opportunity to do something about their heating situation.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) mentioned that housing stock does not seem to be a factor in deciding how fuel poverty measures are applied. It absolutely needs to be, and the green deal is a great opportunity to do that. The green deal has been flagged up as being about efficiency, and I think that initially it over-focused on the insulation of existing houses. Energy companies and the Energy Saving Trust and similar bodies say that a lot of what is planned will be almost irrelevant if we do not all have thermostats in our homes. We can turn down our radiators manually and do other things, but if we do not have thermostatic control the boiler will still generate and consume the same amount of fuel. Prioritising thermostatic control is, therefore, one thing that we need to focus the green deal on.
There is also the issue of the funds available to households. I understand the simplicity of the green deal, and that it will mean about £6,500 for householders, but the plan is that the amount will be the same across the country. Frankly, with urban stock, householders could do a lot of what they wanted—insulation and draught excluding—for less than £1,000, as I did in my house in Hampshire, when I was living there. For about £12, I dramatically reduced my fuel bills, simply because I plugged the gaps that the old walls and doors did not—the change was significant. I am concerned that for my constituents who rely on LPG and oil, it will cost far more than £6,000 to rip out inefficient carbon-based fuel systems and replace them with more energy-efficient heating systems. I hope that the Government take that into consideration when doing their individualised, but hopefully targeted, programme. It would add complexity, but it would make a difference, rather than the programme just being about getting a bit more energy efficiency for the same money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham talked about efficient markets—perhaps oligopolies—developing. I am not suggesting that suppliers in my constituency operate as such, but I am concerned about the efficiencies of the market because they have an impact on pricing. I have written to the Office of Fair Trading and, to my knowledge, it has not acknowledged my letters from over a month ago, which is disappointing. I hope that the Minister thinks about some of the suggestions that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made about the importance to people of energy and of its pricing, and about whether the Office of Fair Trading is the best body to look at this energy sector, given that LPG and oil do not currently fall under the Ofgem banner. Despite my attempts to talk with that body about some innovative social tariff ideas, it keeps saying, “It’s not our issue.”
Sir Robert Smith
The hon. Lady makes an important point. When Ofgem is dealing with the other energy suppliers, those of electricity and mains gas, it looks at vulnerable customers and the way in which customers are treated, as well as the price of the product. The OFT, however, is far more limited in its powers and, it would appear, in its interests.
Dr Coffey
I agree strongly, and that is why I am keen to see an expanded role for Ofgem. I do not say that lightly, nor do I insist upon it, but I would like the Minister to consider the issue, because it is not going away. It is a fact of life that energy—certainly oil—is becoming more and more scarce.
It has been mentioned that quite a lot of people in this country live less than a mile from grid gas, so should we be considering introducing incentives to use some of the green deal money to get more homes on to the grid? Should we think about encouraging communities? Several communities already come together to do co-operative buying, so is there a way of rolling out best practice in that area? Again, I do not think that the OFT is the body to do that, and aspects of Ofgem could be involved.
I pay tribute to a collection of men who belong to a Rotary group, not in my constituency, but where I used to live in the North West Hampshire constituency. Every week they get together to chop wood and make it into kindling, which they supply to pensioners in the village—my mother is a beneficiary. It is a nice thing that these good people do, and spending £4 a week on a bag of kindling is welcomed by the pensioners. I am sure that the activity provides the men with exercise but, more importantly, it provides them with a sense of well-being and of knowing that they are doing a service. We should encourage good examples of communities working together to ensure that vulnerable people in those communities are well served.
In summary, I want the Minister to think more widely about the oil and LPG market, about its efficiency and how it operates, about how we can get social tariffs into oil and LPG provision, and about Ofgem’s role. Most importantly, the flexibility of the green deal is critical in making a difference to the fuel poverty of, and energy efficiency for, those not connected to the mains gas grid. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I apologise, Mr Gray, for not being here at the beginning of the debate because of other duties in the House. I shall take two minutes to mark up some other unfair practices that I believe take place among domestic heating oil suppliers, and which I have tried, unsuccessfully, to address in my constituency.
The Christmas before last, a couple who were moving into a new house and had never used heating oil, found the tank empty. They rang up a supplier and were given a price, which, because they had no understanding or no experience of oil, they accepted. It turned out to be exactly twice the going rate. I tried to take the matter up with trading standards officials, but they felt that they could not intervene. That is an example of unfair trading practices, and I have another from this Christmas when a couple in a very isolated house were asked to pay a £200 delivery charge on top of a very high price for the oil.
To give an example of my own—although I am not suffering—I ordered 2,300 litres of heating oil in October, but when I looked at the delivery note, I saw that only 1,600 litres had been delivered, at a price of about 40p a litre. To my surprise, in December, the company delivered another 1,000 litres of heating oil of its own volition, but this time at a price of about 65p a litre. My area still has the independent suppliers Calor and Watson, but the other four main suppliers are now owned by DCC. The Office of Fair Trading needs to look into that. I have written to the OFT before, and it has said that it cannot take on the issue, but I have now written again, as it appears that DCC has a substantial share of the market and might be in danger of abusing that position.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing this important debate. He made a heartfelt presentation and raised some serious points.
None of us underestimates the increasing challenge of fuel poverty. It is worth reinforcing the figures that many hon. Members have mentioned. National Energy Action estimates that 5.5 million households, or one in five homes, will live in fuel poverty this year, which is the highest number in 15 years. The previous Labour Government made fuel poverty a priority and legislated to end that tragedy by 2016, introducing measures such as winter fuel payments and the Warm Front scheme. For a time, that investment ensured progress—between 1996 and 2004, the number of fuel-poor households fell by 70%, from 6.5 million to 2 million—but the steep energy price rises to which many hon. Members have alluded mean that despite the previous Government’s best efforts, the targets for eliminating fuel poverty among the most vulnerable have not been met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has referred to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group. FPAG’s annual report, which was published in July last year, stressed that a typical gas and electricity bill has increased by 125% over the past six years, and uSwitch, the energy consumer group, estimates that homeowners are paying £338 a year, or 37%, more for their gas and electricity than in 2008.
The past few months have squeezed families’ budgets to breaking point. We have just had the coldest winter for decades, with further sharp increases in energy prices. The domestic fuel shortage last month showed the difficulty of heating homes adequately in hard-to-reach rural areas. Many hon. Members have also spoken about the additional challenge of unregulated domestic oil supplies and a lack of transparency in pricing systems. Furthermore, the 2.5% increase in VAT and rising inflation will reduce families’ spending power even further. This will be an even tougher year for households on fixed incomes, so we must redouble our efforts to tackle fuel poverty.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) recognised in the House on 11 November that
“We have to really attack fuel poverty”.—[Official Report, 11 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 404.]
I agree. It cannot be right that in Britain, one of the world’s most prosperous countries, families must choose between buying food or keeping warm. As the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has put it, they must choose between heating and eating. It is vital that the Government match their actions to the scale of their rhetoric.
Before exploring the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty, I will consider their upcoming consultation and what it might mean for the future. How we define fuel poverty and its causes is key to ensuring that we focus our efforts to tackle it effectively. If the newspapers are to be believed, the Government are still having difficulty identifying someone to chair the review, but we have been told that it will report in the summer. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case?
One of FPAG’s key recommendations in its latest report was that the Government should lay out a clear strategy for eliminating fuel poverty by 2016. Will the Minister confirm that the Government plan to include that in their review? The outcome of the review will shape what action is taken in the future, so it is important that it is fully independent and has full stakeholder engagement.
The Government currently define a fuel-poor household as one that must spend more than 10% of its income to heat the home to an adequate standard. Many of the stakeholders to whom I have spoken are deeply worried that the review’s aim is to narrow that definition to such an extent that fuel poverty is virtually defined out of existence. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. Will the Minister give us some clarity and assurance about the consultation’s terms of reference? I reiterate that the scale of the challenge must be faced.
It is also important that we examine who is affected by fuel poverty. I am sure that when most people hear the term “fuel poverty”, an image of pensioners comes to mind, but Save the Children highlighted in a report last week that many types of family face a poverty premium, which forces them to pay more for basic goods, services and bills because they do not have access to a bank account or cheaper payment methods such as direct debit and lower social tariffs. Save the Children’s research showed that one fifth of the poverty premium comes from fuel bills. If low-income families who pay the highest tariffs for gas and electricity were charged the same amount as families who pay by direct debit, they would save an average of more than £250 a year. The Government must adopt a range of measures to tackle the underlying causes of fuel poverty among disadvantaged groups. Fuel poverty extends beyond pensioners.
The Opposition’s concern is that the Government are adopting a sticking-plaster approach rather than tackling fuel poverty directly. Hon. Members have said that funding for the Warm Front scheme will be cut by two thirds over the next two years. Given that the Warm Front budget for this financial year has already run out, there is clearly need as well as demand for the scheme, and the reduced budget will not cover all those homes that still need new boilers to bring their heating systems into the 21st century.
The Government plan to introduce their warm homes discount later this year as a more targeted way of tackling fuel poverty. However, according to Consumer Focus, only about 25% of fuel-poor households in England will be eligible for the scheme, based on the most recent data. Two hon. Members have mentioned Macmillan Cancer Support’s campaign. Will the Minister confirm whether the warm homes discount will extend beyond low-income pensioners to other low-income, fuel-poor households, such as those with children or those where someone has a terminal illness?
FPAG advises that the only long-term and sustainable solution to fuel poverty is radically to improve the energy efficiency of every dwelling occupied by fuel-poor households, as many hon. Members have said. The Government have adopted that approach in their proposals in the Energy Bill for the green deal. The Opposition welcome the proposals in principle and will seek to work with the Government to ensure that their plans are workable and centre around fairness for the consumer. However, FPAG has also noted that the green deal’s financial model of measures paid for from bill savings may not be suitable for fuel-poor households, because many in fuel poverty currently under-heat their homes. If the Government are determined to base their approach on replacing Government-funded schemes to tackle fuel poverty directly with market-led schemes, they must ensure that they do not simply withdraw funding, leaving an abyss in its place.
The Energy Bill is starting its legislative journey in the other place, and in a few months’ time we will have the chance to scrutinise it in the Commons. However, will the Minister give us some details of how the Government foresee the green deal and the energy company obligation will work specifically to eliminate fuel poverty? I have heard from many stakeholders worried about low levels of green deal take-up among fuel-poor households and hard-to-treat homes, to which the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) has referred. It is vital that the Government get it right and ensure that the green deal works to tackle fuel poverty. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has said that the green deal will be “the game changer” for fuel poverty. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us those assurances and a bit more detail.
On the Government’s proposals for electricity market reform, the Opposition acknowledge the need for reform. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), said in the House on 16 December, we will support fair and sensible mechanisms for reform. On 10 January, however, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), the Government indicated that the impact of their preferred reform options will hit the lowest-income families with the largest increases, stretching families’ budgets even further. I hope that the Government will review that problem as they work through their proposals and ensure that a fair outcome is reached, so that those in fuel-poor homes are not disadvantaged further.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and thank him for the interest that he has shown in this incredibly important issue. It is vital for his constituents, for Wales in general and for the country as a whole. I also congratulate him on the comprehensive way in which he outlined his thinking and his assessment of the challenges that we face. I reassure him from the outset that we share the same objectives. We both recognise where things have not been working, and we are both determined to do better. I look forward to working with him, as we try to make progress on the issues over the coming years.
I have also been encouraged by the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), as well as the extremely constructive contributions of many other hon. Members who have intervened in the debate, during which the full range of issues that affect fuel poverty have been considered. That breadth has made it extremely constructive.
Reference has been made to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, and I would like to put on record my respect and admiration for that group’s work, particularly the incredibly assiduous work of its chairman, Derek Lickorish, in drawing attention to the issues and how we should seek to address them.
The figures for fuel poverty, which have been set out by the hon. Member for Islwyn, make it clear that the situation in Wales is worse than in much of the UK as a whole. From 2005 to 2008, the number of households in fuel poverty rose from 2.5 million to 4.5 million, and it is estimated by many organisations that today’s figure is probably 5 million, so it has doubled over the past five years. In Wales, 26% of households—332,000 of them—are estimated to be in fuel poverty. That figure has more than doubled over the past six years. It is, therefore, absolutely clear that more needs to be done to address the problem. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has said, this is not about rhetoric, but action.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn talked about the importance of targets. They are important, but every bit as important as a target is a road map—a strategy for how one intends to meet the target. What we have lacked lately is a strategy on how to meet ambitious targets. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that we need action, not rhetoric, and that is exactly what we are determined to put in place. However, given what we inherited on the issue, we cannot continue to pretend that the previous policy was working. We need a different approach and there needs to be much greater urgency in how we address the issue.
Historically, Warm Front has been one of the main vehicles for trying to achieve that. I have no doubt that Warm Front has done much good work, but it has simply not been up to the scale of the challenge. Between 2008-11, Warm Front spent more than £1.1 billion helping 580,000 homes. In 2009-10 alone, it assisted 210,000 households by introducing 112,000 heating measures and 82,000 insulation measures. That will help to improve the standard assessment procedure rating of those properties from 33 to 66 points on average, which is the equivalent of an energy efficiency rating increase from band F to band D. The scheme has, therefore, been doing a good job on energy efficiency, which has led to average savings of £650 and more in the running costs of those households.
Those are real benefits, but, as other hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, they have been dwarfed by the scale of the problem. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimates that a quarter of the homes supported by Warm Front are in fuel poverty. Therefore, even at the peak of its work, when Warm Front was helping 200,000 households a year, only 50,000 of those were in fuel poverty. Some 5 million homes are estimated to be in fuel poverty, so it would take 100 years, using Warm Front, to deal with the problem. That is simply not adequate.
The vast demand for the Warm Front service has highlighted the problems, which is why we had to announce in December that the budget for this year had been allocated and was fully subscribed and that we could take no new applications in this financial year. We will still help 130,000 households in this financial year, and we expect the 55,000 jobs that are still in the queue to be completed by March. The measure is, undoubtedly, temporary and the scheme will open for new applications from next year. However, Warm Front has clearly not been able to deal with the scale of the problem, and we need a better approach.
Warm Front will continue for the next two years with a budget of £110 million in the first year and £100 million thereafter, as we get new measures that we think are more fit for purpose up to speed. We are consulting on the eligibility criteria, so that we can ensure that, for its remaining period, Warm Front is more targeted on the most vulnerable people, who are likely to be those on income-related benefits. Warm Front will be more targeted on the least energy efficient homes in particular, so that it can be more effective. Alongside that, we are committed to maintaining winter fuel payments, which were planned by the previous Administration, at a higher rate of support this winter.
There were some questions about how the cold weather payment would work, and I am keen to receive more information from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about his concerns. It strikes me as a particularly well-targeted benefit. It is automatic and based on a postcode approach. When the temperatures in a postcode trigger a payment for those who qualify because of the benefits that they receive, they should receive it automatically. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to the Department with his concerns, we would be keen to respond to them in more detail to ensure that the scheme is working as effectively as possible.
We are also committed to doing more to work with the energy companies to identify vulnerable customers. The energy rebate scheme has been an extremely effective mechanism. It has matched information from the Department for Work and Pensions about those who are on pension credits with the consumers of each energy company. That has enabled the companies to target those people with an £80 discount on their electricity bills, which has enabled 200,000 households to benefit to the tune of £16.5 million in total, with additional running costs paid by the energy companies themselves. That shows the benefits of the Government and industry working together.
We are determined to build on the success of that scheme through the warm home discount, which will also help to address the issue—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islwyn earlier—of hidden fuel poverty for people who do not necessarily come forward. It will require the energy companies to give a greater discount and to target it on the most vulnerable customers, sharing more information about other people who are in receipt of benefits. We expect it to be £140 a year, which almost doubles the discount on electricity bills. We are also looking at how we can spread the breadth of that for low-income families, those with long-term illnesses and those with disabilities, which are issues that have been raised in this debate. We are in touch with Macmillan to try to make this scheme work for those homes with someone suffering from cancer, for whom we all have tremendous sympathy and wish to help as much as possible. The scheme will be mandatory and worth £1.1 billion over four years. We expect it to help 2 million households a year.
Against that background, we also believe that the time is right for a fuel poverty review, and I am grateful for the recognition and support that it has received from hon. Members who have spoken this morning. It will ensure that the available resources are focused most effectively on tackling the problems underlying fuel poverty. It will be an independent review of the target and the definition of fuel poverty. We believe that that is the right place to start. Given the failure so far to meet the targets that have been set, it is right that the target and the definition should be the starting point. Additionally, if we are to have someone truly independent to chair the review, we are keen that they should also help to frame its terms of reference and its priorities. It will be fundamental in helping us to assess what will be the right measures to deal with the challenges.
We have heard a significant amount—understandably so—from hon. Members on both sides of the House about their concerns about the domestic oil market and the liquefied petroleum gas market. I want to make it absolutely clear that we understand those concerns. As a Member of Parliament, this is the largest issue raised in letters in my constituency postbag. As a Minister, it is the largest element of the letters in my ministerial postbag that express concerns to me in the Department. I have no doubt whatsoever that many hon. Members and members of the public do not believe that the market has been working as effectively as it should.
We recognise that many issues can affect prices—refinery capacity, stock levels, distribution costs, retail margins and exchange rates all have a role to play—and we are liaising with the Office of Fair Trading, which has the responsibility to consider any example of market failure. What has struck me in many of the letters that I have received and in the contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is the specific—not anecdotal—examples of where things have not worked as we would expect them to. I hope that the Office of Fair Trading will consider those matters very carefully. It is currently consulting on its annual plan and on proposals to prioritise markets impacted by high, rising and volatile commodity prices. The Department of Energy and Climate Change supports such an independent assessment of the off-gas grid supply issues for consumers and competition in the relevant markets.
Many issues need to be addressed in this context. However, we also need to consider how we address these matters more fundamentally. There are plans to extend the gas grid, but it is a slow process and we recognise the challenges that exist. That is also why we have attached so much importance to taking forward the work on the renewable heat incentive. We want to encourage those people who are off-gas grid to look at other renewable ways of heating their homes and providing hot water. The renewable heat incentive, on which details will be announced shortly, will be a crucial way to try to deliver on that.
Albert Owen
The Minister is very skilful in his reply. He mentioned the apparent failings of the Office of Fair Trading. Will he consider—I am asking for a consideration—whether DECC will look at the work done by Ofgem on the on-grid and by the OFT on the off-grid? Will he consider the comparisons and think about whether there should be a single body dealing with the matter, because the complexity of making reports to the OFT, which must then do so to the Competition Commission, does not benefit vulnerable people in those areas? I ask him as a DECC Minister to go back to his officials, look at those comparisons and come up with a possible regulator for the off-grid in the future.
Charles Hendry
If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the speeches that I made when I was the Opposition spokesman, he will see that I raised those exact issues. It has been argued that there are many competitive companies in this area. We have heard about some of the challenges to the market in this morning’s contributions. The matter is so important—it is such an enormous part of so many people’s household budgets—that we are determined to ensure that we get the policy right. We will consider how the market is working and the role that the OFT can take, which is primarily independent in its ability to assess these matters. We will also look at the role of Ofgem, as we reform its role as a regulator. It is critical that we learn a great deal from the lessons of this winter.
Roger Williams
I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment to engage with the Office of Fair Trading in these issues. The OFT did eventually relent and conduct an inquiry into liquefied petroleum gas supplies. Customers now have greater power to shop around for better supplies of LPG, but they often do not understand what they can achieve by doing so. A publicity campaign could result in real savings for those customers.
Charles Hendry
There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says not just about the benefits of shopping around, but about people understanding the benefits of buying early. The price increase happened extremely quickly. It rose from 40p at the beginning of December to 70p within two or three weeks. More people should be ordering in October and November. I hope that they will not have the experience that the hon. Gentleman had of only getting a partial delivery. We need to ensure that people understand that issue more fully.
The most important change that we need to consider is whether to take a fundamentally different approach to energy efficiency. In this country, we have some of the least energy efficient housing in Europe. From 2012, the green deal, which is part of Energy Bill, will provide the opportunity for householders to take action to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and to protect themselves against energy price rises through greater energy efficiency. We are also introducing a new energy company obligation to replace both the carbon emissions reduction target and the community energy saving programme. That will do more to help the poorest and the most vulnerable consumers and it will offer basic heating alongside insulation.
The key to the green deal is that the consumer should receive the benefit before they have to pay for it. We also hope that it will be of benefit to people who are in private rented accommodation, which is often the most difficult area to deal with. The landlord will no longer have to pay up front to cover the costs because they will be recovered over time from the people living in that property, as a result of a small addition to the Energy Bill. We hope that the landlords will decide to do that work voluntarily, but the Energy Bill will provide powers to require that work to be done, including a new power for local authorities from 2015 to require action to improve the worst performing homes. As the Energy Bill goes through the other place and, ultimately, the House of Commons, we are keen to discuss much of the detail and to ensure that we deal with the matter in the most effective way possible.
Sir Robert Smith
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) raised the fact that a lot of the early talk about the green deal related to measures such as the physical insulation of the home. Has there been any discussion with suppliers about expanding the green deal or working with installers to put more efficient equipment into the home? Is there any way that that can be integrated into the green deal?
Charles Hendry
The golden rule with the green deal is that the saving has to be greater than the long-term cost. Accordingly, measures can be considered—for example, more efficient boilers and thermostat controls—that will help to meet that energy efficiency goal and to fit within the total golden rule that I have mentioned.
The root of the problem of fuel poverty is that price rises and changes are reflected in the cost of energy. I am very disappointed that most energy suppliers announced price increases before the winter. I join the hon. Member for Islwyn in paying tribute to EDF, which deferred a price increase until after the winter. We should recognise good practice where it occurs, and EDF’s customers will recognise and appreciate such action. In addition, we want a complete end to retrospective increases, where customers are only told after an increase has come in that it is going to happen. We want to do more to help consumers switch by requiring more helpful information to be provided on bills, and we are pleased that Ofgem has announced a market review to consider the large increase that it has seen in the profit margins of such companies.
As the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) mentioned, rising commodity prices have been reflected in consumer prices. The increase has been on a rising trajectory, and I think that most hon. Members would assume that the price of oil—currently, $90-plus a barrel—will continue to increase. We are looking to the same companies to rebuild our energy infrastructure. Some £200 billion needs to be found to upgrade our energy infrastructure, because of the lack of investment over recent decades. Accordingly, an enormous amount needs to be done by the companies and we need to recognise that. I am pleased by Ofgem’s work and by the evidence that Alistair Buchanan gave to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change yesterday. I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the robustness and thoroughness of the Select Committee’s investigation and the real powers that it has to address these issues.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn not only on securing the debate, but on giving hon. Members the chance to address these issues at an important time of year, when they are very much on people’s minds. I also congratulate him on the constructive and thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate.
Rail Services (West Kent)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
This winter, my rail-travelling constituents, of whom there are a large number, have experienced unprecedented disruption in their rail services, and have had to fork out for an unprecedented hike in rail fares. This debate is timely and I am very glad to have been able to secure it. I am delighted to see in their places many of my hon. Friends from west Kent constituencies. I want to focus on four issues: specific rail services; the enormous increase in rail fares; the frankly dismal performance of Southeastern, Southern and Network Rail in trying to cope with the difficult weather conditions in December; and the financial penalties regime that applies to train operating companies.
As the Minister knows from the meeting that we had with her in the House of Commons in July 2010, the biggest single rail services issue in my constituency is the axing of services into the key London termini serving the City—Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge—on the Maidstone East line. Once again, I must stress to the Minister the truly devastating impact that that has had on my constituents and on the constituents of others along the Maidstone East line. As a result of those services being axed, individuals have had to move house, move their children’s schools and, in some cases, move jobs. Where they have chosen to stay put, they have had to incur substantial extra travelling time and cost driving to stations all over Kent and, in some cases, to south London to gain access to a station with a better rail service to London.
I was encouraged to receive the Minister’s reply in November, in which she said that she was considering options for dealing with this situation. One option, revealed to us in the meeting that Kent MPs had in December with the managing director of Southeastern, was to establish peak-time services on the Maidstone East line into Blackfriars station from May 2012, when its rebuild finishes and new platforms become available. Is that one of the options that the Minister has under consideration? I hope that she will also be able to give us, in her reply to this debate, information about the other options that she has under consideration. I would be particularly grateful for her assurance that, before any final decision is taken on which option to follow, the range of options put before her will be made public and that MPs, rail traveller organisations, local authorities and individual rail travellers will have an option to put their views on those alternatives to the Minister before any final decision is taken.
The other rail service to which I would like to refer specifically and which was axed under the previous Government is the through-rail service on the Tonbridge to Redhill line to Gatwick. We now have, frankly, the ludicrous position where Gatwick is the second largest airport in the UK—2 million people in Kent use it every year—and it is impossible to get a train service from any rail station in Kent, on a through-service basis, to Gatwick airport. The coalition Government pride themselves on their green credentials, but I have to point out that access to Gatwick from Kent is about as non-green as it is possible to be. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to assure us that she and the Secretary of State will look with considerable urgency at the need to restore the through-rail service from Kent to Gatwick airport. That is a necessity and would be highly valued by the people of Kent.
I would like to come to two significant policy points that have a bearing on rail services but cover a wider policy issue. First, the Minister is a London MP and will therefore understand that there is an inevitable tension between the interests of commuters inside London and those who commute from outside London, because capacity is limited. Last year, in my constituency, I had a situation in which Transport for London unilaterally took over critically important train paths on the Uckfield line, used by Uckfield line commuters trying to get to London, for East London line services. That had devastating consequences for my constituents from Edenbridge in terms of overcrowding and inadequate capacity. This year, we hear that Transport for London is now trying to get Maidstone East line trains to stop at additional stations in London, adding still further to the inadequacy of the services on the Maidstone East line in terms of additional journey time and overcrowding. It is imperative that the Minister and the Secretary of State hold the ring between the interests of those who commute to London from outside the city and those who commute to the centre of the capital from inside. There has to be a fair and reasonable balance between those two competing interests and limited capacity.
Secondly, it is not reasonable to create a position in the commuter areas where train operating companies can axe individual services almost at will. In commuter land, individual families—huge numbers of them—make important decisions and lay out substantial sums of money on the assumption that current rail services will continue. That is the basis on which they buy their homes and decide to send their children to particular schools and, in some cases, whether to accept a particular job. It is simply not reasonable for those people to then find that, almost with no notice, those rail services, on which they are critically dependent for their family life, suddenly disappear. I therefore put it strongly to the Minister, and through her to the Secretary of State, that when they come to their review of franchising policy, they must avoid a situation in which train operating companies can turn individual services on their lines on and off like a kitchen tap. That is simply not acceptable or reasonable, given the massive decisions that individual families make when they locate to a village or town with a particular rail service and a particular station.
On rail fares, it is wholly unreasonable to put them through the roof at a time when people’s incomes are either frozen or, in many cases, significantly reduced. That is precisely what has happened to west Kent rail travellers. In west Kent, we feel particularly aggrieved on two scores. First, we feel aggrieved because Southern and Southeastern have justified their fare increases by virtue of investment. I do not deny that Southeastern has made investment, but the issue for us in west Kent is that our rail travellers cannot get any benefit from its two most significant investments. The investments that it has made, under the terms of the integrated Kent franchise, are on the channel tunnel rail link route domestic services into St Pancras and the high-speed services now available on the north Kent line. Those services are of no benefit or use whatsoever to our constituents and rail travellers.
Precisely for that reason, when the integrated Kent franchise was first let, I made strong representations to the then Secretary of State that finances for the channel tunnel rail link domestic services should be ring-fenced. I foresaw exactly what has happened, which is that those of us in west Kent would have to pick up a good proportion of the bill for the financing of those services. Our rail travellers have to pay substantially increased fares as a result of that investment.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that the RPI plus 3% formula for Kent, which I shall address in my remarks, is not related to high-speed services but to the rolling stock. It was added to the lines on conventional services and is not related to High Speed 1.
Sir John Stanley
I am glad to have my right hon. Friend’s assurance, which brings me to my second point. The statement that she just made presents me with even more of a puzzle and sense of grievance than I had previously.
The second point of grievance for west Kent rail travellers is the fact that their rail fare increase is substantially greater than those being faced by commuters on other lines. For example, on the Brighton line, which is operated by First Capital Connect, the fare increase is 3.1%, but the increase for Tonbridge line commuters is 11.8%. I cannot see any reason or justification for why the fare increase for my constituents commuting from Tonbridge should be nearly three times as much as the one for those who commute from Brighton.
I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is imperative, within the limits of the present contractual arrangements entered into by the previous Government, that we re-establish a fairer and more reasonable fare regulation regime. After all, the companies are in effect monopolies, and monopolies tend to exploit. Therefore, one has to couple monopolies with effective and firm regulation, but all the evidence so far, as far as Southeastern and the people of west Kent are concerned, is that a firm and fair regulation system simply does not exist.
I said in a speech almost exactly two years ago, on 20 January 2009:
“I must put it to the Minister that the Government’s policy, as far as the thousands of commuters in the south-east are concerned, is resulting in one very clear trend: our commuters—our constituents—are paying ever more for ever less.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 727.]
What happened over the cold weather period is that our constituents and commuters actually were paying ever more for no services at all on several days.
My first question to the Minister is about whether she will tackle Southeastern and Southern to bring in a system of reimbursement for rail travellers for the days on which they have paid their fares but are not able to travel. It seems wholly wrong that someone can pay a fare through a season ticket, whether annually or monthly, but not be able to get reimbursement.
A fundamental point I must put to the Minister is that it was shown during the bad weather in December that the investment by Southeastern, Southern and, most particularly, Network Rail has been totally inadequate to deal with severe weather conditions. The franchise arrangements need to be changed to ensure that we have all-weather services.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
My constituents in Sevenoaks would certainly endorse all the points that my right hon. Friend has made, but does he agree that rather than a blame game between Southeastern and Network Rail over what happened in the winter, we now need a much more effective system of compensation for services that were cancelled or could have been run than we have at present and that the current penalty arrangements need to be thoroughly re-examined in the light of what happened in December?
Sir John Stanley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who rightly anticipates my final point.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
My constituents in Maidstone and The Weald are certainly suffering from the same appalling service outlined by my right hon. Friend: delays, overcrowding, wrong information on websites, lack of toilets, dirty rolling stock, lack of a City of London service, exorbitant rail fares—the list goes on. Does he agree that Kent commuters are feeling very let down and used and abused, and that urgent action is needed?
Sir John Stanley
I wholeheartedly endorse everything that my hon. Friend said. I come now to my final point, which is on penalties.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
This is about the issues that Southeastern had to contend with during the recent bad weather. Part of the problem was with communication. Many of my constituents in Dartford were informed by the website that Southeastern advertises that services were running and embarked on treacherous journeys only to find that the services were not, in fact, running. That is part and parcel of the problems that Southeastern needs to overcome.
Sir John Stanley
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The communication failures by both Southeastern and Southern during that period were abysmal.
My final point is that the penalties regime is wholly unsatisfactory, because it impacts solely on lateness. One important question for the Minister on a specific issue: is she satisfied with the accuracy and independence of Southeastern’s calculation? By the most wafer-thin of wafer-thin margins—0.04%—it has managed to escape financial penalties for lateness in its latest figures.
I come to the wider issue of the gross failure of the penalties regime—this was a failure by the previous Government—which applies to lateness but fails to apply to cancellations. As I said in a letter to the Secretary of State, that produces a perverse financial incentive for train operating companies to cancel services willy-nilly to avoid lateness, but the reality on the ground is that our long-suffering constituents and rail travellers would much rather travel on a train that arrives late than stand at the station from which they want to depart, waiting for a train that has not come.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
As an aside, I am totally taken aback by the Minister’s assertion that the 12.8% fare increase experienced in east Kent does not include a contribution towards High Speed 1, because that is certainly not the impression that we have been given in the past.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling has just given the figures used by Southeastern to make the case for not paying compensation, but have the figures not been massaged by including the High Speed 1 service, which is normally fairly reliable? Were that taken out, the case for compensation would be overwhelming. Is it not a greater irony that if compensation were finally paid, the travellers on High Speed 1 would benefit from it?
Sir John Stanley
I am grateful for that intervention. We shall look forward to the Minister’s reply in respect of Southeastern’s figures. I hope that she and the Secretary of State will look fundamentally at the penalty regime for train operating companies, because it is clearly grossly inadequate and is actually working to the disadvantage of the rail-travelling public.
In conclusion, rail travellers in west Kent are, without doubt, getting a raw deal: they are getting inadequate services at excessive cost. What rail travellers and our constituents in west Kent want are satisfactory services that are accessible from a station reasonably close to their home, at a cost that they can afford. I look to the Secretary of State and the Minister to deliver just that.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate on west Kent rail services.
I note the array of Kent MPs who have come to express their concerns today, namely my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for North Thanet (Mr Gale), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon).
I cannot think of a set of MPs more assiduous on rail matters than those gathered in the Chamber today. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling scrutinises the performance of train operators and Network Rail in his constituency with the greatest diligence, and he holds the Government to account when their decisions impact on passengers. He has expressed serious concerns today.
Before turning to the details that my right hon. Friend has raised, I emphasise the commitment of the coalition to investment in rail as a vitally important part of our transport system and the importance that we devote to improving services for passengers, addressing reliability problems such as those that my right hon. Friend has highlighted.
In the past, the axe has tended to fall first and hardest on infrastructure projects, including rail, following a spending spree. The Government have sought to break away from that, because we know the enormous importance of the rail network to our economy and, of course, to thousands of commuters throughout the country. Over the next four years, we will invest £18 billion in rail capital projects, on top of the money spent day to day on funding rail operations on the network, on infrastructure and on the subsidy for passenger train services. The Southeastern franchise is in receipt of the highest level of subsidy of any train operator in London and the south-east.
We are focused on dealing with capacity issues on services in Kent, Sussex and Surrey. We have secured the funding for Thameslink to be delivered in its entirety, albeit over a slightly longer time frame than originally intended. That major investment programme will virtually double the number of north-south trains running through central London at peak times, delivering up to 1,200 new carriages and providing commuters in Kent, Sussex and Surrey with a wide range of new journey opportunities to central London and beyond.
On the timetable issues highlighted by my right hon. Friend, December 2009 saw a radical overhaul of services throughout the county of Kent, delivering approximately 200 additional services per day as well as the introduction of the UK’s first domestic high-speed services. Unfortunately, with change on that scale, the concerns of people on different parts of the line will always mean conflicting interests and trade-offs. However, it is important that such timetable changes are properly consulted on. My right hon. Friend would like me to guarantee that there will be no changes in future to current timetabling arrangements. It would not be wise for me to give that assurance, although I can give an assurance about the importance that the Government place on ensuring that train operators consult the communities affected properly when making major timetabling decisions.
I am very much aware of the constituents of my right hon. Friend who are unhappy about the impact of the December ’09 timetable on the services at their station. As we heard from my right hon. Friend, I met him and others who are in the Chamber today at a meeting to discuss the issues, and they urged me to reassess the decision taken by the previous Government to remove direct services from Maidstone East to Cannon Street. I agreed to review the business case for the service and to look again at Labour’s decision not to introduce the service.
Following initial evaluation of the business case, I asked my officials to work with Southeastern to assess a range of options that could improve services to stations in the Maidstone area. That work is ongoing, and I am not as yet in a position to share any conclusions with my right hon. Friend or the Chamber, but I hope to write to him about the conclusions by the end of February. We are still assessing the different options. However, I emphasise that, given the current state of the public finances, changes will only be possible if they do not require funding from the Government in addition to the substantial sums already subsidising the Southeastern franchise and the infrastructure supporting it.
My right hon. Friend raised the Uckfield line issues resulting from Transport for London’s decision to strengthen services on the East London line. Again, that is a controversial matter. Local authorities are involved in deciding how rail services will be configured through a system of increments and decrements, which was what operated in that case. However, I emphasise that decisions on such changes must always take into account the interests of all the communities affected.
I can give an assurance to my right hon. Friend that the Government, in the decisions they take on the configuration of rail services, very much take on board the interests of those who live in London and those who live outside. In response to his concerns about whether his constituents are getting proper consideration in such decisions in comparison with people who live inside London, it is important to treat both groups fairly.
Looking ahead, the completion of Thameslink work at London Bridge in 2018 will trigger another extensive recast of train services throughout much of the county of Kent. Network Rail is developing options for the shape of those services from 2018, but decisions will not be made for some years yet. However, my right hon. Friend’s input into those decisions will be very welcome.
A number of my hon. Friends have expressed concern about disruption to rail services in Kent as a result of the severe weather in November and December. Throughout the crisis, officials were in constant touch with the rail industry, and the Secretary of State and I were also in contact with senior management at Network Rail and at the various train operators. Some disruption is inevitable in extreme weather conditions, but we need to ensure that transport operators work as hard as possible to deliver the services that are feasible in such circumstances.
On reliability as opposed to cancellations and the perverse incentives that my right hon. Friend is concerned about, I have urged the rail industry to consider how it assesses punctuality to ensure that it works on overall reliability as well as seeking to minimise cancellations and instances of significant lateness.
Mrs Villiers
Unfortunately, I have only a few minutes left.
The Secretary of State also asked David Quarmby to audit the performance of rail operators during the severe weather conditions, and his conclusions make it clearer than ever that rail operators and Network Rail must do much better on the provision of information to passengers about the new timetables imposed as a result of severe weather conditions. We are looking to the rail industry to respond to and learn lessons from what happened, and to do much better on providing accurate information to passengers about the impact of disruption.
We are also urging Network Rail to address the fragility seemingly revealed in the infrastructure on the part of the rail network served by Southeastern. Network Rail is looking to extend its trial on heating the conductor rail at key locations. It is also working to test the use of de-icing equipment on passenger trains.
Last week, I met senior representatives of the rail industry to assess overall performance after the severe weather. I singled out Kent and emphasised to Network Rail that improving the performance of the rail infrastructure used by the Southeastern franchise is vital. The rail industry’s national task force will, as a result, be reviewing operational performance of Southeastern and Network Rail in Kent. I emphasise that the review will not be limited to the adverse weather episode and will cover general performance levels. I expect senior figures from the operator and from Network Rail to discuss the work of the national task force with me.
The compensation and penalty arrangements that my right hon. Friend asked about are set out in the franchise. We take every step to ensure that train operators, whether Southeastern or anyone else, comply with their obligations. The passenger charter and compensation arrangements have to be regularly audited by an independent body. The penalties regime is also kept under review. I have no reason to believe that the figures produced by Southeastern have been inaccurate, and the franchise requires independent auditing.
Government Skills Strategy
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
First, I would like to register an interest. I have an apprentice in my office who is paid partly by a local businessman, Mr Dean Barclay, and partly by Essex council.
One good thing about skills and apprenticeships is that they are not a party political football. We may sometimes disagree on the right approach, but all sides of the House want to see more jobs for young people and an internationally competitive Britain. As a new MP, I know that many hon. Members care deeply about the problems of youth unemployment, and there are many others who know more about that issue than me.
However, when one looks at the manifestos, initiatives, Whitehall targets and, crucially, the Budget Red Books from the past 20 years, there is a clear conclusion—for decades, the focus has been university, university, university. Let me be clear: I am not anti-university. I was lucky enough to study at Exeter university, which I would recommend to any student. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) is present. He was at Exeter university at the same time.
The massive expansion in higher education has left us with problems. First, the poorest have not really benefited. The representation and likelihood of success at university remain highest among young people with wealthier parents, and lowest among those from deprived neighbourhoods. Young people from our poorest housing estates are still the most likely to drop out, take one gap year after another, defer enrolment, and switch, repeat or continually restart their course. Secondly, there is a skills deficit. For years, construction has represented about 10% of our GDP, but we have consistently imported much of that labour from Europe. We have created a rootless, undereducated and jobless generation of graduates who do not always have the right skills for our growth industries.
Finally, there is a NEET problem. Despite the efforts of the previous Government, the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training rose year after year. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of NEETs aged between 16 and 24 steadily increased from about 600,000 to more than 1 million. That was not a temporary blip due to the recession; it was a structural problem that got worse and worse. Research by Edge, the vocational skills organisation, shows that two out of every five teachers push A-levels as being the best route to university, and believe that vocational routes are a risk because they rule out university altogether. The research shows that apprenticeships are seen by many parents as a second-class option or a B-grade back-up for young people who cannot handle—or cannot be bothered with—writing essays. I believe that apprenticeships are a forceful answer to the problems of social mobility, our skills deficit and the rising NEET population.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, and offer apologies to the Chair. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is sitting today and I must leave early to attend that. He mentioned the needs of young people. Does he agree that, although we can have Government strategies and 50,000 new apprenticeships, or whatever, we must also have universities and FE colleges that provide the right courses? There is no point in someone going for an NVQ in politics if they are going to be a mechanic. We need a cocktail of measures, and our universities and FE colleges must provide the right courses to benefit young people as we go into the economic revival. That will certainly help industry.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman has said in 20 seconds what I will say in about 20 minutes. I agree with him entirely and that is an essential part of the skills strategy. It is no good having courses and apprenticeships if they do not provide what business and industry need.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hood. I have had more success in this Chamber than I did downstairs. In my opinion, it is critical that people are signposted towards the right kind of course—that is certainly the feeling I have found in my constituency. We need to increase the range of skills and the number of people interested in learning those skills, and we need businesses to support that thereafter. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Robert Halfon
I agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he has a passion for apprenticeships and skills. I do not want to ruin the excitement and anticipation of my speech, but I am sure that he will be in full agreement with my later remarks.
I welcome the Government’s skills strategy document. I pressed for this debate, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing it. However, we must tackle two fundamental problems. First, apprenticeships must be a better route to university. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we must change the culture in which apprenticeships are regarded and increase the prestige in which they are held.
Pessimists today look at the rapid industrial growth of the so-called BRIC economies, and the fact that even Brazil might have its own space programme, although we do not. Many people worry that Britain is in decline, and see only an endless series of eurozone bail-outs, shrinking British tax revenues and our slow but inevitable slippage down the international league tables in skills and education.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to be cheerful. To paraphrase Golda Meir, “Pessimism is a luxury that no politician should allow himself.” The independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that our economy will grow in real terms in each year of this Parliament, and there is growing consensus that vocational skills and apprenticeships will play a big part in that. We see a shift in attitude in the passion of the new crop of MPs for vocational qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has just entered the Chamber. He gave a very good speech in a debate on that subject last year. We also see the commitment of the Minister and his team.
In 2011 we need, above all, growth, jobs, confidence and young people doing training that will provide them with opportunities for the future. Apprenticeships are about not only economic utility but social justice, and I have always believed that if we give young people independence, a work ethic and the chance to improve their lives, we give them freedom. I do not argue for more apprenticeships and better skills because of economic reasons; I argue on grounds of social justice.
Margaret Thatcher is not often remembered for her views on skills and vocational qualifications, but she said:
“A man’s right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant and not as master—these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy... and on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.”
That, in a nutshell, is why for me, apprenticeships must be at the core of our education system. Young people deserve the chance of economic freedom as much as everyone else.
In the Government’s paper, we see that most forcefully in the plans to make all vocational training free at the point of access, with costs repayable only when people are earning a decent salary. That will help young people of course, but more significantly it will open up apprenticeships to single parents, back-to-work mums, jobless adults, the homeless, and ex-offenders who want to go straight. Those people may have huge potential, but often cannot afford the fees to retrain. They deserve the chance of economic freedom, too.
At the same time, not everything in the garden is rosy. As the Government’s skills strategy paper points out,
“Our working age population is less skilled than that of France, Germany and the US and this contributes to the UK being at least 15% less productive than those countries.”
That is why the Government’s new focus on apprenticeships and their expansion of adult apprenticeships by up to 75,000 is essential. That will lead to 200,000 people starting an apprenticeship each year by 2013-14—numbers that are beginning to approach the scale of A-levels. The Minister’s plans to enhance the level 3 apprenticeship by classing it as “technician level” will also help to boost its prestige. That is especially true if people know that they can become an apprentice not just in a trade, but in finance, media, hospitality, business and even politics.
The apprentice in my Westminster office, Andy Huckle, who is sitting right behind me in the Public Gallery, is combining a year in the House of Commons with a level 3 course in business administration, which is like an entry-level MBA.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to refer to anyone in the Public Gallery.
Robert Halfon
My sincerest apologies, Mr Hood; I was not aware of that.
My apprentice is a great example of my next point, which is that apprenticeships can be well suited to academic students, who can go on to achieve at university. He is now applying for degree courses to start next year and hopes to study history at the university of East Anglia. That is why I welcome the Government’s intention to create “clear progression routes” from level 3 to level 4 and higher education. That will give people like my apprentice a chance to see a busy workplace, to make things happen in the real world and to get money in their pockets, without having to abandon all hope of taking part in the pub crawls, protests at Westminster and student politics that so enrich university life.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and I agree with the thrust of what he is saying. Does he agree that there must be a thoroughgoing effort with employers, taking account of the needs of employers, in order successfully to establish more apprenticeships? In my constituency, we have the excellent example of apprenticeships at BMW, which encapsulate the sort of progression route that he mentions. Indeed, the demand to get on those apprenticeships is terrific, with the number of applicants greatly exceeding the number of places. Is it not the case that we need more such employers offering those opportunities, which will benefit them as well as the economy and those who are taken on?
Robert Halfon
The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in these matters; indeed, his experience is far greater than mine. I agree with him. There are two sides of the coin, and this push will not work unless businesses are incentivised and encouraged in more ways than one to set up apprenticeship schemes and to do the things that he describes.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Like the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and championing apprentices in this Parliament. It is very nice to see his own apprentice here. Could I just ask—
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Order. I am assuming that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) heard what I said to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) when he made reference to an apprentice in the Public Gallery. It was not in order for him to do that, and nor is it in order for the hon. Member for Gloucester.
Richard Graham
Thank you, Mr Hood. Does my hon. Friend agree that a terrific opportunity is coming up in only a few weeks’ time, in national apprenticeship week, for employers to show their commitment, as he rightly says, to offering both economic opportunity and social justice to the young unemployed in our country by participating in that initiative? Does he also agree that what is being done in Gloucestershire, where we have the Gloucestershire apprenticeship fair, which will feature a keynote speech by the Minister responsible for apprentices, is exactly the sort of thing that should be happening throughout the country?
Robert Halfon
Yes. What my hon. Friend has just said, and particularly the fact that he has managed to secure the Minister responsible for apprentices for the event in his constituency, shows exactly why he is such a champion of apprentices. Something has come through to my office about MPs becoming apprentices for a day, and I hope very much to be able to do that during apprenticeship week.
I should also mention that my apprentice is partly funded by a local business man, who employs eight apprentices and 13 ex-apprentices in his construction firm. He wanted to support us because he was an apprentice many years ago. He is a real example of the social capital that can be built when employers take apprenticeships seriously, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said.
The philosophical heart of the Government’s paper is that the world is too complex to be planned and delivered centrally. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I hope, welcome the new freedoms that the Government are devolving to further education colleges, with the simplification of budget lines and the reductions in audits and form-filling. Harlow college used to receive umpteen different ring-fenced types of funding for adult learners, all of which had to be monitored, with no flexibility to move funding between them. Now, there will be a single funding line for adults. It will be a much simplified system, with less paperwork.
At the same time, the quicker the Government can move to do the same for funding for 16 to 18-year-olds, the better. Harlow college at one time had 50 separate funding lines for 16 to 18-year-olds, all requiring separate reporting, which is bureaucratic insanity.
Possibly the greatest freedom that the Government are giving FE colleges—I am very excited about this—is the chance to bid for and run university technical colleges. The Minister is working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and with a former Education Secretary, Lord Baker, on their roll-out across the country. Like the old institutions that taught technical skills, although they will not be seen as second grade, university technical colleges will combine English, maths, information and communications technology and business skills with specialist subjects that require technical equipment—for example, engineering, product design, construction and environmental services. They will be part of the Government’s massive expansion in academies and, crucially, a conveyor belt to level 3 and 4 apprenticeships and higher education. As a major structural reform, university technical colleges tackle head-on the problems of low prestige and poor routes to university from which apprenticeships are suffering.
I have met several times Lord Baker and representatives of Essex and Harlow councils, Harlow college, Anglia Ruskin university and Pearson UK about the prospect of a UTC in Harlow. Lord Baker has visited Harlow college himself—as has the Minister—to try to bring that into being. Only last week, the Minister reminded us that Harlow college
“is an exemplar in so many ways.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 411.]
Under the principal, Colin Hindmarch, the college has been transformed from being at the lower end of the league tables to being nationally competitive. Indeed, it is rapidly becoming one of the best colleges in England. In terms of value added—how much a student improves between starting and finishing their course—it is one of the best places to study in the UK. I am delighted to tell hon. Members today that Pearson UK—a national firm based in Harlow—is examining how it could support the college’s bid for a UTC in Harlow, perhaps with an application later this year.
The former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has argued that we have not really decided as a nation whether we want American levels of taxation or European levels of public services, but increasingly I think that that is a false choice. When the private sector makes a voluntary contribution to enhance a public service, it can result in the best of both worlds. As the Government’s strategy paper states, the cost of training
“should ultimately be shared between employers, individuals and the state to reflect the benefit each receives.”
So long as there is no barrier to access, such as up-front fees for courses inherited by the Government, sharing the cost is fair, as it recognises that education is both a private and a public good.
I clearly support the Government’s strategy on skills, but I believe that further steps need to be taken. I recently met apprenticeship organisations, from livery companies to UK Skills and from the Association of Colleges to Edge, each of which represents a different part of the jigsaw of occasional qualifications. We discussed the idea of establishing a national society of apprenticeships, even a royal society, similar to the Law Society or the British Medical Association—or, better still, the Royal College of Surgeons. I tabled early-day motion 587 in support of that notion and raised the proposal in Parliament. A society with membership benefits such as high-street discounts and social events would dramatically increase the prestige and culture of apprenticeships. The Minister will be aware that I have been holding discussions with relevant groups, businesses and student organisations for a number of months, and I hope that we and the Government will be making an announcement in the near future.
Secondly, last week I spoke to the Minister about the pioneering wage-subsidy scheme run by Essex county council, and asked whether the Government would consider encouraging other local authorities to roll it out.
David Simpson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He has hit upon a poignant matter: the incentivisation, if that is the proper word, of young people to go into apprenticeships. There needs to be some financial reward or incentive. In my constituency, 15 or 20 young people may start an apprenticeship course, perhaps at an FE college, but only five will finish it because the finance is not there. It is difficult to get companies to sponsor apprentices in the current economic climate.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Part of the problem with people who want to do apprenticeships is that they cannot afford to do so. I am lucky that the apprentice in my office lives with his family; it would be much harder if he did not, as the apprentice wage is just under £100 a week. That is why we need a royal society of apprenticeships. That is why I am working with student organisations and others to bring about an incentive scheme. If we change the culture and prestige of apprenticeships, there will be a genuine substantial financial incentive for people to become apprentices. Another big problem relates to single parents wanting to do apprenticeships. The Essex county council scheme is specifically directed at such low-income groups, and it needs to be replicated.
I believe strongly that companies tendering for Government contracts should include a clause in their agreements that will boost apprenticeships. I suggested that Essex county council should consider including such a clause for its major construction projects. Today, I received confirmation that it is committed to making that happen; all who tender for major construction works with Essex county council will need to have an apprentice. That is an important step.
I turn to the question of EMA reform. A debate on the subject is taking place in the main Chamber as we speak, but I wish to discuss the matter with the Minister. A central aspect of further education is the affordability of studying, and getting young people not only to start but to finish their courses. I support reform of the educational maintenance allowance, as I accept that there are flaws in the current system. However, certain factors might affect students and apprentices, particularly those from deprived backgrounds. I shall use my local college as an example.
Nearly two thirds of learners at Harlow college receive the EMA, and 80% of them receive the full £30 a week. The college estimates that between 300 and 400 learners at Harlow—about 10% to 15%—depend on the EMA for lunch and dinner and for travelling to college. Those learners are the most vulnerable, from the poorest housing estates. The next tier is made up of a further 300 to 400 learners, another 10% or 15%, who are not the very poorest but are still from deprived backgrounds—people who strive and work hard. Without the EMA, they would need part-time jobs to increase their income significantly, but given the job market today that is not easy.
Harlow college is not stuck in the past, and it welcomes reform. It is not reactionary and does not represent what Tony Blair once described as the forces of conservatism. Whatever system we put in place, however, we must recognise the different financial positions of those two groups. I have discussed with the principal of Harlow college making the EMA, or a centrally administered college fund, dependent on improvement rather than attendance. It is something that he supports. We believe that learners should earn their money not simply by showing up, but by being punctual, behaving well, working hard and making good progress. As with apprenticeships, it would teach young people the work ethic. For level 3 courses, there are several value-added measures, including the key stage 5 achievement and attainment tables, that can be used at the end of a course to measure the success of tying EMA funds to achievement.
Mr Andrew Smith
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He makes a good point. We could have a separate debate about the EMA; indeed, one is going on at the moment. He understands well the circumstances of the students and apprentices at his college. Does he believe that, under the Government’s proposals, there will be enough in the discretionary fund to incentivise and reward students, as he advocates?
Robert Halfon
I cannot answer that question because we do not yet know what the grant will be. I support reform of the system, but I want to ensure that those about whom I have spoken are not disadvantaged. As soon as I know what the grant will be, I shall be able to give a better answer.
Harlow College monitors the progress of learners every day on all the measures that I described earlier—attendance, punctuality, behaviour, work done and progress made. The Minister has a genuine passion and feeling for vocational education, and I hope that he will discuss the matter with his colleagues when considering reform.
The self-reliance, freedom and maturity that come from earning one’s own money are not to be underestimated. We have many reasons to be cheerful about the economy, and the Government’s skills strategy is a critical first step towards restoring the centuries-old British tradition of vocational training and manual craft. University technical colleges will accelerate the Minister’s efforts to improve the prestige and status of apprenticeships and to strengthen the routes from apprenticeships into higher education—especially if, as I hope, we have such a college Harlow. As I said, that is important for social justice, because apprenticeships are our best hope against the compounding problems of stalled social mobility, our skills deficit and our rising NEET population.
I sincerely hope that we can make progress in creating a society of apprentices, nudging other councils into adopting Essex county council’s pioneering wage-subsidy scheme, and creating an EMA system that supports the poorest and the most deserving. We must reward determination. One of my favourite books is “David Copperfield” by Charles Dickens. Although David starts off life being treated very badly by Mr Murdstone, he later finds an apprenticeship with a solicitor. Towards the end of the book, he says:
“I was not dispirited now. My whole manner of thinking was changed. What I had to do was to turn the painful discipline of my younger days to account by going to work with a resolute and steady heart.”
It was David Copperfield’s apprenticeship that transformed his life and circumstances. I know that that is what the Minister intends for our apprentices, and I look forward to his reply.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his excellent contribution and the Government on their skills strategy, which is an excellent piece of work. Clearly, if we are to get this country back on its feet, apprenticeships will be key. They will generate private sector jobs, particularly in manufacturing and industry, which will create wealth, so I really welcome this strategy. The fact that we are creating 50,000 new apprenticeships for young people, using, in part, some £50 million from the Train to Gain fund is good news. Moreover, we will put some £605 million into creating 75,000 apprenticeships for adults. That is an area that has not been given the funding or attention that it deserves, so I really appreciate the investment.
My hon. Friend talked about the challenge of creating apprenticeships that are valued, and that goes hand in hand with making manufacturing jobs, or any job that requires the use of one’s hands as well as one’s brain, valued in this community. In Germany, those involved in such industries are well respected, and we must bring that view here. I agree with my hon. Friend that bodies should be created to help build some pride in the idea of being an apprentice. I ask the Minister to think of a way in which we can regenerate some value in the word “technician”. Those of us who have been lucky enough to go to university can call ourselves graduates, which is an incredibly valuable term. It would be good if we could make the word “technician” resonate in the same way.
The Government are looking to raise the baseline for apprenticeships. At the moment, we have NVQ level 2, which is the basic apprenticeship scheme, NVQ level 3, which is the advanced apprenticeship scheme and NVQ level 4, which is the higher apprenticeship scheme. The Government plan to make the advanced level the new baseline, which is an excellent idea. That will help people to aspire to something higher and enable employers to see how much we value the scheme.
Research has shown that those who take on apprenticeships do better economically than those who do not. An advanced apprentice is likely to earn £105,000 more over a lifetime than a colleague with a lower qualification, so there is a definite win for the individual who makes that investment.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) talked about some apprentices starting courses and not completing them. I am heartened to find that the apprentice success rate is on the increase. The latest figures that I have seen put the success rate at 70.9%, which, in the grand scheme of things, is not bad at all. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, we have a history of manufacturing. Originally, Newton Abbot was at the heart of the railway industry. When that fell away in the 1950s, a number of individuals were taken on at Centrax, which has been the hub of engineering and manufacturing in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the organisation has attracted a number of other businesses to the area. Getting apprenticeships working well in the area should help more engineering businesses—some of them will be very small—to establish and develop in the area.
Mr Andrew Smith
I am following the hon. Lady’s remarks with interest. She referred earlier to the shift of more apprenticeships to the higher levels. Has she seen the Association of Colleges briefing for this debate, which points out that such a shift is not as simple as it might appear, because the time commitment and the cost increase for both the apprentice and the employer? Moreover, it found that there was less demand from employers for apprenticeships at the higher level. Does that not reinforce the point that I made earlier that there must be a thorough dialogue and engagement with employers, with incentives where appropriate, to ensure that they take advantage of the scope to expand the higher level apprenticeships?
Anne Marie Morris
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is crucial that we get employers as engaged in the process as the potential apprentices. A private sector vocational organisation in my constituency is an excellent example of that. Before finding the apprentices, it makes contact with local businesses to explain the opportunities offered by the scheme and to create those apprenticeships. That sort of proactive approach is invaluable. The more of that we can do, the better off we will be.
The real value of the apprenticeship scheme is that it will give young people an alternative. Not everyone is suited to an academic career. Many NEETs in our society feel that there is no real alternative. Nationally, we have more than 1 million NEETs, which is far too high. In Devon, within which my constituency sits, there are 1,190 NEETs between the ages of 16 and 18 —5.7% of the youngsters—which is a huge waste. Research shows that the cost to the taxpayer is substantial—around £97,000 over a lifetime. Some people put the cost as high as £300,000 because of the associated benefits, which is a huge price to pay both financially and socially. Therefore, this must be the right way forward.
To get the apprenticeship programme working well, we must look at the linked-in skills training that is on offer and establish the link between training colleges and sixth forms. Will the Minister tell us what sort of grant might be available to those skills colleges, because, at the moment, that is an area that lacks clarity? A number of training organisations and colleges in my constituency have questioned me on the matter. They ask what the picture will be when the Train to Gain programme slowly begins to evaporate. They are particularly concerned that grants will be as available to the smaller organisations as they are to the larger organisations. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that particular front.
As I have said, it is important to get employers to play their part and to incentivise them, as the college I referred to earlier is doing. We want our colleges literally to go out on the streets and find those young people. I have been very impressed by South Devon college, which does just that. There are parts of Newton Abbot where young people with no education, training or job congregate. Individuals go to those places to talk to young people about what might be possible. That is absolutely the right way forward, and I welcome it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady talks about actively targeting young people on the streets, but does she agree that some groups—I am sure things are the same in my constituency as they are in hers—are also actively involved in mentoring young people? Many young people feel helpless when it comes to getting the vocational training that might help them to get employment—they feel completely disempowered. If these groups get out there, they can target young people, help them, sit alongside them and bring them into the mainstream to ensure that they get essential qualifications.
Anne Marie Morris
That is a prime example of the big society. We are in a good position to achieve exactly what he has indicated. We are all in this together, and there is a lot that we can do together.
While we are on that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has mentioned his concern about the withdrawal of the EMA. I share his view that the old system did not work terribly well, but I also share his concern that there needs to be something to help young people. I am pleased that the new fund will be made available, but the real challenge is the transition and ensuring that nobody falls down the gap. One of the things that I have been doing locally in my constituency is trying to help deal with that gap. I have been working with colleges and voluntary charities that provide local transport and asking them whether we can find a way to work together and get young people to college. I am pleased to say that I have received positive responses from local transport charities. That is exactly where we should be going and what we should be doing.
Perhaps I can leave the Minister with a second and final question, which is about real challenge that we face in deprived rural areas, of which Newton Abbot is undoubtedly one. The cost of living in Newton Abbot is very high, partly because of the distances involved in getting around the constituency and, as hon. Members are well aware, because of the huge water bills. However, we also have very low salary levels. The challenges that my hon. Friend has mentioned are particularly acute in rural areas. I appreciate that we are in difficult times and that we must be careful to get value for every penny we spend, but I wonder whether particular consideration can be given to helping youngsters in rural communities access the apprenticeships and training that they need.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this enormously important debate.
In my interventions, I stressed the critical importance of engaging employers, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how we will do that. It would also be helpful if he were to say in his concluding remarks how he sees the skills strategy in the context of the local economic partnerships and what scope there will be to take a strategic overview of local needs. Given the nature of my constituency, I have always been interested in that. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has mentioned the status of technicians, and their status in our world-leading universities in Oxford and in related scientific research institutions in Oxfordshire is critical. There are concerns whether there will be a supply of suitably qualified people to fill the vacancies when a lump of people retire at a particular time in the future. That is precisely the sort of issue on which a local economic partnership should be able to take a strategic view on an area basis.
I want to mention something that has not been touched on so far. The proposal that those on inactive benefits will no longer receive reductions in their course fees was not included in the skills consultation document published last summer. As I understand it, such people will have to meet 50% of the cost of courses, other than on courses for basic literacy and numeracy. Colleges are worried at the effect that that will have on participation among lone parents, those on incapacity benefit and others.
I have particular concerns about Ruskin college in my constituency. The college runs a number of short courses that attract a significant number of people who are presently in receipt of inactive benefits. Many are older learners, lone parents, carers, people on disability benefits, people who have suffered alcohol and drug dependency problems or mental ill health, and homeless people with no registered address. Most such students on short courses are unlikely to be in a position to pay fees.
For many of these students, going on a course is a step in re-establishing their self-esteem and acquiring useful skills that will enable them to progress further. Ruskin college has mentioned to me an example involving a woman who had a total mid-life crisis and mental breakdown. She saw the Ruskin college brochure in hospital and did free short courses with the college, benefiting from the full fee remission. She went on to get two degrees and she is now a college lecturer, probably helping with the skills drive that we are all so keen to sustain.
How does the Minister see the configuration that is coming forward addressing the needs of such people? Given that it will take time to put the Government’s new proposals in place, does it really make sense to end fee remission for those in receipt of benefits before other provision is put in place? This issue will affect a lot of people across the country, as well as at Ruskin and other colleges in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister were specifically to address that point.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I also congratulate him on his clear and evident pride in his local college and on the work that he is already doing in Parliament to promote issues relating to apprenticeships. We have had a thoughtful and inclusive debate, which has not been rabidly partisan. I want to continue in that way, but I nevertheless want to pick out some of the implications and unintended consequences of the Government’s skills strategy, which gives Labour Members real concern.
I want briefly to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has discussed skills deficits, particularly in construction, and the NEETs problem. It is fair to say that none of us in any party and, for that matter, none of the experts has a magic wand to deal with that problem. We can argue about the rights and wrongs and about the needs behind the Government’s current economic policies, and we will, but I merely say—I invite the Minister to touch on this—that it is inevitable that those policies will sharpen the challenge that we face and increase the number of people in the category that we are talking about, at least in the short term. For example, we have seen that with some of the rises in unemployment. We also need to be careful that changes in administration within skills policy, and related issues in the Minister’s portfolio, do not, however well-intentioned, unintentionally exacerbate the problems of NEETs, because of their speed and the lack of a proper transition period.
It is particularly interesting that the hon. Member for Harlow has discussed access to loans, which other hon. Members have also mentioned. I want to touch on how the process will pan out, and put one or two questions to the Minister. At this point, all I want to say is that some people who have been mentioned, such as older people and single mothers, are, because of their backgrounds, precisely the ones who will need most nurturing and support in entering the process. As I have said before and will continue to say, the Government, or certain people in the Government—not least Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers—are keen on the concept of nudging people. We all nudge people, sometimes inadvertently on the tube, but it is highly relevant to the debate on the Government’s skills strategy to point out that sometimes—again, I am not imputing malevolence of plan or thought—the net effect of policies is to nudge people away from things, as well as to nudge people towards them.
It is interesting that the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) have raised concerns about the EMA. I congratulate them on referring to practicalities such as transport and support equipment. Those issues have, of course, been taken up by individuals and colleges. The same concerns have been expressed to me at the colleges in my constituency, Blackpool sixth-form college and Blackpool and the Fylde college, and they also show up in surveys conducted by the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group. If the Minister and I were not here in delightful surroundings under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, we would undoubtedly be in the main Chamber listening to the arguments about the Government’s current position on the EMA. What I took from the remarks of the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot, as well as from other interventions, were concerns not only about the change itself, but about the process of change and the transition period. The Minister will want to comment and reflect on those remarks.
The hon. Member for Harlow has discussed university technical colleges, a concept with which I, like him, am familiar. Lord Baker bent my ear on the subject in my previous incarnation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on skills, as he has successfully bent the ears of many others. Lord Baker is, like me, a historian, and he feels strongly that it is a matter of completing unfulfilled business from the Education Act 1944. The only thing that I say—again, I invite the Minister to make observations on this point—is that it is laudable and entirely desirable that there is a renewed emphasis on how best to provide vocational education to the 14-to-19 range and on the mechanisms for doing so. However, the problem is that the field is now getting crowded. There are proposals for university technical colleges, and there are long-standing proposals for studio schools, which the Secretary of State for Education warmly endorsed at the recent launch of the first tranche. I declare an interest in the sense that the local authority in Blackpool is strongly bidding for a studio school. Of course, the Prime Minister also made observations only a few days ago about the concept of free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds.
I make no comment on some of the ideological conflicts that may arise in that context; I merely point out that if there is a market including UTCs, studio schools and free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds, there will have to be a lot of careful adjustment and thought about the implications for sixth-form and further education colleges. I hesitate to use the words “Maoist and chaotic” in that context, because they have, of course, already been used, rather tellingly, to describe the way in which the Government—sadly, this involves the Minister’s Department—are proceeding with local enterprise partnerships. However, I want to stress the importance of not getting into a mess over a plethora of options in the relevant area. The last thing that any of us wants is for the new-found enthusiasm in all parties for the strengthening of vocational education to be dissipated by arguments about structure.
Mr Andrew Smith
I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument. Is it not crucial that the core mission and function of further education colleges, and their ability to deliver it, should be buttressed, supported and enhanced? That should include such issues as inequality in funding per student, as between FE and schools. The previous Government started to narrow that discrepancy, but it should be removed altogether.
Mr Marsden
My right hon. Friend is right on that point. I shall spare the Minister’s blushes, but he has committed to continuing that process. Indeed, he emphasised that point from the floor when questions were raised about it at the conference of the Association of Colleges in Birmingham in November. The devil is in the detail, and the questions of how the aim is to be achieved within funding regimes through the Skills Funding Agency and how it relates to other possible views within the Government must be resolved. I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to proceeding with that aim, but my right hon. Friend has made a valid and important point.
The hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) have made valuable interventions. They both made the important point that we should view apprenticeships, training and outreach work not only as economic activity but as a vital activity for social cohesion. I am particularly interested and impressed by what the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has said about the activities of her college in going out on to the street and trying, in the words of the Good Book, to compel them to come in.
There is a broader underlying issue, with which all of us have fought in recent years. It concerns not only the fundamental mission of further education colleges or apprenticeships, but how and where that mission is carried out. Some of the most valuable work that has been done via the splendid Blackpool and the Fylde college in my constituency has been done not on the main campus sites but in a city learning centre adjacent to one of the main housing estates. In reality, particularly in areas where people may be juggling two or three different types of job or responsibility, which is particularly true of women, the siting of, and immediacy of access to, training and further education matter a great deal. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot has discussed her constituency, and I am sure that what I have described is as true in rural constituencies as some urban ones, if not more so. Even in my constituency, some people on the estate who benefited from outreach courses would not have found it easy to get on a bus and travel 2 or 3 miles to take standard college classes. I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady has said, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board in developing future policy with colleges.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) has made valid and crucial points about how the skills strategy will fit with local enterprise partnerships, and I will return to that issue later. He made other key points that the Minister needs to respond to. The first is the concern that he expressed about skills shortages. That concern might seem perverse at a time when—let me put it bluntly—the demand for skills in the current economic situation is certainly not uniformly high. However, the truth is that even with modest growth generally and in certain areas in particular, because of the reasons that he gave, demographic changes will affect particular skill groups. We know from the Leitch report and various other things that we face a significant demographic challenge in the next five to 10 years, because the cohort of younger people available for skills training will reduce sharply. Of course, that will put even more emphasis on some of the points to which my right hon. Friend has referred. The comments that we have heard about skills shortages are significant.
I turn, with some gravity, to the Government’s skills strategy, on which I want the Minister to comment. Picking up my previous point about my right hon. Friend’s speech, the introduction of tuition fee-style loans for all those taking level 3 qualifications and the part-funding for a first level 2 qualification will seriously hit the strategy for retraining and reskilling older workers, if they are not handled carefully.
Questions have been put to the Department for Education and Skills and to the Minister himself about how much, under the current circumstances, colleges can be expected to charge when they increase fees for courses. I accept that we do not live, pace one or two things that have been said about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in a Stalinist “plan and provide” world. However, we need to have a little more assurance about the sums of money that people will have to borrow to fulfil a mainstream apprenticeship course. In an article in The Guardian at the end of last year, the Minister referred to a sum of about £9,000 over that period of study, but it would be helpful if he were to comment on the modelling by which the Government made that assessment.
Of course, if there is a potential impact of increasing fees, in terms of reducing enrolment, it will come at a time when colleges face a 25% reduction in the further education resource grant from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills during the spending review period. Ministers have said that that reduction is nowhere near the “grim reaper” that has descended on the higher education sector, which is perfectly true. Nevertheless, that reduction and the potential impact of axing the EMA—both the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group have said that axing the EMA will have a significant impact on the number of people applying to college—mean that FE colleges may find themselves under real pressure as a result of Government decisions.
The Government have said that they want to get people back into work—how could we not want to get people back into work? However, the issue of how the Government expect to do that if they are going to remove the support for course fees from anyone who is not on active benefits is a live one. Even those claiming active benefits over the age of 24 will have to take out tuition fee-style loans to take level 3 courses. I have an open question, not a rhetorical one, about that issue; what incentive will there be for those people to take out a sizeable loan when there is no guaranteed income stream to repay it?
As has already been said and as—I am afraid—is the case with so many things that this Government are doing, they are in danger of wielding several sticks before offering a number of carrots. The fees for some level 2 and level 3 courses will be introduced as early as 2011-12 and the fees for the majority of those courses will be introduced in 2012-13. However, the Government say in their own statistics, which accompany the skills strategy, that they do not envisage the new loan structure being in place in full until 2013-14. That is one of the points that the Association of Colleges has raised in its briefing note to Members for today’s debate. However, the Association of Colleges has also raised the separate issue of the impact of the restrictions relating to benefits entitlement, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East has also raised. The Minister will know, because it was the subject of a question and answer session that he participated in at the Association of Colleges conference in Birmingham in November, that that issue is of great concern to colleges.
We support the Government’s aim to help more people off welfare and into work, and we understand the desire to focus efforts on those receiving active benefits. However, I remind the Minister that on a number of occasions he and I have talked about the importance of enabling skills to the life chances of people. There are real concerns, particularly in relation to some of the impacts of the restrictions on employment and support allowance, that, as I said earlier, people might find themselves being “nudged” away from participation in education and training rather than being “nudged” towards it.
Like me, hon. Members may find it curious that the Government preach localism, but that their new skills strategy effectively gives the power to set these plans nationally to the Skills Funding Agency. When we were in government, we talked about the crucial role that regional development agencies can play in this field. I also note, having heard the favourable comments that the hon. Member for Harlow made about the college in his own constituency, that Harlow recently opened a new £9.3 million university centre for higher education. Of course, that project, like the project in my constituency at Blackpool and the Fylde college, was partially funded by grants from the RDA. I am not here to argue the case for RDAs, but now that they have gone there appears to many people, including myself, to be a black hole in the connectivity of support for the successor bodies to the RDAs, including local enterprise partnerships.
Many business groups, including the British Chambers of Commerce, have commented on that lack of co-ordination between those in charge of skills policy and local enterprise partnerships. I remind the Minister that his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government did not even put local enterprise partnerships in the Localism Bill when they introduced it, and they have resolutely refused, or at least been unwilling, to talk about establishing links in that respect.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his measured and thoughtful remarks. Regarding RDAs, although it was welcome that part of the money for the college in my constituency came from the local RDA, at the end of the day that money is taxpayers’ money. That money does not necessarily have to pass through the RDA to reach Harlow college or Harlow; it could easily go through local councils or through the other mechanisms that he has mentioned. The support that Harlow college received is not necessarily a case for the RDA.
Mr Marsden
I was merely making an observation, and I was not saying that the RDA is the only mechanism by which this money can be redistributed. Of course, there were also other grants that contributed to the college. I was making the point that the RDA is a mechanism that supported that type of college development. Not only is the current level of economic activity across the country failing to replicate that support, but we do not even have secure promises about how local enterprise partnerships themselves will be supported and funded, so that they can provide similar support or access funding from the private sector. That is one of my concerns.
Finally and briefly, I turn to the issue of apprenticeships. The Government have been keen to trumpet the success of apprenticeships and their ambitions for them. I yield to no one in my delight that the Minister has made so many strong points about apprenticeships. However, we must remember that the pledge that there will be an extra 75,000 apprenticeship places applies only to adult apprenticeships. At a time when youth unemployment remains high and the Government have chosen to end schemes such as the future jobs fund and our September guarantee of a college place, training or a job for all those aged between 18 and 24, one must wonder what capacity there will be in business to provide these extra apprenticeship opportunities. Indeed, Members have touched on that issue in the debate today. Just as one can nudge people away from things as well as nudging them towards them, we need to take into account push and pull factors. It seems to me that no amount of ministerial criticism of Train to Gain can take away from the fact that axing the scheme leaves a serious gap in work-based training provision.
Finally, the Government are rightly putting an emphasis on level 3 money going in, but there is still a massive demand across the country for level 2 apprenticeships in leisure, tourism, catering and other applied service industries, and it is vitally important that they are not neglected. They need to ensure that they provide what employers want from apprenticeships, as opposed to what might fit their own agenda for the sector, however noble their intentions.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hood, to serve under your chairmanship, even more so as it is the first time, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden). While the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) was making his erudite interventions, I was thinking about what Chesterton said about Oxford:
“a place for humanising those who might otherwise be tyrants or even experts.”
It would be altogether more convenient if the person shadowing me were a tyrant or a fool, but unfortunately the hon. Gentleman is neither, which actually, on balance is a cause more of joy than sorrow.
It is also a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I know how enthusiastic he is about the subject, and he rightly championed the work of Harlow college, kindly mentioning that I visited the college with him. He has illustrated his commitment to apprenticeships by taking on an apprentice himself, and I invite many other colleagues, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, to follow his example.
An even greater pleasure than serving under you, Mr Hood—and that pleasure is almost inestimable—is to be able to discuss the Government’s skills strategy, albeit in a short debate. I will endeavour both to talk about that, and to pick up the points that have been made by a variety of speakers today.
The skills strategy had its inception shortly after we came to government. As soon as I became Minister, we ran a considerable consultation—over the summer—and we engaged providers, employers and learners, with colleges obviously central to the process. We have now published the strategy, and I have copies here for anyone who would like one—shorter summaries for those with less patience and longer versions for those with more.
The genesis of the strategy dates to when, in opposition, I was able to study these matters over many years, and I had many discussions with the hon. Member for Blackpool South when he was running the all-party group on skills. I do not think that there is much of a gap between our views on the issues. It would be wrong to exaggerate the consensus, but I do go with Wilde in that arguments
“are always vulgar, and often convincing.”
So we do not want to have more of an argument than we need to, and there is certainly some unity of view as to the aim. I suppose that that is because we both broadly buy the analysis of the Leitch report, that an advanced economy needs ever-advancing skills, and that we are falling short in that regard. I shall say more about that in a moment or so.
The report mentions many other things, including, as has been mentioned, the need to upskill and reskill the existing work force as well as to train young people who enter the labour market. It makes particular recommendations on intermediate and higher-level skills, an area in which we are failing to do as well as we must if we are to maintain competitiveness. I am pleased to say—confirm, perhaps—that what is at the heart of that analysis is also very much the Government’s view, which is that skills have a direct relationship with productivity and therefore competitiveness. That is, I suppose, a matter of opinion, but I take it almost as an a priori assumption. I say that as though the case must be made only because some people would still argue a counter-view that labour-market flexibility and a much more fluid system for skills can work in a modern economy, but I take the contrary view that as we invest in skills the economy shapes around that investment. My perspective is, I think, reflected in the previous Government’s assumptions, and largely by Leitch.
It would be remiss of me not to say, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South was kind enough to point out, that we debate all of this in very difficult circumstances, but what is interesting about the strategy is that it would have been necessary irrespective of the changed and challenging financial situation. It had its genesis long before we came to government, long before we knew quite what size of deficit we would face and, indeed, long before we had devised a method for dealing with that deficit. The strategic change—the rethink about the skills we need and about how we will deliver them—preceded the advent of the economic strategy, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the consultation that I described earlier preceded the comprehensive spending review negotiations which, of course, shaped the amount of money that the two Departments in which I am a Minister have to spend.
Without wanting to be unnecessarily partisan, I must say just a little about the previous Government’s record. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind a short partisan section in a speech that will otherwise be wonderfully and refreshingly non-partisan. The previous Government did get some of this badly wrong, not in ambition—as I have described—and not even in their analysis of the problem, but in the solution. There were two fundamental problems with their approach. Although they spoke the language of a demand-driven system, it was just that—mere words. The system that was constructed was centrally driven, built around targets and extraordinarily byzantine in structure. It was hard to navigate and inaccessible, bamboozling learners and demoralising employers. The result—a centrally driven, target-orientated, micro-managed system for the funding and management of skills—could never be sufficiently dynamic, or sufficiently responsive to the changing needs of a changing economy. Lord Leitch drew our attention to that, and Members on both sides have reflected an understanding of it in what they have said today.
I could say things that were altogether more colourful—in fact, I have such things in front of me—but why would I do that? I have said enough about the previous Government’s strategy, except for this suffix: the best thing that they did was to appoint the hon. Member for Blackpool South as the shadow spokesman on this matter when they came into opposition. There the flattery stops. Actually, it was meant as a compliment, not as flattery.
Perhaps partly as a result of the previous Government’s strategy, we remain mediocre on skills compared with other OECD countries, ranking 17th out of the 30 member countries on the proportion of our population qualified to level 2 or above. To any impartial observer, and by any independent analysis, it is absolutely clear that our further education and skills system requires not merely reform but rebirth, the effects of which would need to be felt by employers, individuals and training providers. The change that is most needed is one of perspective, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, when he spoke in elegiac terms about the need to elevate practical learning, a point supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and other Members. We have to understand that practical accomplishment can afford the same kind of status as academic achievement, because it confers both worth and purpose, which has economic value, and also because it changes lives by changing life chances.
The pride that people take in the practical skills that they acquire makes them stand tall. As they do so, they gain a different kind of recognition among their fellows. That was once widely understood. The case was richly argued by Ruskin—who was referred to in a different context; I will return to that—and William Morris, but it had scarcely been made with elegance and conviction until I started to make it a few years ago, when it gained some elegance and a lot of conviction. Changing the perception of practical learning is critical to encouraging people to acquire the skills that we need to drive our economy forward. It is a social and cultural matter as well as an economic one, being about aesthetics as well as utility. Rather apologetically, we usually debate skills as a matter of utility. I suppose that that is understandable—they are partly about utility, after all—but let us debate them differently, making the change in perception that I described.
I will now deal with the essence of the skills strategy and its many aims, which we published on 16 November last year. Its main premise is that skills are essential if we are to return to sustainable growth, build more inclusive communities and achieve greater social mobility. To do so, the Government must be prepared to devolve real power, along with the objective information that will allow people to use the system, to those who can benefit most from it, and especially to employers and individuals. We want to give them authority and power to drive the system. We want a more learner-driven, employer-focused, demand-driven skills system.
I will discuss the three critical elements of that and deal with some of the points that hon. Members have raised. First, we must ensure that colleges and training providers have the freedom and flexibility to respond to learner demand and employer need. The coherence that must accompany that requires a proper settlement in respect of relationships with other agencies, including local enterprise partnerships. I will take away the points that have been made about that and consider them. It certainly requires consistency and coherence in respect of school provision. As hon. Members will know, Professor Alison Wolf is carrying out a review of vocational education, which must marry with the strategy if it is to make a useful contribution to Government thinking.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South was right that there must be some consistency in the narrative about studio schools and university technical colleges. I am an enthusiast of UTCs. I think that Kenneth Baker has hit on an idea for which time has come; it is the completion of the unfinished work of Rab Butler. I see it in those ambitious terms. UTCs can play a valuable role in providing a vocational pathway that matches in clarity and progressive quality the academic route that many of us took.
I acknowledge the questions and points raised by hon. Members, and I accept the need for consistency and coherence, but central to what we will do is freeing providers and colleges from much of the bureaucracy that has hampered them and prevented them from being as good as they can be. There is immense human capital in the further education sector; it is the unheralded triumph of our education system. Both learners and teachers in FE deserve more praise than they have ever received. I am proud to put that on record. In the education Bill that we will be introducing shortly as a continuation of what I have announced in Government, we will strip away some of what the previous Government did—I am trying to use gentle words—to confuse the system and burden FE providers.
Secondly, there must be a changed role for individuals. Individual learners need more information, which is why we will introduce an all-ages careers service to provide them with good, empirical and independent information about the results of the courses that they choose and the subsequent careers to which they are likely to lead. As well, it was right that we began to ask who pays for what. Such questions are challenging, but I was determined that there should be no question of abridging people’s entitlement to basic skills in any way.
However, in higher skills, beyond the age of 24, individuals should make some contribution, on a par with what we expect of higher education students. They will be able to take out income-contingent loans on the same no up-front cost basis as HE students, at highly competitive rates. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about numbers and mentioned the figure of £9,000. He will know that it is difficult to come to a definitive answer, as apprenticeship frameworks cost different amounts. However, I do not think that it is unreasonable to mention an average of about £7,500. Compared with a degree, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot said about the income premium likely to result from an apprenticeship—it is roughly equivalent to a degree—an apprenticeship represents pretty good value for money.
Thirdly, on apprenticeships, we have allocated £250 million for 75,000 more apprenticeships during the spending review period. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds. I confirm that the Department for Education will provide extra investment to grow their numbers substantially too. It is my ambition while I am Minister to top 350,000 apprenticeships in this country, and the longer I am the Minister, the more apprenticeships we will have. Records are hard to compare because historically, the way that we have counted apprenticeships has been somewhat different, but it is probably true to say that the most that we have ever had in Britain was 400,000.
Mr Andrew Smith
Is the Minister not showing symptoms of the target-driven culture that he was decrying a few minutes ago?
Mr Hayes
That is the trouble with people associated with Oxford; they are just clever. That was the expression not of a target but of an ambition. How could my ambitions ever be described as anything so crude as a target?
The final element of the strategy is a link to employers. As well as being learner-driven, the system must be sensitive to the role of employers in ensuring that what is taught and tested matches employer need, therefore making people more employable and feeding the growth that we all want. To do so, we must move away from what I described as the slightly confused spatial arrangements made by the previous Government with regional development agencies and others—some of them did perfectly good work, of course, but they were heading in basically the wrong direction—towards a more sectorally driven system. I have asked the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, under the chairmanship of Charlie Mayfield, to consider becoming employer-facing, so that we can engage employers in ensuring that the system delivers what we want.
I believe that we can build a skills system that makes Britain prosperous, delivers individual opportunity on an unprecedented scale and contributes to social mobility, social cohesion and justice. As the Minister, I will do all that I can to make that so, for it is what is right for our people, our nation and our future.
Further Education Lecturers
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, which follows another education-related one. As I speak, hon. Members in the main Chamber are debating the education maintenance allowance, so Ministers, like the rest of us, are trying to be in two places at once.
This debate is about Government policy on the employment of further education lecturers as school teachers in schools. I am delighted to see present my predecessor as Chair of the Education Committee in its previous guise as the Children, Schools and Families Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I hope that he will participate. The subject is important because the importance of vocational and practical education within our education system is too often underplayed. There is also an artificial chasm between those who teach in further education and those who teach in schools at a time when we are trying to create a system such as that in health, which tries to build pathways in relation to the patient so that, instead of providing health services on the basis of institutional convenience, everything is built in relation to the patient. In exactly the same way, institutions that serve young people in education should bend and shape themselves to suit the young people’s needs, rather than the other way around.
Further education lecturers are required to work through a four-tier qualification system, culminating in qualified teacher learning and skills status. FE lecturers with QTLS accreditation may then work in schools not as teachers, but as instructors, and only as a last resort. Even though they perform essentially the same functions, instructors have a lower professional status and, usually, a lower salary than schoolteachers. The equality of esteem and the need to ensure good vocational learning are undermined by that artificial divide.
Primary and secondary teachers, on the other hand, have a qualification known as qualified teacher status. Teachers with a QTS are currently eligible to teach in the FE sector. If the potential of the Government’s schools policy is to be realised, we need the best possible teachers in the classroom providing education at any one time. The Government’s schools White Paper rightly identifies teacher quality as the most important ingredient in improving the quality of education in this country, thus encouraging social mobility and other issues of social justice that hon. Members on both sides of the House devoutly desire. The White Paper states:
“All the evidence from different education systems around the world shows that the most important factor in determining how well children do is the quality of teachers and teaching.”
Many FE lecturers are dual professionals with expertise both in their vocational subject area and in pedagogy. That expertise needs to be used in schools on an equal and fair basis in the same way as that of teachers. I hope that the Government will look to overcome the obstacles and create a single teaching qualification, effectively moving the barriers that constrain the best use of FE lecturers.
The Government’s skills strategy shows that they are committed to the promotion of technical as well as academic qualifications—I believe that that issue has just been debated in the main Chamber—to promote a variety of routes to improved employment opportunities to students. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has just left the Chamber and, given his passionate espousal of the importance of craft and vocational learning, we must ensure that we make best use of our teaching work force. The skills strategy states:
“Skills are vital to our future and improving skills is essential to building sustainable growth and stronger communities. A skilled workforce is necessary to stimulate the private-sector growth that will bring new jobs and new prosperity for people all over this country.
And a strong further education and skills system is fundamental to social mobility, re-opening routes for people from wherever they begin to succeed in work, become confident through becoming accomplished and play a full part in civil society.”
The reality, however, is that there has been a lack of expansion of vocational expertise in the school work force, which fails to match the expansion of vocational curricula in schools. Schools too often do not have the appropriately experienced teachers to inspire students to excel in vocational courses.
The Children, Schools and Families Committee carried out an inquiry into teacher training in the 2009-10 Session and its report, “The Training of Teachers”, was published in January 2010. The Committee called for
“greater fluidity—and shared development opportunities—across the school and further education sectors.”
The report’s recommendations include:
“At the very least, teachers with Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills status should immediately be able to work as a qualified teacher in schools if they are teaching post-16, even post-14, pupils.”
That recommendation represents the nub of my case today, for which I hope we will have a sympathetic and constructive response from Ministers.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I rushed from the main Chamber where we have both been speaking. We are a regular double act. The recommendations of the inquiry under discussion were made by a former Select Committee—the Children, Schools and Families Committee. It was one of our later inquiries and it was very much an eye-opener for all members of the Committee. We made recommendations on improvements to teacher education and asked why we had an artificial divide whereby a schoolteacher could not teach in FE and many people teaching in FE could not teach in schools. It seems a crazy divide.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is supposed to be making an intervention.
Mr Sheerman
Sorry, Mr Hood. It was a very long intervention. I hope that you will call me to speak again later.
Mr Stuart
I now know—if I did not already—that my predecessor would like to speak in this debate, so his intervention served that purpose. The report’s recommendations, under the hon. Gentleman’s august chairmanship, also stated:
“In the context of the 14–19 reforms, the Department should put in place a mechanism for assessing vocational or professional qualifications as equivalent to degree status.”
It added:
“Over the longer term we recommend that the training of early years teachers, school teachers and further education teachers become harmonised through generic standards.”
That is the request that I am making today—“harmonised through generic standards.”
Those recommendations seem to have been overlooked, with FE lecturers remaining on the sidelines. Despite their obvious expertise in the vocational pathway, we are clearly ignoring the opportunity to utilise their talents in our secondary schools. My Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools, and wants to ensure that we have the best possible teachers to engage with young people who perhaps find their academic studies less inspiring. Having the best possible vocational teachers is a great way of getting people re-engaged in learning to the benefit of both academic and vocational skills.
The Skills Commission published a report, “Teaching Training in Vocational Education”, in February 2010, which states:
“If we are to successfully establish and maintain a vocational pathway through 14-19 education and on to higher education, we need professionals with recent and relevant vocational knowledge and skills”
to transfer their expertise to learners. Those are common-sense words, but there is a barrier standing in their way. The report notes that
“the system as it now stands is biased towards academic education and its teachers, and fails to recognise the crucial role that vocational education and its teachers play in 14-19 education… For vocational instructors employed in schools their conditions of service are inferior to those employed as school teachers.”
It adds:
“We cannot continue to perceive vocational education to be second class and inferior to academic education. In turn, we cannot continue to label teachers of vocational education as a ‘semi-profession’… The Commission believes that, in the short-term, greater transferability between the two professional statuses must be achieved in order to realise high quality academic and vocational provision throughout 14-19 education—getting the right skills in the right place of our education system must be a priority for policymakers.”
That is why I am delighted to be participating in this debate. The report continues:
“To realise this, the Commission believes that convergence courses should be developed to facilitate transferability between QTS and QTLS. The principle of this convergence would be central to the Skills Commission’s vision for 14-19 education, and to establishing a high quality route through the 14-19 phase... The two regimes should be replaced by a unified training system and a ‘universal teaching status’.”
So why have neither the recommendations of the former Children, Schools and Families Committee nor those of the Skills Commission been implemented by the Government? It seems that there are a number of possible objections to a unified teacher status. First, teaching young adults is considered a different playing field to teaching 11 to 16-year-olds. Therefore, an individual who is teaching in further education might not have the skills and pedagogical background necessary to teach younger children. That was one of the fears before the increased flexibility pilots were started seven years ago—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with them—when the national curriculum was made more flexible, so that it included a wider variety of settings in which students could study. In practice, FE staff found that teaching groups of 14 and 15-year-olds was not so very different from teaching 16 and 17-year-olds. The skills are fundamentally the same—good lesson planning, varying the pace, involving students and so on.
A second argument is that schoolteachers might have a better grounding in the theory of teaching and pedagogy than FE teachers. Teaching degrees and the PGCE provide a grounding in the theory of teaching and pedagogy, but so does the four-stage approach to the QTLS. FE lecturers are required to gain QTLS status by successfully going through professional formation, which is, according to the Institute for Learning,
“the post-qualification process by which a teacher demonstrates through professional practice the ability to use effectively the skills and knowledge acquired whilst training to be a teacher; and the capacity to meet the occupational standards required of a teacher.”
By contrast, there are strong arguments in favour of a universal teacher status. Academic and vocational education are both important and require equally rigorous teaching. It is simply unreasonable, not to mention unfair, that FE teachers cannot go into the school environment. As I have said, it is crucial that highly skilled and experienced professionals can use that skill wherever it is most needed. The current system of teacher qualification is over-complicated and should be simplified to allow high-quality professionals to teach in both sectors.
My predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee wishes to speak, so I will bring my remarks to an early close. I have made the key points that I wanted to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively. We need to ensure that we have a rich curriculum that regards vocational and practical learning as equally important, equally valid and equally useful as academic learning. There should be a system through which we increase academic rigour, while ensuring that the whole work force and every type of learning are treated according to their merits and that every child can access the best possible teaching whatever course they are doing at whatever time.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman who has secured the Adjournment debate has agreed to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) saying a few words, as has the Minister, but I ask him to give the Minister adequate time to respond to the debate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise, Mr Hood. In the communication that I had with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), there was obviously confusion about which debate we were talking in. We have contributed to the debates here and in the main Chamber, so sorry for the communication difficulty and thank you, Mr Hood, for the opportunity to speak briefly. I am also grateful to the Minister for agreeing to let me contribute. I only want to speak for two minutes.
I care passionately about the matter. If we are to have a system with increasingly diverse post-14 routes—apprenticeships, people staying on in FE, people doing diplomas and more conventional vocational routes and being able to switch across from those—we need a profession that can teach across the piece post-14. I make a plea for the recommendations of the former Children, Schools and Families Committee, of which I was Chair, to be considered. I also co-chair the Skills Commission, so I wear both those hats today. I should put on the record that Baroness Sharp in the other place played a significant role in the recommendations that came out of the Skills Commission. She is a very knowledgeable person in this area. We also had great help from Policy Connect in organising that inquiry.
I am here to support the Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will say that there can be some positive movement on the matter. He knows that we tried to be helpful when we did our inquiry into the training of teachers, and many of the people who have read that report think that it was balanced. The report had cross-party support, and it gives people in the Department the opportunity to consider how the future of the teaching profession can get even better than it is today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) not only on securing the debate but on being part of the dynamic duo that is now performing in this Chamber, having dual-tasked and performed just a few minutes ago in the main Chamber.
This is an important issue. I recognise the particular interest in the subject that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has and his background in the work that his Committee did before the election. It is therefore appropriate that he was able to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness made some positive and constructive points, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of his comments. He asked me to be sympathetic, constructive and positive in my response; as he well knows, I always endeavour to do so. Whether I can give him the detail of that sympathy, constructiveness and positivity remains to be seen, given that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) would normally be responding to the debate. Of course, he is involved in the debate in the main Chamber.
Mr Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate, given the pressures on the Department. I understand why he finds himself in that position. As he is helping out the Minister with responsibility for schools, perhaps he will ask whether my predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee, Baroness Sharp—if she wishes to join us—and I can meet the Minister with responsibility for schools to discuss the matter further after having heard the Minister’s remarks.
Tim Loughton
I will be delighted to pass on that invitation for a meeting. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for schools will be sympathetic, positive and constructive in his response to it. Notwithstanding what is going on this afternoon, the timing of the debate is also appropriate given the review of vocational education that the Secretary of State has asked Professor Alison Wolf to carry out—her name was mentioned in the main Chamber a little while ago.
The Government attach great importance to improving vocational teaching in schools. In response to my hon. Friend’s point, it is certainly not a question of being second class to academic education or treating vocational sector teachers as second class; it is a question of appropriateness and horses for courses, in the same way as perhaps primary school teachers do not readily transfer to become secondary school teachers and vice versa. I want to make it clear that all aspects of teaching those different areas are absolutely valued, but that they will be more appropriate for certain people in certain areas than in others.
My hon. Friend made a point at the beginning with which I wholeheartedly concur: we need to shape institutions around children and young people to ensure that they are getting the most appropriate support, education and training of whatever type, rather than trying to pigeonhole people into particular structures. The coalition agreement for the new Government included a commitment to better vocational education in England, and the Secretary of State’s speech to the Edge Foundation last year on 9 September set out the need for radical reform to address long-term weaknesses in practical learning. That is why we have asked Professor Wolf to carry out what is proving to be a major review and to make recommendations about how vocational education can be improved.
Professor Wolf’s review is considering how we can ensure that vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds supports valuable participation and progression into the labour market and into higher level education. The final report will include practical recommendations on how vocational education will be improved in line with the public commitment that we have made. I know that Professor Wolf has made very good progress with the report. She has met teachers, heads and college principals to inform her review, and she has been considering submissions made as part of the call for evidence. We look forward to receiving her full report later in the spring, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has mentioned.
Mr Graham Stuart
If I recall, the original timetable was that an interim report would be presented by Professor Wolf before Christmas. Has such a report been presented to Ministers? If so, can it be published?
Tim Loughton
I am not aware that a full-blown interim report has been presented to Ministers. I am aware that there have been preliminary discussions between Professor Wolf and Ministers about her initial findings. I do not think that an exact date has been set for publication so far, but when my hon. Friend has the meeting with the Minister with responsibility for schools I am sure he will be able to elaborate further on the exact details.
Mr Sheerman
When Professor Wolf, who used to be on the Skills Commission with us, was appointed by the Secretary of State, was she told that half way through her report, the rug of the EMA was going to be pulled from under her feet, or was she oblivious to that fact?
Tim Loughton
I cannot answer for any discussions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers have had with Professor Wolf on her appointment. I am not in a position to answer that. Again, that is a question that the hon. Gentleman can address to the Minister with responsibility for schools. I am sure that the Minister will grant an audience to him, his dynamic duo partner and the noble Baroness Sharp at a later date.
An expert, experienced work force with the right training is, of course, essential to a successful future for vocational education. The Government have therefore asked Professor Wolf, as part of her review, to look at work force issues in particular. I know that Professor Wolf has identified many of the issues raised by hon. Members today, and that her report will consider further education teachers’ eligibility to teach in schools, and in particular the question of why FE-trained teachers, who have already achieved Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills status, also need to gain Qualified Teacher Status to be able to teach as qualified teachers in schools, which is the essence of my hon. Friend’s argument.
Pending Professor Wolf’s independent report, it would not be right for the Government to reach a definite conclusion on some of the issues that we have debated here today, and I am sure that hon. Members understand that. However, I can set out the simple ambitions that should guide us in reviewing this policy: getting the best people into schools and colleges, relevant to the demands of the particular curriculum or subject, whether academic or vocational; and fairness in dealing with the teachers who dedicate so much to providing excellent education, both academic and vocational. I include in “teachers” the experts from industry and professions who want to pass on their expertise to the next generation by supporting vocational education.
We do not think the current policy goes far enough in meeting those ambitions, which is why Professor Wolf is looking at this area so carefully. It is vital that schools have the flexibility to employ the staff they need to offer excellent vocational education to their particular set of students. It is also vital that the contribution that teachers with a further education background can make to schools is fully recognised by schools.
I want to address the specific proposal that the solution to the problems identified here today is simply to bring the professional statuses for further education and schools together into one status. I am aware of the conclusion of the Skills Commission inquiry into teacher training in vocational education, which was published last year and to which both hon. Members have alluded. It concluded by stating the need to achieve convergence of the two separate teacher training regimes that currently exist for teachers of academic subjects in schools, and those of vocational subjects in FE and the post-compulsory sector. The former Children, Schools and Families Committee reached a similar conclusion when it looked into teacher training and reported early in 2010, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that there should be harmonisation of training programmes.
The Government accept the issues highlighted in those reports. There are clearly problems that we need to look at carefully and address, but in addressing those issues, and those raised in debate today, we must also be careful to take a balanced approach. That means that we must not remove the safeguards that guarantee to pupils and parents the standard of teachers that they expect in the schools that their children attend. We should remind ourselves of what we have at the moment: a wholly graduate teaching profession with expertise in teaching the national curriculum; teachers trained to deal with the particular challenges of providing a stimulating education to children; and a profession where individual teachers have the flexibility to teach across all school age ranges from five to 18. That is a foundation that the Government will build on to create an outstanding teaching profession, as set out in the schools White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”.
I recognise the logic of convergence. There are, of course, many similarities between the jobs done by teachers in schools and in FE colleges. However, we must also be clear that QTLS status has been designed for the distinct requirements of the further education sector, with a focus on vocational learning and teaching over-16s. That does not prepare teachers to carry out the full range of work that is required of a qualified teacher in a school, as set down in the standards for qualified teacher status. Those include a degree, usually in the subject being taught, knowledge of the national curriculum, which it is the basic duty of schools to offer, and experience of teaching in two age ranges and capabilities around safeguarding and behaviour management that are different for younger children. Simply allowing anyone with QTLS to teach in schools would mean that we were not able to guarantee the rigorous academic expertise of teachers to pupils and parents. Whatever the recommendations, results and the way ahead, a good deal of work will need to be done to offer appropriate teaching to children and young people in those different educational environments. It cannot just happen simply because the rules have changed.
There are ways that the Government can address the need for reform in this area without undermining our plans to build a graduate teaching work force to create an outstanding, high status profession. For example, we have already consulted publicly on an assessment-only route to obtaining QTS for those who have substantial experience of working in schools or further education, and who have a degree. That will offer a more flexible route to QTS accreditation with minimal teacher training.
In the wake of Professor Wolf’s recommendations, I expect that we will be able to bring forward further proposals. For example, one such proposal might be to support teachers without degrees who wish to teach the vocational subjects in schools that they are already able to teach in colleges.
I hope, without being able to go into go into an enormous detail, pending the report and given the limitations on my own presence here and my particular brief in the Department for Education, that I have at least signalled to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Huddersfield that this is a matter to which the Government are giving considerable and urgent attention in order to improve the current policy.
Mr Graham Stuart
I appreciate the tone and quality of the Minister’s remarks. The Government are backing university technical colleges, which will provide education for young people from the age of 14. Those young people will sometimes come in, dressed in a boiler suit at the age of 14, and have a spanner in their hand at 8.30 am or 8.45 am. If the Government are going to consider, following the Wolf review, greater flexibilities, the age at which young people start must be 14. That would fit with the university technical colleges and the wider Government programme. I just wanted to make that point on the record to the Minister today.
Tim Loughton
I hear what my hon. Friend has said. Those comments might have been as appropriate in the previous debate in this Chamber, which involved the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is a Minister in both my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I have heard what he has said and will pass those comments on along with all the comments from hon. Members this afternoon.
I am confident that the decisions that we will take in the light of Professor Wolf’s review will result in a more logical position than we have at present—we all readily acknowledge that—which will continue to improve the quality of the school teaching work force, allow schools to make the best use of teachers with experience and expertise from outside the classroom and is fair to all those who play a role in the education of young people.
May I reiterate my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for the balanced, measured and informed way in which he put his comments? I undertake to pass on the points that both hon. Members have made and to urge my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for schools, in his greatly uncluttered diary, to find time to have a more detailed meeting with them.
Mr Sheerman
I remind the Minister that tens of thousands of young people who are 14 years old are presently being taught—not all week, but two or three days a week—in the FE sector. Studio schools, the first of which has opened in Huddersfield, will also be taking young people working in a work environment from the age of 14. It is a fact that 14-year-olds are being taught by highly qualified staff in the FE sector.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman can be duly contented that I am suitably reminded of the points that he has made and that I will pass them on to my hon. Friends as well. I thank him for his contribution.
Basic Bank Accounts (Scotland)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. The stimulus for requesting it came from a report published in November 2010 by Citizens Advice Scotland—the umbrella group for citizens advice bureaux in Scotland—called, “Banking on the basics”. It was based on a survey that it carried out and the experiences of the many bureaux in the country. Many of the points and recommendations in the report are echoed in the report of the Financial Inclusion Taskforce, “Banking services and poorer households”, which was published in December 2010. It addressed the subject on a UK-wide level. Clearly, the issues are similar north and south of the border.
One of the relatively unsung but important pieces of work done by the Labour Government after 1997 was the detailed research, analysis and, most important, development of action plans to tackle poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. Outwith some of the political knockabout that sometimes takes place, I hope that we can all agree that it is only long-term, painstaking work of that kind that will make a real difference. It has to be sustained over a long period—we will not necessarily get instant results.
One of the strengths of the work was how it was spread across Government Departments, including the Treasury. It was not simply sidelined into the kind of Department that normally deals with poverty and deprivation. In 1999, Treasury policy action team 14 made its report on access to financial services, and from that flowed, among many other things, the basic bank account proposal.
Why is access to banking so important in this context? First, it helps people to manage their budgets more effectively and cheaply. Operating in cash is extremely expensive; for example, those who cannot pay fuel bills by direct debit pay a higher tariff, especially if they use prepayment meters. Buying essential household goods through catalogues, and mechanisms such as rent to buy are also extremely expensive. A useful report which highlights some of the issues for poorer families came out just this week from Save the Children.
Basic bank accounts also serve as a gateway to other mainstream financial services, including savings, insurance and credit, so people can make the journey from the basic bank account to other elements of financial inclusion in due course. Increasingly, many employers want to pay wages into a bank account. A number of bureaux survey respondents in the CAS report had encountered difficulties entering employment because of that. They could not get a bank account, or, if they got cheques, they encountered high bank charges to have them cashed.
Clearly, becoming “banked” will not in itself overcome poverty and deprivation, but it forms an important part of the jigsaw of policies and actions that are needed. There has been considerable progress. The goal of halving the number of the “unbanked” was met by 2009. Treasury figures for the UK in December 2010 show that the proportion of adults living in a household without access to a current, basic or savings account reduced from 4% in 2002-03 to 2% in 2008-09. The corresponding figures for Scotland show a fall from 6% to 3% over the same period.
The unbanked remain largely concentrated in the most deprived areas, and among certain groups: the retired, those who are of working age but in poor health and lone parents. Fairly significantly, in terms of access routes, 54% of the unbanked were council or housing association tenants. Only 16% of those with bank accounts fall into that category. I mention that partly because I think that that is a way in which some of the access routes could be enabled.
That still leaves a substantial number of unbanked adults. The CAS survey showed that two thirds of those who did not have access to a bank account had tried to open one. It is sometimes argued that the remaining unbanked do not want bank accounts.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened to my hon. Friend. From my experience working in a bank—I worked for a bank 10 years ago, when the basic bank account was introduced—I have to say that the attitude of some bank workers was appalling. The basic bank account does not credit score, so they could not sell products, and they treated many people with basic bank accounts as second-class citizens. Does she agree that that is an absolute scandal in this day and age?
Sheila Gilmore
I certainly agree. I shall speak later about how we can move this forward, and one way is by improving the practices of some banks in that regard.
There are several main reasons why people cannot access basic bank accounts, of which that may well be one. Another is having a poor credit history or, indeed, no credit history. I shall quote one example from the CAS survey:
“I had a full driving licence but never had a bill in my name as I live with my mum and dad. I am 28 years old and can’t get a bank account.”
There are people who have not taken any credit in the past and do not have a record.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I was a dentist in a previous life—I am a glutton for punishment, perhaps. I have a similar story. We employed a new dental nurse who had no credit history at all. She did not have a driving licence—she was straight out of school—or her birth certificate, which had been lost in her parents’ messy separation, so she was not able to open a bank account. Instead, every week she had to take her cheques to one of the local pawnshops and pay £3.50 to get her money. That is a simple story, but the situation affects thousands of people across the UK.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that example. It is important to understand that these things do still happen in this day and age, although it might be surprising to some people.
On the inability to meet some of the identity requirements, the Financial Services Authority permits use of a wide range of identification, but local advice agencies in my constituency have told me that meeting the requirements can be problematic. Not all banks operate to the FSA guidelines. They demand either a passport or a driving licence, which not everyone has. Such things as a letter from a housing association or benefit entitlement documents are not accepted, so the whole process takes a long time.
Other people are in a situation where they owe money to a bank. Sometimes it is appropriate that they open up a basic bank account elsewhere to enable them to function while they are dealing with previous debts. There is a growing difficulty with the consolidation of banks, in that there are too few banks in many places. In some small towns in Scotland, there is very little choice.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware that an increasing number of people are being made bankrupt in Scotland because of the operation of legislation that allows people to be made voluntarily bankrupt because of their financial situation. That group in particular has a great deal of difficulty in opening bank accounts. Does she think that that issue also needs to be addressed?
Sheila Gilmore
I very much do. At present, only two of the mainstream banks allow undischarged bankrupts to open a basic bank account, and that creates a difficulty in Scotland in particular. One is the Co-operative bank, but it has few branches in Scotland, even with the merger with Britannia; the other is Barclays, which does not operate in many places in Scotland. In Edinburgh, there are only two Barclays branches. They are near each other in the centre of the city, so it is difficult for people to access any bank in Edinburgh that would enable them to have a basic bank account if they are an undischarged bankrupt.
There are also issues around high bank charges, which can lead people to abandon their bank accounts. For instance, a direct debit comes in at a time when there is no money in the account. They are unaware of that, and a bank charge is levied. Ironically, some people found that doorstep lenders who would be more expensive in the long term were more sympathetic and easier to use. They would allow a payment to be missed occasionally. We know that that is an expensive way of working, but the inflexibility of banks and an automatic bank charge when one is on a marginal income anyway put people off.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Recent research has found that 60% of people go to the high-cost pay-day lenders to consolidate their borrowing. Does my hon. Friend agree that access to a bank account may prevent some of that from happening?
Sheila Gilmore
I agree that we need to stop that happening, and bank accounts are one way of doing so, although we must also take other measures.
How can we make further progress? My submission is that banks should be legally required to offer a basic bank account when an application for a current account has been refused. That was proposed in the March 2010 Budget and was a commitment in Labour’s 2010 election manifesto.
The Government also have a role in encouraging mainstream banks to use all the best practice and not to introduce obstacles such as those that several of my hon. Friends and I have discussed. That includes ensuring that undischarged bankrupts are allowed to open bank accounts and that people with no credit history are given access. Banks should market such basic accounts fully, and staff should be trained and encouraged to do so. The ID requirement should be reviewed and, again, staff should be clear about what is necessary; they should not over-ask, which puts people off. If, even with such changes, banks have to or feel that they have to refuse an application, they should at least be obliged to give people information about alternatives.
The Government need to support alternative providers for people on low incomes, including credit unions and community development financial institutions such as Scotcash in Glasgow, which not only offers loans but has been giving people assistance with basic bank accounts. In its second year of operation, Scotcash assisted 553 individuals to open a basic bank account. However, such organisations depend on a relatively high degree of public support, and it is important to consider ways of helping those institutions to grow further. Many were able to get started because of the previous Government’s £100 million growth fund. If that fund does not continue, many will have to reduce their operations in future years. Reforming community interest tax relief would assist them, as would keeping mainstream banks to their previous commitment to help such community financial institutions—most have not kept that commitment. The debate is not primarily about savings or credit, but such points illustrate how all the issues are linked and how the Government need to have an overall financial inclusion strategy and to act upon it.
I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to establishing a universal right to a basic bank account? Secondly, will they continue the work of the Treasury’s Financial Inclusion Taskforce after the end of the current financial year, because it has been behind so many measures? Thirdly, how will they encourage banks to remove current obstacles to securing a basic bank account, as outlined? Fourthly, how will they support alternative mechanisms for those for whom a bank account may still be impossible or undesirable?
I have a couple of specific proposals for the Minister. What practical and financial support can be given to enable post offices and credit unions to enter partnerships? In the short time that I have been in the House, there has been much discussion but no specific action allowing that to happen. If post offices do that, there is a cost, which the post office network perhaps feels is difficult to meet at this stage in its operations, but the Government could assist.
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the beginning of my hon. Friend’s contribution.
Has my hon. Friend shared my experience of young people in particular having difficulties? In my constituency, Save the Children has given compelling evidence about young people who have left the family home—they are put out of it—being denied the means to get a bank account and, therefore, the means to set up proper financial arrangements, further pushing them into poverty. The issue is a key plank in tackling poverty and helping people back on to their feet.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The issue is important for young people. Many people talk about financial education being important—indeed, it is—but if someone does not even have the mechanisms in place to act on such financial information, which was perhaps got through school, participating fully in society, getting employment, having wages paid into banks and so on will be difficult. Many young people in that situation are setting up home for the first time, so it would be helpful if they could access facilities that, for example, allow them to make fuel payments cheaply.
Finally, and specifically, I am interested in the Government’s view on reforming the community investment tax relief to assist community development financial institutions, so that they can expand their business without necessarily being wholly dependent on grant assistance. That would enable such an important strand of financial inclusion to continue.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this important debate tracking progress on basic bank accounts and on what more needs to be done to encourage financial inclusion.
I confirm the coalition Government’s commitment to improving levels of financial inclusion. I have been involved and interested in the issue for some time. We believe that banks should serve the economy and that they should be committed to improving access to banking and the transparency of financial products for consumers.
Tackling unnecessary exclusion from banking services can help to alleviate some of the problems faced by low-income families who are currently unable to access mainstream banking services. As the hon. Lady has said, the benefits include being able to receive payments through different channels, having a more secure place to keep money and reducing the cost of household bills.
That is why the Government are committed to improving access to basic banking services and to helping people to use those services responsibly. That can only be achieved through collaboration between a number of parties, including the Government and the financial services industry, as well as a range of local partners, such as the devolved Governments, local authorities, social landlords, advice agencies, credit unions and others.
It is important to acknowledge, as the hon. Lady did, the real progress towards financial inclusion in recent years, and to note that such progress is due to the openness and support of many in the financial services sector. In her speech, the hon. Lady highlighted the reduction in the unbanked over the course of the past few years. Since 2002-03, the number of adults living in households without a transactional bank account has decreased from 3.57 million to 1.54 million in 2008-09. That number continued to fall in the last year for which we have information, with 200,000 fewer adults living in households without access to a transactional bank account. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. There is still scope to bring more households into banking services and to encourage the banks to maintain strong standards of customer service for poorer households.
I want to say a little more about the project to which the hon. Lady has referred to improve access to basic bank accounts.
Chris Evans
Before the Minister moves on, what does he believe that banks can do to manage people who are currently running their basic bank accounts very well on to mainstream banking, so that they can have credit facilities? What action can move people on to mainstream banking?
Mr Hoban
That is an important point. Banks should see the opportunity to encourage and enable people to get greater access to mainstream services, moving them from a basic bank account to a more fully functioning current account.
I will touch on the issue later, but we need to go with the grain of how people want to live their lives. Many people are comfortable with access to a bank account without an overdraft facility, for example. A challenge for policy makers is that we think of things that we might like as a function, even though sections of the community might not want such functionality in their accounts. We need to think carefully about that, although we should be clear that moving to a fully functioning current account ought to be open to those with basic bank accounts. Banks need to look at credit histories and how people manage their accounts as part of that process.
At the request of the financial inclusion taskforce, eight of the major retail bank account providers have collaborated to provide management data on their basic bank accounts. That allows us to look at levels of take-up in different local authority areas and wards across the country. At local level, there are financial inclusion champions, such as the group in Scotland funded by the Department for Work and Pensions. They are looking at how best to work in deprived areas to raise awareness and encourage more people to open bank accounts. We can continue to make effective use of up-to-date regional data to help tackle the issue in areas of financial exclusion.
The hon. Lady referred to the financial inclusion taskforce report that was published in December. That is a timely piece of work that gives us the opportunity to take stock of where we are. It raises a number of issues referred to by the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and I encourage hon. Members to read the report on the Treasury website.
The taskforce found that the experience of banking services for poorer households has been mixed. Many households have made savings on services and retail purchases, but some have lost money through bank charges. The taskforce found that the remaining unbanked are generally the poorest and most deprived people, and it recommended a number of minor changes to existing basic bank accounts to make them more accessible and easier for poorer households to use. It also highlighted the scale of the challenge of extending bank accounts to those who currently do not have them.
The research found significant indicators of relative disadvantage among the unbanked: eight out of 10 of the unbanked are in receipt of income-related benefits; more than a third have major health conditions; and a quarter have numeracy or literacy problems. As more people open bank accounts, we see the unbanked becoming concentrated in hard-to-reach, more deprived groups. We must think carefully about how to work closely with those groups to get people to open bank accounts and access the benefits that they bring.
Interestingly, we should not assume that those who do not have a bank account have not previously held one. Six out of 10 unbanked people have previously held a bank account. The research does not give reasons why those people do not currently have a bank account, but some may have had issues with managing their account and decided not to keep it open, or the account may have been closed. We are not necessarily talking about people with no experience of bank accounts. Some people may have opted not to have an account for a particular reason.
Let me reiterate the point about going with the grain of how people run their lives. Many unbanked consumers express a preference for managing their finances in cash. Some low-income households employ a number of strategies to ensure that money is available for essential living expenses, which include not withdrawing all their benefit payments at once, leaving a small amount of money as a buffer, or perhaps putting cash towards a particular purpose. We are well aware of the number of people who join holiday clubs or Christmas clubs to try to keep money in a defined account that is kept for a specific purpose, and a lot of people on low incomes find that to be a more effective way of having control over their money. They want direct control over their spending and feel that a bank account takes that away from them. Unbanked people are more concentrated in particular groups, but not having a bank account could be a conscious decision as much as a matter of exclusion, and we must therefore have a more flexible approach.
In the long term, the taskforce believes that the introduction of new models and channels for the delivery of financial services may be necessary to address the difficulties that poorer households can experience with banking. It has called on the Government to engage further with banks, e-money service providers, bill payment organisations, retailers and post offices to pursue new ways to improve the opportunities for low-income households to make the most of their money. We are in danger of getting stuck by thinking about a model of banking based around bank accounts. Increasingly, people are turning to prepayment cards or e-money as a way of controlling their finances or paying bills online.
Sheila Gilmore
The Minister has correctly identified one concern of the financial inclusion taskforce—that of bank charges that are very high in relation to the sums of money that people are dealing with. Does the Minister have any proposals to address the banks on that issue, given that by definition, people cannot run up unnecessary debt on those accounts? Perhaps bank charges should be reduced for that customer group.
Mr Hoban
The coalition agreement commits us to tackling the issue of bank charges, and we are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
I want to respond to a couple of specific points. Hon. Members have discussed bankrupts not being able to open bank accounts, and the hon. Lady was right to say that Barclays and the Co-operative bank allow undischarged bankrupts to open accounts. A number of banks are currently reviewing their policies and, in response to a call by the Government in July for banks to reconsider the issue and recognise the problem, the Insolvency Service is working with the British Bankers Association to decide how to address the issue.
The guidelines in law on identification are high level, and banks and financial services institutions have a great deal of flexibility in deciding how to prove someone’s identity. It is not only about having a driving licence or a passport, because there are other ways of doing it. In one of my constituency cases, a letter from the local council addressed to the person who was seeking to open a bank account was deemed to be sufficient proof of identity. I encourage banks to make their staff more aware of the rules and flexibility, and we will continue to raise that matter with the banks and the BBA.
The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) asked whether banks are open to people opening basic bank accounts. The work of the financial inclusion taskforce, which sent mystery shoppers into banks, demonstrated that 80% of bank managers are much more open to people opening basic bank accounts. That issue has been a problem in the past, and we must maintain pressure on the banks to ensure that they offer basic bank accounts and do not turn customers away. We must tackle the barriers to people opening bank accounts.
Community investment tax relief is an important way of providing support. That tax is due for review shortly, and we will work with a full range of stakeholders to consider the options available for reform.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for giving way, Mr Hood, and I apologise for missing the start of the debate.
Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)
Order. I did not give way; I was not doing anything.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Mr Hood. I will get used to the conventions of this place eventually. The Minister has responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on the subject of basic bank accounts. One point that I regularly heard from the BBA, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS, as it was at the time, was that if the staff in local branches were not able to offer a full bank account to potential customers, they did not then offer a basic bank account. Will the Government consider issuing guidance on that through the BBA to ensure that people who do not meet the criteria for a full bank account are automatically offered a basic bank account?
Mr Hoban
I do not want to get bogged down in what banks should or should not do. Through its mystery shopping exercise, the taskforce looked at the offering of basic bank accounts, and it will publish a more detailed report this year that will help inform those processes. Obviously, the Banking Code Standards Board will also have an interest in how such accounts are offered.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also asked about support for credit unions and post offices working together. There has been much discussion about that in recent months, and there is already a lot of co-operation between post offices and credit unions. For example, credit union current account holders can access their accounts through the post office, and more thought is being applied to that area.
We take financial inclusion seriously, and we want to ensure that more people have access to a bank account and the benefits that that brings. It is important to ensure that bank accounts and financial services work with the grain of how people live their lives. We must look at new technological approaches and the barriers to opening bank accounts. Together, we will take forward the work of the financial inclusion taskforce in conjunction with our partners not only in government but in the financial services sector. If I have not replied to any of the hon. Lady’s points I will happily respond to them by letter.
Sheila Gilmore
It appears from the Minister’s words that the financial inclusion taskforce will be continuing.
Mr Hoban
The previous Government committed the financial inclusion taskforce to a five-year life. The problem is ensuring that inclusion becomes a mainstream financial services issue and is not seen as something on the margins. That is why I will work closely with the financial services sector and other interested parties to see how we can best take forward the work of the financial inclusion taskforce. It is not an issue for those on the margins; it is an issue that should be taken seriously from bank boards to bank branches.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Consolidated Statement (EU Funds in the UK)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
Since November 2006, HM Treasury has prepared a Consolidated Statement on the use of funds from the EU budget in the United Kingdom.
The coalition Government have set new standards for transparency in the UK. This is at the heart of our shared commitment to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account, to reduce the deficit and deliver better value for money in public spending. The Government are fully committed to transparency in the use of EU funds in the UK and to strong accountability for receipts of EU funding to the UK Parliament, to strengthen the audit and parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s use of EU funds.
The coalition Government are also determined to ensure sound financial management of all EU funds. We need to ensure that simplified rules can go hand in hand with effective financial management of EU funds at all levels, taking a proportionate and risk-based approach to audit and financial control.
I therefore today lay before Parliament the third of these statements for the year ending 31 March 2009, along with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) audit opinion and report.
The CAG has qualified his opinion on the statement, for the year ending 31 March 2009, on the issue of truth and fairness, and also the issue of regularity; and has set out weaknesses in accounting practice during the period covered by the statement. The coalition Government are introducing new measures to improve financial discipline of EU funds spent in the UK.
The coalition Government also hope this statement and the CAG’s audit opinion will be helpful to the European Court of Auditors and the Commission when they are performing their own audits and controls; and that the statement and the CAG’s audit opinion will encourage similar initiatives from other EU member states, whose contributions to improving financial reporting and management across the EU are also important.
Capital Funding Allocations
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for schools, Lord Hill of Oareford, has made the following statement:
“Today I am announcing capital funding allocations for 2011-12 to address sixth-form college (SFC) priority building condition needs; SFC devolved formula capital (DFC); and basic-need funding for 16 to 19-year-old student places.
The capital settlement for the Department for Education (DFE) was extremely tight, with a 60% reduction in 2014-15 compared with the historic high of 2010-11. We have therefore had to consider very carefully how the balance of capital funding is allocated in order to ensure that it is targeted to the areas of greatest need.
I know that there are sixth-form colleges with building needs which have missed out on previous capital programmes. I have therefore allocated more than £57 million to address priority building condition needs within the sixth-form college sector.
Even where funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met, and to prevent a backlog of decay building up which is very expensive to address. I am therefore also pleased to announce that in 2011-12 all sixth-form colleges will become eligible for devolved formula capital at a rate of £4,000 per college plus £22.50 per student. This means the average allocation to a sixth-form college will be in the region of £40,000. This funding is primarily for planned maintenance and is in addition to the £57 million for building condition needs.
The Government are committed to ensuring that all young people have the opportunity to continue in education and training after the age of 16. I therefore want to ensure that funding is available to meet the need for additional places where there are demographic pressures in schools, academies and sixth-form colleges: £30 million will be made available in the coming financial year for basic need funding for 16 to 19-year-old student places in these institutions.
The YPLA is currently working with officials in my Department on the criteria and process for distributing funds for 2011-12 and we expect to be able to make further details available shortly so that institutions can access funds as soon as possible in the new financial year. We will involve representatives from the sector as we develop the detail of the allocations process.
Capital funding for 2012-13 onwards will take into account the outcome of the review of DFE capital programmes, which the Secretary of State for Education has commissioned, and which is expected to report shortly.”
EU Regulation 994/2010 (Security of Gas Supply)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
I have decided that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) shall be designated as the competent authority for the purposes of Regulation 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC, which came into force on 2 December 2010.
As competent authority, DECC will be responsible for implementing the measures in the regulation intended to improve EU security of gas supply. These include: preparing a risk assessment, developing a preventative action plan and emergency plan, and regular monitoring of security of gas supply at a national level, involving the industry, National Grid and Ofgem as appropriate.
As required by article 3(3) of this regulation, DECC will notify the European Commission of this decision as soon as possible.
Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
Several errors have been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on 23 November 2010, Official Report, column 290W. The correct answer is as follows:
The following table shows the number of minor injuries sustained during the use of restraint procedures in each month in 2008-09 in secure training centres (STCs). Data for injuries are not available by gender. It is a contractual requirement for any young person within a STC who has been restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within 30 minutes following the use of restraint.
2008 | 2009 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | |
Hassockfield | - | 2 | - | - | 2 | 3 | 3 | - | - | - | 4 | 3 |
Medway | 5 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
Oakhill | 5 | - | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | - |
Rainsbrook | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | 2 | - | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Notes: 1. The 2009-10 figures will be available once the 2009-10 Youth Justice Board annual workload data are released. Hence only figures for 2008-09 are given. 2. These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and may be subject to change over time. |
Rail Franchising Reform
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I am today launching two publications on rail franchising. The first sets out the Government’s current thinking on franchising, taking account of the results of the July 2010 consultation, “Reforming Rail Franchising”. That consultation proposed a variety of policy changes. It made clear our determination to deliver a railway that takes greater account of passenger needs; provides value for taxpayer investment; and delivers the right incentives for operators.
Since the close of the “Reforming Rail Franchising” consultation in October 2010, the Department has carefully considered the full range of responses, and has discussed the ideas in more detail with industry representatives.
We are now publishing the results of that analysis. Key principles emerging from that work include:
(i) the specifics of each franchise will be decided on a case-by-case basis, with bidders having a greater role in helping Government define the specification;
(ii) we will set demanding outcomes for operators to deliver but we will give them more flexibility to decide how best to achieve those outcomes, giving greater space to operators to plan and run their services in a more commercial manner;
(iii) longer franchises should expand the opportunity for operators to invest in improvements as well as enabling them to strengthen their working relationships with Network Rail and other key stakeholders.
We also believe that it is vital that the cost of running the railways comes down.
The second publication is a public consultation for the new InterCity West Coast (ICWC) franchise. A notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) last week at which time a formal accreditation process for bidders also started.
Our overall aim for the new franchise is to take as a starting point the much enhanced operations of recent years and improve these still further, while delivering value for money and meeting affordability requirements.
The ICWC franchise will build on the new timetable that was introduced in December 2008 and made possible by the £9 billion of public funds invested in infrastructure enhancement on the west coast main line. This upgrade has shortened journey times and enabled more trains to be run. It has also delivered a more regular service timetable to Birmingham and Manchester.
Bidders for the franchise will be required to make proposals for the most advantageous deployment of the four additional 11-car Pendolino trains that will be available to them. These new trains will enable the new franchise operator to offer more capacity, more frequent trains and shorter journey times to various locations.
The new operator will need to consider how best to improve the performance and reliability of long distance services and the quality of service received by passengers across the franchise. They will be expected to put forward ideas for improving the passenger experience on board trains, providing better service information for passengers, and investing in station facilities.
The new ICWC franchise will begin operation on Sunday 1 April 2012. The franchise is proposed to last for a term of at least 14 years, aligned to the possible introduction of services on High Speed 2. Provisions will be included in the contract to allow for an earlier termination in the event of persistent under-performance by the operator.
The consultation document highlights the key requirements that the Department is considering including within the invitation to tender (ITT), for example, proposals to provide operators more flexibility and encourage investment. Responses to the consultation will inform the development of the ITT which we expect to publish in summer 2011, with the franchise awarded in late 2011.
Over the coming weeks the Department will carry out extensive discussions with local stakeholders, via a series of meetings.
The consultation will run until the 21 April 2011. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the House Library and are available on the Department for Transport website.
A notice was placed in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) last week in relation to the Greater Anglia franchise and a formal accreditation process for bidders has begun. This will be a short-term contract lasting from February 2012 to at least the summer of 2013.
Letting this contract will enable us to include appropriate recommendations from the rail value for money study being led by Sir Roy McNulty in a new long-term franchise starting in 2013.
We will not be conducting a public consultation on this contract as the services that are being offered will be largely the same as those in operation today. However, there will be a full public consultation on the long term franchise before it is let.
Grand Committee
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Bill [HL]
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 4 : Assessment of property etc
Amendment 10A
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) An assessment made and provided under this section must clearly detail those energy efficiency improvements that qualify under the green deal.
( ) In making an assessment, the assessor must include all energy efficiency improvement options that qualify under the green deal.
( ) Nothing in this section prevents green deal assessors from identifying energy efficiency improvements in their assessments that—
(a) sit outside the green deal; or(b) collectively exceed the total amount qualifiable under a green deal plan, where this is clearly identified on the assessment.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for my late arrival. The Chair will have saved me by indicating that sittings in the Chamber take precedence and, unfortunately, Questions went on beyond the scheduled start of this Committee. I hope that government business managers will look at that difficulty, which has been the source of a little embarrassment to me today and, more than that, a disadvantage to the Committee.
The amendment is concerned with giving consumers choice. It would enable consumers to have the benefit of a more comprehensive range of options, so that those who are motivated or who can afford a range of energy efficiency options can think about installing measures that go above and beyond the Green Deal. Providing a range of such options helps consumers to think more intensively about which measures they would like to install, as some measures will be better suited than others, according to the circumstances of the building that is due to be treated.
We have heard in Committee arguments in favour of thinking beyond what may strictly be provided through the Green Deal. We all appreciate the importance and significance of the Green Deal. I am not in any way, shape of form doing anything other than commending the objectives of the Green Deal, but there are possibilities beyond it. We all have a major job in educating the public and our fellow citizens about how they can respond. We all know what a challenge that will be because, in all circumstances, despite the fact that the arrangements for payment are so skilfully done through energy bills, costs are involved and we all know people’s natural response to additional costs, particularly when, in the immediate future, household budgets are likely to be constrained.
We want to make sure that as much information as possible is available and that we emphasise the necessity of both hitting the targets and ensuring that individual citizens and consumers sign up to the proposals in the Bill. This amendment builds on the momentum in this House for a more comprehensive energy perspective. I hope, therefore, that the Committee and the Minister will look on it as a constructive proposal to assist in the general objectives of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I had hoped that the noble Lord would have given some indication of the range of improvements and benefits that might be available under the Green Deal. It seems to me that, if one were to list the entire range, including appliances and all the other things that now qualify under the Green Deal, that could in many cases be misleading to a householder, as it might be that only two or three of them could possibly be relevant to his or her house. I just wonder what the purpose is of listing the whole lot if inevitably the assessment will be that, within the price and given the nature of the building concerned, numbers 1, 2 and 3 are really the only ones that will be applicable. What is the purpose of listing, as the amendment suggests in the second subsection, all energy efficiency measures, if most of them might not apply to that house?
Lord Dixon-Smith
Following a slightly similar line of thought, but not exactly the same one, I think that, if you are going to have people in undertaking works to improve the energy efficiency of your building and you are able to do works outwith the scheme, why should that not all be done at the same time? I would hope that the Green Deal might set a minimum standard and a financial limit of the funding available and that, within that financial limit, as much work as the individual owner and improver wishes to undertake can be undertaken. After all, it is a financing arrangement that we are talking about; if the property owner or housing association or whatever wants to go the whole hog and really do the whole job, I do not see that the upper limit matters. What we want is the security of a scheme and it must have a minimum standard. We do not need the rest of it, so I think that the idea of listing it all is completely unnecessary. The only thing that needs to be totally determined is the minimum standard. After that, let it rip.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
The attraction of this amendment is that it affords flexibility. A range of options will be available and, if an assessment is being done, it would be sensible to have a clear list. Let us face it, there may be a number of people who, having become interested in the Green Deal, will be able to purchase some of the items that are outwith the terms and purposes of the Green Deal but which might come cheaper if they get the whole job done at the one time. If a tradesman is visiting a house, it could involve just one visit and a person would have to pay only for another hour. Other pricing mechanisms might involve a second visit, with the first hour costing so much, et cetera.
It is important that we get an idea of the ideal deal as well as the Green Deal so that we can see all the requirements of the household and so that, when the assessment is done, the individuals, within the criteria of the Green Deal, are able to pick and mix. Within certain guidelines and appropriate standards, we should provide a range of options. This amendment may be unnecessary, but I would hate to think that this deal, as I have already characterised, is perhaps in reality more limited.
The Minister and I were not quite in dispute, but he noted his disagreement with me when I said that a number of properties will probably be too expensive to fall within the Green Deal. I identified the solid-wall rural household outwith the gas network, which would be very difficult to fund. The savings may not be sufficiently large to make the loan repayable over a 15-year period, but that should not mean that at least part of the work could not be done in the household under the Green Deal.
If people have enough money, they could take on a private financial arrangement with a bank, add to their mortgage or do whatever to carry out the other improvements. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether he envisages the system being, in the first instance, capable of accommodating a whole list of possible options and being sufficiently flexible before the contract is signed to include some of the options, if not all, on the original list. The system should allow the individual, if they see fit, to have the other works done at their own expense and paid for by whatever means they can privately arrange, whether that be the credit card, the bank loan, adding to their mortgage or simply hard cash.
If we had that, we would get a clearer idea of the potential for flexibility. We do not want so much flexibility that people could be ripped off by cowboys, but qualified tradespeople, good assessors and a wide range of options would be a selling point for the Green Deal. That will not do everything, but it will help. It will perhaps free up resources for people so that they can do the things that they would like to do but otherwise might not consider to be a possibility.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, as one who enjoyed spending Monday night in your Lordships’ House reading through every clause, including the details of the impact assessment, the Explanatory Notes and everything that goes with the Energy Bill, I may have overlooked something but I think that my noble friend’s point is, in effect, already answered. A request to list all the energy efficiency improvements that may or may not fall within the Green Deal would be fairly simple because it is already covered by the Bill. It was made clear by the Minister that under Clause 1(4) there would be an order made by the Secretary of State setting out the qualifying energy improvements. Anyone would be able to see those energy improvements. We would be at risk of repetition if we were now to add into this clause, and lift from the order, all those improvements that would qualify under the Green Deal.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, although I do not entirely agree with this amendment, or the way in which it is written, I think that it is important that the Green Deal plan is put within a broader context. In some ways, the Bill allows for that. In our last session in Grand Committee, we discussed the clauses that refer to the Green Deal plan and/or energy plan and I think that it is that broader energy plan that we could include in this.
As we will see in the next group of amendments, there will be occasions when there will be a much better deal available because more than one property is involved in the decision. This should also be pointed out in the Green Deal energy plan. I like what we are trying to achieve, because I believe that there is a broader issue.
There is another issue that has been left out. The biggest part of any energy plan is not the hardware or the physical changes that are made but how you use energy in your house. I would like to see an obligation in the code of practice—it is not appropriate for the primary legislation—that requires the assessor to ask whether it is possible to run a dishwasher or heating overnight off-peak rather than during the day. Your use of energy can be more effective in ways other than making physical changes to a building. I would like to see that included in recommendations in any energy plan.
This group of amendments includes Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Although I do not agree with all of the amendment, I agree with the end of the sentence, which says the improver should have,
“no bias towards any one green deal provider”.
That comes back to the issue of ensuring that the improver gets a fair choice and option and that there is no bias within the system.
Lord Whitty
Prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I rise to speak to the amendment in my name. Amendment 11 would require the assessor to inform the householder or landlord of the full range of possibilities and the flexibility within any recommendations. The assessment should be subject to clear, objective criteria. I know that some noble Lords dislike the reference to “standardised assessment”, but we need some objectivity and we need to give the householder some choice in how they take the assessor’s recommendations. We need to indicate some flexibility, even within the Green Deal, if we assume that there is a financial limit. This is before you consider the possibility of other arrangements to go beyond the provision of a new deal.
On the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Moynihan, it is clear that there will have to be a detailed code of practice and it may be that some of these issues will be dealt with in that. However, those issues covered by the code of practice in Clause 3 do not include the listing or the objectivity in that listing of recommendations. While I accept that it may be more appropriate for this to go into the code of practice, the primary legislation has to make clear what the Secretary of State will have to bring forward when that code of practice eventually appears.
Finally, I underline the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made about the importance of there not being any bias towards any particular provider. This goes back to who is doing the assessing and what the qualifications for the assessing are, which we discussed at our last sitting. These things are quite ticklish. Obviously, we wish to encourage innovation in this area and we wish to encourage new entrants in the provision of energy-saving installations, ventilation equipment and so on, but these things get roguish at times. It is important to recognise that there is no point in going for the latest super-duper micro CHP system in an individual house if the roof is still not properly ventilated and the windows are not properly fitted. There is a hierarchy of things that you need to do, both in terms of cost and in terms of the most appropriate treatment of those premises. The code of practice and, in broad terms, the primary legislation need to make that clear. Otherwise, we will—I go back to the point that I made when I first spoke in Committee—get back to a situation where, in the very early days, there will be some bad publicity about what people have been lumbered with and the inappropriateness of the work that has been carried out. That would be very dangerous to the success, which we all want to see, of this Green Deal scheme.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, in view of the concern that some noble Lords have expressed over the difficulty of achieving a uniformly high level of competence in the assessors, it ought to be explicit in the Bill whether or not individual householders will have the opportunity to go to a different assessor if they feel that the job has not been done properly by the first.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in Committee, so I should declare that I am a landlord in the private rented sector. The assessors will obviously need paying, but who pays for that? Is it the household or is the cost added to the Green Deal and then paid off over time?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who seems to be indispensable to the Labour Party at the moment—two Questions and then running in here and doing this. I congratulate him on the energy and commitment that he shows to this great House. I just warn him of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who said that statistically, out of the Members of your Lordships’ House, 140 would die from a heart attack. All of us clutched our chests at that time. Seriously, I welcome him and thank him for leading from the opposition Benches. I send the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, our good wishes as she sees her medical experts. I hope that we will welcome her back next week. I also thank all those noble Lords who are here, as usual, making their very good and committed contributions. I say just for reference that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and I rarely disagree on things, as he always makes very valuable remarks for us to listen to. I do not want us to be under any illusion on that front. Some valuable points have been raised and I shall try to pick them up as we go through.
Clause 4 is central to the Green Deal. It sets out key conditions that must be met before a Green Deal plan can be taken out on the property. In so doing, it defines the circumstances in which the Green Deal can be offered to the customer, which is fundamental. Subsections (2) and (3) require that an accredited Green Deal assessor has assessed the property in accordance with standards. To comment on the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, if an assessor has failed, he has clearly failed the assessor regulation; all the usual consumer protections are in place and the householder would be entitled to use another assessor, as people would be able to in anything. To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, standards are completely fundamental, as we have said on several occasions. I worry—as he does, rightly—about the bad publicity that might ensue if we do not do this properly. That is why the noble Lord’s valuable comments are correct.
In many cases, we envisage the Green Deal provider employing or contracting the assessor. The assessor would identify the potential for energy savings using the standardised methodology. This assessment will be used by the provider as the basis of an offer of Green Deal finance. Subsections (4) and (5) require that an accredited Green Deal provider—the body seeking to contract for the work—should give the customer an estimate of the savings on the energy bills that are likely to result from the proposed energy efficiency improvements and over what period these are likely to accrue. The Green Deal provider is required to base these estimates on a standardised methodology to be set out in regulations, thereby ensuring consistency and rigour in the process.
Lord Oxburgh
I am not sure whether this is the right point to raise this issue, but it certainly has a bearing on some of the Minister’s comments and the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Giving householders a firm estimate of what their savings are likely to be seems to me to be a recipe for tears. A crucial element is the future cost of energy, but frankly no one can say what that will be. Might it be worth while to think of a formula similar to those used from time to time in selling life insurance, for example? We could say: “If the price of energy is so and so, your savings will be X, but if the price is so and so, the cost will be a little higher”. In other words, we could give a range of savings, so that consumers would know the risks, which would be associated with the future price of energy.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Another difficulty, which I referred to in our previous sitting, is that the householder faces a choice—whether to have a warmer home or lower bills. It will be difficult for anybody to estimate what the bills will be if the consumer decides that they have been cold and that they want the temperature to be a couple of degrees higher in their house. The problem is in quantifying. I totally support this whole proposal, but one has to make sure that it is realistic and workable. The noble Lord suggested an estimated range, making it clear that the estimate depends on whether the householder wants a warmer house. In many cases, one of the best things to do is to wear another layer of clothes. My granddaughter shares a flat. She is a sensible girl but one of her flatmates is not and their bills are higher because the flatmate chooses to wear pretty skimpy clothes. One has to take account of these human foibles.
Lord Dixon-Smith
Perhaps I could intervene as well at this point. This illustrates the classic difficulty of legislating in a way that is dependent on regulations, which we cannot possibly see at this stage. A critical issue is whether the Green Deal has a fixed rate of interest. Each individual deal must be based on a fixed interest. If the system fails to have a fixed rate of interest, a deal may show a clear saving when it is begun—particularly because interest rates are low and one could probably get financing for this sort of thing at 3 or 4 per cent—but, if interest rates rise to 5 per cent and the borrowing rate goes up to 8 per cent, that could completely take out the effect of the savings over a period of time. There is a real issue, which comes back to the fact that we are, as with all legislation of this sort, flying blind. We need to think seriously about interest rates. If the deals vary with interest rates, their attractiveness will be considerably eroded.
Earl Cathcart
I asked my noble friend whether the cost of the assessor could be rolled up within the Green Deal loan. The assessor may charge £100 or £120 plus VAT, which, if the cost is up front, may be a deterrent to the very people whom we want to take up this deal.
Lord Marland
Noble Lords have made good points about how we should evaluate this. I am sure that many young women will feel well advised by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding about how they should dress in a cold climate; we should encourage them not to wear skimpy clothing in these snowy conditions.
The central point is a good one and we must look closely at it, but we are talking about companies that are used to dealing with the consumer. It is not as if they are going to pass a standard accreditation not having been used to dealing with the consumer. We would not want to prescribe to a Green Deal provider such as British Gas or Centrica how it should interrelate with the customer, because there are all sorts of customer protections available. The Consumer Credit Act quite clearly lays down the relationship between the consumer and the provider. Whereas we must ensure at all turns that this is not taken advantage of, and that there is a creditable method, it is up to the providers to come up with the method so that, in turn, the consumer has recourse against them, to challenge them if that method is wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has much greater experience than I have in these matters, but I have experience in the insurance industry—I think that he mentioned life insurance. I could point to many life insurance predictions made by actuaries that are utterly wrong, so we have to be very careful about being overly prescriptive in this area.
It is hard to think too far out—I speak as a consumer myself—because most of us at the time are thinking about today: what we can save today, what we can do to benefit our housing today and what the effects are. A lot of us sit and think that prices may well go up; we live in a world where prices have traditionally gone up as, traditionally, have taxes, as most people think. That is not an excuse, but it is the mental approach that I personally would take to this Green Deal. I take on board the general points that everyone has made. It is vital that we protect the customer. This is fundamental to the Green Deal and the approach that we are taking. All of us in this Room feel exactly the same and, as we take this Bill through its various stages, the standard words that go underneath the Bill will be “consumer”, “assessment”, “accreditation”, “customer” and “must be protected”.
Lord Oxburgh
Does that mean that the form of the recommendation to the consumer will not be prescribed and that this will be up to the assessor? It is important to know to what extent and how far the procedure is to be standardised.
Lord Marland
The methodology for the golden rule will be standardised and it is fundamental that it is. That is a good cornerstone from which to start. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My noble friend has not touched on the question of the cost of the finance.
Lord Marland
I would rather pick that up later on, when we come to Amendment 15. If the noble Lord does not mind, I would be happy to deal with it then. As for rolling up the costs of the assessor, we would not encourage that, but there may be a framework in which it could happen. We will need to look into that further.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am grateful to the Minister both for his response and for his good wishes to my noble friend Lady Smith, which I will convey to her; we anticipate that she will be back for the next session of the Committee. I will bear in mind his good wishes to me. He shares with me an interest in cricket and, as long as our cricket side is doing well internationally, I am sure that my heart will still continue to beat strongly. That ought to take us through this Committee in any case.
On the questions that have been raised in the debate, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his supportive comments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that, if a household were to get the full list of potential measures as a result of this amendment, it might chill the blood somewhat. People would be overwhelmed by the prospect of the enormous amount of expenditure that could be involved if they followed a range of options. Of course, I wanted to emphasise—and perhaps I did not make it explicit enough in my breathless opening remarks—that we are talking about specific proposals in regard to the property, so that the customer would be looking only at a range that was relevant to what he might expend on the property.
I understand the noble Lord’s more general points, although I still subscribe to the opening statement that I made in support of this amendment. We need to engage in a major exercise in effective communication in order to make this scheme work. Ultimately, the householder will recognise that costs are involved and there will be some anxiety and scepticism. I emphasise that it should be made clear to the householder what is within the Green Deal and therefore within the framework of the scheme. If there are other proposals that might improve the property but are not within the scheme, that should be clear so that there would not be confusion.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the ability of the consumer to challenge the method if the method proved to be wrong. We are dealing with specialisms and technical skills. I do not know about other noble Lords but I am a dummy in the hands of quite a number of specialists who come to my home and seek to advise me on the improvements that I could effect at absolutely minimal cost and at huge benefit to me and probably the wider community if I listened to the spiel long enough. At times, such presentations are difficult to analyse effectively and to refute where they need to be refuted. This will not alter the fact that consumers will have a degree of scepticism.
I also want to emphasise that we are not suggesting at any stage that the assessor or the installer is doing the choosing. The responsibility, obligation and right rest with the property owner who is having the improvements. That is central to our amendment.
I am not quite sure whether the Minister responded to the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as well as I would have hoped. I was feeling my way to that position and the noble Lord expressed it more precisely. My noble friend Lord O’Neill, who is not in his place, also contributed on this. We need to be clear. I understand the issues with regard to the code of practice but we also know the vagueness and generalities of the code of the practice. The noble Lord expressed anxieties about how this would impact on the consumer, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty in his contribution.
Nevertheless, the purpose of Committee stage is to identify areas of uncertainty, which the Minister will have recognised. I am sure that some of these questions will re-emerge in our debates. At the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“Local housing authorities(1) Local housing authorities shall be empowered to arrange, with green deal providers, energy saving schemes that cover the whole or a part of housing estates, roads, districts or other local communities.
(2) Local housing authorities will negotiate on behalf of improvers to obtain savings that arise from economies of scale, which will be passed on to individual improvers.
(3) Local housing authorities will be empowered to award council tax rebates to participants in such communal schemes as incentives; and the rebates will be reclaimed from the Energy Company Obligation.”
Lord Teverson
My Lords, this amendment brings two different subjects and two different strands to this debate: the role of local authorities and the ways in which we might incentivise the great British public to take advantage of the Green Deal. Ultimately, the measure of success of this scheme will be whether people sign up to see an assessor and say, “That’s a great deal for me. Go ahead”. I believe that they will and that they should.
Something that surprised me when I first read this Bill—I was going to say that with pride, but its sounds as though my noble friend Lord Moynihan has read it in much greater detail than I managed—was that local authorities do not seem to be covered until we get to the need to make sure that landlords behave themselves and participate. They seem to have disappeared from the concept of the Bill. I know that that is not the case, because the Government are heavily into localism, which I strongly applaud.
However, in the Bill and in the massive task nationally to deliver energy savings across the nation, we need allies. Natural allies in this are local authorities—the ones with a track record. They have previously been involved in this area and have shown their keenness. More importantly, they know the lie of the land and more about communities, housing estates and roads than do central government or the Secretary of State, and they know more than individual utilities, deliverers or providers within the scheme. That is why it is important to involve them.
Another theme that needs to come out with which local authorities could be very helpful—I refer to housing authorities in particular—is the achievement of even greater gains and possibilities as regards energy efficiency and saving, and help as regards fuel poverty. That can be done not only by looking at individual properties and flats or individual business units, but by looking at the opportunities that exist to act together. I do not propose that we substitute individual households participating in the scheme—I am sure that that will always constitute the major part—but I suggest that we bring together communities, streets, housing estates and those in flats of multiple occupation to form a single deal. That will bring better value to individual households and will enable us to complete this task more effectively.
This is a probing amendment. I would not for one minute expect it to appear in the Bill because it is not written in the correct language and probably would not work. However, I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on, first, how local authorities can be involved and, secondly, on how we can ensure the rollout of a number of schemes that would be more effectively done on a community basis. As things stand, we will have a scattergun effect, where individual households make their decision about whether to participate. It will be like looking at the Milky Way, or the stars at night, where they appear all over the place with some areas of concentration. I think that it will be extremely effective to have individual street or housing estate action.
Lord Moynihan
My noble friend is speaking with characteristic eloquence and expertise on this subject, but I wonder why he has not included housing associations in the amendment.
Lord Teverson
That is a very good question. It is because, as a result of a lack of forethought, I did not think to include them. They would be an excellent addition to the list. Housing associations and social landlords would be the right types of organisations to be involved in such a scheme.
Finally, I turn to incentivisation. In talking about how we involve households in these schemes, I should mention that a couple of the more successful schemes that arose under the CERT programme involved a rebate through participation, particularly to do with council tax. I know that British Gas has successfully operated a couple of these schemes. Households will know that the Green Deal will mean that their energy bills will come down and that they can invest in their house in the long term without there being an immediate cost.
Nothing attracts people better than a bargain and something off the price when they sign up on the deal. I would like the Minister to use his imagination to think what we might do to ignite excitement about the Green Deal. Much as I support local government, I have to admit that there are few better incentives than knowing that you are going to have to pay less council tax. This has a track record as an incentive and I think that, if that sort of scheme could be included in some way, it would work well.
I realise that there is a problem about this and that I have solved it in a very imperfect fashion. The Green Deal is clearly self-financing through private finance rather than through other ways. To achieve the participation with local authorities and maybe the council tax rebate, which needs to be found from somewhere, I have taken the easy route and suggested the energy company obligation, which I am sure the energy companies will not thank me for. That is roughly how the CERT system works at the moment and it could potentially be a way through this as well, although I realise that that itself would effectively add to household energy bills.
Those are the areas about which I would be very keen to hear from the Minister. I very much look forward to this Bill finally passing and to the start of this scheme. It would be good to involve local authorities more and it would be good to have a community aspect to this. I believe that using incentives, however much we might look down our noses at them, are a way in which to ignite this plan, make it work and make it successful. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, in rising to speak about local authorities and to support my noble friend, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Like my noble friend, I am concerned about the role of local authorities. If we are going to succeed in all our efforts around climate change and reducing our energy consumption, we have to involve citizens and their local communities and councils. The purpose of the new clause proposed in Amendment 31, which is grouped with my noble friend’s amendment, is to do just that. It is not specifically about the Green Deal; it is about energy plans and local authorities. Although it would be placed later in the Bill, for the purposes of our debate it is about the role of local authorities.
I am particularly concerned about the role of local councils, as Clause 102 of the Bill repeals the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, an Act that, as I said at Second Reading, I was successful in getting through when I was a Member of another place. I believe that that Act has successfully driven a lot of local authority action since 1995. It has had very good results. Involvement, for me, means the active empowerment of citizens and of their local authorities; it is not just about consultation.
Noble Lords may ask why this is so important. I think that it is because local authorities have been seen to have very good ideas. Indeed, it is probably what is driving the localism agenda, which is something that I and my colleagues have believed in for a long time and which now nearly everybody seems to believe in. It has become clear that not everything can be driven from the centre and that the centre is not the only place where there are good ideas. I believe that, unless we involve and empower people—my noble friend touched on this in talking about his amendment—we are not going to succeed. If people do not understand what they are doing and do not feel that they want to be involved, this whole thing will not work.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, my best line has been taken by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, as I was going to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, of speaking far too conservatively. He has neglected to take note of the change that has altered public sector housing enormously over the last decade and a half, which is, of course, the advent of housing associations. Housing associations are now responsible for a very large proportion of public sector housing, but they do not have the opportunity to offer things such as rent rebates.
Speaking as an old local authority man, I am not entirely sure that if I was still there I would like the thought of somebody committing my ratepayers to having to pay for something, however beneficial, by way of an added inducement. We need to be extremely careful to make sure that what is done in a scheme such as this is self-justified entirely within the scheme. If somebody else wants to add further inducement, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from doing it.
However, we should not begin to assume that any aspect of this scheme is going to be dependent—or might become dependent, which would be even worse—on some other outside source of funding. If the schemes are not justified in their own right, standing entirely within the terms of reference that will be established in this Bill, then frankly they are not worth having. We absolutely have to stick with that, as a primary rule in what we are doing here, without expecting others to make other commitments to support it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, we will come to the question of the energy company obligation later, but at this stage I must say that I was relieved to hear my noble friend Lord Teverson qualify the proposal in the third subsection of his Amendment 12 by saying that this is a bit of a cock-shy and may not necessarily be the right way ahead. At Second Reading, I remarked favourably on the energy company obligation because it was going to be more targeted on the fuel-poor than is the comparable measure under the CERT programme, which provided for a priority group covering about 11 million people, including every pensioner. It seemed to me that that was a very broad scattershot and made the cost to the energy companies that much greater. As I understand the Bill, the ECO is firmly linked with the question of fuel poverty; it is aimed at providing benefits for those who are classified as fuel-poor.
I am entirely with my noble friends in their assertion that local authorities have a major role to play in ensuring the success of the Green Deal. I recognise the value of incentives in the form of reduction of council tax or whatever. For instance, this is being offered by the Government in the case of communities that accept onshore wind farms; for a limited period they will be able to keep the additional rateable value coming to them, which will help the councils. On this occasion, however, it would be difficult to justify putting on to the energy companies the cost of any council tax rebates that may be awarded under subsection (3) of my noble friend’s Amendment 12. I was grateful to hear that he was not hooked on that as a solution to his problem.
Lord Whitty
I support the thrust of these amendments and I am grateful that we are discussing the role of the local authorities this early. Both as movers and shakers and as facilitators and providers of a framework or catalyst for movement, they will be extremely important.
In most parts of the country, opinion polls show that local authorities are relatively trusted. They are certainly trusted more than central government and energy supply companies. Whether the reasons for that are right or wrong, it is important that we mobilise that general good will. Local authorities have a role in a number of different respects and while it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said, that the social housing stock has largely moved to housing associations, that is by no means totally the case. There will be many situations in which the local authority is still the landlord, although it may have a management company to run things, and it will have a responsibility for fairly substantial parts of the social housing stock and its maintenance and improvement.
It is regrettably true that the early stages of the last Government’s decent homes programme did not have a very strong energy efficiency dimension. That improved as time went on, but an opportunity was missed; a substantial amount of expenditure went on upgrading social housing stock, but improved energy efficiency was not one of the prime objectives. Local authorities as landlords can take that on.
Of course, there are also landlords of estates that are no longer a single form of tenure. Some of the occupants may well be tenants, but some of them may be owner-occupiers and some may be leaseholders or on a sublease, while some properties may be run by housing associations within the same estate. We have a complex and largely beneficial mix of types of housing on some of our larger estates, but the local authority is still the landlord and therefore in a strong position to try to persuade those on all forms of tenure to take advantage of the Green Deal, which probably individually they might not.
It is wrong that some improvements on estates have applied only to one form of tenure, because the economies of scale, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred in a wider dimension, apply whatever the form of tenure. The totality of the provision and use of energy in those estates means that economies of scale will be achieved if the majority of the residents participate. The local authority is by far the best body to ensure that that happens.
Where housing associations are the landlord, of course they also have to have a role, but that is a slightly different role from what the amendment envisages for local authorities. Housing associations are no different from any other landlord that could effectively take advantage of this scheme and negotiate better terms, because they deal with substantial properties. It may be, however, that the Bill also needs to refer to housing associations in this regard.
Of course, local authorities can go beyond their role as the landlord or as a body that has an indirect interest in the property to a role in which they can help to persuade landlords of private tenanted property—that will include a significant number of the fuel-poor, but not necessarily only them—and owner-occupiers to operate this scheme on a street-by-street, similar-property-to-similar-property basis, again achieving economies of scale.
That role of local authorities is important. Some will be more prone to take up this cause and will be better at it than others, but that is the essence of devolution. Indeed, I assume that the essence of localism is that you will have different patterns in different areas. It is important that the Bill recognises that.
As for subsection (3) in the amendment, it is true that the new ECO commitment will be largely focused on the fuel-poor, but local authorities will be able to negotiate—not only with the householder but also with the energy supply companies—different ways of incentivising the adoption of the Green Deal. As I said early on in our proceedings, we have to recognise that this is a voluntary thing. It is not something that the Government, the energy company or your landlord can impose on you; take-up is voluntary. That may require some incentives. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it is already the case in a number of areas that, by dealing with the energy supplier—British Gas, mostly—local authorities have already provided an incentive, so presumably they already have the power to do so. Subsection (3) suggests that we need to legislate for the link with the new energy company obligation, but I believe that local authorities already have the power to do this. If, by agreement with the energy supply companies, they can reach an accommodation that delivers the Green Deal on a wider scale, they certainly should not be inhibited from so doing. Amendment 12 is important in that it recognises these proactive and direct roles of local authorities, so I hope that the Government, if not agreeing with every word of it, will accept the general thrust.
Lord Teverson
Just to clarify, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I have written this amendment so that the local authority would be the catalyst that makes things happen. Who the freeholder of the property or the land is is irrelevant to that—whether they are a private landlord, a public landlord or a registered social landlord, this would apply to them. This is not just about local authority estates. It is about any estate or group of houses geographically, not about tenure, exactly as the noble Lord has pointed out.
Lord Whitty
Yes, the role would be somewhat different in different cases, but I think that the new clause would provide for that. On the second new clause in the group, if we are to drop HECA—which many of us would regret; I acknowledge the noble Baroness as a prime mover of it—local authorities need to be aware that they can have a commitment in a broader framework to sustainability and energy efficiency in their area. Again, that is a facilitating provision, but it is broader than the Green Deal, and I would very much welcome some reference to it in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can say that that is also part of the Government’s thinking.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we are very encouraged that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is looking more widely than the simplistic interpretation of the Green Deal to make the greatest benefits available. We share his reflections on how local authorities can utilise their wide influence in the housing market to achieve added benefits.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, we were anxious when we looked at the drafting of the new clause that we should not overcomplicate the situation, because local authorities are involved in so many different facets of the local market, either as landlords, with other landlords or, under the wording of the new clause, acting as an agent for the building improver. We are concerned that that role needs to be clearly thought through: how they are working and interfacing with the different participants in the plan. For example, they may, through a housing association or through their managing agents, take on side or even employ an assessor in their area. That would put them straight in as a participant in the whole complex matrix of these arrangements.
However, we largely go along with the thrust of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Yes, we see that an added impact may be needed to bring the greatest benefits. To be fair, local authorities will be thinking how they can help their residents along the Green Deal plan to bring the greatest benefits to their communities. Under subsection (3) of the new clause they may be able themselves as landlord to offer rebates or think about incentives, but we think that if they are achieving added benefits by economies of scale, that may well be sufficient to provide incentives that will encourage a greater take-up of the Green Deal. We support the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and we would like the Minister to take it away to think about it, or tell us today what role she envisages in the matrix of the participants in the Green Deal that local authorities could be encouraged to take up.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the role of local authorities in relation to the Green Deal. We are very grateful to noble Lords for laying the amendments. We want and expect local authorities to exploit the opportunities that the Green Deal presents to them and to their residents. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, says, local authorities are indeed natural allies in this—as are housing associations, as the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Whitty, observed.
I shall speak to Amendment 12 first. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 already provides local authorities with a power to take any steps which they consider are likely to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their local community. Local authorities are empowered to undertake a wide range of activities for the benefit of their local area and to improve the quality of life of local residents, businesses and those who commute to or visit the area. So certainly this could include local energy efficiency initiatives.
Moreover, the Green Deal will provide strong natural incentives and varied opportunities for councils to engage with and deliver it, in particular, the incentive of attracting new and additional sources of finance into their local areas to benefit local residents. Councils may, for example, choose to become Green Deal providers themselves operating on a commercial basis. Others may want to form partnerships with Green Deal providers working with them to ensure the widest possible availability and take-up of offers in their community. As trusted local brokers with knowledge of their housing stock, local authorities will be attractive partners for Green Deal providers. They will therefore be in a good position to negotiate advantageous programmes for their residents—for example, to deliver economies of scale and incentives, as the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, noted.
Many local authorities are currently working with the energy companies and others to deliver the community energy saving programme, which specifically targets whole-house, community-wide delivery of energy efficiency measures. We are carrying out a formal evaluation of this programme, which will complete in March of this year. That will therefore feed in. Anecdotal evidence to date suggests that CESP is delivering projects ranging from 100 to 1,200 properties, and because of this is achieving significant economies of scale. This experience is informing and will continue to inform the development of the Green Deal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, notes, a number of local authorities already use council tax rebates as incentives. British Gas has worked with around 70 councils to offer a rebate on council tax bills for households who take up their CERT cavity wall or loft insulation offers. The rebate is funded by British Gas, although in some instances the council also match-fund. Local authorities will also often contribute resources for marketing, such as council-branded leaflets. Rebates, which are limited to one per household, vary from £50 up to £125 depending on the council involved. However, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on CERT and fuel poverty.
We fully expect local authorities to build on this experience and work with Green Deal providers and others to deliver schemes to whole communities. We are working closely with local authorities to understand and develop the roles that they might play in delivering and promoting the Green Deal and how to disseminate good practice, including thinking about how best to enable and incentivise such methods in delivering the Green Deal
Moving on to Amendment 31, the well-being power in the Local Government Act 2000 could already enable local authorities to propose, plan and deliver energy efficiency measures and programmes for their communities, and we will explore this further with CLG Ministers. Indeed, many councils already have a strong track record in delivering in this area, working in partnership with energy companies and others. As I have noted, the Green Deal will further incentivise this, and we are aware of a number of councils which are already considering how they might deliver the Green Deal. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has a long track record in this area, and I note her concern to ensure that the take-up of this scheme is as wide as possible, building on the work of the Home Energy Conservation Act.
This Government fully support local residents in having a strong influence over their local council. I note that that principle underpins this amendment. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has brought forward the Localism Bill to provide councils and local residents with a greater ability to deliver local priorities without necessarily having Whitehall direction on what they must do or how they should deliver locally. For example, the general power of competence proposed in the Localism Bill is based on a fundamental assumption that local authorities should be free to act in the interests of their local communities, except where restricted by statutory limitations or restrictions. We believe that freeing local councils to act and working to create the right incentives is the way to ensure that local authorities and local residents take up the opportunities presented by the Green Deal and the future energy company obligation.
While we are sympathetic to these proposals in terms of local government involvement in the Green Deal, incentives to use the Green Deal, and encouraging take-up, all of which are extremely important, we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. But I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by our continuing exploration of the role of local authorities in this area and by our recognition of how important they are in this regard, and how best to encourage take-up of this scheme.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we are continually told that we are not in normal times at the moment. What confidence does the noble Baroness have that local authorities, under the present budgetary controls, will take up the empowerment clauses about which she has just told us?
Baroness Northover
As the noble Lord will have noted, obviously there are economies of scale when local authorities are dealing with this. Therefore, there is the incentive in that of being able to provide for local residents a better deal if they access these funds and we expect that they would see this as the route to go down. All these areas will, of course, be looked at carefully to try to ensure that the Green Deal is as effective as possible, which is what we all, in any party, even in these tight financial circumstances, wish to see.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. I am delighted to hear that local authorities have a number of those powers already. I omitted to declare that I am a member of a housing authority in terms of Cornwall Council, so I should declare an interest in that now, although I have absolutely no influence on what that council does, being a back-bench member of the opposition there. This important area is key to the success of this scheme. I am delighted that the Government recognise that and I am sure that we will have more conversations about this prior to Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“(ia) the structure of repayments over the length of the green deal plan, which, must be equitable to the bill payer and any subsequent bill payer in accordance with a methodology to be in the form specified in the framework regulations;”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 13 and speak to the other amendments in this group. One could argue that the first three amendments could appear in the code of conduct or some form of secondary regulation, but the fact is that the primary legislation does not specify that such arrangements should do so. Therefore, one way or another, these amendments aim to ensure that these principles are followed in whatever regulations cover the delivery of the Green Deal.
Amendment 13 aims to protect those who effectively inherit a Green Deal arrangement. It is attempting to ensure that, because the Green Deal attaches to the property and not to the current occupant, subsequent occupiers are not unfairly prejudiced by the nature of the deal. In other areas of financial arrangements, we know that a significant number of deals start at a relatively low level of repayment and rise over time. Indeed, one could argue that the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States based on those principles almost brought the whole of world capitalism to its knees, but it is used in more respectable circumstances as well. However, in this case, it is important that subsequent occupiers are not disproportionately penalised. The golden rule should apply to the totality of the deal, but if the golden rule is delivered by low payments at the beginning, then subsequent occupiers, while they are required to pay a larger proportion of it back, may well not benefit from the golden rule.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may be pleased to hear that when I read through the Bill I put a question mark against the reference to a fee in subsection (5). Like him, I would like to know what this is about. I would envisage, particularly if there is a change of ownership, that a new owner might prefer and be prepared to pay off the debt that is on the house so as to be shot of that. I would be very distressed if that were going to attract a fee. Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I am not clear what this fee refers to and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about that.
Having said that, I think that if one is entering into an agreement that may well last 25 years, it is asking too much to expect any provider to offer a loan at a fixed rate of interest over the whole of the 25 years. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did realise that that might be difficult for the Government to accept. One inevitable consequence is that the interest rate on the loan would have to be higher than it might otherwise be. He knows much more about this than I do, but you can have tracker bonds that will follow the rate of interest, and obviously, if interest rates are low, you will start very low. However, you are actually recognising that if interest rates go up—and whether we will face this later this year remains to be seen—inevitably then the rate on the loan goes up. It will be for the provider to propose a rate of interest for the loan and for the improver to agree. Simply starting from the proposition that there would have to be a fixed rate over the whole period may, I think, be going, as the noble Lord indicated, a bit too far.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I was wrestling with an amendment—it was going to be a probing amendment—to the effect that a landlord of private rented property should not be liable for the Green Deal if the property becomes vacant. I realise that this amendment might better be put in Chapter 2, when we are discussing the private rented sector, but it did not seem to fit there and seems to fit much better in Clause 5, which deals with the terms of the plan and in particular the persons liable to make any payment under the Green Deal.
When a private rented property becomes vacant between lettings, does liability for the Green Deal loan repayment fall to the landlord, bearing in mind that energy bills are likely to be minimal between lettings? It seems obvious that if the property is vacant, it would fall to the landlord to carry on paying any energy bills for the duration of the vacancy, even though they are minimal, but does he become liable for the Green Deal? And if so, does the repayment of the loan instalments get adjusted downwards, bearing in mind the very small energy bills while vacant and the golden rule? Secondly, what happens if the landlord cuts off the energy supply and reconnects when a new tenant arrives? The energy bill would be zero but there would still be interest to pay. Would this fall on the landlord and what about the golden rule here? Could this act as a disincentive to landlords to take up the Green Deal, or do the Government think it will act as an incentive to landlords to reoccupy the property more quickly, bearing in mind that the landlord may have to carry out repairs, maintenance and redecorations between lettings?
There is a provision in Clause 15(3)(d) of this Bill to suspend Green Deal payments. Does this suspension provision apply when a property becomes vacant, and, if so, what would this do to the repayments? Would it increase the term of the agreement and increase total liability due to interest accrued during the suspension? I ask all this because it does not seem to be at all clear as to how this would work and what the figures would be like for the landlord in the event of his property becoming vacant. I would be grateful for clarification.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not have a great deal to add, as he has quite a bit to answer from his noble friend Lord Cathcart, who has identified issues which concern us all. Whether the answers come down in relation to the landlord or in any other respect, there are anxieties also about the tenant. We need a clear position with regard to that. We have our uncertainties and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having identified those.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had to say about the fixed rate of interest. I once had a friend who took out a fixed-rate mortgage with a London authority just two years before the oil price rise in the 1970s. We can all recall inflation running at staggering figures at that time and interest rates going well into double figures. If you had a fixed-rate mortgage of 2 per cent, you reaped considerable advantages from that. With regard to a scheme that has any length of time attached to it, the question of fairness over a period of time has to be addressed.
My noble friend Lord Whitty raised the obvious question of what those costs will be and the interest which will bear upon the initial person living in the property. Consumer rights need to be safeguarded. We want clarity on that point too. Our amendment requires clarity on the changeover, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, also referred, with regard to whether the relationship between the improver and the person paying the Bill could change to the disadvantage of one or the other. How will the scheme work to guarantee that there is fairness over the considerable period of time involved in this exercise? That was the burden of the questions addressed earlier today.
I do not really need to add my voice to this matter because, if my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, are worried about the word “fee”, I am too. I, too, had also identified that. So that is a question for the Minister to answer. Is he not lucky to be in the place that he is?
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lords very much. Just before I respond to the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, among others, I want to clarify some comments on the previous amendments relating to Clause 4 about the Green Deal providers deciding how they would apply parts of the Green Deal, such as the assessment or the golden rule. I hope that I did not give the impression that firms could pick and choose. I hope I gave the impression that customers could pick and choose. Nevertheless, I want to be clear about that and that the prescribed methodologies for these steps, including expected savings, are very much part of the Bill.
I hope that I highlighted the beneficial flexibility, which experts and customer insight will have to present information in a useable format, as well as communicating accurately in line with the regulation. I want to emphasise another important protection. It covers all credit arrangements. Let me put on record that for consumers the Green Deal will need to meet the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act with only limited exceptions. For example, all communication on the terms of the plan would need to meet responsible lending rules.
I turn to the excellent amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Clause 5 sets out requirements for what terms must and must not be present in a Green Deal plan. In doing so, it builds on Clause 4 by further specifying the basis on which a Green Deal can be offered. Clause 5 ensures that, through the terms of the plan, key consumer protections are in place about the financing as well as the advice, the measures and the installation. Subsections (2) and (3) ensure that no charge over any person’s property may be taken away by way of security. Early repayment cannot be required of the bill payer, except in conditions to be set out in regulations, and a bill payer’s liability for maintaining Green Deal repayments cannot be extended beyond the period for which they are the bill payer for a property. This ensures that the Green Deal does not become a personal loan and remains a charge on the energy bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, wishes us to expand on this point, particularly on when the property becomes vacant. As regards the person then liable for the bill at the end of a tenancy, that obligation would usually revert to the owner. Clause 2(10) also makes provision for where there is no energy bill because supply and connection charges have been suspended. We will provide in regulation that the person who would otherwise be the bill payer, usually the owner, is liable for the charge. I hope that that answers the question posed by the noble Earl.
I have just been passed a note saying, “Be fast if you can” and I am trying my best. I thought that I was being quite fast. Amendment 13A proposes a further element to the terms of the plan to provide for confirmation of the ownership and maintenance of the Green Deal improvements.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar)
My Lords, I think that we should restart, but I should say that there is very likely to be another Division immediately after this one is decided. I will try not to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in the middle of a sentence this time.
Lord Marland
I shall start the sentence again. I will rely on Hansard, as I always do, to dig me out of any holes that I have got into.
Amendment 13A proposes a further element to the terms of the plan to provide for confirmation of the ownership and maintenance of the Green Deal improvements when the bill payer and improver are different people. I am grateful to noble Lords for raising that issue. It may need to be provided for within the terms of the Green Deal plan. However, I resist the amendment on the basis that we have already provided for further compulsory conditions to be specified in the framework regulations under subsection (1)(b). If the issue needs to be addressed, we already have the power to add it to the terms of the plan.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, on a point of order. I do not know if one can do this on this Committee, but we are breaking for 10 minutes but the vote has not finished yet. I realise that you have exercised a degree of flexibility, but we are going to have a number of Divisions. Surely we should have breaks commensurate with the length of time it takes for the Division to be held and announced next door, because, at the moment, we are having a Division on closure followed by a Division on substantive amendments, and the two follow one after the other.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I appreciate that. I am afraid that I had to call the noble Lord, Lord Marland, between the two Divisions. I recognise that there is a problem when we get Divisions back-to-back like this. I have given some leeway; I gave about five minutes on the last Division.
Lord Marland
Amendments 13 to 16 all deal with the financial terms of Green Deal plans. However, before I address the amendments, let me put on record that the Consumer Credit Act applies to the Green Deal plans in full bar a few essential amendments in the Bill in Clauses 23 to 27. This provides a high starting point for consumer protection. Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State power through regulation to put additional protections into the Green Deal regime.
Amendments 14 and 16 are closely related to the Consumer Credit Act. Amendment 14 seeks to apply one specific aspect of the CCA: the presentation of the terms of the plan. This means that Green Deal providers would need to set out the total credit payable, the amount of the regular payments, and the annual percentage rate—APR—calculated in accordance with the rules. However, it is not necessary to include the amendment, as the relevant legislation already applies in full to Green Deal arrangements for consumers.
The purpose of Amendment 16 is to remove the ability to set out, in secondary regulations, how the fee for early repayment should be calculated. The effect of the amendment would be that no provisions about early repayment fees could be set out in regulations for Green Deal plans. Domestic Green Deals would be subject to an early repayment rule, which would be set out in the Consumer Credit Act. However, business Green Deal providers are not subject to any existing regulations on early repayment fees. This amendment would remove Government’s ability to set out regulations limiting the fees that can be charged. This means that the business Green Deal providers could be free to determine their own fees for early repayment of the Green Deal and could lead to inappropriately high fees being charged. For small businesses in particular, that could be a concern when signing up for the Green Deal. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraw the amendment to allow us to put in place in secondary legislation the appropriate protections for businesses taking out Green Deal plans.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Can my noble friend give some indication of what level of fee—I made the point about early repayment, perhaps a successor owner wishing to pay off the whole bill and not have it hang over them—he thinks is likely to be charged under the arrangements that my noble friend has outlined? There really is an argument for keeping that as low as possible.
Lord Marland
I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin. There is always an argument for keeping everything as low as possible. However, we are not at the stage of the Bill where we should be able to predict or prescribe how additional fees are charged. I think I have spoken to that; I hope that my noble friend feels that I have. We have a lot of discussion, dialogue and consultation to have with the financial institutions who may well be providing that finance.
Lord Moynihan
To assist the Minister on this, can he clarify to the Committee that the Government intend for there to be the flexibility that my noble friend is looking for?
Lord Marland
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for assisting me in this regard. Absolutely—we have to allow the framework to take its course and we have to be open to consultation and views to find the best method of dealing with this.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend answered my questions quite as fully as I might have hoped. I asked whether the suspension provisions in Clause 15 might apply to the landlord of a vacant property. It seems that repayments of the Green Deal are fixed at the outset—or am I wrong? Is there flexibility? What happens if one tenant does not use much energy and the next one does? Does the Green Deal repayment change under any circumstances? What if a tenant defaults on paying his energy bills, does the landlord become liable?
I am not asking the Minister to answer everything now—I do not want to regurgitate my previous remarks—but would he consider writing to me once he has considered the issue?
Lord Marland
I am grateful to my noble friend for asking me to explain again. A lot of this will be picked up in the group of amendments that relate to the rental sector. When we reach that point we will be able to clarify the situation.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out some of this, but I am still puzzled by bits of it. For example, there is the reference to the consumer credit regulations. He seems to be saying that they apply by default, but then referred us forward to Clause 23, which provides for some exemptions from it. It is not clear, as his words implied, that all such credit arrangements are covered by the Consumer Credit Act, except where specifically excluded. As he said himself, some of the organisations which will be Green Deal providers—with whom the householder actually has the deal, as distinct from the financial vehicle behind it—are not covered by the Consumer Credit Act. I am not necessarily asking for a detailed reply at this point but it would be useful for the Committee to have spelt out how and to whom the Consumer Credit Act applies and what, if any, are the exemptions referred to in Clause 23.
Lord Marland
Perhaps I may clarify that question for the noble Lord. Our legal advice is that the protection is in place. I am happy to debate the subject with him afterwards, but that is our legal advice.
Lord Whitty
It would probably be helpful to us to have that legal advice—or the gist of it—in writing, otherwise we may return to this.
The issue in Clause 13, equity between the original occupier signing up for the Green Deal and a subsequent occupier, is still important. I agree that aspects can be covered by secondary legislation or the code of conduct, but it is obviously key that any potential payment needs to be spelt out—this is where it links to Amendment 16 with relation, for example, to an exit fee. If you sign up for an agreement, and there is an exit fee included, you are going in with your eyes open—or you should be if everything is transparent and spelt out. However, the agreement is not with the person who may subsequently pay the exit fee; other things being equal, on acquiring the property, a subsequent owner will have calculated that it is better to pay off the debt early. If there is a fee attached that is not included in the deal, it is important that contingency is covered. Transparency, caveat emptor and a search on acquiring the property or taking up the tenancy or lease must all be taken into consideration, but if a subsequent owner is to be liable for such fees down the line this must be spelt out.
To some extent, I accept the view that Amendment 15 is not appropriate in that it would prescribe a fixed rate of interest. On the other hand, it is difficult to calculate, even within the range of outcomes we discussed on the earlier amendment, whether the golden rule works unless you have some understanding of the interest implied in the total package. Some will be marginal, and a fixed rate will give you at least the minimum rate of return and benefit, whereas with a variable rate it will be difficult to assess whether the golden rule has been met. We will have to assume certain things about energy use. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, some people will use more energy because it is cheaper, for obvious reasons. However, on the basis of equal use and equal interest rates, you can make a reasonable stab at a calculation on the golden rule. If both of those are variable, it is more difficult to say how it applies.
I realise that we have to have flexibility, and therefore Amendment 15 in its absolutist sense is probably not appropriate. The previous amendment, with the clarification on compensation and Consumer Credit Act provisions, is needed. We need to protect consumers from the possibility that the whole structure of repayment is either to their detriment or unclear when they sign up.
Although I will withdraw the amendment at this stage—
Lord Davies of Oldham
My noble friend will have recognised from the contributions of Members of the Committee the anxiety about the concept of the fee. I wonder whether he will withdraw his amendment before we have made a great deal of progress, as I heard from the Minister’s reply, on how that issue is to be resolved. We have expressed anxieties on it.
I apologise to the Minister if, in the disturbance caused by the Divisions, I lost track of his replies. He may have covered the matter. I know that my noble friend was exercised about this, but so were other Members of the Committee and we all gave voice to it. We certainly have anxieties, and I wonder whether, before withdrawing the amendment, my noble friend will press the Minister on the matter.
Lord Whitty
I will press the Minister for communication with Members of the Committee who have taken an interest in the matter, on both the legal point and on any fee that applies.
Lord Marland
Given that there has been disruption and that not everyone heard what I said, I am happy to communicate with other Members of the Committee to clarify these things and carry on with the dialogue. That is the spirit in which this Committee, including the contributions of all noble Lords, is operating.
Lord Whitty
It would be relatively easy to say what any fee does not cover, which would provide some clarity. I would also welcome any communication from the Minister between now and Report. I would hope that that clarification indicates that fees paid up-front are not included, even if there is need for flexibility about fees paid later. On the understanding that we will be hearing from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“(A1) Before any improvements are installed under section 7, or a plan is confirmed under sections 8 to 10, the improver must consult—
(a) the bill payer, where the improver is the owner of a property; or(b) the owner of a property, where the improver is the bill payer, about the assessment undertaken and options outlined in the assessment, and receive the consent of that person to the intended improvements.(A2) At the time of consulting a person about the assessment and intended improvements under subsection (A1), the improver must provide the person with a copy of the assessment undertaken.
(A3) Where a person is consulted about intended improvements under this section, they must not unreasonably withhold their consent to those improvements.
(A4) The framework regulations shall make provision for an appropriate period for a person to consider and consent to intended improvements under this section.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the amendment seeks to clarify some important aspects of the clause and identifies just what the Opposition’s anxieties are. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this. It is quite clear that necessary consultation will take place between the improver and any potential bill payer. It is important that we appreciate the obvious fact that whoever is saddled with the additional costs that are reflected in energy bills knows exactly what is going on in relation to the property.
The issue does not arise with regard to the householder for obvious reasons, but we are also concerned with kinds of property entirely different from properties inhabited by the owner-occupier or a single tenant. We are concerned with the situation where there are improvements going on across a number of flats, for example, where the improver is the landlord but the individual tenants are going to be the bill payers. We want to make sure that, in any such exercise, everybody is fully informed and knows what is going on.
We also recognise, and I hope that we have included this satisfactorily in the amendment, the enormous danger of the awkward one person putting a veto on desirable improvements right across the range of the property. That would lead to a situation in which proposals were vitiated simply because one had no framework at all to deal with the minority—not that I am against minorities, nor do I think that at any time the individual’s rights should be overridden. However, we have to take the interests of the generality into account in circumstances where someone, for all sorts of reasons that we do not dare to presage, might be awkward.
Of course, there is the obvious fact that, with regard to bill payments, some may consider that they might be in for the shorter term because they might be a little older than other people in other properties and that any costs at this stage—anything at all that puts up a fuel bill—is disadvantageous to them, while at the same time they might not think that there is much in the way of long-term benefits for them because they may not think that their own term is very long. Such difficulties must be overcome.
This is a probing amendment. It merely asks the Minister to identify both the process of consultation and how he thinks the difficulties that may occur from time to time should be addressed. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, this clause enables the framework regulations to require that the energy bill payer consents to the adding of the Green Deal charge to their bills. This is important in cases where the Green Deal plan is set up by someone such as a landlord who does not pay the bills for the property. This clause will enable the framework regulations to prevent, for example, landlords from imposing charges on to tenants’ bills without first obtaining their express written consent. The clause also enables the framework regulations to provide for redress in cases where it transpires that the necessary permissions or consents to the improvements have not been obtained—for example, that the improvements have been made without consulting the freeholder.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and other noble Lords for Amendments 16A and 16B. As I have outlined, there is adequate provision within this clause for the framework regulations to set out more detail on the issue of consent where the improver and bill payer are different people. It is important that such detail is contained within the framework regulations, as the detailed arrangements may be subject to change as the Green Deal develops. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
In addition, it is not our intention to force the Green Deal on to any party. It must be allowed to work on a voluntary basis, even where the improver and the bill payer are different people. We are proposing powers under the private rented sector chapter that would ensure that a landlord does not unreasonably withhold consent to a tenant’s request for a Green Deal. However, these powers would be used only if the sector as a whole does not take advantage of the Green Deal and improve properties voluntarily.
I turn now to Amendment 16B. The Bill contains powers to provide for redress in cases where an improver incorrectly confirms that he has obtained all necessary consents to the improvements. We do not consider that it is necessary, as this amendment seeks to do, to provide for redress in respect of matters agreed to by the improver, as the improver will himself confirm consent by signing up to the Green Deal. I hope that this gives the noble Lord reassurance, enabling him to withdraw his probing amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am partially satisfied. I am pleased to note that the noble Lord says that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so we recognise that the Government appreciate the importance of this. However, surely the matter of the principle of consultation and the certainty that attends on it is of such importance that it ought really to be on the face of the Bill. I understand that the details ought to be in regulations and I accept entirely his point about changes over time. We all appreciate the obvious fact that you cannot have excessive detail in primary legislation. However, I am not pressing him on the detail at this point; I am pressing him on the principle underpinning the operation of the clause and I am not certain that the clause is clear enough. I hear what the Minister says. As I said, it is a reassurance that the regulations are going to be before Parliament, but we have some anxieties and so might return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, noble Lords had indicated their intention to oppose a series of clauses and my instructions were that I must take each clause individually, but I understand that that opposition has now been withdrawn. Are noble Lords willing to discuss the clauses en bloc? If not, we start with the question whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 : Installation of improvements
Lord Grantchester
I am sorry, but we had a few concerns over some of the clauses. We did not want to draft a specific amendment, but we wanted to raise our concerns under the stand part debates. The first concern indeed relates to Clause 7. On our team’s side, having debated this clause, we are a little concerned whether we have identified an inconsistency. I will explain and the Minister can then perhaps satisfy us that we have not misread the situation. Clause 7(3)(a) requires that,
“the improvements installed meet the standard specified in the code of practice”.
The debate on Monday seemed to us to suggest that there was not a standard specified in the code of practice. Nevertheless, we want consistency and a consistent approach. We understood from the debate on Monday that there was not a standard to be specified in the code of practice, so we were concerned to clarify whether we misunderstood or whether there has been an error in drafting on that principle.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. Perhaps I may take it away and respond to him later. It is a technical matter and, rather than reading the answer now and taking up the time of other noble Lords, I will commit to doing that. I thank the noble Lord for bringing the matter to our attention.
Lord Grantchester
Perhaps we may be indulgent for a few minutes more. We looked at Clause 9 to see how it fits with Clauses 10 and 11 in referring the confirmation of plan, and how this applies in England, Wales and Scotland and in updating information. I speak only to Clause 9; the point is echoed in Clauses 10 and 11. Together with my noble friend Lord Whitty, our antennae prick up when under Clause 9(3)(c) appears the imposition of a requirement to pay a fee. That is replicated in a similar fashion. Perhaps the Minister could clarify why there is a fee, the level to which he thinks a fee may be appropriate and who will be liable to pay that fee under this clause.
Baroness Northover
I am informed that mention is made of this simply for administrative purposes. Your Lordships will note that Clause 9 provides that framework regulations may allow a fee to be imposed. No doubt that is simply an enabling thing, but if I am wrong about it I shall come back and clarify.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister—that is most helpful. It has opened up the possibility of a dialogue so that we can understand better.
Lord Grantchester
Perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the Committee yet again, rather than introduce a specific amendment. I want to pick up the principle as outlined in Clause 12. It has a crossover into Clause 13. It relates to our discussion of the disclosure of a Green Deal plan in connection with the sale or letting out. I well understand the clause and go along with the thrust of it. Previously in Committee, we identified that there could well be an energy plan put forward on a property in respect of which the Green Deal plan is a subset. We wonder whether it would make sense for the Minister and his team to go away and think about whether, if an energy plan attaches to a property, it may be attached to a Green Deal plan such that there is clarity on the property that passes from one occupant to the next. That seems sensible to us. If under energy conservation a landlord, tenant or bill payer may undertake a wider energy plan of which an element of the Green Deal may not apply, it would make sense if that could attach to the disclosures under Clause 12.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lord for raising that. This relates specifically to a Green Deal plan. I am sure that anyone selling a property in the circumstances that he mentioned may want to emphasise the additional work that has been done. This relates specifically to the Green Deal in trying to ensure that there is transparency and clarity for anyone buying a property or anyone taking up a tenancy on a property. It places an obligation on sellers, landlords and licensors of properties to disclose the existence of a Green Deal plan. It is fairly specific, with the intention that there is the clarity and transparency that the Opposition and the Government are keen to see.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarification. It may be in our dialogue outside when we explore further.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also looked on this clause and also saw that there was an issue with regard to the appropriate penalty. I appreciate that he is looking at it slightly differently from us, as we distinguish between the individual and the body corporate. We are concerned that we need an order of magnitude with regard to the nature of the offence. Here we are, involved in an exercise when we all know that we want, as far as possible, to see provisions go through on the basis of consent and mutual amity. We also know that things can go wrong. When they do so, we need to have some feeling of the order of magnitude which is attended on the wrongdoing, consistent with the overall objectives of the scheme. I look forward to the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will make to his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I was inspired to table my amendment by the proposal of the Delegated Powers Committee. In paragraph 11 of its report, it drew attention to the absence of a limit in the Bill and of the penalty that could be imposed. It took the view that as the affirmative procedure would be required, it would not regard the derogation of the power as inappropriate. However, it suggested that there should be a maximum penalty.
Looking at this provision, and applying my little skill and dubious judgment, I suggested a figure of £500. My amendment was tabled before that of the Official Opposition, and I am intrigued to see that they tabled the same figure for corporate bodies but a much lower figure for individuals. I would like to know what the Minister has in mind as an appropriate level of penalty. Mine is an entirely probing amendment.
Lord Marland
I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendments to Clause 14 to limit the level of financial penalty on individuals and companies for failure to comply with the disclosure and acknowledgement provisions. This clause provides the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that sellers and licensors comply with their disclosure and acknowledgement obligations. The clause allows for the following specific provisions to be made: sanctions for non-compliance, including civil penalties; requiring the Green Deal provider to cancel the liability of a bill payer to pay Green Deal plan instalments; requiring the Green Deal provider to refund any payments already made; and requiring those at fault to pay compensation to the Green Deal providers.
I understand noble Lords’ desire to protect individuals and businesses from excessive penalties. However, the disclosure and acknowledgment requirements are vital to the effective operation of the Green Deal and indeed to protect the customer, so we need robust and transparent sanctions to ensure that they are all complied with. We will work with relevant industry stakeholders to develop options as to how these provisions will apply in practice to minimise instances of non-compliance. I wish to emphasise that we will consult before setting out these arrangements in regulations.
Our aim will be to use existing and well established systems of sanctions and redress where possible. Further consideration is necessary to determine what level of civil penalty would provide sufficient deterrence to ensure compliance, but I trust noble Lords understand that it would be premature to make a decision on an upper limit at this stage. In conclusion, I assure noble Lords that we will seek to ensure that penalties are proportionate. I hope that this assurance will enable the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I do not wish to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but my amendment, too, was a probing one and I am satisfied with that reply. I beg to withdraw.
Lord Davies of Oldham
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton)
I should announce that there is an error in the wording on the Marshalled List. It should say “Page 13, line 29, leave out paragraph (b)”.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am grateful for the clarification on the terms of this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to draw attention to the additional ways in which the Government are intending to disconnect someone’s power. We need to be clear about this. We all know the controversies of the past in relation to disconnection, and we also know that the major energy companies are careful about disconnection issues, particularly with regard to winter disconnections and vulnerable households. However, of course that refers to the big providers; and it is merely a code of practice and therefore not in legislation. We are concerned that here is a cause for potential disconnection and we want to know the circumstances in which disconnection would take place.
We are not quite clear whether we are creating with this legislation something that detracts from the existing protection that so many consumers have, and that would render vulnerable those who are not at the present time, because of the nature of the scheme. We think that this issue is of such importance and that we ought to get this right in primary legislation. All noble Lords will of course fully appreciate the problems for a household if disconnection occurs at any stage. It is of sufficient import for the Minister to give us greater assurances than we have in the Bill on the issue of disconnection. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
My Lords, Clause 16 permits the Secretary of State to modify gas and electricity supply licences to make provisions as to the steps that can be taken by energy suppliers when the customer defaults in making Green Deal payments. We intend that the existing procedures employed by energy suppliers in the event of a non-payment by a customer will also be used to collect Green Deal charges. The clause also enables provision to be made in licences regarding disconnection of a customer who has defaulted on the Green Deal charge. However, we expect that disconnection will, as is currently the case, be very rarely used by energy suppliers and only in the last resort when all other means of collecting payments have been exhausted. Furthermore, licences prohibit energy suppliers from disconnecting households in the winter months where they know, or have reason to believe, the customer is, for example, a pensioner or lives with other pensioners or those under 18. In addition, the larger energy suppliers have developed their own safety net procedure, which is a commitment to never knowingly disconnect a vulnerable consumer at any time of the year.
Clause 16 also allows provision to be made in licences enabling suppliers to require a deposit as security for Green Deal payments in specific circumstances. We intend to exercise this power to ensure that, if a customer is required to provide a deposit in respect of energy supply charges, that deposit can also be used as security for Green Deal payments. We do not intend to allow suppliers to request a deposit solely because a customer has a Green Deal finance arrangement. As is currently the case in the domestic market, a security deposit should only be requested from a domestic customer in specific circumstances. For example, when a customer has a poor credit history and a secure method of payment, like fitting a prepayment meter, is not feasible.
All these provisions are necessary to ensure that the Green Deal charge part of the energy bill can be treated equally with the energy component by suppliers when the customer defaults on payment. This will in turn help to secure low interest rates on Green Deal finance, as debt recovery rates on the Green Deal charge should closely match the high historical recovery rates observed for an energy bill. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am largely satisfied with that reply. Can the Minister clarify one issue? When he talks about the special deposit, is that specific and unique to this legislation or is he building upon a power that exists elsewhere and applies to deposits where there have been problems with failure of sustaining payments? If this is novel, he has not relaxed my anxieties about this power. If he is saying that in order to protect the Green Deal we are merely buttressing the provision which exists in other circumstances, I have no quibble, but I would like reassurance on that.
Lord Marland
I am grateful to the noble Lord for pressing me on this. There is a practice in place in the non-domestic sector and we are building on that here in the Green Deal. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord; if he wants us to specify how that works, I would be happy to do so during the course of proceedings.
Lord Davies of Oldham
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I would like a note from him on this point, because we have real anxieties.
Lord Marland
Is the noble Lord looking for clarification on the domestic or the nondomestic sector?
Lord Davies of Oldham
This is a power that stretches across the board, so I want reassurance in both instances. The noble Lord has been entirely reasonable, as he always is, but we are anxious that this is originating in primary legislation a concept which is merely practice elsewhere thus far. If it is built on precedent in other Acts to which energy companies or other providers respond, of course I am entirely reassured by his response. I just want a note to clarify that point. As the noble Lord has indicated that he will reassure the Committee on that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I raise a point on this, because it is relevant to a question that I asked on Second Reading. If there is a default on the repayment of a Green Deal loan by a bill payer, which of the parties bears the cost of that default? Is it the energy supplier, whose job it is to collect the repayment as an addition to the energy bill, or is it the provider who put up the money in the first place? I am not sure that I have yet had an answer to that question. I know that it is one that worries suppliers. Many of them are energy companies, which are likely to face considerable strain on their balance sheets due to the huge investment which they will be making in generation and transmission equipment over the next few years. They are anxious that if they find themselves liable to bear the costs of default under the Green Deal scheme, that may affect their balance sheets and the perception of the financial markets.
I do not know whether this is an appropriate point to raise that question, but we are talking about defaults, and that is a question which really needs an answer. My noble friend may well not yet be in a position to answer. I think that I am right in saying that it was not answered on Second Reading, but it is a question which is causing concern and to which, at some stage, there will have to be a full answer.
Lord Marland
We will develop this theme as the Bill goes through. Of course, in the first instance, it is the consumer to whom we would go in the event of default. Then, my noble friend rightly asks, will it be the Green Deal provider or the electricity provider? We are consulting on that issue at the moment. It is a very important thing to consult on, and when the consultation is over, we will bring it in to the Green Deal.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Was the noble Lord speaking to the amendment or to the clause?
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I was speaking on the Question whether the clause should stand part.
Lord Grantchester
“Additional green deal payments: gas and electricity meters
Bill payers who are asked for their consent for green deal plans under section 6 or who are subject to payments under green deal plans under section 1(6), and have pre-pay meters installed must be provided with details about any extra payments that they incur as a result of—
(a) meters being installed, and(b) intended or existing green deal plans.”
Lord Grantchester
Amendment 16E concerns prepayment meters. We wish to highlight the fact that there should be transparency to to help overcome any disinclination of poor households in fuel poverty to try to improve their heating. As we all know, a prepayment meter requires cash to be paid before energy can be consumed. Some meters take cards or tokens on which cash can be credited.
PPMs are used by energy suppliers as an alternative to disconnection and are routinely fitted to recover outstanding bills. As the financial crisis worsens, we are worried that more and more consumers with PPMs are going without electricity or gas under self-disconnection even in the coldest months of the year. This research sought to understand the extent of self-disconnection among PPM users and the effects that it can have. In research undertaken by Consumer Focus, the majority of households welcomed their prepayment meters for the control that they offer over budgeting and debt. This control comes at the price of inconvenience in managing and topping-up meters. Some consumers resort to going without heating, or without even the most basic of everyday essentials to ensure that they have enough money to keep their meters topped up. For some households this is an ongoing struggle. Around 16 per cent of PPM users self-disconnect at least once a year. That could affect as many as 1.4 million people, some of whom are highly vulnerable.
The tariffs charged for prepayment meters are more expensive than direct debits or online tariffs. Yet, despite the relative high costs, the majority of families on PPMs have an annual income of less than £17,500. Thirteen per cent of households pay for their gas and electricity using prepayment meters, with almost two-thirds of these households using them to pay for both gas and electricity. More than half of households on such meters receive a means-tested benefit or benefits for disability.
Ofgem’s own investigation found that prepayment meter customers were paying more for their energy than it costs energy companies to supply. To ensure that the tariff was cost-reflective, Ofgem introduced new licensing conditions for energy suppliers. Since September 2009, the new conditions have required energy suppliers to ensure that the price paid by prepayment meter customers reflects the cost of this form of supply when compared with direct debit or standard credit tariffs. Ofgem has concluded that the new conditions have led to the average premium for prepayment meters compared with direct debit falling to £69 from £111 since October 2007.
Nevertheless, an investigation by Consumer Focus has shown that the cost of poverty premium, based on a real-life example, reveals a differential of £250, which has caused us to raise the problem with the Minister in Amendment 16E. We are seeking clarity for people who wish to use prepayment meters and may wish to disconnect. There should be clarity that the extra charges which could be levied under this are separate from the extra charges that they could pay for Green Deal, such that the benefits that we would wish them to seek under a Green Deal application are not undermined. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I discussed the whole question of consumers with prepayment meters at some length with the body representing electricity producers. It was in the context of the CERT scheme, which we debated several times over the past two or three years. The point that they made very firmly was yes, of course, there are a number of consumers with prepayment meters who are fuel-poor. As the noble Lord properly said, it is one way in which the companies can make more certain of securing the cost of the energy they supply. But the companies also made clear to me that it is a very poor surrogate as a test for who are the fuel-poor. I found this surprising, but they were quite clear: a surprising number of consumers actually prefer to pay by prepayment meter so as not to be faced with bills at the end of a month or three months. One needs to bear that in mind: it is not an accurate indicator of who is likely to be fuel-poor.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that these same electricity and gas companies have the postal codes of their consumers, and that it does not take a computer genius to link the postal districts with areas of great disadvantage and social vulnerability? It is quite clear that there are a number of people in second homes who find it very convenient for understandable reasons to have prepayment meters. However, the argument advanced by the energy companies that they do not really know who the poorest people are, is self-serving, because they make a lot of money out of charging a higher rate for these meters. It has been one of the great sources of antagonism for many of us against the power companies, that they have disadvantaged people who are already vulnerable. The ones who have second homes we can understand; but the correlation between the postal codes of poor neighbourhoods and the fact they are on prepayment meters is simple to establish, but they never want to do that because they hide behind so-called Freedom of Information provisions, which I do not think stand up to close scrutiny when they are set against the disadvantage of the people exploited by this form of charging, in many instances.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
The noble Lord is perfectly entitled to make his point, but it does not refer to the point I was making. My point was that, yes, prepayment meters are used by many poor households and of course the gas and electricity companies have a very clear idea of who they are. Under the previous arrangements, they had to get 40 per cent of their carbon dioxide savings from people in that priority group, so they had to find out who they were, however difficult it was. That is not the point that I was making; my only point was that the presence of a prepayment meter in a dwelling is not of itself a good surrogate for who is fuel-poor. As the noble Lord himself has recognised, there may be many people with second homes; there may be people doing short-term lets who prefer to put in a prepayment meter, but whose tenants, the bill payer, may be miles from fuel-poor, but that is one of the ways that a landlord can make sure he is not landed with a bill at the end of the day. It is just not accurate to say that all prepayment meter households are inevitably fuel-poor or poor. They are not, and I think it is very important to recognise that fact and not take refuge in abusing the companies, which the noble Lord is so fond of doing.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not sure of the relevance of this argument to the actual clause before us. The issue here is that prepayment meters have a history, whether you are fuel-poor or not, of having significant charges over and above the cost reflectivity and over and above the degree of security which the supplier can assume on other means of payments. In other words, if you are on direct debit, there is a reasonable degree of security, but it is slightly less than on a prepayment meter, which is an almost absolute security of payment, because you do not get any electricity unless the meter is turning.
Historically, the issue has been pretty appalling. Frankly, the regulator denied the problem for many years. I declare my previous interest as former chair of Consumer Focus. Consumer Focus and Energy Watch banged on for years about that before the point about cost reflectivity was finally accepted by Ofgem. It does not matter whether the reason that you have a prepayment meter is because you are fuel poor or because your landlord, in various tenancy situations, insists on you having a prepayment meter. It does not matter whether it is a second home. It does not matter whether you are in a mansion block in Kensington, where many are on prepayment meters—generally speaking, the income of that particular subgroup is somewhat higher than the fuel-poor. The point is that they were being ripped off.
As I understand it, the new clause is proposed by my noble friend because we do not want a similar nontransparent rip-off to occur by clobbering the structure of tariffs on prepayment to hide the fact that, as a result of having a prepayment meter, you have a differentially poor repayment profile under the Green Deal.
The new clause also touches on a substantial point that, had I been present on Second Reading, I would have made: the fact that, at the same time as we are introducing the Green Deal, we are mandating energy supply companies over the next 10 years to install smart meters in every household in the land. The energy companies will have to carry out that provision, over which the landlord, the tenant or the owner-occupier has no real control. Whereas the Green Deal will be a voluntary sign-up, smart meters will not. I happen to be in favour of smart meters for energy efficiency, carbon saving and behaviour change reasons, but we could get those three things muddled up. It may be that the same supplier who is offering you a Green Deal is at almost the same time proposing to put the smart meter in, as they will be required to do, and perhaps negotiating with you the terms of your operation of a prepayment meter.
The point of the new clause, as I understand it, is to separate those different elements so that there is no distortion for the consumer. The wider point is whether the rollout of the Green Deal can in a conscious, planned way relate to the rollout of smart meters. The reality is that, on the one hand, people are going to go into every home in the land under the smart meter installation programme; and, on the other, somebody will be offering a deal under the Green Deal.
A lot of householders will be seriously confused as to which bit they have to accept, and the repayment for that, and which bit they have some option and flexibility about, and they do not have to take the deal at all if they do not want to. I assume that paragraph (a) in the new clause relates to any meter being installed, including the new requirement that smart meters be installed. We have to separate those things in terms of repayment; but in terms of delivery, there may be some benefit in associating them. I would like the Minister to comment on that point, and particularly to endorse the point lying behind my noble friend's amendment: that those three separate issues must be disentangled.
Lord Marland
There are two extremely valuable points here. If I may, I should like to defer the discussion on smart meters because there are a number of later amendments about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, it is important that we focus on this part of the Bill, Which is about the prepayment meter. It is fundamental that we get this bit right, and get smart meters right later. Of course, we need to have in our mind on joined-up thinking, and the two interrelate.
Through the Green Deal, people who pay bills through smart meters first receive information about extra payments that they incur as a result of meters being installed or existing Green Deal plans. We intend that the Green Deal charge can be collected by energy suppliers through all existing payment routes, which include prepayment meters as well as quarterly credit cards, which were mentioned earlier.
A number of licensing conditions are in place to protect customers who receive their energy supply through prepayment meters, including changes to prevent unfair price differentials between payment methods. We will ensure that all relevant protections extend to the Green Deal charge and we are working with Ofgem to make sure that that happens. I hope that that gives enough information for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his reply. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their contributions. They realise the vulnerability of many of our citizens to energy companies using meters. I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for further clarifying the purpose of the amendment to the Committee on my behalf. His interpretation is entirely correct and I am disappointed if I did not make it clear. We are greatly concerned that the Green Deal should work for the fuel-poor in all households, because they see that not only will they save money but that they will heat and warm themselves far better if they undertake the Green Deal. With that in mind, I would like to think clearly and look at the matter again, especially in relation to amendments that may be tabled and our discussions about smart meters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, now we are in stand part discussions again, I draw to noble Lords’ attention some thoughts regarding Clause 28. When we look at the Green Deal and everything that is happening in it, the Minister has said many times that the market will provide. We are most anxious that the Green Deal is taken up and proves to be a great success, and are under debate on Clause 28 pressing the Minister to understand how the Green Deal will work and what he has in mind under delegation and conferring of functions. We are beginning to wonder whether the Green Deal needs a promoter. Lots of people are involved in the Green Deal. We have mentioned the participants, the assessors, the providers, the bill payers and the landlords, as well as situations that occur as properties change hands and the circumstances of bill payers. There does not appear to be a one-stop shop—if I may call it that—unless the Government are going to provide it. Under Clause 28 we may consider whether we need a one-stop shop and who can put out overarching material and promotion to explain and promote the Green Deal. The Minister may be thinking that his department may be that promoter. We have been thinking whether the Energy Savings Trust could be such a valid promoter.
What are the Minister’s thoughts on the need for Clause 28 and what it might pertain to? If it was thought that our financial constraints—which we are forever told about—make it inappropriate, we have in Clause 32 funding for energy efficiency advice. The Minister gives himself powers to spend money; would that allow a promoter to take up this opportunity? What would that delegation be? Does he agree with me that a promoter could help the uptake of the Green Deal? I beg to move.
Lord Marland
The noble Lord asks a very good question, which I will seek to clarify. This clause gives the Secretary of State power to delegate Green Deal functions to one or more public bodies, and to fund the work they do. It is a key clause allowing us to create the most effective oversight framework for the Green Deal.
Where public bodies are tasked with creating codes of practice required to support the Green Deal, the codes must be approved by the Secretary of State before they are issued. Codes of practice will be one of the key mechanisms by which we govern the Green Deal and create consumer confidence in it.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to delegate administrative functions connected with the licence modification powers contained in Clause 15(3). An example would be where a public body was appointed to administer an administration fee payable to energy suppliers, as in Clause 15(3)(f). This is a key clause in the Bill, allowing us to create the most effective delivery and oversight framework for the Green Deal, and to give Green Deal participants and customers confidence in the deal as a whole. I hope that that answers the excellent question asked by the noble Lord.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his reply, and it could well be that I am wide of the mark. He has explained the key purpose of the clause. We will reflect further on the idea that I proposed.
Baroness Parminter
“Annual report(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the operation of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of this Act.
(2) Such an annual report must include appropriate indicators to assess whether the targets for emission reductions are being met.”
Baroness Parminter
This amendment provides for reporting on meeting our carbon reduction targets—an issue I raised at Second Reading and one also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, in Amendment 1. The Minister was not minded to accept her amendment, although I am hoping that it was the bulk of issues that she packaged together which made it rather too heavy for the Minister’s taste. I am proposing a rather more simple reporting structure on the success of the Green Deal in meeting our carbon reduction targets.
The Green Deal is the Government’s flagship policy for ensuring that we reduce carbon emissions from our homes, which account for 25 per cent of total emissions. We know that if we do not meet it through efficiency it will be a lot more expensive to meet it by other measures.
In response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the Minister suggested that an annual report was unnecessary because it was provided for by existing legislation. My noble friend specifically referred both to the departmental carbon plans and fuel poverty targets. With respect, I contend those are separate issues; worthy of monitoring and reporting but unable to provide the level of information about how much carbon savings would be achieved solely by the Green Deal.
Such reporting would not require of companies the release of commercially sensitive information. We are not asking them how many loft insulations they are installing, or how many boilers they are fitting. We are asking for the total carbon savings that they estimate will be achieved by the provision of these home improvements. This is not commercially sensitive information that would be inappropriate for Parliament to be made aware of. Without this information it would be hard for the Government to make it clear how much carbon reduction is being achieved by the Green Deal. Indeed, we could miss a very important opportunity on an annual basis to promote to the public just how much this Government is doing in order to deliver a low carbon economy. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. She will see that we agree with her in terms of intent; but we think there are advantages in the annual report having some more specific dimensions to it. We agree with her entirely that the more general reports that are referred to will not monitor the success or otherwise of this significant scheme. As she rightly says, it does not raise the issue of commercial information; it is a question of the householder, the dweller and the landlord making their contribution in an important way to our carbon targets. We think the country will benefit from a close monitoring of this scheme.
That is why we think there are advantages in ensuring that local authorities keep a check on progress and that they ensure that as much progress as possible is being made in their areas. This is going to be a scheme, after all, to which the energies of the nation will have to respond. Therefore, all agencies that are capable of promoting this scheme should be brought on board. That is why we think the local authorities have a role to play and that small-and medium-size enterprises and local community groups can play their part. I respect the point that there may be issues involving commercial confidentiality, but we are talking about small units here and not major companies. We therefore think it is appropriate that we ask them to make their contribution. Certainly local community groups are going to be the cheerleaders of some of this work. I can think of those who will set a fine example by the community premises they hold, where they will be first into the field. We should not underestimate the extent to which progress can be made almost by word of mouth and by encouragement and example. That is why we want local communities involved.
We also think that it important that we should monitor this issue geographically across the nation. It would be very sad if it proved to be the more prosperous areas which were able to engage in the Green Deal because they had less anxiety about the additional costs. So we need to know the balance of the scheme, and whether we need to address the failure of take-up, given that the whole nation needs to contribute to this. That emphasises the obvious fact that we would need some analysis of the response by different sections of community in terms of socioeconomic groups. This scheme is not going to be successful if only those who can take the risk with extra cost are going to play their part; we need everyone to be involved in it. Therefore an annual report identifying progress in some detail would be an enormous advantage to what we all appreciate—as opposed to all our other activities aimed at carbon reduction—is the activity to which we are all committed, is among the most imaginative and requires engagement by so many people. That is why we hope the noble Baroness responding on behalf of the Government will give a fair wind to the concept of an annual report on this scheme.
Baroness Maddock
An amendment of mine is in this group. I support what has been said about the importance of looking at how successful things are and looking year-on-year at figures. Mine is a more general measure. Indeed, I had placed it much further on in the Bill, but it was obviously seem to be convenient to debate it at this time; I do not mind that. Mine is about the assessment of the costs and benefits of energy saving, as opposed to those of energy generation.
Energy saving is universally acknowledged on all political sides to be the cheapest and cleanest way to achieve our energy policy objectives. That view is behind the Green Deal. As I understand it, an assessment of the costs and benefits of investment in energy generation capacity compared to the costs and benefits of demand-reduction policies has never been carried out. As noble Lords have said, I have been involved in the area for a number of years and have worked closely with the Association for the Conservation of Energy. I therefore know that it has pursued the issue but has never received a satisfactory answer. Over the years, as I have looked at, sat through and taken part in all sorts of legislation—a lot of it reforming legislation—I have learnt that reviewing and taking note of what has happened before moving on to the next piece of legislation is something that Governments seem to be bad at, particularly in the area of energy efficiency.
That is important when you have a lot of sceptics around and people argue about what is the best way to do things. The European Climate Foundation reports that emissions from buildings can be reduced by 95 per cent. It breaks it up into a 40 per cent as a result of reduced demand and 45 per cent as a result of the electrification of heating. Its predictions of energy efficiency mean that overall electricity demand increases only by about 40 per cent with full electrification of heating and, largely, of transport. That is in stark contrast to DECC figures, which predict a doubling, and possibly a tripling, of UK electricity demand. It is therefore important, when debating an Energy Bill, to consider that.
I hope that I can get a positive response from the Minister that he will take the issue seriously. I am not saying that the amendment has to be in the Bill in this form, but it is an important issue—particularly now that we are moving ahead with the scheme.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I support the amendment. We have had repeated statements from the Minister to the effect that, in many ways, the Green Deal will be market-driven, that there is little public funding but that there is a great deal of public provision, in the sense that the Bill will mark the paving of the way for the Green Deal. I think that, therefore, it is important that there is a degree of public reporting of what we are trying to do so that we can measure its effectiveness, whether in environmental terms or the penetration—which parts of the country respond better. We would anticipate that continuing for many years, so it would be desirable for us to have proper indications of take-up rates, the environmental impact and, in particular, who is getting it and where they stay. While we are not asking for a street-by-street report, it would be useful on a regional basis or a local authority basis to get an indication of what is happening. It might even be useful to see the take-up within the devolved Administrations and see whether they are playing their part alongside the Whitehall-driven part of the exercise.
I take the point that the first line of defence of most Ministers, when faced with amendments which seem to be rather good in intent, is that the wording is wrong, or it is not properly drafted. That is why the ministries have masses of civil servants; not necessarily to do the drafting themselves but to instruct those who do it to do so. Therefore, before we get any feeble excuse that it is not properly worded, many of us would be very happy if the Government were prepared to take the amendment away, look at it in some shape or form, and see whether we can achieve that. As we have said in respect of so many aspects of this Bill, while it is very ambitious and wide-ranging, it is not rocket science. This information will be held somewhere. It is just a question of making sure that we can get it from that somewhere into the public domain so that on a draughty Friday morning we can have one and a half hours of debate on it in order to subject the whole proposal to some kind of public scrutiny and public accountability. While we might not be spending much public money on this, we are going to be investing a great deal of, I think, Westminster prestige. There is not a lot of that going about at the moment, but what is there, if it is to be effective in this instance, ought to be reported. If it is not as effective as it should be, we ought to be doing something about it, not on the basis of prejudice but on the basis of hard information, which I think a report of this nature would provide.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I suggest that, if we were not repealing the Home Energy Conservation Act, it is precisely under that Act that the figures could be got together by local authorities.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, we fully support the underlying principles of these amendments, which are all about ensuring transparency—and maybe even Westminster prestige, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has indicated. The Green Deal is the Government’s flagship energy efficiency scheme, and much will hang on its success, so it is right and proper that Parliament should have the information it needs to hold the Government to account. Of course decisions need to be based on evidence, which demands proper analysis.
Amendment 17 proposes an annual report. The Government are already obliged to report annually to Parliament on progress towards our legally binding carbon budgets, as referred to in response to the reports of the Committee on Climate Change. These reports include a sector-by-sector account of the carbon savings achieved; and the Green Deal, once under way, will be a key element of these reports. As my noble friend Lady Parminter recognises, we have argued that the aim of this amendment is already provided for through these existing reporting arrangements; but I note her reaction to that argument.
Amendment 20DA seeks to enhance reporting requirements for the Green Deal. Again, we believe that the principle of this amendment is sensible and laudable, although we feel that the case for specific reporting from Government may be stronger for the energy company obligation than for the market-led Green Deal. This is the subject of Amendment 30A, which we will discuss later. I would point out to noble Lords—and we will be coming on to this later as well—that the Green Deal will be reviewed early in its life. Therefore I believe that the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be addressed as part of that review. While still agreeing with the principle of these amendments, it is important that we do everything we can to encourage the take-up of the Green Deal, as we all wish to make sure that this is as widespread as possible.
We will be publishing a report on meeting the fourth carbon budget this autumn, which will provide this type of whole-economy assessment. The costs of particular technologies are assessed through extensive consultation, so we believe that the aims of this amendment are provided for already by published impact assessments. However, we hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, says about learning from past experience and proper analysis. We note what noble Lords have said and are indeed very supportive of the principles of what they are aiming to do. In the mean time, we hope that noble Lords will be willing not to press their amendments and that we can discuss this further.
Baroness Parminter
I thank my noble friend for that very positive and reassuring reply, in terms of understanding both the spirit in which the amendment was tabled and what we hoped to achieve. I am certainly happy to withdraw.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
I return now to the issue of fees and how they are referred to in a rather different context. Both this amendment and my next group of amendments relate to references to fees. Clause 30 covers powers to deal with special circumstances. The first of the special circumstances is the suspension or cancellation of the Green Deal. Subsection (2) refers to the provision setting out the procedure,
“for securing a suspension or cancellation (including the payment of an administration fee calculated in accordance with the regulations)”.
It is the bit in brackets that I am seeking to change. If a Green Deal arrangement is to be cancelled, it is presumably for one of two reasons: either because the provision under the Green Deal has not met the specifications—in other words, the provider has defaulted—or because the repayer, whether or not they were the original repayer, is now in circumstances where they cannot repay. In either of those circumstances, it seems inappropriate, in addition to cancelling the deal, to charge a payment. It is therefore odd that there is reference at that point to the payment of an additional fee. Even though it is referred to as an administration fee, in the circumstances it is an additional payment. It is conceivable that there are other circumstances than the two that I have suggested, but I cannot think of them. If the Minister’s imagination is better than mine, no doubt she will tell us.
The second such provision relates to subsection (2)(d), which goes back to the argument about early repayment. If the original agreement was clear, the terms of early repayment would be clear. As it stands, this runs into the same difficulty that I referred to an hour or so ago, which is that a new occupier or a new landlord might have to meet a repayment fee—to which they had not previously been committed, as they were not the original signer of the agreement—for deciding that on all other grounds they wished to repay early. It is not clear, as it is not clear in many other respects, why a fee should be paid for early repayment or exit. Because we have seen exit fees abused in other areas of energy provision, I would be deeply suspicious of the primary legislation referring to an exit fee in this form. No doubt we will return to this issue when we come to the details of defining the situations to which this applies, but in the primary legislation the apparent presumption that a fee is involved should be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I support my noble friend in his Amendment 18 and his proposal regarding early repayment penalties under Amendment 19. My noble friend and other noble Lords spoke strongly about this issue when it was discussed earlier. The Minister replied that, if this provision was taken out, it could lead to an awkward situation in which it would be open for different people to charge different levels of fees. Perhaps the Minister could take this away. If she could propose that no penalty fees would be levied in this situation under the Bill, that would sort the problem out and not leave it to the providers to decide. If it is not covered, there would be a disparity in the fees and penalties that could be levied.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, Clause 30 allows regulations to be made that set out when and how a bill payer’s liability to make Green Deal repayments can be cancelled or suspended. Amendment 18 would prevent the regulations from making provision for a procedure to be followed for securing such suspension or cancellation of the repayments. Noble Lords have made the point about this being proportionate and not abused.
An example of when the bill payer’s liability might be cancelled is where the bill payer had chosen to make full early repayment of the Green Deal finance arrangement. In such an eventuality, there may be a need to include an administration fee. I will turn to why that might be in a minute. As discussed earlier, such a fee would be calculated in line with the rules of the Consumer Credit Act for the domestic Green Deal and in line with the regulations that we propose to set out in secondary legislation for the business Green Deal. This clause also gives us the flexibility to introduce a payment suspension mechanism for the bill payer in appropriate circumstances.
The legislation permits an administration fee to be requested for the arrangement of payment suspension. This is essential to balance the needs of the property owner to have flexibility while minimising the loss that the provider of finance might incur. The details of this—for example, when such a fee might be requested and the level of such a fee—will be subject to consultation later this year.
Amendment 19 would remove the ability to set out in regulations what should be payable in the event of early repayment of the Green Deal being required, including how any fee should be calculated. The effect of this amendment would be to prevent the regulations setting out the rules on early repayment from being set out in Green Deal plans.
The domestic Green Deal is subject to the early repayment rules set out in the Consumer Credit Act, which prevents consumers from being charged unreasonable fees when they repay early. However, business Green Deal providers are not subject to any existing regulations on early repayment fees. This amendment would remove the ability for the Government to set out regulations limiting the fees that can be charged when a business is required to repay the Green Deal early.
Early repayment fees are an important protection for the investor providing the finance. They have invested their money expecting a particular rate of return over a particular period. Being able to claim some compensation when an early repayment is made is an important element to keep the cost of finance low. This practice is not uncommon in the mortgage market.
However, we do not want Green Deal providers to charge disproportionate fees when early repayment is required, so the ability to set out some rules around this in secondary legislation is important. There is a danger that these amendments could remove that protection, which I think is far from the intention of the mover of the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by my explanation and, on that basis, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I understand and accept part of that argument. These regulations are going to be subject to consultation. It may be appropriate that in some circumstances an administration fee is charged. A reference was made to the mortgage market, but in that context this is not just an administration fee but effectively—the noble Baroness used the term “compensation”—a major disincentive to people repaying their mortgage early. There is a certain amount of consumer dissatisfaction about this from people who, under all other calculations, would repay their mortgage early but who have been put off so doing by the size of the early repayment charge. I do not know that the analogy with the mortgage market is particularly helpful; I would hope that, at a maximum, any fee would reflect the real cost of the administration of cancelling early rather than the potential loss. After all, the finance provider would get the money back and could then reinvest it in as good a deal as they could. I do not think that the compensation issue should arise in these circumstances.
My main point is that this is primary legislation. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that this is subject to consultation. I suspect that the issue of fees will arise during that consultation among potential providers and finance companies as well as among consumer groups. The fact that the Bill is written in this way suggests that the procedure must include provision of a fee. Clause 30(2)(a) refers to,
“the procedure to be followed for securing a suspension … including the payment”,
as if the payment is an obvious matter. Similarly, paragraph (d) says, “including a fee”, not “a possible fee” or “there may be a fee involved”. It is worded as if the regulations are going to have to provide for a fee.
I would prefer to keep that open until we come to the consultation on the regulations. I think that in this case the primary legislation—I am using the opposite argument to the one to which the ministerial Bench usually resorts, which is that we do not have to prescribe so much in primary legislation because we can leave it to the consultation on regulations—is too prescriptive or could be seen to be too prescriptive.
Baroness Northover
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that what is being sought here is a balance between bringing providers in and the very important aim of encouraging people to take up these schemes and for them not to think that their fingers are going to be burned if they pay off what they owe early. What underlines these provisions is the attempt to find a proportionate way to deal with that and to protect people through this legislation. However, as my noble friend Lord Marland has indicated, we will be discussing the subject of fees further.
Lord Teverson
Clearly, one of the points where someone might want to repay is when there is a transfer of the debt—for example, when the house is sold and the next person takes it on. Is the Government’s proposal for an exit fee or whatever to apply all the way through or does that particular circumstance make a difference?
Baroness Northover
I may need to come back to noble Lords on that but, as I understand it, if people choose to repay early the expectation is that they would pay a fee. However, I do not think that I have fully answered what the noble Lord has asked, so I will need to come back to him to clarify that.
Lord Whitty
In view of the hour and the fact that we will be returning to this, I beg to withdraw.
Lord Grantchester
Lord Grantchester
Amendment 19A draws attention to the lack of detail in this clause in respect of appeals. While we acknowledge that it may be appropriate to include some issues in regulations, such as the fee payable, we do not consider that other issues—specifically who has the right to appeal, where they can appeal, the grounds for appeal and the powers of the court or tribunal in making a determination—are suitable matters to be left to further regulations that the Minister may draft. Surely, the class of person who is eligible to appeal under the clause is not likely to change during the course of time and there is no obvious reason why this should be flexible. We are interested to hear what the Minister of Justice and his officials might have advised in this area as it appears to breach fundamental issues of access to justice. It is an equally important point of principle that people should have the protection of primary legislation. We ask the Minister to put down amendments to take these comments on board and to seriously consider amending the Bill in this area on Report. It is an issue that we will be turning our minds to in the next couple of months. I beg to move.
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lord for his suggested amendment to Clause 31. This clause requires the Government to provide the right of appeal when a sanction has been imposed by the Secretary of State or their delegate. This clause provides a right of appeal against sanctions imposed for any breaches relating to consent, disclosure and acknowledgement, or requirements set by a scheme regulating and authorising Green Deal participants, such as any future schemes for registration and accreditation and their codes of practice. This clause enables an appeal to a court or tribunal. Subsection (3), which noble Lords would omit through their proposed amendment, clarifies that we can address issues such as who can appeal, under what circumstances and to what body, and the powers to suspend the sanctions originally imposed. These are all matters that would need to be dealt with in establishing a fair and workable right of appeal against any sanctions imposed and it is important that the Bill clarifies that these can be included in regulations.
Clause 31(5) enables the Secretary of State to revoke or amend any subordinate legislation governing the jurisdiction, process and powers of any existing tribunal system that may be used to enable this right of appeal. The Government will consult fully and set out details in regulations about who may appeal and under what circumstances. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
In conclusion, I assure noble Lords that we will seek to develop a transparent and workable appeals mechanism and I hope that with this assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his reply but, with respect, he has not addressed my point. We do not feel that regulations sufficiently take account of these concerns which should be under primary legislation. We are mindful that consumers must have confidence in the situation facing them and that this is something that should be upfront in the Bill. That is the most appropriate place and it is where these aspects should be dealt with, rather than in regulations. Nor did he take up my point about whether he had consulted the Ministry of Justice over any of these aspects.
Lord Marland
We have consulted the Ministry of Justice. We would not get to this point without having done so.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. In his answer he referred to subsection (5), which is that regulation may be introduced that,
“may revoke or amend any subordinate legislation”.
Under subsection (6),
“‘subordinate legislation’ has the meaning given in … the Interpretation Act 1978”.
We are concerned about the overuse of regulation in this Bill and ask how far, under subsection (5), it is justified or appropriate that there should be powers to revoke or amend any subordinate legislation. We ask for clarification of the extent of those powers. I understand the Interpretation Act to merely interpret terms and not cover any policy issues. Finally, I should like to ask whether this part of the Bill been commentated on by the Merits Committee.
Lord Marland
There is no greater authority on these things than the Secretary of State. He is responsible for delegating powers. Every intention behind the Green Deal is that we get it right, which is why in matters involving disclosure, breaches relating to consent or any sanctions, the top-down authority will come from the Secretary of State. I hope that that clarifies that point.
As to whether this has been through the correct procedural process, I am not at liberty to answer that question now, but I will respond later rather than put officials through the mill now.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his consideration. He no doubt understands that we take this matter extremely seriously and will consider further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Whitty
Lord Whitty
My Lords, since I packed my bag before we gave up, I will be brief. This group of amendments relates to fees, on which I have expanded at some length already. Some of these simply follow through from those that we have already discussed. Some relate to appeals, and I think that a disincentive to appeals is an area of significant concern. Some relate to other details of the way in which the Green Deal will be delivered. However, they all raise the issue of fees. I think that it would be helpful to the Committee—it would certainly be helpful to me—if, before we come to the next stage, the Minister could arrange for someone to set out why the issue of fees has to apply in these various situations. That can probably be done more logically than going through clause by clause, because some of them obviously hang together. There are only three or four subjects, but there are a lot of points where fees arise. If the Minister would commit to doing that, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marland
My Lords, at this point in the proceedings the noble Lord’s views on fees are well known, and he has our assurance that we will look at the issue very carefully. As we have already said, the level of any fee will be set out in secondary legislation. I think that the noble Lord is making the point that he would like us to develop a thinking process before we get to that and that, between us, we can develop it further before we get to that point. I look forward to discussing the matter with him in the near future.
House of Lords
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Empey
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Inflation
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the rate of inflation.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the UK’s monetary policy framework gives operational responsibility for maintaining price stability to the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. The MPC stated in the minutes of its December 2010 meeting that its central view remained that a substantial margin of spare capacity in the economy was likely to persist for some time and would bear down on inflation in the medium term as the impact of temporary factors waned.
Lord Spicer
I thank the Minister for that reply. Now that the consumer prices index has risen to almost twice the Bank of England’s target inflation figure, will the Government consider exchanging quantitative easing for quantitative tightening?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course the Government are concerned about the current level of inflation and the impact that it has on many parts of society, particularly on working families, savers and others. However, how the Bank of England meets the Government’s set target for inflation, including decisions about what it does, if anything, about quantitative easing or the reversal of it, is an operational decision for the bank.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that he is not joining those who wrongly seek to pressurise the MPC to increase interest rates? Furthermore, as he cares about transparency, will he perhaps now take the opportunity to answer the Question for Written Answer that I put to him some time ago and tell us precisely what the Treasury representative on the MPC was instructed to say to the committee about the Treasury’s view on interest rates?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am very happy to confirm that the Government have every confidence in the MPC. They regard its independence as a cornerstone in making sure that the Chancellor’s inflation target is hit as far as it is in the power of the MPC to achieve it. That is what it is asked to do and there is absolutely no interference. As I have explained before, a representative of Her Majesty’s Treasury does indeed attend MPC meetings—not in any way to interfere with the independent deliberations of the MPC but to make sure that the committee is aware of relevant Treasury policy decisions, such as what is coming out of budgets. That is all I can say.
Baroness Kingsmill
My Lords, what impact on inflation does the Minister think the recent increase in VAT will have?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, the recent relatively high levels of inflation reflect, among other things, the previous Government returning the rate of VAT to 17.5 per cent, so that number is included and it is one of the factors behind the rise in inflation in December. As to the effect on inflation of the increase of the standard rate from 17.5 to 20 per cent, that depends on how much of the increase is passed on to consumers, and we will wait to see on that. However, because the rise to 17.5 per cent will come out of the inflation numbers, it will partially offset the effect of the increase that comes in in January.
Lord Myners
My Lords, we fully accept the importance of the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee but the Government cannot wash their hands of any responsibility for inflation. The exchange of letters between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England has now become very anodyne and routine—the same explanations are brought forward time after time. What are the Government going to do about the MPC’s inability to hit the target that the Government have set?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I know that it is customary for me to answer the questions and for noble Lords to ask them but five letters were written by the Governor of the Bank of England to the previous Government and I do not recall the previous Government having done anything about them in response. It is quite right that the Governor of the Bank of England explains the situation, but the previous Government put in place and supported the framework that exists, exactly as we are doing, and it is an important part of that framework that the governor writes letters.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the Minister will surely recognise that the Government take responsibility for the VAT rise and also take responsibility for the fact that the general inflation rate impacts with particular savagery, through government policies and cuts, on the poor and less well off in our society. In present circumstances, when our citizens are suffering and the growth rate is 2 per cent or below, surely the Government should express more than a little anxiety about the possibility of a rise in interest rates.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I could not agree more with the starting premise of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. The Government are concerned about the hard-pressed, hard-saving, hard-working low earners in this country. That is why, in April this year, 880,000 people will be taken out of taxation altogether. That is also why 23 million taxpayers will each receive back £170 compared with the plans of the previous Government. That is an absolute recognition of the fact that the Government understand how low-income families are suffering and are doing something about it.
Lord Bates
My Lords, will my noble friend also comment on the consequences for inflation of the reductions in corporation tax, the reductions in national insurance contributions, the freezing of council tax and business rates and, most importantly, the tackling of the deficit that have all been announced?
Lord Sassoon
I agree absolutely with my noble friend that these are all critical policies to ensure that growth gets going again. It is precisely by the Government both reducing the deficit and ensuring growth that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will have a firm policy background against which to make its decisions that bear on the inflation target.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Can my noble friend indicate at what stage, after a series of letters from the MPC to the Chancellor, the latter would be prepared to reconsider the inflation target of 2 per cent and revise it in either direction?
Lord Sassoon
My right honourable friend the Chancellor has no intention of revising the target for inflation. It is a matter on which he can write a new instruction whenever he wants, but he has no such intention.
Stem Cell Research
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review scientific developments in stem cell research, as recommended by the Select Committee on Stem Cell Research (Session 2001–02, HL Paper 83), with a view to ascertaining whether research on human embryos is still necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, current scientific evidence supports research involving all forms of adult and embryonic stem cells rather than focusing on any distinct type. Investments in stem cell research are always evaluated against the current understanding of the science and of its application. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, will be pleased to note, having chaired the Select Committee on Stem Cell Research, that the Government are in the process of taking stock of developments in regenerative medicine, and that this review will inform strategies to support the development of regenerative medicine in the United Kingdom.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she not agree not only that the issue is of general scientific importance, but that it is important to ensure that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is properly observed? The HFEA is allowed to award a licence to a research project only if there is no way of doing the research other than by using embryos. In the debates in this House, it was not only the Government who accepted the recommendation that there should be a review after 10 years; there was very broad support. Will the Government do their best to encourage a reputable medical body such as the Academy of Medical Sciences to undertake a scientific review of the whole field?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, this is a complicated subject. I will do my best and apologise if my answer is not exactly what the noble and right reverend Lord wants. Perhaps he will write to me again if it is not. The UK has a strictly regulated but facilitating system that allows all forms of stem cell research to take place under licence. It is not yet clear that research on adult stem cells will be the best approach in all cases. Enabling scientists to work on all forms of stem cells can help accelerate the process of finding alternatives to embryonic stem cells where appropriate. The Government continue to support this because at this stage we do not know from where the major advances in knowledge and the development of cures will come, and it is too early to tell whether iPS cells will be a viable alternative to embryonic stem cells.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the great and renowned report by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, gave a special status in research to the human embryo? Will she assure the House that the Rawlings report, which we are now awaiting, into speeding up the process of research decisions will still respect that special status, to which the current chairman of the HFEA has drawn attention only in the past few days?
Baroness Wilcox
I support the noble Baroness in saying that we should support that wonderful report. Of course, every haste will be made, but only in the proper way. We know that in keeping with the Haldane principles the prioritisation of an individual research council’s spending—whether it does and what it does—is up to it and is not something that Ministers should interfere with.
Lord Winston
My Lords, there are approximately 400 people in this Chamber, of whom 150 will be likely to die of heart disease. Is the Minister aware that at Imperial College Michael Schneider and his laboratory have grown beating heart muscle, which has been possible only by using human embryonic tissue? Is she also aware that in the United Kingdom there are at least 200,000 infertile women who have approximately an 18 per cent chance of an embryo implanting? We need to understand why that implantation rate is so low. To do so, it is essential that we study the human embryo.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I was a governor of Imperial College for seven years, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, knows. I had to stand down to take this wonderful job. I know about the work that is going on and also about the work that the noble Lord is doing. Stem cell research offers enormous potential to develop and deliver new treatments for some of the most chronic and debilitating conditions that face people. I can only agree with everything he said.
Lord Patel
My Lords, does the Minister agree that today, aside from bone marrow transplantation for leukaemia patients, there are no off-the-shelf therapies available using any type of stem cell that would treat hundreds, thousands or millions of patients? The potential for developing such therapies still lies in using stem cells with pluripotent characteristics that are also safe to use clinically. Science research has no guaranteed avenues of success. Does the Minister agree, as my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth suggested, that a review of regenerative medicine and the science that will deliver it is more important than a review of single-cell stem cells?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, it is a pleasure to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He is an expert on stem cell research and a member of the council of the Medical Research Council. It is a pleasure and an honour to agree with him.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, to return to the question of adult stem cells and pluripotent cells, given that adult stem cells are currently used in the successful treatment of more than 70 different illnesses and that induced pluripotent adult stem cells are being used for new treatments, do Her Majesty's Government agree that adult stem cell research ought to be given priority in stem cell research in the current challenging economic environment?
Baroness Wilcox
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield asks an excellent question. I agree with him. Research excellence continues to be the primary consideration in funding decisions. Research on iPS cells has shown that although they are like embryonic stem cells, they behave very differently. I am only too delighted to agree with his statement.
Police: Crime Rates
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cuts in police funding on crime rates.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I welcome this familiar Question, which I think I have answered in one shape or another from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, several times already. The Government do not accept that reductions in police funding will impact on crime rates; what matters is how resources are used and prioritised. We believe that police forces can make savings while maintaining or improving the service that they provide to the public.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, under Labour, police numbers rose and crime fell. We are now seeing thousands of police posts being lost and front-line officers having to take on admin duties because of reductions in back-office infrastructure. What does the noble Lord have to say to the Civitas report of two weeks ago, which concludes that the public will face a greater risk of crime because of the actions of his Government?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has read the report as well as the press release—which, incidentally, said only that police cuts “could” lead to a surge in crime—that Civitas produced. I quote from the report:
“The data suggest … A nation with a larger proportion of police officers is somewhat more likely to have a lower crime rate”.
When one examines the statistics—as an academic, I usually try to look at the statistics—one sees that, according to the report, crime in Romania is 10 per cent of the scale of crime in Britain and Cyprus has three times as many police officers per head of population as Britain. I suspect that the data are not entirely reliable.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the example being set by Surrey Police, whose chief constable has introduced efficiencies that allow him to combine significant savings with an increase in the number of police officers on the beat? Does the Minister believe that that is a model that other police forces could follow?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am sure that everyone here is aware of the HMIC report, which suggests that there is potential for a 12 per cent cut in police spending without damaging police resources at all. In the other place, Vernon Coaker speaking for the Labour Party said,
“we would have accepted what the HMIC report says”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/10; col. 358.]
That is to say that he admits that Labour was committed to at least a 12 per cent cut. I think it likely that, if Labour had won the election, we would have been talking about 15 to 20 per cent cuts in overall spending, so we are not talking about a vast partisan divide here.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Does the Minister assert that there will be no rise in crime, or will there be some rise? Can he be sure about the present situation? The view that he has expressed is not shared by all the police officers. Would he like to comment on that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, if I were a police officer, I am sure that I would argue exactly that point but, having looked at some of the evidence on this, I think that the simple relationship between police numbers and crime that parties in opposition—including my own, I regret to say—tend to argue for is not borne out by the evidence. In Sweden and Spain, there has been over time an increase in both police numbers and crime; in New York and in Northern Ireland, there has been over time a substantial reduction in police officers, which has been accompanied by a reduction in crime.
Lord Eames
My Lords, given the relationship of central government to the devolved Administrations, will the Minister elaborate on what he has just said regarding the particular position of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, given the level of security risk to the people of the Province?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in answering this Question, I am responsible for police services in England and Wales only. Policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
Would the Minister care to consider, if fewer police are to be seen around our homes and streets, what effect that will have on people’s feeling of security and safety in and around where they live and work? Is he saying that there will be no impact at all on that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the evidence is that police concentration on hot spots for crime has a great deal more impact than police numbers overall.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, detection uses forensic techniques quite extensively these days, yet the Government have announced the winding down of the Forensic Science Service, which is making a considerable operating loss. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have any concerns about the risks inherent in such a move, in particular whether commercial forensic science services are likely to concentrate on the more routine and easier cases? We may lose out as a result if such services do not use more expensive techniques. There is obvious potential for miscarriages of justice or, indeed, failure to prosecute.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government are working very closely with ACPO and with the National Police Improvement Agency on managing the transition for the wind-down of the FSS. That includes identifying whether there are any needs that cannot be provided by the forensic market.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that in my experience—this is shared by police officers, police authorities and members of the public—although Surrey Police may be able to make the cuts at the speed that this Government want, other police forces will not be able to do so. Would not the general public prefer to see more police officers on the street than the costly introduction of police commissioners?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, police commissioners will cost money, but police authorities cost money. Adjustments have been made for the election of police commissioners. We will come at a later point to the question whether police accountability is sufficient—I know that some people are concerned about police accountability and undercover officers—but police accountability is one of the things that elected police commissioners are intended to serve.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, in so far as those of us who have served in, and in support of, the police recognise the need to sustain that support, is it not important to remember that the Justice Minister wants to reduce the number of people who become victims through their lack of communication and land in prison? When we talk of the funding of the police, we must also recognise our responsibility to those, for example, who are on the autistic spectrum who find themselves in trouble and whom we have a responsibility to help.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I agree strongly with the noble Lord. In the prevention of crime, working with deprived children and disturbed teenagers is clearly an important part of reducing the crime rate and holding it down.
Financial Services: Shareholder Engagement
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McFall of Alcluith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the financial services industry on shareholder engagement.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving shareholder engagement and have already taken significant steps, including the new remuneration disclosure rules, the FRC stewardship code and the revised corporate governance code. We have also issued a call for evidence on governance and short-termism. This will establish whether there are issues affecting the functioning of capital markets, including questions about shareholder engagement. Ministers and officials have had meetings with a variety of organisations as part of the process of policy development and delivery in this area.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
The concept of ownerless corporations was reinforced last week at the Treasury Committee when Bob Diamond admitted that there had been no engagement between institutional shareholders and Barclays regarding remuneration and risk structure. Does not this absence of stewardship and judgment only exacerbate a situation where, when companies are in trouble, the taxpayer has unlimited liability whereas the executives have very limited or no liability? Will the Government, therefore, reinvigorate the debate so that risk is understood and properly monitored to ensure that bond-holders take some of the pain, which they do not at the moment, and will there be minimum structural change to ensure that in future no bank is ever too big to fail?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, ranges over some big questions there. To start with the remuneration issues, the introduction of the new FSA code of disclosure from 1 January will contribute to making shareholders better informed. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has taken note of Sir David Walker’s suggestion that there needs to be further international agreement in this area so the Chancellor has written to his EU counterparts to see what can be done to further drive forward aspects of disclosure. There is certainly a lot of activity going on there. As to some of the bigger questions about “too big to fail” and bond-holders and so on, I look forward to the light that the Independent Commission on Banking will doubtless shed on these important issues and I note that the chairman of the commission is scheduled to be making a speech in the next few days on this topic.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that, in hostile takeovers, the result is often determined by hedge funds which have simply acquired or borrowed stock short-term in order to make a short-term profit, irrespective of other interests. Is this an issue that the Government are prepared to discuss with the financial services industry?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the takeover panel operating independently keeps that issue and all other issues related to the good working of the takeover market under regular review. The department of business consultation, A Long-term Focus on Corporate Britain, which is currently calling for evidence, will be interested to hear what people have to say on that very topic.
Lord Naseby
Has my noble friend noted the recent statement from the Financial Reporting Council suggesting that annual reports shall no longer be printed? How does he think that will improve small shareholder engagement?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there is a fine balance to be struck between making sure that shareholders get all the information they require on the one hand, and on the other hand allowing companies to take advantage of electronic and other media to disseminate information in a way in which an increasing proportion of shareholders wish to receive that information and which may be environmentally friendly if it does not require large amounts of paper to be used. I am glad that the FRC is grappling with that issue.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this is an ongoing challenge but institutional shareholders over the last few years—under considerable pressure from the previous Government, I am happy to say—have taken steps to make sure that, where they are representatives of pension funds or other representatives, they are more active in exercising proper stewardship in the votes of the underlying shareholders they represent. I recognise that it is an important issue.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems of shareholder involvement in so far as the banks are concerned is that auditors are reluctant to qualify the accounts of a bank in any way whatsoever, even if they have reservations, because this might lead to a run on the bank? Does he agree that the answer is what I put in the Banking Act 1987—to have a mandatory dialogue between the regulators and the auditors of banks so that there can be two-way communication, which unfortunately went largely by the board with the changes in legislation under the previous Government?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the importance of audit, particularly in relation to banks. It enables me to remind us all that the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House will, I hope, play an important part in the broader ongoing debate about stewardship when it comes up with its current report into the role of auditors.
Lord Davies of Oldham
When thousands of our fellow citizens are losing their jobs and millions are subject to a pay freeze and the bosses of industry are rewarding themselves very high increases indeed, is it not time that institutional and all shareholders had votes on the remuneration of executives and that the votes should be binding?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, these are important issues and they are precisely why my right honourable friend the Business Secretary has a current consultation out to look at the question of shareholder engagement in relation to the effective running of the capital markets.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Constitution Committee
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Rennard be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Falkner of Margravine, resigned.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:29 - Division on Motion that the Question be now put. - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 188 - Motion that the Question be now put agreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 65B - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 242 - Amendment 65B disagreed.
19:47 - Division on Amendment 66 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 122 - Amendment 66 agreed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I understand that this may be an appropriate time to ask a question, in less than two minutes, about whether these proceedings should continue. I do so on behalf of the 1 million people who voted for the UK Independence Party at the last general election. I should add that that was an increase of 50 per cent in our vote and was the best performance of any fourth party in British political history—it was achieved in spite of the party’s leader at the time.
Be that as it may, my question is simply this: why are your Lordships spending so much time arguing about the method of election of Members to the House of Commons when a majority of our national law is now imposed by Brussels? I remind your Lordships that the House of Commons has no influence in making that law. So have we not got things the wrong way round? Would it not be sensible to abandon these proceedings until we have repatriated our sovereignty to Parliament and only then decide by what method the people should send their representatives to the other place to hold the Executive to account and to take their decisions for them? Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain why we are wasting so much time, so much sleep and so much energy in the mean time?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
It is a kindly thought, but I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
Motion agreed.
Clause 11 : Number and distribution of seats
Amendment 65B
Lord Bach
My Lords, Part 2 of the Bill is aimed, on the one hand, at reducing the size of the House of Commons by 50 and, on the other, at making the 600 remaining seats or, at any rate, the vast majority of them, more equal in size. As noble Lords are aware, we on this side are opposed to the arbitrary and somewhat dubious proposal to cut the other place by 50 seats. What we see as the failure of the Government so far to provide any coherent, considered reason as to why 600 is the better number, let alone the ideal number, for membership of the House of Commons has fuelled concern that the governing parties reached that judgment either on the basis of private, partisan calculation or that, as the some of the rather flip answers that have been given as to why 600 suggest, they did not really care terribly what the figure was. It is for the House and perhaps eventually the country to judge which of those two alternatives is worse.
We on this side of course support the principle of more equal-sized seats. However, we have considerable concern about the practical way in which the Bill sets out to achieve that objective. As we have previously heard, the rigidity of the proposed new rules, with their overriding emphasis on numerical equality to the practical exclusion of all other factors, is likely to unravel long-established patterns of representation in ways that will disrupt political organisation and even break up community identities.
However, even if those flaws were ironed out and a more balanced approach applied to the rules for drawing constituency boundaries, the Bill would still be undermined by a fundamental defect in its design; namely, that you cannot produce equal seats from an unequal register. It is to that effect that I move Amendment 65B, which is grouped with Amendment 67B.
The Deputy Prime Minister told the other place that the December 2010 electoral register will form the basis for the boundary review that this Bill stipulates must be completed by October 2013. But the Government accept the view of the Electoral Commission that in excess of 3.5 million eligible voters, our fellow citizens, are missing from that register. The Government’s solution to underregistration is to expedite the rollout of individual voters’ registration. That marks a departure from the previously agreed timetable which we feel will harm rather than help voter registration, particularly if the Northern Ireland experience is anything to go by. However, in any event, the Government’s own timetable does not begin the move to individual registration until after December 2010. We fear that this amounts to an admission that millions of eligible voters will be ignored when the boundaries are redrawn. That would be bad in any event, but it is made worse when one considers that the missing voters are not randomly spread.
An Electoral Commission study published in March last year found that,
“underregistration is concentrated among specific social groups, with registration rates being especially low among young people, private renters and those who have recently moved home … The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.
The Electoral Commission’s study was underpinned by Ipsos MORI research which found—these are pretty shocking figures—that only 69 per cent of black and minority ethnic voters are registered and only 44 per cent of 20 to 24 year-olds, as opposed to 97 per cent of 60 to 64 year-olds.
In light of these facts, what are we to make of the Government’s determination to press ahead with a timetable for boundary changes which ignores specific social groups based in particular locations? There are a number of explanations. At one extreme is the possible explanation that the Government want somehow deliberately to exclude these people from the boundary calculations for whatever reason; that is, they actively want to leave certain people and places underrepresented in Parliament. Of course, we do not accuse the Government of that, but it would be serious if there were people outside who thought that it was their motivation. An alternative explanation is that they regard those excluded voters somehow as collateral damage—a regrettable but inevitable by-product of the need to rush to pass the Bill and secure the two political reforms which it contains. It is important to remember in this context that the Bill contains a commencement clause so that the alternative vote, even if it were passed in a referendum, may not be introduced unless and until the boundary reforms are implemented. That is why there is a rush.
Our amendment is an attempt to mitigate the damaging effects of the Government’s decision to press ahead on this undemocratic basis by placing an upper limit on the extent of electoral inequality that may result from the Bill. As noble Lords will have gleaned, Amendment 65B is a paving amendment. The substance of the changes that we suggest is contained in Amendment 67B, which states:
“No constituency shall have a total population of those aged 18 and over which is more than 130% of the electoral quota”.
I am of course aware that criticisms can be levelled at the amendment, Most obviously, it may be pointed out that not everyone above 18 will be eligible to vote, but the only source that would enable us to work out the eligible electorate is the census. As it happens, the Electoral Commission has said that it is working alongside the Office for National Statistics on a project to use the data from this year’s census for that very purpose; but, unfortunately, the Government have already announced that they are unwilling to wait for the fruits of that study because it will not be ready until 2014, which does not suit the political timetable. So we have no alternative but to propose this alternative method. It is intended to provide a backstop on the level of distortion that will be allowed to occur under the new boundary rules.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to take my noble friend back to the debates that we had some time ago, and I am not sure whether he was the Minister dealing with the electoral registration legislation. However, does not this amendment have implications for individual registration, and could not the position be aggravated if the amendment were to proceed on the basis that one has to knock on the door and have a document signed in the case of every elector? Surely this amendment has implications for that and the gathering of signatures.
Lord Bach
We believe that it certainly does have implications for that, and I have already mentioned individual registration. One of the Government’s responses to this line of criticism is that bringing forward individual registration will somehow mitigate it. Our concern is that it will make it worse, certainly in the short term. What disturbs me more is that my noble friend does not remember that I was the Minister responsible for the legislation to which he referred.
Lord Mawhinney
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. He was talking about mitigating the effects of underrepresentation. As a former Minister, is it his contention that underrepresentation started in June of last year? If not, what steps did the previous Government take to mitigate underrepresentation when the boundaries for the 2010 general election were being culled together?
Lord Bach
If the noble Lord is gently trying to say that this is not a problem that has just arisen and that just happens to coincide with the formation of the coalition Government, I am absolutely with him—of course the problem has been with us and with our system for quite some time now, for probably more than 20 years. However, what brings it into stark relief is the fact that if the Bill goes through in its present form, we will build the size of constituencies on the basis of much stricter numbers than we used in the past. Those numbers will be very important indeed; more important than they were under the rules set by previous Governments over the past 40 or 50 years. In the instance where numbers will be even more important, it seems more important to us to get the numbers as correct as we can.
Lord Wills
I am just wondering if my noble friend is as surprised as I am that the noble Lord who previously intervened on him seems to be completely unaware of the legislative measures that the previous Government took to tackle this profound problem of underrepresentation. For example, we gave the Electoral Commission significant new powers—data-matching powers and so on—precisely to help it to tackle this problem of underrepresentation and to ensure that by 2015 the register was comprehensive and accurate. I should have hoped that before intervening the noble Lord would have apprised himself of all the measures—not only the measures that I have just mentioned but all the measures—that the previous Government took to tackle this problem.
Lord Tyler
I wonder if the noble Lord can confirm to your Lordships’ House that the Electoral Commission recommended that the only way to make the register more effective and more accurate was to move to individual registration—and that it did so in 2003. How long did it take the previous Government to get round to activating that recommendation?
Lord Bach
If the noble Lord has kept to the rule that you should know the answer to a question before asking it, he will know when the previous Government got round to it, to use his own phrase. All sorts of other methods of trying to improve underregistration were tried before. A great debt is owed to my noble friend Lord Wills, who—I think this can be said openly—had a large part in persuading the previous Government that individual registration was the proper way to proceed.
Lord Bach
Yes, eventually. I am afraid that it may be a lesson that the current Government will also learn—that you do not always get everything absolutely right to start with, and that sometimes it takes a few years to do. It is perhaps best to acknowledge that, particularly when you are rushing through legislation that you may live to regret later.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does my noble friend accept that one of the reasons why there was a delay—in the case of some of us, we wanted the delay to go on for ever—is the experience in Northern Ireland, where electoral registration rates dropped dramatically? Even to this day we are suffering from the legacy of the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland. I apologise to my noble friend, but he knows that I repeatedly argued against this system.
Lord Wills
I am sorry to keep interrupting my noble friend, but having spent years on this issue, until my brain hurt, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—who has a proud history of espousing constitutional reform for many years, and I pay tribute to it—is under a real misapprehension about the nature of reform of the registration processes. Of course individual registration is important. That is why, as my noble friend has said, I espoused it. That is why the previous Government brought it forward. However, it is primarily important for the accuracy of the register; it does not help the comprehensive nature of the register. In fact, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has just pointed out, it has the real potential to damage the comprehensive nature of the register. That has, for years and years, been the problem with dealing with individual registration. The previous Government, I am pleased to say, found a way forward, and I will, if the House permits me later, speak at greater length about it. It is true that individual registration is important for the accuracy of the register; it is not true—with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—that it is important for the comprehensive nature of the register. That is the core of the issue here.
Lord Bach
My Lords, illustrating the point that I was seeking to make before I was interrupted, perhaps I may refer to a study undertaken by CACI for the Electoral Reform Society late last year. It found:
“After equalisation, the average constituency will contain about 76,000 registered voters. It will have a total voting age population … of about 83,000. But in areas of the country where registration is low, the VAP could be as high as 110,000—a third bigger than the average constituency”.
Typically, as we have heard, the areas of low voter registration tend to be poorer, urban constituencies where the MPs face a bigger and more difficult caseload than their colleagues in more affluent parts of the country. The people who make up much of that caseload often do not appear on the voter registers but they turn up in numbers in constituency surgeries—and they will continue to turn up even after this boundary review has failed to count them. They will be the invisible electorate which will inflate inner urban seats and will grow in size in line with the requirement to meet the official electoral quota, increasing still further the constituency burden that bears on the MPs who represent them.
So the Bill may be aiming at creating more equal-size seats, but it is going to shoot well wide of that mark. Our amendment will provide a small correction. Using the proposed new electoral quota of 75,800 as the starting point, our amendment would prevent the creation of seats within excess of approximately 98,500 adult residents. It will therefore provide a little more parity between constituencies and, in doing so, prevent the complete overload of MPs representing inner urban populations. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the basis of his amendment. It sets out the requirement that Boundary Commission recommendations should comply with both an electorate and a population range. Under the amendments, the total population aged 18 or over in a constituency could not exceed a number that is 130 per cent of the electoral quota. As a preliminary point, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has again raised the question of people missing from the electoral roll, as indicated in the report last year by the Electoral Commission. These are matters that we have already debated at some length in the course of this Committee, and I have indicated in replies to previous amendments the steps that the Government are taking to address them. However, it is worth making the point yet again that even if we were to go with what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, wishes to see, and even if we were to be hugely successful in getting people who are eligible on to the electoral roll, under what he is proposing the election for 2015, certainly as far as the English constituencies are concerned, would nevertheless be fought on constituencies that were determined by an electoral quota based on the year 2000; in other words, it would be some 15 years out of date.
In spite of the noble Lord’s sweet words of concern about the underrepresentation of certain groups, and I have no doubt whatever that he, along with all sides of the Committee, is genuinely concerned about this, so far as the 2015 election is concerned, the amendment will do absolutely nothing to reflect these people in the electorate, which will determine the boundaries. Indeed, I have already indicated that under this Bill and the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, the election due for May 2020 would be based on the electoral register and the base date would be December 2015: in other words, after there has been some opportunity for the various initiatives that have been proposed to have effect, including individual registration.
Here I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and what he set in motion for individual registration, along with the rolling register, which I think was a product of the last Administration. Those were positive moves and we are planning for more. However, let us not get it into our heads that through this amendment, people who are currently missing from the electoral roll will somehow be taken into account for the constituency boundaries as far as England is concerned for elections in 2015. As I have said, we would still use constituencies where the relevant base date was as long ago as 2000.
It is accepted that the intention behind these amendments is to ensure not only that constituencies have electorates of more equal size and therefore that the weight of votes is fairer and more equal but, as the noble Lord has explained, but that the populations they contain are also fairer and more equal. I would be among the first to recognise that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is to represent not only those who are registered in the constituency, but the entire population. Some might be eligible to register for a vote but for one reason or another have not done so, and some people might not be eligible because they are under 18 or for reasons of nationality.
There are issues of both principle and practice in dealing with these amendments. I agree with the principle that Members of Parliament must represent all their constituents, whether or not they are eligible to vote, but it does not follow that the boundaries should be designed around that principle. Constituencies are by their nature diverse, and indeed we have had numerous debates in which former Members of the other place have described their different experiences, workloads and issues that arise. We have talked about the difference between inner city and rural areas. It is inevitable that there will be these differences, but I think it would be utterly impossible to design a system that takes account of every conceivable difference. It is also worth restating the simple principle that underlines our reforms as set out in this part of the Bill. They are focused on fairness and equality for electors. What ought to be borne in mind is that we want to ensure that one elector means one vote.
The real point I want to make in relation to these amendments is that of the practical difficulties. I fear that they would be unworkable in practice. Population statistics are derived from the census, which as we know is taken once a decade. Annual estimates of change are then made from the original census data, but at present these are produced by the Office for National Statistics only at local authority level. On the other hand, the electoral register is updated annually, and whatever debate, discussion and controversy we have had over registration rates, the number of people on the register is an absolute figure and beyond dispute. It is not an estimate.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble and learned Lord in reading his brief referred to what I think he said were annual recalculations. He said that they are based on census figures with an annual uprating. How is that uprating calculated? What new information does it include that leads to the higher figures?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I cannot give a technical answer, but I can say that they are produced by the Office for National Statistics at the local authority level and that they are estimates of change. I do not have the psephological—I am sorry, I meant the statistical—basis for this.
Lord Rooker
The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys used to do the same job and was the guardian of data on births, marriages and deaths by geographical area. To my certain knowledge, it used that data in Birmingham to update the figures. The health authority used those OPCS figures for births, marriages and deaths. It did not track the population, but it had a base of information that could be used for an annual update. That is what I recall.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Just by saying that, the noble Lord will see that data on births, marriages and deaths give you only a certain reflection of changes in population because there is also immigration and emigration, which would not necessarily be picked up. I accept that for health statistics, it might be better if people registered, but there is no necessity for them to register in their particular area.
Lord Campbell-Savours
If that is the case and an annual uprating is being made along the lines set out by the noble and learned Lord, is it fair to refer repeatedly to the 2000 census being the basis for calculations?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I did not say that it was the 2000 census; I said it was the 2000 electoral register. The 2000 electoral register is the relevant basis for assessing the electorate. In the same way, the report that the Boundary Commissions will be expected to produce by October 2013 will be based on the electoral register as at 1 December 2010.
As I have indicated, because population estimates are produced at the local government level, it would be equally or even more of a problem to estimate the true level of the population at lower than that level. Local government geography is obviously a relevant issue for the Boundary Commission, but it might find that even if population estimates were consistently compiled for areas smaller than the local authority level, the data may not be sufficient to allow it to draw up a constituency boundary that meets the two size requirements as set out in the noble Lord’s amendment. For example, the commission might have to depart from using wards as a building block to reduce the population of a constituency that was slightly over the 130 per cent limit. Furthermore, the amendments are silent on what would happen if the commission found itself unable to comply with both of these rules in an area. The amendments would make the commission’s task vastly more complex and unachievable.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I hope to be able to make a contribution to this debate at greater length later. Will he clarify something? It is probably my fault, but I am baffled by it. He keeps referring to the inequity—I am paraphrasing—of voters being subject to a year 2000 set of statistics. Could he explain what he means by that? What I think I understand by it, but I may be completely wrong, is that it is wrong that registered voters should somehow be included in constituencies that are not equalised. Obviously the Bill’s purpose is to equalise constituencies, for all the reasons which the Government have set out. Is that what he is driving at when he refers to this figure of 2000? If it is not, I would be grateful if he could explain exactly why he thinks this is so unfair.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain. I was surprised that when the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sat down the noble Lord, Lord Wills, did not stand up, hence why I intervened at this point. He will, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. The point that I have tried to make is that the electoral quota, which is one of the key building blocks of the constituency boundaries, is determined by reference to a relevant date.
In terms of this Bill and the four Boundary Commission reviews for 1 October 2013, the relevant date for the electoral register is 1 December 2010—last month. The point I am trying to make with reference to England is that the relevant date for determining the boundaries is the year 2000. The general election in May last year was fought on boundaries on which, if we do not have a further boundary review before 2015, the general election of 2015 will be fought. The data go back to the year 2000. Therefore we will have constituency boundaries that are based very much on outdated data. The point I am trying to make is twofold. First, that in no way serves those who are not included in the register but are eligible. Secondly, under our proposals and what we intend to do to improve voter registration, voters will be on the register for December 2015, which will be the relevant date for the report to be produced in October 2018 for the general election of 2020.
There are two uses of the electoral register. There is the use of the relevant date, to which the Boundary Commission must have regard in determining the size of constituencies and constituency boundaries; and there is the continuing importance of the electoral register to determine who is eligible to vote at a particular election. That is a very important issue, and work continues to try and ensure that those who are eligible are on that register.
Lord Maxton
The Minister and I have had a dialogue about the use of data from various sources in drawing up the register. Is the Boundary Commission bound entirely, in drawing up these figures, to the printed and published register of voters, or is it entitled to use other forms of data in order to ensure that the maximum number of people are included in a constituency?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In terms of this Bill and the four Boundary Commissions’ reports, which are required by October 2013, the relevant date is 1 December 2010. That is fixed.
There is the separate issue of trying to get the electoral roll as complete as possible through a number of initiatives such as the rolling register and data matching, which the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, and I have discussed. That will not be used for determining the electoral quotas for constituencies until the next boundary review, but it will be relevant for determining who is eligible to vote at any election—be it a European election, by-elections, local elections, Scottish parliamentary elections, Welsh National Assembly elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and indeed the general election of 2015. That is why it is so imperative that we give an impetus to get people on the roll. In terms of their being eligible to vote, that effort ought to be made.
I do not want to mislead the House in any way. If those people came on the roll now, or during a drive that brought them on to the roll in the next 12 months, that, by definition, would not affect the number of people on the electoral roll on 1 December 2010. Hopefully, by sustaining that, these people would be on the electoral roll on 1 December 2015, and therefore would be part of the calculation for the quota and the constituencies, which would be the subject of the ensuing boundary review.
The other point, which goes along with that, is that people might not be taken into account if they come on to the register now for the 2015 election, but many people have come on to the electoral register since 2000 in England who likewise would not be taken into account for 2015, if the amendment that is being moved by the noble Lord’s noble friend were to be carried. An update of 10 years is some considerable improvement.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am not delaying the debate, but there will be people in the Chamber who have not been here during our previous debates and who are wondering why we are going on a register that is based on December 2010. Why cannot we wait, let us say, 12 months? If we were to wait 12 months, could we not get a boundary inquiry in and the new boundaries introduced for the next general election? Will the Minister explain why we have to have a register that is based on the end of last year and not, perhaps, later this year?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am certain that I have already given that explanation, but I am more than happy to repeat it. The judgment was that in order to get the Boundary Commission reports by 1 October 2013, 1 December 2010 was the date that was necessary to give the Boundary Commissions their starting point: the raw figures from which they must work. October 2013 was chosen because it is approximately 18 months before what would be the general election in May 2015. I cannot remember which noble Lord it was—it might even have been the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—but someone certainly made comments in debates earlier about the importance for local parties selecting candidates to adjust to new boundaries. Eighteen months was thought to be sufficient time to allow that to happen. That is the judgment that has been made. It will be pretty challenging. I do not think anyone has denied that. Indeed, noble Lords opposite have commented that it will be a very challenging task for the Boundary Commissions to have their respective reports published by October 2013, but that is why we have chosen that date.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Why should not the Boundary Commissions, as they work towards a review to be completed by 1 October 2013, take, as the relevant date for the register, 1 December 2012?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
You have to have a fixed date in order to be able to produce the draft recommended constituency boundaries and have an opportunity for consultation. The work has to start very soon to be able to do that. If you start to import new figures two years down the line, it is practically not possible to do that. It comes down to sheer practicality. You cannot do that and have that all in place by 2013.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I might be being dense about this, but there does seem to be a degree of logic in the position of both my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Howarth. It seems unusual to choose in the middle of this legislation a date that is in the past. All of us in this House know or should know about the difficulties of encouraging people to be on the electoral register. If we were able to choose a date—it need not necessarily be into 2012, it could be a date perhaps in the later months of this year—that would give an opportunity. Maybe it is lack of sleep, but I am not grasping the saliency of the point that the noble and learned Lord is making.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
From memory—and if I get this wrong, I am sure that I will be corrected—1 December is the date on which the new electoral roll comes out. That is the obvious date for the new electoral register. When we started Committee on this Bill, that date was not in the past but in the future—very shortly in the future, but in the future none the less. You do need a date. The judgment that was made on the basis of the experience of the Boundary Commission, which has many years of experience, was that that timescale is required if the new boundaries are to be in place to allow an election based on these new boundaries in May 2015, and to delay it by 12 months would not make that possible. The base year for constituency boundaries for England would be 2000. That is a marked improvement. This may be slightly technical, but there is no jiggery-pokery about it. It is done on the basis of advice on what is required to get a Boundary Commission reports by October 2013.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, who is giving a painstaking analysis. There is an additional reason for this, which I know was endorsed by noble Lords opposite. The year of a general election, for very good reasons, because of the work done by the previous Labour Government, includes a number of people who register at a very late date before the general election. So the 2010 register is likely to be more comprehensive than the 2011 one, thanks to the improvements made by the previous Government. That point was made by a number of Members opposite. I hope that we in the Committee all agree that December 2010 is rather a good base, because it does not prevent anyone from coming on the register before the next general election. It just means that there is a pretty solid figure to work from.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is a very good point, and one that I certainly remember being made—and making—some days ago. The point was made by one of the noble Lords opposite, possibly by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, when we debated the amendment with specific regard to those in the 17 to 24 age group, about the number of young people who came on to the register during the general election campaign. They will be there, and their presence will be taken into account. I have tried to explain, and tried to make the important point on this amendment, that there are real practical difficulties in having both a figure for the electorate and an estimate of the census population. I have not heard yet from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
Lord Sewel
I am a late contributor to the debate. Several years or decades ago, I tried to earn an honest penny by looking at things such as interdecennial census estimates and the date that the Boundary Commission used. I have to say that they were all grossly inaccurate, as you could see when you had more detailed data coming through. I used to sit back and wait for the census to come out and see how the interdecennial data had to be revised in the light of the census. There was a fairly radical change quite often. Have the Minister or other colleagues consulted the Office for National Statistics to ask whether it can produce with confidence estimates of population or potential electorate population for the country?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, in the question that the noble Lord asked he gave the answer as to why it is not possible. He used the word “estimate”, which is what it would be—an estimate. The Boundary Commission is using actual figures on the electoral roll.
The secretary to the Boundary Commission for Scotland was asked when giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place about the accuracy of population figures compared with electoral figures. His answer was:
“I think there are significant practical problems. One of the things that this country does not have is a precise and continuously updated register of population. Our electoral register is continuously updated and spring cleaned or autumn cleaned once a year, whereas our population is only precisely counted once every decade”.
In other words, the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Scotland thought that there were significant practical problems in using the basis of population. Against that background, we would be unwise not to give heed to that very practical consideration. It does not diminish the importance of a drive to have people registered so that they can vote in elections, but in these circumstances I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Desai
For the first time I am beginning to understand why things are as complicated as they are. If I understand correctly, the Boundary Commission needs population estimates for the quota to be decided, and for that to happen you do not need the exact population number; estimates should do. For voting, you have to have the exact, accurate electoral register. As my noble friend Lord Sewel asked, why cannot we have interdecennial estimates of population from the Office for National Statistics to decide the quota that the Boundary Commission uses while waiting for the accurate figure? These are two separate things. For voting itself, people have to be resident, but for the boundary to be decided, estimates might be a better thing than exact census numbers.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There are two points here. First, it has been recognised in earlier debates that this Boundary Commission review will be on a much shorter timescale than many previous Boundary Commission reviews, which underlines the point as to why it is not possible for us to move the date forward continuously. For completeness, I should note that the English Boundary Commission’s fifth periodical report about projected electorate changes, which were published in 2007—and there may be an amendment at some point on these issues—said about estimated electorate changes that it was sometimes asked to take into account projected growth or decline, but usually growth, in the electorate. The commission said that such projections were considered to be speculative and that it did not have regard to them, but that when it was satisfied that growth or decline would occur in the very near future—such as in the case of a large housing development nearing completion—it felt able to take such factors into account. There was some effort, but it was based on substantive grounds and not on the sort of estimates that attend population figures. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely indulgent of these interventions, but they are very helpful if they discourage people from making speeches about issues that he has addressed. My question relates directly to the last point that he made, which is at least some recognition that there will be population movements, which must be accommodated in drafting constituency boundaries in anticipation. My understanding of the Bill is that even that minor recognition of population changes will not be possible if the Bill becomes law. Am I correct in that understanding?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If I have got it wrong I shall say so, but it was not speculative, which is what the Boundary Commission is invited to do. It has indicated that if it comes up at the stage of the representations in the consultation, it might be able to talk about some hard, factual and practical changes. I shall confirm, I hope sooner rather than later, that that is possible.
Lord Bach
I continue on from what my noble friend asked. As I understand it, in the past Boundary Commissions have worked on the number registered at a particular date—that is certainly right. However, under the 1986 rules, or the way in which they have been applied, the Boundary Commission has been able to look carefully at what is proposed to be built in a certain area, such as a new town, to use an extreme example, in the relevant period. I might be wrong about that, and I look to the Minister and his advisers about that. The Boundary Commission can take that as another consideration. Of course, the commission cannot add a population as such, but it can take into account what is likely to happen in that area in a broad way.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will answer this when he replies to other comments that have been made, but we are concerned that if the Boundary Commission's role is so numerically based, it will really have the opportunity to look at these wider matters. At the moment, under what we consider to be rather good rules, will the commission be able to consider them in the same way as it has in the past? I do not expect an immediate answer because this is an important point about the new rules that will be created under the Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord spoke of his desire to achieve fairness and equality between electors in the processes that this Bill provides for by introducing constituencies that reflect that. We might also want to see fairness and equality between citizens. I know that it is not our tradition and practice in this country to draw constituency boundaries on the basis of population. Instead, we take account of those who are registered electors. However, it is highly desirable that the real population figures should effectively be taken into account. The way to square that circle is to do everything possible to improve the state of the electoral registers to make sure that the registers, constituency by constituency throughout the country, are as accurate and complete as they possibly can be.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Government are intent that that should happen. But it is not realistic to talk, as the Government do, about equal votes in equally drawn constituencies if the registers are so patchy. They are more incomplete in some constituencies than others. Therefore reform of registration, or at least a serious and effective drive to update and improve registration, must be intrinsic to the project that the Government have embarked on in their quest to achieve equal votes in equally drawn constituencies.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister, answering Questions in the other place said:
“It is the choice of the coalition Government to say that we want to reform politics not in a piecemeal fashion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/11; col. 682.]
If that is indeed the intention of the coalition Government, as stated by the Deputy Prime Minister only yesterday, then surely the Bill should be amended in some way to incorporate provisions that give impetus and drive to ensuring that registration is greatly improved.
There is a political problem for the Government in that there is a perception that the Government are happy to see significant proportions of the electorate unregistered. A greater number of those who are unregistered may not be disposed to vote for the coalition. Why are we not getting registration built into this legislation? Is it simply because the Government are in such a rush to get the Bill on the statute book? They do not need to be in such a rush to get the whole Bill on to the statute book. As we have been saying, we are happy to accept that Part 1 of the Bill has been scrutinised in this House with some thoroughness. If Part 1 of the Bill were separated from Part 2, we would be content for that to go ahead. For some reason to do with mistrust between the coalition partners, they are still unwilling to do that, but let us hope that it can be done. Then we would have more time to ensure that these important reforms proposed in Part 2 of the Bill are not only properly scrutinised but made more complete by the incorporation of measures in relation to registration.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My noble friend makes an important point. These are extremely technical parts of the Bill and they are areas of debate where we should not be at odds. We should be working together to try to find a route that resolves an issue that has troubled all political parties for many years. I cannot see what the problem is with decoupling the first part of the Bill. Let us get the pressure of time out of the way and try to get this right.
Lord Elton
We are addressing a particular amendment and the noble Lord is asking the Committee to talk about the procedure for the whole Bill. We should decide the amendment before we go on to talk about the procedure.
Lord Howarth of Newport
But the amendment carries important implications about registration. I suggest that we need to continue to address that issue. It is difficult to do so if the coalition insists on getting the whole Bill through in very short order.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I will give way to the noble Lord in a second. I am just replying to the previous intervention. We should try to keep good order. What I am talking about is relevant to the amendment in that sense.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, we all enjoyed the picture of the noble Lord fast asleep in the Chamber that appeared in today's Independent. I hope that he is not intending to send the rest of us to sleep with his speech. He normally takes 20 to 25 minutes. Perhaps he can shorten it today and talk to the point for once.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble Lord himself is occasionally capable of quite soporific oratory. If I had fewer interventions no doubt I would be able to sit down rather sooner.
Lord Tyler
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord in that respect. Some of us have seen a fascinating grid, the Opposition’s speaking grid, that was left in some facilities of the House overnight earlier in the week. It was very helpful because we were then able to see when noble Lords were being instructed to speak on various amendments. Would either he or one of his colleagues tell us what the grid is for today? Then we could know when the noble Lord was going to speak and perhaps we could slip outside to have a cup of tea or even a snooze. At the moment, we are not given any guidance as to when various Members of the Opposition are going to speak and that is a pity because we could make more progress. Also, if I can make a suggestion to the opposition office that produced this grid, it would be helpful to know how long the noble Lord will speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I would personally be terribly disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, were to take advantage of the fact that I was on my feet to go and have a cup of tea because I depend on his presence as a stimulus and discipline to myself. I might be tempted to speak more rashly and randomly if it were not for the invigilatory presence of the noble Lord in the Chamber.
Lord McAvoy
In relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, does he know that just before we adjourned yesterday, Conservative Whips happened to find some papers that had been left in one of the gents toilets indicating a rota going on until six in the morning? There were then all sorts of phone calls and various messages went out to Conservative Members to come back quickly and to make sure that they were there. It turned out, somehow or other, that the paper was a hoax.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend has a knowledge of the dark arts that I could never match, nor would I wish to match.
Lord Elton
There is a great difference between the traditional arrangements of the Chief Whips of both parties in ensuring that they have a sufficient number of people here to keep the House or if necessary win a Division, and a formal arrangement to get a series of people to speak to make sure that the debate goes on longer than it otherwise would. I confess that I am myself speaking away from the amendment.
Lord Elton
May I just finish? I am happy to give way when I have finished. I confess that I am myself departing from good order by not addressing the amendment, which is what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is about to do.
Lord Bach
I want to address the point that the noble Lord felt obliged to make. The rules of the game changed slightly, did they not, when the Government announced that they would have an all-night sitting on this Bill? They said that would do everything they could to ram the Bill through as quickly as they could. Once they had decided to do that, the rules changed. Why was it not good sense to have a document that would help this side, with our limited power, to set out some sort of rota for matters that need to be debated? The rules have changed and they have changed only because of the way that the Government have behaved.
Lord Elton
With respect, the previous Government had all-night sittings as well and we did not change the rules.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I do not know whether I may be permitted to resume these brief remarks that I want to offer to the Chamber. It is difficult when noble Lords on the other side of the House digress into procedural matters and interrupt to waste time. Perhaps I might try to make progress. On the general consideration—
Lord Howarth of Newport
I deprecate another intervention, but as my noble friend always has something worth while to say—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I wanted to say how much I am enjoying my noble friend’s speech and I ask him to ignore the loutish behaviour of Members opposite in what could now be described as the Onslow tendency.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is possibly entitled to enjoy my speech rather more than to enjoy a photograph of me making a speech. On the general considerations as to why the Bill should be amended—and the Government should be very willing to amend it—to ensure that it addresses itself to the question of improving the electoral register, I add one consideration. It is that, probably, the principal reason why the register is so inaccurate and incomplete, even 20 or so years later, is because we know that a great many people dropped off the register as a result of the introduction of the poll tax. I am not going to go on at length about this because we touched on it in an earlier debate but that political reality—that fact of history—implies a responsibility, at least on the Conservative wing of the coalition, to ensure that the problem for which it carries a large measure of responsibility is remedied.
I turn to two specific and more technical aspects of this amendment and its implications. The Minister was helpful to the House in what he had to say, both about the relevant date and the census, but I remain in some perplexity. Perhaps I have not sufficiently understood the purport of what he was saying or perhaps it is simply that it was not entirely convincing. It seems to me that it must be desirable that the relevant date should be set as late as possible. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, say that the earlier the relevant date is, the more likely the electoral register is to be complete and accurate. I found that a little counterintuitive and not entirely persuasive. The questions of the relevant date and of a census are bound up with each other, even though our constituencies are not based upon population.
The data that would be provided by the 2011 census are obviously enormously important. They will transform the appreciation that the Boundary Commissioners and everybody else will have about the distribution of population and of how, via electoral registration, the new constituencies should be drawn. It seems very odd, and the public will perceive it as very odd, that the relevant date should be set at 2010 when we have a new decennial census in 2011. While it takes some considerable time, understandably, for all the data emerging from the 2011 census to be established, none the less I would have thought that it would be possible, within a reasonable period, for the experts responsible for the process to begin to take account of that data. It would be very good if they could do so. For these reasons, I would have thought that if we could have a relevant date in 2012 there would be twin advantages: of being up to date, in any case, and particularly in that the information obtainable from the 2011 census could be fully considered and absorbed in the overall process.
The noble and learned Lord said that it all takes time, and of course it does. I do not say that the Boundary Commissioners should not start their work by reference to earlier data but I would have thought that it would be possible for them to update their work as they go along. Certainly, the objective should be—who can possibly disagree with this?—that the fullest account should be taken of the latest and most accurate and relevant data. It seems to me that these issues are worth further examination, for the major reason that it must be wrong and, indeed, unrealistic to attempt to draw equal constituencies without achieving the fullest possible registration and because we will have a rich source of additional data. It is not sensible to rush to conclude matters before those additional data can be properly absorbed.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I wonder if I might contribute briefly to this debate. I add that I am not on any roster or rota; I will be very brief and address the amendments. There will not be time, I am afraid, for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to get out and order his tea at all.
In order to have equal-sized seats, which I hope are what we are all aiming for, it is essential that there is an accurate and comprehensive register. It was brought home to me on the day of the last general election just how defective our present register is. I heard someone a moment ago say that it was pretty good, as a result of people wanting to vote. However, I sat for four hours on polling day outside a polling station in Lambeth and I found—I have done my best to be as accurate as I can—that something of the order of a third of the people who came up wanting to vote, when they came out and were asked if they would indicate how they voted, told me that they were not on the list. They were almost invariably from ethnic minorities and many of them were young. If that is the register that we are going to be working on, it is not good enough.
It seems to me that if the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has put before the House are defective, this cannot simply be ignored. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is anxious to make this Bill as good as possible and anxious to get it through at the speed of light, but these problems must not be in-built into the fresh legislation. If anything calls out for a pause and a chance to try to find a way of getting this right, and if that means using data from outside what are currently used, surely that must be the way to achieve our main aim of equal-sized seats.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I start by associating myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Browne about the generosity of the Minister in taking interventions. He really was very indulgent and I am grateful. He really helped the Committee in his constructive and positive response to all the interventions that he was good enough to take, so I express my thanks to him for doing that.
As I understood it, the burden of the Minister’s justification for resisting this amendment—I hope that he will correct me and I am happy to give way to him if he wants to do that—was that it was wrong somehow that the boundary revisions should be taking place on the basis of out-of-date data. Perhaps he will just nod if I have correctly summarised his resistance to the amendment. I will just repeat that so that he can nod his assent. The basis of his resistance to the amendment was, essentially, that it was wrong for this boundary revision to take place on the basis of out-of-date data. Is that broadly it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that it was a little more complex than that. It was the fact that the population estimates—indeed, the first thing is that they are estimates—are annually updated compared to the electoral register, which is an actual number. Certainly, the indication that the Boundary Commission for Scotland’s secretary gave to the relevant Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place was that it saw significant practical difficulties in doing that.
Lord Wills
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that elucidation, but will he consider this: is not an even greater problem this continuing shame that 3 million to 3.5 million of our citizens, who are eligible to vote, are for one reason and another excluded from the register? That seems to me to go to the heart of the problem which this amendment is designed to address. The real issue, it seems to me at least, is one of timing. If the Minister was able to tell the Committee—
Lord Wills
Quite simply because they are not on the register. There is a lot of suspicion that some local authorities do not invest the money given to them by central government in paying enough attention to ensuring that everyone who is eligible to be on the register is on the register. Many local authorities do an admirable job and spend more than is given to them by central government for these purposes. If the noble Viscount is trying to suggest that I am somehow insinuating that there is a positive process here, rather than people just excluding themselves, as it were, he is partly right. There is no doubt, from some of the evidence I have seen, that some local authorities are far less diligent than they should be in including people on the register.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My noble friend refers to the 3.5 million who are excluded. It is not that they will not be allowed to vote in the next election; they may well be if they seek to register. The issue must be that the 3.5 million excluded are therefore not being taken into account when the boundaries are being set for the new constituencies. That is the key argument that we are not getting over in the Chamber—the exclusion of those people from the calculation on boundaries is distorting this whole piece of legislation.
Lord Wills
My noble friend is absolutely right: this is precisely the point I made on Second Reading. This is the key point. If this were somehow an intractable problem, and we were stuck for ever with large numbers, millions of people eligible to vote who somehow, for whatever reason, could never be included in the register and therefore, for a practical purpose, we just had to get on and deal with all the other issues that the Minister has alluded to, I would agree with him. I agree with him that a lot of what he has said is desirable, but he has failed to grapple with this essential point. If, as I say, this were somehow an intractable, insoluble problem, I would be much more sympathetic to the approach that he has taken, but it is not.
Lord Sewel
Building upon what my noble friend has been saying, does he accept that as a measure of those entitled to vote, an electoral register of any date is likely to be more inaccurate than an estimate derived from the wide number of data sets which could be available to the Electoral Commission?
Lord Wills
Of course, I agree with my noble friend—he is absolutely right. This goes to the point about the folly of the Government rushing this through. I will come in a moment to the point about the 2011 census, which is crucial, as my noble friend Lord Howarth has already mentioned. The point is that measures are in place to make the register comprehensive and accurate. I hope that I can help the Committee to have a little more understanding; those who followed the debates about individual registration in the other place will be familiar with the argument and I crave their indulgence.
The previous Government—I was the Minister responsible—faced a real, intractable problem. Everyone agreed, I think, that individual voter registration was desirable. There was very little doubt about it. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned pronouncements of the Electoral Commission many years ago and I think most people recognised that individual registration was desirable.
Lord Wills
I will come to the doubts that people had, and those of my colleagues who are shaking their heads may feel more comfortable when I have made further remarks about this.
Individual registration was desirable as an objective in its own right. It helped to guarantee the integrity and accuracy of the register and, in a modern democracy, it is right and proper that individual citizens should register their right to vote, rather than the head of the household doing it in some 19th century, Victorian way. However, the problem was that it was widely recognised—and the Northern Ireland experience, which was arguable in several ways, substantiated this—that any move to individual registration was likely to exacerbate the problem of the comprehensive nature of the register.
In other words, more people were likely to fall off the register, for all sorts of reasons, not least that there are a large numbers of adults, regrettably, who are still functionally illiterate. Any move to individual registration, desirable as it was in its own terms, carried with it a very real and severe risk that even more than the 3 to 3.5 million people already disfranchised, despite their eligibility to be on the register, would be disfranchised. That was unacceptable, so for many years there was a stand-off between those who felt that the integrity of the register was more desirable, and that we should therefore move immediately towards individual voter registration, and those who said that we should not do that at the cost of disfranchising eligible citizens. This was a real problem.
The previous Government came to grips with this by bringing in a measure to implement individual registration; not immediately, not rushing it through as this Government are doing with this registration; but in a measured way. We made it explicitly subject to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register by 2015. We did not do that lightly; we gave the Electoral Commission the power to oversee the process, to report annually on its progress in achieving the objective and we gave it substantial new powers, data-matching powers, at a time of great anxiety about the Big Brother state and all the rest of it.
These measures went through with all-party consent in the House of Commons—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives all agreed. I hope that the Minister is listening to this, because this is important. We went through this process with all the Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen in the House of Commons and explained to them why their initial reservations about the timescale were misplaced. We had lengthy discussions and consultations, all of which, I am afraid, have been absent in the progress of the Bill. We persuaded them, genuinely persuaded them, that it was simply not possible to achieve a comprehensive and accurate register any more quickly than on that timescale and they agreed to it.
Any noble Lord who wants to read the Hansard record of these debates will see that they signed up to this timetable. They all recognised it. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman and the shadow Justice Secretary for the Conservative Party agreed to the timescale because, when they familiarised themselves with all the details, all the difficulties of making the register comprehensive as well as accurate, they recognised that this could not be rushed through; it did need that timescale. To do those politicians credit, they changed their minds about this. They had thought we should just rush in individual registration and that the register could look after itself, but when it was explained to them what the consequence of this could be, they changed their minds. I pay tribute to them. This was a consensual process, a process of consultation; we reached agreement on it and, in doing so, incidentally, the Government changed their mind on certain details as well. It was a genuinely consultative process, which, from my perspective, is a model for how constitutional reform should be conducted.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The objective was laudable and it was supported by many Members. However, when discussions about resources took place, was there not a reservation in the mind of my noble friend that, if a Government were ever elected who would starve local authorities of resources, the whole programme of individual registration would collapse, particularly when, in the register which will apply in 2018, we find that the boundaries set in 2018 will be based on individual registration? Is it not a sting in the tail that we introduced a measure, with the best will in the world, but now that the resources will not be there to ensure that it is properly introduced, the measure will damage boundaries in the future?
Lord Wills
My noble friend is completely right: I was full of reservations and trepidation about the future. One does not embark on this sort of wholesale radical change without a lot of consideration and worry about whether one had made the right judgments about this. I was very worried and I remain worried about some local authorities. A lot of local authorities are exemplary democrats in this respect. They spend a lot of money and resources on ensuring that registration is comprehensive and accurate. It does not matter what their political complexion is—there are Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat local authorities which are exemplary in this respect—but I came across enough evidence to show that many local authorities do not take these issues sufficiently seriously. A lot of colleagues from the other place told me of examples where they thought that local authorities were wilfully not putting effort into registration, for party political advantage.
I make no secret of this now: I wanted to ring-fence the money that central government gave to local authorities for this. I thought it was so important to our democracy that local authorities should have no option. I was stopped by the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was hysterically paranoid about anything that might smack of central government directing local authorities. Such is the power of the universal panacea of localism. I am in favour of localism, let me say, but there has to be a balance. I wanted to get this money ring-fenced and I was stopped.
I hope that the Government will look again at this matter. I see that the Local Government Secretary is, in many ways, admirably robust in trashing local authorities. This is one area where he could show his iron fist and ensure that every local authority invests the money that it is given by central government in making sure that we have a functioning and healthy democracy.
Lord Campbell-Savours
It has never come out publicly before, but my noble friend was blocked. I knew that, and I knew the Ministers responsible for doing it. When he was blocked, though, did that not give him cause for concern about what he was introducing? Maybe we should not have proceeded with this process, which we are now being punished for. We introduced it for the most honourable of reasons, and now we are punished by the lack of resources available to local authorities.
Lord Wills
Let me respond to one intervention, and then I assure the noble Lord I will happily give way to him.
I beat myself up about all sorts of things that I did when I was in the other place; I assure my noble friend that I am not complacent about anything. Of course it gave me pause. I was anxious and concerned. I returned to the fray on many occasions over several years, believe me, but I failed. Yes, I was worried, but I do not think that we are being punished for doing the right thing.
I still think that bringing in individual registration was the right thing to do. It was right to yoke it together with moves towards making the register comprehensive and accurate and making one dependent on the other, I am sure about that. I am sure that we would not have had the measures that are now in place to make the register comprehensive and accurate if we had not yoked it together with individual registration. I am afraid that if my noble friend thinks that if we had done nothing, the party opposite would not have rushed forward even more precipitately and inconsiderately with moves to bring in individual registration without any attempt to link it with the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register, I think that for once he is deluded. I happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, we are terribly interested in the noble Lord’s ministerial career in the House of Commons, but it has nothing at all to do with the amendment that we are discussing. It is a positive abuse. Further, the noble Lord has been speaking for 15 minutes, and the Companion says that,
“speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes”,
unless they are making,
“a speech of outstanding importance”,
which the noble Lord most certainly is not.
Lord Wills
I am very sorry that the noble Lord should make such a personal and slightly vindictive comment. I am trying to help the House understand these matters. These are subjects that, as my noble friend rightly said, have not been made public before. The experience of any Minister in a Government is relevant to the passing of legislation, and this legislation is important. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that it is irrelevant that 3.5 million people are not registered but I think that it is profoundly important, and it is very important to this amendment.
I was actually concluding my remarks. I have given way to everyone, following the Minister’s generous example. I will give way again, subject no doubt to further spiteful comments from the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It would be helpful and interesting for the House if my noble friend could make a few remarks about the census.
Lord Wills
That is how I was going to come to the conclusion of my remarks. I was responding to an intervention about that, and I was not talking about my ministerial career; this is about the process of legislation, which is directly relevant to this clause. All parties in the House of Commons agreed, parties that have now changed their minds about it, including the party of the noble Lord opposite. His spokesman in the House of Commons agreed with what we proposed, which has now been jettisoned. When I have sat down, I would like to hear him explain exactly why his party has changed its mind about the importance of people being on the register. That is relevant to this debate.
The reason why we were able to persuade the spokespersons from both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties about the importance of a timescale—in other words, to 2015, not the new precipitate timescale—was, above all else, the importance of the 2011 census data. Only when those are available can we be sure that we have a comprehensive and accurate register. This was not a political decision; we were assured by officials, and I am sure that the Minister is getting exactly the same advice, that the full benefit of those data will not be available until 2014. So we come back to the central point about the timescale.
I understand all the arguments that the Minister has made in resisting the amendment. They are important, they are not negligible and I do not resist them all. There is a greater argument, though, about the central importance of having a comprehensive and accurate register, and, at the earliest, that cannot be available before 2015. I am not necessarily opposed to what the Minister is proposing overall in the legislation, only to the process and unforgivable rush. If he sticks to this timetable, he is putting forward profoundly flawed legislation, and I urge him once more to think again.
Lord Kilclooney
My Lords, as one-time Minister responsible for electoral registration in Northern Ireland, I have been interested by the references to the introduction of individual registration in Northern Ireland. As several speakers have said, several conclusions could be reached about what the result of that individual registration was. However, it certainly was not, and I strongly refute the suggestion, that it was because elderly people there did not know what they were doing—the word “illiterate” was used. I remind the House that the standard of education in Northern Ireland, and indeed in Scotland, is generally higher than in England.
On a serious point, the average size of the family in Northern Ireland is considerably larger than a family in England. When the head of a household filled in the registration form, he would very often put down all the members of the family whether they were living in Northern Ireland, England, New York or wherever. That was brought to an end when the requirement for individual registration was introduced and people outside Northern Ireland were no longer registered, only those who were actually living there. That is one of the reasons why the electoral register fell in numbers.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this matter. I shall be brief, subject to interventions, which I will take if I possibly can.
I am not a great expert in this area, which is why I do not intend to speak for very long, but we have had the advantage of listening to two very good speeches. One was by the Minister, who demonstrated as usual that he is in command of his brief and was willing to answer questions—that is where he scores over some of his colleagues, who are not so in command of their brief and do not answer in the detail that he has—and I learnt a lot from that.
I have learnt an enormous amount from the other very good speech, which was from my noble friend Lord Wills. We ought to listen to him with great care. He has vividly described what was happening under the previous Labour Government in order to increase registration and how to get local authorities to do that well. Anyone who was aware of that during that period, and I certainly was, will be aware of the efforts that he and others made in order to get this right.
My purpose in intervening now is to say that we need to listen and learn from my noble friend’s experience. I do not want to go into the detail of it, but he is right. I simply want to say that a deal on the Bill is possible if the Government would go the extra mile that they need to go to do it. It is crazy to drive through a constitutional Bill without getting the all-party agreement and involvement that we need. It is possible to reach agreement. This may be a late stage but the Government need to do it. They do not have to bring the House into a position whereby it becomes a carbon copy of the House of Commons, but on constitutional Bills they have to try to reach agreement on key issues. That is not impossible. My noble friend has convinced me on this point. I shall not go into great detail about my former constituency. I took an interest in registration, as every MP does. I was always worried about underrepresentation of certain groups in my constituency and above all about the fluidity of an inner-city area where the population turnover is very high.
I say again that the point my noble friend made about the estimates, and using figures from elsewhere, is profoundly important. It is important to note that underrepresentation in some areas is due not to the ignorance or lack of concern of the local population but stems from its socio-economic make-up and so on. I repeat that it is possible to reach agreement on this matter but you cannot do that with a Government who are not prepared to reach agreement. I say to the Government, please to try a little harder.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, the Minister’s early intervention was very helpful because a lot of the things that he said answered questions that I had. I can therefore be relatively brief. I hear the sighs of relief. I wish to make two points. First, we have been discussing two issues. One is underregistration. Every party represented in this House and in the other House thinks that that is a bad thing. Every party wants to increase representation and encourage local authorities to get as many people on to the register as possible. That is in all our interests and is something we should all be doing. We should accept the good faith of other parties in wishing to do that. However—this is my second point—what we are talking about today, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, is not that issue at all. What we are talking about today is the best way for the Boundary Commission to make a judgment about the boundaries and the most accurate figures that it can use.
I have made my next point on a couple of previous occasions, much to the Minister’s annoyance. I have put down Amendment 67C, which says that we should use the number of people eligible to vote rather than those on the register. Questions have been asked about the accuracy of various figures. I and other Members have argued for a figure based on population. The Minister criticised that on the basis that it was an estimate. I have been talking to wiser colleagues than me about estimates. We pay taxes based on estimates. The Barnett formula gives money to Scotland and Wales based on estimates. As my noble friend Lord Desai said to me, the retail prices index, on which our pensions and other benefits are calculated, is based on an estimate. So there is nothing inherently wrong with estimates. As my noble friend Lord Desai also said to me, many things which cannot be measured scientifically are based on estimates. Despite the criticism that we have heard of the population estimate, it is relatively accurate. As has been said, it is fortuitous that the census is taking place in 2011. Therefore, we will get a very accurate measure—not an estimate—of the population, and those over 18, in 2011.
The Minister said that the register of electors is absolutely accurate but that is not the case. As I regularly used to find out when I went round canvassing, a lot of people on the register are dead. I understand that some of them used to vote in Northern Ireland, and not just in Northern Ireland. Of course, people move from one constituency to another and some of us are registered in more than one constituency for different reasons, so there are variations there. However, I argue that the biggest variation occurs—we know this as we have discussed percentages in previous debates—in the percentage of those eligible to vote who are actually registered in each constituency around the country. In some it is only 60 per cent, in others it is nearer 90 per cent, even towards 100 per cent. That is where the major imbalance occurs and that is why using the number of those eligible to vote is far fairer—“fairer” is the relevant word—when working out the boundaries than using the number of those who are actually registered to vote.
Having listened to this debate and having heard the arguments, will the Minister ask the Boundary Commission what its views are and whether it thinks that it would be feasible, better and constitute an advance to make its judgments based on population rather than on the electorate? I would welcome that. I know that the Minister will tell us that the Boundary Commission has given evidence, but will he put this to it de novo? Will he tell it that this submission has come from people who have been involved in elections and has arisen from a debate specifically on the issue which reflected our concentrated thinking on it? I would welcome a new response from the Boundary Commission as that would greatly help the debate and the discussion.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the secretaries of the Boundary Commission were asked about this by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the other place and they indicated the significant difficulties that would arise from using a population base rather than an electorate base. I have made that clear. I am sure the noble Lord is not suggesting that they were not displaying their expertise when they answered that question put by the Select Committee in the other place.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I accept that they were asked the question. But what is the purpose of having debates like this in the House of Lords?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful. What is the purpose of hearing from people who have genuinely been involved in elections and in the conduct and practice of elections—some people have sneered at that—as my noble friend has as a former Minister, if the Minister is not willing to go back and say to the Boundary Commission, “This issue has been raised. Can you have another look at it?”.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to the winding-up speech of the Minister which took place more than an hour ago. Since that time we have had a further hour of debate. The abuse that started on Monday—organised by the party Whips, according to the documents that we have seen—is continuing. With great regret, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion that the Question be now put is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House. Further, if a noble Lord who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. I repeat, the Question is put without debate. I look to the noble Lord to see whether he wishes to persist.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I make this application more in sorrow than in anger, but actually in both. The reason that I beg to move that the House do now resume is that it is the Committee’s only way of showing our distaste and anger at the use of the procedure of closure that has been moved this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. This precious procedure of the House has strength because it is extremely rarely employed. Indeed, apart from the other night, as I understand it, the closure procedure had not been employed for 20 years, but it has now been used twice in less than 48 hours.
Closure may sometimes be justified—although it is hard to think when—but how it could be justified in a debate on an important amendment on the question of the underregistration of 3.5 million of our fellow citizens in the voting registers is hard to understand. The debate had lasted for 93 minutes and was coming to a conclusion. It is true that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of whom I make no criticism at all, had spoken quite early in the debate. However, this is Committee stage, not Report. In Committee, even if the Minister speaks early, other Members of your Lordships’ House are entitled to be heard and to make their speeches in due course. The noble and learned Lord made his speech and then there were speeches from other noble Lords around the Committee. However, for a debate of this seriousness to be effectively guillotined—because that is what it was—after that period of time and when, as I said, it was coming to a close is, in our view, an abuse of the House. For that reason, I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, as your Lordships will know, I have not spoken so far in this debate so I rise now with a great deal of sadness. When the closure Motion was first moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, towards the early hours of Tuesday morning, the noble Baroness, our Lord Speaker, refreshed the Committee’s memory about the circumstances in which such Motions can be moved. I am going to trespass upon your Lordships’ time a little by doing so again because it is important that we remind ourselves when such Motions are proper. The paragraph reads as follows:
“I am instructed by order of the House to say that the motion ‘That the Question be now put’ is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House; further, if a member who seeks to move it persists in his intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the motion is put without debate”.
I repeat that closure is “an exceptional procedure”. I ask the House: what is exceptional about a 90-minute debate about anything in your Lordships' House? If there is nothing exceptional, we tread on very dangerous ground. This House—not the other place—demands good conduct from us all.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
As such, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we conduct ourselves with propriety. There will be times when emotions will be high, but we must hang on to judgment. I fear for this House if such a practice becomes no longer exceptional but the norm. That would not be proper or right. I hear what is said from the Benches opposite, but noble Lords know well what they do. This is a moment when we should draw breath and understand the constitutional significance of behaving in such a way that we are tacitly allowing the guillotine to enter our House. I hope that that will never happen.
I hear noble Lords opposite saying that I am facing the wrong way. I am facing the right way. The noble Lord who moved the Motion for closure knows that it was undeserved after a 90-minute debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Of course it was deserved, because the proceedings on Monday and into Tuesday morning were an organised filibuster.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I was not talking about whatever happened on Monday night. Then, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, raised his objection, which was put. A number of us thought that it should not have been. That situation was exceptional and was the first time that such a thing had happened for 20 years. To move such a Motion again today, after a 90-minute debate, was not right. The noble Lord knows that very well.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, we must do some simple and clear talking among ourselves. The situation that we have arrived at, with the double use of the closure Motion, is edging us towards a guillotine. If this House introduces a guillotine, scrutiny will be impossible. I think that scrutiny has become impossible in the course of the debate on this Bill, in part because of the repetitive and irrelevant comments, whether co-ordinated or not, made in many speeches by noble Lords on the opposition Benches. That, too, is an abuse of the procedures of the House. However, I also believe that the resort to the Motion for closure, with its implicit guillotine, is an abuse of the process of the House. As a Cross-Bencher, I beg the leaders of the Opposition and of the coalition to remember that their loyalty to this House stands above their partisan loyalty.
At the moment, I and some other noble Lords do not vote on the substance of this legislation only to prevent closure and the move towards the guillotine. I know that many noble Lords opposite care greatly about the House. I hope that they will discuss with their colleagues why the repeated use of the Motion for closure will prove destructive. It will end up as an argument not for an elected or a non-elected House, or for a hybrid House, but for unicameralism.
At the other end of this palace there is a guillotine. We know how much legislation reaches us undiscussed, undigested and unscrutinised. The function that we try to carry out is important. It is not the grandest function, but it is essential. Until things are changed, we have a duty to preserve that function. We will lose it if collectively we adopt tactics that either amount to a filibuster, even if they were not co-ordinated as such, or that amount to a guillotine, even if they are not so labelled.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I did not vote for the closure Motion because I felt that it was wrong to vote for what was, to all intents and purposes, a guillotine—or what was rapidly becoming one. I came to the Chamber shortly before the closure Motion was put to see how the debate was going. I had other business this afternoon and had not been able to join the debate before. I had left the Chamber as Amendment 65B was moved. I came back a couple of hours later and was more than a little dismayed to discover that we were still on the first amendment of the afternoon. I feel that we need to be making more progress on the Bill. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must be in no doubt that they have long since lost the patience of the House. There have been plenty of stalemates or near-stalemates in this House, and the only way they can be resolved is the way that they traditionally and on a daily basis are resolved, which is through a process of negotiation with give and take on both sides.
A little time after I said that yesterday morning—I do not impute a relationship of cause and effect—the Government began to say that they would look further at some of the amendments being moved. With that, the spirit of the debate began to change—at least my impression was that that was the case yesterday—and things began to move along at a somewhat brisker pace yesterday afternoon. Indeed, I am advised that the kind of negotiations that I called for yesterday morning have been in progress between the Government and the Opposition. In those circumstances, I urge that the Government and the Opposition redouble their efforts to reach a compromise so that the debate can proceed in a timely fashion and we are able to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill in a timely fashion with the necessary compromises on both sides having been achieved.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, at the time of a clash and a rather sour atmosphere at some stage on Tuesday morning, a still small voice of reason was heard in the Chamber. It was the noble Lord, Lord Low. I think most of us approved of and were delighted by the way he spoke. There clearly must be negotiation and it must be in the spirit of give and take, not “We take and you give”. There has to be some serious discussion—not just throwing a few sprats, such as the Isle of Wight, to the Opposition—because this is a matter of very considerable importance.
We are here at the moment because the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, moved his closure Motion. I do not know whether that was done with the approval of the Government, but the Government certainly adopted it by going into the Lobby with him. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, may have in his spare time read a very famous American book, How to Influence People Without Making Friends. That may be the spirit in which he moved his Motion. As a lawyer, he must know that if he were called upon to give a judicial interpretation of the words “a most exceptional procedure”, it cannot be an Alice-in-Wonderland world in which one defines words as one wants to define them; it must mean “most exceptional”. We are in the unprecedented position of having had two closure Motions. In the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, I fear that unless we are very careful and hold back from the brink, we are indeed slipping inexorably along the road to guillotine.
The guillotine was used in the other place, which meant that rather important amendments relating to Wales, my own country, were not touched, and that whole swathes of the Bill were not touched. Are we moving to the position where a guillotine will, in practice, be created in this House? It will indeed be unprecedented and will undermine the process of self-regulation. I hope that all of us, even the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will now proceed in the spirit of that remarkable speech in intervention yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Low. We wait to see the colour of that which the Government bring forward, but I hope that they will work in the spirit of this place and will not try to juggernaut through that which they have agreed within the coalition.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I have been in this House for well over 20 years and have seen many long debates. I have never experienced anything like what has gone on on this Bill. There has been almost a relay of speeches designed to inform you about just about anything other than about what is on the Order Paper. Somewhere there will be a pedant’s description of what a filibuster actually is, but this looks and smells like one. That is where we have got to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I have not taken part in the Bill, but I have been in the House for some 20 years. I was a Minister for rather a long time during that period. On behalf of the Government, I must have been responsible for taking through 12 to 15 Bills. On every Bill for which I was responsible, I expected to negotiate for two reasons. The first was the practical reason that as a Labour Party in the House of Lords we had no overall majority, and the second reason why I expected to negotiate was that time and again Lord Mackay, who was my first opposite number, and then the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, very often joined by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had a better argument and better evidence to support their position than was in my brief, and I learnt from them. Therefore, the basis of negotiation was first on the grounds of not having the numbers and secondly because the Opposition had something worth while to say and very often had a more powerful case than my department could offer. That was the basis on which we negotiated on every Bill for which I was responsible.
Now, because for the first time ever there is a government Tory-led coalition majority on the Benches opposite, there seems to be a belief, which I hope is not shared by all Members opposite, that numbers count and arguments do not. I hope therefore that noble Lords will reflect that there is virtue in negotiation, not just because of numbers but because wisdom—judgment, as my noble friend said—does not belong to any one section of this House. That is why we have been so effective as a revising Chamber over the years. There is wisdom and judgment around the House, and any Government, if they are wise, listen to it, reflect upon it and, I hope, adjust their position accordingly. I hope that we never see the disgrace of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, today to bring closure on a particular amendment and thus to cut out the possibility of the negotiation that we need to have. I ask noble Lords opposite to reflect on what happened during the past 13 years. I understand that opposition is painful, but they made a powerful impact on the Government’s programme not just by virtue of numbers but by their argument, their judgment and the experience they brought to bear. It is foolish beyond belief to think that because you have the numbers, you can dispense with that judgment now. I beg noble Lords to reconsider.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is with considerable difficulty that I find myself addressing this position which, as far as I am concerned, has never happened before. We have come to this position as a result of a government Bill which deals with very important matters—I am the first to concede that—which require discussion, and we have had a good deal of discussion. Yesterday, for example, there was a concise and effective debate on the amendments proposed by the opposition Front Bench. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness explained that he could take the matter away for consideration but no undertaking could be given. That was what ought to have happened and the response by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was warmly accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I see no reason why we should not be able to proceed in this way.
The other day the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood, said he had taken a Bill on the digital economy through Parliament. It was a very interesting Bill. I took part in the early more general clauses but once it became technical, it was beyond me, so I was not able to assist and had to desist from taking part. But there were 700 amendments. If these amendments had all taken the time that was taken by the first two or three amendments in this week’s Committee, he would certainly not have got his Bill through that Parliament. I am all in favour of scrutiny and I value the right we have here to raise every amendment for discussion and get a government answer to it. That is extremely valuable and I have explained it often in answer to people who ask what the function of the House of Lords is in relation to legislation. I am able to say that anyone who has a reasonable point and can get a Peer to see it as a reasonable point has an opportunity to get an answer from the Government on that particular point. It may not always be a satisfactory answer or the answer that one wants, but at least we have the right to get an answer from the Government on every point that is made.
The total number of amendments on the Marshalled List for this Bill is quite large and I would think that quite a number of them have substantial points. I have listened with care to a substantial proportion of the discussion in this Committee and I have been interested in the points made from the opposition Benches, most by people of considerable experience. I have paid particular attention to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in relation to the possibility of improving the electoral register. However, as the time has gone on and the same amendment is still being debated, my interest has slightly waned as a result of the extraordinary amount of repetition. It is not for me to judge always, but I have a feeling that not every remark is equally relevant to the point of the amendment. Indeed, my noble friend—I think I can call him that as an exception—Lord Foulkes of Cumnock gave a very interesting speech the other day but he never mentioned the amendment that was being dealt with. I do not believe in making many interventions on these amendments because it just makes matters worse, but on this particular occasion I ventured to intervene to ask him whether he was for or against the amendment. His answer, typically generous, was, “Well, I haven’t made my mind up yet”, and he expected that I would not make my mind up, either, until I had heard the whole of the discussion.
I make no apportionment of blame as to where this has happened but there has crept into the debate an extension of discussion beyond what is reasonable if we are going to get through this Committee stage in anything like a reasonable time. For example, one of the amendments took something like three and a half hours. If you take the total number of amendments on this Marshalled List and multiply it by three and a half hours, we will be using most of this extended parliamentary Session for this Committee. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Bill, that is really quite excessive in terms of discussion. I feel that we have got to a stage where we have lost the complete adherence to relevance and succinctness which are the advantages of this House’s procedure. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made some reference to this the other day and was regarded as having threatened people, which I certainly do not think he did, but he mentioned the point that in the other place this had been lost. The reason we have had it for all the time that I know of, and I hope that it will continue for a very long time to come, is that we have exercised self-restraint and discipline in relation to the total number of amendments that are on the Marshalled List with a view to succeeding that the points are understood. When I have listened here, I have understood very well and quite quickly most of the points that are made from the opposition Benches, but by the time they are repeated five or six times, one begins to feel, possibly, that they have lost their impact. I am afraid that is, at least to some extent, what has been happening in the discussion.
Not everyone has the same level of patience but we have to exercise a certain amount of patience with one another. I greatly regret that we have come to the position where this closure Motion has happened on two occasions.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I have a tremendous regard for the noble and learned Lord and the advice that he proffers, but is it not essential in pretty well every Bill that there should be some discussion between the opposition Front Bench and the Government? He has not referred to that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I am not a member of the usual channels and I never have been, unlike my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who came from Tyne to Thames via the usual channels. However, I feel that we have come to a stage at which we need to reconsider. I hope that there will be no further Motions for closure. I also hope that all of us, me included, will conduct ourselves in a practical way and make points that we believe will be listened to. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was kind enough to say, that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness has always conducted himself with complete propriety, anxious to reach an understanding of the points made from the Opposition and to do his best to answer them.
I understand the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the proper course for us to take now might be to have a very short Adjournment so that we can consider the position. I believe that there have been negotiations through the usual channels—I do not know exactly to what effect. I hope they may continue, because it has always been the way to work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested on Monday as a condition of negotiation that the Bill should be split. I understand perfectly the very great difficulty with that, and I do not think that the condition will necessarily be met, but other things could happen. I suggest that the House resume for a short Adjournment and that we resume Committee in a spirit of real co-operation—I hope to speak on the next group of amendments, I have to say—whereby we will be able to have some concessions from Her Majesty's Government, at least to the extent of considering amendments, which should be the usual method in Committee.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate, not least to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for his wise comments, which included criticism of the Opposition as well of his own side. The point that I seek to make in moving this Motion is that you cannot begin to have a system of regular guillotines and at the same time hope to retain a scrutinising House that holds the Government properly to account. We cannot go down the route of regularly using guillotines as a tactic in Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, put that point so much better than I can, and it came from those on the Cross Benches, who sometimes look at us, I think, from on high and make judgments about us that we do not make about ourselves.
I was minded to put this Motion to the vote, but, having heard the spirit of this debate and speaking in a spirit of desire for negotiations, it seems unnecessary to do so. I hope I get the feeling of the Committee right in deciding not to put the Motion to a vote. I think we want to continue, particularly with the debate that is about to take place on the next amendment on the Marshalled List. With the Committee’s leave, I will withdraw the Motion, but I hope it is on the understanding that neither the government Front Bench nor their Back-Benchers will indulge in closure Motions of this kind. It is just not acceptable.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I associate myself with that last hope.
Motion withdrawn.
Amendment 66
Lord Fowler
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 89, which deals specifically with the Isle of Wight. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the action that he has taken, which enables this amendment to be debated earlier. I hope that I can bring the Committee on to a happier and more consensual road than during the past hour.
Perhaps I may say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that I do not consider the Isle of Wight, a sprat of an issue, to use his phrase. It has support from all parts of the House, very much including his own party.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I wholly accept that the Isle of Wight deserves to be treated in the way in which the noble Lord wants. I also accept that the same principles should apply to other areas, such as Ynys Môn in Wales. My position was that if that was to be the only concession the Government made, it would be insufficient to show the spirit, which they should show, of give and take.
Lord Fowler
Having started and tried to get consensus, I shall not continue to debate with the noble Lord, because I am obviously not doing very well at it. It was the word “sprat” that offended me.
Few issues in politics—many of us who have been in the other place will understand this—are more important or sensitive than constituency boundaries. I speak with some experience on this. My first constituency was not Sutton Coldfield but Nottingham South. Sadly, when I entered the other place in 1970 for my first Queen’s Speech, it was to hear that the boundary review was to be implemented and that, as a result of that, my seat was to be abolished. It is not exactly what you hope and expect to hear on your first day in Parliament. Things could only get better.
The seat was being abolished because the Boundary Commission thought it wrong to have a constituency that crossed the river at Trent Bridge, going from the city to the county at West Bridgford. That was in spite of the fact that it took only a couple of minutes to walk over the bridge, there was no toll on the bridge and you certainly did not need a ferry to make the crossing.
When it comes to the Isle of Wight, of which I have been a resident for more than 25 years, the theory is exactly the opposite. The consequence of what is being proposed in the Bill is that a new constituency would be formed that would be partly on the mainland and partly on the Isle of Wight, in spite of the fact the two parts would be eight to 10 miles apart, over a stretch of sea and with expensive ferries being the only means of communication. It is claimed that there must be this kind of new constituency because it is essential that all constituencies should have electorates of around 76,000, when the Isle of Wight has 110,000. No exceptions are possible, except the two in the Bill both concerning island constituencies and where the electorates are not abnormally high but abnormally low.
My amendment would allow there to be one or two constituencies on the Isle of Wight. Most importantly, it follows the amendment put down in the other place by Andrew Turner, the excellent Member of Parliament for the island who was elected on a manifesto that promised opposition to a cross-Solent constituency. You might think that his amendment would have been carefully considered in the other place, but you would be absolutely wrong. Due to the timetabling arrangements in the other place, which perhaps underlines a little the debate that has gone before, he was allowed no time at all in Committee, four minutes on Report and no opportunity to bring the proposition to a vote.
I cannot believe that this is a sensible way of governing this country. If nothing else, this amendment gives the other place the opportunity at least to consider the proposition concerning the Isle of Wight. I emphasise that the proposition is supported by every political party on the island; we speak as one on this. It would be the first time since the Reform Act 1832 that the unity of the Isle of Wight in parliamentary terms would be destroyed. It would be a bad deal for the island and for whatever area of the mainland forms part of the proposed new constituency.
There are several practical reasons why the proposal is not in the public interest. The most basic point is that however you put together a new, divided constituency, no one believes that you can create a community, yet all the political parties in this country talk at some length about the importance of building communities. This proposal goes smack against that objective. If a new constituency was created out of part of Portsmouth and the east of the Isle of Wight, the travel difficulties involved in moving between one part and the other would be both immense and expensive. We are not talking about walking over Trent Bridge but about having to take a ferry or a hovercraft. A return journey by car ferry is likely to cost £50, and it could cost £100. A trip by hovercraft is less expensive but presents the problem of how to get about on the other side. The bus service tries hard but everyone would concede that it does not meet all the needs of the public. The internal rail service is typified by the provision of antique, cast-off London Transport carriages, as everyone who has been to the Isle of Wight knows. None of this is a recipe for free and easy movement in the new constituency or in a community.
Nor are the interests of the island and the mainland necessarily the same. For example, on another part of the island, the islanders want an improved ferry service from Yarmouth to Lymington, but they are strongly opposed by the mainland Lymington River Association, which wants nothing of the kind. There is no community of interest.
There has been no consultation with the people on the island about this proposal. Had there been, the Government would have discovered that all three political parties are opposed to a cross-Solent constituency—as are the county council, including the independents, the other councils on the island and, overwhelmingly, the public, 18,000 of whom have signed a petition against the proposal, which was collected in literally only a couple of weeks. Obviously it is not as easy to gauge the view of the public on the mainland because we do not know what part of the mainland the new constituency is meant to tie up with. However, if we are talking about Portsmouth, Southampton or somewhere else, I guess that there would not be overwhelming support for the proposition.
Two points in particular need to be borne in mind. First, given the electoral size of the island constituencies that are made exceptions to the 76,000 size rule in the Bill—Orkney and Shetland and what used to be the Western Isles; Orkney and Shetland has 33,000 constituents and the other constituency has 22,000—if there was only one constituency on the Isle of the Wight, the difference from the standard would not be anything like as great as that, and the same would be true if there were two constituencies.
However, a second and perhaps even more fundamental point is that the Boundary Commission looked at the proposition of a cross-Solent constituency in 2007, using figures from 2000. The electorate in 2000 was, even then, 103,000—33 per cent larger than the average—and the commission considered severing part of the island and putting it with a mainland constituency. However, it concluded that to do so would,
“disregard the historical and unique geographical situation”.
It found that it would,
“create confusion and a feeling of loss of identity”,
among the island’s electorate. It also stated that,
“communications would be difficult both for the electorate and the Member of Parliament”.
I am sad to say that, despite that conclusive and independent thumbs down, the Government have persisted with this proposal.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have holidayed on the Isle of Wight for some 40 years in a family cottage, I have been a member of the Royal Yacht Squadron in Cowes for 30 years, I lived in Southsea and Portsmouth for some 20 years, I am the chancellor of Southampton University and know that town well, and my family come from the New Forest. So I know both sides of that not inconsiderable patch of water. A battle was fought at Spithead and I parked more than 170 ships in the east Solent for the bicentennial. It is a large stretch of water.
I can assure the House that there is a huge difference between the people who live on the Isle of Wight and those who live on the shores of the mainland. I am sure that this is an oversight. It is extraordinary that the Government could even consider having a constituency across a piece of water such as that. I do not intend to speak for long because I think it is an oversight. It makes absolute sense to leave the Isle of Wight as one constituency—or two—but certainly not to stretch it across the water.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Having worked in the diocese of Portsmouth, which included the Isle of Wight, for some seven years, I always saw it as my international ministry.
I made several mistakes when I first got there. I remember going over there for the first time overnight and saying to some people, “Perhaps one of the best things that could be done here is to build a bridge”. There was total silence at the table and I was never invited back.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, asked what the people on the mainland would think. The divide is seen just as seriously from the mainland as it is from the island. It was baffling that when people phoned me up in Portsmouth and asked “Is he there?”, they were told “No, he is on the island”, as though there was only one island in the world. I remember, for example, that we would organise diocesan synods to gather the whole of our diocese together, and that they were almost always held on the mainland. There were complaints about their being poorly attended by those on the Isle of Wight.
On one occasion I made the radical suggestion that the diocesan synod might be held in Ryde, which is the nearest place to anywhere on the mainland and the easiest place to get to. It was very well attended by members from the Isle of Wight, but there was a devastatingly low attendance by those on the mainland. That was because it requires a significant effort to make your way across to the island, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out, it involves considerable cost. One of the things about living on the island is that there are more favourable ferry fares for those who live on the island to come across to the mainland.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, I assume that this was an oversight, but if it was not, it jolly well ought to have been. I hope that the Government will consider rethinking this one.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
My Lords, I am proud to put my name to this amendment, which has been moved by my noble friend and neighbour in Seaview. The case for keeping the Isle of Wight as a single constituency is overwhelming. I can confirm that it is supported by all three political parties on the island and, indeed, by every single person I have spoken to there. Only last Friday I spoke at a meeting of the Isle of Wight Liberal Democrats. I explained to them the amendments due to be debated this week, but I did not know that we would have to stay up all night to get to them. Those at the meeting reaffirmed their support for the changes and asked me to pass on to my colleagues on these Benches how strongly they felt.
My noble friend Lord Fowler ran briefly through the numbers, as I did at Second Reading. The important point is that the Isle of Wight as a single constituency, which is how I imagine it would come out, is closer to the quota than either of the Scottish island constituencies. It will be 1.45 of the quota, whereas Orkney and Shetland will be 0.44 and the Western Isles only 0.29, which is barely a quarter. I support the exceptions made for the Scottish seats, but there is clearly an even stronger argument for making an exception for the Isle of Wight.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with my noble friend Lord Fowler. I hope that the Minister will listen to our concerns and give us some hope of substantial movement in the later stages of the Bill. If he does not, let me give him a word of warning. Anyone who has seen my noble friend Lord Fowler, resplendent in his beach shorts directing operations in village sports which take place in front of our cottage in Seagrove Bay, will know that you cross him at your peril. On the beach, his word is law. When we make law in this House, we cannot ignore a real people’s campaign like this. It unites the Wight, and it is as determined as I am to keep it whole.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I have the honour to have been granted the freedom of the city of Portsmouth. In my years in the other place, again I was honoured to represent part of the community of Portsmouth. Of course, Portsmouth is very much involved in the implications of what is being proposed in the Bill and in the amendment. I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that he could not have put the case better. It was a well argued and most convincing presentation, so really I would just like to say that I fully endorse it.
However, I want to make one other point. I now live in Cumbria, at the other end of the country, but last Sunday I was back in Portsmouth for a memorial service in the cathedral for the victims of the blitz. Portsmouth suffered a terrible blitz which wrought tremendous damage on the city with a large number of deaths and injuries. On the occasion of that memorial, one could feel the great sense of community in what is often rightly referred to as Portsea Island, because in many ways Portsmouth itself has the characteristics of an island community.
I made a point of gazing across the Solent. My wife asked, “Why we were taking this route?”, and I said that I just wanted to look at the Isle of Wight. I thought about the occasions when I have been able to cross the Solent and visit the Isle of Wight. I thought to myself, here we have the epitome of two rich communities. In every sense, they really are communities. While the noble Lord’s amendment speaks for itself and has my full support, I will make the point that this cannot be looked at in isolation from the argument about the importance of community if our constituency system is to mean anything.
I assure noble Lords in all parts of the Committee that in many ways Cumbria feels itself to be distinctive and very much apart from mainland, industrialised Britain. It has a real sense of community and therefore wants its representation in a political system to be based on communities. We cannot have a healthy democracy if it is simply a relationship between Government and a number of individuals thrown together in a constituency formed by some mathematical calculation. The dynamics and strength of a democracy are when people in communities are able to come together, collectively assert themselves and examine the implications of what is being proposed for legislation and how it will affect them. That is how individuals become strengthened—not by being given rights by central Government, but by being able to get together and assert themselves. All those who have been Members of Parliament know perfectly well that while of course we wanted to listen to and respond to the individual irrespective of how they voted, we also knew well that it was when the community asserted itself that we were really being held to account.
In that sense, the dynamic social and historic reasons for the amendment before us are unanswerable. However, they also have a far greater significance for the other issues that we are debating in this Bill.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Fowler. Anyone who is even an occasional visitor to the Isle of Wight, as I am, will realise that there is a special sense of community there because it is an island. It is difficult to get to and occasionally, if one is there in the winter, it is quite difficult to leave. It has an important and special identity, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will consider the amendment very carefully.
Finally, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on moving an amendment that has produced concise and relevant speeches to it. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not regard that as a challenge.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on having put the argument so clearly. I dare say that in the far reaches of the Government they are saying, “This is a big mistake. We have got to get out of this one”, or at least I hope that that is what they are thinking. My connection with the Isle of Wight is that my mother lived there for many years, until she died. I used to go there a great deal. However, she was not of the Isle of Wight, and those noble Lords who know the Isle of Wight will also know that the people there call everyone from elsewhere “overners”. They are quite contemptuous of overners in the friendliest possible way.
It is a lovely island, with above all two characteristics that have been mentioned in part. The first is that communications are difficult. There was no hovercraft in the days when my mother lived there, but I remember going down to Portsmouth Harbour on a Friday evening, taking the Southampton ferry, or going from Lymington to Yarmouth. Even if things have got a little better, these journeys are still difficult to make. One cannot do them late at night or too early in the morning.
The other thing is what my noble friend Lord Judd said: there is a tremendously powerful sense of community on the Isle of Wight. One has only to talk to the local people to get a sense of that very quickly. It would be a travesty of geography and of community if the Isle of Wight were not to be one constituency. The evidence shows that the people of the Isle of Wight would resent it deeply, and we would be doing them a disservice. Many of us who have represented communities at the local or the national level know the importance of representing a community. It makes for a better and more effective political process that works well. I totally support the noble Lord and I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Fowler in his amendment, and to support Mr Andrew Turner, the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight. I cannot imagine what it must be like to be a Member of a governing party, or a party in a coalition, and find that a proposal is put forward to link your constituency with a part of the mainland for which there is no logical link. He has behaved with very considerable restraint. I have personally appreciated the way in which he has briefed us about the background to those issues.
At Second Reading, I made it clear that I do not like this Bill very much. Ideally, these issues of reducing the size of Parliament and deciding on how the boundaries are achieved would have been done by a Speaker’s Conference and not by a Bill of this kind. Ideally, there should not have been the two separate issues of AV and the reduction of the size of Parliament in the same Bill. That, however, is all water under the bridge. I confess I looked at the Bill with a certain degree of hostility, and perhaps because I am cynical, when I saw that there was an exception for Orkney and Shetland, I thought that that must be a bit of a deal with the Liberals, because that is a Liberal constituency. I realise that that was a wicked and improper thought. The Western Isles, of course, is a nationalist constituency. Then I had lunch today with Mr Charles Kennedy and I said, wrongly, “Of course, your seat is not affected”. He quite rightly pointed out that that was a widely held mistaken belief; although his seat is the largest—Ross, Skye and Lochaber—it is, of course, not exempted because the Boundary Commission simply has that as a size. He is in the same boat as everyone else. I accept that the reason that the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland are made exceptions in the Bill is that, quite rightly, somebody recognised that they are distinctive communities. There are many islands that form part of Argyll which have all the problem of ferries and the rest that affect the Isle of Wight, but the key point is whether it is a distinctive community. Clearly the Isle of Wight is a distinctive community.
I do not wish to detain the House, but I would like to make one other general point. I return to what I had to say about Mr Andrew Turner. All of us in this House—especially those I expect who were Members of the other place—must feel great distress at the way in which the status and standing of Members of Parliament have taken a knock of late. One thing, however, that is really encouraging in all the polls and surveys is that people still hold their own Member of Parliament in high regard, even if they have a jaded view of Members of Parliament as a group.
One of the reasons for that is because the Member of Parliament is seen to be the Member for their area or community. I was a Tory in Sterling where two-thirds of the voters had never experienced or wanted a Tory but, as such, you were respected as the Member of Parliament—their man or their woman in Parliament. Even in the days of the rotten boroughs people came to represent the rotten borough, they did not come to represent a block of so many voters on the map. I support my noble friend’s amendment in the hope that the Government will listen—
Lord Martin of Springburn
I am sorry to disturb the noble Lord’s thought, but I would also like to say that I have a very high regard for Mr Turner. Andrew is a lovely person and a very hard working individual. It disturbs me that he had only a few moments on the Floor of the House to put the arguments that the noble Lord has put so succinctly. The noble Lord touched upon Argyll, and this disturbs me too—a great island community; I think we are talking about 15 islands—as the same went for Alan Reid, who was unable to speak or had very little say. The noble Lord is quite right that a Speaker’s Conference would have allowed those Back-Benchers to put the case for their communities.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I bow to the noble Lord’s very great experience, not just as a former Speaker but as a parliamentarian. But, of course, we are where we are. The point that I wanted to make was that the identity between communities and Members of Parliament is very important. I am supporting my noble friend in the hope that the Government will recognise that the Isle of Wight has just as strong a case. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, that it should have one constituency; it could have two and still be closer to the criteria set under the Bill than either the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetland.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, the Government, in looking at the Isle of Wight, should also think about this point about the identity between Members of Parliament and constituencies. This is not just a numbers game. If we end up making it a numbers game, we may very well find that the respect, support and influence that Parliament is able to bring to bear through its Members in their constituencies are greatly diminished at a time when we need to strengthen Parliament. That seems to me to be a very retrograde step.
On the other point that the noble Lord made, we have had a long debate about the procedure which in effect is bringing a guillotine to this House. That would, of course, bring all the disadvantages that we see in the Commons, which is why our workload has gone up. It was Robespierre who invented the guillotine and he ended up being a victim of it himself. I venture to suggest that this House may like to consider that example.
Lord Pannick
The strength of the case for this amendment confirms the mischief in this part of the Bill which we debated in Committee yesterday. The rigidity in the formula contained in rule 2 allows for these vital geographical and local considerations to be taken into account only in the two specific cases or within the rubric of the 5 per cent tolerance that the Boundary Commission has. We can seek to address this specific case, and there are many other examples—perhaps not quite as strong as the Isle of Wight—of particular local and geographical considerations, by adding one or two more exceptions to rule 2. Or, as I would prefer, the Government could now recognise that the rigidity of the Bill is quite indefensible. We desperately need a broader exception which allows the Boundary Commission to take account of these factors in what it regards as exceptional cases, of which the Isle of Wight is plainly one.
Lord Desai
My Lords, just before the closure we were talking statistics, and I make a small statistical point. The Government want to equalise the constituency boundaries, which is a very laudable aim. With the best will in the world, they may be able to do it in 99 per cent of the cases within three standard deviations; that still leaves six spare seats out of 600. The Government should not feel too nervous about having one more exception. The Government should say that it is just not humanly possible to fit everything within 598 seats. It is possible to allow a little bit of slack and, if the Government do, they will not lose the thread completely, and it will help many Members of your Lordships’ House to breathe easy.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, my connection with the Isle of Wight is that when I was Lord Chancellor I was invited to open the new magistrates’ court there. My host was the late Lord Mottistone, who was a Member of this House and at that time the governor of the Isle of Wight. I gather that the governor’s post has fallen into desuetude, but at any rate that shows that it was a separate—whatever the right noun is for whatever the governor has to rule over. I was shown very well over the island during that visit. My noble friend has succinctly explained the powerful case for separating out the Isle of Wight, and I hope that the Government consider it.
On the wider point made by the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Forsyth and Lord Pannick, I believe that the amendment moved yesterday and dealt with so expeditiously yesterday afternoon, which is to be considered by the Government, would provide a pretty good answer to most of the difficulties, if the Government are pleased to accept it.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, without injecting too much of a sour note, I would like to follow up some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Judd, who made them far more eloquently than I will—I have never claimed to be eloquent.
Community is certainly to the fore in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly explained the sense of community that people feel for the place where they live and where they may have stayed all their lives. Noble Lords will tell me if I step out of order, but I shall run the risk of perhaps bringing in things that are for a future amendment but that are, nevertheless, relevant to what is being discussed here today. I make no apology for attempting to do that.
In 1973, a Tory Government ripped apart the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen and shoved us into the new City of Glasgow District Council, with no regard for the community or the political unity of the burgh, the Cambuslang or Halfway areas—absolutely nothing. “You’re going in and that is it”, was the attitude, as the Government did not listen to a single thing. Many years later in 1993, 1994 and 1995, with the help of a more benevolent Conservative Minister, Allan Stewart—who was a first-class Minister and a first-class community man as well—the towns of Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway were taken out of Glasgow and put back into their natural home of the county of Lanarkshire. Although there is not the obvious geographical case for Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Halfway that is apparent for the Isle of Wight, nevertheless we also have a sense of community. The difficulty for me is that the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight has made an outstanding case; I hope to make an outstanding case for my community at a later stage, but—there is always a but, and this is where I might do myself a bit of damage personally, but there we are—first and foremost I am a Rutherglonian, and I shall represent that burgh to the best of my ability in matters where the law is being changed.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have to make a correction. I referred to the late Lord Mottistone. I should not have said late, as I gather that he is still alive.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, having sat silently through the long night watches, I am grateful that by accident this important debate is taking place at a more reasonable hour than I had originally anticipated. I am also grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, withdrew his earlier Motion, which has enabled us to carry on with this debate.
I have no need to say anything at all at length, because all the points have been most effectively made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and to his colleagues for having tabled these amendments. I will add one word.
For many years in my life, I have occupied one part or other of the coast of Hampshire—for many years I represented the constituency of Bournemouth West—and now live not too far from there. Prior to that, having lived for decades in the New Forest, I have constantly looked across and seen the outline of the Isle of Wight, which has always been over there, almost beyond reach. If we ever contemplated visiting the Isle of Wight, it was the subject of quite a lengthy discussion beforehand, and we knew that the visit would write off a complete day, whatever else took place. So it was not something that you just popped down the road or hopped on the bus to visit. It was a big excursion and a considerable undertaking.
To contemplate having to represent such a constituency as a Member of Parliament would be very exhausting and frustrating. I can quite see the enormous practical difficulties that would arise from that. I hope therefore very much that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will be prepared to do what my noble friend Lord Fowler asked and give these amendments very serious consideration. I see no reason in the timetable, or for any other purpose, why we should not have an amendment that makes common sense—and it is common sense that we want in all our legislation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
As everybody will know, I have spoken in the debate on the first half of this Bill only against the Government and, indeed, have voted against the Government. This is a time when I intend to support the Government—or I hope that I am supporting the Minister. If he makes an exception over the Isle of Wight, the argument about communities will be rerun about every conceivable constituency around the country. It is extremely dangerous to start making exceptions. The effect of this Bill is going to be that a number of constituencies that have been a coherent whole will be broken up, but that is the result of the Bill. Once you start on exceptions, why should it end with the Isle of Wight?
Lord Davies of Stamford
Is the noble Lord in favour of the two exceptions that the Government have already made?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
No, I am not in favour of them either. I agree that they have breached the principle, but I suppose that there is a greater argument for an enormous land mass with a very small electorate in Scotland being represented by one person.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Let me reinforce the noble Lord's argument. If we have a debate like this for 45 minutes on each of the 650 constituencies, it will take another 450 hours.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
That is absolutely true. That is why I hope that the Government do not give way on this issue. That rules out any question of creating an exception for the Isle of Wight. It may be uncomfortable for the constituents of the Isle of Wight to be represented by two Members of Parliament, but it would not be the end of the world. I sincerely hope that my noble friend holds out on this.
Baroness Nye
I support the noble Lord’s amendment. I told him that I would do so and I had not intended to speak in the debate, but a few points arose from his speech that I want to take up. He said that the Member of Parliament campaigned at the election to keep the Isle of Wight as a single constituency, but the same candidate must also have campaigned at the election to have a 10 per cent reduction in the number of seats. That gives a new twist to the phrase “not in my constituency”.
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is not in his place, said at Second Reading that the problem is that equal votes are a good idea and people support that, but people can believe two things at the same time. People want fair votes, but experience in the Isle of Wight and Cornwall shows that they might want something else as well. That is partly why we have tabled these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we have been trying to change the nature of this threshold to give constituencies such as the Isle of Wight more flexibility.
The noble Lord also said in his speech that there had been no consultation with the residents of the Isle of Wight, which is one of our objections to the Bill. More important, there will be no consultation when the Bill is passed because the Bill will also abolish public inquiries into Boundary Commission decisions. We would like people to have a say both at the beginning and at the end, but this Bill will abolish that. I hope that, for the reasons that he gave in his speech, the noble Lord will support some of the amendments that we have tabled because they apply in other cases. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken—in certain respects—because if we amend the Bill so that it is fair to all constituencies, that would be better than having specific exceptions.
Lord Selsdon
I speak as treasurer and secretary of the House of Lords Yacht Club and I am an islander. Historically, I come from Islay. My family are normally buried at sea and the female line like to have their caskets dropped off the Nab Tower—perhaps the Government can advise me on whether the Nab Tower is, or is not, part of the Isle of Wight. However, I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton, with whom I have the advantage of sharing an office.
I recognise that the two householders who tabled Amendment 89 have a certain interest because they live on the Isle of Wight; my interest lies in the fact that, when I was a Pompey rating, I had to row across the Solent from Portsmouth to the Isle of Wight and back—I had to sail in a single cutter—and, just before Suez, I was shoved on an aircraft carrier and made to be ballast in a helicopter as we were dropped off on the Isle of Wight because plans were being made to invade Suez later. My feeling is this: there are some 70,000 islands and atolls in the world. All islanders are islanders; they do not like anyone else and they are a united community. It is not the same as a community that is divided on the mainland. There are islanders who have suffered from weather, affliction and everything else.
In my job, I had one very difficult time, when we had invested in a hovercraft service—
Baroness McDonagh
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s arguments, but would he address the issue of why this island should be treated in one way and other islands in a different way?
Lord Selsdon
I was not suggesting anything about other islands. This debate is about the Isle of Wight.
The thing about an island community is that, when you connect it to a mainland politically, you create divisions. Even within an island, when you split it—as in Cyprus or any of the other islands in the world—you create divisions. You need a united community, which can be united only if it has the sea around it. Therefore, I support the amendment.
I also feel that there is something quite remarkable about what my noble friend Lord Mackay has done. He has taken the heat out of the debate. We are all debating on the same side. Yes, noble Lords opposite will want to protect certain constituencies and claim that they are all of one ethnic group or different ethnic groups, but communities are communities. Island communities are—I promise you—individual communities. I therefore support the amendment. I encourage the noble Lord who moved it to press it to a Division and I will vote, because it is about time that we had a vote on something worth voting on.
Lord Touhig
If the Government concede on this amendment, of course it could be said that they are setting a precedent. That does not bother me. I rather think that, when the first human being stood up on his hind legs instead of crawling around on all fours, people tut-tutted and said that that was setting a precedent. The argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is important because it goes to the heart of the Bill. As we discussed to some extent at Second Reading, our representation in Parliament should be community based. If ever there were a case for that, it is that of the Isle of Wight.
The fact that the Isle of Wight is an island is down to the handiwork of the creator and we cannot do much about it, but we can inject some common sense into the Bill and say to the Government that this makes sense. Parts of the Isle of Wight should not be joined to a constituency on the mainland. We could argue the same case, I am sure, for Ynys Môn—there will be other examples I have no doubt—but this makes sense and I hope that the Committee will support it.
Lord Bach
I say from the Front Bench that my party's view is clear that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, should be supported. The Isle of Wight seems evident to us to be a prime candidate for exemption. It meets the island criteria of the other two preserved constituencies. It has a historic basis to its case for being looked at somewhat differently.
Many noble Lords will have received a letter from the Isle of Wight Council, to which I pay tribute for the way in which it has run its campaign. The letter informs us that there has not been a cross-Solent seat, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in moving his amendment, since 1832—a date that regularly appears in our debates on this Bill—and successive boundary reviews have very strongly rejected any such consideration. We are in favour of his amendment.
The debate has been of interest beyond the Isle of Wight, because of the two different strands of opinion on whether the Bill is too rigid. The Forsyth/Pannick strand—I do not mean “panic”, but that shows what happens when you break the rules and do not say the “noble Lord, Lord Forsyth”, and “the noble Lord, Lord Pannick”—argues that the Bill is much too rigid in terms of constituencies and begins to lose common sense as a result. Then there is the purist view—although I did not think I would ever say that about the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that says that, if the Government mean what they say about numbers being everything, they had better keep to their word. I know which side of that argument I am on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said, I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to press his amendment to a vote. Whether he does so is entirely a matter for him. I never thought that I would be in a position to advise the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, with his vast experience, but he should beware of being offered something in the next few minutes by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who I am sure will make such an offer with huge skill. The Minister will mean every word that he says, but the noble Lord should beware. If he decides to pay a visit to the ministry in order to hear what the Government have to say in the way of compromise, he should know that he has us at his back, as it were. He has our word that if he does not get what he wants we will support him in the Lobbies.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, by my calculation this has been a debate in which 18 noble Lords have taken part and have made some compelling arguments for the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Fowler. While trying to use some of the skill that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to—I will probably need it—I reply to this debate as someone who has a distinct sense of community, and a number of contributors to the debate referred to Members of Parliament and their community, not least because I represented an islands community.
I am acutely conscious that the islands community which I represented is one of the exceptions in Rule 6. When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield commented about someone having phoned up and being told, “No, he’s on the island”, it brought to mind my first ever visit to Orkney when I went as a prospective candidate. Talking to some people, I said something about the mainland—meaning that landmass south of the Pentland Firth. I was taken aside and told, “That’s not the mainland, that’s Scotland. We are on the Mainland”. That was a valuable lesson, which I learnt, so what I say here is against that background.
I am acutely conscious that residents in the Isle of Wight have been taking a very keen interest in the provisions set out in the Bill. A range of views has been expressed in correspondence to the Government, and I understand that those views were made known to my honourable friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform when he visited the island on 1 October. I know that he takes an acute interest in the Official Report on the proceedings in this House, so he will no doubt see what has been said in this debate.
As has been made clear, the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Oakeshott would prevent the constituencies being shared between the Isle of Wight and the mainland and allow the Isle of Wight constituency, or constituencies, to be outside the 5 per cent parity rule. I readily acknowledge the strength of feeling that has been expressed in this debate—it has been expressed by many on this matter: by the Member of Parliament, Andrew Turner, by the council and by the political parties—but I also believe that it is practical to have a constituency representing part of the island and part of the mainland and for that to be done. While I am not in any way trying to suggest that the letters have been in equal number, it is important to put on the record that there has indeed been correspondence to the Government from people resident on the Isle of Wight indicating that they do not necessarily support the OneWight campaign.
Lord Fowler
I wonder whether the Minister might give us some indication of in what proportion those letters of support have come.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I cannot, at the moment, but I clearly conceded that I am not suggesting, and I would not wish to suggest for a moment, that it has been equal. When people actually make their views known, it is perhaps easy to suggest that there is no one there. It is important that that is recognised.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
Will the noble and learned Lord kindly let us know how many letters he has had, when he gets the chance?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
When I get that information, I will certainly impart it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Is my noble and learned friend intending that there should be a letter-writing campaign for every constituency in the country, to preserve it as it is?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps the Royal Mail might find that useful for their coffers, but I am not sure whether that is going to happen. Perhaps I might draw it to the Committee’s attention that the Isle of Wight shares its police force with Hampshire and that, in other areas, the island is already making the most of its links with the mainland. On 28 October last, the Government approved a bid to create a Solent local enterprise partnership covering the economic area of south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Indeed, one of the expectations for successful bids was whether the geography proposed represented a reasonable, natural and economic geography. I am confident that an MP would be able to represent a constituency that meets those criteria, such as in a cross-Solent seat. The island has indicated a willingness to develop its long-term interests, where appropriate, in conjunction with its mainland neighbours.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I find the point that my noble and learned friend has made about the police force curious. Orkney and Shetland share a police force with the mainland. What is the relevance of the police force?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I was acutely aware of that. I was just indicating that there were links. I was almost immediately going to come on to the point that the distinction which we believe that there is between the Isle of Wight and the two named exceptions in the Bill is that they cannot readily be included physically in a constituency with the mainland, owing to their distance and to the dispersed nature of those constituencies, which we believe are distinctive. Indeed, as has been said—the Committee was reminded of this by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom—there is the principle in the Bill of equal votes and equal value. The Government recognise the strong views that have been expressed and believe that, at the end of the day, the principle which I have articulated would not be achieved by this amendment. I nevertheless want to say in conclusion—
Lord Winston
Forgive me, for I am not a politician, but I find myself really quite confused. I promise the Minister that I am not trying to timewaste, given the accusations that have been flying about. I am genuinely puzzled, because on Monday night—I forget what time it was—my noble friend talked about the importance of not crossing county boundaries, because of the nature of constituencies and the unique influence of community. That question was never answered, yet here we have an exception possibly being made for the Isle of Wight. That is a very apposite and appropriate thing to do but I am worried that we have still not really addressed that question. I would be hugely grateful if the noble and learned Lord could try to address this confusion which I feel, as I suspect some others of my noble friends do, about why the Isle of Wight should be a unique example, as has been discussed.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I apologise very much if I have confused the noble Lord, because my point was that I have not actually conceded that it should be a unique example. I think that that has been recognised. However, the Government recognise the considerable interest and concern which the impact of a boundary review could have on the Isle of Wight under the proposals in the Bill. The Government have, nevertheless, been consistently clear that there are not compelling reasons such as those that apply in the two exceptions to make an exception for the Isle of Wight. My ministerial colleagues in the other place have indeed met with representatives from the Isle of Wight. My noble friend Lord Fowler asked whether I would be willing to meet him. I would certainly be very happy to do so to discuss this matter further, but I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.
Lord Fowler
Is the Minister seriously saying that all he is prepared to give is to meet me and that he is not prepared to consider changing the Bill or having any alteration to the Bill?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I have made it very clear what the Government’s position is. Obviously, I would not ask my noble friend to come in for a meeting as a waste of time but I hope that he will take up the offer of a meeting.
Lord Crickhowell
Last night, I supported an amendment on the 10 per cent question that was moved from the Opposition Front Bench, which had wide support in the House. Very wisely, on that occasion my noble and learned friend said that he would take on board very seriously the arguments and take them back to his colleagues for consideration. He made it very clear that he was making no commitment. He could not assure us that we would get what we wanted but he assured us that he would take the argument back. The Minister does not seem to be doing the same thing tonight. I beg him to take the same view tonight and to take the argument back. Otherwise, I will join noble Lords very firmly in the Lobby against the Government.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not wish to suggest that by doing so the Government are about to change their mind. Equally, I would not ask the noble Lord to come in for a waste of time. As I indicated in my opening remarks, this debate will be read by my honourable friend in the other place. I have indicated a willingness to meet the noble Lord and would not ask him to waste his time by having such a meeting. I hope that he would be willing to take up that offer.
Lord Fowler
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in the debate that ended yesterday, the Minister is not making the same guarantee to me that he made to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the amendment that was passed. That is the fact of the matter. I am always interested to talk and to have a meeting—I am sure that it would not be a waste of time—but, to be frank, I do not think that that goes far enough as an assurance to this House.
Lord Elton
Before the Minister replies, he said only that his honourable friend would read this debate. Will he intervene with his honourable friend in person?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Indeed. I said that because I know for a fact that he does read these debates. I will certainly ensure that, before I have any meeting with my noble friend, my honourable friend, Mr Mark Harper, has read the terms of this debate and that would then inform the discussion that I am offering to have.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will put this very gently. What are we doing here? This is a Chamber of Parliament. We are debating legislation. My noble and learned friend speaks for the Government and says that a Minister in the other place reads our proceedings and will have a meeting. I am sorry, but that is treating this House with contempt. None of us wants to create a Division here, but the arguments have been put, this is Parliament, and surely the Minister’s duty is either to say “Your arguments are rubbish and we do not accept them”, or “I will go and talk to my colleagues to see if we can get collective agreement to meet them”. Simply to say “We will have a meeting” is not acceptable and not treating this House as a House of Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
In response to my noble friend, this is a Committee stage, there will be a Report stage and there will be an opportunity—the opportunity I offered—for the outcome of the discussions that take place to be considered. The House will return to it and if my noble friend Lord Fowler is not satisfied with the outcome of that meeting, I have no doubt that he will be willing to table an amendment again.
Lord Mawhinney
For the first time since the Bill started, my noble friend has me confused. Until now I have been giving him very high marks for clarity and sensitivity, but now I am confused, so I put a question in the hope that he will be able to “unconfuse” me. When he draws the attention of his honourable friend to this debate and they discuss it, will he urge his honourable friend to think again with a view to making an amendment, or will he simply talk to him without any motivation of change? I think this House would be pleased to know what the words actually mean.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I will undoubtedly express to my honourable friend the strength of feeling and the argument that has been put in this House. I indicated yesterday that I am not in a position to make any commitment and that is why I hesitate to go further. The most I can do is to ensure that ministerial colleagues—not only Mr Harper—are made well aware of what has been said in this debate and of the strength, the conciseness and the power that have lain behind the arguments that have been put. That is the spirit in which I will take what the Committee has said today back to Government and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, will be prepared to follow that up with a meeting. I cannot make a commitment; equally, I would not ask the noble Lord to do it if I thought it would be a complete waste of his time.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Will the Minister consider, as part of the further consideration and in the course of discussions with his honourable friend, the very real danger that if the Government make two concessions in the Bill in respect of Scottish islands and give no consideration to the case for making an exception for an English island—the only substantial English island—a very unfortunate impression will be created in England that English electoral sensibilities of this kind are being dismissed very lightly?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I hear that point. I have heard more compelling, stronger arguments than that, but it is a point of view. I would not have thought that it would necessarily cause a rift within the union, but other arguments, not at least in terms of community, have added weight to the case for this amendment.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, I confess that I am disappointed by the noble and learned Lord’s response. I do not think that it goes as far as the commitment that was given yesterday to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I said that my hope was the Minister will today give a commitment that the Government will look at this again and that they will consider the arguments that I have put—and, doubtless, others will put—in the debate.
Incidentally, the noble and learned Lord referred to 18 speakers. He is quite right—17 speakers supported me. Only one did not. I hope that we can have a sensible commitment to take things further on Report. I do not think, frankly, that I have any alternative, because the one thing I can do is to underline to the Government just how strongly people feel on this. I found the Minister’s argument on the substance of this case to be not all convincing.
I thank everyone for taking part in the debate—all 18, even my noble friend—but I feel that I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House.
Sustainable Local Transport
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission I should like to make a Statement to accompany the publication today of the coalition Government’s White Paper on local transport and the simultaneous publication of bidding guidance to accompany our new local sustainable transport fund. Both documents are available to colleagues in the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library of the House.
This Government’s vision is for a transport system that helps create growth in the economy and tackles climate change by cutting our carbon emissions. The launch of this White Paper and the associated local sustainable transport fund represents a significant step towards meeting these two government objectives. In both the Budget and the spending review the Chancellor pledged to make the tough choices that will allow us to maintain investment in new and existing infrastructure to support a growing economy while eliminating the structural deficit over the lifetime of the Parliament. The spending review reflected transport’s vital role in this. I am pleased that we were able to secure significant investment to allow us to go ahead with important transport initiatives. The investment we have committed to in rail, low-carbon vehicles and public and sustainable transport reflects the determination to secure growth while cutting carbon.
In the medium term, our transport decarbonisation strategy centres around the progressive electrification of the passenger car fleet, supported by policies to increase generation capacity and decarbonise the grid. By also prioritising spending on key rail projects such as high-speed rail and rail electrification, we will be providing travellers with attractive new options instead of the plane and the car. In the immediate term, addressing shorter, local trips offers huge potential in helping to grow the economy and tackle climate change. Shorter trips are important—two-thirds of all journeys are under five miles. Walking, cycling and public transport are all real, greener alternatives for such trips.
What is more, we know that people who travel to the shops on foot, by bicycle or by public transport can spend more per head than those who travel by car and research shows that improvements to the public realm can increase turnover in the high street by 5 to 15 per cent. Increased sustainable travel also helps tackle congestion, which is a drag on business and causes excess delays in urban areas at a cost of around £11 billion per annum. And let us not forget the further benefits that follow a shift to more sustainable transport—benefits to the air we breathe, to our levels of fitness and to the money in our pockets. Investment in sustainable transport helps make our towns and cities healthier and more attractive places to live, work and shop.
This White Paper sets out how we can encourage the uptake of more sustainable modes at local level, and the unprecedented £560 million we have allocated in our new local sustainable transport fund will support this. Our commitment to helping local authorities with this vital agenda is reaffirmed by the amount of money we are making available. The local sustainable transport fund forms part of a wider picture of more streamlined and simplified funding to local authorities. This will give local authorities more power and flexibility to meet local transport needs.
Across the Government we have demonstrated our commitment to ending the top-down decision-making and the tendency in Whitehall to develop one-size-fits-all solutions that ignore the specific needs and behaviour patterns of local communities. The Government have already taken significant steps to hand back power to local communities. These include replacing regional development agencies with local enterprise partnerships, giving communities a much greater say over planning decisions and ending the top-down imposition of housing targets.
Today’s White Paper is about extending the decentralisation of power to local transport, putting into context what this means for local authorities. We are particularly keen to receive bids for the local sustainable transport fund from local authorities who are in partnership with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector and have the support of local businesses. We believe that by encouraging bids in this way we will be able to capture innovative solutions to local transport needs in all areas, rural and urban. Wheels to Work schemes provide transport to people who are unable to access training, employment or education due to a lack of suitable public or private transport. Schemes can, therefore, particularly benefit people living in isolated rural communities and can play an important part in helping people to come off benefits and regain their independence. These are real examples that are happening right now, and we want to enable similar stories to unfold in other areas across the country.
In addition, we also recognise that some initiatives benefit from a single national approach. These include: providing £11 million for Bikeability cycle training next year to allow 275,000 10 to 11 year-olds to benefit from on-road cycle training and a commitment to support Bikeability for the duration of this Parliament, which will allow as many children as possible to undertake high-quality training; improving end-to-end journeys by encouraging transport operators, and those involved in promoting cycling and car clubs or sharing, to work together to provide better information and to integrate tickets and timetables; and delivering, with operators and public sector bodies, the infrastructure to enable most local public transport journeys to be undertaken using smart ticketing by December 2014.
We will work with the transport industry to support the development of e-purses and other technology related to smart ticketing and to support the infrastructure to make this happen: reviewing the way in which transport investment decisions are made to ensure that the carbon implications are fully recognised; transferring responsibility for local roads classification to local authorities, giving them the flexibility to adjust the status of their roads better to match the real-life priorities of their communities; setting out in a strategic framework for road safety, by spring 2011, how to ensure that Britain’s roads are among the world’s safest; and modernising traffic signs policy to provide more flexibility and reduced costs and bureaucracy for local authorities to enable them to develop innovative traffic management solutions.
We want to build a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, that is greener and that creates growth and cuts carbon. By improving the links that move goods and people around, encouraging people to travel sustainably, and targeting investment in new projects that promote green growth, we can help to build the balanced, dynamic low-carbon economy that is essential for our future prosperity. This White Paper, with the associated local sustainable transport fund, demonstrates our commitment to taking this agenda forward. I commend it to the House”.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I suppose I ought to congratulate the Minister on the good intentions expressed in the White Paper. After all, good intentions are better than nothing, although we all know where the path of good intentions can lead. A White Paper that is not backed by any bank directives or papers is not worth a great deal. This is full of good intentions and objectives on sustainable local transport to which the Opposition also subscribe. The problem is that the Statement takes no account of the fact that the Government are neither able nor prepared to will the means, thereby rendering the Statement almost valueless.
The Minister talks of a new £560 million local sustainable transport fund, but he knows that it is just a sticking plaster to cover the 28 per cent cut to local government transport spending. He knows that his own White Paper says that local transport is largely subsidised by local authorities, as indeed it is. However, the local authorities do not have the wherewithal to maintain what they have—they are engaged and will be engaged in extensive cuts—let alone to begin to approach the noble ambitions of the White Paper’s good intentions. Will the Minister confirm that the cuts have been front-loaded, which means that local government transport was cut by £309 million this year, and that he is giving £80 million back next year? No wonder his objectives cannot be realised.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. After all, his burden is to repeat the Statement that has already been presented in the other place. He is all too well aware of the bad hand he has been dealt. However, he must realise that the 20 per cent cut to the bus service operators’ grant is having a devastating effect on local bus services. With fuel prices at record levels, he must surely understand the impact of cutting this fuel cost subsidy on bus operators. How will they be able to sustain unprofitable services when the subsidy of which the White Paper boasts for the role of the local authorities is being savagely reduced? Has he not seen that, up and down the country today, councils are withdrawing services? Half of subsidised services are being axed in Somerset. More than 70 rural services are being scrapped or reduced in Durham. Nearly 30 services are threatened in North Yorkshire and 60 are being reviewed in Suffolk, while Kent, which is often significant, has warned that all unprofitable routes will be axed.
Does the Minister appreciate the social consequences of that? Is he aware that 94 per cent of colleges believe that scrapping the EMA—the educational maintenance allowance—and cutting local transport will see students unable to get to college and unable to complete their courses? We should, I suppose, praise this more recent coalition Government for not saying that those without jobs should “get on their bikes”. They have progressed to saying that they should take the bus. Which bus—the bus that is subject to being cut entirely, or the bus whose punctuality cannot be guaranteed because of the reduction in resources?
This White Paper points out, accurately, that two out of five jobseekers need to use public transport to try to find jobs and put that as the key priority in their ability to make themselves available to prospective employers. How will they look for these jobs when the services on which they depend are being cut? Is the Minister aware that his own department’s figures show that without the grant we will see a 6.5 per cent increase in fares and, consequently, a likely 6.7 per cent fall in bus use? Who are the people who will reduce bus use? They are those who either cannot get a bus or will not be able to afford the fares because they are jobless and were using the bus to try to find a job.
The Government emphasise the green agenda and the improvement in the carbon count. Is that why rail fares are to go up by 30 per cent over the four-year spending period before us? Does the Minister accept that the consequence of hiking up the cost of using public transport will be to force people to use cars more intensively? Where is the green agenda when we force people to use private transport, as opposed to what we all know are the advantages of public transport in those terms?
Finally, I note that the noble Earl indicated that he was looking forward to bids for the local sustainable transport grant. To judge those bids, the Government will have a little panel. Will it be a little quango?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s response to my Statement, although it was a little gloomy. I am surprised he did not cover some of the good news. For instance, the child fatality rate was quite high by European standards. Over recent years, for which the noble Lord was responsible, our child fatality rate has fallen. I am not sure that it is the lowest in Europe, but it has been driven down so that it is nearly the lowest. That is seriously good news.
The noble Lord made much about the bus service operators’ grant—the BSOG. Yes, it has been reduced. However, my honourable friend Mr Baker has fought long and hard, and successfully retained 80 per cent of the BSOG when some in the other place were suggesting that it might be removed altogether. It has not; it has been retained.
The noble Lord mentioned several alterations to services and made some fairly detailed points. I was surprised because I very rarely sign Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions from the noble Lord on these points. However, I will look forward to future Questions from the noble Lord on these issues.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, in other circumstances, this would be a Statement of intentions that one could welcome, but its credibility, at a time when local authorities are having to make considerable cuts, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham pointed out so eloquently, means that the most vulnerable in society cannot use public transport—which ostensibly is what the Government want them to do—and these vulnerable people will therefore not add to the green economy at all. My question arises from our disappointment that the aspirations of the White Paper cannot be met. I was chairman of a government inquiry into sustainable journeys to work. Does not the Statement add up to less opportunity for the most vulnerable? Can the noble Earl enlighten me as to whether there is anything about bus services being the alternative to the school run and one person in a 4x4? Is that sustainable? Finally—this is the heart of the contradiction—will the Government revisit the financial settlement? Without doing that, none of this will be possible.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that the aspirations cannot be met. They can be met if one is determined enough. The noble Lord said that we have not got the money. Any money problems we have arise from the deficit, and I will not say where that came from.
Earl Attlee
I always wait for that groan. The noble Lord talked about the school run. That is precisely an issue we want to address. I mentioned Bikeability in the Statement, which will receive £11 million a year to encourage children to take up bicycling, and to encourage adults to take it up for short journeys which would otherwise produce disproportionate emissions. The White Paper deals with precisely the issues that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Mawhinney
My noble friend will know that I have transport interests in my curriculum in this place, which may help to explain why I am the only Conservative Back-Bencher present for the Statement. He will appreciate that because we have been busy in the Chamber, I have not had a chance to read the White Paper, so my question may be a little simplistic. I hope he will forgive me. He talked about a fund for local authorities. I was not clear—it is my fault and I apologise—as to whether that fund would be given to local authorities or be centrally administered on the basis of local authority bids. Whichever it is, as a former Secretary of State, I am sure that there will be rules, regulations and guidance applied to the dispensing of funds. Will my noble friend be kind enough to place in the Library, if it is not in the White Paper, the list of rules, regulations and guidance against which local authority bids will be measured?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes an extremely important point. I confess that, like him, I have not yet read the White Paper in full. Whether I will ever read every page is doubtful. Local authorities will bid directly to the Department for Transport, but we have devised a system which is as simple as possible. There will initially be two tranches, and guidance about the application process is in the Printed Paper Office and online.
Lord Palmer
My Lords, I very much look forward to reading the White Paper. I am a resident of Scotland, and I have a particular worry relating to my part of Scotland, which I know does not come under the noble Earl’s jurisdiction. In northern England, a number of local authority-funded coaches travelling from X to Y and A to B are nearly always empty. I hope that the White Paper will look at this most carefully to make certain that we have a really good public transport system which will actually have people travelling on these buses.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting and important point. I have started to use a bus service from Alton to Bordon in Hampshire, and it always surprises me how very few people are in the bus, despite it being quite large. However, part of the policy is to allow more suitable vehicles to be used by a variety of schemes.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, I have not had time to read the entire White Paper, but I thank the Minister for including a section at the back on heritage railways, which is a subject close to my heart. I hope it is an indication that we shall have a satisfactory outcome to the debate on the future of the Railway Heritage Committee when we finally return to consideration of the Public Bodies Bill. I have a particular question about sustainable transport. I was going to ask about the school run, to which my noble friend Lord Lea referred. However, does the Minister believe that the Mayor of London’s decision to cut the congestion charge area is a helpful contribution towards sustainable transport in London? Is any consideration being given to road pricing, which is a further way in which more people could be encouraged to use sustainable transport and public transport, rather than get into their cars?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, a heritage railway could bid for a scheme. Although it might not be able to bid for its operating costs, it might be able to bid for certain facilities. The noble Lord will have to look closely at the criteria, given that some things cannot be bid for under the LTSF, because they relate to other types of grant. I very much hope that the noble Lord is successful in finding an alternative location for the legislative powers associated with the Railway Heritage Committee. We will have to see how that unfolds; it is a matter for my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I think I am correct in saying that we have no plans at all for road pricing in this Parliament. We have made more detailed statements elsewhere, but it is not on the cards. However, the noble Lord will be aware that it is possible to have a local scheme, such as the mayor’s congestion charge scheme.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the Minister for what he has said. It puts me in mind of a period about 13 years ago when I attended several presentations by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who is not here. He provided documents like this White Paper, although his had more photographs, but in nearly every case they did not produce what was set out in them. Therefore, I ask the Government to think very hard about whether the promises will be delivered and how they can be delivered.
I particularly want to know about the assessment criteria, which I have read. This document strikes me as more or less the usual stuff that we get served up by the Department for Transport because although there are a lot of warm words about saving carbon, for example, at the end it mentions the method of assessment that the department will use and—surprise, surprise—there is a reference to it being in line with the DfT’s appraisal framework, NATA. We all know that that is used to measure small time savings, which are then put together. There may be lots of people—say, 10,000—who save half a minute each, and the department has some magic way of turning these into money. However, it is fool’s gold because no one can predict whether they are going to save half a minute or a minute on a journey. People need to get to wherever they are going and they allow time to get there. Therefore, I ask the Minister to read the assessment criteria very carefully and to impress on his colleagues in the department the need to include achievable things and common-sense ways of measuring the benefits of these many initiatives. If they are all delivered, they will be useful, but I am afraid that here we have a blueprint for a great deal of bureaucracy.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I did not manage to write down the noble Lord’s last point, so I shall answer it first. This is not a blueprint for bureaucracy; it is a blueprint for doing things more efficiently. The noble Lord initially said that it would not be productive. However, it is for local authorities to deliver the scheme and it is for the department to assess the scheme and fund it. The noble Lord talked about this being the usual stuff that is served up. I am a little disappointed about that but I say to him that every scheme has to meet two criteria: it has to provide for both growth and carbon reduction. A scheme may provide for carbon reduction indirectly but it has to show carbon reduction as well as growth. As for the noble Lord’s point about NATA and the detailed assessment, he has been on at this Government and the previous Government for some time about this but I assure him that my department is working on it.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, will the Minister look again at the passage in the Statement which says that the local sustainable transport fund,
“forms part of a wider picture of more streamlined and simplified funding”?
Does he not agree that it would be more honest to include the word “reduced” in that sentence? Although I welcome extending the decentralisation of power to local transport, which the Statement also mentions, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a regional dimension to transport and transport infrastructure which the abolition of the regional development agencies will make more difficult to realise than otherwise? Will he indicate whether the Government have any intention of making the Highways Agency more accountable, and, in particular, will he indicate how, under the system of very localised transport, authorities in the north-east will be able to put pressure on the Government or the Highways Agency for the dualling of the A1 north of Newcastle, which appears to have been shelved for a very long period? Finally, does the noble Earl recall that his very distinguished grandfather, the first Earl, in an interview in later life identified transport as one of the major priorities for the future? Does he agree that this White Paper does not bring that future very much nearer?
Earl Attlee
It is my turn! The noble Lord initially asked whether I would look again at a part of the Statement, and he said that funding for transport is reduced. It is, although I shall not generate a groan from your Lordships by saying why. He talked about the abolition of the RDAs but he will also be aware of the local enterprise partnerships. They are not primarily a funding vehicle but they are a means of putting together stakeholders, who can then get on to the local transport authority and bid for money. The noble Lord talked about the Highways Agency and, in particular, the A1 in the north-east. That is a very important point. We have made a start, in that the A1 is now on the strategic route network and is therefore managed by the Highways Agency, although it will still be a long time before it is dualled.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister a quick question about smart ticketing, which he mentioned. I declare an interest as a director of LASSeO, the Local Authority Smartcard Standards e-Organisation, which looks after and promotes SNAPI, the Special Needs Application Program Interface. This is a very useful thing that is underadopted. It tailors the terminals that people use to put credit on their cards, the gates that people go through and things like that, to the special needs that individuals might have when they use the system. In the transport system, gates may close too quickly if someone is a bit slow. People who are colour-blind also need special help. The system is useful but has been largely ignored. Will the Minister look at allocating a small amount of money—not a lot is needed—to encourage the take-up of this standard for smart ticketing systems that are introduced? If the Minister would like to look it up, the system was developed by Dr John Gill.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Earl makes an important point about smart ticketing. There is no doubt that better ticketing systems encourage the use of public transport. They encourage me, and I am sure that they encourage many others. He talked about better systems. We are aware that what technology can do for us will rapidly improve. Noble Lords will be aware that the power of laptop computers doubles every 18 months. I would appreciate it if he would brief me on these matters; I would find that very useful.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, the section on the scope of the fund in the guidance on the application process refers to making,
“public transport, walking and cycling the most attractive sustainable travel options. For journeys involving a variety of routes to and from suburban areas and rural hinterlands”.
To that I would add urban services. I live in Colne in Lancashire. If one wants to go to the centre of Colne—to a doctor or to the shops—it is called going up Colne. That is what people say, for the good reason that the town is built on a hill. Many people live on the other side of the valley. They have to go down and up. I am a councillor there, and in my ward we started the route 16 bus service, the Lenches and Bunkers Hill circular, in 1986 after bus deregulation. It has been quite successful. There are only five journeys a day. However, you cannot make it more sustainable if you take it away. Lancashire County Council has now decided that it will take away the service, which is much needed by old people, those with less mobility and so on, to get up Colne. Will the Government, as well as cutting money to local authorities, make some of this fund available for more innovative ways of providing services when current services are reduced for financial reasons?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have the same problem; I live on a hill. I am not sure that I would like to ride a bicycle up it, but I will try in the summer. The noble Lord will know that bus routes and bus provision are matters for the local transport authority. He talked about the need for innovative solutions. I agree with him, but it is for local transport authorities to develop these solutions. Our role is to encourage them, not to tell them exactly what to do by means of a long screwdriver.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister on the Statement. The first concerns the carbon implications of transport investment decisions. Does he not accept that one of the great successes of the previous Labour Government was the over-60s bus pass, which ensured that many pensioners either leave their cars at home or use them less frequently, and use buses a great deal more? Will he give a guarantee and a commitment that that bus pass is safe and will not be removed or reduced, or the terms altered to the detriment of the over-60s, to ensure that we keep people on buses and not in their cars?
Secondly, as a former Road Safety Minister in Northern Ireland, I take a great interest in road safety measures. The Minister was right to highlight the reduction in the number of young people and children who have been killed or seriously injured. One of my concerns is the reduction in the number of safety cameras across the country, which many in his party support. Does he feel that the number of young people—or people of any age—who are killed or seriously injured on the roads will increase as a result of the reduction in the number of safety cameras?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness talked about carbon implications and the over-60s bus pass. She asked for an absolute commitment. I confess that I had not anticipated the question. Perhaps the best approach would be for her to ask a Written Question, whereupon she will get a categorical answer. She also talked about safety cameras. Speaking for Her Majesty's Government, I say that we will watch very carefully what happens and monitor the accident statistics. That is the only thing that we can do.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, perhaps I might press the Minister on the issue of the Highways Agency, and the powers on the classification of roads—particularly A-roads—that will be passed to local authorities. Trunk roads controlled by the Highways Agency run through urban areas but are treated in practice as local roads. I declare an interest as a member of Newcastle City Council, but I am talking in particular about our western bypass. Issues arise over the powers of the local authority, particularly where the council's roads dissect the Highways Agency's trunk roads. I would appreciate guidance from the Minister on what additional powers local councils might have over the Highways Agency in situations such as that.
Earl Attlee
I do not think local transport authorities will have powers over the Highways Agency. I do not think that there is any superiority issue with the Highways Agency or the local transport authority. We would expect them to consult each other, particularly when the local transport authority is reclassifying a road. Sometimes it may be considering reclassifying a road that is nowhere near a Highways Agency road, and I am not sure that it has to consult the Highways Agency. Clearly, when it could affect a Highways Agency route—routes on the strategic road network—I am sure it would consult.
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
(13 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
“( ) For the purposes of rule 2(1) the electorate shall be defined as the registered electorate, adjusted by the Electoral Commission’s best estimate of the unregistered electorate.
( ) In making that estimate, the Electoral Commission shall take account of the known socio-economic profile of that constituency.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, the Bill provides for an equalisation in constituencies so that their electorates have to fall within bands of plus or minus 5 per cent, with only two exceptions. This amendment proposes a small but important change that that should be not plus or minus 5 per cent of the electorates but plus or minus 5 per cent of a notional electorate, which is calculated to provide for shortfalls in registration.
I will turn to the substance of the argument in a minute, but I want to make one point that pervaded our earlier debates and which, as the House’s resident statistical geek, rather grates on me: the tendency of people to prefer an exact figure, however ill based and peculiar, to an estimated figure, however well calculated. The fact is that the registered electorate is a very poor figure indeed for calculating anything. I will come to the detail in a minute, but will say now that only 91 to 92 per cent of the actual electorate are registered. Some 3.5 million people are missing from the electoral register. We all want better registration, but it will not come in an instant. So it is not really a good figure.
I cannot help but contrast the imprecision of that number—not that it is a precise number; it is a meaningless number—with the precision of the 5 per cent that is allowed each way. I have argued in various contexts that the Bill is too inflexible for the purpose that we all share, which is equalising the size of constituencies. That led me to wonder whether there was not a way of coming up with a notional figure for electorates that more nearly reflected both up-to-date figures and the actuality of the number of should-be electors in each constituency that also deals with non-registration.
I remind the Committee of the figures. Non-registration is very serious, but it is concentrated in particular groups. The Electoral Commission published in March 2010 a study, The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain. The figures given in it are striking: 56 per cent of 17 to 24 year-olds are not registered. Of private sector tenants, 49 per cent are not registered. Of people from black and ethnic minorities, 31 per cent are not registered. That distorts the figures on which we are trying to base size of constituency in the future.
If those figures are soundly based—everyone can look at the Electoral Commission’s study and see how soundly based they think they are, but it seemed a good piece of work to me—it would be possible to construct mathematically and with no great difficulty a model that provided a decent estimate of what the electorate in each constituency would be if everyone who is eligible to register had done so. This would have certain effects. For example, it would mean that inner-city areas tended to have rather more representation, while stable suburban areas had rather less.
There are various advantages to this. First, MPs represent everyone. Therefore, an estimate of the notional electorate—actually, the number of people who really live in their areas—would be nearer to the number of everyone whom they represented than the actual registered electorate. Secondly, it would be a more robust measure in a system of registration that will have great noise and perhaps instability injected into it. In principle, individual registration is a great thing. As we know from Northern Ireland, the reality, at least at first, can be very different from the theory.
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord’s amendments are always very clever—first class; a lot of work goes into them. Who would establish the model to apply to constituencies, who would decide which model was applied to which constituency, and how long would the noble Lord propose for that to take?
Lord Lipsey
The Electoral Commission would be the obvious body to do this work, because it has done the original study and is very familiar with it. I do not think that it would take long at all, given a decent computer; it is a perfectly simple mathematical formula. It would generate a notional electorate for each constituency. I agree with the noble Lord—I was going to say this later—that there are practical matters to be sorted out later about whether the proposal is workable. That is why I said that the amendment is exploratory and is not necessarily the finished article.
Lord Rennard
Before the noble Lord develops his argument much further, perhaps he could tell us what consultation he has had with the Electoral Commission about this rather unusual proposal, which gives the Electoral Commission potentially tremendous power that could involve it in huge political controversy? We have always agreed in this House that it is important that the Electoral Commission is seen to be above party political controversy wherever possible. Does the noble Lord not think that conferring on the Electoral Commission the power to make crude estimates of the electorate for the purpose of redrawing constituency boundaries and somehow to define socio-economic profiles in making those estimates would embroil it in such huge controversy that it would undermine much of the rest of its work? Perhaps he could tell us what consultation he has had with the Electoral Commission.
Lord Lipsey
I am happy to: I have not. I was going to suggest that the Government should now embark on such consultation. The noble Lord seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill. The Electoral Commission and the Boundary Commission already deal with matters of extraordinary—
Lord Lipsey
Please may I finish answering one question before I address another?
Lord Lipsey
The commissions already deal with matters of extraordinary complexity and political controversy. On the basis of the evidence that I have seen, this would seem to be not a difficult exercise and not necessarily very controversial in its outcomes. It is more a matter for mathematicians and statisticians than for politicians, and that is how it should be.
I was going to invite the Government to consult on these proposals before Report—there may be some hitch to them that has not occurred to me—but it would be a very sad day if you were not allowed in Committee in this House to raise a proposal unless you had bottomed it out with every interest group and authority that might be involved. I think that occasionally one is allowed to play with one’s bright ideas.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, is next. I look forward to hearing several more interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in a minute.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite referred to “crude estimates” landing in the political arena. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who is not in his place, and I have had a running dialogue throughout the Bill about using other databases to put people on the register. These would provide not crude estimates but hard facts drawn from databases to which local government, the Electoral Commission and others should have access and would be able to use to give not an estimate but the real number of people not on the register.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord sustains the point I am making. This is not a completely impossible exercise and other data sources could be brought in to meet the point. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene again?
Lord Rennard
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that I was suggesting that every organisation had to be consulted before we could consider something like this, and I was not. I was suggesting that it would have been proper to discuss it with the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord said that the Electoral Commission deals with Boundary Commission matters, but of course it does not. As it was set up in 2000, it was going to be responsible for boundary committee reviews but, when this House considered the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it felt that the Electoral Commission was dealing with too many and too wide a range of issues. The commission itself suggested that it should have its remit narrowed and that it should concentrate on what was really important and not be responsible for matters such as Boundary Commission reviews. I suggest the Electoral Commission would not welcome being tasked with this purpose.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord might be right. I did not say that this particular proposal should go to everyone for consultation. I said, in general, that I did not agree with the proposition that you could not raise an issue in this House in Committee without first consulting everyone who might be affected. This amendment has been on the Marshalled List since the moment I tabled it.
Lord Lipsey
Will the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, please be very kind and allow me to finish my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, inadequate though it might well be?
The amendment has been on the Marshalled List for two or three weeks. We have had briefings from the Electoral Commission in the course of the proceedings on this Bill, and if it thought this was nonsense it could have said that it was nonsense in one of those briefings. It has not done so and I do not intend to apologise for raising the matter this evening.
Lord McAvoy
I urge my noble friend not to give too much—if any—credence to anything the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has to say about political controversy and lack of consultation. He supports a constitutional Bill that is being rammed through this House and that has had no pre-legislative scrutiny, no consultation and no appeal. I urge him not to pay too much attention to the noble Lord. In fact, I would not pay any attention to him.
Lord Lipsey
I have been paying great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for many years and I have learnt many things from him. Although I cannot say that I agree with him on absolutely every issue, the noble Lord and I agree privately on more things than we disagree about.
I wanted to be brief but, because of the interventions, I have been a bit too long. I think that any moment now someone will move that the Question be now put and so I must try to draw towards a conclusion.
The Government might be a little nervous of this because they think it will affect them adversely, but I do not think it would. In fact, some of the constituencies that would be likely to gain greater representation as a result of my proposal are held by Conservatives, the Cities of London and Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea being very good examples. In any case, as we established in the valuable discussions that we have had on the Bill, size of constituency is not the crucial factor in the bias that exists within the electoral system, and therefore it is unlikely that changing size will make a big difference to the actual results in a general election.
I have tried to put this forward in a tentative spirit, although some have tried to elevate it into a proposition that requires a 100 per cent justification before it is raised in Committee. It would represent a minor but important change to the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that, in the spirit that Ministers have been applying to most debates more recently—if not that on the Isle of Wight—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will at least give a considered response. If he feels it would be fit to give it a further whirl around, he has the necessary expertise and I hope he will agree to that. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is splitting hairs. There is a principle behind the amendment, which my noble friend is saying is that the register is incomplete and there must be some way of adding to it those groups of people who should be on it but who are not for all sorts of reasons. In trying to identify them, socio-economic data based on the profile of any particular constituency should be taken into account. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, but the noble Lord is splitting hairs on whether the Electoral Commission is equipped to carry out that function.
This is a particularly important case. It goes to the heart of many of the amendments that we have moved and dealt with over the past few weeks and no doubt will deal with over the next few weeks as well, which is that the register is inaccurate and that population is important. Therefore we have to find a formula for establishing what the population is in any given constituency in the United Kingdom.
I have been following the debates on the question of the census. Last weekend I had the pleasure of reading a report from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I suspect that Ministers have not read it. Indeed, I would ask the noble Lord whether he has actually ever read it. It is impossible to consider this legislation without reading this report because it repeatedly draws attention to all the concerns that were expressed, and in some areas it does so in greater detail than the report produced by our own Constitution Committee in the House of Lords did.
I refer to a particular section in which the Minister responsible for the Bill in the House of Commons was asked questions by Ms Catherine McKinnell on the census. At the end of the quotation, I ask the Minister to note what I am asking for because it would be helpful to have the answer set out. I will read out what is unhelpful to my case and what is helpful. On the 2011 census, Mr Harper said:
“There are two difficulties with using Census data. The first is that Census data is of population and does not look at whether people are eligible to vote, and of course many people who live in the UK are not citizens and are not eligible to vote for various reasons. The second difficulty relates to the level of detail of the information collected in the time available. Clearly, Electoral Registration Officers are able to access Census data and use it, but Census data at the individual level that could be used to track whether actual people exist, so that they could be approached, is not published at that level of detail, but it is aggregated”.
When it is aggregated, I presume that there must be some data behind the aggregation. I wonder what those data are. They may not be published, but I wonder whether they are available.
Mr Harper goes on to say in his reply:
“Therefore, with regard to electoral administrators using it as a source to identify people who exist in an area and who are not registered, they can look at overall number and make some assumptions, but it does not really give them the detail to drill down”.
That is based on the aggregated data. Again, what is the material behind those aggregated data? He then says—and this is where my noble friend Lord Maxton has become involved in the debate, unless we are talking about other matters here:
“There are other data sets that might be more helpful in that regard that we are going to pilot in 2011”,
to which the noble Lord has referred.
“There is no bar on them using the data that is published.”
Can we have a list of all those sources of data? I have seen references in various documents to bits and pieces of data, but I have not seen an aggregate list of all the additional sources of data that can be taken into account by registration officers when they carry out their functions.
I am also trying to establish whether there is some way in which those additional data can also be used by the Boundary Commission in carrying out its work, or are those additional data somehow excluded because of the fact that we seem to be confined to the use of data that were drawn up in 2010? We should have a very clear statement as to what actual data the Boundary Commission can take into account when it draws up its reports on individual constituencies.
I have always presumed that when the Barnett formula was established, the allocations for Scotland took into account the data that my noble friend is referring to, but perhaps I misunderstand how the Barnett formula is calculated. I also understand that some areas of local government finance are also influenced by socio-economic data at the local level. Is that not the data source that my noble friend Lord Lipsey is referring to? Is it the kind of source that my noble friend is referring to? I do not know. Perhaps the Minister might be able to clarify whether that could be the source of the additional information that my noble friend would seek to include in the information that is necessary to draw up the boundaries.
Lord Maxton
My Lords, I hope to be brief and hope that the cameramen from the Independent are taking photographs on that side this time to note those who are closing their eyes and going to sleep.
We have been talking about the 3.5 million who are not registered. I think in a modern democracy everybody has a right to be on the register and therefore a right to vote. It is not just a matter of taking the 3.5 million people into account in dividing up the various constituencies. It should be their right. Whether they vote or not is a matter for them; that is their right. But in my view—and as I listen to these debates it has increasingly become my view—that it should be the responsibility of Government to make sure that people are on the register, not the right of the individual to take that decision. It should be the Government’s decision.
In the modern world that is now possible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and I have been having this ongoing debate—it has been a very friendly debate—about the use of other databases to find people who are not on the register. When somebody is found through another data source—social security records, medical records, local government records, housing records, school records, or whatever else—it seems to me that the Government’s view is that it is useful to check the register that exists. It is not to be used to ensure that people go on the register. If you find an 18 year-old who has left school and has not registered not on the register when he is clearly living at that address—because that was where he was at school, and as far as you know he has not moved—do you put him on the register? In my view, that is exactly what should happen. He should be put on the register so that we have a register that is much more accurate than the one that we have at present, and we are also fulfilling our democratic duty of giving people the right to vote if they wish to use it. That should be key to what we are doing.
The argument in the past would be that of course you had to send people round to houses and check the register. It was the argument in the past—and listening to these debates, I sometimes wonder what world people in this House live in. It was a physical act, but it is now electronic. You do a search for a particular name on your computer, in the electoral register that you have there, and up will come the name and address. You can then cross-reference that without moving from your desk on your computer with another data source that you have, and you can see whether the names and addresses marry up. That takes a few seconds, not the hours and hours that many noble Lords seem to think it would take to carry out that task. Yes, the records exist and, yes, we should be using all the databases not just to check the register but to put people on the register when we get the opportunity to do so.
Lastly, as I know noble Lords will expect me to say, this whole process would have been so much easier if we had had compulsory ID cards from the beginning. If we had everybody with an ID card who was a British citizen, that would have become the easy, straight source of an electoral register.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me? My title is Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton. A very strong resistance to being on the electoral register developed as a result of the preceding tax to the council tax, the poll tax, which led to many people refusing to put their name to the electoral register. We still have a remnant of that about, in that people fear that, given a Conservative Government with Lib Dem support, it could come back.
Lord Maxton
I entirely agree with my noble friend. In a previous existence, I was the Scottish Office spokesman for the Labour Party on the poll tax in Scotland. Nowadays there is no fine at all and no compulsion on anyone to register in terms of the law, but the Conservative Government of the day increased very considerably the fines that were available to the courts to fine people if they did not fill in the registration forms. Why? Because they knew that the register was the best way of trying to ensure that they got the poll tax paid. Some people were advised not to go on the electoral register. I think that was wrong, but large numbers of young people did exactly that.
I think that we should have had compulsory ID cards. This whole question of who was or was not registered would have been solved, and it would have been to the benefit of our society. Yes, it would have cost money, but the registration process would have been much cheaper and the health service might well have been considerably better and cheaper, and there would have been a whole range of other benefits that would have accrued from having it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Does my noble friend agree that were all these people to be registered, support for local authorities that is grossly weighted towards the south of England might have better reflected the needs of the north?
Lord Maxton
I cannot disagree with my noble friend. I think I have made my point.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I originally planned to make a very straightforward speech in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I will not rise to the helpful and interesting trail that my noble friend Lord Maxton has dragged along the ground about ID cards, but his analysis is accurate. We would have had a much clearer database that could inform the electoral registration process and much else besides. However, I will not go down that road.
I cannot allow the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, about the north being disadvantaged because of the south. However, the point that I want to make about the amendment is that it is accepted throughout the House that there are inadequacies with the current level of electoral registration. I have not heard any noble Lord arguing that the electoral register is currently a perfect piece of data collection. It is inadequate. There are significant shortfalls. Reference has been made to the report done by the Electoral Commission in March 2010 The Completeness and Accuracy of Electoral Registers in Great Britain. Noble Lords can see that that is clear in terms of the number of people who should be registered but are not. But the significant point and the one that I want to make which has not been made so far in this debate is that the shortfall is variable.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does my noble friend agree that one of the variables is the zeal of the local authority officers responsible for that?
Lord Harris of Haringey
It is not only a question of the zeal, but of the budgets that they are allocated and the way in which that resource is used.
If noble Lords look at the register, they will find that there is a shortfall that is variable throughout the country and in different types of area. If we accept, as no doubt the noble Lords opposite all do, that the objective of this legislation is to create fairness across the country, the Bill has to address the shortfalls in electoral registration and, in particular, the variables between different parts of the country.
In the Electoral Commission’s March 2010 study there were a number of case studies in various parts of the country. One was in London, in Lambeth. It has a population of 266,169 and a population density of 99.2 persons per hectare. There is an ethnic minority population of 50.4 per cent and worklessness of 16 per cent and so on. In particular, figures were quoted for the percentage of households that were in the private rented sector and the percentage of residents who had moved in the past 12 months.
In the London Borough of Lambeth, 17.7 per cent of those on the register had moved in the previous 12 months. That is a substantial degree of turnover and churn. In my experience of being an elected politician in London for many years, that degree of churn and turnover was a particular facet of many parts of London. It would be true of many other inner-city areas and parts of the country, but it was not uniform. It was not uniform in London and it is not uniform around the country. Therefore, without the sort of amendment moved by my noble friend—or an alternative because there are a number of other possible ways of addressing this—the Bill is in danger of institutionalising poorer representation in certain sorts of area.
I looked at the paper produced by London councils in the past few months which examined the 2001 census. This paper tries to ensure that next year’s census will be a better one. Yet even if we use the census data as the source of information about what the population and the registered electorate ought to be, there are problems. Kensington and Chelsea—not, I have to say, the typical example of a rundown inner-city area—had the lowest response rate in the country to the 2001 census. Its response rate was 64 per cent. I suspect that the good residents of Kensington and Chelsea might not be interested in filling in the form about the census, but would probably make considerable efforts to make sure that they were on the electoral register to return MPs of a particular colour to Parliament. The point is that there was that degree of poor response even to the census in that part of London.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My credentials are that I was an elected councillor for the ward of Golborne in north Kensington. My noble friend will have to be a little careful in talking about Kensington and Chelsea as an affluent borough, when the northern part of Kensington has some of the areas of highest deprivation in the country. It was a cauldron of social movement, with fair housing and the first legal advice bureau with Peter Kandler. It was an area of multi-deprivation, so there must be considerable variations within the one London borough from the affluent south to the relatively disadvantaged north.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Indeed, that is the case. The interesting issue about that, since we were talking earlier today about the importance of community, is that that is one area where we now see parliamentary constituencies straddling local borough boundaries in London. I think that the MP for the area that my noble friend described is Karen Buck, who also represents part of Westminster. It is a bad idea to cross London borough boundaries; I suspect that we will return to that at a later stage in this Committee. However, my point is about the degree of underrepresentation. I picked on Kensington and Chelsea because, apart from those pockets which my noble friend knows so well, it is not regarded in most people’s minds as being an area of acute deprivation—although parts of it are.
The figures are: in Hackney, there was a 72 per cent response rate; in Tower Hamlets it was 76 per cent; in Hammersmith and Fulham, 76 per cent; in Camden, 77 per cent; in Southwark, 77 per cent; in Islington, 78 per cent, and in Lambeth, 79 per cent. The point is that the work which has been done where there are concentrations of poor response, either to the census or to electoral registration, demonstrates a number of characteristics. First, the highest non-response rates come from those who rent from a housing association or a council. There are higher non-response rates: where the occupants are from black, Asian or mixed ethnic groups; where the household contains a single-parent family; where the average age of the people in the household is 70-plus; and in areas with higher income deprivation scores.
I am not making any moral judgment about people in those households. I am only reflecting the research that has been done, which demonstrates that there are certain socioeconomic characteristics suggesting, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey has identified, that there will be lower rates of registration.
Lord Rooker
My noble friend makes an interesting point and I am not gainsaying anything that he has said, but the other propensity among the groups that he has just listed is that of knowing how to apply for housing benefit. Therefore, they are on a list and the local authorities know, because we know the propensity and the distribution. I cannot see what the problem is or why, on the census, we put up with this low rate when there is easily obtainable information to know that there are people there. The propensity to claim is co-related exactly with the groups that my noble friend has just listed. I do not understand why we still have this problem now, let alone having had it 10 years ago.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said. He is right—it is not something that we should necessarily tolerate. If there was much more of the passing of these registers, electronically, between the various agencies, or if we adopted the simple solution that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, put forward—that of an identity card—we would resolve some of these problems. However, my point is not that we could resolve them like this, but that there is a wide variation, which is not standard in terms of the degree of electoral registration, and that it happens to be correlated with certain types of socioeconomic group.
My noble friend Lady Farrington, before she made her tendentious comments about the north and the south, made a point about the consequences and implications of the poll tax.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
I would like to correct any misunderstanding I created. I was referring to government allocation of resources to local authorities, not to a disparity between the north and the south in terms of electoral registration. Some of us believe that there are some leafy suburbs in the south—not the sort of area that my noble friend represented so well for so long—that have done quite well out of the Government’s financial allocation to local authorities.
Lord Harris of Haringey
That is certainly the case in one or two parts of London, though, as a general principle, London subsidises the rest of the country, particularly the countryside, to a quite extortionate extent.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Well, you did draw me on to it. When you bear in mind that the population of London is the same as the populations of Scotland, Wales and, I think, Northern Ireland combined, there is underresourcing of London, which is, after all, the economic engine of the United Kingdom. However, that is not the point that I wish to engage with and I suspect that, if we persist in it, it will offend Members opposite.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The point I am trying to make, which is very important, is that there is a variation in the registration that it is linked, for whatever reasons, to certain socioeconomic groups and may be linked to the history of the poll tax and the community charge. I well remember the way in which official statistics on the number registered plummeted in the time of the poll tax. I was the leader of a local authority at that time; we had the distinction of setting the highest community charge in the country, because of the underresourcing of a borough such as mine—no doubt akin to one or two of the areas that my noble friend refers to elsewhere in the country. The point is that there is a variation.
If noble Lords believe that we are trying to create a fairer electoral system—and we are all, presumably, signed up to that—we have to address that problem. It might be an acceptable argument to say that we would simply go with the last electoral register, if the degree of underrepresentation were consistent in every constituency—but it is not. It is biased towards specific areas. I am not going to suggest that the reason there is a reluctance to resolve that issue is because it is biased against certain types of community which might have a propensity to vote in a particular way. I am not going to make that suggestion, I am simply going to make the point that, if we really believe in a fairer electoral system, we have to address this issue of underrepresentation.
It will take some time to deal with it, whether we go down the identity card route recommended by my noble friend Lord Maxton, or whether we try to cross-reference different registers. Therefore, if the Government are intent on going ahead with this legislation at this speed, they have to put into the system some mechanism for making the adjustment that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has put forward, and I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replies to this debate he will acknowledge that there is a problem with underregistration, that that is variable and that the Government must address it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, one of the consequences of this Bill is that it forces the Boundary Commission to construct a new electoral map on the basis of the electoral register as it stood last month, December 2010. There is no dispute between anyone in this House that millions of eligible voters are missing from that register. In 2005 the Electoral Commission estimated that 3.5 million eligible voters were missing from the electoral roll in England and Wales alone—that was based on five-year-old figures. A more recent estimate by Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, the leading academic expert on electoral registration, suggests that the figure for the whole of the United Kingdom today could be closer to 6 million potentially registrable electors.
According to the House of Commons Library, in excess of 400 parliamentary constituencies have a registration rate of at least 95 per cent, but over 200 seats have a rate below that number and around 100 seats have a rate below the national average of 91 per cent. In a significant number of cases, mainly in urban constituencies, around 80 per cent of the eligible electorate is registered to vote. That means that one in five voters is missing in some constituencies, predominantly those with a lower income profile.
The Electoral Commission investigation that I have referred to before, which was published in March last year, shines more light on the socioeconomic characteristics. In the course of these debates, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has explicitly agreed that,
“under-registration is notably higher than average among 17-24 year olds (56% not registered), private sector tenants (49%) and black and minority ethnic British residents (31%)”.
The commission’s report, published in May 2010, said:
“The highest concentrations of under-registration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas, smaller towns and cities with large student populations, and coastal areas with significant population turnover and high levels of social deprivation”.
Given that the Government’s stated aim is to create more equal-sized constituencies and has always been fairer votes, one assumes that they are concerned about using an unequal register to pursue that objective—unequal in that there is not a consistent level of underregistration right across the country. By excluding the missing voters from this rigidly arithmetical review of constituency boundaries, the Government will inevitably and in practice distort the electoral map of Britain and dilute the representation of people who come from the specific groups that I have just identified. That would be unfair and fundamentally undemocratic. It is difficult to see how the Government want knowingly to proceed with a process that will deliver that outcome, particularly in the light of the stated fundamental aims of the review.
It is true to say that, over the past decades, boundary reviews have been conducted on the basis of the existing incomplete electoral registers, and previous electoral registers will have been more inaccurate than the electoral register now. So why change from that process? The answer is that in recent times there has never been a review of the scale being proposed here, with probably every single constituency being affected by the review that will take place, at some speed, up to October 2013, and of course 50 seats being chopped in the process.
In addition, under the previous arrangements—this is a secondary point—the process was always balanced by the opportunity for genuine public consultation, via the local public inquiries that this plan does not just abolish but forbids the Boundary Commission to conduct. Moreover, under the previous arrangements, the Boundary Commissions had the ability to take into account at least the direction of travel of the populations of these places. Therefore, they were able to take into account over a period of time what the likely population was going to be. There has never been such a large-scale review in the past. There will be no local inquiries at which these points can be made and, because numbers have to come first in all save three constituencies, there is no scope to try to build them in as one of the discretionary factors.
Two options are open: one is to pause and work to get the missing eligible voters on the register. That has been persistently and aggressively rejected by Ministers from the Dispatch Box in this House. If the timetable cannot be altered, why not do as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lipsey proposes and ask—or instruct through this statute—the Boundary Commission to use a formula that would enable missing eligible voters to be factored into its deliberations? A range of data sets can be used. There would be inaccuracies but I respectfully suggest that the probably minor inaccuracies that would arise would be a very worthwhile price to pay to get greater equality and fairness in our electoral boundaries, as they would reflect more accurately not just those who were registered but those who were entitled to be registered.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey has said that this is a probing amendment and described it as tentative in some respects. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s answer to the amendment, particularly as Ministers have acknowledged the problem but, with respect, have not really come up with a solution. They have said, “It is just one of those things. We’re doing some data matching pilots”. I hope that there will be proposals to deal with the issue because, if there are not, in my respectful submission that undermines what has been said about the fairness which the Government seek to obtain.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is now in his place as, in answer to a question from me a long time ago, he gave the House an assurance that the Government would attempt to ensure that the problem that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has raised would be tackled. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, can now explain to the House how the Government have been tackling it and intend to tackle it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in expressing pleasure at the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. However, I am disappointed that, far from it being the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is to reply to the amendment, and who could have explained how the Government will deliver on their assurance, it will be the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I assure the Committee that I have no intention of allowing the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to steal my thunder on this amendment. I have waited some 11 and a half days to reply to this subject, which we have discussed several times. I want to become more knowledgeable on many of these issues and this gives me an opportunity to do so. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for the way in which he introduced his amendment. He said that it was a probing amendment and I can understand why. I will spare him all the details but it is not technically perfect and I do not think that it would achieve what he wants it to achieve. However, I understand the issue that he is trying to resolve.
The amendment seeks to amend the definition of “electorate” to include those eligible to register who have not done so. It would require the Electoral Commission to make an estimate of the unregistered electorate and include this in the figures used by the Boundary Commission to draw up constituencies. The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to take into account the socioeconomic profile of each constituency in estimating the number of unregistered eligible voters.
The most important principle here must be to make sure that one elector means one vote. For this to be the case there must be broad equality in the number of registered electors in each constituency. That is the key principle. The only question then is of how best to achieve it. Surely that is to use the register of electors and make sure that it is as accurate as possible. While we know that there is underregistration, we must also remember that the registration rate in the UK—estimated at around 90 per cent—is broadly in line with that of comparable democracies. The electoral register has been the basis of boundary reviews for decades, under Governments of all shades.
Lord Beecham
Do the Government have a view on the impact of individual registration on the likely overall levels of registration when that comes into effect? Is it not likely that individual registration will reduce the number of registered electors, particularly in those areas with a socioeconomic profile that already causes problems?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not see why that should be the case.
It is also not straightforward to determine the number of people missing from the register. Although it would be possible to match population estimates against registration numbers to generate a notional rate, population data are estimated and would include some people who are not eligible to register to vote due, for example, to nationality. The Electoral Commission itself, in its recent report on underregistration, calls the process of estimating registration rates “an imprecise science” and says:
“All current approaches to estimating the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers at a national level are imperfect”.
The House has already heard about the limitations of the population data that would inevitably be the basis of any estimation. We will return to this in the next group of amendments.
Introducing estimated figures—acknowledged as imprecise and imperfect—into the calculation of constituency size risks introducing inaccuracies or inconsistencies across the UK, as my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out. In the interests of a fair and equal system, where each person’s vote across the UK has the same weight, constituencies should be calculated on the basis of registered electors, as the Bill proposes. To do otherwise would be to perpetuate a situation in which some votes are more equal than others.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I want to pick up on something that the Minister has just said. When asked in an intervention whether individual registration would lead to a reduction in the register, he just said no. I asked him earlier whether he had read the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, which deals with that matter in great detail. All the witnesses, including those from the Government and Boundary Commission people, have conceded that there is likely to be a drop. Does the Minister not think that at this stage on the Bill, with controversial areas to come, he should read that report, which will hugely enlighten him on these very important areas?
Lord Strathclyde
That is a kind offer by the noble Lord, and I shall make sure that my officials have read the report.
The Government do not believe that it should be compulsory to register. It should be a matter of personal choice.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the issue of individual registration cannot possibly make any difference as far as the amendment is concerned, because we are of course referring to the electoral register of December 2010, which could not possibly be affected by individual registration? I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has introduced a completely irrelevant red herring.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will have read the report cover to cover and could enlighten the Leader of the House?
Lord Campbell-Savours
Can I make a suggestion before the noble Lord sits down? He might want to visit those jurisdictions in various parts of the world where you do not even have to come to the Dispatch Box to read your brief. All you have to do is give it to the Clerks and they can put it on the record for you.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have never heard of that, but perhaps it should be a matter for the committee of my noble friend Lord Goodlad.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked about the Boundary Commission’s use of databases when drawing up these constituencies. He will know this, because we have had this debate several times during Committee and I am not planning to give a hugely different answer from the one that he has already heard. This year, we plan trials—
Lord Maxton
The problem is not whether there is a database—we have had that debate—but what use will be made of the database once the Electoral Commission and local authorities have that information. Will it be to add people to the electoral register, or is it just to check the electoral register?
Lord Strathclyde
First of all, it will be up to them to decide what they want to use the databases for.
Lord Maxton
Does that mean that the Electoral Commission can add people to the electoral register in any particular area and then use those people to calculate where the boundary division should be?
Lord Strathclyde
No, the commission will be using a register of electors. It may well wish to use a database to see where potential electors are, who can then register. What are these databases? Let me just—
Lord Strathclyde
Let me just finish the point that I am trying to get to on the databases. I have a fascinating list: the databases that we are concentrating on are those held by the DWP, HMRC, the DVLA, the national pupil database held by the DfE, MoD data on service personnel and the Student Loan Company. I am happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Perhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten me, but I had understood that the fundamental principle of data sharing was that the use to which data would be put would be made explicit. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Maxton’s question on what permissions are being given to the Electoral Commission in terms of what it can use the data for is absolutely pertinent. Have the Government given permission that the data can be used for adding to the list, or is it simply for checking whether people have erroneously registered?
Lord Strathclyde
This gives me an opportunity to read out the final couple of lines of my brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has worked hard on all this. He said that the amendment was probing. He has demonstrated great care in bringing this issue forward again. I am extremely happy, if it would be helpful, to facilitate a meeting with him and my officials to go through the matter with him.
Lord Lipsey
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that offer, which I would happily take up for my education, if not for that of his officials. It enables me to make a point, because a lot more noble Lords are in the Chamber now than when they were enjoying pudding and I was moving the amendment. With the exception of the utterly disgraceful spat between north and south on my own Benches, anyone reading the debate, which has lasted for just over an hour, would agree that it was in the very best traditions of this House—as was the previous debate about the Isle of Wight. Without going into the past, I hope that I speak for the House in being glad that, on this amendment, we have returned to our great traditions in this Chamber.
Perhaps I may make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Perhaps, having just come into the Chamber, he missed the point that I made at the beginning, which goes to the heart of this matter. He rightly said that these estimates of notional electorates would be imprecise, which of course is true. However, a figure that is imprecise is not necessarily worse than a figure that is utterly precise and utterly bogus, and that is what the electoral registers are. By consent, the registers are only 91 to 92 per cent accurate overall. Also by consent, in many areas their accuracy is very well short of those figures. There would also be imprecision in the estimates—of course I accept that and it would be silly to do otherwise—but I think that that imprecision would be very much less than the precise falsity represented by the numbers on the electoral register.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Before the noble Lord concludes and decides whether he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, perhaps, like me, he was so bowled over by the very engaging offer of a meeting by the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he missed whether he accepts the principle that the unfairness of the underregistration is differentially spread around the country and that, if the Government’s objective of fairness is to be achieved, something must be done about that in this Bill.
Lord Lipsey
I wholly agree with what the noble Lord says, and I would have drawn attention to it if I had not been so excited by the prospect that, instead of a weekend off after tonight, I shall spend my time closeted with the Minister’s officials. I can offer them 3 am on Sunday morning or 7 pm on Sunday evening in between writing my speeches for Monday’s proceedings on this Bill, should there be any. I do not want to go on for too long, so I shall resume my seat and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 66ZA withdrawn.
Amendment 66ZB
Lord Lipsey
where U is the population of the United Kingdom aged 18 or over minus the population of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6”
Lord Lipsey
I apologise for the vagaries of the Marshalled List, which mean that I am on my feet twice running. This, again, is a slightly exploratory amendment but it has a serious purpose. The intention behind it is to suggest that, if we are to equalise anything, there is quite a strong case for equalising not electorates but population of voting age. This issue has come up from time to time during our discussions. It is not necessarily a question of either/or; it would be possible to arrive at a figure for equalising which contained an element of both. I may well put down a formula to that effect on Report but I shall not try it out now because I think that it would be a little hard on the Hansard writers.
First, I should say that there are big differences between large constituencies in terms of population and large constituencies in terms of electorate. To take an obvious example, which noble Lords will be able to relate to after our earlier discussion, the Isle of Wight is by a long way the biggest constituency in terms of electorate but it is only the third largest in terms of population. In Regent’s Park and Kensington North, the population of the relevant age was 146,000, which is nearly double the number of registered voters. For Kensington and Chelsea the figure is 135,000 compared with 65,000 registered voters—that is, more than double the electorate. There are 45 seats in which the electorate is less than two-thirds of the population.
Of course, an MP represents everyone who lives in a constituency and not just those who have a vote, so it would seem fair that some allowance should be made for that in terms of workload. This is particularly the case as lower registration tends to be correlated with people with particular kinds of problems, the most obvious being black and ethnic minorities, who are about 30 per cent less likely to be registered but are likely to give rise to a great many problems, such as immigration matters relating to their families. Therefore, there really is a case for taking population into account. The second thing—
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does my noble friend agree that certain constituencies have a disproportionate amount of asylum seekers because they are designated by the Government as areas to which asylum seekers will go? I will give an example. I found that in my constituency surgery perhaps two-thirds of the people who came to me were not on the electoral register because they were asylum seekers. I concede that many of them were sent to me by solicitors, who no doubt hoped to obtain some form of financial assistance for them. Be that as it may, it means that certain constituencies have a far greater workload for their MP.
Lord Lipsey
My noble friend is right. It says a lot for his assiduity, and for that of most Members of another place, that they are prepared to work very hard for people who will never have the chance to vote for them. Those who are cynical about Members of Parliament should bear in mind that remarkable and cheering thought.
I turn to another fact that I had not realised before I prepared for this debate. The system that I propose for discussion in this amendment, whereby constituencies are equalised by virtue of population rather than electorate, is more common in other countries than the use of electorates. Britain has a jolly good constitution; we love it very much and certainly I am not knocking it. However, we should consider this. It is not a silly idea for a system that no country uses. Lewis Baston of Democratic Audit states:
“Most countries use some measure of total population to serve as the basic measure of constituency size, either total population or a modified population such as voting age population … or citizen population. Britain is a member of a minority, albeit a significant minority, of countries that use registered electorate”.
He states that the ACE Project shows that half the countries of the world use total population and one-third use registered voters as the population base. No doubt there are all sorts of ingenious combinations of the two. Countries that use population include decent democracies such as Germany, perhaps slightly less decent democracies such as Italy, and Hungary and the Czech Republic. That is a pretty good list of countries that think the population measure is right. If we are internationalists, we should consider whether we could learn from them, as my other argument suggested that we could.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will reply to this debate. I should be astonished if he did not stand up and say that estimates of population are to a degree inaccurate, which of course is right, and are to a degree out of date. That is also true, although it does not mean that if we decided to go down the population route, it would be beyond the wit of the Office for National Statistics and others to produce more up-to-date estimates of population for this purpose than they do at the moment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is not one of the problems with the Bill the fact that the Lewis Baston material on countries that use population bases does not include how those population statistics were produced? One would have thought, when obviously the Bill was going to be surrounded by discussion about population, that research would have been done by officials in the department to establish the basis on which other countries use population figures. Have they a different way of drawing up census information? None of that information has been made available, which makes it very difficult for us to argue the question of population during the passage of this legislation.
Lord Lipsey
My noble friend makes a very shrewd point. I look forward to discussing that with officials when we have our exciting meeting on notional electorates. It might mean that we go from three to 4.30 in the morning on Sunday, rather than from 3 to 4 am, but I shall be delighted to do that and to bring him the results of any information that they are able to provide.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater)
I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 66A to 66C because of pre-emption.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, my amendment is very simple. I am not quite sure why it is grouped as it is, but I have no interest in degrouping because I hope that there may be some movement from the Minister on this. My amendment is simple and straightforward. There are four characteristics that the Bill tells us a Boundary Commission may take into account when drawing new boundaries. I want to add a fifth which is entirely based on my experience in the other place and with the constituencies that I was privileged to represent.
The fifth characteristic that I would like to add is that the Boundary Commission may take account of local government areas with rapid increases in population. Unusually among amendments, I suggest to the Government that this one could conceivable save them money, which might make ears prick up. The reason I have brought this forward is that the two constituencies I represented had huge electorates. I represented Lichfield and Tamworth until 1979. When I was defeated, the electorate was 101,343. In The Wrekin, which was the second constituency I was able to represent, the electorate before the boundary changes was 90,892. The reaction may well be, “So what? Populations change and move. That is what Boundary Commissions are for”. The reason why I suggest to the Committee that my experience might be relevant and might be worth changing this Bill for is that the population increases in both these constituencies was entirely predictable and pretty accurate. They were both new towns in the West Midlands. Tamworth was a growing and expanding town with projected increases in population and The Wrekin contained Telford new town, which likewise had completely projected and predictable increases in population. All I am suggesting is that these predictable changes in the population should be taken into account when constituency boundaries are drawn because it simply means that constituencies obviously very rapidly become very large and above the quota, I suppose.
I can anticipate one of the things that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, might say, which is that under the Bill as it stands there will be boundary redistributions every five years, so it is easier for these rapid population changes to be taken into account. I stand entirely by my position on this Bill throughout: it is a big mistake to make constituency changes every five years because of the massive uncertainty and instability that creates for MPs and the communities in constituencies. There would be no need for redistributions as rapidly as are compensated for by the five-yearly alterations of the constituency boundaries because in most cases, large increases or changes in population do not come out of a clear blue sky. Certainly in the case of new towns, they are predictable and predicted. This is where my suggestion for money saving comes in. If these factors were taken into account, there would not be the need for quite the frequency of boundary changes.
I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to suggest that there are going to be any changes on that basis, but given that in the case of The Wrekin the population increased by 8,000 between one general election and the next, it would make sense if we made the amendment that I am proposing. As happens when one sits down and looks again at one’s own amendment, I can see a better way of doing it which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and his officials might feel is simpler. Clause 5(1)(a) on page 10 says that,
“special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency”,
can be taken into account by the Boundary Commission. If the noble Lord were to be emollient enough to include “planned population growth” as one of those characteristics, he would make me a Member of this House with a great sense of achievement, so I hope he might consider that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, there are five amendments in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, has her name to one to them. I do not know if she is going to speak to it, but let me deal with them all briefly.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, says that determining the size of constituencies should not be done by reference to the registered electorate nor by reference to the registrable electorate but by reference to the whole population of the constituency. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, is saying that there should be an upper limit in relation to constituencies, just as there is a geographical upper limit in the proposed Bill, so that no constituency should have a total population which is more than 130 per cent of the electoral quota. My noble friend Lord Grocott proposes something slightly different from the others, which is that the Boundary Commission can take into account the explicit consideration of population growth. Where there are local government areas with rapid increases in population, on the basis of the current drafting, that would only be able to be used in relation to the 5 per cent deviation on either side of the electoral quota laid down by the Bill. And the final amendment in this group says we should have regard to the census.
All of these amendments wrestle with the problem that we discussed in the previous group of amendments—namely, what is to be done about the fact that there is substantial representation? I am not in favour of determining the size of constituencies as a starting point from people other than either registered electors or registrable electors. But just as the geographical size of the constituency, based on the burden on the MP who has to get around it, determines that no constituency should be bigger than a certain size, it seems to me to be legitimate to take into account whether or not one has an exception by reference to the total population. That means you still have the electoral quota approach. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is about to intervene. I am more than happy to give way.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think that I am right in saying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, relates to the electoral quota. It cannot be right to use population as the basis for calculating size of constituency with the 95 per cent to 105 per cent variation proposed in the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord last night—I am assuming that the Government may think kindly of it. On that basis, the numerator and the denominator have to be in the same currency: either population or electorate. You cannot have the top of the fraction as electorate and the bottom as population.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
That may be right. What I understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to do, though he must defend it, is replace both the denominator and the numerator, because he puts the total population at the top of the fraction and the number of constituencies, less the two—or now the three—at the bottom and gets to the figure that way. I am not sure that I am following the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The figure is essentially a portion of the population, whereas once you get to the stage of calculating size of constituency with the 95 per cent to 105 per cent variation, it is the electorate that is so far used. I have not seen an amendment which deals with that relationship. Both bases of calculation have to be the same. Which is the better one, I am not saying, but they both have to be the same.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
As far as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is taking U as the total population in Rule 2(b) rather than the registered electorate and dividing it by 600 minus 2, now 3. That then produces something called the electoral quota. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the new schedule states that the electorate of any constituency shall be no less than 95 per cent of the United Kingdom electoral quota and no more than 105 per cent. I assume that we do not need as a matter of drafting to amend paragraph (2)(1)(a) because the electoral quota is simply the number of the population. Therefore, it will be assumed, I assume, that it can be 5 per cent lower than the total population or 105 per cent of it, not 95 per cent or 105 per cent of the registered electorate. The noble Lord can explain it, but I think that it is consistent. I am sure that it is clear to everybody. [Laughter.]
I am rather against that approach. [Laughter.] That is ultimately because the way that our system works is that Parliament defines who is entitled to be on the electoral register. By doing so, it is in effect defining who is entitled to participate in the process of elections. It would be wrong therefore, as a matter of principle, to seek to define constituency boundaries by reference to people, some of whom may be entitled to be on the electoral register and some of whom may not. You will therefore find, for example, that there are constituencies in particular areas—I have in mind central London constituencies; for example, the City of London as well as Kensington and Chelsea—where the population is very high and appears to be very much larger than those on the electoral register.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
While I am inclined to agree on the need for a definitive basis for the size of a constituency, as someone who has represented a constituency I can say that you do not represent only those who vote for you. Among the important considerations for any Member of Parliament are families, their children and their education. To ignore the population below the age of 18 when selecting the size of a constituency that MPs are to represent seems entirely at odds with what MPs do. By all means make the registrable electorate the basis of a constituency, but do not rule out, as some of my noble colleagues have said, all considerations of the population size of the constituency. At present, that element appears to be not included for—in fact, by its omission, it is specifically precluded from—the Boundary Commission’s consideration.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree—not from experience but from what I have been told—that whether or not you are a registered elector does not make any difference to how a Member of Parliament will treat you.
I also agree that, if a constituency has a very large population, that should be reflected in what happens. That is why—although this is a probing amendment and I am speaking tentatively, I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says—the most attractive way of dealing with the issue, in my view, is through the amendment that might be moved by my noble friend Lord Boateng if he is here. Amendment 67A in his name would provide:
“No constituency shall have a total population which is more than 130% of the electoral quota”.
Just as it is accepted that the limit cannot be increased for a constituency with a large geographical area, there should be a similar provision for constituencies with a large population. I have a note to say that my noble friend Lord Boateng is not here, but it is legitimate to refer to his amendment as one of the possible routes that the Government could go down.
The Opposition’s position is that they do not favour the approach of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, although we think that it is a sensible probing amendment. We are attracted by the idea that my noble friend Lord Boateng has put forward, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has to say about that.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Grocott concerns a different issue. It seeks to provide that, in relation to the plus or minus 5 per cent, regard should be had to the fact that an area may be having rapid increases in population. As we understand it, such matters can be taken into account under the current arrangements, but it does not look as though such matters could so easily be taken into account under the new arrangements. When boundary commissioners are considering what the boundaries should be, it would be sensible for them to take that into account.
In all those circumstances, the Committee can see what we favour in this. We will be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has got to say.
Lord McNally
My Lords, when I saw Amendment 66ZB on the Marshalled List, with its strange fraction of U over 598, I thought, “I hope to God it’s Jim Wallace’s turn to answer the debate”. I hope to match the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his grasp of statistics, but I certainly cannot match that of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because, thank God, I do not sit up at 3 am poring over electoral statistics.
Lord McNally
Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reid, that everyone who has ever stood for Parliament and has been lucky enough to win has said in their victory speech that, although they were grateful to the people who had voted for them, it was their determination to serve everyone in the constituency. That is certainly the case.
Lord Maxton
What my noble friend Lord Reid quite rightly said was that it was not just the complete electorate that we represented in the House of Commons, but the total population. That means babes in arms right through to the person lying in hospital about to expire. It means everybody.
Lord McNally
What makes this an absolutely Alice in Wonderland debate is that, when the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, reads Hansard, he will see that that is just what I said. I thank him for his support.
The commitment to represent everybody in the constituency does not necessarily mean, as has been made clear a number of times, that we should look to population rather than registration for basing the electorate. The electoral register has been the basis for boundary reviews since the 1940s. Current constituencies in the other place are drawn up on the basis of electorate, not population. It was made clear earlier this evening that there are reasons and principles for this practice and approach. The principle behind the Government’s proposal is to ensure that one elector means one vote of equal weight, wherever that vote is cast in the United Kingdom. In order for this to be the case, constituencies must have a broadly equal number of electors. Simply to substitute population for electors would exacerbate the present inequalities in the weight of vote because there would be variations in the number of individuals in an area who are not entitled to vote. The best way to achieve fair and equal votes and to address concerns about underregistration is to have an equal number of registered electors while ensuring that the register is as accurate as possible.
A further argument has been put that the constituency boundaries should be drawn on the basis of population rather than the register of electors because a Member of Parliament is elected to represent all his constituents and a significant part of an MP’s work can be on behalf of those who are not registered to vote. That argument has been made several times. However—this point has been made several times, but I shall say it again loudly—no Member of Parliament has a free ride. MPs have different kinds of pressures and different areas of responsibility, so it would be invidious to start deciding that constituency X rather than constituency Y had more problems. Most MPs will give a full description of the kind of problems that their particular constituency brings. That is why the Government believe that it is the right of electors to have a vote that is of equal weight between, as well as within, constituencies throughout the United Kingdom.
There have been ideas that we could use population. The difficulty is, as the Office for National Statistics has pointed out, that there are limitations with population estimates. Although I have heard in previous debates the suggestion that we could use the census, the data from the forthcoming census will not be available until far too late for the Boundary Commission to complete the task of reviewing the boundaries by 2015, which would mean that, up to the 2020 general election, the pattern of representation in the House of Commons would reflect the electoral register as it was in the year 2000. I cannot believe that we should do such a disservice to every elector in that way.
Nor, as I noted in the earlier debate on a similar amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can we accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that the total population of a constituency could not exceed a number that is 130 per cent of the electoral quota. I recognise the intention behind that amendment, but the data are not available that could make that work in practice. The Boundary Commission would need population data at a very low level of geography in order to ensure that the tests in the amendment were met. Those data are not available. It would be far better to use the electoral register, as has always been the case for boundary reviews, and concentrate our efforts on improving the registration rates. The census may provide valuable information that can support that work. The provisions in this Bill for a review once a Parliament, rather than once every eight to 12 years, will mean that the work will be reflected in a review very much sooner than would be the case under the existing provisions.
I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who made a valid point. I know that boundary reviews cause problems in terms of sitting MPs, but this proposal is for the benefit of the electors. Amendment 74C proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, would allow the Boundary Commission to take into account likely rapid changes in population when making recommendations for boundary changes. Amendment 78A, which has not been moved by my noble friend Lord Maples, would require the commissions to take into account projected increases in the electorate.
My concern is that, however calculations were made on the projected electorate, there would, by definition, be an element of interpretation that would be subject to repeated challenge. Furthermore, the amendments would abolish the fixed figure and replace it with a moving target. I am concerned that interested parties would be likely to use this for arguing for a more advantageous calculation method for the projections. In order to maintain the high levels of trust in our system, we must base boundary reviews on the availability of actual data.
That said, I hope that we can reassure noble Lords on this issue. The Fifth Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for England notes that the commission takes into account projected electorate changes where it believes that the projection is likely to become a reality. We are confident that the Bill does nothing to stop the commissions continuing that practice, and we would expect them to apply this practice where they judge that the specific circumstances warrant it. I would advocate continuing to rely on the professional and expert judgment of the commissions.
We agree that constituencies should be as up to date as reasonably possible in order that boundaries reflect where electors live and in order that votes have equal weight. The answer to this is the Bill's provision for redistributions to take place every five years.
At this point, in the tradition that has been established in the last hour in this House, I would offer the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, a meeting on this, but I think that his diary is probably already full. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grocott
I am baffled by the Minister’s response. He is saying that the Boundary Commission can take account of factors that are not mentioned under factors (a), (b), (c) or (d) that are listed in Rule 5 of new Schedule 2. All I am saying is that if the Boundary Commission can take account of factors that are not listed—obviously, my amendment would add to those four factors—what on earth is the point of specifying the factors that are listed? My amendment would not impose a compulsion on the Boundary Commission; it would simply list a possible consideration that may allow for specific local circumstances. I simply did not understand his answer. I am also a bit upset because he did not suggest a meeting. Perhaps he will write to me.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he will want to be present at the meeting that I am to have with his officials, which we will now reorganise for the time at which Blackpool kick off on Saturday.
It is good to see that Members of another place have come to observe proceedings in the House this evening. They will be able to return to the other end after doing so with two assurances. First, this House is indeed conducting detailed scrutiny of this Bill in good humour and in good order and with reasonable dispatch. Secondly, the reading skills of Ministers in this House far surpass those of Ministers in another place.
I have put forward two successive tentative amendments, and it is just worth saying—
Earl Ferrers
I am sure that the noble Lord wishes to adopt the courtesies of the House. It is incorrect to refer to people below the Bar.
Lord Lipsey
I apologise to the noble Earl, who has been here so much longer than I have.
I shall resume my thread on the debate on the Bill, as we are all anxious to proceed with it as rapidly as possible. We have just had two tentative debates on what I hope are interesting points of validity, which any Government in setting policy on these matters would have considered. It would have been so much better if we had had a consultative document before this Bill was brought forward that set out these alternatives and explained the pluses and minuses of each. It might have been unnecessary to debate these amendments this evening, and we could certainly have done so in a more informed way. So it does illustrate a defect of process.
To sum up the debate, there was an understanding that population is a relevant factor in determining the workload of MPs and therefore in all these matters, but at the same time there was no support for the proposition that I tentatively floated—that population should replace electorates as a basis for drawing constituencies. I accept that, but I shall make another tentative suggestion, which the Minister might like to think about. In Rule 5 in Clause 11, in the new rules that the Boundary Commission observes, there is a set of things that it may take into consideration, including special geographical circumstances. It might be worth considering adding to that list of things that it can take into consideration—at the moment within the 5 per cent limit—something relating to population, so that in cases where population is very large in relation to electorates it can explicitly make some sort of allowance for that in drawing up their final recommendations within the limits, which are 5 per cent each way at present. I leave that suggestion with the Committee and, on that basis, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6 or otherwise exempted from the equal constituencies provisions of this Act, and where X is 600 minus the number of constituencies exempted under rule 6 or otherwise under the provisions of this Act”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I did not just propose this amendment because it allowed me to get a formula on the Order Paper. I was going to describe it as a paving amendment when I moved it, but it is no longer a paving amendment. The formula in the Bill has as its denominator the number of constituencies not otherwise exempt in the Bill—598. When I drafted the amendment, I thought that was a silly way to do it, because if we added to the list of exemptions the formula as in the Bill would no longer apply. It would have to be changed, which seemed a waste of everybody’s time, since it is perfectly easy to draw up a formula which adapts to however many exemptions you want to make.
I would not want to claim foresight; that would be a very dangerous thing to do in your Lordships' House. But in fact it turns out that this showed some foresight, because the Committee has agreed to add the Isle of Wight to those constituencies, so it is now 597 not 598. I believe that there is a large clutch of other amendments to be put before noble Lords, which the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will of course oppose. For example, the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, wanted to make one in the case of his local area, and there will be other cases for exemptions. Who knows, noble Lords may want to agree to them. So making this amendment at this stage not only accommodates the change that we have already made but will allow the Bill to accommodate future changes without us needing to return to this and go over it. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 66B, 66BA or 66C because of pre-emption.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this is an important amendment and my noble friend Lord Lipsey has shown foresight in raising the matter. He will also have seen Amendment 79, which is in the name not of one of our colleagues on this side but of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The number of constituencies named in that amendment include not only Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles in their Gaelic name and the Isle of Wight, but the Isle of Anglesey, Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly, the Highland Council area and Argyll and Bute. As my noble friend said, a number of us have tabled amendments in relation to areas that we have a particular knowledge of. My noble friend Lord McAvoy tabled one in relation to the Royal Borough of Rutherglen, which includes Cambuslang and Halfway, if I remember correctly.
I tabled an amendment in relation to the city of Edinburgh, arguing that Edinburgh should continue to have five constituencies once this boundary review is over and that that should be an instruction to the Boundary Commission in Scotland. There are a number of other amendments in relation to this, such as Amendments 66C, 78B, 79C, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 85A, 85B and 85C, which we will discuss.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey, with his usual sagacity, foresight and burning of the candle at night, has managed to table an amendment that, if the Minister was wise, he would see was like the amendment to Part 1 moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker. That amendment gave the Government flexibility in relation to dates for the referendum to be held on AV so that if any changes took place, the Government would not be forced to hold it on 5 May: they could have it at any time up to 31 October. This amendment also gives the Government flexibility, which is very wise.
I will not now argue the case for the five Edinburgh constituencies. I have a lot to say about them. I have a tour d’horizon for them just as I had for South Ayrshire—or Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley as it is now. I would like to describe some of the important facets of Edinburgh constituencies, but I will leave that until we get to Amendment 80. In the mean time, I am keen to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, which gives us this necessary flexibility.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is clear to me that the amendment is correct. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept it. It is simply a drafting amendment to take account of changes that have been made—and if the noble Lord is correct in his prophesying, some further changes will be made. This amendment takes account of that in an accurate way. There is no question of discretion or anything of the kind. It is simply a drafting amendment that takes account of existing changes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My experience as a Minister was that when an amendment was passed even in opposition to the Government in Committee or at any stage of the Bill, the Government would bring the Bill up to date. Therefore, when it went back to the other place it would be a coherent Bill on which the Commons could then form a view about which amendments to accept. I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I hope that the Government will indicate that they will make the necessary amendment to reflect what happened earlier on today.
Lord McNally
Not exactly, because one has to realise that, as noble Lords will know, the other place has still to take a view on the amendments that we pass. It may well be that all the amendments that have been threatened or made may succeed. Believe me, if I am not convinced by the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, or the command of figures by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I certainly have a tingle between my shoulder blades when my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay announces that he is about to abandon ship.
By the way, it has just occurred to me that of course I would not, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pointed out, make any comment about what was happening below the Bar, but it crossed my mind that government Whips in the other place might be shipping younger Members down here to take a look at us to stiffen their vote when we come to reform of the House of Lords.
Earl Ferrers
Does my noble friend not realise that he is now making the same mistake in referring to people who are below the Bar and are not in the Chamber?
Lord McNally
Again, I hope that people read Hansard as I deliberately did not make that mistake but I understand the noble Earl’s sensitivity on this. The other point was that not only does this amendment have another of those amazing fractions in it but, in my brief, there is the Gaelic name for the Western Isles. I was happy to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not try the Gaelic name, so I will be excused as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave me some wise advice. In fact, I was trying to encourage him to be my adviser for the rest of the Bill but he wanted to protect his amateur status as an adviser to the Government. However, he said that you should not be afraid to take decisions at the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is making a very valid point: the final calculation of exclusions may not be what is in the Bill. On the other hand, they may be, because the other place will have to look at what we send back to it. This is not an empty gesture; I really would like to take this back with the intention of bringing something back on Report.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
If I have understood the effect of this amendment and the existing drafting of the Bill, an amended clause of this nature could persist in the Bill even if the other place overturned any additional constituencies that were added to the list. In fact, this amendment creates a Bill that is proofed against any changes, whether they persist or not. This is actually a better piece of drafting than the original, which had a figure in it, because it is a calculation that will persist in any set of circumstances.
Lord McNally
I hear what the noble Lord says and I hear my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay behind me saying that he is right. All that I am asking, being a simple Lancashire lad, is to take this back with a firmness for Report. If what the noble Lord is saying is absolutely right, I assure the Committee that this will go in at Report.
Lord Lipsey
I rise, my Lords, with a deep sense of disappointment at the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has risen twice. I have been in keen anticipation of the remarks he was about to make on the substance of the amendment—indeed, of the Bill—and I will now have to postpone the satisfaction of my appetite for a later date, at which I look forward to hearing his views on these matters, expressed with his usual skill and verve.
I am not disappointed at the Minister’s reply. My noble friend is absolutely right about the effect of this amendment—it is a circumstance that fits all; 598, 600, 520 or whatever. When the noble Lord, Lord McNally, considers this, he will see that it will be useful for the future. Let us suppose that the House of Commons overturns the Isle of Wight amendment. Let us suppose that, at the next general election, it returns the “Home Rule for the Isle of Wight” candidate, throwing the two Conservative candidates who will then be sitting for the island out of office. Suppose that whatever Government who are then in office quite rightly decide to respond to that by giving the Isle of Wight a constituency of its own. This is one piece of legislation they will not have to change; the formula still works. It is a form of future-proofing, to use the modern phrase.
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider this further. I am grateful for the support I have had from all over the House, including from the esteemed noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who knows much more about the law than I do. I very much hope that this may yet be my one mark, in my 10 years here, upon the statute book.
where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6, and P is the population of prisoners who at the time of Royal Assent are serving prison terms of 4 years or less”
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, in the spirit that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, offered the House some hours ago, I shall be relatively brief. I am encouraged by some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has accepted the advice of my noble friend Lord Rooker about not being afraid to take decisions at the Dispatch Box.
I start, unusually, by confessing that the amendment is not wholly fit for purpose on the matter of prisoners and their ability to vote. It omits to recognise that remand prisoners either awaiting trial or awaiting sentence having been found guilty are currently able to vote. After the Minister accepts the spirit of this amendment, which I anticipate he is going to do, it will give his parliamentary draftsmen no more than a fleeting diversion to put this oversight about remand prisoners right.
The amendment aims to make sure that, in the fine arithmetical balance upon which the Boundary Commission shall decide on the new constituencies, the impact of convicted prisoners and those on remand with the ability to vote shall be included in that arithmetic. The amendment assumes that only those sentenced prisoners serving a prison term of four years or less will have the vote. That matter has still to be decided by Parliament. I hope that it will be rejected and that all prisoners will be able to vote, as part of a better attempt to rehabilitate them and to reduce the expense of perpetual reoffending.
As a backdrop to this amendment, I was amazed to read in the Evening Standard tonight that my right honourable friend Jack Straw—not simply a former Home Secretary but, your Lordships will remember, as I do, a former Lord Chancellor—is now attempting, having won a debate in the other place for next month, to persuade the House that no prisoners should be given the vote, in breach and defiance of an order of the European Court of Human Rights made in 2004. It may explain why the last Government, to my disgrace and shame, did nothing to accept the judgment of that court. My right honourable friend incites Parliament to continue that disobedience. It is another slippery slope when Governments think that they can pick and choose what they do in reaction to decisions of the court of human rights and it gets us into an extremely difficult place.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
I have not followed the issue of prisoner voting very closely, so I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell me where, if prisoners are successful in getting the vote, their vote would be. Would it be in their constituency, if they have a home somewhere, or in the place where the prison is? I ask this with some feeling, because my former constituency held one of the biggest prisons in Scotland and even with a 22,000 majority I would have been a bit nervous.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My understanding on this matter is that prisoners will be able to vote either by proxy or by post. Where they do not have permanent home addresses, and many will not, they can use the address of the prison.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I yield to no one in my admiration for the right honourable Jack Straw as both a former Foreign Secretary and a former Lord Chancellor, but can my noble friend say whether Mr Straw has attempted to make any calculation of the aggregate of fines that this country would incur if all the relevant prisoners were to take us to the European Court of Human Rights?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My noble friend has reminded me of a point that I meant to make. At the moment there are 2,500 outstanding claims of compensation by prisoners being denied the vote, which, if they were proceeded with and accepted, would cost the taxpayer £100 million to meet.
This is not the time or place to debate at length the merits of votes for prisoners, but surely it is time that this outdated sentence of civic death upon prisoners was removed. It was imposed under the Forfeiture Act 1870, although in my opinion it should never have been, and it has lingered for far too long. As I said earlier, the European Court decided in 2004 that the blanket ban on the ability of convicted prisoners to vote was unlawful and should be removed. I much regret that the previous Government did not obey that judgment, and welcome the fact that this Government plan to do so.
It is all about enabling prisoners to take civic responsibility, which chimes in well with the extra emphasis by the Secretary of State for Justice on better attempts at rehabilitation to reduce the expensive and alarming rates of reconviction. Up to 70 per cent of prisoners are reconvicted within two years of release, surely the most enormous waste of taxpayers’ money going.
It is time for change and time to ensure that the number of prisoners anticipated under the proposed government legislation be entitled to vote, and those prisoners on remand from wherever they are on the electoral roll should not be overlooked when the maths is being done by the Electoral Commission to determine the new constituency boundaries.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Before my noble friend sits down, would he answer a question for me? In looking at his calculation of how many additional prisoners would be entered on to the electoral roll, is he aware of any estimate of how many prisoners were not on the electoral roll prior to them going to prison? There is a case to be answered that a number of prisoners who get into a life of crime lead somewhat chaotic lives and may never have voted or be on the electoral roll in the first place.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
I accept my noble friend’s point. Part of this touches on our earlier debates about the accuracy of the electoral register. It may well be that prisoners in that position should be encouraged to get on the electoral roll from the only address that they currently have, which would be prison.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Corbett’s amendment, even though in many ways I disagree with the stance that he takes on prisoners’ voting. My instincts would be to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs as was; when he announced that the Government of the day were appealing against the European Court’s ruling in 2005, he said that,
“it has been the view of successive governments, including this Government, that persons who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence should forfeit the right to have a say in how the country is governed while they are detained”.—[Official Report, 14/7/04; col. 1242.]
That is a sentiment that I can certainly agree with. Indeed, as the Secretary of State for Justice is currently pursuing a progressive path of trying to ensure that fewer prisoners are locked up, it follows that those who remain in prison will be there for more serious offences, and in my view that in turn somewhat lessens the argument for votes for prisoners. That does not mean that I am not in favour of rehabilitation and that I do not think that there is a good principled argument to be made, but I happen to disagree with it. However, as my noble friend said, we should not rehearse the arguments at any length tonight.
However, in the context of this Bill, the Government have to allow for prisoners when deciding the boundaries for future general elections, given that the Prime Minister has said that he reluctantly accepts that he has to bow to the European court ruling in the case of John Hirst. This amendment enables me to ask the Minister a few questions that are directly pertinent to the Bill. First, the amendment refers to prisoners who are serving a term of “4 years or less”. What is the Government’s view on whether all prisoners should get the vote, as my noble friend has argued? What is their view on whether it should be given to those who are serving shorter prison terms? The amendment mentions four years but it could be two years or six months. Does the Minister think that the vote should be given to those prisoners who are coming towards the end of a sentence, however long the initial sentence was, and that that would be consistent with looking to rehabilitate them back into society?
Secondly, what is the right number of years? Does the Minister have a nice round figure that he might want to share with us, given that we have talked a lot about other round figures when discussing the Bill? My third question relates to the question that my noble friend Lady Liddell asked of my noble friend Lord Corbett in relation to the location of prisons. I hope that my noble friend gave the correct answer in that respect. When I was the Member of Parliament for South Dorset, I represented two prisons for some of the time and three prisons for another part of the time because the prison ship was located in my constituency, which meant that there were up to about 1,500 prisoners in my constituency. I would not have relished canvassing them and I certainly would not have relished the casework implications of representing the inmates in the various prisons. Some of them occasionally wrote to me. Contrary to what the Minister said about MPs representing absolutely everybody in their constituency, I am afraid that I tended to try to duck the casework involved with the issues that the prisoners raised as it would have occupied all my staff’s time and would have constituted a very slippery slope for me and for them. In addition, South Dorset was a very homogenous community in terms in ethnicity and religion with the exception of the prisoners. The majority of the inmates of the Portland young offender institution come from London and reflect the ethnicity and different religious make-up of London rather than that of Portland. Their inclusion would certainly change the character of the constituency significantly. Indeed, given tonight’s vote, there is the question of how the Isle of Wight will be accounted for in terms of the significant number of prisoners who now live on the island, and how they will be catered for.
Thirdly, if registration is based on the home address, as has been suggested, what would the Minister do to ensure that we avoid fraud in postal voting? That may become a sensitive issue as regards prisoners having postal votes given that postal voting has raised enough difficult issues as we have extended the opportunities for people to vote by post. It would be useful if he could tell us what arrangements will be made to enable candidates to canvass prisoners. Finally, what is the timetable for changing the law in respect of prisoners getting the vote, as that is critical for the Bill?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I listened with great interest to my noble friend’s questions on this issue. It helps to understand the complexity of the issue facing the Government on giving prisoners the vote. I add a further complexity to the issue and the questions that my noble friend is posing. In this country, we allow those who are citizens of this country but who live overseas to register as overseas voters. Would we allow those serving sentences in prisons overseas to vote, and what arrangements could be made for them?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon asks a fine question, which I had not previously thought of. However, I am sure that the Minister will have done so, will not need to think on his feet at the Dispatch Box and will be able to give us a precise answer.
On the question about the timetable, it is highly pertinent whether it coincides with the Boundary Commission review period to agree the boundaries for the next general election. If it does not, which arrangements will stand the test of time in respect of prisoners getting the vote?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The noble Lord has eschewed acting on behalf of the interests of prisoners in his constituency. Who acted on their behalf in the absence of the noble Lord? To which agency was it left to represent them in any of the problems that a Member of Parliament might normally address in any constituency?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My noble friend can help me in a moment, once I have had a chance to help myself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, raises a question that is right at the heart of the legal case as I understand it and as interpreted by the BBC. John Hirst, who took the case to the European Court said:
“I’d read books that said if you want to change something you start up a pressure group, and then you put pressure on MPs and then you get things changed in parliament. Well that’s alright if you’ve got the vote and you’ve got some clout behind you. When you’re a prisoner, the only thing you can do if you want to complain and no-one listens is riot and lift the roof off—which isn’t the best way of going about things. Because we didn’t have a vote, there was no will in parliament to change anything”.
That is at the root of why he brought the case and, I guess, why he won it.
If a prisoner who had been a constituent of mine, or whose address was in my constituency, had written to me with a case when I was a Member of Parliament, I would have taken it up on their behalf, but I was unwilling to do so for people who happened to be resident in my constituency at Her Majesty’s pleasure. That was most difficult in respect of the large number of foreign nationals who were in Verne prison in my constituency. It was very difficult for them to get anyone to listen to them. It would have been a significant resourcing issue for me if word had got around the prison that they had a local MP who was willing to do all their legal work for them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Never mind the resources—is the noble Lord saying that he was happy that there were people in his constituency, whether they were there at Her Majesty’s pleasure or whatever, who had no political representation or access to Ministers through a Member of Parliament? Was he happy that people who had no home addresses that they could give to the constituency MP where they had formerly lived were left without any resource or recourse at all?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I would not have been happy if that situation had existed. I sought to do my duty, as I saw it, to my constituents, whether they were in prison in other constituencies or not. The local prison for my constituency was Dorchester. The right honourable Oliver Letwin would, I am sure, have wanted me, rather than him, to deal with my constituents. I am sure that prisoners will have listened to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and will now be writing to him at the House of Lords to take up their issues if they seek representation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I had a fairly large prisoner mailbag. Prisoners get full service from Members of Parliament. Not only did they get full service, I visited prisoners from outside my own constituency on several occasions, including some of the most violent of offenders. Their stories were absolutely fascinating. It is a very interesting area of political representation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
At present, the law states that prisoners are disqualified under an Act of Parliament and, unless and until that is changed by Act of Parliament, there is no question of having to cater for them in this Bill. If and when a Bill is produced to change the 1870 Act—although I understand what the noble Lord is saying about that—it should answer the kind of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has asked. Until that happens, the law is as it has been since 1870. I am not going to deal with the merits of the issue, except to say that we believe in the rule of law, part of which is our country’s subscription to the European Convention on Human Rights and obedience to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. That court has said in this case that a blanket ban is wrong, which leaves at least a certain amount of discretion to Parliament and the Government to decide what the change is to be. Until that happens, it is not for us here to speculate, because there is plenty for us to deal with in this Bill without introducing more material into a Bill that is not yet drafted.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said. Let me therefore briefly add some comments. When the time comes, which I hope will not be too long, for the Government to bring forward their measure to give prisoners the vote, we will have to ensure that in that process we amend this legislation to accommodate it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I understand the point that my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are making, but surely the Bill before us seeks to set the boundaries before the next general election. I anticipate that if the Government put through legislation, in line with the European judgment, to give prisoners the vote, they will do so before the next election. We in this House and the other place will therefore have to amend legislation that we have already passed before the next election. We will find ourselves in a legal muddle at that point.
Lord Dubs
I am bound to say that I am persuaded by my noble friend’s argument. The principle and the arithmetic are obviously right, but the details of how prisoners are to be given the vote—and there will be a lot of details—are a matter that the House will have to deal with. However, that would not affect the principle of including prisoners in the formula that we are talking about.
I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for some time, and we have been anxious that the Government should adhere to their obligations under the Human Rights Act and under the European convention. We were disappointed—I was certainly disappointed, as was my noble friend Lord Corbett—that the previous Government did not bring this proposal into effect. I hope that this Government will do so. Given that public opinion, spurred on by some of our newspapers, is not sympathetic to this, I very much hope that more voices will be heard to say that this is a good thing and that it is right that people in prison, at least many of them, should have the right to vote and to have a civic responsibility that will help them when they come out. There is an important point of principle here, which has been totally lost in some of the hysteria in the popular press, which is arguing against this, to say nothing of the fine that we would have to pay as a country.
I have two brief final thoughts. I introduced a Private Member’s Bill when I was in the other place to give certain rights to prisoners. My noble friend Lord Soley and I discussed it, and he persuaded me to include in the Bill a proposal to give prisoners the right to vote. It was a 10-Minute Rule Bill and was therefore not going to get much further. It received a lot of publicity, but all that the press were interested in—even in the 1980s; it was a long time ago—was the clause about giving prisoners the right to vote. Nothing else in the Bill did they take notice of. I am bound to say, in all honesty, that the Labour Shadow Cabinet did not support my Bill and said that it was not in favour of it.
I have a final little anecdote, if I may indulge myself—it is getting late. I was in a pub in Battersea just before an election. I was meeting a journalist who wanted to take a photograph. The pub was almost empty because it was mid-morning. A man at the bar came up to me and said, “’Ere, are you Alf Dubs MP?”. I confirmed that I was and he said, “I came out of the Scrubs this morning. You’ve got a good reputation inside”. I thought of all the votes that I was not going to get and I then lost my seat.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I should perhaps say that I am president of the Citizenship Foundation, although I do not speak for it. Surely we could deal with the point raised in this amendment by an amendment to the Bill that says simply that prisoners serving a term of four years or less shall be entitled to vote. That would take care of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, seeks to address in this amendment. I should be interested to know whether the Minister would be amenable to that being brought forward at the next stage of the Bill.
This is a very important issue. For years we have put off grappling with the question of the prisoner vote. I think we would all say that one of the main badges of citizenship is the right to vote. We in this House all agree that rehabilitation is essential and that we do it rather badly in this country. To that extent—I shall finish on this point—we talk about punishing prisoners by denying them the vote, but I think that we punish ourselves much more by, in effect, outlawing prisoners from normal citizenship and thus, in my view, destroying any real prospect of any effective rehabilitation. Therefore, I hope that something can be done about this and that it can be done in time for it to be part of the Bill.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
I hope the Minister will concede that this is an important point, and perhaps he can truncate this debate by offering to have a cup of tea with his officials and my noble friend. I see that there are problems, but it is clear that the Government will have to respond in some way to the determination of the European Court of Human Rights, which has said, in terms, that the matter cannot be delayed for much longer. Indeed, the Government have said that they will respond. We know that there could be substantial expenditure implications if they do not respond and a multitude of applications. However, I see some problems in practice.
Once upon a time I was a barrister and I did a fair amount of work on the criminal side. All too often one’s clients were of no fixed abode, so how is one going to determine the constituency in which the prisoner votes? That is one obvious problem. Equally, prisoners are more likely to come from socioeconomic groups that might be determined among the population but are not on the electoral register because they are alienated and do not bother to put themselves on the register. Therefore, there are problems in deciding which will be the relevant constituency in this matter.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, from the information that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has given the Committee this evening, it sounds as though my noble friend is going to have to have a cup of tea with Mr Jack Straw if any advance is to be made on this matter.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment. I have to be absolutely honest and say that I have not followed in great detail the question of prisoners and voting, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, very succinctly put the issues into context. I should say that I have a bit of an interest, having been a former non-executive director of the Scottish Prison Service and having a major prison with a secure unit in my constituency. I suppose that I have also just spent almost five years in a form of penal colony, so these are issues in which I tend to take an interest.
However, there is a very specific point to be made on where the vote of a prisoner is held. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, does not know that one of the most heinous crimes that a Member of Parliament can commit is to take up an issue for someone who is the constituent of another Member of Parliament. It is a problem that Ministers in particular face. I do not know what other former Members of the other place did. I had a sign in my office, and I know that many Members of Parliament have an attachment to their e-mail saying that they cannot take up the issue of someone who is a constituent of another Member of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would address the consequences of an increased number of people on the electoral register from prisons. Presumably they would have postal votes. If their prison is within a particular constituency, what would be the impact of that on the overall size of the constituency? There should be clarity for Members of Parliament who wish to know whether they are taking up an issue for someone from another constituency.
Lord Soley
I will be even briefer than my noble friend. I agree very much with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. This is not the time to go into detail; that will happen when the Bill arrives. Like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I agree with the principle. There is no great problem in deciding who deals with this. Normally the home address should be used for registration, otherwise it is a matter for the local MP and occasionally for a solicitor.
There is a more important issue to address. Perhaps the Minister should refer this to the Electoral Commission. If it is the Government’s intention to give the vote to prisoners, there is a case for instructing the Electoral Commission to look at the problems of registering to vote. The registration process needs to be thought about in advance. In one sense, the problem is like that of other groups who cannot easily register. Prisoners are a captive population. Complications will come over where their home addresses are. There will be particular complications for the fairly small number of very large prisons that have a large percentage of people with no fixed address. I remember that when my noble friend Lord Rooker was a Minister, he arranged for people to give a non-registered street address so that they could have the vote.
There are many complications inherent in what the Government are proposing. I will support them and when the Bill arrives I will spell out some of the issues. At this stage, I simply say that there is a lot of sense in warning the Electoral Commission. As an adviser to the commission, I should do that too, and I will, but it would help if it came from the Government too. If the Government are going to do this, they should start to think about the complexities of registration.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Would it be possible through secondary legislation to put an enabling power in the Bill whereby this section of the Bill could be amended in the event that the wider law on the right of prisoners to vote was to come into being?
Lord Bach
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank my noble friends for raising the issue. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave the Committee a proper warning about the issue. The announcement was made through the Cabinet Office. We regret that it was not made in Parliament, because it is important. The point that my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made about the intention of the Government to legislate in time for the 2015 general election under redrawn boundaries, and perhaps on an alternative vote electoral system, is relevant today. We would like to know the Government’s thinking on these matters. When do they intend to legislate and how will they deal with some of the issues raised by the decision that they have made?
One issue that particularly fascinates me is that of prisoners who have their voting rights denied by sentencing judges. Will they have the right to appeal against the judge's decision? Under the proposals, the judge will have discretion in certain cases. That does not strike me as sensible, or something that judges would want. The amendment asks some questions that the House—
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
It strikes me that it might also be useful if we could have any information that you may have on the amount of research that has been undertaken in this area on the number who are registered. It seems that the problem may not be on quite the scale that some people think, given that earlier we were debating the problems relating to 3.5 million people who are denied votes—I do not want to go over the issue—because they are not registered. If there is any information that could be supplied in this area, it would help us all.
Lord Bach
I am grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. There are a number of questions the Minister can bring us up to date with when he responds on this important amendment. This is a matter that has concentrated the minds of this House a great deal over a long period of time. I think the Committee would like to be brought up to date with how the Government see the relationship between this Bill and giving prisoners the right to vote and how that would be legislated for.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. Whether it is within the scope of the Bill is very debatable indeed. Nevertheless, a number of very valuable contributions have been made, not the least the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Corbett and Lord Knight, disagree about whether prisoners should have the vote. That is part of the dilemma that we have in Parliament. When I have answered Questions at this Dispatch Box as a Ministry of Justice Minister, it has been very clear that there are strong opinions on both sides. I have never concealed my view that, like the noble Baroness, I believe that giving certain prisoners the vote would be a very useful part of rehabilitation. The prospect of being—did the noble Baroness not say that? Sorry, I thought she had. For some prisoners who have perhaps never participated in any aspect of what my noble friend Lord Phillips referred to as civic life, it might be the thing that gets them thinking about their role in society when they leave prison. I have never found the concept of prisoner voting so horrific.
Although my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay sits where a PPS usually sits, he is not my Parliamentary Private Secretary although, my God, I wish he was because he comes in with a number of interventions that are genuinely to the benefit of the whole House, if occasionally to the discomfort of the Minister at the Dispatch Box at the time.
To take the last intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the numbers we are dealing with will be small. If you gave every prisoner the vote, you would be talking about 85,000, so you would be talking about a much smaller number spread across the whole of the country because, to clarify, the Government have already indicated that when they bring forward their proposals they will be on the basis of prisoners being able to vote in their home constituency. The issues that were raised about proxy and postal voting and the other matters relating to this could, with great value, be looked at by the Electoral Commission. I know that it is looking very closely—
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
The Minister has used the expression “home constituency”. Could he be a little more specific about that? I have represented constituencies for a long time with several prisons in them. My understanding is that many of these men—my experience was exclusive with men—did not have homes. One of the problems that they had as individuals in society was that they were totally rootless. The idea that they could be identified as belonging to a particular place was very difficult to establish. To use expressions such as “home constituency” in this loose and glib way creates an impression that it can be very simply dealt with. It is rather more complex than that. He should talk to the people in the Box and get some better advice.
Lord McNally
I am trying to make an intelligent response. The noble Lord talks about glib responses. Would he like to suggest a term other than home constituency? The point has already been made in this debate that of course there are going to be difficulties about prisoners with no fixed abode. One of the other problems that we are looking at on rehabilitation is that too many of our prisoners leave prison with no fixed abode, which is almost an invitation to further offences.
Lord Maxton
Could I raise almost the opposite point of view? Many people who are in prison are already registered to vote at their home address. What is to stop them using the postal vote system to cast their vote, even though they are in prison? All it requires is for them to apply for it from that home address. The postal vote arrives at their home. Some relative takes it in to them, they cast their vote, the relative takes it back, puts it in the post and they have voted. Or are we going to use prison records as part of the access data?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord is right. That may already be going on. I must say that smuggling ballot papers in and out of prison is the least of the problems that we have at the moment.
Lord Grenfell
I seem to remember that just before the general election, at about one in the morning, we had a very interesting debate on this question. I regret greatly that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is not in his place, because we rehearsed all of this before and he had some very interesting statistics. It might be worth going back and looking at Hansard to see what he said and what the responses were.
Lord McNally
I am quite sure that we will refer back to that. Indeed, I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, knew that we were going to go down this byway this evening, he would have been here. I know how assiduous he is on these matters. But the fact is that these matters will be covered in that—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the Minister agree that if the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is right, the absence of a vote is not the only problem that prisoners have to face? If they do not belong to any particular constituency, they have no parliamentary representation and nobody who can act on their behalf in dealing with the Government.
Lord McNally
Each Member has to make their own decision. It is interesting, though, going back to another issue—
Lord McNally
Deferential as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, I have just been asked one question and I had not even got to the third word. It is about that, is it? Go on, then.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I was about to give the Minister the answer. He will know that prisoners can be represented by the local Member of Parliament. I did it very often for Shotts prison. I would go and meet them occasionally. On one occasion, I offered three dates to the Shotts lifers association; none of them was convenient for it. There is a manner of representation for those in prison, whether or not they vote.
Lord McNally
Now that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is safely out of the way, I am able to say that I hope some of the people below the Bar are keeping careful note, because some really good advice is being given here. It illustrates a point that was made earlier: that different Members of Parliament face different problems. Surely the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight will have a caseload that reflects the existence of major prisons on the island.
The boundary review will be based on the register as of 1 December 2010, which will be before any legislation concerning prisoner voting rights is in place. We have determined that we will deal with this matter. I am not in the habit of scoring cheap party political points—your Lordships know that it is not my style—but in less than eight months we have addressed a problem that the previous Government sat on for six years. It will require careful study. I hope that the Electoral Commission will look at some of the issues that have been raised. I do not believe that this amendment is the place to deal with them. There will be a full and final statement of the Government’s intention in these matters. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and others, and underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that we are accepting the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. To continue to defy it exposes us possibly to being sued on quite a grand scale and to enormous cost to the taxpayer. Even those who grit their teeth at the thought of giving prisoners voting rights might like to put that in their calculations. However, it cannot be in the current calculations of this Bill. It is an important matter to raise and it will be drawn to the attention of the Electoral Commission. I hope that, before they have their debate down the corridor, members of all parties will read the contributions that have been made this evening, because they will be a valuable contribution to the debate that Mr Jack Straw and Mr Davis are planning in Westminster Hall. In the mean time, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. I said in moving the amendment that this was not the time and place for a long debate about the merits or otherwise of giving certain categories of prisoner the vote. I also take on board what many noble friends on this side of the Committee have intimated about some of the perils of getting involved in this area.
I had one of the two national youth treatment centres in my former constituency of Birmingham Erdington, Glenthorne. It did a magnificent job with some of the most disturbed and chaotic young people in the country—14 year-olds convicted of murder, rape and offences of that kind. During one general election, each of the candidates was invited to go in and talk to some of the inmates and answer questions. The first question that I was asked came from a 15 year-old and was about income tax levels. I thought that this showed a very commendable interest in current affairs. On the Friday, about a week ahead of the election, the governor of Glenthorne phoned me and said, “I have got some very good news for you, Robin: you came top of the poll”. I immediately said to him, “Eugene, do me a favour, please, will you keep this quiet?”.
I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will draw the attention of the Electoral Commission to this matter but I am unconvinced about his reasons for not wanting to do something about it in the Bill. I understand what he said about the register last year being used as the basis for the Electoral Commission’s considerations under the Bill but, nevertheless, provision could be made for what we anticipate is going to come. The Government have the votes in both Houses now to get their will, as we know, so surely it is sensible to make the provision now rather than having to do so later.
None the less, I again thank noble Lords for their interest in this matter. We will return to it in good time and I seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Maples, I beg to move Amendment 66C.My noble friend has not vouchsafed to me the precise rationale behind his deceptively attractively simple amendment but I shall draw to his attention any answer in Hansard which my noble friend the Minister gives to him, if such a reply is given.
Now that Amendment 66C has been moved, I shall speak to Amendment 78B, which stands in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Newby. In introducing the amendment I should refer to my personal association with the City as the parliamentary constituency which I had the privilege to represent as Member for the City of London and Westminster South, as it then was, between 1977 and 1997, and then for the Cities of London and Westminster between 1997 and 2001.
The amendment aims to recognise the position of special authorities. It is aimed at the City of London, which has failed to make it into a very short list of constituencies subject to special provision on account of their particular characteristics even though the City’s individuality has been recognised throughout history. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which currently governs boundary reviews, continued that recognition. This Bill does not. The effect of the amendment is to require the whole of the City of London to be contained within one parliamentary constituency, as provided for by the current legislation.
As your Lordships will not need reminding, the City of London has existed as a discrete community for a very long time. It had evolved a legal personality by 1189 which, as noble Lords may recall, is the beginning of legal memory. Accordingly, the City Corporation which administers the square mile does not owe its existence to Parliament. Parliament has, however, underwritten the City’s rights and privileges. One of the very few remaining statutory provisions confirming the Magna Carta still in force is Chapter 9 of an Act of 1297 confirming the City’s liberties and customs under the charter.
The current legislation on parliamentary constituencies affecting the City is largely the product of the past 75 years. It is particularly relevant because the Bill marks a substantial departure in the electoral treatment of the City of London.
Permanent Boundary Commissions were established by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944. At that time the City of London had no less than two Members of Parliament, and that situation was preserved by the 1944 Act. There was then a business vote in parliamentary elections, as well as a voting entitlement of husbands or wives of occupiers of business premises, entitlements which were removed by the Representation of the People Act 1948. In consequence of those changes, the City of London’s electorate diminished to 4,542. The City was then linked up with the former seat of Westminster Abbey and called the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. To complete the picture, during the period of my incumbency between the February 1974 and 1997 general elections it was named the City of London and Westminster South constituency. Noble Lords will note that the one constant throughout has been its reference to the City of London.
When the changes were made in 1948, it was never suggested that splitting up the City’s relatively tiny parliamentary electorate between different constituencies would be an appropriate option. More than that, there was a specific provision in that Act and the further one which followed soon afterwards, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, which required the whole of the City to be contained in one constituency. That is echoed by the supportive Amendment 85C in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Although that amendment goes further than our amendment, the concept is therefore potentially bipartisan. That provision has been repeated in the legislation since and is included in Rule 3 set out in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.
The effect of this Bill through the replacement of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act by a new schedule is to remove the provision requiring the City to be contained within one parliamentary constituency. It is perhaps a little surprising that the provision has been removed without a specific repeal. Magna Carta is without doubt a constitutional measure, and so therefore is the Act of 1297 which preserves the City’s liberties and customs. The Bill your Lordships are considering is also a constitutional measure. There is modern legal authority which has been much referred to by academic lawyers giving evidence to the EU Scrutiny Committee in the other place on the European Union Bill suggesting that a constitutional provision requires specific statutory repeal.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the noble Lord give way? We are having trouble hearing him, but that might just be the audio arrangements in the Chamber. Can he explain in one sentence what he is actually trying to do? We think that his amendment is a nimby amendment, but we are not quite sure.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with whom I have duelled on a number of occasions. I shall try to move closer to some form of microphone. I hope that that is better. By the time that I have concluded my remarks, he will recognise exactly what I am seeking to do and why I am doing it in so discreet a manner.
Schedule 11 to the Bill includes in Part 2 the provisions to be repealed, but the 1297 Act does not feature there or in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 10, which deal with amendments to existing legislation. I do not wish to make too much of this because a great deal, not least interpretation, is uncertain when dealing with statutes of such antiquity. In the City of London context, significant elements of the franchise are, however, covered by the law of custom, which the 1297 Act protects. This prompts me to query whether the existing very specific provision relating to the City of London, which has been included in the legislation governing parliamentary constituencies until the appearance of this Bill, was inserted in deference to the Act of 1297. Perhaps the Minister might be prepared to offer an observation on the provenance of the existing provision when he replies.
I do not think that I need to exercise any great powers of persuasion to convince your Lordships that the City is demographically atypical. Its administration is quite different from that of the London boroughs. It has a local business franchise as well as a residential one, and business dominates. It currently has 5,939 parliamentary electors, which is slightly more than in 1948 but still very small in comparative terms. For example, a typical ward in the City of Westminster—the other half of my former constituency—has between 7,000 and 8,000 voters.
Having said all this about the constituency and the manner of representing it, I recognise that the Bill before your Lordships’ House lays down precise rules for the conduct of future boundary reviews. I also appreciate that there is a strong desire on the part of the Government to avoid special cases other than those which the Bill itself identifies. Recognising the constraints, I believe that the amendment does not simply seek to reimpose the requirements in the current Act that the City should be part of a single constituency. Rather, it proposes such an outcome where “practicable” —to quote from the amendment—with wording that has been specifically devised to avoid special pleading and to rely on uniqueness.
The amendment would create a strong presumption that this will be the result without making it an absolute. That is the effect of paragraph (1) in the amendment, which also relates the requirement to a “special authority”, a term defined in paragraph (3) in the amendment. In the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which is referred to there, the term “special authority” is defined as an authority covering an area with a population of less than 10,000 whose gross rateable value divided by its population is more than £10,000. In other words, the reference is to an area that is primarily commercial and not residential. The only geographical location to satisfy that definition is the City of London, which simply goes to reinforce how exceptional it is; hence my claim for uniqueness.
Avoiding specific reference to the City of London in the amendment avoids any suggestion of potential hybridity and, therefore, any need for me to discuss it. Paragraph (2) in the amendment is modelled on Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which requires the City of London to appear in the name of the constituency that includes the City. As noble Lords would expect, I believe the continuation of this practice to be entirely appropriate. I hope that the Minister feels that I have given enough to provide him with the encouragement to look favourably on the City's treatment under future boundary reviews. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The amendment in my name is, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said, slightly firmer in that it leaves out the words “where practicable”, and asks that a constituency shall exist,
“which shall include the whole of the City of London”.
It does not mean only that, but it should certainly include the City of London. I have to confess that when I read the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Brooke, Lord Jenkin and Lord Newby. I did not understand it, which is why I tabled this amendment. I wondered at that time, “Dick Whittington, where are you when we need you? What is happening to the City of London?”. I was then taken to one side and it was explained that the amendment that has just been spoken to is in effect the same and is to preserve the City of London.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said, the City of London has been a special case for longer than anyone’s memory, even in this sage House. Its rights and privileges, including its entitlement to parliamentary representation, were provided for in the Magna Carta, a copy of which I believe hangs behind where the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is sitting—or not quite; I have just been corrected on the geography. The Magna Carta specifically allowed for the City of London’s privileges, which were preserved by an Act in the thirteenth century.
The present Bill removes the current bit of legislation that is set out in the 1986 Act, which requires there to be a constituency that includes the whole of the City of London and the name of which shall refer to the City of London. It has continued for centuries, not just more recently, as a constituency. Recently, however, the words “City of London” have to form part of the name of a parliamentary constituency. Even these words were inserted into the name of the GLA division, which is now, I think, City and East London. More recently, as has been mentioned, in 2000 the rules for redistribution of seats again preserved the constituency.
There is also the interesting constitutional point, which has been touched on, that the current Bill has been characterised as a constitutional measure and accepted as such by being taken on the Floor of the House in the other place. The early 1297 Act is also a constitutional measure, as has been mentioned, but there has been no provision to amend that.
There are, as has been referred to, many legal arguments. I will spare the House the details that I have here. What is interesting, as far as it affects this House, this Committee and the Bill in front of us, is that the existing provision for a constituency that will include the whole of the City of London, as well as the name, will cease to exist if the Bill is passed. It will not automatically mean that the City as we know it will be split, but it allows for that as an outcome, because there will be no preservation of the boundaries around that. It is important for this House to consider some of the same comments that were made earlier, in the case of the Isle of Wight, of an island surrounded by water.
Lord Winston
I am finding it quite difficult to understand the noble Baroness’s argument, simply because there is so much chatter around her. I am sure that it would be courteous to her if we listened to the argument that she is presenting to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am grateful for that bit of advice, because I was finding it extremely hard to speak.
Historically, there has been a recognition, including in the boundaries, that the City of London is a special geographical area, that its boundaries are special and that that uniqueness should be recognised in the way in which the boundaries and the name of the constituency exist for election to the other place. The Bill would put an end to that and to the special nature of the City, which it is recognised should be a special part of the voice in the other place.
It is as important to take account of locality and the commonality of interests, which we have discussed, in this particular locality as in many others—as with the Isle of Wight. In the City we have an area with very special sorts of employers, its own police force and mayor. It has its own museums and theatres, too. When I was a member of the Financial Services Consumer Panel, I worked very closely with the financial world and took great recognition of how the City plays host to and is an ambassador for that financial part of our community. Of course, it has a small electorate, but for local elections it has a much larger one that is not recognised in the parliamentary boundaries. There is a recognition that, with the number of people who travel to work there and the identity of interests—it often has to talk to the Government—it is a very special area. It is also special in that it talks to the European Union, particularly on some of the negotiations over solvency or other things that different parts of your Lordships' House discuss at other times. This needs its own political representation.
Noble Lords might not expect to hear any of that from someone from this side of the House, but the issue is one of locality. It is similar to the commonality of interests, which I believe the drawing of boundaries for parliamentary representation should respect. I tabled Amendment 85C to recognise that special area at the very centre of the capital—of this great city of ours. We would be wise to preserve those boundaries, not necessarily as a single constituency but to ensure that the whole of the City is within the same boundary and that the name “City of London” remains with that constituency.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
After that eloquent speech, I can be extremely brief. I very much appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said on this subject. She obviously knows a great deal about it. I had Epping Forest in my constituency, and the Conservatives represented the City as the body that ran Epping Forest. I add one thing. The noble Baroness made the point that this should be a completely non-party issue. I have a long quotation, but at this hour of the night I shall keep it very short. I shall quote what Mr Herbert Morrison said at the time of the 1944 Act, when there was some suggestion that perhaps the City organisations should disappear. He said:
“the City of London occupies an extraordinary and unique place in British history and in the history of British local government”.
He went on:
“it is such a special place that, if we can possibly help it, we will not destroy its Parliamentary identity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/44; col. 1993-94.].
The noble Baroness has adumbrated what might happen if the City were redistributed among its neighbouring authorities. That could cause great difficulty for those who seek to represent those areas and the City in the other place. It could make for considerable complications when determining priorities and matters of that sort.
Of course, this does not affect the City's government of its own. It is a bicameral legislature. It is sometimes argued by historians that our Parliament was based originally on the bicameral legislature of the City, which is why my noble friend who moved this amendment said that the City does not owe itself to this House; we owe ourselves to the City.
I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will recognise that this is a strong case. As my noble friend pointed out, this is a body that is less than the size of a normal ward in London. With its tremendous historic and constitutional position, it really should not be split up but should be added as a single entity to another constituency—whether Westminster or one of the others. So be it. That is for the Boundary Commissioners. We seek to argue—I say this with some force to my noble friend—that it would be an act of constitutional outrage if the City were split up between a number of local authorities. I strongly support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Amendment 80 is in this group so it would be appropriate for me to say a few words in relation to that now. With no disrespect to the previous three speakers, who talked about the City of London and the capital city, I am not a nationalist, as everyone here knows, but I must point out that London is only one of the capital cities in the United Kingdom. Edinburgh is the second capital city of the United Kingdom.
I will be accused of special-case pleading, but a lot of the arguments put forward in relation to the Isle of Wight, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, dealt with in his usual careful way, apply to other areas as well. I do not have the Hansard yet, but I could quote from the eloquent arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Forsyth, about the Isle of Wight and relate them to other parts of the United Kingdom. However, I want to argue a wider range in relation to the capital city of Edinburgh.
Amendment 80 would have five preserved constituencies in the city of Edinburgh council area. When I stood in West Edinburgh in 1970 and in Pentlands in 1974 we had seven constituencies in the city of Edinburgh. I never won Pentlands or West Edinburgh on those occasions and had to move down to Ayrshire ultimately to get elected. I gave a graphic description of the constituency that I used to represent at about six in the morning on Monday or Tuesday; I think it was Tuesday for normal human beings outside but Monday for parliamentarians. Then, prior to 2005 Edinburgh was reduced to having six constituencies. My noble friend Lady Liddell of Coatdyke was responsible. I do not blame her in any way, but she was the Secretary of State who had the duty and the responsibility to reduce the number to six on that occasion. Subsequently, from 2005, the number of constituencies has now been reduced to five. Yet, during all this time, the population of Edinburgh has been rising substantially while that of Glasgow has been going down.
In Edinburgh East, represented brilliantly now by Sheila Gilmore, there are 74,505 electors; in Edinburgh North and Leith, represented—brilliantly, I had better say also—by Mark Lazarowicz there are 74,762 electors; in Edinburgh South, which Ian Murray now represents, again brilliantly, there are 68,884 electors; and, in Edinburgh South West, which is represented by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, even more brilliantly—or had I better say, equally brilliantly?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With distinction, then. There are 75,787 constituents there. In Edinburgh West, which is represented currently by a Liberal Democrat—equally brilliantly, I had better say, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is replying to this debate and I seek his support on this—there are 70,603 constituents represented by Mike Crockart.
If the quota is 76,000 and the plus or minus allowance in relation to it is 5 per cent, all those constituencies will have to be looked at. If it is plus or minus 10 per cent then, if my arithmetic is right, at least three or probably four of the constituencies would be not immutable but able to continue at their present size and with their present boundary, without violating that variation. That would be a sensible thing to do, but in Edinburgh—we were talking earlier on in a debate about taking account of projected increases in population—there are substantial projected population increases. As my noble friend Lord O’Neill will know, because he lives in the area, in Edinburgh North and Leith there is expected to be extensive population growth.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene but he very quickly passed over this fact: I do not live in Edinburgh, but live in Leith. I am not a Leith nationalist. Indeed, it could be argued that I live in the village of Newhaven, which was never the subject of a plebiscite, as Leith was in the 1920s—a very controversial plebiscite that the people of Leith have always disputed.
I draw it to my noble friend’s attention, and I do not wish in any way to diminish the strength of his case, that it is fair to say that adjacent to Edinburgh and slightly to the east is the town of Musselburgh. As I am sure he is aware, although it has enjoyed a presence in both the Edinburgh East and East Lothian constituencies, the proud boast—in fact, the chant—of the Musselburghers was that Musselburgh was a borough when Edinburgh was only a town. Therefore, we have to be a wee bit careful here when we start claiming historical precedents, first, in respect of Edinburgh and Leith, where you have to take account of the fact that the Leithers are a significant group within the city; and secondly, if we are to extend the primacy of representation and the boundaries of constituencies, and ignore the claims of the good burghers of Musselburgh, we are getting into rather dangerous waters.
I know that my noble friend spends a lot of time swimming in those waters and that it has always been the hallmark of his political contributions. However, at this stage of the day—or, perhaps, the night—we have to be a wee bit sensitive to some of those feelings, particularly at this time given the fortunes of the football club which resides in Leith. At the moment, we are suffering. We do not need more pain because of his reluctance to give us our proper place in the panoply of Edinburgh constituencies.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That was a very accurate, rather long and not very helpful intervention from my noble friend. I ask everyone here to forgive him for it. I forgive him as well, because he has gone through a very painful experience. The football club that he supports—the lesser of the two Edinburgh clubs—when we were struggling through debate here the other night was beaten by lowly Second Division Ayr United in the Scottish Cup. So he is suffering a little and we understand that. In his lifetime and my lifetime—that is quite a long time for both of us—Leith and Granton and Newhaven have all been part of the city of Edinburgh. He was a distinguished member of the Edinburgh City Labour Party.
Lord Winston
Surely this is one of the best arguments for the complete separation of Scotland and England.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I will have to be very careful because I am not a nationalist and I do not want to do anything that would argue the case for separation, but the city of Edinburgh has a great history, as I am sure my noble friend would agree. I think there is a very strong case for it having five separate constituencies. My noble friend should take account of the fact that I am currently an elected representative for an area that includes the city of Edinburgh. I am putting forward my argument today because I have been approached by the four Labour Members in the city of Edinburgh, who represent four of the five constituencies and who feel very strongly about this. That includes Mark Lazarowicz, whose constituency includes Leith.
Because of the growth that I was describing in the Leith area we expect about 25,000 additional residents on the waterfront and Newhaven. Creating five constituencies in Edinburgh would in no way breach the plus or minus 5 or 10 per cent thresholds that we have discussed earlier—certainly not 10 per cent and probably not 5 per cent. It would allow those five constituencies to be agreed within the one local government area, the City of Edinburgh Council. Other constituencies in Scotland, apart from the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland, which have already been dealt with, could be dealt with moving out from Edinburgh, creating them one after the other as we move around Scotland.
I hope we can give this kind of guidance to the Boundary Commission. If we are able to take special account of the special needs of the Isle of Wight, I hope we will also take account of the special needs of the city of Edinburgh.