House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
1. What recent representations she has received from local authorities on her Department’s waste review. [Official Report, 23 May 2011, Vol. 528, c. 5-6MC.]
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My ministerial colleagues and I have met a wide range of local authority representatives to discuss our review of waste policy in England. Eighty local authorities, and a range of partnership groups, responded to our call for evidence and many have participated in subsequent discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials, emphasising the diversity of local circumstances.
Mrs Glindon
Can the Secretary of State tell me what DEFRA is doing to help local authorities to crack down on persistent fly-tippers in rural and urban areas?
Mrs Spelman
Responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping is also a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that, over time, the fines have been increased. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 makes provision for penalties for fly-tippers, and I want to make it perfectly clear from DEFRA’s perspective that it is a practice that we abhor, and that we seek to catch and prosecute those who perpetrate it.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Given that the South West Devon Waste Partnership has decided that Plymouth is the right place for its energy-from-waste facility, will the Secretary of State please try to persuade Devon county council, in its forthcoming consideration of an application for a commercial waste incinerator in south Devon, that we certainly do not need two incinerators so close to each other in the area? [Interruption.]
Mrs Spelman
Whatever I said has resulted in a very rapid departure by the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon).
The waste review will look at waste in the round. We recognise the difficulties that incineration can cause locally, which is why we strongly support these decisions being made at local level.
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise; this is nothing to do with the Secretary of State. A Member must not leave the Chamber before his or her question has been concluded, whatever other pressures there might be.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Recycling under the last Labour Government increased threefold, but this Government’s continued delays over the waste review have deprived British business of the certainty that it needs if it is to use resources in a smarter way and improve its reuse and recycling of materials. This is damaging for the economy and for the environment. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the waste review will enable business to make up the ground lost as a result of Government delay? Can she also guarantee that it will provide the right regulatory framework to enable businesses to invest in these areas?
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman wrongly credits his party with being at the centre of the improvement in recycling rates. The fact is that local authorities have achieved this, and the majority of them are Conservative controlled to boot. Perhaps we can also nail this myth about delay. Our business plan makes it clear that the waste review, which was launched in June last year, will be published in June this year. This is not a question of delay. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait just a short while to see the importance that the Government attach to undertaking a thorough review of waste, which includes picking up some of the mess that the previous Government left behind.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
2. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on allotments.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
8. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on allotments.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
This Government strongly support the need for more growing spaces to be made available for people to grow their own fruit and vegetables. Assertions that we would scrap the duty placed on local authorities to provide plots for growing food to persons resident in the area are entirely false. DEFRA officials and I are working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to develop further initiatives to release land that could be used for allotment sites.
Bridget Phillipson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Four thousand people in my area currently have an allotment or are on a waiting list for one. Can he reassure me that he will not support any measure that would scrap legal protection for allotments, and that he will bring all possible pressure to bear on his colleagues in the DCLG?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
3. What steps she is taking to support the British food industry.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The Government take the British food industry extremely seriously. We have established the industry-led taskforce on farming regulation; we have also invested £13.6 million in collaborative research and agreed an action plan to increase fruit and vegetable production; and we will publish the groceries code adjudicator Bill shortly. Furthermore, on 26 January I wrote to all Departments setting out the Government’s commitment that, subject to no overall increase in costs, they will source only food that meets British or equivalent standards of production.
Robert Halfon
Nazeing village, in my constituency, is a UK centre for greenhouse farming, and that is especially true of the farm of Mr Franco Pullara. He is hoping to build a new plant to produce biogas, which will provide him with renewable heat and power, but the rules are a minefield. What further assistance can the Minister provide to support such farming projects, and will he meet Mr Pullara to discuss it?
Mr Paice
I am very much aware of a number of growers in my hon. Friend’s constituency who are pre-eminent in glasshouse production, and I would be very happy to meet this particular constituent. My hon. Friend is aware that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is undertaking a review of the feed-in tariffs for biogas production. Obviously we will have to await the outcome of that, but I hope that we can remove any other barriers to enable his constituent’s development to take place.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation forecast last month that global food production will have to rise by 70% by 2050, and that goes alongside the twin challenges for government of reducing agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions and ending food waste, which costs British families an estimated £5 billion a year. Why then, four months after the publication of the foresight report, have the Government produced no plan to increase sustainable food production? Was the president of the National Farmers Union not right to indicate that a Department without a plan for food means a Government without a grip on the vital issue of food security?
Mr Paice
That is a bit rich, given that the Labour Government spent 13 years running down our agricultural industry so that we now have to import to cover half our needs—that is the result of their policies. Of course we are developing our own proposals. The foresight report was produced under this Government and we stand by it. It is a very comprehensive report and we will, of course, be responding to it with a series of proposals to put British agriculture back where it belongs—back on its feet.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
4. What steps she is taking to support British food exports.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
DEFRA leads on a number of initiatives to support British food exports, such as working with industry to develop export certification schemes for non-EU markets. A recent success has been certifying dairy products for export to India. We are working with the food industry, and across government, to maximise the growth potential through overseas trade. That commitment is clear in the recently published UK trade and industry strategy.
Sajid Javid
I thank the Minister for his answer. Two of my constituents run a very successful pet food company, First Class Foods Ltd. They are trying to tap into international demand, but they face a significant obstacle in China because, surprisingly, we do not have the relevant export licence. Will he help to bring good, wholesome, tasty British pet food to Chinese cats and dogs by addressing this issue?
Mr Paice
I shall resist all the obvious temptations in that question. I am aware of First Class Foods in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The difficulties of entering the Chinese market are not confined to pet food; it took us three years to make the necessary import arrangements in respect of breeding pigs. However, my officials are working with the Chinese Government and, in particular, their General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine to find a way forward so that his company can export good quality pet food to China.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on fish discards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Since the ministerial meeting I attended in Brussels on 1 March, discussions have progressed at official level. Officials attended an event on 3 May with other member states, industry representatives and other interested parties, where the discussion about a discard ban continued. I consider that any move towards a discard ban must be backed up by genuinely effective, enforceable and affordable measures, driving more selective behaviour towards reducing what is caught in the first place.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will certainly have my support and good wishes, and those of my Front-Bench team, in making progress on that particular action. When he does so, will he also raise with the European Union and with John West Foods Ltd that company’s performance on tuna discards and tuna fishing generally? Some 49,000 people have signed a Greenpeace petition calling for improvements in that performance, and John West remains the only retailer and producer not to have taken action in the United Kingdom.
Richard Benyon
I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. It is worth applauding companies such as Princes that have moved over to line-caught tuna only. Many other multiples and supermarkets now sell only tuna that has been caught by sustainable means from sustainable stocks. I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the negotiations about discards, which is a wholly unacceptable practice. The Commission seems to be moving towards a quota for 15 years. Will he spare a thought for the Coble fishermen in Filey who have no quota, want to fish cod at the moment, but are unable to do so under the current regime?
Richard Benyon
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have to work off track records and historical fishing effort. I understand the many concerns of fishermen in the non-quota areas. They want to be part of a reformed policy and I will certainly consult my hon. Friend and Members of all parties to make sure that we take forward a long-term policy that has sustainability at its heart.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
How will the Minister assess the success of the catch quota trials that have been going on in Scotland and England? Does he foresee an extension of that effort to tackle discards?
Richard Benyon
When I was in opposition, I visited the hon. Lady’s constituency and talked to fishermen who were very concerned about having cameras on their boats as part of this scheme. Those concerns have now, by and large, dissipated and fishermen across the country are joining similar schemes. We have signed a declaration with France, Germany and Denmark, saying that catch quotas should be at the heart of a reformed common fisheries policy. That is really good news. I applaud the fishermen in the hon. Lady’s constituency and elsewhere; there will be no cod discarded from boats fishing from her constituency in the catch quota scheme this year.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that the 200 fishermen in the Cornish mackerel handliners association have decided not to continue their certification with the Marine Stewardship Council because they judged that the costs clearly outweighed the benefits, particularly bearing in mind that the MSC appears to have become more business-led and supermarket-driven in its standards, allowing some high-impact trawler-based methods to achieve certification?
Richard Benyon
Marine Stewardship Council accreditation is a highly respected brand globally, and must remain so. We must do all we can to work with it to ensure that it does remain so. I was dismayed to hear recently about the decision of the handline fishermen in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and I want all fishermen to try to get into accredited schemes like this one, which shows that they are not only fishing sustainably but accessing the market at a premium price. We want to make every effort to sustain the MRC accredited scheme.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
6. What steps she is taking to support fishermen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
Before I answer the question, I want to say that all Members are in awe of the hon. Lady’s courage in standing up for her constituents and the industry she loves so soon after the tragic loss of her husband
Fishermen are facing significant challenges, particularly in the English under-10 metre fleet. Forthcoming domestic and European reforms offer the opportunity fundamentally to change things and put the industry on a sustainable footing in the longer term. In the meantime, along with financial support available through the European Fisheries Fund, the Marine Management Organisation is working with industry effectively to manage the current system, to secure additional quota through swaps and to keep fisheries open as long as possible.
Sheryll Murray
I thank the Minister for those kind words.
I have a special interest in this subject as a custodian of an under-10 metre trawler. The impact assessment accompanying the consultation on the reform of fisheries management arrangements in England has not considered key sensitive assumptions. Will my hon. Friend test the sensitivities and risks for the impact of fixed quota allocations on under-10 metre vessels that, for various reasons, move between ports located in different ICES—International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—areas. Will he also assess the impact of fluctuations in fuel prices?
Richard Benyon
I think the law of unintended consequences is more prevalent in fisheries management than in anything else I have encountered. I want to make sure that our reforms for the under-10 metre sector work. That is why we developed a consultation, building on the sustainable access to inshore fisheries that was started by the last Government. I hope that we can put inshore fisheries on a sustainable footing. I will look at anything that stands in its way, so I will consult officials on what my hon. Friend has said and get back to her.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister will know of reports this morning about of the Commission’s proposals which are to be issued in July, referring to longer quota periods. I hope that he will use his good offices in the negotiations to ensure that no EU-wide conditions are applied that do not take account of local conditions and practices. It is important for the sustainability of fisheries throughout UK waters for local practices not to be disregarded.
Richard Benyon
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the issue. He is absolutely right. One of our problems in British waters is that we have, by and large, a very mixed fishery, and the top-down system management has not taken that into account. We are pushing for some form of at least sea-based and perhaps more local control and management of our fisheries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at the heart of a reformed fisheries policy is the need for local factors to be allowed to play a role, and that many of them should be controlled by member states or more locally to ensure that we have the right and most sustainable policies.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
7. What steps she is taking to increase the level of access to Ministers and engagement with departmental decision making for farming and rural communities.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
13. What steps she is taking to increase the level of access to Ministers and engagement with departmental decision making for farming and rural communities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Our new rural communities policy unit is building links with a wide range of organisations representing and supporting rural communities. We are also encouraging the development of a new rural and farming network enabling people from different parts of the country to advise Ministers directly on farming, food and rural issues.
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply.
One of the challenges facing rural communities is the sense of isolation that results from poor access to broadband and voice calls. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers address the problem of rural communities’ feeling of apartness from government in regard to lack of access to online means of communication?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is right to raise this point. Those living in rural areas with no access to broadband are at a digital disadvantage, which is why the coalition Government have committed £530 million to assisting the roll-out of superfast broadband to those areas. That is particularly important to farmers, who are expected to file their forms on line, but it is also important to children, who are nowadays expected to file their homework on line.
Graham Evans
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most damaging characteristics of the last Government was their apparent distance from issues affecting people living in rural communities such as mine? Can she reassure my constituents that people living in the countryside will be given every opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard directly when it comes to rural policy making?
Mrs Spelman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has given the Conservatives strong backing from 2009 onwards on the need to put the rural heart of the country back at the centre of government. May I encourage him, our hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and all other Members present to persuade their constituents to engage with the new rural and farming network? It will provide an opportunity for people to have direct access to Ministers, and I hope that every Member will take advantage of that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the Department’s effort to engage with rural communities, which is obviously important in the south-west, but is the Secretary of State aware of the growing fear that the Department is beginning to represent the interests of food producers and farmers at the expense of those of food consumers? What steps is she taking to ensure that consumers are involved in departmental decision making as well?
Mrs Spelman
I do not recognise that distorted view of what the Department does. If I were to list just a few of our achievements over the last 12 months, they would point strongly to the breadth of our remit . For instance, I helped to secure agreement on biodiversity in Nagoya, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), helped to secure the ban on illegal timber logging and ensure that the ban on commercial whaling was retained, and we will shortly produce a natural environment White Paper, the first for 20 years. That should give a strong assurance to all Members and everyone we know who cares deeply about the protection of the environment.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
9. What steps her Department is taking to encourage greater community involvement in the running of local forests and woodland.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I recently had the privilege of planting a tree with the Friends of Kingfisher Country Park, the Tree Council, Keep Britain Tidy, BTCV and local tree wardens to mark the milestone of 100,000 trees planted as part of our big tree plant. Since the launch in December, we have helped local communities and civil society partners across the country to plant trees where they live and work.
Mark Pawsey
I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. In January 2000, ownership of Brandon wood in my constituency passed from the Forestry Commission to the Friends of Brandon Wood and became the first community woodland in England. Since then, volunteers have worked hard to provide a network of footpaths for all-weather and all-ability walking throughout the woods, and local schools have been involved. Will the Minister ensure that the Independent Panel on Forestry fully considers the benefits that can arise from local ownership of woodlands such as that of Brandon wood?
Mrs Spelman
I am sure Members know this, but I should perhaps point out that my hon. Friend has a degree in estate management, and his constituency is therefore very blessed given its appetite for engagement in community forestry. Brandon wood is one of the best examples of community forestry, and I suggest that my hon. Friend should pass it directly to the IPF, because that panel is open to all members of the public, and part of its work will involve going around the country. He has an excellent opportunity to commend this example to the panel.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of getting local people further involved in woodland management would be by progressing the wood fuel strategy? Responsibility for that now lies with her colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change of course. Several months ago I had a meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), at which it was agreed that the programme could be doubled, but that it was important that both Departments work together on this because it is important that both demand and supply are matched up and incentivised.
Mrs Spelman
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the potential of wood fuel as part of a portfolio of renewable energy sources. We work very closely with our colleagues at DECC on this matter. We share a vision for the role of renewable energy, and I will address the wood fuel strategy with my DECC colleagues.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I doubt that the Secretary of State will be aware of Nottinghamshire police’s efforts to clamp down on antisocial behaviour in one of my woodlands in Sherwood, but does she agree that opening up woodlands to members of the public for the right use serves to drive out such antisocial behaviour?
Mrs Spelman
I can well imagine the problems. I suspect that every Member has some woodland in their constituency, so we will all know that that environment can, from time to time, attract the unwelcome attentions of those who perpetrate antisocial behaviour. It is therefore all the more important that people in our communities are vigilant and active in the right use of woodlands and green spaces, so that, as far as possible, we stamp out the antisocial behaviour that spoils them for everyone.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
10. What plans she has to bring forward proposals for mandatory carbon reporting by businesses.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Yesterday, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Henley, launched a public consultation seeking views on whether or not regulations should be introduced to make it mandatory for some companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. I commend Christian Aid for raising awareness of this issue in Christian Aid week, and I hope that that will also serve to raise awareness of our consultation among members of the public and encourage them to engage in it.
Pamela Nash
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Just yesterday, Lord Henley stated:
“More consistent reporting of emissions should help investors make better use of such data”.
Does the Secretary of State therefore agree with me and the 60,000 people who have taken the time to join Christian Aid’s campaign that consistency can be achieved only if the scheme becomes mandatory?
Mrs Spelman
We cannot pre-empt the outcome before the consultation, but institutional investors want this information in order to be able to make a more accurate assessment of companies. Most big companies already report their greenhouse gas emissions, but this is the perfect time for the hon. Lady and her colleagues to take part in the consultation, so that views may be ascertained.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Although we all want to encourage companies, particularly big companies, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a risk of over-burdensome regulation, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises, which will result in only a very small reduction in carbon emissions?
Mrs Spelman
The coalition Government are committed to relieving the unnecessary burden of red tape on all of business, but we understand that pressures can be particularly burdensome on SMEs. If my hon. Friend looks at the proposals in the consultation, he will see that these concerns have been taken account of, and I am sure that if he participates in the consultation and further reinforces the views he has expressed in the Chamber, it will all add weight to the outcome of the consultation.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
May I start by saying how unhappy the Opposition are, along with the National Farmers Union, that DEFRA questions have been castrated to a mere 45 minutes, although I understand the Government’s desire to give more time to their stellar parliamentary performer, the Deputy Prime Minister?
In opposition, the Conservative party promised to
“bring forward the date that the largest companies are required to report on carbon emissions”,
yet the consultation the Government published yesterday gives companies an option to do nothing. We heard earlier this week that the hawks in the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are holding up Cabinet agreement to the UK’s fourth carbon budget. Is there a Cabinet split on carbon reporting as well?
Mrs Spelman
We must set the record straight, for the sake of all hon. Members. It was the official Opposition who asked for the Deputy Prime Minister to be given a 15-minute slot, which had to come from one of the longer sessions of oral questions. If one analyses the number of questions that Opposition Members have tabled, one will see that the answer lies in their own hands. A glance at the Order Paper will confirm that twice as many Members on the coalition Benches tabled questions to DEFRA.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Secretary of State has made her point, but she must quickly answer the question on the Order Paper, and then we will move on.
Mrs Spelman
The question on the Order Paper concerns woodland cover and encouraging communities to plant more trees. I think I have made it clear how—[Interruption.] As for carbon reporting, the consultation contains four options for companies to engage in carbon reporting. The consultation was launched yesterday, and this is the time for people to express their views on the options in the paper.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
11. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effects on British farmers of planned EU changes to rates of duty on red diesel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The Secretary of State has not discussed this issue directly with the Chancellor, but officials have been in contact with the Treasury. The Commission’s proposals will not affect the ability of member states to set a lower duty on the off-road use of diesel as vehicle fuel. However, the UK does not support a mandatory pan-EU carbon tax, and nor does it support the Commission’s proposal, which would require 27 member states’ unanimous agreement before it could be adopted.
George Freeman
I thank the Minister for that reassuring answer. The EU draft proposal to remove the tax exemption on agricultural red diesel sent shockwaves through farming communities in my constituency and across British agriculture. After a decade in which the Labour party put up duty on red diesel four times, may I urge him to make the strongest representations across Whitehall and show that it is we on the Government Benches who are standing up for the rural economy?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend is to be applauded for standing up and campaigning on behalf of farmers in his constituency. They need to know that they have got a Government obsessed with keeping them competitive against a lot of international and domestic challenges. The Government recognise the value of farmers in producing food, protecting the environment and being the guardians of ecosystem services, and they now have a Government who are on their side.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
12. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the environmental regulations considered for possible revocation under the red tape challenge.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I want to make it clear that there is no intention of relaxing existing levels of environmental protection. As a former MEP, the hon. Lady will be well aware that most environmental legislation emanates from European directives, and their complete removal would not be possible. Nevertheless, it might be possible to improve their implementation arrangements. The red tape challenge should therefore be embraced by all as an excellent opportunity to gather ideas on how we can regulate better.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, by which I am not entirely reassured. Does she know that in my constituency, in Brighton and Hove, standards for nitrogen dioxide are regularly exceeded at 20 sites across the city? Much of the pollution—as well as its costly health consequences—is caused by traffic. Will she therefore absolutely guarantee to defend the regulations on air quality that set health protection standards should they come under threat from the insidious red tape challenge?
Mrs Spelman
The air quality directive is a piece of European legislation. Therefore, it is not involved in any red tape challenge. I share with the hon. Lady a desire to improve air quality, as it has enormous benefits for the environment and for human health. The fact is that air quality demands at a European level are very ambitious and we are working closely with local authorities, the Mayor of London and others to do all we can to improve air quality.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
14. How many inspections have been carried out by her Department’s zoo inspectors since May 2010; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
According to our records, from 1 May 2010 to 9 May 2011 DEFRA’s nominated zoo inspectors carried out 59 inspections. This is a matter for local authorities, however, and sadly they do not always inform us when inspections take place.
Mr Cunningham
I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he give me the figures for the inspection of circuses as well?
Mr Paice
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a lot of speculation about circuses. There have been recent press reports that the Austrian Government have been taken to court for their attempt to ban wild animals in circuses, so our Government can hardly recommend something that might not be legal. I can assure him, however, that the proposals we will bring forward shortly will be tough enough to ensure that animal welfare in circuses is properly protected.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been reported, and suggested by the Minister, that there will be enhanced inspections rather than a ban on wild animals in circuses. Labour’s consultation showed that 94% of respondents favoured a ban. The petition in The Independent attracted nearly 15,000 signatures in the past week, and crucially on 3 April DEFRA briefed that it favoured a ban as well. Another month, more drift and no announcement: is it dither, delay or No. 10 that is preventing the Secretary of State from showing some leadership?
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the answer I just gave. Whether we like it or not, this court case is going on in Europe and therefore the British Government could not bring forward a proposal—although I am interested to hear that he would—that might well prove shortly to be unlawful.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My Department’s priorities are to protect the environment, support farmers and strengthen the green economy. On Monday, I launched a report on climate resilient infrastructure with Lord Krebs and Simon Kirby of National Rail at the remodelled Blackfriars station, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport. This dry spring—the second in succession—which we are closely monitoring, reminds us all of the need to adapt to the increasing frequency of extreme weather events.
Mr Spellar
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. She mentioned climate, so may I ask why she is delaying bringing forward legislation on water and why she is even considering compulsory water metering in areas where there is no water shortage? In this month of the Chelsea flower show, has she considered the impact of this water tax on gardeners or even talked to her Health colleagues about the benefits of gardening for body and soul? What do this Government have against allotment holders and gardeners?
Mrs Spelman
There were a number of things there. As part of our achievements in our first year in office I would count the implementation of most of the Pitt review, so there has been clear progress in implementation. The water White Paper is due later this year, and I just mentioned how closely we are monitoring the water situation. I am very concerned that it is already having an irreversible impact on agricultural production and I have convened a meeting of all stakeholders next week as it is very important that we take this matter extremely seriously.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T2. The Department has spent many millions of pounds buying up some of our best farmland next to the Ouse washes to provide extra habitat for birds. The Littleport and Downham internal drainage board has expressed grave concern at the increased flooding risk to homes and other farmland. This action undermines food security and is not a good use of public funds at a time of austerity. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a local delegation to discuss that, and will his Department now publish a detailed assessment of the costs associated with it so that we can assess it properly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
The short answer is yes. Our policies have to balance nature conservation against our commitment to food security. I want to know how established schemes that have been running for many years are working, and the development of the scheme that my hon. Friend talks about dates back almost a decade. I want to make sure that we are getting things right, so I appreciate his raising that point.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that children learn best when they are out of the classroom. Often they learn very well in the natural environment—in forests and wild places. The number of school visits is collapsing under the present Government. What is the Secretary of State doing with her Education counterpart to boost the number of trips that children make to the green environment?
Richard Benyon
If the hon. Gentleman can curtail his enthusiasm for a few weeks and wait to see what is in the natural environment White Paper, I think he will rejoice that this Government get outdoor learning. The Department is working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and others, and is engaging with great visionaries such as Kate Humble and others for whom this is a passion, which we share.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
T3. Early this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State committed to publishing the waste review in June. It is obviously going to be a landmark document for the United Kingdom, so will she commit to bringing it to the House for debate?
Mrs Spelman
It is important that all DEFRA’s publications are laid before the House; we go to great lengths to keep the House informed of all our activities. The waste review is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a landmark publication, and we look forward to publishing it shortly. We will make it widely available to hon. Members.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In view of the forthcoming European Commission conference on the LIFE+ programme to protect biodiversity, will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that officials in the Environment Agency and Natural England will work right across the UK to make sure that we can get the maximum funding from that programme, particularly for the proposal that I am working on in Stoke-on-Trent to improve access to natural resources and to keep biodiversity?
Mrs Spelman
I share the hon. Lady’s passion for the protection of biodiversity and the enhancement of biodiversity where there has been biodiversity loss. I am sure that every sinew will be strained by every member of the DEFRA family to make sure that the United Kingdom does well out of any resources that are being made available through the European Union so that we can benefit by putting those resources where they will make a difference—with the protection of biodiversity.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
T4. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and I were campaigning long and hard against the introduction of compulsory horse passports—identification cards for horses—legal advice to DEFRA was that Ministers had three options. The first was to seek to extend the EU derogation on the subject for a further 10 years, the second was to bring in a minimal regime so that horses at abattoirs would have to have some kind of documentation, and the third was an all-singing, all-dancing, bells and whistles option, requiring every zebra, donkey, horse and pony in the land to have an ID card. Will the Minister re-examine that legal advice from 2005 to work out whether it might be possible to make horse ID cards voluntary rather than compulsory?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s passion for this issue, some of which I share. The advice I have received is that the decision that the previous Government unsurprisingly made to develop the most bureaucratic and regulatory option is irreversible, but I am more than happy to look at it again.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the Minister of State’s previous defiant answer, could the Secretary of State find it in her heart to praise The Independent for its campaign to ban wild animals from circuses? Perhaps she will join the 10,000 people who have already signed the petition that the newspaper is running by signing it herself.
Mrs Spelman
Every Member of the House can find it in their heart to do that—of course they can. We have all read newspaper reports about the terrible suffering of Anne the elephant, and I am very glad that she is being spared and has a new, far more enjoyable home. However, the report in The Independent clearly states that the Austrian Government have been taken to court by a German circus company because of a breach of the EU services directive. It would be irresponsible of any Government—I hope he is not saying that he would do this if he were part of a Government—to recommend something that is in legal dispute.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
T5. Yesterday at the Westminster youth fête, I was delighted to join other hon. Members in signing the Red Tractor 4 Wheels manifesto. I know that the Government and my right hon. Friend are committed to supporting UK farmers and to giving consumers information about environmental quality and assurance. How will they support the initiative?
Mr Paice
The Government strongly support the Red Tractor initiative, and I am sorry that I could not attend yesterday’s event, as I was at an event elsewhere in the country. However, I understand that it was a great success. As my hon. Friend well knows, we have distributed a circular, and we hope to introduce Government buying standards, as we will require all parts of central Government to buy food produced to British standards which, in most cases, will mean Little Red Tractor standards.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past, there has been exceptional pressure on the fishing industry at sea, which has spread to food production on land. In particular, the problems are coming from China, which is buying up a lot of food products. Has the Minister had discussions with Ministers in other regions, particularly the most recent Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, to agree a strategy and policy to address that issue?
Richard Benyon
I look forward to building again the good relationship that I had with devolved Ministers from all kinds of different parties in the different parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that, particularly on fisheries and marine issues, we work as one and agree, as we did, on nearly everything so that we work towards sound policies on food security, conservation and protecting valuable ecosystems. I will continue to do so.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I am trying to help Back-Bench Members, but in topical questions we must have single, short, supplementary questions and short answers.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
T6. British dairy farmers such as Graham Tibbenham from Weybread in my constituency are struggling to be paid a fair price for their milk by British supermarkets. I am sure that the Minister would like to help. What can his Department do?
Mr Paice
I know the dairy industry, and many sectors face great difficulties, particularly with regard to price. The Government are about to publish proposals— we trust with all-party support—for a groceries code adjudicator, which we hope will go a long way towards helping with that. There are measures, too, going through the EU with regards to contracts. We do not think that they are the sole answer, as some do, but we think that they are a step forward.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 states that a badger cull can be carried out only between May and September. Given that any change to the Act would require secondary legislation, which could be introduced only after 1 October, will the Minister say whether there will be a badger cull this year?
Mr Paice
The hon. Gentleman is aware that we published a consultation last autumn and, as I said to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting, it produced a number of challenges that we need to work through. We will make an announcement about a total package of measures to combat this awful disease as soon as we possibly can.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
T7. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet a delegation from the Brecon and Radnor NFU, which will want to know what representations his Department have made on behalf of upland farmers in negotiations on the common agricultural policy. Perhaps he would like to rehearse his answer.
Mr Paice
I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend’s farmers next week, and I will give them a longer answer. However, the short answer is that the Government published their own uplands review a couple of months ago. As for the CAP, we have reservations about the Commission’s initial proposals to top-slice pillar 1 payments for less favoured areas. We do not think that that is the best way forward, because it would be much more bureaucratic. We think that they are best funded from pillar 2, but it is a very early stage in the negotiations and we will have to see what works. However, we recognise the sensitive difficulties, including of remoteness, for farmers in upland areas.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
1. If the Electoral Commission will amend its guidance so that only a vote cast that indicates a positive preference for a candidate is counted as a valid vote.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The Electoral Commission informs me that its guidance to returning officers for dealing with doubtful ballot papers is based on the statutory rules for elections and case law in this area. The decision to accept or reject a ballot paper lies with the returning officer.
Mr Hollobone
In the recent local elections in the borough of Kettering, one seat was decided by one vote, and the ballot paper in question had no, no and no against the three candidates from one party and no other marks. That was counted as a positive vote for the three candidates from the other party. Will my hon. Friend advise me on which aspect of legislation we need to change to correct that injustice?
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend was kind enough to show me a likeness of the offending ballot paper earlier this week, and I have considerable sympathy for the point he makes. However, the situation is covered by rule 47(3) of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, with which most hon. Members will be very familiar. It states that a ballot paper shall not be deemed void if an intention that the vote shall be for one or more candidates clearly appears. He may wish to take up his laudable campaign to change the rules with the relevant Minister.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
2. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to increase the number of weddings performed by the Church of England.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
The Church of England’s weddings project is a package of training and resources now being used in two thirds of Church of England dioceses and is designed to encourage and promote the local parish church as a choice for weddings. It follows recent changes introduced by the Church to broaden the choice of church venues available for couples wishing to marry.
Andrew Selous
We have strong Government support for marriage and 90% of young people say that they want to get married, yet the number of marriages has halved since 1972 and it is at its lowest since 1895. As this is a serious issue of social justice, will my hon. Friend write to me, placing a copy in the Library, describing examples of where parishes have increased the number of weddings, with good preparation and after care, and will he encourage the archbishops to ensure that there is more of the same?
Tony Baldry
I assure my hon. Friend that the archbishops, bishops and indeed all the Church of England believe strongly in marriage and want to encourage couples to consider getting married in church. There is now a website, www.yourchurchwedding.org, which offers information on how prospective couples can get married in a church and provides a ceremony planner for them to design their own service. Every church wants to welcome couples who wish to get married in church, and I am certainly happy to write to him as requested.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last week in Westminster Hall there was a very clear debate on families, in which the issue of marriages came up in particular. I have been approached about the matter of price and fees. Will the hon. Gentleman give some indication of whether the Church would be prepared to consider lower fees, because as we all know, the price for marriages is becoming exorbitant?
Tony Baldry
The hon. Gentleman missed the chance only the other day to consider in Committee the occasional fees for the Church of England. He will find that the fee paid to the church for conducting a marriage is actually very modest in comparison with the overall costs. We are very keen to ensure that no one should feel in any way deterred from getting married in church as a result of the fees that are payable.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
3. What steps the Electoral Commission is taking to increase voter registration among hard-to-reach groups.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
The commission’s public information campaigns are targeted at groups that are less likely to be on the electoral register. The commission also sets standards for electoral registration officers, provides them with guidance and materials to increase electoral registration, and provides targeted support where underperformance is found. The commission has recently announced that it will take specific steps with the 45 electoral registration officers in Great Britain who have not met the standards for a number of years.
Robert Halfon
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for low voting numbers is lack of literacy and people being unable to read the forms? In my constituency, we have problems with literacy. What is he doing to increase the powers of the Electoral Commission to help those with literacy problems so that they can register to vote?
Mr Streeter
My hon. Friend is right to raise the problems confronting those with literacy challenges. The Electoral Commission uses a number of media, including radio and TV, in its targeted campaigning to do its best to reach everyone. It also produces a range of information in an easy-read format, which can be found on its website, but following my hon. Friend’s interest in this important matter I will certainly speak to the Electoral Commission to see what more can be done.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Can I raise a matter very dear to your heart, Mr Speaker, about how we involve more people in the work of Parliament through electoral registration? Will the hon. Gentleman look at the ways in which some pilot funding could be secured to assist those in the parish and town councils of Kidsgrove in my constituency with setting up a youth parliament in order to make young people aware of how our parliamentary democracy and electoral system work?
Mr Streeter
The Electoral Commission is very keen to increase electoral registration and engagement in democracy. I will certainly take forward the hon. Lady’s very interesting suggestion to the commission, and we will write to her with what I hope will be a positive response.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
4. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that ancient trees in churchyards are protected.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
8. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that ancient trees in churchyards are protected.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)
Ancient yews are defined as trees older than 250 years and possibly as much as 5,000 years old. Yew trees were felled on a huge scale for English longbows between the 13th and 16th centuries. The yew tree has been an important part of historical religious practice, and in Britain the Celts and Romans thought it to be associated with immortality, regeneration and protection from evil.
In large numbers of cases, the ancient yew trees in churchyards are significantly older than the churches occupying the surrounding land. Many yew trees trace their history back to sacred groves and other such significant sacred places of earlier civilisation. There are eight sites of ancient yew trees recorded in Warwickshire and 12 in Cheshire.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As well as being the final resting place of the great bard, William Shakespeare, Holy Trinity church in Stratford-on-Avon has 12 yew trees representing the 12 tribes of Israel and is home to a yew tree that is estimated to be several hundred years old. Does my hon. Friend agree that the protection of such trees is extremely important in maintaining the historic settings of our great churches?
Tony Baldry
It is fantastic that Holy Trinity, Stratford, has planted 12 new yew trees, but my hon. Friend highlights the fact that a number of older yew trees, designated as ancient or veteran, have not had adequate statutory protection. The Church of England is determined to do all that it can to ensure that every yew tree in our churchyards is properly protected.
Fiona Bruce
It is excellent to hear from my hon. Friend that ancient yew trees are being preserved and protected in that way, but even with best practice no tree will last for ever. What is being done to introduce new trees to our churchyards so that future generations might enjoy that attractive part of our churchyard heritage?
Tony Baldry
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that on the eve of the millennium the Conservation Foundation charity presented churches throughout the country with some 8,500 young yew trees, propagated from trees estimated to be at least 2,000 years old. We are now asking churches that planted millennium yews to record their growth and condition on Biodiversity day, which is on Sunday 22 May. I hope, however, that a number of churches up and down the land will follow the example of Holy Trinity, Stratford, and consider planting 12 new yew trees to represent either the 12 tribes of Israel or, indeed, the 12 apostles.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
5. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to encourage churches to develop and foster biodiversity in churchyards.
Tony Baldry
The Church of England, through its own environmental campaign “Shrinking the Footprint”, along with Natural England is supporting an application to the Heritage Lottery Fund by the charity Caring for God’s Acre to extend its work encouraging and supporting churchyard biodiversity schemes nationwide.
Mr Gray
North Wiltshire has some of the finest and oldest churchyards anywhere in England—one thinks of Malmesbury abbey, St Bartholomew’s in Wootton Basset, St Mary’s in Calne—and dozens of tiny, ancient, hidden churchyards miles from anywhere. What can the Church Commissioners do to encourage greater biodiversity in them while preserving their peaceful, quiet charm?
Tony Baldry
The Wiltshire living churchyards project has 45 participating churchyards, helped and supported by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Wiltshire Churches Together and Social Responsibility in Wiltshire. As my hon. Friend tells the House, Wiltshire has a unique and rich diversity of landscape, and there are annual seminars at which Wiltshire living churchyards awards certificates for continued wildlife management. The Bishops of Bristol and of Salisbury and the Church locally are determined that churches throughout Wiltshire should be opportunities to celebrate biodiversity.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
6. How much the Church Commissioners received through the gift aid scheme in the past 10 years.
Tony Baldry
Church of England parishes recovered £82 million in gift aid from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in 2009, which is the last year for which we have data. Over the past 10 years, we believe that the Church has recovered a total of nearly £713 million from parish donations; this excluded donations made at cathedrals.
Jeremy Lefroy
I welcome the recent measure in the Budget to allow donations up to £5,000 for which declarations have not been made to have tax recovered on them. What measures are the Church Commissioners taking to ensure that parishes take up this welcome opportunity?
Tony Baldry
That provision in the Budget was very welcome, as was the provision for the small donations gift aid scheme, because each year, in addition to using planned giving envelopes, people put into the collection plate some £58 million of loose change, and the scheme will be of considerable assistance in recovering tax on that money as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Church has to make the best possible use of funds that are given to it in meeting social need and ensuring that churches can be places of community resource. That also means their being places not just of worship but for the widest possible community use, whether it be for cafés, concerts, crèches or other uses for the community as a whole.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
7. What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to reduce the level of lead theft from church buildings.
Tony Baldry
Last year, churches in Manchester had more lead theft than in any other area of the UK, with a significant number of insurance claims being made. Metal theft, particularly the theft of lead from church roofs, is the most serious problem facing the maintenance of the historic legacy of church buildings, with Wakefield cathedral being the most recent case. The Church recently sent a report to the Home Office in which it makes recommendations for the greater regulation of the scrap metal industry.
Mr Nuttall
What advice, if any, has the Church Buildings Council been able to give churches to advise them on how to help to deter thieves?
Tony Baldry
The Church is giving all possible advice to churches about effective deterrents, including what they should do regarding wireless roof alarms and other things. Frankly, though, it is a broader issue than that. The Church Buildings Council is of the view that the regulation of scrap yards is fundamental to reducing the level of metal theft. It is all too easy for roofs to be stripped of lead one night and the lead to be sold for cash the next day. We want cash transactions for lead to be made illegal, a requirement for scrap yards receiving lead or traders selling it to be licensed specially for that activity, a requirement to show documentary proof of identification when selling lead and to photograph each person when their identity is checked, and a requirement on scrap yards to report suspicious activity or persons to local police forces.
It is difficult to underestimate the damage that this is doing. The number of claims—
Mr Speaker
Order. It would be very difficult for me to underestimate the comprehensiveness of the hon. Gentleman’s reply, which I think I can safely say is unsurpassed in the House.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
9. What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the financial consequences for the Church of England of (a) women priests and (b) women bishops.
Tony Baldry
The General Synod of the Church of England legislated to make special financial provision for the 441 clergy who resigned from ministry between 1994 and 2004 as a result of opposition to the admission of women to the priesthood. The total cost of that to the Church Commissioners was £27.5 million plus a further call of £2.4 million on the unfunded pension scheme. The draft legislation to enable women to become bishops makes no financial provision for those who might leave should it in due course pass into law.
Simon Hughes
Now that the last remaining people who had a long-term philosophical commitment to opposing women in the ministry appear to have left the Church of England, may I urge the Church Commissioners to move with all speed to do what the vast majority of Church of England members want, which is to make sure that women can become bishops, as well as priests, at the earliest available date?
Tony Baldry
My views on this matter are well recorded. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, this matter is now out with the dioceses. I am sure that the Archdeacon of Southwark, who is a strong campaigner on this issue, will keep him informed. The dioceses are reviewing the matter and will vote on it in the near future. If they vote in the affirmative, the matter will go to the General Synod. This matter is being dealt with as speedily as is possible.
Mr Speaker
I apologise to the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, but the House must hear from Mr Brian Binley.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
10. What recent assessment the Public Accounts Commission has made of the effects of the UK’s fiscal situation on the work and budget of the National Audit Office.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
In response to the UK’s fiscal situation, the National Audit Office’s strategy for the three years from April 2011 set out plans to save 15% in nominal terms and 21% in real terms over that period. In exploring the strategy in November, the commission considered the effect of the cost reductions on public spending and on the NAO’s work on the use of resources by public sector bodies. The commission concluded that the cost reduction proposals were sound, and it approved the NAO’s budgets for the three-year period.
Mr Binley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he recognise that the National Audit Office generates about 11 times its cost in savings? Was the commission therefore wise to create a reduction? Should the NAO not be given its usual allowance of resources to allow it to save more money for the general public?
Mr Leigh
Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, but the NAO cannot be exempt from the pressure on the budgets of all Departments. It is vital that the NAO leads by example. Under the guidance of the commission, it is doing as many reports as possible, more economically and more speedily, and is saving more money for the taxpayer.
Business of the House
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 16 May—Motion to approve the 15th report 2010-2012 of the Standards and Privileges Committee (HC 1023), followed by general debate on the middle east, north Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Tuesday 17 May—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Localism Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Localism Bill (Day 1).
Wednesday 18 May—Remaining stages of the Localism Bill (Day 2).
Thursday 19 May—Motion relating to the BBC World Service, followed by motion relating to rural broadband and mobile coverage. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 May will include:
Monday 23 May—Opposition Day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 24 May—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment, as nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Subject to the approval of the House, colleagues will wish to be aware that the House will meet at 11.30 am on this day.
Colleagues will also wish to be reminded that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Whitsun recess on Tuesday 24 May 2011 and return on Tuesday 7 June 2011.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. May I begin by expressing our deep sadness at the untimely loss of our dear friend and colleague, David Cairns? He was a lovely man, he was a principled man, he was a fine Minister, and he will be missed by all of us greatly.
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we will have a statement on the shortfall in funding at the Ministry of Defence following the strategic defence and security review? The Defence Secretary told the Defence Committee that he would make a statement after the elections, and Members from all parts of the House are anxious to hear the outcome. When will the Armed Forces Bill return to the House so that the Government can honour their commitment, as we have been urging them to do, to enshrine the military covenant in law?
May we have an urgent statement from the Home Secretary to explain what she plans to do following the humiliating defeat of her proposals for police commissioners in the other place yesterday?
May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s broken election pledge to make Britain the most family friendly country in Europe? This week, the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank founded by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, said that the coalition has failed to support marriage, unfairly penalised middle-class parents, and done “almost nothing” to address the breakdown of families.
What about the greenest government ever pledge? This week, a leaked letter revealed that the Business Secretary is arguing for a lower carbon reduction target than that recommended by the Committee on Climate Change. May we have a statement on whether the Prime Minister is going to accept or reject that target?
On Sunday, the Deputy Prime Minister said about his own Government’s NHS reforms:
“I am not going to ask Liberal Democrat MPs…to proceed with legislation on something as precious and cherished as the NHS unless I personally am satisfied that what these changes do is an evolutionary change in the NHS and not a disruptive revolution.”
So now we know that the Deputy Prime Minister, who originally backed the Bill, actually thinks it is disruptive, when will we see the significant and substantial changes that the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised the House?
Will the Leader of the House explain why we have still not seen the higher education White Paper, when a bit of it was announced on the “Today” programme on Tuesday rather than in Parliament? The Universities Minister got himself into a terrible mess with his idea of well-off students paying for off-quota places at university. I suppose that with internships having been sold off at a Tory fundraiser, one could see that as the logical next step for social class mobility. Downing street, however, was not amused, and said so. It stated:
“We are not quite sure what he was trying to say but it wasn’t very helpful.”
So while the Minister was forced to come to the House to deny the rumour that he himself had started, the House waits in vain for a coherent policy.
May we have a statement on free schools, now that nearly nine out of 10 applications have been turned down? A disappointed Downing street source—they have been very busy dumping on Ministers this week—admitted that free schools had not been a success and said:
“I guess you’d give Michael a six out of 10”.
It is not just Cabinet Ministers who have been done over. What does the Leader of the House make of the Downing street source who, talking about the Prime Minister’s dismal performances at Prime Minister’s questions, said:
“It’s just not working. We’re not winning enough. The Flashman image is very damaging and we need to address it before it becomes an accepted stereotype”?
As the House saw yesterday, it is far too late for that already.
Finally, may we have a debate on the state of the coalition? It has been a shambolic week for a dysfunctional Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and his deputy now openly arguing with each other just 12 months after they took their coalition vows. Perhaps that was why, smarting from electoral defeat, the Business Secretary finally gave vent to his feelings over the weekend when he described the Prime Minister’s party as
“ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal.”
We could have told him that, but has it really taken him a whole 12 months to notice it? If so, does not that degree of naivety prove that he is, after all, part of the greenest Government ever?
Sir George Young
May I begin by endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman said about David Cairns? He was a decent, able man, and it is a tragedy that he has been taken from his friends and from the House at such a young age.
The Secretary of State for Defence will want to keep the House informed of the latest position on the Ministry of Defence budget. On the Armed Forces Bill, as I think I have said before, we want the House to have the military covenant before Third Reading. Work is continuing on finalising the covenant and it will be placed before the House relatively soon, and shortly after that we will have Third Reading.
As far as the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is concerned, we are of course disappointed by the defeat in the House of Lords, because the election of police and crime commissioners is part of the coalition agreement and was part of the Bill that was passed from this House to the other place. It is regrettable that the other place has decided to take the steps that it has. The Bill will, of course, return to this Chamber, and I hope that when it does we will have the support of the shadow Policing Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who made it very clear in 2008 that
“only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical.”
I hope that Labour Front Benchers will therefore join us in seeking to overturn the amendment made in the Lords.
The shadow Leader of the House asked for a whole series of debates on a range of subjects. I have just announced that there will be an Opposition day on Monday week, so he can choose to debate any of the subjects that he mentioned.
On the fourth carbon budget, the right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press. We are committed to announcing before the end of next month the target for 2023 to 2027, and I anticipate that we will make a statement quite soon and that the draft statutory instrument will be laid before the House in good time for it to be debated.
We debated the NHS on Monday in Opposition time, when a rather weak attack from them was easily seen off by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The higher education White Paper was dealt with in an urgent question by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. It will be published before the summer recess.
The shadow Leader of the House then asked about the coalition. I note that yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“We will stand together, but not so closely that we stand in each other’s shadow.”
It is manifestly obvious to anyone that the Deputy Leader of the House and I could never stand in each other’s shadow. As ever, the shadow Leader of the House painted a rather dismal picture of the Government, but one must ask this question: if we are doing so badly, why is he not doing better?
Perhaps on the next Opposition day, we can hear from some of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) said that Labour’s disastrous adventures in Scotland last week were the result of 30 years of “arrogance and complacency” and that “Labour deserved to lose.” Last night, in a spectacular own goal, the shadow Culture Secretary was forced to rewrite a speech that admitted that Labour was seen as a
“party which overspent without delivering sufficient value for money”,
before warning that on the current strategy, the Labour party would lose the next general election.
All that confirms that while there are some lively debates between the two parties in the coalition, they are nothing compared with the civil war in the Labour party.
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, a great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there is another statement to follow, and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so there is a premium on economy, both in questions and indeed in answers.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
May we have a debate on the practice in some councils of funding the salaries of full-time union officials with taxpayers’ money, to consider whether Members of this House believe that that is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend on the initiative that he is taking to use freedom of information requests to find out more about the resources that are being allocated in that direction. At a time of financial restraint, I would expect all employers to ensure that such facilities are put to their proper use. However, at the end of the day, it is up to the employer on the one hand, and the trade union on the other, to agree to an amount of time and then to see that that is not exceeded.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The last time I had the honour to be in the Chamber to listen to the late Member for Inverclyde, he made a passionate defence of the rights of gays and lesbians in Uganda. We hear that tomorrow, the Ugandan legislature might discuss a further oppressive piece of legislation on the rights of gays in Uganda. May we have an urgent statement from the Government on what they are doing to follow his words urging them to make representations to the Ugandans about ceasing the hateful rhetoric that they deploy against gay people, and to ensure that we stand up for their human rights, as he would have done?
Sir George Young
I commend and agree with what the hon. Lady says, and I pay tribute to the campaign that David Cairns championed. I agree that what is happening in Uganda is an important subject. It might be appropriate for her to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister can indicate that the Government share her concern, and outline the action that we might take with the appropriate representatives of the Ugandan Government.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
After years of failure to make the Barrow crossing at Downham Market safe and wasting money on a proposed footbridge that nobody wants, may we have a debate on Network Rail’s accountability?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is right that Network Rail’s corporate governance structure is supremely difficult to follow. We have a commitment to make it properly accountable to its customers, and at the moment we are examining the structures and incentives of the industry to see how best to enable that. I hope that that helps her, but in the meantime I can only suggest that she redoubles her correspondence with Network Rail to see whether there is an appropriate solution to the position at Downham Market.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
More evidence has been reported this week of the growing crisis in the private care homes sector. Private care homes are desperately seeking more funding from local authorities, but they have had their funding cut by central Government. May we have a serious debate on the future of all aspects of long-term care, including funding, growing privatisation, which has caused a lot of the problem, and the risk to the elderly people in those care homes?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the funding problems for private care homes. He will know that we have asked Andrew Dilnot to chair a commission that is shortly to report on the long-term structure of funding for residential and nursing home care. I anticipate that once that report is in the public domain, the House will want to debate it. The hon. Gentleman may have heard on the radio this morning that certain parts of the country have seen a 4% increase in spending on adult services, and we put an extra £2 billion into social care in the public expenditure announcement.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
On Monday, all Warwickshire MPs met the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership. I was extremely impressed with the work that the LEP is doing to engage with local businesses to promote growth and job creation. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the work of local enterprise partnerships and how we can best support them?
Sir George Young
I was pleased to hear of the initiative of the MPs for Coventry and Warwickshire. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the written ministerial statement issued today on local enterprise partnerships—he may have already seen it—that announces a new £5 million start-up fund for LEPs. That would be a valuable topic for the House to discuss in Westminster Hall.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Although we always have our constituency duties during recesses, why on earth are we breaking up for two weeks? This House did not meet for three weeks over Easter. How many places up and down the country break up for two weeks for what is described as Whitsun?
Sir George Young
Speaking for myself—and, I am sure, for a large number of other hon. Members—I will be actively engaged in my constituency over the Whitsun recess, which I certainly do not regard as a two-week holiday. Also, speaking from memory, I think that this year the House will be sitting for longer than the previous year. If we look overall throughout the year, it is certainly not the case that since the general election we are sitting for fewer days than before.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
May we have a debate on power line technology devices that are used across the land to connect computers in homes? The 2006 regulations that govern the use of such devices set no maximum interference levels. However, as their usage is becoming more prevalent, organisations such as the Civil Aviation Authority are becoming concerned. Can the Government address this issue?
Sir George Young
I understand that my hon. Friend’s wish has been granted and that he has won an Adjournment debate on the subject next Wednesday.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Can the Leader of the House—if he is paying attention—tell us when the Scotland Bill is likely to return for its remaining stages? When it comes back, will he also ensure enough time to debate and secure the extra economic powers that the Scottish people voted for with the overwhelming re-election of a Scottish National party majority Government last week?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will have heard that I have not announced further debate on the Scotland Bill between now and the Whitsun recess. I anticipate that we will be addressing it thereafter. It is the coalition Government’s intention that there should always be adequate time on Report to debate important issues. I hope to make enough time available for proper consideration of the Scotland Bill, including the issue that he has just touched on.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
More than 300,000 people have signed the petition to save the Leeds children’s heart unit, yet right hon. and hon. Members have not had the chance to debate the review of services that started under the previous Government. Will the Government please make time available in the timetable for all Members to express their views on this important issue?
Sir George Young
The next opportunity, at Health questions, will be on 7 June—the issue was also raised at business questions last week by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), albeit in a slightly different context. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, together with others who feel strongly on the matter, have approached the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it would allocate time for a debate on this important subject, which I know has generated a lot of concern in many parts of England.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Sense, science and experience prove that the killing of badgers does not reduce bovine TB. When can we debate the Government’s indifference to animal suffering and their determination to prostrate themselves before their trigger-happy farming friends, so that they can walk all over them in a mass, futile slaughter of these beautiful, defenceless creatures?
Sir George Young
I represent a rural constituency where people’s view of badgers is slightly different from the one that the hon. Gentleman enunciated. Also, we have just had Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, at which I understand the issue of badgers was raised.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
Today is national nurses day. I am particularly pleased to support the campaign as my mother gave over 40 years’ service to the NHS as a children’s nurse. Will my right hon. Friend consider making parliamentary time available for a debate on the welcome recent increase in the numbers of nurses, health visitors and midwives in the NHS, along with the valuable role that nursing staff play in the NHS in my local community hospital at Ilkeston and, of course, across the country?
Sir George Young
I commend my hon. Friend—and her mother—for her commitment to the national health service. Today is indeed international nurses day, which is held on the anniversary of Florence Nightingale’s birthday. My hon. Friend reminds the House that there are now 200 more nurses, midwives and health visitors working in the NHS since the general election. Opposition Members may say that they trained them, but they also have to be paid for. We have provided extra resources for the NHS that Labour would not have provided. Today is an opportunity to raise the profile of nurses and encourage more people to think of nursing as a career, as well as to pay tribute to the compassion, commitment and leadership that nurses show day in, day out.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday we launched the United Nations decade for reducing road injuries and fatalities. We are also approaching the 30th anniversary of our successful campaign to introduce mandatory seatbelt legislation. The most likely way worldwide for young people to die is on the road in a car crash. When can we have a debate that highlights this important subject?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman may have seen the written ministerial statement yesterday, which was aimed at making better use of the police’s resources and focusing on really dangerous driving, as opposed to less dangerous driving. He rightly reminds the House that, I think, 2,222 people were killed on our roads last year. I hope that he will apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on road safety so that we can consider these issues at greater length.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House grant us a debate on the fact that from 30 June, properties used as holiday lets will require energy performance certificates under new guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government? The change will increase the cost of regulation for thousands of small businesses across the UK —something that I would have thought Ministers would have opposed.
Sir George Young
The Government are committed to reducing the amount of carbon emitted by buildings, and energy performance certificates are an important part of that initiative. Holiday lets are exempt if they are let for more than four months a year. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but landlords will benefit from reduced energy costs if they bring their properties up to standard, so I hope that they will see the other side of the coin.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Despite my writing to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), tabling questions and having an Adjournment debate, he has refused to publish the document outlining the proposals to privatise my local trust. May we have a debate on ministerial accountability so that we can raise these important matters?
Sir George Young
There is no way that a hospital can be privatised. That simply cannot happen. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he had a debate in Westminster Hall on this issue to which my right hon. Friend the Health Minister responded. I understand that correspondence is now taking place between the two of them. At the heart of the issue is how the hon. Gentleman’s hospital can meet the standards necessary to become a foundation trust and the need to explore the various options, including merger with another trust. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and he will write to him.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House ask whether we can have an oral statement on the recent United Nations report on the 40,000 civilian deaths caused by the Sri Lankan Government in the recent conflict?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party group on Sri Lanka and to whose work I pay tribute, reminds the House of the atrocities on both sides in the recent civil war in Sri Lanka and the publication of the UN report. It would be appropriate for him to apply for an Adjournment debate—perhaps in Westminster Hall—to look at the implications of that report and identify any action that it would be appropriate for Her Majesty’s Government to take.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Yesterday Members debated the Education Bill. However, the debate was incomplete because the admissions code had still not been provided, despite the assurances given by the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) that it would be available in time for Third Reading. May we have a statement to assure the House that in future we will not have debates when large and important parts of background information that are relevant to the Bill have not been provided? May we also have a statement about when we will see the admissions code, which is so important to Members in debating our education policy?
Sir George Young
I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and get an answer to his question on when the admissions code will be published. I also say in passing that I think we provided adequate time for discussion of the Education Bill, and I note that, in Committee, the Opposition spokesman said:
“I…thank the Government and Opposition Whips for the orderly way they have organised our business.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 993.]
The Government do not in any way want to obstruct discussion of that Bill.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
May we have a debate on the recent recovery of salmon stock in Scottish rivers, so that we can debate the importance of the subsidy to Scotland and the effect that its withdrawal would have on those stocks?
Sir George Young
The reason that I pause is that I am not sure whether responsibility for salmon is a devolved matter—[Interruption.] It is devolved; I see a nod from the Opposition Benches. Sadly, therefore, I cannot organise a debate on salmon in Scotland, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to a more generic point about resources flowing from Westminster to the north. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to debate that when the Scotland Bill returns.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the coalition agreement? I think that the country has a right to know exactly what state that document is now in. The Health and Social Care Bill is now at a pausing, listening and reflecting stage, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill was severely reformed by the Lords last night and, on Tuesday, we had the debacle of the statement on off-quota higher education places. If the coalition document were brought to the Floor of the House, both Government parties could table amendments to it and we could debate in public exactly what is happening to the agreement and understand it in greater detail.
Sir George Young
On the various issues, we had a debate on the national health service on Monday, and I indicated a few moments ago that we would be seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. The coalition is in good shape; we are getting on with strong, decisive, united government, which is what this country needs.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
To mark the anniversary of the general election and the formation of this Government, may we have an urgent debate on the achievements of the past 12 months and the many promises on which we have already delivered?
Sir George Young
It might be expecting too much for the Opposition to allocate the next Opposition day for a whole-day debate on the successes of the coalition Government. We have cut the deficit, we have capped immigration and we have frozen the council tax, etc., etc. The Localism Bill will be debated next week, and its Report stage might provide an opportunity to talk about our successes in that field.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
During the local election campaign, an 18-year-old candidate in my constituency was subjected to relentless attacks about his age by his Liberal Democrat opponent. One letter sent to residents made negative references to his age no less than three times. As the minimum age for standing for election was reduced to 18 to encourage more young people to get involved in politics, does the Leader of the House agree that his coalition partners should not attack younger people for wanting to serve their community? May we have a debate on how we might further encourage young people to take part in our democracy?
Sir George Young
I am very much in favour of young people standing for local government. The Deputy Leader of the House tells me that a 19-year-old in his constituency was recently successful, as was a 21-year-old in my own constituency. The more young people who stand for local authorities and, indeed, for this place, the better.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
For nearly four years, I worked with the NHS and saw at close quarters the huge bureaucracy in the connecting for health programme, in the national programme for information technology, in strategic health authorities and in primary care trusts. May we have a debate on the progress that has been made to reduce Labour’s bureaucratic legacy and to increase the numbers of clinicians, which is what our constituents really want?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend reminds me that the number of doctors has increased by 2,478—[Interruption.] They may have been trained, but they had to be paid for by somebody. At the same time, more than 3,500 full-time equivalent managers have been cut. That is in stark contrast with what happened under Labour, when the number of managers increased six times as fast as the number of nurses.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the assistance that we are able to give to constituents who are detained abroad? One of my constituents, Mr Joseph Nunoo-Mensah, a respected surgeon at King’s college hospital, is currently being detained in Dubai, having been charged with making a hand gesture at another motorist. I understand that Mr Nunoo-Mensah, who strongly denies the charge, cannot leave the country until after his hearing, which could be weeks or even months away. Meanwhile, he has patients here in the UK who need his expertise. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would be gracious enough to raise this matter with his colleagues in the Foreign Office, who I would prevail upon to do all they can to ensure that my constituent’s hearing is held as promptly as possible.
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about his constituent. If he has not already done so, I will contact the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see what consular assistance can be made available to this UK citizen in the distressing circumstances in which he finds himself.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
For the past two weeks, uncontrolled moorland fires have been burning in my constituency of Belmont and Darwen. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether the ban on controlled moorland burning is increasing the prevalence of uncontrolled fires? Specifically on the fires burning in my constituency, will he join me in praising the courage of the firemen from Lancashire and Manchester who have been fighting them day and night?
Sir George Young
I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has just said about the emergency services combating the serious fires in his constituency, and indeed in others. I cannot promise him a debate in Government time, but in the light of what has just happened, this strikes me as an appropriate subject for debate in Westminster Hall or for an Adjournment debate in this Chamber.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have an urgent statement on the Government’s intention to scrap the Equality Act 2010. In the recent meeting of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Business Secretary said that that was not the Government’s intention, and that a correction would be placed on the Red Tape Challenge website, which is suggesting that the Act will be scrapped. Given that no such correction has been placed on the website, may we have an urgent statement on the Government’s intention in relation to the Equality Act?
Sir George Young
I understand that this issue could be raised with the Home Secretary at the next Home Office questions. In the meantime, I will see whether she can write to the hon. Gentleman to address the issue that he has just raised.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
On Monday, the Home Secretary set out proposals to cut police bureaucracy that would save up to 2.5 million hours of police time, the equivalent of 1,200 officers. May we have a debate on those proposals, to discuss what else the Government could do to ensure that, despite the difficult decisions on public spending, our constituents do not see a decline in visible policing?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the speech that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave on Monday about the steps we are taking to decrease bureaucracy in the police force. I understand that the measures will release the equivalent of some 1,200 police officers, and she indicated that more was to come. She also made it clear that
“the days of the bureaucrats controlling and managing the police from Whitehall are over”,
and I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister keeps reminding the House that the flagship pupil premium policy of the Lib Dems is delivering for pupils in the poorer areas of the country, but my understanding from schools in my constituency is that they are gaining no net benefit from the measure. May we have a debate on the effect of the pupil premium on those poorer areas?
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
That is a very good idea.
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated that he would welcome such a debate. We have made provision for constant cash per pupil to be topped up by the pupil premium, so, against the background of the difficult decisions that the Government have had to take, education has had a good deal.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a debate on the Ministry of Justice’s 2011 compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis, so that the fact that prison works can be highlighted? The report contains proof that those who serve longer sentences are less likely to reoffend than those who serve shorter ones.
Sir George Young
I can tell my hon. Friend that we will shortly be introducing a legal services and sentencing Bill, at which point it will be possible to debate this matter at greater length, as well as looking at the relative effectiveness of shorter sentences, about which some criticism has been made.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
There is support on both sides of the House for the proposed £600 million Mersey Gateway bridge. It was given planning permission last year, and we were told that a decision on funding would be made by the end of last year. That decision has still not been made, because of issues relating to the funding package. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Transport Secretary to explain the delay? The longer this goes on, the more the cost of the bridge rises.
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the delay in constructing the bridge. I will share the concerns he has just expressed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman indicating a time scale for the construction of this bridge.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House assure me that there will be enough time within the remaining stages of the Localism Bill to discuss the empowerment of local authorities further to protect our green belt land from inappropriate development, which affects my constituency of York Outer?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. We will be debating the Localism Bill next week. Any proposal for development in the green belt is subject to stringent tests, and planning policy guidance note 2 explains the key policy: a presumption against inappropriate development on green belt land. We are committed to maintaining the green belt, and it says so in the coalition agreement.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
May we have a debate on car manufacturing in the UK? This year, Ford is celebrating its centenary of manufacturing in the UK and more than 30 years in my constituency, where the engine plant produces more than 1 million engines a year. It is also producing the new eco-engine, and more than one third of all cars that are Ford-manufactured in the UK have an engine that is produced in the UK—in either Bridgend or Dagenham. We have an increased number of engineers, increased manufacturing and an increased number of apprenticeships to celebrate in Bridgend. May we have a debate so that this can be recognised, at a time when we are negative about manufacturing in this country?
Sir George Young
Owing to the eloquence of the hon. Lady we have almost had that debate. She will be pleased to hear that manufacturing output increased by some 5% in the first quarter of the year. I entirely endorse every word that she said; manufacturing is important to this country’s future, and I hope that the steps we have taken in the Budget will encourage inward investment and the production of yet more eco-friendly engines at the plant in Bridgend.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Given the interest in the subject of bank lending to small and medium-sized enterprises and the forthcoming Independent Commission on Banking report, may we have a debate on that issue?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that under Project Merlin a specific commitment was given to increase lending to SMEs—I believe the figure was some £90 billion—and we are very anxious that that should be maintained. I am sure that when we have the ICB’s final report there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter at greater length. It is important that SMEs have continued access to bank lending so that they can invest in the future.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have an urgent Government statement on the disgraceful situation in which coastguards in Stornoway and Cornwall are being barred from giving evidence to the Select Committee on Transport next week about the impact of the Government’s proposals on coastguards? If the people who know about coastguard services are being barred from giving evidence to the Committee, surely that reduces any suggestion of confidence in this policy.
Sir George Young
My understanding is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) is coming to give evidence to the Transport Committee and that arrangements are being made for informal meetings between the Committee and coastguards outside this House, so I am not sure that it is exactly correct to say that members of the Select Committee have been denied access to coastguards. My understanding is that informal meetings are being arranged.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Martin Penny, the principal of Stratford-upon-Avon college, and his team are passionate about giving young people the tools to gain and maintain jobs in the private sector through apprenticeships. My right hon. Friend may have heard the way in which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out an agenda for tackling youth unemployment this morning. May we have a debate about this serious and important issue?
Sir George Young
I would welcome a debate on the important issue of youth unemployment, where we inherited a substantial figure—I believe it was 1.4 million. My hon. Friend may have heard today’s announcement of £60 million to get more vulnerable young people into work, and he will know that we are committed to 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years and radical reforms to transform vocational training. I would welcome such a debate, but I am afraid that I cannot promise the time for it immediately.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Parents in my constituency have come together to work to set up a free school in Sandymoor. This exciting development will bring a much-needed boost to local school choice and it has my full support. May we have a debate on the importance of providing top-quality advice and support to aspiring free school founders, so that we can help to make their efforts just that little bit easier?
Sir George Young
I am delighted to hear that parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency are planning to set up a free school and I welcome the support that he is giving them. It is important that those interested in setting up free schools have access to advice and support, which is why the Department for Education has funded the New Schools Network, an independent charitable organisation, to offer support to individuals and groups such as those he mentioned.
Vocational Education
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement on the next stage of this coalition Government’s radical reform programme to make opportunity more equal. I should like to outline our response to Professor Alison Wolf’s groundbreaking report on vocational education. In her work, Professor Wolf stresses the importance of fundamental reform across the board to improve state education, and I would first like to update the House on our progress towards that goal.
It is a year to the day since the new Department for Education was created to raise standards for all children and narrow the gap between rich and poor. In that year: we have introduced a pupil premium—£2.5 billion of additional spending on the poorest pupils; we have extended the free provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds and introduced free nursery education for all disadvantaged two-year-olds; we have launched the most comprehensive review ever of care for children with special needs; we have overhauled child protection rules to ensure that social workers are better able to help the most vulnerable children; we have allowed all schools to use the high-quality exams which the last Government restricted to the private sector; we are ensuring that spelling, punctuation and grammar are properly recognised in exams; we have recruited Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to restore proper narrative history teaching; and we are doubling the number of great graduates becoming teachers through Teach First and doubling the number of great heads becoming national leaders of education.
We have also created more than 400 new academies, tripling the number we inherited and creating more academies in 12 months than the last Government did in 12 years. I can confirm to the House today that we have now received more than 1,000 applications from schools wishing to become academies and more than 300 applications to set up free schools, many from great teachers such as the inspirational head teacher Patricia Sowter, and the former Downing street aide Peter Hyman.
Those achievements have been made possible by the united strength of two parties with a shared commitment to social mobility working together, and I wish to take this opportunity to underline my thanks, for the part they have played in pushing this programme forward, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), to the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). It is my personal hope that we will all be able once more to make use of his talents in the country’s service before too long.
We will be building on the momentum generated by our reform programme by today accepting all the recommendations in Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education. She found that although there are many great vocational education courses and institutions providing excellent vocational education that are heavily oversubscribed, hundreds of thousands of young people are taking qualifications that have little or no value. That is because: the system is overly complex; after years of micro-management and mounting bureaucratic costs, it is also hugely expensive; and there are counter-productive and perverse incentives that steer students into inferior courses. In short, the damaging system of vocational education that we inherited is failing young people and must be changed now before the prospects of generations of young people are further blighted.
Securing our country’s future relies upon us developing our own world-class education system, from which young people graduate with not only impeccable qualifications and deep subject knowledge, but the real practical and technical skills they need to succeed. This Government support high-quality vocational education not just for its utility; vocational education is valuable in its own right. It is part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every pupil should be able to enjoy. It allows young people to develop their own special craft skills, to experience the satisfaction of technical accomplishment, and to expand what they know, understand and can do. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has repeatedly and eloquently argued, we need to elevate the practical and treat vocational education not, as it has been seen in the past, as an inferior route for the less able, but as an aspirational path for those with specific aptitudes. That is why we are taking immediate steps to rebuild the currency of vocational qualifications.
As recommended by Professor Wolf, we have reinstated several qualifications which lead to professional success, for example, certificates in electrical engineering and plumbing, which we know are highly valued by schools and colleges, and are admired by employers. Because we know that the current set of qualifications does not meet all needs, we will work with awarding bodies and others to ensure that more high-quality courses are available for students of all levels.
Because we know that the current league table system does not reward the progress made by students of all abilities, we will reform league tables to recognise the achievements of the lowest and highest-achieving. And because we know that not all qualifications are equal, we will further reform the league tables to guarantee that vocational qualifications are given a proper weighting. Their value will no longer be inflated in a way that encourages students to pursue inappropriate courses, or overlooked in a way that unbalances achievement.
Because we know the current funding system creates perverse incentives, we will reform it. At the moment, schools and colleges are incentivised to offer lower-grade qualifications that are easier to pass because they get paid on those results. That must end. The dumbing-down of the past has got to stop if the next generation are to succeed. Students should choose the qualifications they need to succeed, not those that bureaucracies deem appropriate.
However, while choice in the qualifications market is crucial, there are certain inescapable facts in the labour market that no student can ignore. Employers rightly insist that students be properly literate and numerate. They remind us that there are no more important vocational subjects than English and maths. As Professor Wolf’s report lays bare, huge numbers of students leave education without proper qualifications in those areas, making it increasingly hard for them to secure jobs. This Government will put an end to that by ensuring that all 16 to 18-year-olds who were unable to secure at least a C in English and maths at GCSE will continue to study those subjects through to age 19.
The best performing education systems not only offer a strong grounding in the basics such as English and maths, but ensure a good general education that cements the ability to reason, to assess evidence, to absorb knowledge and to adapt to new opportunities. In this fast-changing world, few 16-year-olds know exactly what they will be doing at the age of 21, let alone when they are 25, 35 or 45, so we need to ensure that every 18-year-old has followed a broad programme of study and has a core academic knowledge that provides a secure foundation from which to progress. That is why Professor Wolf backs our English baccalaureate as a springboard to future success in a rapidly changing world and stresses that it gives students the maximum freedom to choose between academic and vocational pathways throughout their life.
We know that the most prestigious vocational pathways require a rounded school education as preparation. Professor Wolf’s report underlines that some of the best vocational education in the world exists in our private sector apprenticeship programmes. The best are massively oversubscribed. BT typically has 15,000 applicants for 100 places each year. Rolls-Royce has 10 applicants for every place and Network Rail is similarly oversubscribed. There is far greater competition for some of these courses than there is for places at Oxford or Cambridge.
We want to ensure that all employers get the support they need to offer high quality apprenticeships. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is working to reduce the bureaucracy that employers face and to ensure that every penny spent by Government and employers on apprenticeships can be used to the very best effect, including by studying best practice with similar schemes around the world.
Professor Wolf emphasised the need for clear routes for progression, but also for greater flexibility within them. She was right to do so. We will consider what further programmes of study are needed, alongside the general educational component, to give 16 to 18-year-olds the broad education they need.
For more than a century, there have been numerous, failed attempts to reform vocational education. It is now more important than ever that we finally bring an end to the two-tier education system that has scarred our country for too long. Professor Wolf’s report, together with wider reforms like the fantastic university technical colleges being pioneered by Lord Baker, sets out a clear map of what we need to do. I am delighted that Professor Wolf has agreed to continue to provide regular and ongoing advice to Government as we implement her recommendations. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to help us offer young people the genuine and high-quality technical education they have been too long denied. I commend this statement to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am pleased that he has managed to join us today. We touched on many similar themes yesterday in an enjoyable and lively discussion. I hope that, in preparing his statement today, he has had time to catch up on it.
We devote a great deal of time to higher education, but much less to improving opportunities for young people who do not plan to go to university. I have long advocated redressing that balance and it is now an urgent imperative in view of the Government’s changes to higher education.
As I said when the report was published, I find much to welcome in Professor Wolf’s vision for higher-quality vocational education. I agree with some aspects of what the Secretary of State has said today, particularly the commitment to ensuring that every young person reaches a decent level of proficiency in English and maths before they leave school and that all programmes of study lead to progression. I also welcome efforts to simplify the system and qualifications in vocational education to make it easier for young people to navigate their way through.
Professor Wolf recommends the adoption of multiple measures of school performance, echoing the moves we made in government towards a balanced school report card approach. The Secretary of State has accepted that today, in speaking of his promise to reform league tables to create new performance management measures in addition to the English baccalaureate. I will give careful consideration to the measures he brings forward, but I gently warn him that his plans to measure students at the top and the bottom already sound complex. Is he not in danger of recreating in another form a complex target regime of the type of which he complained so frequently when he was in opposition? Will not teachers’ hearts sink when they hear that there are to be more targets? Will they not question whether he is delivering on the autonomy to get on and teach that he promised them? Will he give us an assurance that he will consult teachers before dropping any new performance management measure on them, as he did with the English baccalaureate?
Even with a range of measures in force, Professor Wolf’s report rightly warns of the consequences if a single performance measure becomes dominant. Let me quote from her report, which said that there
“remains a serious risk that schools will simply ignore their less academically successful pupils. This was a risk with the old five GCSEs measure; a risk with the English baccalaureate; and will be a risk with a measure based on selected qualifications. It needs to be pre-empted.”
Rather than pre-empt this risk, however, did not the Secretary of State pre-empt the Wolf report by presenting his English baccalaureate as the “gold standard” for schools?
Schools are clearly seeing it that way. Why otherwise are we seeing music, RE and arts teachers being made redundant right here, right now? Why otherwise are we seeing students under pressure from schools to switch subjects halfway through their courses or to take courses that they do not really want to do, diminishing their choice? This is becoming the dominant headline measure against which all schools and students are judged. The Secretary of State needs more convincing answers on how he plans to stop that happening.
More broadly, has not this highly prescriptive league table measure, and its arbitrary subject selection, already damaged the deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision by relegating vocational learning to second-division status in the public mind and in the minds of schools? The Secretary of State mentioned a two-tier system, but is that not precisely what this Government are creating—an elitist, two-tier system in which parents have fewer rights on admissions, making it more difficult for them to get their children into good schools? The parent voice is diminished. Creative and practical subjects are crucial to the quality vocational education that Professor Wolf advocates, but they are already a devalued currency in our schools because of the Secretary of State’s actions. Where is the creativity in his English baccalaureate? Student choice has been affected by the subject choice in the bac.
I say again to the Secretary of State that it is time he thought again about the English baccalaureate and allowed more breadth, flexibility and choice so that it caters for the talents of all students? A school system that works for everyone cannot be designed around the requirements of the Russell group. With 103 Members calling for RE at the very least to be added to the baccalaureate, is it not now time for another of the Secretary of State’s famous U-turns?
The deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision is also affected by some of the Secretary of State’s actions in other areas. Professor Wolf rightly stresses the importance of a quality careers service to inform young people about their options—surely even more important in a world where young people are struggling to make their way. Yet as we speak, the careers service in England is simply melting away. We welcome the vision of an all-age careers service, but we ask again today: where is the long-promised transition plan to deliver it? That is yet another example of the Secretary of State’s trademark incompetence.
Given that careers advisers are being made redundant now, how will the Secretary of State secure the quality of service that Professor Wolf demands? Yesterday, we sought to amend his Bill to give young people a guarantee of face-to-face guidance in our schools. At a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and access to further and higher education is becoming more difficult, is not the web and telephony-based service proposed by the Government completely inadequate to the scale of the task?
The Government mouth platitudes about social mobility, as the Secretary of State did today, but they are systematically kicking away the ladders of support that help young people to get on in life. More young people in further education colleges on vocational courses are receiving education maintenance allowance than those in school sixth-form colleges, and they need that money to buy equipment for their courses. Will not the scrapping of the EMA hit those young people disproportionately hard, and, again, make Professor Wolf’s vision hard to deliver? Colleges and students are four months away from the start of the academic year, and are still none the wiser about what they will receive under the Secretary of State’s replacement scheme. Not for the first time, he has taken a successful policy and turned it into a shambles. Is it not time to listen to no less an organisation than the OECD, and reinstate the EMA scheme? Without it, how will the Secretary of State’s commitment to raising the school leaving age become a reality?
Professor Wolf’s report raises issues that go to the heart of the need to secure the prosperity of our country and a decent future for our young people, but by their actions the Government are taking hope away from our young people. Unless they change course quickly—on curriculum reform, the careers service, EMA and university fees—the Government’s legacy will be a lost generation of young people.
Michael Gove
I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his response, and welcome him back to the Dispatch Box, on day release from his other job as Labour’s election co-ordinator. May I say how much we on the Government Benches are enjoying the progress he is making in that job? From Dartford and Dover to Aberconwy and Pembrokeshire, from North Lincolnshire to Southampton, Conservative councillors who won last Thursday are delighted with the progress he is making, and so are we. The longer he stays in that role, the happier all of us will be.
May I also welcome the fact that, when the right hon. Gentleman returned to his part-time role as shadow Education Secretary, he found time to endorse many of our recommendations? I welcome the support he has given to our aims of improving numeracy and literacy and ensuring that students over the age of 16 who have not secured GCSE passes in English and maths have an opportunity to acquire appropriate qualifications in those subjects.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a good question about multiple measures and the importance of ensuring that we do not create an accountability system that is too complex, but as he himself acknowledged and as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, there must be a golden mean between having so many targets that teachers are pulled in different directions, and having only one target that distorts the performance of all schools. I believe that the balanced basket of accountability targets that we are introducing reflects what teachers believe—namely, that all students of all abilities need to have their achievements recognised, that the autonomy should be over how schools teach and how the school day is organised, and that in return for greater autonomy there should be sharper accountability.
Talking of sharper accountability, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the English baccalaureate. He seemed to suggest—or, at least, seemed to want to lead the House to believe—that Professor Wolf was unhappy with it. On Saturday 12 March Professor Wolf wrote in The Guardian:
“Andy Burnham… is quoted as saying”
that she had said there was
“a ‘serious risk’ that the English bac will lead to schools ‘simply ignoring’ less academically able students. This misrepresents what I said.”
She also wrote:
“For the record, may I also note that the English bac subjects would normally absorb less than 80% of a teaching week. Both it and many other ‘academic’ clusters are therefore perfectly compatible with my recommendations for curriculum balance for 14 to 16-year-olds.”
Professor Wolf deserves better than to be traduced in that way by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to careers advice. Let me politely point out to him that the person appointed to lead on social mobility for the previous Government, Alan Milburn, said that we should move away from the failed connection system and adopt a new approach, giving
“Schools and colleges… direct responsibility for providing information, advice and guidance”.
Moreover, Professor Alison Wolf pointed out in evidence to the Select Committee that the “problem with careers guidance” had been the model that the right hon. Gentleman prefers: a model that was stuck in the past, with “one poor teacher” being expected to know about everything. That, she said, had been supplanted by a more modern measure enabling skilled careers advisers and “proper, online, updated information” to provide students with the right answers.
I am afraid that, not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out in his old Labour ways. He has been in office for 200 days. During that time he said that our academies programme would be divisive, but more than 1,000 great teachers have embraced it. He said that free schools would generate poverty and dislocation, but the best and brightest in Labour are now embracing their radical appeal. Today he has said that the coalition Government have got it wrong on vocational education. Given his record, I am delighted to find the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite me today.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I am particularly pleased about the apprenticeships. The fact that young people in my constituency are now able to apply directly to Rolls-Royce and Toyota for apprenticeships is a major step forward.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having had an opportunity to visit Rolls-Royce just over a month ago, I can confirm that the apprenticeships it offers are highly sought after, and that students from all over Derbyshire and the east and west midlands recognise that it is precisely that kind of high-quality private sector apprenticeship that we should facilitate.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many others, I gave evidence to the Wolf inquiry. I approve of much of the report and consider it to be a breath of fresh air, but I remind the Secretary of State that he made his statement on a day on which we heard that a million young people are unemployed. We know that only 6% of kids aged between 16 and 18 obtain apprenticeships, and only 36% go on to higher education. Given the tremendous challenge posed by the participation rate moving to 17 and then 18, may we have Wolf mark 2, 3 and 4?
Michael Gove
As ever, the hon. Gentleman shows why he was seen as such a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee. He is right to point out that the record of the last 13 years is not nearly as bright or as promising as Opposition Front Benchers would have us believe, and to suggest that we need more work from Professor Wolf and others to ensure that our vocational and academic education systems keep in touch with the 21st century. That is why I am so delighted that Professor Wolf will remain an adviser to the Government to ensure the implementation of the report and, indeed, the succeeding measures that we hope to take.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Professor Wolf might not have thought that the English baccalaureate on its own could distort and harm outcomes for the poorest in our schools, but I have to say that the Chairman of the Select Committee feels that it could. However, I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today about building a balanced score card. Can we work to create a consensus across the House that what we need is an assessment and accountability framework that gives equal weight to the progress of every child? We do not want too complicated a set of targets, but we need a system that works, allowing schools to get on with it and deliver for everyone.
Michael Gove
That is a very good point. It is rather a shame that the view of some Labour Members—which is not shared by my hon. Friend—is that working-class children cannot achieve academic excellence. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is the view of Opposition Front Benchers. Labour Members therefore feel that this is somehow an unfair and elitist measure, but I think that it is an aspirational measure. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to ensure that all the abilities of all children are recognised, whatever their background. Labour Members need to return to the aspirational educational model that we saw under Lord Adonis, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and the former right hon. Member for Sedgefield, which was sadly abandoned three years ago.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome Professor Wolf’s report, which has also been welcomed by the Association of Colleges. I note two points in particular: the suggestion that maths and English education should be continued for youngsters over the age of 16 who are on vocational courses and who did not achieve grade C at GCSE, and the suggestion that vocational studies in schools should be limited to 20% of the curriculum, with 80% devoted to traditional subjects. Will the Secretary of State make those statutory requirements, or will they have only advisory status?
Michael Gove
On the continuation of the study of maths and English after the age of 16, we will, in the context of raising the participation age, explore legislative and other options to ensure that all children have the opportunity to follow those paths,. On the related question of the 80:20 split, Professor Wolf says that to ensure the maximum chance of progressing along academic and vocational pathways, there should be an academic core up to the age of 16. She also argues that it is a good thing for all students to experience some practical learning. That is not prescriptive; it is a guide, and one of the points she makes is that university technical colleges, which have a longer school day and school week, can have a full academic core as well as a significant additional layer of practical learning on top.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Before coming to the Chamber today, I addressed a business breakfast on the edge of my right hon. Friend’s constituency and mine. Is he as concerned as I am about the finding in the CBI survey published this week that 40% of firms are not satisfied with the basic literacy of school and college leavers and that more than a third are not satisfied with basic levels of numeracy? Does he believe that the measures he has announced today will help to reverse that sad state of affairs?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He speaks very effectively for the businessmen of Surrey, who are doing so much to provide opportunities for young people, and I have to say that he is absolutely right: one of the major complaints from employers is that there are bright, intelligent, get-up-and-go young people who, sadly, have left the school system without the numeracy and literacy required to fit into almost any modern role. There is no more important task for this Government than to get those basics right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leigh for acknowledging that in the first part of his response.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
May I test the Secretary of State’s commitment to poorer students? Will he give a guarantee today that poor students in St Helens will get more money and support than under the old system?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a sign of the last Government’s failure to improve education that more than 250,000 children left school last year without a C grade in GCSE maths and English?
Mr Speaker
Order. The short answer is no, and let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have already had reason to say to him several times: questions must be about the policy of the current Government. I have made that point to him before, and he has breached the requirement several times. He will not do so again.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I want to follow on from the question of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts). Riverside college is a really good college in my constituency, but it has faced major funding cuts from the Secretary of State’s Government. Given that he has just guaranteed increased funding for students in St Helens, will he also give the same guarantee to students in my constituency of Halton?
Michael Gove
As soon as word gets out that we are engaging in one-to-one negotiations across the green Benches, I expect that the Chamber will rapidly fill up, even though there is a one-line Whip. I would repeat the point I made to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) to all Members: thanks to the coalition Government’s commitment to the pupil premium and to our reforms of 16-to-19 learning, the most disadvantaged students will receive more money. That is all thanks to our commitment to social justice.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and place on record my thanks to Professor Wolf for her excellent report? Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the delivery of these very important reforms? In particular, has he looked closely at the US community college system, which has been extremely successful in delivering these kinds of reforms to very hard-to-reach young people?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has campaigned for a better deal for poorer students ever since he first came to this House, and I agree that we must look at international models of good practice. The university technical colleges that this Government are committed to introducing provide a new model that caters for students of different aptitudes, and I believe we can learn a lot from some of the best practice in the United States.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the purpose of his radical reform programme was to make “opportunity more equal”. Does he accept, however, that it is difficult to realise that aim while local authorities are not being treated equally? For example, in my local authority of Luton there are 3.1 pupils per family, compared with the English average of 1.9. Does the Secretary of State agree that, for Professor Wolf’s review recommendations to be successful, he must fund the measures properly?
Michael Gove
I am not sure what levers I have at my disposal to ensure that other parts of the country can enjoy the same family size as Luton is blessed with. On the broader point of making sure there is funding for Luton, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Luton is blessed with many excellent schools, such as Denbigh high school, which Dame Yasmin Bevan leads, and the Barnfield group of academies and studio schools. I look forward to visiting Luton shortly, when I will have an opportunity to talk to head teachers there. I hope I might also have an opportunity to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what more we can do to help continue the success stories in his constituency.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
De Vere catering academy in my constituency offers dozens of aspiring young people the opportunity of a high-quality, employer-led apprenticeship. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what is being done to ease the path for other employers to follow its lead?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is cross-party commitment to apprenticeships. Unfortunately, however, while they are well intentioned and justifiable in themselves, some of the bureaucracy surrounding the way in which the Skills Funding Agency has supported apprenticeships, some of the requirements that have been placed on apprenticeship frameworks, and some recording responsibilities of employers in respect of the individual learning record, have together added up to a significant burden that means that many small and medium-sized enterprises in particular find it expensive or burdensome to take on an apprentice. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills are taking forward a programme to reduce that bureaucracy, and I hope it will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State is well aware, modern business needs people who can make, do, create and invent things, as well as people who can analyse things, and even if Professor Wolf is right that her recommendations are compatible with the English bac if 20% of the curriculum is made available for those kinds of skills to be developed, the Secretary of State knows—as we all do—that, in practice, this is not happening in some schools. Will he therefore consider the following request, which I have made before: that he add to the English bac at least one qualification that is about making, creating or doing, such as in electrical engineering or making music?
Michael Gove
I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. I think the intention behind her request is admirable, and it is reflected in what Professor Wolf says. However, it would be wrong for me to prescribe what additional qualification or course might be appropriate to encourage people to acquire those practical skills. One of the points Professor Wolf makes is that there are many courses of study, or pursuits at school or beyond, that might not necessarily lead specifically to a qualification but can provide people with the skills required. It is crucial that we support qualifications that are robust and, where possible, invest in developing them to reflect what employers need, but we must also ensure flexibility and autonomy so that schools can do the right thing for their students.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I particularly warmly welcome the announcement that 16 to 18-year-olds who do not achieve a C grade in English or maths will continue to study those subjects. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), how quickly will the Government be able to take action, so that we can end the practice under the previous Government of hundreds of thousands of children leaving school without the requisite qualifications?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend reminds us of the dreadful fact that only about 50% of students manage to leave state schools with five good GCSEs including English and maths. That means that hundreds of thousands of young people simply do not have the opportunity to move on to the jobs they deserve.
I see that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) is present. One of the great things he did when he was an FE college principal was develop courses that ensured that students could very quickly resit GCSE English and maths, or follow courses that would lead them, in due course, to acquiring a broadly comparable level of literacy and numeracy. I want to work with great FE principals, as he once was, to ensure we get the right courses for the right students.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support the move to abolish equivalence for low-quality qualifications, which has effectively been a mis-selling scandal to young people for more than 10 years now. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that low quality GCSEs and A-levels are also not counted in our league tables?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic campaigner for rigour in state education, and she is right that, as Professor Wolf points out, many qualifications were mis-sold to students on the basis that they would lead to progression. The right hon. Member for Leigh talked about students being coerced into courses that were not appropriate for them. We know that employers and universities welcome the courses in the English baccalaureate, but some of the courses that had an inflated value in league tables in the past, under the Government of whom he was a part, were not valued by employers or by higher or further education institutions.
My hon. Friend also made a point about GCSEs and A-levels. We are working with Ofqual to make sure that every GCSE awarding body is appropriately rigorous, and we will work with universities to ensure that A-levels are even stronger.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that focusing narrowly on one measure of school performance, particularly five A* to C grades for GCSE—I personally insist on those including maths and English—creates perverse incentives for schools and encourages them to focus on borderline C and D grade students to the detriment of other students?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Ultimately there will never be a single perfect accountability measure. The one he mentioned on floor standards has helped us to raise attainment in schools, but one measure does not fit all. I therefore welcome his support for developing a more sophisticated way of analysing attainment, so that students with lower ability but real commitment can be recognised, and in particular so that schools that take students with low levels of previous attainment and transform their outlooks can be properly recognised and applauded.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome Professor Wolf’s report and the Government’s response. I was on the Education Select Committee that discussed the baccalaureate and was left in no doubt that Professor Wolf thought it was consistent with her interest in ensuring a proper academic basis to the measurement of pupils’ performance. Does the Secretary of State agree that the baccalaureate will enable pupils to make sensible, informed choices and give them the confidence to implement those decisions when opportunities arise?
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members on both sides of the House listened attentively to his question. We should pay particularly close attention to him, given the role he has played in further education. We know—every nation knows—that if students can reach a solid academic level by the age of 16, they will be in a strong position to choose which academic and vocational pathways they can move between later. Having a solid academic core creates no tension. In fact, it is an absolute precondition to success in vocational education.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Over the past year, I have visited numerous manufacturing and engineering firms across Pendle that are keen to expand and recruit more, where managers have told me that they are not satisfied with the levels of literacy and numeracy among job applicants. Does my right hon. Friend believe that today’s proposals, along with some of the other measures outlined by the Government—for instance, for university technical colleges—will help to address this problem?
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that east Lancashire has no better champion, and in particular that he speaks up effectively for young people and businesses in his constituency. We can help by ensuring that there are the opportunities for those young people who in the past might not have had an education fit for their talents to succeed in English, maths and the world of work.
Personal Statement
Mr David Laws (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to respond to the Standards and Privileges Committee report on my expenses. I am also grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and his staff for their thorough and professional handling of this inquiry following my self-referral. The inquiry has found that I broke a number of important rules. I take complete and personal responsibility for the mistakes I made, and apologise without reservation to the House and my constituents.
The commissioner found that there was a conflict between my personal interest in privacy and the public interest in openness and accountability. He concluded that I should have immediately resolved that conflict in the public interest, and I agree with that judgment. I have made it clear since this matter first became public that my motivation was solely to protect my privacy, and not to benefit in any way from the expenses system, and I am pleased that the commissioner has clearly supported my view about my motivation and that he has stated that there is no evidence that I made my claims with the intention of benefiting myself or those close to me. The commissioner has also concluded that if I had kept to the rules, including by correctly designating my main home, my total expense claims would have been considerably higher than they were. This is not, as the commissioner made clear, an adequate justification for breaking the rules, but it demonstrates that there was no adverse consequence for the taxpayer.
This last year has been a difficult one for me, and I am grateful for all the support I have received, particularly from my constituents in Yeovil, who have been extremely generous in their understanding, tolerance and encouragement. Each of us should be our own sternest critic. Everyone in this place wants to see the reputation of the House restored after the past few disastrous years. If by my actions I have contributed to further undermining the House’s reputation, I can only apologise without reservation.
Points of Order
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to my earlier question, could you provide me with some advice? Is it in order for a Minister to ask his Department not to provide him with information to avoid having to pass that information on to an MP seeking to clarify something that affects his constituency?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that Ministers are responsible both for how they provide information, and for what information is, or is not, available to them. However, the hon. Gentleman has registered his point forcefully on the record.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to register my disappointment that the House has been denied the opportunity to thank and congratulate the Prime Minister on his reported decision to seek the withdrawal of 450 British troops from Afghanistan. That decision could be taken this month. It clearly suggests, first, a withdrawal from the Government’s over-optimism and, secondly, a determination to recognise the futility of the present operation and to bring our soldiers home to the safety of our shores.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s guileful if slightly inappropriate use of the point of order procedure to register his political point is further evidence of why he is the acclaimed author of a tome entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”.
Backbench Business
Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move,
That it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances established under Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) that it review the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and make recommendations, giving due consideration to ensuring:
(a) value for money for taxpayers;
(b) accountability;
(c) public confidence in Parliament;
(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support in crafting today’s motion and ensuring that it was tabled and supported. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for supporting Back Benchers in having their voices heard in this place, and the Leader of the House for his robust defence of the functions of the House and for making it known to the external bodies that deal with our expenses that we are keen for the system not to impede the work that MPs do on behalf of their constituents.
None of us wants to be discussing expenses, and it is sad that we have to, but given that the expenses system has caused so much trouble over the years, and the current expenses regime continues to raise concerns for many Members and for democracy at large, it is our duty at least to consider a measured, sensible and calm way forward in which we can review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to consider whether it is achieving the goals set for it. I want to make clear, therefore, what we are aiming to do today. The motion is about considering ways of cutting the cost of Parliament to taxpayers in the long term, and about giving MPs’ time back to their constituents, rather than allowing them to be waylaid by bureaucracy beyond what is necessary for accountability. It is also about reviewing whether Parliament can be a place open to people from all backgrounds, including less well-off ones. Irrespective of our own personal positions—in many cases—it is important that Parliament does not become a place where only wealthy people can serve and thrive without damage to their public reputation.
The motion is part of the process of cleaning up our politics. It is right that this debate should be held in Back-Bench time, because the terms and conditions of Members of Parliament in serving their constituents and doing their duty within a democracy are rightly for this place to determine rather than for the Government to take the lead on—unless, of course, the taxpayers’ purse is affected. Then the Government must take a very robust position.
Let us be clear: it is Parliament that holds Government and the Executive to account, not vice versa. That is why I want to thank the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and others for recognising that this is an issue that should really be raised, as it is being, in Back-Bench time.
Today’s motion says that MPs take their responsibilities seriously. What does it do? It instructs an existing Committee to review the Parliament Standards Act 2009, as amended in 2010. It not only instructs the Committee to review the Act, but asks it to make recommendations to the House about any changes that it thinks might need to take place, giving due consideration to the important issues about which we are all concerned, such as accountability.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all the hard work that he has undertaken over many months on this very important issue. There is now a person in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority called the compliance officer, and as a consequence of my having a very small logo on my website—a tiny little thing with “Labour” on it—I received two recorded delivery letters and was summonsed to respond within a certain time. When I phoned, I asked why they did not just lift the phone to me and say, “Look, this is against the rules. Why don’t you remove it?” It was the way that it was done. The bureaucracy involved in that process needs to be considered, along with many other things.
Adam Afriyie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. I noticed just the other day that 40 hon. Members have been reported and may well be investigated for some very minor and seemingly almost irrelevant matters. I have seen newspaper coverage of Members’ being criticised for claiming £3 here and £4 there. It seems to me that the public standing of this place is not necessarily enhanced by some of the practices in place at the moment, and that is why we need calmly to take a step back and review the situation. We need to review the 2009 Act and ask whether it is improving and restoring the integrity of Parliament and its hon. Members through its operation.
Clearly, some disgraceful acts happened in the past and no one is condoning that. We needed to make changes and I welcome the progress that has been made, but we must now calmly review the Act, its operation and the current arrangements.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but is it not a fact that the vast majority of Members in this House never did anything wrong and never broke any rules—I am talking about more than 600 of us—but have been rewarded by having our job of serving our constituents and checking on the Executive made much more difficult? My job here is to serve my constituents and call the Executive to account, and I am finding it much more difficult to do that under the new rules.
Adam Afriyie
That is the observation of many Members, I think. I have to say—I hope I will not get a hiss for this—that the media and those who really understand how this place works are beginning to recognise just how difficult it is becoming for Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who want to go about their duties of holding the Executive to account, representing their constituents and picking up issues, but they are constantly being harangued over issues regarding which, one might argue, they should not necessarily be under pressure.
I shall not go through the litany of the crimes of the current system, much as I would love to. Anybody reasonable and anybody who knows how this place operates—the people who voted us into this place last May clearly recognised that the people being elected here were people who wanted to serve—will know that the overwhelming majority of Members are desperate just to get on with their job and to perform the duties for which they were elected. I hope that this motion is carried today so that we can have a calm look at whether the 2009 Act is performing the function that, with all the good intentions and good motivation in the world, it was intended to achieve.
My heart goes out to the new Members who came in in 2005. Many were elected on a ticket saying that they abhorred the expenses crisis, and they were right to campaign on that ticket—
Adam Afriyie
That is right; I meant the 2010 intake. My heart goes out to them, because they have been as meticulous and careful as they can not to overclaim and not to make erroneous claims; I know this because I know many of them personally. In fact, 92% of people here are not claiming what they are entitled to claim, just so they can be as careful as possible, yet every eight weeks their names are run through the press, which presents any claim at all as being in some way illegitimate. I do not entirely blame the press for that. In some ways, it might be the workings of the 2009 Act that are perpetuating that perception, which in the majority of cases is not a reality.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful and considered speech. Does he agree that there is now a worry that IPSA is straying into areas where it was never intended to go? For example, two colleagues who have recently been injured had great difficulty in getting IPSA to allow them to claim taxis to come to the House, although they were not allowed to use public transport. At one point, a member of IPSA asked them why they were going to work. We cannot have people who are there to regulate expenses deciding when Members of Parliament should or should not be able to come to the House.
Adam Afriyie
The hon. Lady raises a key point that is at the heart of our democracy. In a parliamentary democracy, Members are elected in order to make or change the laws. Parliament is sovereign in our nation within the way that our unwritten constitution works. One has to ask whether it is right for an external body to be able to determine the way in which Members of Parliament, who are elected by the public, do their work. It is not just a question of the level of remuneration, as we understand that and accept the need for independence. I think most people are comfortable with that. If such a body determines the way in which we do our work, however, tough questions must be asked about the arrangements. I hope that as the Committee carries out the review some of these questions will be raised.
There is an opportunity for the Committee calmly to consider not only the current difficulties—the level of accountability and whether it is full enough, whether receipts need to be published and all those detailed issues that affect us on a day-to-day basis—but the constitutional position. It might also consider some of the issues to do with tidying up the omissions and other small errors that we made in our haste as we rushed to make the changes, which we were right to do.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the establishment of the Committee. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether the membership of the Committee has been determined yet, and if it has not, whether he would be prepared to serve on it? It seems to me that he would be an ideal candidate.
Adam Afriyie
My interest in this issue has been on the public record for many years, and I would be very happy to play a part in any Committee established for this purpose, but naturally such a Committee should have no special privileges. I hope that it would be set up in the same way as other Committees are established, but of course I am interested in this issue and would like to do my best to try to assist Parliament and hon. Members of all persuasions in doing their jobs without unnecessary obstacles being placed in the way.
Let me make some quick observations on some of the stresses and strains. I make these observations not necessarily to make judgments at this moment but simply to flag up some of the areas that cause concern, and which any future review might wish to consider. The first such area is cost. One of the mandates for the Committee is that it must have due regard to the need for value for money for the taxpayer. The budget for IPSA seems quite high, and was certainly significantly higher in the first year than that for the previous year’s arrangements. That is something we need to look at. Those costs might be appropriately high; it might be right that it is very expensive to operate what should be a relatively simple system, but any review must look into that.
Secondly, we have to consider the impact that the 2009 Act is having on the time that MPs have available to perform their duties. There is no doubt, from my own experience and that of hon. Members who were here before 2010, that the level and work load associated with the expenses systems and such matters have escalated enormously. Literally days are taken away from constituents as the time of Members and their staff is taken up. There is an enormous level of stress associated with the IPSA system, and we need to take a calm look at the impact that is having on our democracy and on Members’ ability to represent their constituents.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very thoughtful speech. Like many Members in Wales, I have joint offices with Assembly Members and I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about stress. The stress for staff of dealing with expenses for Westminster is far higher than the stress of dealing with expenses for the devolved Administrations. Does he think IPSA should look at the systems in Scotland and Wales and see whether we could adopt a similar system?
Adam Afriyie
From my observations of the system in Scotland in particular, and the system in Wales, I think there are certainly some virtues in the way they operate. I have also conducted a review of 27 different systems around the world, including those in Canada, Denmark, some of the Scandinavian countries and particularly Germany, and it is clear that they take a very different view of how expenses and remuneration systems should operate for members of their Parliaments.
That was not a scientific review, but there were certainly some very clear patterns. In Germany they have said it would be utterly ridiculous to lumber the taxpayer with the cost of receipting tiny claims, because the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit to the taxpayer. That is something that a review would need to consider, but I do not wish to pre-empt where it might go. It would need to take evidence and take a very careful look at comparisons from around the world. One or two other nations have what are called sessional indemnities and different, very simple arrangements for office accommodation and housing for their members. That is something we need to look at.
A key area that I hope the review will look into is the situation of Members who are not of independent means—those who do not have large outside incomes, trust funds or inherited wealth, and those who did not have incredibly successful businesses or professional careers before arriving here. In many ways, I think we have to consider whether the expenses system is penalising such Members for not being wealthy. There is a danger that if, as I have said, 92% of Members are not claiming what they are entitled to claim, this place will become a place only for those who are wealthy.
The motion simply asks the Committee to conduct a review of the 2009 Act. I hope there will not be dissent today. This issue of expenses is incendiary, but it is our duty in this place to act without fear or favour in the interests of democracy, our constituents and the taxpayer. A calm, methodical review of the 2009 Act is a very important step, and is part of the process.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is critical that the House should uphold the fundamental importance of independence in these matters, which is absolutely crucial to restoring public confidence after all the scandals?
Adam Afriyie
It is my personal view, and that of many Members, that it would be a very strange day if we were to start determining our pay or rations once again. I do not think that anyone wants to head in that direction, and I have not heard of many people wanting to do so. The independence of the body setting the level of remuneration is a good thing. Whatever any review sets out to do, it must ensure that that independence is maintained. Indeed, it could even be enhanced. With those remarks, I urge Members to support the motion. Let us have a calm and sensible review of where we are.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I want to paint a picture of two different parliamentary expenses schemes. One is bureaucratic, difficult to understand and administer, expensive to run and universally loathed by those whom it seeks to serve. The other is relatively inexpensive, easy to understand and universally accepted by those whom it seeks to serve. It might surprise some to know that both those schemes currently exist in the UK. The first is our good friend IPSA, and the second is the scheme that operates in Scotland without fuss, issues or any difficulty whatever.
A year on from IPSA’s creation, we are here again discussing its many and manifest failures, while the system in Scotland works without any issues or difficulty. No one cares to hear about it, and even the press are bored with it. They lost interest in the tea and biscuits stories years ago and they have gone on to other things, but it was not always like that in Scotland. In the early days of the Scottish Parliament there were a number of alarming stories, but nothing on the scale of what happened in this House. Initially, the Scottish Parliament more or less copied in full the parliamentary scheme from this place, but then there were difficulties, so it patiently, constructively and conscientiously fashioned a new system, which has worked. That system has the support of MSPs and the public, who know it is fair and transparent, and the press no longer have any particular interest in it.
One way of illustrating the difference between the two systems is by looking at them through the eyes of the staff who have the misery of dealing with them on our behalf. I share an office with a Member of the Scottish Parliament. We share staff and our office manager looks after our office issues for us jointly, so she is responsible for paying all the bills and making sure that all the offices work effectively. When she does the expenses work for the MSP, it is over in minutes: the direct debit for office supplies—done; a few receipts for the travel required—finished. But then we almost hear her groan of anguish when it is time to turn to the MP’s expenses. With a heavy heart, she draws down the IPSA website again and the hours of misery start. Is it the four hours to be spent on the travel reconciliations for last month, or the trying to sit through the quadruplicate reconciliation that IPSA requires for travel that causes the misery? Is it the endless phone calls to IPSA Towers, trying to understand and decipher the new, panicky rewrite of some of the rules? Or is it the stress of possibly getting a claim wrong—of something going into the wrong column or category and the claim being returned or, worse, refused and opened up for the ritual press humiliation that comes when those expenses are published every two months?
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having an IPSA-type body is a good thing for MPs, but that it is so over-bureaucratic that it stifles what we are here to do? Speaking from personal experience, I think that if it were not for Philip from IPSA having come around and helped out many of the Members who are present today, we would all be in a world of pain.
Pete Wishart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which gives me the opportunity to say that there is nothing wrong with the staff who work for IPSA, most of whom are courteous and very helpful. They do all they can to try to resolve some of the difficulties and issues that confront us and our staff day in, day out. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the problem is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of the thing. I do not want my staff sitting there on the phone to IPSA Towers. I do not want them wading through the quadruplicate reconciliations that are required. I want them to work to help my constituents; that is what they are there to do. Why are they wasting their precious time, which should be spent on my constituents, on that mind-numbing useless bureaucracy? It is time that we addressed that question properly.
The Scottish system and IPSA have one thing in common—one that we all want to see: transparency. That is what it should be about; transparency is the key to the way forward. The system used by the Scottish Parliament is even better, because receipts are put on each MSP’s website and are available at the click of a mouse, so we achieve transparency without the massive difficulties caused by the bureaucracy of filling in all those forms.
IPSA has had a chance to try to resolve those issues. Unfortunately, I missed the debate secured by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) before Christmas. I do not think that I have yet congratulated him on securing this debate, and on his diligence in pursuing the issue. After the first debate, IPSA was charged with the task of getting some of those difficulties in order. There have been some improvements, which we are all prepared to welcome, but the culture and the institution are still very much in place. There has not been a cultural shift in the way in which IPSA deals with MPs’ expenses, so we are right to try to pursue the issue along the lines that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to suggest. Let us see if we can look at the 2009 Act again to try to get something different.
We do not need to look too far afield, although I would be fascinated to learn about other international examples. We need look only 500 miles up the road to find a system that functions perfectly well, supported by those whom it serves and by the public, and without any issue or interest from the press whatsoever. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to strap a Caledonian one on to the House and get on with it. That is what we should do now, as we have an opportunity to try to resolve this. When the issue of expenses came before the House a couple of years ago, we strongly suggested that people should take a look at the Scottish system. That proposal was rejected in favour of IPSA, and the House probably realises that it made a dramatic and drastic mistake in going down that route—but there is still time to try to achieve a change. Let us not do something radically different. Let us just do something that works, and something works just up the road.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on tabling the motion, and on the diligent work that he has done on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer. I have been asked to chair the MPs’ side of the committee liaising with IPSA, and we have done our honest best in recent months to try to put MPs’ views to IPSA. Our meetings are courteous and lengthy. We have covered the entire ground but, at the end of the day, many of our suggestions are simply not acted on. The motion will provide further impetus to IPSA to listen to Parliament. Everyone accepts that we must have an independent body that sets the overall levels of remuneration, but we still have a fantastically bureaucratic system that employs 70 staff and which costs upwards of £6 million just to do the expenses of 650 people. It is an absurdly bureaucratic system that must be reviewed, not for our sake but for the sake of the taxpayer.
It is perfectly possible to devise a system that can command public confidence and result in a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Our first priority is cutting the cost to the taxpayer, who has to pay for all of this. It is an expensive way of doing things. Secondly, we want to minimise the possibility of fraud and error. As we have seen with social security, one of the best ways to do that is to simplify the system as much as possible. Thirdly—this point was made by my hon. Friend and others—we want to open Parliament up, and ensure that it is an attractive place for people of all types, from all regions, of all levels of income, and all the rest of it, who want to come here.
I mentioned all regions, because disincentives are built into the current system. For instance, is being a Member of Parliament, with our existing expenses regime and the way in which families are still treated, an attractive option for a lady GP working in Newcastle upon Tyne? I do not think so. We should encourage in particular women with families who want to serve as Members of Parliament, which means that we must have an expenses regime that understands Parliament and the fact that many people who come to the House are not just coming to London for an occasional business trip. It is often a life sentence, as people have to spend half their time in a constituency that may be a long way from London, and the other half in London. Younger Members of Parliament with young families, in particular, want to be with their families, so ultimately we need an expenses regime—we have to keep repeating this—that is not too bureaucratic, which is attractive, minimises fraud and error and cuts the cost to the taxpayer. The present system does not do that.
We have those meetings in our liaison committee, but we have no power whatsoever. We can make suggestions on all the points that are made to me in e-mails and letters from colleagues, but ultimately we can still be ignored. There has been some progress, particularly on how we run our offices. The way in which IPSA originally tried to set up the expenses regime for MPs’ offices was absurd. It was ludicrously bureaucratic, but we have made progress, and MPs can increasingly use the IPSA debit card to ensure that the money they need to run their offices does not go through their personal bank accounts. The fact that MPs were forced to subsidise their offices from their bank accounts was almost a throwback to the 18th century, when Ministers had to pay for government from their own personal bank accounts. The situation was ridiculous, and we have made progress.
We have also made progress on travel, but accommodation remains a bugbear. I hope that the motion will be approved today and we can make progress. Let us be quite honest about this. MPs’ accommodation has been the kernel of the problem for the past 30 years. It has proved difficult because successive Governments have not wanted to bite the bullet. My hon. Friend originally tabled another motion for the Order Paper, but I understand that there were Government sensitivities about allowing it to go through. However, it would have maximised pressure on IPSA to reach a reasonable settlement on accommodation.
What is the way forward? So many of the problems with which we deal in public life are utterly difficult and intractable, as we know when we deal with the NHS, social security and the economy, but there is a simple solution staring us in the face on this issue, and there always has been. Although the old expenses regime was much criticised, when it began it was not an expenses regime but an allowances regime, effectively providing a flat-rate allowance. As long as it remained a flat-rate allowance, it worked. It began to go wrong when it became the expenses regime. The moment that we began to ask MPs to maximise their so-called expenses by submitting receipts, we ensured that sooner or later a Member of Parliament would end up in prison, which is what has happened. If it had remained a flat-rate allowances system, we would not have had all the issues that we have had.
I cannot prejudge what the Committee will do, but it is worth putting a marker in the sand, because we have made the point continuously in the regular liaison committee meetings with IPSA. People nod their heads, but our points are ignored. I just hope that if the evidence from the new Committee supports my point of view, and if the matter returns to the House, the new Committee will not be ignored. If it makes a sensible proposal that has been worked through for many months, with hearings of witnesses who have expressed their views, and offers a proposal to the House, I hope that at that stage the Government will not try to block it once again, just as successive Governments have always blocked every sensible resolution on the grounds that it is not acceptable to public opinion, they are not ready, and all the other issues. I think that public opinion is ready. All members of the public I talk with say, “Why can’t MPs just be allowed to get on with it? They should be paid a proper salary and left to live their lives.”
Some people claim that IPSA has made progress, but its latest reforms almost make the situation worse, because it is getting more involved in the family life of MPs. We are paid extra if we have children, and a slightly increased allowance when the children are between certain ages. What happens when the children grow up, which they always do? There are all those sorts of issues. We are going down the same track as our social security system, with more interference in people’s private lives. Frankly, how an MP lives their private life is none of IPSA’s business, nor anyone else’s. All we have to accept is that all MPs have to live some of their lives in London and some of their lives in their constituencies.
I have always thought, as was said time and again in the liaison committee, that the obvious solution was to build on the old London weighting allowance, which was a flat-rate, taxable allowance. If it is flat-rate and taxable, it is not the business of the Inland Revenue and there is no possibility for fraud or error. I am not suggesting that we can move to such a system immediately, as many MPs have now made arrangements for renting and should be allowed to continue with that very bureaucratic expenses regime, with receipts and all the rest of it, if they wish to do so. However, MPs must have some opportunity to opt out of that bureaucratic system and into a flat-rate, taxable allowance system. Otherwise, we will create perverse incentives. We also said in the committee that the more rules we have, the more perverse incentives there will be. For example, there is a perverse incentive for MPs who have been paying for their second homes with mortgages to rent those homes out and then rent themselves a flat, at greater cost to IPSA. How does that help the taxpayer? It is ludicrous.
I very much hope that the Committee will be set up, take evidence and come back with simple solutions that ultimately protect the taxpayer. That is what we are about. It should also ensure that MPs have the maximum amount of time to hold the Executive to account, which is why we are here. We are not here to have our staff spend hours every week enmeshed in some bureaucratic expenses regime. The only reason for our existence is to hold those people on the Front Bench to account in an independent and satisfactory way. I have to say that IPSA is still not there yet. I hope that, with the Committee being set up, we will finally make progress, cut the cost to the taxpayer and do the job we were elected to do.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
As one of the youngest Members of the 2010 intake, I remember sitting in the Members’ centre a few days after my election and listening to a young lady—much younger than me, surprisingly—who was speaking on the telephone and trying very hard to arrange accommodation for herself in London. She happened to be a member of the Opposition. Each time she spoke with an estate agent, it was clear that she could not do it, and after two hours she gave up. I quickly soused that—
Bob Stewart
Souse a herring—are we not moving on to that debate in a moment?
I quickly sussed that the expenses system was not working very well. I have spent most of my adult life in public service, but I have also been in business in the private sector. In those jobs, there was a very clear principle that if one spent money doing one’s job, one should be properly recompensed. It was simple and effective. It seems to me that IPSA makes difficulties when it should not do so. I am lucky, because my constituency is close to Westminster and I can travel home each night—22 minutes from Victoria station to Shortlands—except when we have an absurdly lengthy, late-night sitting, when I am told I am allowed to go to a hotel. Members should rest assured that on such occasions I do not cost the taxpayer any money, because I get out my army camp bed and kip in my office, illegally. It is a damn sight easier that trying to check into a hotel at 12.30 at night.
Bob Stewart
Exactly.
It is clear that IPSA puts colleagues off claiming a lot. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) noted that 92% of Members do not claim what they are entitled to, which I think is pretty dreadful. If they do not claim it, that means they are paying for it from their salaries, and we are not that well paid, considering some of the commitments that we are not allowed to claim for.
I understood the intricacies of Balkan politics when I was the British commander of forces there much better than I understand the intricacies of trying to get a claim from IPSA. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a parliamentary hero for what he is trying to do. His determination is in the highest traditions of this House. We need a simple, fair and honest system that is cheaper for the taxpayer—if that is possible—and allows us to do our jobs properly. I fully support the need to review the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I am not sure that IPSA should go, but I am sure that the system should be reviewed as soon as possible.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
My constituency is one of the furthest from the sea, so the next debate on fisheries has no real relevance for jobs there—we merely eat the product—but I put it to the House that that debate is of far more consequence to my constituents than wasting parliamentary time on the self-indulgent obsession of some MPs with the expenses system, which, along with pay, should be determined by an independent body away from this House. That is what should remain.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I, too, will not detain the House for long. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that there are many other things we could be discussing, but we must not lose sight of the fact that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are forced, as a result of the overly bureaucratic IPSA system, to spend hours and hours dealing with something that should be relatively straightforward.
Before becoming a Member, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), was in private practice, and my organisation had an expenses system that was simple, clear and straightforward. If someone paid something out of their own pocket for which they needed reimbursement, they produced the receipt, took it to the cashiers at the accounts department, and they checked that it was in order and paid a cheque in recompense.
I appreciate that the affairs of Members are far more complicated than that, but in essence the procedure ought to be fairly simple, yet it is difficult to conceive of a more complicated system than our current one. I trust that when the existing Committee is re-established, the membership will find time to look at all aspects of the expenses scheme but, in particular, two matters that I think are of specific concern.
First, no distinction seems to be drawn between expenses of a capital and of a revenue nature. The revision has addressed that to an extent by providing a new allowance for new Members, and that is great for Members who are elected in the future or as a result of a by-election, but the new scheme will be of no benefit to Members elected, like myself, in the 2010 general election, many of whom face having to purchase capital items out of budgets that were set for revenue.
That leads me to my second point, the publication of expenses figures on an eight-weekly basis. This provides a constant feed of information for the newspapers, which not surprisingly then use it to form league tables. Again, not surprisingly, if someone has paid a large amount out in that eight-week period, they will go straight to the top of the league table. It will be all over the newspapers that they are “Top of the league table,” yet they will have done nothing wrong. In fact, over the whole year their expenses may well come bottom of the table, but people will remember and focus on the fact the Member was top for that period.
We are not comparing like with like if we issue figures for such a short period, so I hope that when the Committee is re-established, it will find time to look at those two matters.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has given us—I, like others, think he made a very thoughtful speech—to assess what progress has been made in addressing the concerns that were last debated here in December.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I strongly support an independent and a transparent system, because publication is the best safeguard and there can be no going back on that at all. I know that that view is shared across the House, but I do share the feeling of Members that, despite the outcome of the recent review and the progress that we have made, which I want to touch on, dealing with IPSA takes up far too much time. Time, whether of Members or our staff, has an opportunity cost, and that means we have less time to do our job.
First, we ought to recognise that setting up IPSA was a very big task. Parliament asked for it to be done in a very short space of time, and Professor Sir Ian Kennedy and his senior colleagues, who have been unfailingly generous in the time they have given to listen to us, himself acknowledges that IPSA did not get everything right. I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who said that IPSA staff continue to be unfailingly courteous and as helpful as they possibly can be in trying to assist us, but the concerns that bring us back here today are not about them but the system itself.
I said in December that if we asked Members, “Is IPSA helping you to do your job?”, we would find that the answer was overwhelmingly no. That was certainly reflected in the survey of parliamentary Labour party members that we undertook in submitting evidence to the review, and frankly that ought to be the test. We should not be spending any more time than is necessary on discussing the matter, particularly when it ought to be a relatively simple task.
The issue is about making sure that we as Members have the means that we need to do the job. “Expenses” is a terrible misnomer, because it is about the means to do the job. They include staff, loyal and incredibly hard-working, who support us in our work and without whom we could not manage; an office; paying the telephone, electricity and stationery bills; the travel costs between Westminster and our constituencies; and, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) rightly said, the cost of having to live and to work in two places, which is in the nature of the job of being a Member of Parliament.
On the review, we should acknowledge the progress that was made on, for example, support for MPs with family responsibilities—in relation both to travel and to accommodation; a start-up budget for new MPs, learning from the experience that our new colleagues faced a year ago; the definition of London; and the merging of the budgets for constituency office rental and for general office costs.
There has been an increase in the staffing budget, although it still does not take account of the costs of the pension contribution that was passed on to MPs’ budgets a year ago, or of the additional work load that dealing with IPSA places on Members and on their staff. That situation will leave a number of MPs having to go back to the contingency fund again this year in order to continue to employ the staff they already have and need, and that really does strike me as unsatisfactory.
There is now greater use of the payment card, but that is not an unalloyed blessing: it is still not available for all costs—as I understand it, it can be used for business rates but not for office rent, and for stationery but not for photocopiers; and reconciliation is still far too time-consuming. I can say from personal experience that accounting for train travel takes much longer than under the old system, when I have to take account of finding the tickets, going on to the IPSA website, typing in destinations repeatedly, copying everything and then posting off the form having made the details available online.
What would really help and, I think, deal with a lot of frustration is either if more details could be obtained from the credit card company to satisfy IPSA, if IPSA could just agree with the House of Commons travel office that buying a ticket through the office would provide the assurance that it was we who bought it, and that it was a ticket between Westminster and our constituency or back. I use that as an example, because it should be a relatively simple thing to do, and I think it would take away a lot of the frustration that has been expressed in today’s debate and before.
The second issue I wish to raise is about what is allowed and what will be approved, because IPSA has realised sensibly that there is a balance to be struck in relation to increasingly prescriptive rules. IPSA has come face to face with the way in which we do our job, with Members saying, “What if? This is what I do. Is it okay?”, and it has thought about the issue and realised sensibly that we can either have an increasingly long rule book, with an increasingly lengthy “frequently asked questions” page on the website, or let Members exercise their judgment, in the context of the rules as they are laid down and subject to the sunlight of publication.
The review has moved more in the direction of the latter, but may I offer some advice to the Committee that we are going to establish on the work that it is going do? There is still a process in-between through which a Member may choose to exercise their discretion and IPSA may second-guess that when deciding whether to approve a claim. We are betwixt and between a more sensible approach.
Thirdly, we have heard today about how Members feel the system treats them in individual cases and on case work, and I hope that the review will dig into the detail and draw on the experience of the liaison committee, so that the issues which the hon. Member for Gainsborough raised might be looked at.
Fourthly, there is the question of value for money, something that the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is looking at. Indeed, as Members will know, the National Audit Office is carrying out a value-for-money review.
Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that I welcome the transformation in the motion before us from that which was on the Order Paper yesterday. If we have learned one lesson, it is that legislating in haste on this matter can create difficulties.
I support the motion because it seems to be a very sensible way forward. We should take the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the system that Parliament established, and we should assess progress as well as identifying what more needs to be done. I, for one, look forward to the result of the Committee’s work.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing the debate and on his revised motion, which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said he can support, and which the Government can also support. Setting up a Committee to carry out post-legislative reviews to see how legislation actually takes effect is something that we are always being urged to do in the House, and it is welcome. It will provide Members with the opportunity to put forward facts and the Committee with the opportunity to take evidence and then to come back to the House with its recommendations for consideration. I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and measured speech, which was referred to by Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend’s motion is very sensible in focusing on the important things—value for money, accountability and public confidence. It also refers to the need to ensure
“that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.”
I want him to clarify one part of his speech because I am not sure that I heard it correctly. I think he said that 92% of Members do not claim for things for which they are legitimately allowed to claim, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. I have not seen that data published, and I would be grateful if he could provide some detail.
Adam Afriyie
I certainly will. This is based on the evidence that I have received and that the 1922 committee demonstrated some time ago—that is, that 92% of hon. Members are not claiming for all the categories for which they are entitled to claim. That would need to be examined; I make no judgment on it right now.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that, which is very helpful.
As my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, several things have happened since we last debated IPSA in December. At that time, IPSA had not carried out its review of the scheme, and many Members took the opportunity of that debate to put on record their specific concerns not only about the operation of the scheme but its rules. One or two Members have done that today, but in December the comments were much more focused on individual circumstances. IPSA has listened to some of those concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it recognised when it set up the scheme that it did not get everything right in terms of its rules and how it operated. To be fair, it has acknowledged that and put some of those things right, particularly as regards enabling us to do our jobs properly. The Government, and all Members, are concerned about ensuring that the system helps rather than hinders.
As the right hon. Members for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and for Leeds Central said, it is important that we have an independent body that oversees the expenses system and how it operates. We must also have a transparent system. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, it is the sunlight of transparency that helps to ensure that it works properly.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is talking about the Brandeis doctrine; Brandeis was a Supreme Court judge in the early 1900s. The review will also need to look at what subsequent academics have said about this. Sunlight is a great disinfectant, but it is conditional on the information that is provided being comparable and on it being disaggregated, so that not only grouped claims or information are published. It is also conditional on the information being standardised, and any review will need to look into those issues.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a good opportunity to leap forward to a point I was going to make later, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he talked about the publication of data. I know that it can be uncomfortable for hon. Members when information is published, but we are going to have to get used to it, and there is no going back.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is a debate to be had, and these are matters that IPSA can think about. There are ways of publishing information that make it comparable and deal with the league table problem, but also make it very matter of fact and not very interesting to the press. There is an argument that if we publish the information in real time as we go along, and do not save it up and publish it in lumps—the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—it becomes normal, matter-of-fact, routine business that is not of interest to the media. I think it is fair to say that it has become much less interesting to the national media; we do not tend to see the front page stories any more. I know, however, that individual hon. Members often have to deal with local newspaper stories where their papers drill down into particular claims that, in isolation, take a fair degree of explanation but are perfectly reasonable claims for carrying out their work.
Adam Afriyie
I conducted a review of regional and local newspaper publications. The evidence is pretty conclusive. The bimonthly publication we looked at had about 28 million readers. We found that 97% of local newspaper stories were negative towards MPs, and 63% of the stories made unfair or misleading comparisons about MPs and their claims. A lot of this was generated by the way in which the information was being provided to the media under the current scheme. Again, that is something we will look at.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is an opportunity to acknowledge that, as other Members have said, he has done a lot of analytical work. Depending on what the House decides about who serves on the Committee, I am sure that his research will be of great help as it carries out its work.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I would add that it is not just about the local media; the BBC in the north-east has taken the approach of doing league tables rather than any analysis of the information. Even though I have tried to FOI the expenses of the journalists on the “Politics Show” in the north-east, the BBC has refused to release them, and I now have an appeal with the Information Commissioner. If this is about public money and transparency, should not other bodies such as the BBC also have their expenses published?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into a much wider debate about public transparency, but this is not the right time for that. He will know that there are ongoing discussions between the BBC and the National Audit Office about various issues, and I am sure that they will carry on. I am not going to take his invitation to dwell on those issues today.
I want to return to the annual review that IPSA undertook. I think it is fair to say that it made some changes to the scheme and has made it better and easier for Members to operate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said, it has effectively given us more discretion about judging what things are relevant to our parliamentary duties and carrying out our responsibilities. That then raises some other questions, which is welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who chairs the liaison committee, acknowledged the progress that has been made on office costs and on travel, although he acknowledged that there was work to be done in other areas of expenses. It is worth saying that there has been progress, although I know that many Members think that there has not been enough and needs to be more.
Members referred to value for money, which is specifically mentioned in the motion. It is worth setting out a little more detail. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central referred to the NAO report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General setting out the details of that. The NAO is going to carry out a study of IPSA, and the report will be produced before the summer recess.
An interesting fact of which Members should be aware is that the NAO is going to survey all serving Members of Parliament asking about their experience of IPSA and the expenses scheme. It is moving quite swiftly on the study. It is going to send out questionnaires this coming Monday—16 May—allowing us a fortnight to respond before the Whit recess, and it has asked for Government support in encouraging Members to participate. I do not think, having listened to the debate, talked to several of my colleagues and heard what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said about his conversations with the parliamentary Labour party, that Members will need much encouragement to send back their responses. They should take this opportunity to focus on how well the scheme is working, including value for money and ease of use, so that the NAO can take that into account.
Helen Jones
It is encouraging to hear that the NAO will survey Members. Will the NAO’s value-for-money audit include the cost of the vast amount of time spent by Members and their staff doing work that was previously done elsewhere?
Mr Harper
The Comptroller and Auditor General makes it clear that all the NAO’s work will be independent and evidence based. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that it is for Members to provide the NAO with that evidence. The NAO has a brief to look at the public sector as a whole; as its masthead says, it is “Helping the nation spend wisely”. If Members feel, as a number have said today, that there is a problem not just with the bureaucratic system, but with the time spent administering it by them and their staff, who are employed at public cost, they should take the opportunity to furnish the NAO with that information. I might be going a little beyond my remit here. I do not know how detailed the questionnaire will be. There might not be a specific question about this matter, but I suspect that there will be. If Members provide this information, the NAO will be able to take it into account. It is no good the NAO just looking at the scheme and the direct costs incurred by IPSA. If, because of the way IPSA is operating, it is putting an extra burden on our offices, which are funded by the taxpayer, the NAO should take that into account. The hon. Lady’s point is therefore very helpful, and Members should give the NAO as much information as possible, so that it can write a sensible, evidence-based report with recommendations. No doubt those recommendations will then be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, as is the usual process, and the Committee that we are setting up.
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was passed in the last Parliament, amended the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to give IPSA a general duty to behave in a cost-effective, efficient manner, and to support MPs to carry out their work efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. IPSA therefore has a statutory duty to do what it does transparently and independently, and cost-effectively. The NAO report will help to advise IPSA on whether it is complying with the duties it has to carry out under the law that set it up.
Mr Harper
As with all reports from Committees of this House, the Government will look carefully at the recommendations. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me, given that the Committee has not even been set up, let alone started its work, to give assurances that the Government will carry out its every recommendation. The Government will of course study its recommendations. If its recommendations are about process, the scheme and how IPSA operates, they will be for IPSA to consider. Only if they are recommendations for legislative change will they be for the Government to recognise. Every Member who has spoken in this debate has confirmed that they are in favour of an independent and transparent scheme for paying our costs. Clearly, even if Members thought that there were issues, they would not immediately want the Government to rush into legislating. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said wisely that when this House legislates on such matters in haste, it often comes to repent it.
The Government will look carefully at the considerations that the Committee makes, and I hope that IPSA will look carefully at them. If the review is carried out in that spirit, I think that it will be very productive.
Mr Andrew Smith
I want to underline the importance of the point that the Minister has just made. Will he assure us that the Government’s response will scrupulously and absolutely uphold the independence of IPSA?
Mr Harper
Yes; I have said that several times and it is important. Although this House has many new Members, it is important that we remember why we got to this position. We have to ensure that we move things forward, and focus on independence and transparency. We have had debates recently on our pay, and the consideration of our pay will be moved across to IPSA in the not-too-distant future. Its independence is important so that people have confidence. The Committee, when it is set up, will have to remember that the recommendations it makes about the scheme and the operation of the scheme will be made to IPSA.
Mr Charles Walker
Does the Minister accept that when we legislate in haste, as we did in 2009, such legislation sometimes has to be revisited and amended with the benefit of hindsight?
Mr Harper
I made a distinction in my remarks. Clearly, if the Committee, or indeed the National Audit Office, makes recommendations about value for money and cost-effectiveness in the way IPSA operates, IPSA will pay attention to them, as with all its recommendations. It may be that the Committee makes recommendations about legislative change. However, we do not want to go back to a system in which the Government—heaven forbid—or the House start to micro-manage the details of the scheme. We have an independent system with transparency, and it is important that we stick with that. The Committee needs to bear that in mind. There will be two important audiences for what the Committee recommends. In the same way that we should not legislate in haste, we should not re-legislate in haste and change things further. The Committee needs to bear that in mind when it considers this matter, and should not immediately leap to the conclusion that we have to change the entire structure of the system.
Mr Leigh
There is a third audience: the taxpayer. Ultimately, nobody is independent of the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is not for us, but for the people—we represent the people and the taxpayer. If serious recommendations are made and IPSA ignores them, the House of Commons has a right to vote on its estimates and to reduce the amount it spends on administration.
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes the position very clear. A structure has been set up with the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which heard evidence from IPSA this week and questioned it about its estimate. More work is being done to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about cost-effectiveness and IPSA’s budget to ensure that at this difficult time for public expenditure, IPSA is as efficient and cost-effective as possible. However, it would be a mistake if we immediately leapt away from an independent, transparent system, which is what the Government, the Opposition, and every Member who has spoken in this debate supports. We cannot have an independent system and simultaneously give it instructions on how to do its job.
The Government look forward to the Committee’s work and give a commitment that we will look at its recommendations with great care. I will obviously not make any commitments about what we will do until we have seen the report. The Committee should do a thorough job and we look forward to its report. We also look forward to seeing what the NAO has to say. I think that that is a sensible way forward. On that basis, the Government are very relaxed about the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
Adam Afriyie
I am delighted that the Committee is being set up. I expressed an interest in that Committee. It is time for us to have a calm, careful look at the 2009 Act, as amended in 2010. I hope that all hon. Members, in a non-partisan fashion, will support me and the House in establishing this Committee. We must ensure that the review is thorough, that it is consistent with decisions that have been made, and that the recommendations are robust in defence of the taxpayer and in the pursuit of openness and accountability for Members. Above all, we must ensure that this place and parliamentary democracy function correctly, and that the schemes that are put in place for Members support the work that they do and, preferably, are a lot less costly than they are at present. I urge Members to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That it be an instruction to the Committee on Members’ Allowances established under Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members’ Allowances) that it review the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and make recommendations, giving due consideration to ensuring:
(a) value for money for taxpayers;
(b) accountability;
(c) public confidence in Parliament;
(d) the ability of Members to fulfil their duties effectively;
(e) fairness for less well-off Members and those with families; and
(f) that Members are not deterred from submitting legitimate claims.
Fisheries
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call Zac Goldsmith, may I suggest that I am minded to increase the time limit to 10 minutes, or possibly 12 minutes, depending on how long the opening speeches last?
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.
The motion has been tabled my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for St Ives (Andrew George), the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and myself. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us an opportunity to have this very important debate.
The motion is about the scandal of fish discards. Up to half the fish caught in the North sea are thrown back into the water either dead or dying, as a direct consequence of perverse EU common fisheries policy rules. Members will know that there was an overwhelming public reaction following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign. More than 600,000 people signed petitions calling for an end to discards, and many of them wrote to their Member of Parliament calling for immediate action. Their concerns are clearly mirrored here in Parliament, where the second most supported early-day motion since the general election calls for a discard ban. In addition, we have a Minister responsible for fisheries and a Prime Minister who have both recognised the absurdity of the current rules.
The time is right for a debate of this type because CFP negotiations are at a crucial stage. The European Commission is to make formal proposals in June or July, and decisions are to be taken some time in October, so now is our chance to give the Government a mandate to take the strongest possible line in those negotiations.
It is difficult to know exactly how many fish are being thrown away, because records are not kept and discards are not monitored. However, the EU estimates that in the North sea, between 40% and 60% of the total catch is discarded. The research of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs more or less backs up that figure. In other UK fisheries, the total is probably even higher. For instance, in the west of Scotland area, the Scottish Government believe that as much as 90% of the total cod catch is discarded. Partly because of that horrendous and mind-boggling waste, the European Commission’s own scientific advisers estimate that 72% of assessed EU species are now overfished.
It is grossly unfair that so often the fishermen get the blame for that madness, because most of the discards are the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of decisions imposed on them by politicians. To add insult to injury, those laws are supposed to be about conservation.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am very glad to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about fishermen, because Scottish fishermen in particular have spent a great deal of time and effort to try to have measures introduced to minimise discards. However, the current CFP works against them in many ways.
Zac Goldsmith
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Fishermen all around our coast are trying very hard to avoid this appalling waste, and I have yet to meet a fisherman who supports the current rules, so I echo what he says.
As all Members will know, reform of the CFP is complicated and hugely contentious, but whatever reforms are agreed, they must include a discard ban. We know that there are alternatives. For example, we could replace landing quotas with catch quotas so that by-catch that would otherwise be discarded had to be landed. The UK has already been piloting a scheme for cod involving six vessels in England and 17 in Scotland, and results so far suggest that it is working. Discards of cod are down to, I believe, between 1% and 7%. In addition, fishermen are using more selective gear and managing to catch more valuable fish.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I entirely support the hon. Gentleman’s point. I do not wish to sound pedantic, but I hope he agrees that when we talk about fish discards, we are primarily talking about the discard of dead fish. There are many fisheries in which the poor fish, although they are no doubt traumatised, can be slipped back into the sea. Many of them are juveniles and capable of further growth.
Zac Goldsmith
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and in fact the motion suggests a
“derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding”,
so that would include the type of catch that he mentions.
In addition to the pilots in our own waters, a discard ban has been operating since 1987 in Norway, where over-quota or unwanted species are landed for a guaranteed minimum value and sold to the fishmeal industry, with the proceeds used to reinvest in and support the fishing industry. To make a discard ban easier, we will have to do everything we can to help fishermen access and use more selective gear so that they can avoid the unwanted fish in the first place.
Consumers also have a clear role. A significant percentage of fish are discarded because there is no market for them, and the Government can boost that market through their vast procurement programme. We spend £2 billion each year on food for the wider public sector, and that is an obvious tool that the Government can use. However, there are obviously limits to what a Government can do to shape a fashion, and it is worth mentioning non-Government initiatives such as “Hugh’s Mackerel Mission”, which is intended to help stimulate new markets for less popular species. It is a valuable campaign, and I urge Members to support it.
Discards are the most visible flaw in the CFP regime, but they are only part of the problem. In addition, the motion calls for radical decentralisation, and I wish briefly to focus on that. One of the key demands from our fishing communities, and in particular from the under-10 metre fleet, is that we assert our control over what are wrongly described as our sovereign waters—the 12 nautical miles surrounding our coastline. I say “wrongly” because whereas the British Government can legally impose whatever rules and regulations they want within those waters, from six to 12 miles out those rules will apply only to British vessels. It is clear that higher standards are a good thing, but only if they are fair and we have an even playing field. That is categorically not the case in our waters.
For example, in 2004 the UK banned pair-trawling for bass within 12 miles of the south-west coast of England, to protect dolphins and porpoises. Although our own fishermen adhered to the law, the ban did absolutely nothing to prevent French and Spanish trawlers from continuing to catch bass in those waters, which was both wrong and unfair. If those rights for foreign vessels are to be retained, it seems to me that they should come with an absolute and non-negotiable obligation to adhere to our own rules. That is why the motion demands, among other things, that any reforms of the CFP must
“enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters”.
That is an absolutely fundamental issue. If we reassert our control over those waters we will not only provide welcome relief for our smaller boats against the onslaught of the factory fishing vessels, but we will be able to establish an intelligent, ecosystem-based management system and ensure the health of our fisheries indefinitely.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it was a mistake almost 40 years ago when the fishing grounds were used as a bargaining chip for entering the European Economic Community, as it then was? What will he do to ensure that his Government reverse that and give us 200-mile control rather than 12-mile control?
Zac Goldsmith
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my concluding remarks, so I will ask him to hold on for a few moments.
If we were able to reassert control over our waters, we would also be able to set the rules on science. With the active involvement of those who depend more than anyone else on the viability and health of our marine environment—the fishermen themselves—we would be able to get the policy right. That would also allow us to do something even more important—to recognise in law and in our regulatory regime, finally, the difference between smaller, traditional fishing vessels and their giant industrial competitors. It is an absolute mystery to me why successive Governments have always chosen to view the latter, the so-called fishing lobby, as the true voice of fishermen.
More than three quarters of the UK fleet is made up of vessels of 10 metres and under, which represent about 65% of full-time employment. Under the previous Administration, the 5,000 or so 10-metre and under vessels were given just 4% of the national quota, compared with the staggering 96% that was given to bigger boats, which number fewer than 1,500. It is staggeringly unfair, and if we were able to organise ourselves in the way that we chose within those 12 miles, we would be able to recognise the madness of that system in law.
It is an obvious observation that the smaller vessels are restricted in where they can go and what damage they can do, simply because of their size. The tools that they use do not compare with those available to the industrial factory fishing vessels, some of which have lines that would stretch from Parliament to Brighton, and purse seine nets that are big enough to swallow two millennium domes—which is a nice thought in some respects.
Whereas the interests of the smaller fishing communities are necessarily aligned with conservationists and consumers, the tools of destruction used by the mega-trawlers are fundamentally incompatible with any kind of sustainable future. That has finally been recognised at EU level, in word if not in deed. The new EU Fisheries Commissioner, Maria Damanaki, has said:
“We…believe, based on scientific information, that small-scale fisheries are more sustainable and have a lower environmental footprint…Small-scale fisheries are also…more friendly to employment, and this is a key issue. We also recognise that small-scale fisheries are very important for the survival of coastal communities, for their identity, culture, history and way of life.”
Hear, hear to that, but let us see that finally translated into law. It is time for a clear and forceful policy distinction between the interests of the small-scale, more traditional fisherman, and large-scale operations.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Is it possible for us to have small-scale fishing out to 12 miles, and to ban factory fishing within, or am I being slightly naive in this modern age?
Zac Goldsmith
I can only tell my hon. Friend that I would like to see a system biased in favour of the small-scale, traditional fisherman, but that is an academic discussion until we reassert our control over those 12 miles. When we have done that, we can raise standards. Lobby groups that represent the fishermen who use smaller vessels are very much in support of his message.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the current restrictions on the 6 and 12-mile limits? The 0 to 6-mile limit is restricted to UK fishermen only, but in the 6 to 12-mile zone, we share access with vessels from member states that have historical fishing rights.
Zac Goldsmith
My hon. Friend makes an accurate observation. That was exactly my point in my opening remarks. The zone between 6 and 12 miles is described as sovereign or territorial waters, but we are unable to apply our rules to foreign vessels, which is deeply unfair. I know that she will speak on that issue with much greater experience than I could ever hope for.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this measure before the House. Like his constituency, my constituency can hardly be described as coastal, but we have both had a large amount of correspondence on this subject. I believe that that is informed not only by concern for the environment and our fishing industry but by an instinctive dislike of wasting food, which is very deep in the national psyche.
Zac Goldsmith
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In normal circumstances reform of the CFP would be regarded as a nerdy issue, of interest to very few, but fish discards have caught the public’s imagination, for all the reasons that he identifies. No one likes the idea of waste, and no one welcomes the obliteration of our marine environment. People also instinctively recognise that this is also about fairness.
I shall conclude shortly, because I know that there is great demand among hon. Members to speak. For all Ted Heath’s “pure brilliance”—his words, not mine, as no one will be surprised to hear—he was wrong to surrender our fishing rights as a price worth paying for our entry into the European Economic Community. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) about that. However, we have an opportunity to empower our brilliant fisheries Minister to right some of those historical wrongs. We can end discards, restore control over that key 12-mile zone, and set rules that allow both our fishing communities and our marine environment to survive and flourish. I strongly urge all hon. Members to support the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I should let the House know that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) have been selected. She may move them later.
Before I call Mr Austin Mitchell, I remind the House that I have extended the limit to 12 minutes.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) both on his record on conservation issues and on securing this important debate. It is marvellous that the grumbles and grievances of Members about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority have subsided so much that we have time for a full-length debate on this matter. I hope that all the hon. Members for inland fishing ports who are round about me in the Chamber are gathering to give us their ports’ views on the CFP. Fishing rarely gets such an opportunity for a serious debate. We are usually squeezed in at the end of another serious discussion, but today we have time, and I hope all fishing Members use it.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall certainly did a useful and important job, but we should draw attention to the iniquities of the CFP, which causes the problem of discards in the first place. The CFP puts marine wildlife, seaweed and all forms of sea life into the European constitution. It is the first constitution to include seaweed, marine life, algae and all the other things. That is a great achievement in constitution making: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. Marine life has a right to be part of the European constitution, to be dealt with only by European vessels!” That is Stalinism at sea—the last vestige of the Stalinist state—and it is being imposed on the waters around Britain, where it has been most damaging.
It is my contention that it is impossible to deal adequately with the problem of discards as long as the CFP remains, because it is the major cause of discards.
Mr MacNeil
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of a European consultation paper on the CFP. The paper admitted the failure of the CFP and that the areas where it worked were those under national control. Surely if people want the CFP to continue, they should allow national control to 199 miles, and apply the CFP between 199 and 200 miles—a minimal ribbon. The CFP has failed and will continue to do so, but there are no milestones by which we can correct the CFP in future. We will bumble on for years with the CFP unless European Governments get their acts together and get rid of it.
Austin Mitchell
I hope that that becomes part of Scottish National party policy and that it is implemented by the new SNP Government in Edinburgh—it certainly needs to be. I hereby renew my application to become the SNP fisheries spokesman. My previous applications over the years have been consummately rejected.
The important point is that the CFP allocates catches by quota to fishing vessels in mixed fishing grounds, which waters around the British coast are. As long as we control catches by quotas, there will always be discards, because fisherman who put to sea for haddock or cod will catch species that are not in their quotas.
Mr MacNeil
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one other main problem with the CFP is the single-species stipulation, which often applies to the species that are most under threat? That causes distortions in the catching of other species and leads to discards. There are better models than the EU model, such as those in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes. The CFP model is the worst of the lot. That is why those countries will have nothing to do with Europe.
Austin Mitchell
I agree, absolutely—this speech is becoming a duet between me and the Scottish National party, which is an interesting state of affairs. The problem that the hon. Gentleman points to is that simplistic solutions will not work. The problem with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s proposals is that they are simplistic. The EU has responded to them with another simplistic solution, which will not work either. It took the Norwegians 20 years to develop their techniques, and they did it in very different fisheries, with an emphasis on conserving the young, immature fish. Norway’s job has therefore been much easier, but it has taken it 20 years to eliminate discards. We have had 10 years of working to reduce discards, in which they have been reduced by 50%. That has happened partly, it has to be said, as a result of decommissioning, but also because of other measures, such as square-mesh panels, which were developed by the industry as a means of conservation.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Norwegians’ use of temporary real-time closures of areas when by-catch becomes excessive has served as an incentive for fishermen to use more selective gear? Does he also agree that selling fish caught illegally, without quota, through fishermen’s sales organisations—where the fishermen are entitled to only 20% of the revenue to cover the costs, thereby avoiding wastage and maintaining incentives to use selective gear by channelling profits back into fisheries—has been a key measure in achieving what he describes?
Austin Mitchell
I agree, absolutely. We have a lot to learn from the Norwegians, but the point is that the Norwegians control their own waters in the 200-mile limit around Norway, just as we should control the 200-mile limit—or the median line—around the British coast, but we do not. Therefore, we cannot enforce such measures. That is the problem with all these arguments.
The television programmes that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall did were fantastic. The great innovation—the great gimmick—of landing discards at Hastings and throwing them to the crowd on the beach, because landing them would have been illegal, was marvellous, because people took those fish home and cooked them. I wrote to Fearnley-Whittingstall and suggested that he should hire a cruiser and follow the fishing fleet around, picking up the discards and serving them as expensive meals to a wealthy clientele on the North sea coast. That kind of experiment would have been useful. However, his solution is simplistic; therefore, it will not work.
Following Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s pressure on fisheries policy—on which I again congratulate him—the EU has put forward another simplistic solution. What it is doing—I suspect rather cynically—is setting out the problem, throwing it back to the nation states and telling them to solve it with a ban on discards, which will not work and cannot work. The Minister cannot solve the problem, so we are in deadlock. The EU proposes measures that will not work and forces them on the nation states, which cannot enforce them because of the common fisheries policy, and nothing happens, which is likely to remain the outcome.
The British reduction of discards by more than 50% over 10 years was achieved through square-mesh panels, video observation of the fishermen, closing grounds in-season and cod recovery plans, which were submitted by the fishermen and approved by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They were all painstaking, laborious techniques, but they have worked. That is the only way to do it, not through a simplistic ban, because fishermen will continue to discard.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There have been lots of European ideas to enable the cod recovery plans. However, on many occasions scientists put forward regulations and suggestions when fishermen were saying that there were schools upon schools of cod in the sea. Therefore, there is perhaps a difference between the scientist and the fisherman when it comes to who knows best.
Austin Mitchell
That is certainly true, and again, it illustrates the difficulties that we face. One attempt that Europe has made—the cod ban—has proved disastrous for enforcement and protecting stocks, not to mention avoiding discards. That is control from the centre. What we need in the EU now is a policy to address that, yet power is being taken away from the Council—at least we have an opportunity to put up a fight against any proposals in the Council, and to bargain and improve our position in negotiations—and transferred to the Commission. However, the commissioners have never knowingly handed power down to the nation states—or, in the case of fishing, to the regional advisory councils. The North sea RAC is doing a splendid job. If the power to manage stocks was conceded to it, it could eliminate discards. However, it is not doing that because in the final analysis, the EU will never hand over the necessary powers to allow the RACs or nation states to deal with the problem adequately. In those situations, discarding will continue because, under a discard ban, what is a fisherman who catches fish that are not on his quota supposed to do with them? It is inevitable that he will chuck them overboard, if he can do so unobserved. We cannot monitor every ship by satellite or closed-circuit television; that is just impossible. So this is an impossible plan and it will not work.
That is why I was loth to give my support to the early-day motion. There is a continuous conflict between the conservationists, whose aims I admire, and the needs of commercial fishing. We see this in the marine conservation areas. There is now an argument to make them areas in which there is either no fishing or very restricted fishing, but we must not turn the waters around the British coast into a patchwork quilt, with some areas where fisherman can catch and some where they cannot, or with different quotas for different areas involving limits on species. It is appalling that there is a proposal to ban fishing in the experimental areas that are being set up. We cannot do that.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the 2006 reorganisation of the Manguson Stevens Act in the US required the end of over-fishing by 2010? In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service has now heralded the fact that that has taken place in US waters. That policy’s success was due to the requirement for new annual catch limits in every fishery, and the establishment of strict scientific guidelines on the limits of sustainability, within which annual catch limits could be set.
Austin Mitchell
That is so. We have set up our marine conservation areas, and I support them, but I do not support them as a means of restricting the opportunities for fishing.
I suppose that I had better bring my remarks to a conclusion, enthusiastic as I am to go on for hours, preventing all the other Members who want to raise matters from doing so. I shall simply say that the fishing industry has the greatest and the closest interest in proper conservation, because it has an interest in the sustainability of stocks. It wants the stocks to be there to hand on to the next generation of fishermen. That is why it was always important for us to have 200-mile limits to protect our fishing, in the way that Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, America, Canada and many other nations have been able to do. We cannot do that now, however, because Ted Heath foolishly handed these powers over, just like that, without argument, to Europe. The fishing industry wants sustainable catching as well as conservation measures, and it is the only body that can enforce them and ensure that they work, because it is in the interests of the fishermen to do so.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Although the industry might have the desire to be involved in conservation measures, would the hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the quotas and the ridiculous policy on discards, there is no incentive for fishermen to take that long-term view? Anything we can do to align the stewardship incentives with the incentives for the industry would be extremely welcome.
Austin Mitchell
I agree. That is a very important point, and well put—said he, unctuously. This comes back to my point that the only way of enforcing these measures is if the industry enforces them itself, because it is the only one who has such an interest in them. At the moment, the regulations work in a contrary direction, but if they could work with the grain of the industry, and if the industry could be involved in formulating the measures, we could get a proper, effective conservation measure that would work. That is the aim, and we should not look for measures from Europe. We should aim for a handing down of power to the industry, so as to involve it in creating sustainability and pursuing its own interests.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
For the second time today, I declare a special interest as the custodian of an under-10 metre commercial trawler, although she is not fishing at present. May I also thank all hon. Members for the support and kindness they have shown me following Neil’s death? It is a great comfort to me and my children that so many people have been thinking of us.
I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing this debate. Europe’s fish stocks are shared out according to Council regulation 2371/2002, which must be reviewed by 31 December 2012. This is the third review we have seen. I will not dwell on the history, although I will go back over a little of it. In 1972, the UK accession to the European Economic Community agreed equal access to a common resource. In 1976, the UK declared a 200-mile limit or median line, even though we had by then ceded control of fisheries to the EEC. In 1983, the total allowable catch—TAC—and quota system was agreed, along with the principle of relative stability, which is a mechanism of sharing out the European TAC among the member states according to their historical record of fishing. That agreement was reviewed in 1992 and the fishing industry was looking for some change, but it never came. In 2002, we were given a promise of change, but still TACs and quotas continued, with this Minister’s Department and, more recently, devolved Administrations responsible for the domestic quota management. So much regulation has been heaped on fishermen over the past 40 years, is it any wonder UK fishermen feel they have been served a very bad deal? I agree with their view.
There are several parts to this motion. An ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management is sensible, and I am pleased the Minister is already looking at marine protected areas. However, I have grave concerns that despite in excess of £4 million being spent since 2009 on consultation, my local fishermen in Looe and Polperro feel that the information that they have supplied has been completely ignored by Finding Sanctuary and Natural England. Scientists, environmentalists and fishermen should work together, but to make this work fishermen must be confident that they are equal partners. I hope that the Minister will confirm that no marine protected area will be imposed upon the south-west unless and until there is buy-in from the fishermen. I attended one of the Finding Sanctuary consultations with my husband, and we were asked to give details of where the fishermen worked so that the marine protected areas would not prevent them from earning. I am shocked to be told by those very same fishermen today that those very areas are now identified for closure or restriction.
Socio-economics must be a major factor when marine environmental measures are introduced. The discarding of fish is a wicked waste of nutrition. I congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing the issue to the attention of the public and to that of the European Commission. In the early 1990s, south-west fishermen covered Royal parade in Plymouth with plaice to illustrate the waste caused by the quota, but 20 years on we are still talking about the problem. There are anomalies to a discard ban. Lobster and crab survive capture. Crab pots are not size-sensitive, yet if all the babies were landed, it would lead to the extinction of the species.
I think that 2015 is a realistic target to ensure we fish sustainably. British fishermen do not intentionally set out to catch baby fish; they continually adapt their nets with square mesh panels and separator grids to avoid catching small fish or the wrong species. I understand that only two days ago discussions at a meeting north of the border centred around introducing a trial of a net to reduce discards in the nephrops fishery. I have been told that it would take only half a day to adapt an existing nephrops net to this design. Fishermen cannot avoid capturing unwanted fish and, in my constituency, they sometimes find their nets full of undersized red gurnards. Those are non-pressure stock and, according to the Marine Conservation Society, the data have shown an indication of their stability in recent years. We need to find a use for these fish, however.
Scientists and environmentalists will often talk about fish without considering the fishermen. Many people forget that a fishing skipper needs expertise in a number of fields: engineering, fish biology, navigation and weather forecasting, as well as the usual requirements for running a small business. Imagine how soul destroying it is to tow gear for hours, haul in a net and find the cod-end full of the wrong species, then throw them back and return to port with a massive fuel bill and no money to pay for it! It angers me when I hear scientists dismiss out of hand the fishermen’s assessment of the stocks. The fishermen—and some fisherwomen; we have at least one in Cornwall—are experts and should be treated as equals.
Let me move on to deal with fishing within territorial waters. According to paragraph 2 of article 17 of the basic regulation, fishing activity is restricted in waters up to 12 miles from the baseline under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of member states to local fishermen or those from other member states with historic rights—until the end of 2012 when the limits that have been in place for 30 years could be abolished.
I believe that abolition of this protection would be a move too far. We have a referendum lock in place for new EU treaties, so why not have a referendum if the protection of our sovereign territorial waters is threatened? I believe the 12-mile limit should be reserved for small inshore UK vessels that are unable to migrate to fishing grounds further from their home ports. These vessels support coastal communities. Small vessels—even small trawlers that operate with a single trawl, many fitted with rockhopper foot ropes and vented trawl doors to avoid damaging the sea bed—have a lower impact on the marine environment than more powerful vessels or vessels towing two nets at the same time.
Under 10-metre vessels have been disadvantaged by the UK system. The underestimation of the quota came to light under the last Government, who failed to resolve the problem. We now find that the very vessels that caused the least amount of damage to the stocks are struggling to survive.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I praise my hon. Friend not just for the knowledge and expertise she brings to this debate, but for the dignified way in which she has spoken. I speak as an MP for a landlocked area, and we are lucky that a number of fresh fish sellers come daily into my local villages in Colne Valley and West Yorkshire. We also have Fairtrade shops, so we know what kind of chocolate or coffee to buy. Will my hon. Friend advise my constituents on what kind of accreditation marks they should look out for if they want to make a knowledgeable purchase of sustainable fish products?
Sheryll Murray
Yes, the Marine Conservation Society accredits species of fish caught in an environmentally friendly way—pole fishing for tuna, for example, or mackerel handlining, which is particularly important in the south-west. I understand from a question put to the Minister earlier that there is cause for concern in Cornwall about the cost of accreditation for mackerel handline fishermen.
Andrew George
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the point I put in a question this morning. For Marine Stewardship Council accreditation, the 200 Cornish fishermen who benefit from this particular fishery have to pay £12,000 plus VAT a year in registration costs. In addition, they see that a number of rather high-impact fishing methods used elsewhere have also received accreditation, which they view as altogether downgrading the significance of MSC accreditation.
Sheryll Murray
I thank my hon. Friend, who has great expertise in that subject. I applaud the way in which the Minister is trying to resolve the matter, but ask him to take a further look at the impact assessment accompanying the present consultation.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Earlier in her speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the marketing of fish. Is it not important for us to seek innovative ways of marketing them? The humble mackerel is really a tuna. Should it not be called the north Atlantic tuna? I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency the pilchard is in reality a Cornish sardine and that the pollack has been renamed a colin, but surely we should consider other innovative ways of putting unpopular fish on the slabs of fishmongers, or at least into some form of fishfinger that people would want to eat.
Sheryll Murray
Marketing necessities in the United Kingdom certainly include the need to attract the British housewife to other species of fish as well as just the traditional cod and haddock.
I assure Members that I have tried a variety of fish in my time. Perhaps at this point I should pay tribute to my local fishermen. When my husband came home with a fish for me, it was usually a damaged fish that he could not put on the market for sale. Since his death I have received carrier bags full of fish, and I now have a huge amount in my freezer. I thank the fishermen in my constituency for considering my family in that way.
Several assumptions have been made on page 13 of the impact assessment that accompanies the recently published consultation document. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether his Department has conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the effect of those assumptions on under-10-metre vessels?
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached his brief. Having been involved in fisheries for almost 30 years, I have dealt with quite a number of fisheries Ministers, and it is really refreshing to have a Minister who cares about the marine environment, fish stocks, and—most important to me—the fishermen themselves. I wish him well in the negotiations over the coming months, and hope that he can secure a deal in the Council to secure the real change for which the industry has been calling since 1983. I hope that all Members will join me in supporting the motion, and that the Minister will have the backing of the House in seeking the outcome that we all want to see.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this and other fisheries debates as well as to DEFRA parliamentary questions dealing with fisheries issues. I do not have the same amount of personal experience. Indeed, I believe that I was one of the only three Members who spoke during a fisheries debate in Westminster Hall in December whose constituencies did not contain fishing fleets; the others were the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain).
I note that many more such Members are present today. That may demonstrate the power of television in focusing attention on the issue of discards, which those who are involved in fisheries issues have been discussing for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) mentioned the action that has been taken by fishing fleets around the United Kingdom. That too has been happening for many years, although it is in danger of being overlooked in the debate. It is assumed that the issue has only just come to public attention and that people are now suddenly caring about it, but that is far from being the case.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park on tabling the motion and initiating the debate. He has hit on an issue that many of our constituents have raised. However, we should not see dealing with discards as a panacea for all the problems connected with fisheries, especially as we head towards the period from July onwards when the Minister will be discussing reform of the common fisheries policy.
In the fisheries debate in December, I said that about 10 years had passed since I worked at the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the same arguments are being made now as were made then about the pressing need for reform of the common fisheries policy.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says that there were calls for reform many years ago, but nothing has substantively changed. I think we should abolish the CFP and return to having national fisheries, but in any case is it not time that we got rid of the word “reform”? It is used by Front-Bench spokesperson after Front-Bench spokesperson as a get-out for doing nothing in reality.
Tom Greatrex
I share some of my hon. Friend’s frustrations about the lack of progress over many years. Often in European discussions, issues get traded off against each other; certain issues that should have been dealt with are not addressed, as other issues are seen as more pressing concerns. Fisheries have suffered as a result. Perhaps because I am slightly younger than my hon. Friend, or perhaps because I am a little naive in this respect, I am more hopeful than he is that the documentation from the Commission and some of the comments from the commissioner may give us cause to think that we have a serious chance of getting decent reform of the CFP on this occasion.
We will certainly have further discussions on this topic, but it is right to offer the Minister who will handle it in Europe our encouragement. We all understand that the negotiations will be very complex, as they will involve various different states and lots of different interests. One of the consequences of the increased interest in discards and other issues is that that has provoked the commissioner into saying some interesting things recently. While just saying things is not necessarily an indication of future action, there is now an opportunity, and we would be foolish not to try to take it.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
Is it not noteworthy that the commissioner has referred to the sheer scale of the public outcry and demand for action in the United Kingdom, and does that not point to the need for us to sustain this admirable campaign—I congratulate all those who have been leading it—and to broaden it to other European countries?
Tom Greatrex
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which I alluded to when talking about the power of the television documentary and the campaign.
I want to address the wider issue of CFP reform, as well as discards. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) must know a lot about the discards issue, as some of the fleets in her constituency have tackled it in innovative ways, such as through employing different nets. As that shows, fishing fleets have taken action, but we must address discards within the context of the CFP as a whole, and there are other important issues that will also need to be taken seriously in the negotiations.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about sustainability. That is not solely the preserve of scientists and conservationists; sustainability is also inherently in the interests of the fishing communities, but for far too long they have, effectively, been given perverse incentives not to act in a sustainable way. That is the fault not of the fishing fleets or the communities whose livelihoods depend on fishing, but of the regime. It therefore needs to form part of the changes to that regime.
A move towards multi-year quotas, which the report of the draft I read this morning seemed to suggest the Commission was proposing, is an important part of the changes needed, so I encourage the Minister to keep it on his agenda for the negotiations. It is frustrating that once a year in December people have to sit through the night to set the agenda for the next year, while industries and people—sometimes working in remote parts of the country—whose livelihoods depend on the industry are left not knowing what the position will be a few months hence. That does not help them to make long-term decisions about investment in their vessels or about how to pursue their economic interests. We hope that the July discussions will provide an opportunity to address this situation, because it is not healthy, sensible or sustainable.
Will the Minister bear it in mind that, as I said in Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions earlier, we cannot have imposed on everybody an inflexible regime that is unable to adapt to local circumstances? There are a number of fisheries around the UK coast in which fleets fish for mixed catches, and a strict regime on them could have unintended adverse consequences. We have to ensure therefore that there is the appropriate flexibility for local management within whatever improvements are made to the CFP. I share others’ frustrations with the CFP over recent years. Reform remains necessary, and discards are part of the problem. It is heartening that this issue is getting much more attention than even a few months ago, but it is not the only issue. CFP reform and moving to multi-year quotas and greater sustainability will be in the interests of everybody involved in the industry. They are also in the interests of a number of my constituents who have recently discovered a shared interest in this issue because of the discards campaign. We need to ensure that this is at the forefront of the agenda in the negotiations that the Minister will take part in over the next few months. I sincerely wish him all the best in that, and I hope that many Members will support him in taking this agenda forward.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I do not intend to take up my full time allocation, as I want to make only a few points. First, however, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who brought this motion before the House, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who spoke eloquently and informatively. She brings to the House the benefit of her and her family’s expertise and experience in Cornwall.
As many Members will know, Sherwood is a land-locked constituency in the middle of Nottinghamshire, but my constituents know what is right and what is wrong—and this is clearly wrong. Only the European Union could dream up a policy under which trawlermen can bring back to land only a small proportion of the fish they catch and must throw the rest overboard. It does not make any sense ecologically, economically or morally. We have to consider the reason for these discards, however. They are the result of the quota system introduced by the EU, which measures the fish brought back to land. If possible, we should consider a system that measures the fish as they are brought on to the boat, rather than when they are landed back at the port.
I am not an expert in fisheries, but the comparisons with agriculture strike me. Is it possible to consider a system similar to the one that operated in the sugar industry with sugar beet, with an A, B and C quota. The fish would still be taken to market, but their value would be much lower, to encourage them to be brought back to land.
High grading is a system whereby fishermen go out, catch the fish and try to retain those of the highest value. That is causing a problem in that the small-value fish are thrown overboard. In terms of the fish stocks, however, they are quite high value, because they are often the young and small fish that will go on to grow and be the future stocks.
Bob Stewart
This seems nonsensical to me. Surely we cannot design a system whereby any fish are thrown back. Once a fish is landed, it is damaged, and if it is put back it will probably die. Whatever system we design must be sensible, ensure that all fish are landed and aim to preserve fish stocks. We should not just put some back and keep some.
Mr Spencer
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We also need to find new technologies, and there are technologies available that sieve fish and pass the smaller ones through the nets so that they are not captured.
Kelvin Hopkins
I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is not the problem not that individual fishing boats are catching too much fish but that too many fishing boats are fishing? Overfishing can be regulated only by a nation managing its own fishing waters and what is landed from the sea. That can be achieved only with a national approach to fishing.
Mr Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Standing in this place, with history around us, I wonder what such characters as Drake and Nelson would have thought of the way in which this country has given up its territorial rights to our waters. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which Drake would have tolerated French and Spanish ships coming 12 miles off the shore of England and done nothing about it.
We need to take control of our waters. All this happened when I was at primary school—
Mr Spencer
Of course, I was not at primary school with Sir Francis Drake, but I was at primary school when the European Union came up with the schemes that gave away our territorial rights to our waters. That was a great shame, but we need to consider it in the light of where we find ourselves today. We need to consider how we can take it back and find a system that is morally acceptable and better for our oceans.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
As a sponsor of the motion, I am grateful to have the opportunity to put on the record how important I think it is. Surely the important issue is the marine ecosystem and the duty and responsibility we all have to ensure that it can function in an ethically sustainable way. We must put the environment at the heart of all that we do so that we have a sustainable ecosystem for our marine waters.
Mr Spencer
I absolutely agree and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. We need to ensure that future generations have access to fish as part of their diet. Fish make up an important part of the diet. Omega 3 is important and people need it as part of a healthy diet. Unless we get this right at this moment, fish stocks will not be available for future generations. That will be a sad indictment of us as politicians and of the decisions that we make.
My final comments are to the general public. Consumers are powerful and retailers listen to consumers. I encourage members of the public to challenge their retailers—supermarkets and fishmongers—to tell them how their fish is caught and harvested and how many discards there are. Several retailers, including Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer, have done some work on making good progress on this front. I hope that we can find a solution.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I would add Waitrose to that list of supermarkets, and I declare an interest because I used to work for it. It sponsored a very good film called “The End of the Line”, and I would like to note the brilliant work done by the person who put that film together in kicking off this discussion, ahead of the Fish Fight campaign, several years ago. Will my hon. Friend join me, and other hon. Members I am sure, in encouraging consumers who feel strongly about this issue, many of whom have written to us, to be part of the solution, albeit a small part? If everyone who has sent us an e-mail about this also changes their fish-buying behaviour and attempts to influence their friends and family to change theirs, they can become a small part of the solution just as much as by urging us to be part of it.
Mr Spencer
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. The Countryside Agency ran a campaign some time ago with the strapline “Eat the View”, which encouraged consumers to think about where their food came from because its production directly affects the world around us. What we look at, what we see and how the world produces food is directly affected by how and where we purchase food. I encourage consumers to hold retailers to account—to challenge them and make sure that they are doing the right thing not only for us but for future generations and future food production in general.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be a sponsor of the motion and I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on introducing it. I congratulate him also on drafting a motion that mentions not only discards but what we fundamentally need to do to achieve the aims and objectives that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), among others, of putting sustainability and our environment first in our fisheries policy.
Something that has always struck me about fisheries policy is that, whatever concerns one has about the motives and actors involved, it resembles what is sometimes described in political theory discussions as the tragedy of the commons. If eight farms surround a common and one farmer decides to keep pigs, which eat the beech mast from the common and get very fat, that works very well for that rational farmer who does very well. So then another rational farmer decides to keep pigs too, thinking that those pigs will also get fat from eating the beech mast on the common—and they do. But then another two farmers also decide, quite rationally, to keep pigs, thinking that the beech mast comes every year and is not a finite resource. After three or four more farmers have the same rational idea, all the pigs die because there is not enough beech mast for them all. Whatever the rational concerns of fishermen, fishing fleets and, indeed, policy makers about fish stocks and how fisheries work, unless there are policies that go beyond relying on the rational instincts of people who are involved in these issues, and unless policies regulate the industry so that it is genuinely sustainable overall, tragedy will inevitably result.
It is commonplace to say that the world is extremely overfished, but we also know that about 90% of all the cod that are caught have never had a chance to breed. I do not think that it requires a great deal of analysis to recognise that if 90% of the breeding population is removed before it can even begin to breed, that population will not last long.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Only a fortnight ago, I went across the Clyde to Arran to see at first hand a no-go area, which has already achieved results beyond everyone’s expectations. Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be plentiful fish, but only on the basis that we allow breeding grounds where there is no fishing?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend anticipates what I was going to say. Any ecosystem-based fishing policy has to relate to precisely the question of no-fishing areas. I appreciate the difficulties of enforcement and the problems that that represents, but under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2010 we have developed the potential of no-fishing areas and have already seen results in limited fishing areas, which create a haven where species can start to rebuild breeding stocks and then repopulate other areas. That is an important part of an eco-fishing analysis.
Zac Goldsmith
I want to echo that point. The most successful marine protected areas around the world are protected with the co-operation of fishing communities, and the biggest beneficiaries, beyond the fish, are fishermen themselves. In Costa Rica, Japan, Spain and so on, there are lots of successful stories of marine protected areas, which have boosted fishermen’s income and increased biodiversity, which is crucial.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman underlines a point that I wish to emphasise. The tragedy of the commons is a good example of regulated assistance for rational activity that benefits people who are trying to make a living and acting rationally in so doing. With the assistance of those no-fishing zones, there are substantial consequences beyond those zones, as there are benefits for all concerned.
Yes, it is true that we should end discards, but if we do so that will not by any means solve the problems. The motion goes much further and proposes that an ecosystem-based fishing regime should be part of a new common fisheries policy. The question of discards is a world issue for fishing. The average estimate of discards from catches across the world is about 8%, but it is certainly far worse in Europe, and that is a result, as we have heard, of aspects of the CFP as it stands. Let us consider the prawns and shrimps that we eat on our table. For every tonne of shrimp that is landed, probably 10 to 15 tonnes of fish have been discarded. That is across the world—it is not just in Europe. It is unlikely that many people would accept a non-sustainably sourced prawn on their plate if they were aware of the overwhelming numbers that died to bring that prawn to their plate.
Discards are an important issue not only in the EU but across the world, not just because the fish could be used but because we are damaging species by changing breeding populations and ecosystems.
The motion asks the UK Government to develop a package of measures beyond which it would be impossible to go in considering whether to endorse a new EU fisheries policy.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I generally welcome the motion and will be happy to support it, because it is absolutely necessary that we have a different approach to the common fisheries policy. I wish to draw the House’s attention to a report produced many years ago by a House of Lords Committee, which highlighted the need to apply science and technology—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention. If he wishes to draw the House’s attention to something, he can make a speech, but he cannot do so in an intervention, so we will leave it at that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wishes to intervene again briefly, I will give way.
Neil Carmichael
That is extremely generous of the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that the House of Lords report was absolutely right to highlight the need for science and technology and draw our attention to the systems used in Norway?
Dr Whitehead
The answer to that very pithy intervention is yes. As we move towards a new EU fisheries policy, it is absolutely vital that we remove ourselves from all the baggage of previous fisheries policies, which, since the first one was introduced in 1983, have never contained an environmental, conservation or sustainability component. A few things have been added—rather like adding Dolby sound to Philips cassettes to try to make them work better—but basically the policy was designed simply to stop countries squabbling about who should fish where. In relation to what I said about the tragedy of the commons, that merely divides the commons between different people to carry on fishing in the same way, rather than moving the debate forward.
It is essential that we have an EU fisheries policy that is fit for purpose for the world we now live in. That is the bottom line of the debate. That includes ending discards and introducing technology that ensures that what is caught approximates most closely to what is intended to be caught, for example by using different nets. It includes looking at science to secure the best way forward for reducing the collateral consequences of fishing. It includes no-fish zones, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) referred to.
It is an ambitious package of measures. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it must be our starting point if we are to have fisheries that are fit for the 21st century. If we continue with fisheries that are fit for the 19th century, the fish will have disappeared by the time we are not much further into the 21st century. I wish the Minister good luck in his endeavours, which I hope will be fruitful. It is encouraging to hear the difference in tone from the EU Commission, and if we can build on that tone, on the Fish Fight campaign, which I, too, congratulate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on bringing to the public’s attention, and on the head of steam that has built up to recognise that we have to make a step change, not a gradual change in fisheries policy, we will find that these debates have been worthwhile, and that the Minister’s success in achieving such changes on behalf of Europe will have been a triumph indeed.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who was absolutely right to conclude by emphasising the importance, if we are to move forward effectively, of reducing the need to discard any dead fish in the sea. We need a more sophisticated package of measures, rather than the same blunt response to the blunt instrument of quotas, which caused the problem in the first place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), before he leaves the Chamber for a no doubt well-deserved comfort break, on having brought forward the issue and on his persistence in raising it. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the motion.
I also pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for having brought her great knowledge to bear and, in significantly difficult circumstances, raising the issue. She has warm support across the entire House for her contribution, and the House very much appreciates her widely acknowledged knowledge and expertise on the subject.
I was born and brought up in west Cornwall in my constituency. My family had a fishing boat, but my father was primarily a market gardener, so I have some experience of the issue, although far less than my hon. Friend. Many members of my family are engaged in the industry around the coast of my constituency, and I do my best to keep in contact with them in order to understand the pressures of the industry, but that certainly does not compare to my hon. Friend’s expertise.
A number of essential elements are required to move the issue forward and to make significant progress in addressing the concerns that have rightly been highlighted as a result not of only the Fish Fight campaign but of the many other campaigns that went before and highlighted precisely the same issues. I hope that the current process of reform, and the debate about the reform, of the common fisheries policy leading to 2013 will be more successful than the last.
We have inched our way forward, but the EU is like the United Nations when it comes to treaties: trying to reach an agreement across states requires tremendous diplomacy as well as the campaigning skill and zeal of many people in order to ensure that messages are properly understood, and that there are constructive proposals as well as attacks on and criticisms of the existing scheme’s failures.
In order to make such changes, there are a number of essential elements. First, we need to get right the management framework of the common fisheries policy, and it helps that we have moved the debate on in this Chamber from where it was five or six years ago, when my beloved coalition colleagues used to take the rather different view that we could unilaterally withdraw from the policy. The whole debate became a legal argument, which meant that we never had the right kind of environment—
Andrew George
I will in a moment, because I know that the hon. Gentleman is simply going to go back over that debate, and I just want to make this point to him. We did not have the environment that we needed to be able to have the kind of constructive debates that we now have about the management, technical and other measures that are required and can be delivered, although it takes some time. Because we could not legally withdraw from the common fisheries policy while remaining in the EU—it was technically impossible, and no one was proposing that we should withdraw entirely at that stage—we could not make that kind of progress.
Sheryll Murray
Does my hon. Friend accept that six years ago his party’s policy was one of regionalisation of the common fisheries policy, and that securing the regional management that his party was promising was probably as extreme and impossible to deliver as national control?
Andrew George
Having given a warm tribute to my hon. Friend, I hate to find myself in significant disagreement with her. She is right that the Liberal Democrats have argued that we should have a more regionalised basis for the common fisheries policy; we have been consistent in that for the past 20 years. We have been not only consistent but right and effective, in that the regional advisory councils have now been established.
The view of the coalition Government—we are in complete agreement between the parties—is that we need to strengthen the regional advisory councils to become regional management committees, in order to give fishermen, along with other stakeholders, significant power. With that power comes responsibility. If the fishermen themselves are making the decisions about the future management of their stocks and the framework within which they operate, they will be the losers if they fail to make any progress. We have succeeded in that fundamental principle. We are making that progress, and the next reform will see us move the agenda forward significantly and positively.
Sheryll Murray
My hon. Friend mentioned the regional advisory councils. That is precisely what they are—advisory, so no attention has to be paid to what they decide. That is not exactly what I remember his party promising six years ago.
Andrew George
I know; I blame myself. I apologise for having drawn myself into the very cul-de-sac that I was saying was the reason why we failed to make progress before.
As a result of the regional advisory councils, we were able to develop measures such as the Trevose ground closure, around the north coast of my constituency, each spring, which ensures that large numbers of vessels are not going in and plundering the stocks in that area. We have seen a significant improvement in the health of several species following that measure. The proposal was originally made and instigated by local fishermen, but rolling it out required international agreement.
Barry Gardiner
I seek to bolster the hon. Gentleman’s position, not to attack it. Does he agree that if we are to have truly ecosystem-based management of stock, it must be based not on regional advisory councils but on regional management?
Andrew George
The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point. We need to move from advice to management. We have a far too centralised common fisheries policy and, as we have been saying for decades, we need to decentralise it.
The fundamental problem, as many hon. Members have said, is the blunt instrument of the quota system. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test implied, we do not want to replace that overnight with the blunt response of stopping all discards. That could have immediate catastrophic consequences. We need to move to a situation where there is no need for discards of dead fish from trawlers.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In the Northumberland coast fishery, where most of the boats are day boats that do not travel far out, an immediate ban on discards would prevent people from catching other species. At the moment, a lot of haddock are being caught because they are plentiful. We could not stop all the boats from fishing completely because of the number of haddock they are catching.
Andrew George
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is assiduous on this issue and helps to emphasise the particular problems for day boats and inshore fisheries.
There is also a problem with the illogicality of throwing back dead fish. No one quite understands the benefit of that. The only possible scientific benefit is that other fish might feed on those fish. As all those involved in fisheries management will understand, the problem is that to apply an effective fisheries management policy, one needs to be able to distinguish between intended and unintended by-catch. Of course, a lot of the by-catch is of a high marketable value. One has to query what would be the ultimate impact if one said, “We’ll stop all discards and you can land and market all the fish you catch, regardless, because we feel sorry for you and don’t like to think of you throwing back dead fish.” We cannot simply adopt, overnight, a ban on discards.
Andrew George
I am sorry to say no to my hon. Friend, but I will not give way again, because of the time.
I have mentioned decentralisation. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall rightly emphasised the importance of being able to extend the inshore management limit to 12 miles, so that only those with a historical entitlement from other fishing nations can fish between the 6 and 12-mile limits.
It is important for fishermen and scientists to work together. That is increasingly happening, and it works well in other European countries. In successful fishing nations such as Norway and Sweden, fishermen and scientists work hand in glove all the time. That improves efficiency and effectiveness, and they have developed techniques that have taken them ahead and left us behind. The more we encourage a culture that enables fishermen and scientists to work together, the better it will be, because more trust will be established between the two, and there will be better assessment of stocks. We need to develop more effective methods of assessing stocks, because fishermen often rightly criticise the basis on which quota decisions are taken.
A number of measures have been identified by Government and the fishing industry to help avoid discards in the first place. I have mentioned management methods such as temporary closures, for example in the Trevose ground, which can be very effective. In a question to the Minister this morning, I mentioned the worrying decision of the Cornish mackerel handliners not to pay their annual subscription of £12,000 to the Marine Stewardship Council because they do not believe that the benefits of membership are justified by the cost. They have also identified that another fishing method, the trawling and seining of mackerel in Scotland, is accredited by the MSC. They question that, because theirs is low-impact fishing and other types have a much higher impact.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, although I may not be able to stay, because I have a train to catch at 6 o’clock. The hon. Member for Richmond Park has secured a very important debate, and I hope that, whatever basis we do it on, we shall decentralise the management of our fishery stocks.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) not just on bringing the debate before the House but on his wider ongoing efforts to bring attention to the need for sustainability in international fisheries. I know that he has played a key role in the Fish Fight campaign, bringing the scandal of fish discards to public attention, and I commend him for his efforts.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that under the current rules, fishermen have no choice but to dump fish, and that the underlying problem is the systemic failure of the common fisheries policy. I have the privilege of representing some of the UK’s most fishing-dependent communities, including Peterhead, Europe’s largest white fish port, and Fraserburgh, Europe’s leading shellfish port. Thousands of my constituents work in fishing-related jobs, whether onshore or offshore, in the processing sector and in other related industries.
Fishing is at the heart of the identity of the communities around the Banffshire and Buchan coast, and for years people in those communities have expressed their anger, frustration and exasperation with the CFP and the disgrace of fish discards. Many of them have said to me how glad they are to see the issue finally getting the widespread public attention that it so deserves.
Having tabled my amendments, I wish to make it clear that I am in full sympathy with the spirit behind the motion and that the amendments are intended to strengthen its wording and reflect the fact that discards are a symptom rather than a source of the problems, which rest squarely with the CFP. To end discards, we need to end the practices that encourage discards, and there is no real shortcut to that. In no way do I want to dilute the strong signal that the motion and the debate will send, but I hope that we will foster a more nuanced understanding of why discards occur and the range of measures that are needed to end them. We have had positive signals from the European Commission that it recognises the problem, but we need a lot more than rhetoric. We need practical solutions.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am one of those in the House who have campaigned long, and so far unsuccessfully, to ban the atrocious practice of the discard of dead fish, with all the waste involved. From the hon. Lady’s experience of her important fishing community, can she tell us how much better it would be for her local fishermen if the practice were banned?
Dr Whiteford
It is very important that the UK Government avoid having the Commission make a knee-jerk response to the problem that could cause damage to certain stocks and jeopardise the livelihoods of fishermen who have already made huge sacrifices to put the industry on a sustainable footing. We only have to go to the ports of the north-east to see that the white fish fleet has basically halved in the past 10 years, and that is a huge sacrifice that the industry has made in order to be sustainable. We need to avoid the same top-down solutions that we have had from the EU hitherto, and we need solutions that come from the industry itself and from the communities that are most directly associated with it.
Mr MacNeil
I understand that in 2009 the value of discards was about £33 million—about a third that of the white fish that was landed. However, since 2008 the efforts that the Scottish National party Government have taken have seen discards decline at a greater rate than in any other country in the EU.
Dr Whiteford
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I hope to address it in my speech.
Today’s debate gives us impetus for a different approach to fisheries management. We want to avoid, rather than replicate, the one-size-fits-nobody approach that has characterised the CFP for several decades and had a devastating impact on the communities that I represent and our marine environment.
We need a greater role for regional management, and that is happening in fishing communities not only in Scotland, but in other parts of the UK and Europe. We also need longer-term management plans and meaningful stakeholder involvement. That is the way forward, and I hope the Government press that agenda in the ongoing and forthcoming European negotiations.
It is important to recognise that discarding is a particularly big problem in mixed fisheries, where the rules and regulations simply do not reflect the reality of the eco-system.
Sheryll Murray
The hon. Lady’s amendment (a) would insert “practices that encourage”, but does she not agree that that would weaken the motion, because a motion for an end to “practices that encourage” discards is weaker than one that calls for an end to discards? If she genuinely wants a strong motion, she should accept that her words do not need to be included.
Dr Whiteford
I do not accept that. I tried to make the point that discards are not the problem, but the symptom of the problem. There is no simple solution to discards and no one reason for them.
Perhaps the best way to explain that is with concrete examples. Fishermen who fish for prawn, megrim or monkfish off the west coast of Scotland are very likely to pick up by-catch of cod, haddock or whiting, which is a protected stock. As the fish mix freely and do not understand the EU CFP, they do not present themselves in the quantities and combinations required by the catch composition rules. That is the nub of the argument.
That is only one reason for discarding, but it is by no means the only reason. There are a range of reasons. The most obvious one, perhaps, is lack of quota and the quota problems that hon. Members have highlighted. Another common problem is that vessels can catch fish below the minimum landing size. There is a real danger in landing juvenile fish that have not yet reproduced. Creating a market for those fish would be detrimental to the long-term sustainability of the stock. That is why a blanket ban on discards is too simplistic a solution, although I do not wish to undermine or diminish the need to end or reduce discards. High grading—when fish of no or low market value are discarded when caught—is another good example of a damaging side effect of the current regulations. I shall not repeat the points that other hon. Members have made on that.
Just as there is no single reason for discards, there is no single solution. Rather, a variety of measures are necessary. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) pointed out, Scotland has been at the forefront of bringing to an end practices that encourage discards. The Scottish Government, industry and other stakeholders have worked together to make the Scottish fishing industry the most conservation conscious in the world. Currently, more than 50% of Scottish fisheries by value are now certified, or are in the process of being certified, by the Marine Stewardship Council, including 90% of the pelagic sector.
The hon. Member for St Ives addressed the issue of smaller versus larger boats. There is no doubt that the pelagic vessels in the Scottish fleet are huge, but they catch some of the most sustainable fish stocks in the EU. In addition, those boats are tied up in port for many weeks at a time and fish sustainably. They find a market for their fish and have a viable business, which is at the heart of a sustainable industry. This cannot be about artisanal fishing only, because communities and thousands of jobs in small businesses in local economies depend on commercially and economically viable fishing.
Zac Goldsmith
I merely wanted to take the opportunity, before the hon. Lady’s speech comes to an end, of acknowledging her amendments and recognising why she wants to include those words in the motion. I hope she agrees that the inclusion in the motion of the derogation, which was a last-minute inclusion, goes some way to assuring her that we are calling not for a blanket ban on discards, but for a qualified ban.
Dr Whiteford
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. I appreciate the efforts that he has made to accommodate the practical issues that face our fishermen, who are currently in difficult economic times.
Andrew George
I am sure that there is nothing to be gained from generating a dispute when fishermen share the same objective of achieving a sustainable industry. The amount of fish that Cornish mackerel handliners catch is equivalent to what one purse seine can catch in just one week. There may be issues with by-catch or other things, but the hon. Lady will surely understand people’s concerns about the impact of fishing on that scale compared with the low impact of the handlining method.
Dr Whiteford
Clearly that is fishing on a very different scale. The fishermen whom I represent are providing an important food source. This is not an either/or issue; rather, there is room for everybody, small producers and large producers alike. There is enough to go round—enough fish in the sea, shall we say?
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mike Park, the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who just last week was awarded the WWF’s 2011 global award for conservation merit in recognition of his efforts to promote sustainable fisheries. I am sure that Members across the House will want to join me in congratulating Mr Park on receiving such a prestigious international award. It is a well-deserved recognition of his leadership and a testament to the efforts of everyone in the Scottish fleet who has worked so hard to put the industry on a different and more sustainable course. The award is also a tribute to the work of WWF Scotland, which, in confounding the stereotypes of conservationists being pitted against the interests of fishing communities, has engaged with the industry constructively, recognising that sustainable fisheries must be about sustainable livelihoods for fishermen and sustainable, thriving fishing communities. I commend WWF Scotland for that.
Some of the innovative and pioneering measures that have had such a dramatic and demonstrable effect in reducing discards in Scotland offer practical ways forward in the wider European context. The use of selective fishing gear is perhaps the most obvious way to reduce unwanted by-catch, and is a key way to prevent discards. Since 2007, a voluntary system of real-time closures has been in operation in Scottish waters as a means of protecting concentrations of cod. Scotland was the first country in Europe to introduce such a scheme. When skippers encounter a high abundance of cod, they are encouraged to notify the Marine Directorate and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, and the relevant area is closed for three weeks at a time. That not only helps to protect the stocks, but helps to improve the accuracy of the science, which is often called into question.
Other important initiatives have included banning high grading in the North sea and the pelagic sector, and the use of jigging machines in the pelagic sector to enable catches to be sampled before the nets are lowered. The catch quota has been mentioned. It was not without controversy when it was first introduced, and many people were sceptical about it. However, although nobody would claim that it is a full solution to the problem in itself, applications to take part in the scheme are now exceeding the places available. It is clear that its success is starting to win over those who doubted its efficacy in the early stages.
The common fisheries policy is well past its sell-by date. Minor tinkering is no longer an option. We badly need a well-managed industry working on a regional basis with long-term planning, and with fishermen—the key stakeholders in the industry—fully brought into the heart of the process. If Ministers can deliver such a system in the European Union, they will be performing a great service to those who have for a long time called not just for an end to discards, but for an end to the system that causes them in the first place. I commend the motion to the House.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting the motion and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on convincing the Committee to discuss it. This has been a useful and helpful debate. I also welcome the decision to hold the debate in the main Chamber. Many of us were concerned that the main fishing debate was not held here last December, and I hope that that can be put right later this year. I also hope that the Government will support the motion, so that we can send a clear, unanimous message on discards back to the European Commission. That would strengthen the hand of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) when he negotiates with what I perceive to be our European competitors.
I have campaigned on the issue of bringing our fishing waters back under UK national control, and on the issue of discards, in my constituency for the past 10 years as part of my campaign to sit on these green Benches. During the past decade, I have spoken to the academics at Plymouth university, the local fishing industry and the many experts who work in those agencies that make Plymouth one of the major marine scientific research global players. They say that, by bringing UK waters back under national control, we can conserve fishing stocks and potentially discourage the large Russian and other foreign factory ships and industrial trawlers that come into our waters and do so much damage to our fish stocks and our fishing industry.
I want at this stage to pay a real tribute to those people who, as the nursery rhyme goes, “put the little fishies on our little dishies”. Fishing is one of the most dangerous industries in our country. Our fishermen go to sea each day, in all kinds of weather, day and night, in winter and summer, to put Britain’s No. 1 traditional signature dish on our plates. It is ironic that, only recently, the House has been served a very real reminder of just how dangerous fishing is. I want to express my own personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, whose husband died in such tragic circumstances a few weeks ago. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to a packed funeral, where the local fishing communities on both sides of the Tamar river came together to pay tribute to one of our top fishermen. The Minister’s attendance made a real impact, and may I take this opportunity to thank him for buying me a drink afterwards as well?
However, I do not need to be reminded that sacrifices such as Neil Murray’s are a regular occurrence among the peninsula’s fishing communities. Anyone who walks down the Barbican in my constituency will see a large wall covered in memorials to Plymouth fishermen who were killed trying to feed us on a regular basis. The last time I went out on a boat, it was shortly after a force 7 gale and I have to admit that I was a little bit ill on several occasions. I learned that anyone who is able to get their boots off in time once they have fallen overboard will probably survive for about three minutes before almost certainly dying either by drowning or of the cold. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to our hon. Friends in the Department for Transport to ensure that no more lives will be lost because of policy changes relating to our coastguards.
I am not going to pretend that I am as well informed on this issue as others, including my very good and hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who has demonstrated her excellent understanding of the issues that face the industry. I am aware, however, that fishing is a totemic issue in the south-west, and that it focuses attitudes towards our membership of the EU. One of the biggest mistakes that Britain made in joining the European common market in the first place was to sign up to the common fisheries policy. It was designed to make European fishing grounds a common resource by giving access to all member states.
Mr MacNeil
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the initial mistake, but surely that mistake has been compounded, decade after decade, by successive Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments who have done absolutely nothing to correct the error that was made almost 40 years ago.
Oliver Colvile
I do not disagree, but I hope that we now have an opportunity to turn the tide as far as that matter is concerned.
The stated aim of the common fisheries policy is to help to conserve fish stocks, but I believe that in the current form it is a wasteful policy which damages the environment and our fishing industry. It determines the amount of fish that each national fleet can catch. Employment in the industry has declined dramatically, especially here in the United Kingdom, and, despite reforms, fish stocks have continued to fall. I have always understood that the requirement for Britain to sign up to the CFP was a last-minute act; the six countries of France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Italy put it in at the last moment. This country was so keen to join the European Common Market, as it was then, that Geoffrey Rippon, who was leading the whole debate and our negotiations with our European competitors, agreed that we would sign up, much to their surprise. At the time, few envisaged that Austria, which I remind hon. Members has no coast, would also have the opportunity to vote on the CFP when it joined the European Union in 1994.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a classic, tremendous point: Austria has a say but Scotland does not. Does he understand why I might be a Scottish nationalist?
Oliver Colvile
I do not, as it happens. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that this situation becomes a bargaining tool for other bits of policy which can be played around with.
Over the last few days, I have been inundated with e-mails and letters from people calling on me to support this motion and Channel 4’s Fish Fight campaign, and I suspect that a large number of other hon. Members have too. I give my support very enthusiastically. The idea that fishermen, who do such a dangerous job and are not particularly well paid, are fined for landing fish which do not fit a specific regulation and are thrown back into the water, is a total scandal. I welcome the Government’s commitment to fight for changes to the size of nets, but I hope that the Minister will press our European competitors to reform the CFP further, to allow us to decide which fish are taken out of our seas and who takes them out, and to stop this discarding policy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the House on this issue, and I commend and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing the debate. Fishing is a very important factor to my constituency and although I extended this invitation to the Minister last year, I again invite him to visit the fishermen in Portavogie to get a better idea of what that means. I am sure that he will be anxious to take up that invitation and I look forward to his visit.
As we know, the fishing industry might not be a big contributor to the gross national product, but it has a big effect on some villages. Back in 1985, 260,000 fishermen in the European Union caught some 8 million tonnes of fish, and at that time, more fish were imported than exported. Things had changed by 2007, in that the catch was down and the number of people involved in the fishing industry had reduced—that was a concern. The EU fleet has 97,000 vessels of varying sizes. Fish farming produced a further 1 million tonnes of fish and shellfish and it employed another 85,000 people. So fishing is clearly an important sector in parts of the United Kingdom—it certainly is in the area that I represent.
I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who is no longer in her place, on making a valuable contribution to the debate. She has many friends in Northern Ireland and she is oft in our thoughts and oft in our prayers. Fishing represents no more than 10% of local employment in any region of the EU, but in some areas, including the one I represent, it is a very important factor. Fishing features highly in the employment available in my area and in the village of Portavogie, so it is important that Community funds have been made available to fishing as a means of encouraging regional development.
I also commend the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the amendments she tabled and I am glad that they have been selected, because they would add to the motion and they make a valuable contribution.
Fresh fish sales have fallen, while demand for processed fish and prepared meals is growing. There has also been a shift towards more supermarket sales rather than restaurant sales. Employment has fallen over this period, mainly due, in my opinion, to European policy. That is why I am particularly pleased to speak in the debate. Rather than there being a fall in availability or demand, it is quite clear that the demand remains.
The EU is the world’s second largest fishing power after China. I put a question about China to a DEFRA Minister this morning. China seems to be batting up fish all over the world, putting pressure on our own industry. More than 2 million tonnes of fish products were exported in 2006, but more than 6 million tonnes have to be imported to meet EU needs. The competitiveness of the EU fish industry has also been affected by our own bureaucracy and the fact that our fishermen are simply not allowed to fish, so cannot provide the fish needed for the supermarkets.
With fuel costs so high, the end price is higher than for countries not within the EU, which also compounds the problem. We are constrained by red tape yet we have to compete with those who are able to fish as much as they want. It is hard to be competitive with people who have freedom to expand their business as they desire and as the need dictates, as opposed to being so restricted.
I recall that a Member spoke earlier about the Spanish armada. Well, the Spanish come regularly to plunder the Irish seas and other coasts around Great Britain. It sticks in the craw of many of us when we see that happening.
It is clear that something must change—and that something is the common fisheries policy. However, Europe does not see that the regulations need to be relaxed—indeed, it sees quite the opposite. It is so concerned with the so-called “scientific” reports that say there are no fish reserves that they will curb fishing completely, which will undoubtedly kill off any chance of fishermen in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom being able to make a living. The EU wants to cut the size of fleets and the time fishermen spend at sea. It is important to try to get a balance.
The Commission says there are still too many vessels chasing too few fish, and that ecological sustainability must take precedence over economic or social factors. In other words, just because a community has traditionally depended on fishing, it does not mean that it can continue to do so. That is a key issue for me as the elected representative for Strangford. It is particularly hard to take when I am consistently assured by fishermen that they can see schools upon schools of fish in the sea, yet they are not allowed to touch them.
I have spoken on this policy before, wearing other hats. I am a member of Ards borough council and a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, so this issue is close to my heart. It is a pleasure to be here today to speak and co-operate with my English, Scots and Welsh counterparts to ensure that this unfair practice, which does not allow our fishermen to catch our fish in our sea, is brought to a close. This is a United Kingdom notice of motion, representing all the regions of the UK. In my opinion, the Irish sea has fish enough for our boats—an opinion backed up by the Fish Producers Organisation as well by as the Trawlermen’s Association.
The Minister will, I know, take this matter on board, put the work in and stand up tall to ensure that the fishing industry within the Province will not be subjected to a process that will mean no fishing industry at all in five years’ time as a result of European regulations. Something bred into people in our fishing villages will no longer be an option due to EU interference. That is what some of the fishermen are telling me.
We need a sustainable fishing industry. When I contacted one fish producer organisation, its representative reiterated to me that quayside prices, increasing overheads—especially fuel costs, to which a new “green” tax has recently contributed another 2p a litre—as well as the plethora of fishing regulations all challenge fishing vessel operators and are leading fishermen at least to consider throwing in the towel.
One of the main problems faced in places like Portavogie in my constituency is that most of the men worked on the boats and the women worked in one or two fish factories, but those factories have recently closed. Things are changing on the sea and on the land as well. Jobs are hard to find. Young people who relied on fishing in the past are now going into the civil service—which is also facing cuts. If the fishing industry has to bear any more pressure, there is every chance that more fishermen will leave their boats. There comes a point at which the sustainability of the industry comes into question.
In 2010, we in Northern Ireland ensured that we were at the forefront of innovation. That has been seen in the delivery of state-of-the-art new pelagic trawlers that represent the pinnacle of Europe’s fishing industry, in the significant investments in the onshore processing sector, and in investment in several more modern prawn trawlers. All that represents a vote of confidence in the future of this home-grown, privately owned industry.
I am informed by local industry organisations that UK fisheries Ministers tell the industry that fisheries management decisions must be based on the best available science, and so they should. Although we continue to have certain issues with the science, especially with regard to the abundance of cod in the Irish sea, it is not so much the science that presents us with a problem as the European Commission’s interpretation of it. Many of the Commission’s TAC proposals have less to do with negative science than with the delivery of a political aspiration. In the Irish sea, the science states that stock has increased by 8% in the past two years.
There are many other issues with which time does not permit me to deal, such as cod recovery. What is clear, however, is that the opinions of fishermen and fish producers must be listened to and acted upon. I hope that the motion will bring that about. The actions of the Faroe Islands and Iceland of late have shown that the EU is not in control of fisheries. It must adopt a sensible approach and take account of the views of those who are on the seas every day and whose livelihood depends on stock replenishment. They know the seas better than any flown-in scientist ever could.
The long-term cod recovery regulation that was agreed in November 2008 contained a commitment to reviewing the plan after three years. I ask the Minister to ensure that that review now begins. The industry was encouraged to hear recently from DEFRA officials that the review should be “fundamental” in nature and should not, as the Commission has previously suggested, examine the implementation of the 2008 regulation. Such a fundamental review should be delivered as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he sums up the debate.
Recent media coverage has highlighted concern about the level of discards among European fishing fleets. Let me stress that that concern is shared by locally based commercial fishermen. As other Members have pointed out, they are not ignoring the problem by any means. They want to sort it out: they want a balance as well. It should be borne in mind that much discarding is a result of EU regulation. I have received numerous e-mails from environmentalists and concerned constituents asking me to ensure that there is an end to the senseless waste of fish and the ignoring of fishermen’s voices. As every Member has said today, it is a scandal, a shame and immoral for fish to be thrown back into the sea when they could be used.
While fishermen in other areas continue to explore ways of reducing discards of cod and to monitor their positive results through, for instance, the CCTV and catch quota trials in the North Sea, Northern Ireland fishermen working with fisheries scientists have delivered their own results, and, as other Members have mentioned, the results are similar in Scotland. However, the work will not stop there. A project aimed at a further reduction of discards of whiting and haddock is already being planned. Fishermen are clearly leading the charge, but the fear persists that the European Commission will interpret their results—together with the year-on-year reductions in landings of cod that are due to reductions in the amount of cod that fishermen are permitted to land by Europe—as evidence that fewer and fewer cod are left in the Irish sea. Let us ensure that the evidence base is in favour of fishermen and what they do.
The current policy is not good for fishermen or for the sea. It is long past time that the House and its Members took decisive action to deal with the situation and to secure the right of fishing folk to fish the sea, make their living and raise their families without the unnecessary interference of the EU. I firmly support the motion, and heartily congratulate the Members who have enabled us to debate it. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and to supporting him in Europe when he does his best for the fishing industry and the United Kingdom.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on tabling the motion, and congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing it to be debated on the Floor of the House. Fishing is an important subject, and it is important for us to debate it on the Floor of the House rather than, as happened last December, in Westminster Hall.
It is clear that discarding must stop. We must end the practice of returning to the sea fish that will not survive. Discarding fish is not only a moral and environmental issue; it is a needless waste of valuable economic and food resources. It also results in considerable amounts of data being lost to scientists, who are trying to calculate fish stocks accurately in order to inform fisheries management.
As has been emphasised throughout our debate, discarding is not caused by bad behaviour by fishermen. It has been forced upon them by a series of unworkable EU regulations. When calculating annual quotas, the European Commission assumes that a very large percentage of the catch will be discarded back into the sea, but it has no idea of the actual proportion. Various estimates have been made, but they have always had a wide margin of error. Because the discards are not measured, we have no idea how much dead fish is thrown back into the sea. European fisheries are currently regulated by total allowable catches or TACs, but they do not in any way put a cap on catches. They measure and place a cap on landings of fish at port; what is measured is not the amount of fish that are killed, but the amount of fish landed at the port. The system therefore serves to obscure the scandal of discards.
The vast majority of discarding occurs in mixed fisheries. That is because the current regulations are unable to cope with mixed fisheries. The main control of activity is single-species TACs, but that is overlaid with other, complicated regulations, such as catch compositions, days at sea and effort control. These complicated regulations do not mirror the contents of the ecosystem. Fish do not swim around in shoals neatly made up of exactly the same proportions of the different species as laid down by the Commission. The fish are not co-operative; they are caught in very different abundances and combinations from day to day. As a result, the requirement to discard to meet the rules is created.
In pursuit of solutions, there has been a great deal of innovation and experiment. The Scottish fishing industry has led the way, such as through the development of selective nets to let unwanted fish go and “real time closures” to avoid catching such fish in the first place. Although a lot of good work has been done at the local level in many parts of Europe, what has been lacking are Commission initiatives to address the regulatory faults underlying the mixed fishery problem.
There is widespread agreement that regional control is the way forward. Central control from Brussels has failed. The regional advisory councils or RACs are a significant step in the right direction, but they are only a first step. They must develop into decision-making bodies, and common fisheries policy reforms must include allowing the current list of initiatives to be developed and translated into local regulations that best fit local circumstances. All the stakeholders in European fisheries must strive for that.
We must have science-based, long-term management plans that provide a secure and sustainable future for fishing communities throughout Europe and for the environment. The current regulations that force fishermen working in a mixed fishery to discard must be changed, such as by allowing fishermen to match quotas with catches through an improved, transparent system of quota transfers.
If we have better regulation that is determined at a more local level and science-based, long-term management plans, we can make our fishing industry sustainable for both fish and fishermen. If I may conclude by amending a quote by a former eminent Member of this House, we must be tough on discards, and tough on the causes of discards.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Luton is land-locked and nowhere near a fishery, but I have a passionate interest in and concern about fishing and fish stocks. Indeed, the first question I asked of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time concerned the common fisheries policy—he said that he had expected the question to come from his side of the House, rather than mine. However, I have been pursuing unashamedly the abolition of the CFP, and if not that, we should at least give notice that we plan to seek a derogation for Britain, because the fact is that our seas have been overfished. We have had possibly millions of tonnes of discards—certainly hundreds of thousands.
It is impossible to monitor what is done by fishing vessels from other countries. The only way to overcome that problem is to get back Britain’s historic fishing waters within the 200-mile limit—the median line. British vessels could then fish in those areas, French vessels could fish in French areas and Spanish vessels could fish in Spanish areas. They could have their own fishing grounds the same as we do. The contrast, of course, is with Norway, where there are no discards and no overfishing, all vessels and landings are monitored and there is no problem. It manages its fish stocks properly.
Sheryll Murray
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that Norway does not have such mixed fisheries as we do in UK waters, so the conservation measures that the Norwegians pursue often would not work in the mixed fisheries in UK waters.
Kelvin Hopkins
I defer to the hon. Lady, who obviously has an advantage over me in having knowledge of the detail of fishing. However, I am confident that if there was less fishing in British waters, there would not be a problem with shortages and overfishing, and that the need to disaggregate fishing would not be so great if there were plenty of fish, no overfishing and no diminution of fishing stocks.
The general point, however, is that member states ought to be able to manage their own fishing waters and protect them from the depredations of other nations. I have been reading in the Library that there is a multibillion pound industry in pirate fishing across the world. I am sure that we are a law-abiding country and fishermen know that their catches are monitored, but can we trust other nations to do the same even within the EU? There is the suspicion that other nations do not monitor their landings and their catches like we do, and it would take a long time for me to be persuaded that some of those nations do it as well as we do.
Oliver Colvile
Is one of the problems not that although we are very good at imposing and policing regulation, places such as Spain are not as good because the regulators are some way away from the ports?
Kelvin Hopkins
Indeed. I was going to say that I agreed with every word of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. It was a very good speech. I should also compliment the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who moved the motion, which I hope we can all support, and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a brave and wonderfully informative speech. I felt that I was being educated about the fishing industry while listening to her. It is a rare privilege for us to have someone with her expertise in the Chamber.
I believe that we are considering reform—we have tried it before, and no doubt incremental changes will continue to be made—but we will not win the battle against overfishing until the CFP is history. As I have said before in the Chamber, I think that the Government should give notice that at some point Britain will seek a derogation from the CFP if it is not abandoned altogether. Our nation has possibly the largest coastline and fisheries in the EU, and decisions are being made about our fishing industry and livelihoods by land-locked nations such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Austria that have no particular interest and can be easily bought off in any European Commission vote.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that as well as this having splendid motion it is equally important, whatever the consequences of the vote, that we ensure we apply our own sovereignty if the Government, the European Commission, the European Union and the European Court of Justice are not prepared to heed the message that the House sends out? We must assert our sovereignty and override the European legislation where necessary.
Kelvin Hopkins
I personally agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman, but we might have some difficulty persuading a majority of the House to agree with us. I believe that the European Commission and the European Union will not shift until they have the sense that Britain is serious about wanting to abandon the common fisheries policy or seek a derogation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that I am quite a strong pro-European, but fishing gets me nearer to his camp than I might normally be. My constituency is right in the middle of England, nowhere near the sea, but my constituents care about this issue. They certainly care about discards and about the quality of the sea and of the fish in it. Why can we not get an agreement that works for this country within the European Union? Let me remind my hon. Friend that before the European Union existed, it was a total dog-eat-dog mess. It might not have been dogfish, but it was dog eat dog and it was worse than it is now.
Kelvin Hopkins
Going back to what happened before the common fisheries policy might not be the best idea. We are now living in an age in which we are more sensible about these things and I would like to think that we would have an industry that was properly regulated by our Government on behalf of our consumers and our fishermen.
Mr MacNeil
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the latest device from Europe to get their hands on the fish from our seas—I am speaking particularly of Scotland? The internationally tradeable individual transferable quotas will mean the slow buying off of fishing rights for future generations by big industry fishing, which would mean that future generations on the Scottish coast might see fishing happening around the coast but would have no right to go near it. This is one of the most dangerous aspects of the approach, which is new today from the European Union, and it must be resisted by all quarters of this House at all costs.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I have the BBC news sheet in my hand, which is headlined, “EU fisheries reform would ‘privatise oceans’.” Things will be handed over, no doubt, to Spanish and French fishermen who will have long-term quotas and who can do what they like outside our control.
This is not about nationalism. It is about every nation being responsible for managing its fisheries. The only way to guarantee that they will be managed properly will be for each nation to know that it has to look after and husband its own stocks and fishing industry. If people know that they can cheat by stealing fish from other countries, possibly not even doing discards, doing secret landings and cheating the system, I have no doubt that they will do it.
Just recently, the British public have shown themselves to be strongly incensed by any kind of cheating. Members of the House, some of whom have suffered the penalties of the law, have known the anger of the British people. I think that the British people can be just as angry about cheating on fishing, and the only way to overcome that is to re-establish national fishing waters for all nations in the European Union and for each nation to manage its own fishing stocks, its own fishing industries and the fishing boats that fish within those waters.
Billions of pounds of fish have been lost to Britain. Being in the common fisheries policy has not only had an economic cost to Britain but has been an environmentally damaging experience. One does not necessarily want to push for a nationalistic view, but the reality is that we have been ripped off by the common fisheries policy and we have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. I would like to think that the motion could go someway towards helping to redress that balance.
I am doing this not because I am a little Englander, or even a big Englander or a big Britisher. I care about fish stocks, and I care about the fishing industry and about making sure that the marine environment is protected for the long term. The only way to do that is by having countries manage their own fisheries.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Thank you for your patience with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was contributing to the debate on education in Westminster Hall, which I helped to secure, and being in two places at once is not an ability that I can establish. I have enjoyed the debate that I have listened to so far and I intend to read the report of it as soon as it is available later tonight.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate along with other hon. Members. I admit that I was not one of those who signed the early-day motion because I do not sign early-day motions. There was a clause in it about using enforced temporary closures to manage fisheries of which I could not have approved because such practices have led to problems in my constituency, with the under-10 metre fleet lurching from crisis to crisis because of temporary closures here and there. I am delighted that this wonderful motion does not contain that clause, so I can give my full support to the intentions behind it.
It is fair to say that discards are a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has previously related to the House the success of Project 50% and I will not steal her thunder because I am sure she will speak about it again, but I wanted to say that we can learn from some really good examples around the British isles of how to do something about discards. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) has said, this is about addressing local regulations. Fishermen in my part of the world often catch far more than the quota they are allowed but will land only what they are legally allowed to land. Sadly, the discards—the smaller fish—end up going back into the sea. Fishermen need to secure the maximum price for their fish, so they pick only the best and the rest sadly go to waste. We need to get around that problem. I do not blame them for doing that because that is their business and that is all they are allowed to do. Unlike during world war two when fish was the only major foodstuff that was not rationed, our total allowable catch is going down nowadays.
I said I would keep my comments short, but I want to talk about the common fisheries policy. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was right to suggest that we should have control of our fisheries. Constituents find it very difficult to understand that countries with no sea or fishing whatever should have an equal voice to that of the United Kingdom on the common fisheries policy. I wonder whether the Minister would consider afresh working with colleagues in the European Union and saying that the CFP does not work at all so we need to start again. What matters is not the politics of fish but the fish, fishermen and constituents. To that end, I suggest that we should scrap the current Fisheries Council and reconstitute it to include only countries with fishing fleets in the European Union. Frankly, if countries such as Austria can use their place on the Council as a bargaining chip for other European negotiations, that short changes our country.
Mr Sheerman
Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that we should take all international agreements, whether they are European or international—at a time of threat from global warming, when we need sustainable solutions for our oceans and seas, which must be reached through co-operation—and say that everyone can do as they like? Is she suggesting that we should say that Iceland can hunt whales and everyone else can catch what they like?
Dr Coffey
That is not what I am suggesting at all. I am suggesting that the artificial Fisheries Council is making policy, but that some of the member states on it have no interest in fishing whatever and therefore simply trade their votes for influence over other arrangements. I appreciate that my suggestions are radical, but is this not a debate for ideas? Of course, I am not the Minister—I am not the person who has to go to Brussels to do the negotiations—but if someone keeps walking down a street and falling into a hole and does not change their route they will for ever be trying to get out of the hole. Speaking for myself and other hon. Members present, I think that something we can do as new politicians is say that if fisheries policy has not worked and stocks are not recovering we should try something new.
I say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that rather than limiting ourselves to working only with the European Union we should work with non-European Union countries—Iceland, Norway or other neighbouring countries—to tackle the wider challenges.
Dr Coffey
I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I am afraid that I will not cede the floor to the hon. Gentleman.
Let us develop the debate by considering what we can do locally. The creation of inshore fisheries and conservation authorities is a useful step in the right direction, but they must take fishermen with them. I did a PhD in chemistry, so I accept that evidence is available. Science shows that if there is evidence, one can propose a theory around it. Often, people have an argument about whether that theory is right, and one must continually build evidence. An important part of that evidence should be the knowledge and understanding of the fishermen who fish those waters every day. It is frustrating when fishermen say that there are plenty of fish out there, or they are told that they can fish for cod, when the cod were there three or four months ago but it is now too late.
Fishermen have to be involved, and science has to be involved. Sadly, fish have become subject to politics. Regrettably, every year we seem to have a crisis about quotas, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister fought the fight to get more fish for our fishermen, so that our ever diminishing industry manages to stay alive for another season. I hope that we can end this ridiculous quota swap and give fishermen a guarantee of a sustainable future.
I was a little surprised by reports that fishermen are going to be paid to fish for plastic, rather than fish—that is one of the ideas coming from the European Union—which would be rather disheartening for our inshore fleet. I will not give another analogy, but I imagine that the fishermen with whom I am in touch would say that if all that they have to do is fish for plastic, they might as well put their boats aside.
I shall bring my comments to a halt, because I believe that there are plenty of people who have great experience of fishing. I do not pretend to do so—I speak only for a small number of fishermen in my constituency, but they are culturally and socially important. If the United Kingdom loses the battle for fish, it will be a sad loss for our country.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
One hundred and fifty years ago, in 1861, using wooden boats and primitive technology, UK fishermen caught 12 to 15 times more cod in the North sea than they do today with sophisticated sonar to track the fish and extraordinarily advanced gear and nets to catch those fish. That is why this debate is important.
At the heart of the motion is the demand that CFP reforms adopt
“an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management”.
Some people may misinterpret that as putting the benefit of the fish before the benefit of the fishers, but without sustainable fish stocks there is no sustainable fishing industry. The history of our coastline, sadly, bears witness to that, as fishing communities from Stonehaven to Newcastle, from Grimsby to Cornwall, have declined over the past century.
I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for pressing the issue both inside and outside the House, and to the GLOBE secretariat, whose work on a global oceans recovery strategy has been under way for the past two years as part of the International Commission on Land Use Change and Ecosystems, which I chair. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. The Minister has co-operated with the GLOBE commission, and I am delighted that he will respond to the debate. I am sure that he will wish to be constructive, as always.
Last night I attended the launch of Project Ocean at Selfridges. The Prince of Wales opened proceedings, followed by a private party attended by Elle Macpherson, the folk rock band Noah and the Whales—[Hon. Members: “Whale!”] It is not my normal Wednesday evening activity, and I have no doubt that I was invited only to add a bit of glamour to the event. How extraordinary that fish discards have now become so sexy. I pay tribute to Selfridges and to the work of the Zoological Society of London. I pay particular tribute to the work of Professor Jonathan Baillie and Professor Alex Rogers of Oxford university, not only for the sound science that they have brought to Project Ocean and their work on CFP reform, but for helping to popularise it in this way.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I am terribly disappointed that I was unable to see my hon. Friend adding glamour at the event he referred to. Would he give some message to my constituents, who are particularly concerned about discards, on how Project Ocean will deal with that problem and what it can add?
Barry Gardiner
I am very pleased to do so. There are three key areas of discards, which are often not well understood: over-quota discards, which are calculated to be about 22%; undersized discards, which are calculated to be about 24%; and non-commercial discards, which are calculated to be about 54% of discards. I will deal with each of these in turn, but first I want to talk about the importance of the ecosystems-based approach.
The ecosystems-based approach is fundamental to sustainable environmental management. It establishes a strategy for the management and sustainable use of natural resources by considering them in the context of their role in the entire ecosystem. The current EU common fisheries policy and the EU marine strategy framework directive already commit the EU, in principle, to this ecosystems-based approach. The tragedy is that that has not been reflected in practice.
True ecosystems-based fisheries management would require systemic reform through the introduction of a regionalised management framework. A regionalised management system within Europe would divide the EU fisheries into management regions according to ecosystems, rather than nations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested. Unfortunately, fish do not carry passports about their person. They do not know when they are travelling from one nation’s waters into another’s. Therefore, one must look at the ecosystem and not simply the national boundaries.
Kelvin Hopkins
My simple point is that nothing will happen in terms of the proper management of fisheries without self-interest—the self-interest of the member states and of their fishing industries. If a simple regional and scientific basis is used, that essential self-interest will not be built into the system.
Barry Gardiner
I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because that is exactly what I wish to challenge. It seems to me that we can assure the fishing industry and fishers that there is real self-interest in promoting this approach.
Barry Gardiner
No, I am already pressed enough for time.
Certain decision-making powers would be devolved to regional management bodies, in consultation with local stakeholders, in order to tailor the application of central policy objectives for EU fisheries to the specifics of each ecosystem. A fully regionalised management system would include the following features: quotas allocated on the basis of ecosystem regions in order to manage fishing pressure according to the necessities of the different ecosystems; regular scientific assessment of all marine species, not just fish stocks, within a given eco-region to establish the impact of fishing on the ecosystem as a whole; quota allocation on the basis of eco-regions with different licences used in different ecosystem regions and no transfers between the regions.
The discards in the North sea are between 40% and 60% of total catch, while in other European fisheries, such as that for west of Scotland cod, they can total as much as 90%. The vast majority of fish discarded overboard of course die. In an effort to limit fishing to sustainable levels, EU regulations under the common fisheries policy prohibit the landing of commercial species above a given annual quota. However, in practice this often results in the discarding of thousands of tonnes of saleable fish—the over-quota discards—as fishers are forced to cast overboard their excess or non-target catch before landing, so as not to contravene EU law.
The result is a policy that fails to prevent fish mortality above levels deemed biologically sustainable. That is a particular problem in mixed fisheries—the majority of EU fisheries—where fishers will catch more than their landing quota for one species as they continue fishing for others that swim with it, in order to maintain fishing throughout the year. The Government estimate that over-quota species account for about 22% of English and Welsh discards.
The introduction of catch quotas in place of the current landing quotas would make fishers accountable for their total catch, rather than for what they land, thereby eliminating the legal catch and discard of over-quota fish. The current CFP also prohibits the landing of quota species below a certain minimum landing size—MLS—to ensure that they are not caught before reaching maturity, thus preserving the reproductive capacity of the stock. In practice, however, many under-sized fish are still caught and simply discarded at sea. An estimated 24% of discards are quota species below legal MLS, so too small to land. The introduction of minimum catch sizes in place of minimum landing sizes has been successful in Norway in incentivising the use of selective gear in fisheries and minimising the catch and mortality of under-sized fish.
An estimated 54% of English and Welsh discards are of non-commercial species caught as by-catch. Stimulating the creation of new or stronger markets for under-utilised sustainable species such as dab and coley in UK fisheries could result in the elimination of unnecessary waste, greater profits for fishers and a reduction in fishing pressure on other more popular and over-exploited species. We need to be careful, however, that that policy does not encourage the creation of markets for species whose population could not support a sudden increase in harvesting.
There is currently no obligation to conduct regular stock assessments for most non-commercial species in EU waters, as they are not subject to quota restrictions, so there is little understanding of the impact that increased fishing of them would have on their stocks and on the wider ecosystem. The first priority of any policy that aims to eliminate discards and improve demand for under-utilised species, therefore, should be to mandate regular stock assessments for all species, with a view to introducing management plans, including catch quotas, for all species caught in EU fisheries.
At the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development in 2002, the EU committed to achieving a maximum sustainable yield for all fish stocks by 2015 at the latest, but in 2010 it estimated that 72% of its fisheries remained overfished, with 20% fished beyond safe biological limits, risking the wholesale collapse of those fisheries.
The EU marine strategy framework directive requires that all EU fisheries achieve good environmental status by 2020, which includes the attainment of sustainable fishing levels for all stocks. The European Commission requests scientific advice for the establishment of fisheries management plans on the basis of sustainability, but the European Council is under no obligation to adhere to that advice when agreeing total annual quotas for stocks. The result is that the European Council sets total allowable catch limits that are on average 34% higher than the scientifically recommended sustainable limits.
Ensuring that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels is an absolute prerequisite of the future profitability and survival of EU fisheries. By requiring the delivery of that target by 2015, we will ensure that the EU fulfils its international and domestic commitments to achieve sustainable fisheries and end overfishing.
A legal requirement to end overfishing of all fish and shellfish by 2015 will necessitate the following key measures: first, rendering scientific advice binding, thus preventing quotas from exceeding biologically sustainable limits; and secondly, introducing stock assessments and management plans for all fish and shellfish, including non-commercial species that are currently unmanaged, in order to establish sustainable limits for harvesting.
Co-management is an approach whereby Government authorities involve local communities and other stakeholders in management decision making, monitoring and surveillance. The approach aims to encourage co-operation and a shared sense of responsibility, and it has been shown to improve compliance with regulations as well as to improve the effectiveness of management measures, because it draws upon community knowledge to address local socio-economic and ecological issues.
The establishment of regional advisory councils is cited as a key success of the 2002 CFP reform, because they have served as forums for stakeholders to inform policy implementation at the regional level, but they have no decision-making powers.
Small-scale and artisanal fishing represents a vital link between the industry and historical coastal fishing communities, and often utilises lower-impact methods—more environmentally sustainable methods of fishing that draw on local traditional knowledge. A future common fisheries policy must reverse the balance of incentives by allocating access rights to fisheries on the basis of environmental sustainability, so giving priority to vessels that utilise selective gear and low-impact methods of fishing. By enabling the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation for UK and foreign fishing vessels within its inshore fisheries, without recourse to the European Commission, we would regain powers to determine and manage our coastal marine ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) spoke of the importance of ITQs—individual transferable quotas—and the problems that will arise from them. Under this proposal, which is probably the most dramatic in impact of any EU proposal, skippers would be guaranteed shares of national quotas for periods of at least 15 years, which they could trade among themselves—even, if the relevant national Government agree, with fleets from other countries. This is already practised on a smaller scale in several EU member states, including the UK, but it has been taken much further in other countries.
A global survey published three years ago showed that fisheries managed using ITQs were half as likely to collapse as others, which is one of the reasons why the Commission is so enthusiastic about them. However, the blanket nature of its proposals gives rise to serious concerns, and I echo those that the hon. Gentleman expressed. Ecologically, ITQs diminish overfishing and seek to protect the sustainability of fishing in the area concerned, but experience shows that they can give rise to the privatisation of fisheries. That is a very serious point, which the Minister has to take on board.
Barry Gardiner
I have no more time left, so I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups are going to start at half-past 5. Seven people wish to catch my eye, so if they speak for a shade under six minutes, that means that everybody will get in. I will rely on your generosity for that. I call Eric Ollerenshaw.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to keep to my limit.
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate, particularly for the way in which it has been conducted and the experience that has been brought to it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I do not claim to be an expert in this field, but I do represent the town of Fleetwood. This year marks 175 years since its foundation, and for all those years it has been synonymous with the fishing industry. Indeed, in the 19th century Fleetwood was at the end of the west coast main line, principally to enable fish landed there to get to Billingsgate as fresh as possible. Being new to the fish world, as I call it, I have had to learn at first hand the stories and legends from fishermen. Believe me, some of those are long and involved, but I sat there listening patiently. As other hon. Members have said, the hurt that they feel at the tragedy that they have endured through the devastation of their once-proud industry is very apparent.
Fleetwood, more than most, has seen its fishing industry destroyed in the 20th century. The port is now down to a few dozen registered boats with perhaps two or three boats landing fish, mainly shellfish. The crazy irony of the history of fishing in this country is illustrated by the fact that Fleetwood’s success still lies in fish processing. Hundreds of tonnes of fish now arrive in Fleetwood by truck from every port in England because of the large scale of Fleetwood’s fish processors, which are still on the docks, but the docks do not land any more fresh fish. That is what we have come to. It is difficult to explain the impact that this decline in fishing has had over the years on the morale of a town where most people claim descent from the original dozen fishing families around whom it developed. These intricacies go back years. Indeed, with the good advice of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), for which I am very grateful, I am still dealing with compensation claims that go back to the Icelandic cod wars.
Like other Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on the record for her advice. She has been unstinting in her help, and in sharing her knowledge and passion for the subject. She has taught me a great deal.
This debate is rightly focused on discards, an issue that has united fishermen and the public like no other issue in recent years. It is incredible that from primary school children through to politicians, everybody sees the sense of the argument about the scale of the discarding, the moral condemnation of it, and the economic wrongs it has created. As an ex-history teacher, I compare it to prohibition, because it is a policy that has been so counter-productive in terms of its original aims that it will go down in the history books. I fully support the motion, given that discards in the North sea alone equate to some 500,000 to 800,000 tonnes a year. That is waste on an incredible scale.
Discarding is also wrong because there appear to be solutions, and I am pleased that the Government have supported some of those. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the pilots for cod quotas, which have prevented discards. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall mentioned the intricacies of net size, which again have prevented discards. I have looked at the 50% scheme in Brixham, which has received widespread praise. All those solutions have presented incentives to fishermen, as conservation is in their interests.
I believe that this campaign has demonstrated, once and for all, that fishermen and the public understand the need for managed conservation. I hope that the success of the pilots and the public support will provide the Minister with backing when he goes to Brussels. He might not achieve the scrapping of the common fisheries policy, which many of us want, but he will now go armed with the support of this House and of a country united in a demand for real reform.
As hon. Members have said, discards are just the tip of the iceberg of things that have wrecked the fishing industry. Fishermen in my constituency are fighting for realistic compensation for the increasing areas of Morecambe bay being filled with wind turbines, with the support of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It has amazed me that there is no statutory compensation, and that every fisherman has to fight individually for compensation. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby reminded us, marine conservation zones are spreading, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is on the fishermen’s backs, fishermen are involved in consultation, and they are fighting for compensation and quotas. One sometimes wonders what time fishermen have left actually to go fishing, in between all the demands placed on them.
We are getting to the point where so many Departments have a slice of our seas that perhaps we need a Secretary of State for the seas. Perhaps I would not be as radical as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, but something major needs to happen if we are to alter the decline that we have seen, and the casual treatment, by previous Governments of all parties, of the great seas around us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) talked about farmers. I have always wondered how we can manage to protect the environment in national parks successfully, and to sustain real business in which farmers are a fundamental part of saving that environment, when we cannot manage to do that out at sea.
The Fish Fight has brought together fishermen, processors, retailers, consumers and—dare I say it?—politicians of all parties, as we have seen today. Its success may well be the signal that we can finally start on the long road back to protecting one of our greatest resources: the seas that make these islands to which we all belong.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on the important issue of fish discards. I rarely sign early-day motions, but I felt compelled to support his recent motion on fish discards, because the way in which we kill unnecessarily and throw back fish on an industrial scale is an absolute scandal that, as many Members have said, has continued for far too long.
We should recognise that this is not a new problem. The environmental consequences of the common fisheries policy have been recognised and argued over for more than 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) said. I remember speaking about the scandal of fish discards as long ago as 1999 when I was a candidate for another party.
We should note, though, that some modest progress has been made over the past decade. The volume of fish discarded was actually reduced from 2002 to 2008. However, with some estimates suggesting that we are still throwing away more than half of all the fish caught, it is clear that we are still only scratching the surface and that significant changes are required.
Three key factors are driving the practice of discards: the lack of a market, the quota system and the problem of undersized fish. On the first of those, DEFRA estimates that more than half of all the fish that are discarded are those for which there is currently no market. That is not the fault of the CFP, but it is the largest single area in which we could make a difference.
One of the most important outcomes of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s “Hugh’s Fish Fight” series was the call for, and the beginning of, the creation of demand for other fish species. When I recently visited Falfish, a fish processor in my constituency, it reported a significant increase, for instance, in demand for pouting. Although far smaller than cod, it has a similar texture and can be used as a substitute. We all have a role to play in creating a market for currently unfashionable fish—consumers by being more adventurous, the industry and processors by doing more to market less popular fish and the Government through projects such as their Fishing for the Markets scheme.
The other causes of fish discards relate to the CFP. DEFRA figures estimate that 22% of all discards are fish for which there is no quota, and that 24% are undersized. I have to say that I think that last figure understates the problem, because it is calculated on weight rather than the number of fish. Addressing those two problems is where we need meaningful change.
As I have said, the problem with the CFP is that we have talked about it for a long time but nothing has changed. If one thing has really been clear over the past 20 years, it is that the most successful policy innovation has taken place when national Governments have been free to experiment with new ideas and approaches. We have a bit of a problem with the structure and culture of the EU, because it does not lend itself to an evidence-based policy approach. All too often, policy development becomes a mere negotiation and the outcome is a policy based on the lowest common denominator rather than one informed by the power of ideas. The EU is currently considering another round of CFP reform, and we will soon find out whether it is now fit for purpose or whether important issues such as fisheries policy require a quality of thinking and reasoning that is simply beyond institutions such as the EU.
Another problem is that a one-size-fits-all policy cannot cover such a wide area. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said that fish do not carry national passports or recognise national borders, but they do not carry EU passports or recognise EU waters either.
Mr MacNeil
It is also misleading to talk as though fish all behave in the same way. Iceland talks about migratory fish, straddling stocks and non-migratory fish, so the idea that all fish are the same is highly misleading. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point, because I did not have a chance when the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was speaking.
George Eustice
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I could not agree more. It is true that fish do not recognise national waters, but it is important that we have a tailored local solution to protect our ecosystems. We should not get bogged down in whether waters are national or European. That is why, like the hon. Member for Brent North, I am attracted to the idea of breaking up the current structure of the CFP and putting in place a regionalised management system. It could retain the common objectives of protecting the ecosystem, having sustainable fishing and minimising discards, but the delivery of those common objectives would vary in response to local realities.
I wish to say a little about some of the conclusions that we can draw from successful experiments that other countries have come up with. First, Norway has found a way of dealing with the discards caused by fish caught over quota by allowing fishermen to land those fish but paying them only a fraction of the market price. Let us consider that. Secondly, Norway and Scotland have both had success with real-time closures, with areas being closed to fishing when there is a problem with excessive by-catch. That creates an incentive for the industry to use netting gear that reduces by-catch, so let us consider that, too.
Thirdly, our fishermen in the south-west are involved in a really successful project, Project 50%, which has brought together fishermen and scientists to develop new fishing practices that have dramatically cut fish discards. Let us consider that, too. Finally, Cornish fisherman led the way by having the first no-take zone within European waters, so that there is a sanctuary for spawning fish. We should also consider that.
If we are serious about developing a sustainable approach to fishing, we need to change the basis on which quota is allocated. Rather than simply basing it on some historical formula or rights, we should reward good fishing practices by giving the most sustainable fishermen the most quota. That could act as a powerful incentive. Those who adopt good fishing practices that substantially reduce by-catch will be allocated more quota, as will producer organisations that are the most successful at creating markets for unfashionable fish species, whereas producers who turn a blind eye to the need to reduce discards and continue as if nothing has changed will face losing some of their quota.
If we adopt such solutions, we can improve the CFP and dramatically reduce our fish discards.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on his tireless efforts to reduce fish discards. All hon. Members understand the importance of fishing to our local economies, but I represent Brixham, which lands the highest-value catch in England. That represents more than £17 million for our local and national economy. That is real jobs, not just at sea but on land, and a very valuable export market.
I thank the fisheries Minister for his recent visit. He is now aware of Project 50%, which is being carried out in Brixham, to which many hon. Members have paid tribute. I should like to recognise the work of Darren Edwards, the net designer, and scientists at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Shaun Gibbs, who presented the results of Project 50% to Maria Damanaki, and other trawlermen, have fitted cameras to their trawlers to monitor catches, so that we can get away from the existing quota system. They are taking part in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea area 7e sole catch quota trial.
I also recognise the work of south-west fish producers, who are working with the Government through the Fishing for the Markets project to look at how to achieve better sales for unusual fish, such as pout, whiting, gurnard and dragonet. I hesitate to give anyone cooking advice—my family certainly do not miss my cooking back at home—but all one has to do with gurnard is stick it in the oven with a bit of butter and rosemary. Nothing else is required, and it is absolutely delicious. I commend gurnard to the House!
Fisherman in Brixham and surrounding areas have made extensive efforts to reduce discards—all hon. Members will recognise that—but we can imagine their frustration. They have reduced their fishing effort and taken part in a series of trials to reduce discards, at great personal cost, and improved the sustainability of the mixed fishery in the English channel, only to find that Dutch fly-draggers that have fished more than their quotas and destroyed their fishing grounds in the North sea are coming over and having the same impact in our waters. That is extremely demoralising for our fishermen.
The CFP is undoubtedly outdated and unsustainable, but we must be careful how we implement measures on discards. I was reassured that the wording of the motion was altered so that we recognise that not all species that are thrown back into the sea die. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who is very experienced, drew attention to the fact that if we landed all the crab that we catch, crab would become extinct, which is an important point. We must also recognise the efforts made in the lobster fisheries, which now notch rather than land buried, egg-bearing lobsters, which has greatly increased fish stocks locally. Therefore, we need to be careful how we talk about discarding, and look at all the alternative measures that have been outlined, which I hope the Minister will consider.
I know that the Minister works tirelessly on behalf of our fishing industry, but we would also like to see some fairness. I am in the difficult position of representing both the under-10 and the over-10 metre fleets, which clearly have different needs, as we all recognise. However, if we are to have fairness, their efforts must not be undermined by foreign vessels. I am sure that all Members would ask the Minister to press home the point in Europe that this is the only way forward. However, I know that many other Members wish to speak, so with that I will take my seat.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on securing this debate. May I also associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) about our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall?
In the limited time available I would like to support the part of the motion that talks about necessary reforms to the policy affecting small-scale fishermen. I would like to share with the House the example of a group of fishermen in my constituency which I hope will underline all the valuable contributions that we have heard from across the House—something that, in itself, underlines the fact that we need to make more decisions here in the UK about our fishing fleet.
I represent a maritime constituency. Ensuring that we manage our marine environment and support sustainable fishing is vital to me and my constituents. We have perhaps the most sustainable fishery in Cornwall, at the Fal river oyster fishery, which is officially known as the Port of Truro oyster fishery. It is the last oyster fishery in Europe harvested under sail, by Europe’s last commercial sailing fleet. We have native oysters in the River Fal, which have been harvested in more or less the same, highly sustainable fashion, without the use of mechanical power, for more than 500 years.
Byelaws introduced by the Truro Corporation back in the 19th century protect the Fal’s beds from over-exploitation by limiting harvesting to non-mechanical means. That means relying on wind and tide, with sail-powered working boats towing the dredges across the beds in a fashion known as “drift”. Many of the historic vessels used have been on and off the water for more than 150 years, and are used for fishing in the winter and racing in the summer. Further up the river, hand-rowed punts are used with the same dredges. Any oyster that is smaller than the statutory two and five-eighths of an inch in diameter is discarded and returned to the river bed to grow on. After the oysters have been harvested, they are purified and sold all over the world. They are very popular in France, although more than 10,000 oysters are consumed during the immensely popular annual Falmouth oyster festival, which is held each autumn.
The number of licences issued by the Port of Truro harbour authority fluctuates each year, but in the 2010-11 season, 45 licences were applied for by 32 separate people. There were 12 sailing boats and six punts fishing over the past winter. A licence is needed for each dredge. The season runs from October to March, with fishing strictly limited to between 9 am and 3 pm each weekday, and 9 am and 1 pm on Saturdays. The most recent statistics show that during the 2009-10 season, some 750,000 million oysters were caught.
Typically, oysters are sold by fishermen to buyers at 25p an oyster. Buyers sell them on to shops, which sell them for about £1 an oyster. Despite the cost to hon. Members who enjoy eating oysters, the fishermen make a modest income. I hope that hon. Members can see that, through the measures taken in Cornwall, we have managed to keep this sustainable fishery. There is a proactive relationship between the harbour authority and the oyster fishery to manage and improve the nursery beds for future years.
Members with a lot of experience will recall that marine fisheries licences are required by all UK vessels fishing for profit. They were introduced in 1992 as a method of enforcing EU regulations for sustainable fisheries management. Captain Brigden and Carrick council made representations to the Government of the day in 1993, and secured an exemption for boats under 10 metres fishing under sail or oar. This meant that such boats would not require a marine fishing licence to fish, and the exemption covered the boats of the Truro oyster fishery. Now, the EU is reviewing the exemptions that have been granted to the fishery, and possibly others.
What would be the impact of ending the licence exemption for the Truro oyster fishery? Fishermen would have to meet the substantial one-off costs of applying for a marine fisheries licence. The cost depends on the size of the vessel, and for the average 28-foot oyster fishing boat, it would be about £4,500. This would be in addition to annual fees and local fees. This overhead would put many oyster fishermen out of business, so this EU measure would have the perverse outcome of putting out of business some of the most highly skilled and sustainable fishermen in Europe.
Learning to fish for oysters by hand and under sail takes many years to master. The fishermen work very hard in the winter and most have other seasonal work during the rest of the year. In a good year, the fishery can provide a reasonable living for the experienced men who are prepared to put in the time and effort in all weathers in order to make a sustainable living. The extra licence fees will put an end to centuries of oyster fishing on the Fal.
The renaissance of locally produced and traditional foods has been a great source of satisfaction for many people around the country. Locally grown food is also healthier food. In October, Falmouth hosts the oyster festival, which helps the whole community to celebrate our heritage and sense of place, as well as attracting tourists from all over the world. Just last year, Rick Stein opened an oyster bar in Falmouth, so the oyster fishery makes a wider, significant contribution to the local economy of Falmouth and Cornwall, and contributes to the reputation of Cornwall as a producer of high-quality food. I urge the Government to ensure that decisions about the licensing of our small vessels are taken in this country, to ensure the highest levels of environmental protection and sustainable food production for our country.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for highlighting this important issue. For many years now, the common fisheries policy has blighted coastal towns such as those in my constituency around Morecambe. It might surprise hon. Members to know that, although I represent a seaside resort and coastal town, I have learned from recent discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that I represent very few fishermen. But let us be clear: my predecessors would have been able to say that they represented hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of them. This illustrates the economic decimation of fishing that this policy has created, and, even in communities like mine, it has been accepted. For years we complained, in my view rightly, but our complaints fell on deaf ears in Brussels and we lost this important form of employment. We have now accepted this and moved on.
However, my hon. Friend raises the important environmental issue that remains outstanding. It would be quite wrong to empty our coastal waters of fish because of these quotas. It is so sad to see fishermen throwing tonnes of fish into the sea because it is illegal to land them under EU rules. I do not blame the fishermen themselves; they are trying to make a living against a difficult backdrop. I blame the common fisheries policy and the European Commission. It is hard for me to believe that the Commission is ignorant of the environmental vandalism that it has unleashed on our waters. The fact is that it does not even care.
Given that the EU does not want to make the situation better, it must fall to us in this country to do something about it. We must demand a significant reform or, better still, the scrapping of the common fisheries policy. Call me old fashioned, but I would like to go back to the time when only British and Irish vessels could fish in the Irish box. When that rule was abolished, Spanish industrial trawlers mounted their ruinous campaign against our fishing stocks—a campaign that has arguably moved to the coast of Africa and ruined the livelihoods of fishermen in places such as Somalia. Many believe that that has turned Somali sailors to piracy.
In summary, my view remains that the British fishing fleet has been treated badly. My community has lost an important industry, but we must not allow fish stocks to be destroyed for future generations. I was proud to sign the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, and I am delighted that this has become a debate for the whole House to participate in. My sincere hope is that we stop this great environmental crime before its effect cannot be undone.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for seeking this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is important for me to speak in it because the future of the fishing industry is of crucial importance to Lowestoft in my constituency, where fishing has a long and proud record.
Last October, I secured an Adjournment debate on the future of the inshore fishing fleet on these coasts. The crisis facing the industry at that time and the solutions remain the same, so I will not repeat them, as they are on the record. There have, however, been four significant developments since last October.
First, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s Fish Fight campaign has brought into the nation’s living rooms the scandal and obscenity of discards. As a result, our inboxes have been full. The nation has spoken; it will no longer put up with this practice.
Secondly, it is clear from her speech on 1 March that Commissioner Maria Damanaki understands the problem and appreciates that drastic action is required. She said:
“Let’s be honest, if we continue this it is like treating a serious illness with aspirin”.
There will be vested interests opposed to the commissioner as she seeks to reform the common fisheries policy next year. Our Members of the European Parliament need to give her the support she needs and deserves.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the fisheries Minister has launched his own consultation on the future management of the domestic fisheries in England. This contains some positive proposals. It is encouraging that DEFRA appears to accept that fishing stocks are a national resource and that no third parties have acquired any proprietorial rights.
The final development since last autumn is that the Lowestoft industry continues to decline. The fishermen are allowed to catch fewer fish; they have extra costs to bear; and it is an increasingly difficult struggle for them to carry on. Only last month, the Europa café in the fish market, which has served breakfasts to fishermen for decades, was forced to close due to a continuing decline in business.
It feels as if an ambulance is now on the way, but I worry about whether the patient will be alive when it reaches the scene of the accident. The sands of time are running out for Lowestoft fishermen. I support the motion. It is important that none of us sits back and rests until a fishing regime that has almost destroyed the British fishing industry is itself discarded and thrown overboard.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Gentleman will have to finish his speech at half-past 5.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak in this debate; I could not get out of the Finance (No. 3) Bill Committee until 4 o’clock. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and I also pay tribute to a great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has huge experience of the fishing industry. She has been able to return to the House in hugely difficult circumstances; our hearts very much go out to her.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said that he had talked about this issue back in 1999. I was then fighting for the Conservative party, while he was fighting for another party. I recall saying to him afterwards, “Do see the light; come over to the Conservative party.” I do not know whether it was all due to me, but he obviously did see the light and came over to the true cause.
I was elected to the European Parliament and sat on its Fisheries Committee for some 10 years. In all that time, I opposed the common fisheries policy. Let me explain why. The CFP is a little bit like communism: it is a wonderful idea in principle, but in practice it just does not work, as I shall explain. If we have a common resource in Europe, every country thinks that some animals are more equal than others and are entitled to a greater proportion of the fish.
I will name some of those countries. Spain is one of them; it goes all around the world looking for fish, fishing off Africa and goodness knows where, causing an awful lot of problems. We must face up to the reality. We need our fishermen to be able to sign up to a policy to get rid of discards and to manage fisheries. If they believe that managing their fisheries sustainably will provide the fish for them to catch, they will sign up to it. I am sure that that is very much what the Minister will be aiming for. However, if a common fisheries policy means that we sustain our fish stocks but some other nation then comes in and steals them, will we be inclined to adopt such conservation measures?
Fishermen have to go out to sea and deal with the vagaries of the weather, and then they have to deal with the vagaries of the common fisheries policy. There is, for instance, the nonsense of “quota species”, which means that those who catch too many of a particular species must throw healthy fish overboard. When big boats throw discards into the sea, they often putrefy on the sea bed, which can have huge consequences.
We must take a sensible attitude, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so. Now is the time to say to fishermen, “Let us have a look at the way in which you fish. Let us ensure that when you bring your fish back, you are able to sell it.” Many Members have made the point that we need to eat more species of fish in this country, but there is another point to be made, and I have made it in the House before. During the period of the common fisheries policy, much money has been wasted when boats have been decommissioned and new boats have been built with larger engines that may enable more fish to be caught. When fish are landed that are not fit for human consumption, they can be made into fishmeal and fed to farmed fish. That may not save a vast amount of money, but it will give fishermen some incentive to land those fish.
Another point that has been made today is that until we stop discarding fish, the scientists will not know what is actually being caught, so we will not know what the stocks are. That is a central part of the argument for the banning of discards.
I also think that the argument between large and small boats must be settled. We cannot allow big companies to buy up huge amounts of quota and then force out many small fishermen. Those fishermen must have a livelihood. We must face up to the reality: it is a case of the haves and have nots, when what we want are sustainable fisheries.
Neil Parish
No, I will not, because I have not much time left.
I have had 10 years’ experience in Europe, where many warm words have been spoken by commissioners in the past about discards. There have been improvements such as the provision of better fishing tackle and Project 50% in Devon, but the Commission and Europe must be driven hard to make absolutely certain that we secure change—that we stop discarding fish, and all the fish that are landed are either eaten by humans or made into fishmeal to feed farmed fish.
There is a limited resource of fish in the world—there are no two ways about it—and we are consuming more fish than are being bred in the seas. If we do not act, we will destroy our own resource and our own ecosystem. I wish the Minister great success in Brussels. He must take not only his briefcase but a handbag and a concrete block, because he will need them when he is negotiating. It is necessary to negotiate very hard in Europe in order to get anywhere. I look forward to the Minister’s coming back with everything that we want.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on his great efforts and the fine words with which he opened the debate, and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on its wisdom in granting such an important debate. It has reflected the huge interest shown by the more than 674,000 people who have already signed the Fish Fight petition, and the others in our country who want to see a radical change to the EU common fisheries policy.
Labour Members recognise the strong consensus, both in today’s debate and in the wider Fish Fight campaign, that now is the time for EU fisheries Ministers to turn fine declarations of intent into a clear programme for change. The common fisheries policy must be made fit to meet the challenges of protecting the biodiversity of our seas and oceans, placing the sustainability of the fishing industry on a long-term footing, and securing greater regional management of EU fisheries waters, and we must introduce an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries, to tackle the root causes of the immoral waste of fish currently discarded at sea.
Mr MacNeil
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, one of the problems with the CFP is that nobody is in charge, so there is horse trading between competing interests. Unless that changes and somebody is put in charge—as is the case in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes—the problem will not go away. Unless the introduction of regional management leads to such problems being addressed, we will be in exactly the same mess as we have been under the CFP.
Mr Bain
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The UK and other states that are in favour of reform must build alliances—such as with the southern European countries, who have in the past been resistant to change—so that there is genuine momentum and a sense that reform is being, and will continue to be, pursued by all 27 member states. In 2009, Scottish fishing vessels discarded almost 28,000 tonnes of fish, representing a quarter of the entire whitefish catch in Scotland. That demonstrates the seriousness of the need for reform.
I commend the contributions to the debate of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who have over the years been consistent in their trenchant critiques of the CFP. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has also been a huge champion of the fishing industry in his years as a Member of this House. I also commend the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who referred to the need for the introduction of long-term quotas, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who talked about the need for fish stock sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked passionately about the need for an ecosystem approach to fisheries.
It was particularly good to see the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in the Chamber, and to hear her speaking with such passion and authority about this subject, to which her community and family have contributed so much. I also commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), who talked about the need for catch quotas, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who referred to the need for a package of reforms and a framework of change, and the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid). They referred to the social and economic importance of the fisheries in their communities, and the moral imperative for action that this time will result in reform. They put their arguments with great vigour and force.
Global fish and seafood consumption is increasing. The US consumes almost five times more fish than a century ago, and China is consuming almost five times more seafood than in the 1960s. It has been estimated that capture fisheries contribute up to $240 billion per year to global output in direct and indirect economic benefits. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation found in its report, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010”, that the fishing industry supports the livelihoods of about 540 million people, or 8% of the world population. Yet concerns about biodiversity and the condition of our marine environment have grown. OCEAN2012 has estimated that half of the fish consumed in the EU comes from waters outside the EU, through distant-water fleets and a growing reliance on imports.
In 2004 the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated that discards amounted to 7.3 million tonnes or 8% of total global fish catches, although on another definition of by-catch, it might involve in excess of 20 million tonnes per year. At last June’s EU Fisheries Council, Commissioner Damanaki set out the case for the most sweeping changes to the CFP since its inception. Those changes were based on an assessment that the current system, as last reformed in 2002, was top-down, short-termist in its effects on the fishing industry and weak in its protection of at-risk species. In particular, the system of total allowable catches, which was introduced in 1983 for each commercial species of fish and which was subdivided into quotas for individual member states, has proven grossly inadequate. It led in 2008 to the permitted TACs being on average 48% higher than scientifically assessed sustainable levels.
The CFP is also unresponsive to changes in fisheries practice, because it is linked to the relative proportions of species fished as long ago as the 1970s. In mixed fisheries it is hugely wasteful and leads to the discarding of unacceptable levels of whitefish in order to comply with the quota rules after one species quota has already been exhausted. Across the EU, nearly half the whitefish and up to 70% of flatfish are discarded. Recently, and particularly in her statement this March, Commissioner Damanaki has pursued a new settlement that will build upon catch-quota trials that have proven successful in substantially reducing discard levels in Scotland and Denmark among pelagic fisheries. There is also the prospect of an extension to other fisheries, including demersal mixed fisheries, in the second year of any new CFP.
The Opposition welcome the lead that successive Governments and devolved Administrations have provided in extending the use of longer-term catch quotas and supporting the stronger involvement of fishing communities in the management of quotas and fisheries waters. However, we believe that a stronger impetus is required to deal with the root cause of the scandal of discarded fish and by-catch: the delay in the introduction of an EU-wide ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The Commission has established that 88% of EU fisheries stocks are being fished beyond sustainable levels, and that 30% are near to collapse. The introduction of ecosystem management in this cycle of CFP reform is obligatory under the EU’s integrated maritime policy and is strongly linked to the marine strategy framework directive’s overarching commitment to the achievement of good environmental status. It is strongly supported by the Commission’s green paper on CFP reform, and has proven successful elsewhere in restoring fishing stocks in large-scale fisheries in California, the north-east of the United States and parts of Australia.
The introduction of ecosystem management would balance environmental, social and economic concerns and involve a range of policy changes, including the introduction of financial incentives to reduce the pressure on stocks of species nearing over-exploitation; further action on ocean acidification, which particularly threatens shellfish stocks; the regional management of fisheries waters; fishing area closures; the incentivisation of new technology to monitor what is being taken from the sea and landed on fishing boats; and the use of more selective nets and fishing gear to reduce levels of by-catch of younger fish and other species. The multiple small trawl nets now used to catch prawns in the North Sea, for instance, have led to a 50% reduction in discarded fish.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North pointed out, in Norway the use of minimum catch sizes has proven successful in reducing levels of discards and fishing of undersized or juvenile fish. However, OCEAN2012 has recommended an alternative approach: the introduction of a minimum marketing size that would still constitute a strong disincentive for the sale of juvenile fish. It also raises the significance of applying new bans on discards and by-catch to EU fishing fleets operating in third countries or distant-water fisheries.
Key to the success of such a system of fisheries management would be the greater involvement of the fishing industry in devising such schemes at a regional level and reporting on their effectiveness and compliance, together with improved monitoring of ports. As well as a prohibition on discards at EU level, however, over-fishing must be addressed. Simply permitting all caught fish to be landed and sold without proper enforcement may lead to the catching of undersized fish, with the further depletion of fish species that could thereby emerge. In the past, however, with cod, fisheries closures have led to displacement of fishing to adjacent areas, so any successful package of fisheries closures this time would require the active involvement of the fishing industry. There is support across many member states for the principle of introducing rights-based management of fisheries as a means of tackling overcapacity, although there is understandable hesitation about introducing a scheme of individually transferable quota rights that could see large-scale companies exert excessive dominance over the market.
Dr Whiteford
Does the shadow spokesperson share my concern that the privatisation of our seas through individual transferable quotas would inevitably over time lead to concentration and consolidation in the industry in such a way as to undermine these efforts in the longer term and hugely damage fishing communities?
Mr Bain
There is a real danger of that occurring, which is why I would refer the hon. Lady to the speech given by Commissioner Damanaki in Berlin in March. She reflected on and took on board the concerns that the hon. Lady has expressed and we wait to see how they will be phased into the reform proposals that are to be discussed in July.
The EU needs a common fisheries policy and it requires one that meets that challenges that the present policy has failed so abjectly to address. With a strong motion passed by this House today, concerted action by the European Commission and member state Governments, we can turn intentions into deeds worthy of the cause raised in the Fish Fight campaign. Let us work for an ecosystem approach to fisheries, let us introduce a regionalised structure to the common fisheries policy, let us establish long-term catch quotas, and let us provide incentives for new nets and new technologies. By those means, we will tackle the root causes and end the scandal of discarded fish that has so appalled so many people in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), who speaks for the Opposition, for continuing the bipartisan approach on these matters. The relationship is challenging but it is vital that we continue what happened under the last Government and recognise that we are dealing with an industry in crisis and a marine environment that desperately needs the smack of firm decision making. It is great to have his support.
I welcome the debate and I believe that it firmly places the Backbench Business Committee in touch with issues that are of concern to our constituents. I welcome the contributions and hope to respond to many of the points later. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for the way in which he introduced the debate and I hope that we can all support the motion tonight.
The debate comes at a crucial time. The conscience of the nation has been moved by the sight of perfectly edible, quality fish being thrown into the sea, dead. That is an abomination in a hungry world, I am sure everyone agrees. That is the power of television. Most of us knew that it was happening, but few of us had seen it—it was happening over the horizon—but it has now been brought into people’s homes and they are outraged. What if half the lambs we slaughter in this country had been dumped on the side of the road? There would have been riots on the street. Now people know what is happening and that is a tribute to those who brought the matter of discards to the public consciousness.
The debate also comes at a crucial time because there is a window of opportunity to reform the common fisheries policy. I have been a Minister for only a year, but my assessment of the art of government is that one needs to know the difference between what one wants to change but cannot and what one wants to change and can, and to focus one’s energies on the latter. If I focused my energies on the former I might satisfy some of the hon. Gentlemen who have contributed today, but I would not deal with the problem that faces our marine environment, our fishermen and the coastal communities they support.
I might not be a rabid Eurosceptic, but I am no friend of the common fisheries policy. However, it is not the fact that it is common that is the problem—it is the policy that is wrong. As we have heard—the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made this point very well—fish do not respect lines on maps. Many of the stocks that our fishermen exploit spend part of their lives in other countries’ waters. Our fishermen have always fished in other countries’ waters in the same way as other countries’ fishermen had historic rights to fish in our waters before our accession to the European Economic Community in 1972. I could spend a lot of time discussing that, but I was 11 when it happened and I prefer to deal with the here and now—with what I can do and what we can achieve.
A point that has been made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we have to look at this issue in terms of an ecosystem approach. Whether we were in the EU or not and whether we were in the CFP or not, we would need a shared legal framework to manage our fish stocks. Our focus should be on getting the common framework right, which means getting rid of unnecessary and over-detailed regulation and managing stocks on a regional or sea-basin basis. It means giving fishermen clear entitlements to fish stocks and giving them a stake in the long-term health of those stocks.
Richard Benyon
I am quite pressed for time and the hon. Gentleman has had quite a lot of air time, but if there is time later I am sure that the House would be delighted to hear him make his point again.
Getting the common framework right means integrating fisheries management with other marine environmental policies and applying the same principles of the sustainable use of marine resources both within and outside EU waters. Of course, it also means making sure that we have a reformed CFP that does all it can to eradicate discards. I welcome the fact that the EU Fisheries Commissioner sees this issue as a top priority, as I think she does. I make that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). At the meeting I attended on 1 March, the commissioner said that her predecessor had had a similar meeting five years previously at which everyone around the table had said how outraged they were with the process and nothing happened. I am not prepared to allow my successor to be here saying that something needs to be done in five years’ time. Something does need to be done and I am committed to working with the Commission and other member states to achieve discard-free fisheries.
Let me make a few things clear. The outrage that people feel about discards is shared by the Government and Members on both sides of the House. Our actions are not prompted by the Fish Fight campaign, but they are enhanced by it and we welcome it wholeheartedly. We are tackling this issue through the reform of the CFP, but we are not waiting for that reform. As has been said, important progress has been made with catch quotas, and the trials that were instigated by the previous Government have been extended by us. The hostility of fishermen to having cameras on their boats has been largely negated and they are now queuing up to get into these schemes. Hostility from other member states for that method of fishing management has largely disappeared and we have signed a declaration with the Governments of France, Germany and Denmark to see that that is introduced. Project 50% has also brought huge benefits in reducing discards.
I want to see a high-level objective of working towards discard-free fisheries in the new CFP with member states accountable and responsible for working to achieve that, managing what is caught rather than what is landed. There is a lot of focus on imposing a ban on fishermen discarding at sea. I can support a ban and I will be pushing for one—it is semantics whether we talk about an end to discards or a ban—but only if it is backed by genuinely effective, enforceable and affordable measures that encourage fishermen to be more selective about what they catch. That is crucial, and that point has been made by many hon. Members today. The last thing we want is to transfer a waste problem at sea so that it becomes a waste issue on land. How horrendous it would be to bury fish because there was no market for them, or simply to ban the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause, criminalising fishermen in the process. We must remember that a ban would be wrong for some species that can be returned to the sea alive. I pay tribute to the Members who tabled the motion for being willing to change it, and I make the point that sharks, skate and rays, many of which are critically endangered in EU waters, can often survive after being caught, as can many species of shellfish.
As well as providing fishermen with mechanisms to reduce discards we are tackling the problem in the UK through our Fishing for the Markets project, and several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), spoke about the 54% of discards for which there is no market. The project seeks to find markets, which is extremely important.
In the few minutes remaining, I shall turn to some of the points that have been made this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park made a very good speech in introducing the debate, and he mentioned the importance of a regionalised approach, which is absolutely key. In discussing ecosystems, we are talking about a sea basin approach—in some cases it is more local—in which we can manage fish. People talk about an abundance of fish at certain times of the year, but they may not be abundant if there is not co-ordinated action, which is why an ecosystem-based approach is important.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) made a familiar speech, and the points that he made were eloquently countered by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and by my hon. Friends. I pay particular tribute, as I did this morning, to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who made a courageous and powerful speech. I give her this absolute, determined pledge. I want the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to be a beacon of how to do marine conservation. I want people around the world to come and see how we do things in this country. I am grateful for the commitment that fishers, all users of the marine environment and everyone who cares about it have shown in operating through that bottom-up approach.
I am not saying that everyone is going to be happy, but I will work night and day to make sure that what we achieve recognises the importance of socio-economic activities—there could be unintended consequences if we do not do so—and the fact that if fishing is displaced to other areas it could be damaging. I am therefore determined to make this work. I want to make absolutely certain that we do not lose our derogation, and my understanding from the Commission is that that will not happen.
I place huge weight on our under-10 metre consultation. I am passionate about the fact that the inshore fleet does a great deal for coastal communities and social life in coastal Britain, and I want it to have a sustainable future. Sustainability is as important for fish stocks as it is for jobs onshore, and I will work hard to make sure that our proposals are workable.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), who made a thoughtful contribution. I shall grasp his thread of optimism, as I like what he said about multi-annual plans. I want to be the last Minister who has to go through that ridiculous charade every December in which we sit through the night negotiating. I am delighted that we achieved a relatively good result last December and that the Government, working with the devolved Governments, argued on the basis of sustainability on every occasion. However, it is an absurd system. Multi-annual plans take power away from politicians, which is why some countries do not want to lose the present system—they like the patronage it gives them. I want to work on multi-annual plans and end the horse trading that we have to go through.
I am conscious of time, so I shall pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer), whom I refer to the WWF/Industry Alliance, which builds on the Fish Fight campaign by taking the fight to my fellow Ministers in Europe, knocking on their door and saying that it wants change.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) also made a good speech. I refer him to the work of the Princes international sustainability fund, which currently values the north Atlantic tuna fishery at $70 million. If it was fished sustainably, it would be valued at $310 million, a massive increase. It is only by understanding that kind of difference in valuing our fish, rather than valuing them dead as we do at the moment, and valuing the potential social and economic impact that we will bring about that huge benefit. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for mentioning the Trevose box. He is right to point out that fishermen do so much to address sustainability themselves.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park a few minutes to respond to the debate and so will conclude my remarks. The Government share the priorities expressed by the motion. I can reassure the House that those will remain at the heart of our thinking as we press strongly for a reformed CFP and continue to address discarding in the UK fleet. I am fully behind the intentions of the motion, although I am not sure that it reflects the full scope of the Government’s ambitions for CFP reform. We have an intensive diplomatic effort ahead to negotiate the reform we need, and we must get the detailed measures right, including those on discards. We can do that only by working with our fishing industry to develop effective measures. I welcome the tabling of the motion and the spotlight that the Fish Fight campaign has shone on the current CFP’s failings at a time when we have a once-in-a-decade opportunity to overcome them.
Zac Goldsmith
I start by again thanking the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. We have heard some superb contributions from Members across the House, and every speech added something unique, which was very important. I also want to thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their supportive comments and for staying throughout the entire debate, taking notes furiously and responding to the various points that were made. That is not always the case in such debates, so I appreciate it.
I wish to offer particular thanks to the Fish Fight campaign, which was mentioned again and again throughout the debate. There is a direct link between its campaign outside Parliament and this motion in Parliament. It is a perfect example of hundreds of thousands of people mobilising their representatives in Parliament and moving an issue that not many people find interesting to the top of the political agenda, for now at least. I pay tribute to those campaigners, who have done a superb job. The debate probably would not be happening, and certainly not with such a motion, without their involvement.
The motion is ambitious. I will not repeat all the arguments used at the beginning of the debate because I will run out of time, and kill the motion myself in doing so. If it is passed with the support of the House, which I think it will be, we will see an absolute commitment to ending discards and a new regulatory regime that recognises the difference between small, traditional fishermen and their industrial competitors. Crucially, we will see the beginning of a process in which we will regain control over those crucial 12 sovereign miles. In my view, nothing is possible without that. It is a central part of the motion. I once again thank the House and the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Does the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) wish to move her amendments? No? We shall therefore decide on the motion before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Fish Fight campaign; and calls on the Government to vote against proposed reforms of the EU Common Fisheries Policy unless they implement an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management, end discards in relation to all fish and shellfish with derogation only for species proven to have a high survival rate on discarding, require that all fish and shellfish are harvested at sustainable levels by 2015, ensure the involvement of fishers and other stakeholders in decision-making processes and enable the UK to introduce higher standards of management and conservation in respect of all vessels fishing within its territorial waters, taking into particular account vessel size and environmental impact.
Business Support (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about my constituency. It is always a pleasure and an opportunity to give Ministers more information about the needs of the area, as I am sure it is a pleasure for them to hear it. I want to focus on the experiences and needs of businesses there, and say a little about the economic development that is also needed.
By way of background, Fleetwood is an old fishing port that is celebrating its 175th anniversary this year; I am almost repeating what I said in the previous debate. The fishing fleet has seriously declined over the past few decades, to the point that, although a few dozen fishing boats are registered at Fleetwood, only three boats actually now fish from the site. Until recently, Stena Lines ran a ferry route from Fleetwood to Larne in Northern Ireland; it withdrew the route back in December.
Fish processing is the main industry, and the internationally famous Fisherman’s Friend is also a large employer. Transport links are poor, however. According to the Association of Train Operators, Fleetwood is part of one of the largest urban areas in the country without a direct rail link, something that I raised—
Eric Ollerenshaw
I raised the issue of a direct rail link in a Westminster Hall debate a couple of weeks ago, and the only other transport link is a single-lane road, the A585, from the motorway. The overriding story, as everyone in Fleetwood will say, is that the town has suffered significantly in recent years, largely as the use of the port has declined.
Lancaster, at the other extreme of the constituency, is also an old port city, and it has a great heritage. Its medieval castle includes the only example left in England of anything that was built by John of Gaunt, and its tourist potential is strong. Lancaster university is ranked in the top 10 by The Times, it has a large campus and its research is driving many business developments in the area. What Lancaster lacks is a large modern department store, meaning that its retail business pales in comparison with places such as Preston, which is increasingly taking business away. I hope that a proposed development, known as Centros, will resolve that in the next few years, so long as English Heritage can overcome some points of detail which have held up the project.
We also have a large rural area, with small hill farms and various other businesses established around the city boundaries, but again there is a problem with a lack of rural broadband, particularly in the hills surrounding Lancaster, so the question is: how do we help business and the private sector in Lancaster and Fleetwood to grow?
Much of what is needed is the same as what businesses need all over the country, and I will start with the generic, throw in some local examples and then move on to some more constituency concerns. The outcome of Project Merlin, to get the banks to lend more—an extra £11 billion this year compared with 2010—is obviously welcome, but perhaps one of the biggest complaints that I still receive, from small businesses especially, is that they continue to struggle to secure finance from the banks, whether new capital or just an overdraft extension. In many cases there is simply a lack of good customer service, with bank managers and decision makers not being available.
For example, Mr lain Bailey, a small businessman based in Lancaster, says that he still struggles to engage productively with his bank when he needs to; that
“many businesses feel banks have left us all adrift”;
and that it is simply
“up to the businesses themselves to sort things out!”
My local chamber of commerce, Lancaster chamber of commerce, in its most recent members survey on finance and banking, received a number of disconcerting comments. Here are just a few examples from individual businesses in Lancaster. One said:
“Our bank is very unhelpful at the moment and have no leeway and appear to be too inflexible.”
Another business person said:
“I was refused a formal overdraft increase but allowed excess at punitive cost.”
A further business noted:
“Even though we had a business account with our bank for over 25 years they refused to even give us an answer when we applied for a loan.”
And finally, one more business explained:
“I asked to increase my overdraft to help ease cash flow but our bank forced us to reduce it by £10,000 instead!"
It is clear that in some cases the banks are still not living up to their end of the bargain, so perhaps the Minister will let me know where we are on bank lending, and whether there is any mechanism that will allow businesses, or perhaps MPs acting on their behalf, to report ongoing problems for his Department to follow up.
I welcome the end of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, and the new local enterprise partnership structure should lead to more targeted, specific and relevant assistance for places such as Lancaster and Fleetwood. One problem with the Northwest Regional Development Agency involved the fact that, for many of us in the region, the view rapidly developed that the north-west began and ended in Manchester and on Merseyside. Sadly, I will have to return to that theme later, but if I do nothing else today I hope to make it clear to the Minister that that is definitely not the case.
I also think that the new local enterprise partnership—LEP—structures can lead to more direct input from local businesses, and that can only be good for ensuring that schemes are of real practical value. In Lancashire we have taken slightly longer than some other places to get our LEP agreed, but I thank the Minister’s Department for its help in finally enabling us to bring the various parts of Lancashire together. I put on record my personal thanks to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his efforts in trying to ensure that Lancashire finally got a Lancashire-wide LEP.
However, in the interim period local businesses are very uncertain about how the new regime will work. The Lancaster chamber of commerce—and it is not alone—says that it needs more clarification on what support there will be, who will deliver it, and how to access it. Once Business Link regional services close, people wonder what vehicle will be used to keep businesses informed of what support is available. They need to know more about the mechanisms that will be available to support and encourage new businesses, to assist potential high-growth businesses and to encourage business development in areas of deprivation, and about how the interrelations between the various councils, regenerations and Government bodies is to develop. There is still work to be done, especially as our LEP has only just started to be set up. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is as much communication as possible with local businesses, and particularly local chambers of commerce, over the next few months so that the various communities can begin to plan properly for the future.
According to the Library, 42.2% of the population of Lancaster and Fleetwood is employed in the public sector—the 37th highest proportion in the UK. As cuts are made to public spending, the Government’s agenda for growth in the private sector will be disproportionately important in constituencies such as mine, and I want to ensure that we get our fair share of resources and that all that can be done to encourage private sector growth in my area is done.
The regional growth fund is a big opportunity for businesses, an opportunity for individual companies, and a help in regenerating the whole area. In the north-west we have welcomed the Government’s recognition of the distinction between the south-east and the east and the rest of the country, and the fact that the regional growth fund’s priority is our kind of area. The first round of successful regional growth fund bids lists an impressive number of jobs that the supported first round schemes will help to create or maintain in the wider north-west.
However, my concern about the first round process is that a lot of the criteria are determined by European subsidy rules, which in effect means that support for large companies can be offered only to particularly low-employment or deprived parts of the country. Assisted areas in the north-west include Liverpool, St Helens and parts of Manchester. The other parts of the north-west are missing. For example, a major manufacturer based in Lancaster that employs 150 people wanted to expand, and was looking into the possibility of bidding for regional growth fund money to do so. It was determined that it could provide 50% more jobs through its expansion. However, its turnover was above the threshold for assistance outside the special assisted areas, and it was effectively hamstrung in terms of accessing regional growth fund money. I remind the Minister that this is about the possibility of new jobs.
Those rules have thus resulted in most of the resources of the first round regional growth fund bids going to big city areas such as Manchester and Liverpool—precisely the situation that I had hoped the break up of the RDAs was going to help to avoid. We accept that this will help my constituents, many of whom either already commute to Manchester each day or would be prepared to do so. However, I hope that phase 2 of the bidding process will include more support for north-west companies outside Manchester and Liverpool—companies that can show that they can provide the extra jobs and growth that I understood were this Government’s priority.
Perhaps that would be more likely to happen if more bids were accepted from small and medium-sized enterprises, but the return on investment required for a successful regional growth fund bid has in some ways limited applications from that sector. SMEs often do not have the resources to compile the data required for entering into the bidding process—at least not on their own—and so we come back to support for businesses in terms of information and guidance to help them through the bidding process.
That brings me on to the related subject of enterprise zones. I broadly welcome the Government’s creation of enterprise zones. They have the potential to bring much-needed investment into areas that need jobs and regeneration. They also have a key role to play in closing the north-south divide and rebalancing the economy, which is a major aim of the Government. Of the 11 zones that have been announced, the two in the north-west are in—you’ve guessed it—Manchester and Liverpool. Although I welcome those zones because they will drag business northwards and create hubs of industry that neighbouring areas can feed off, I am concerned that, yet again, it is the big cities of the north-west that will get the immediate benefit. I hope that more original locations will emerge when the remaining 10 enterprise zones are allocated, possibly helping areas further north than Manchester. An enterprise zone on the Fylde coast, for example, would be welcome, because it would help to provide jobs not only for my constituents in Fleetwood, but in the wider areas of Blackpool and Fylde, as well as providing new business orders for local businesses.
Transport infrastructure is also necessary for businesses to thrive. The coalition has done well in that area so far. After years of underinvestment in our transport network under Labour, in just one year there has been a lot of good news for the north-west, and for my constituents in particular. The renewal of the west coast franchise offers extra capacity for the overcrowded rail services on that route. In the longer term, High Speed 2 offers more capacity, speed and choice for journeys to London and, ultimately, Scotland. It might also open a direct link to Heathrow and the channel tunnel.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
As usual, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case for his business community. He makes an important point about high-speed rail. Is he aware that evidence from other countries shows that the success of a high-speed line often depends on the degree of connectivity to the termini of those lines from areas such as his? We should do all we can to encourage businesses to make their voices heard in the current high-speed rail consultation.
Eric Ollerenshaw
My hon. Friend makes a significant point. High Speed 2 is critical to the north-west and to Yorkshire. We should talk about it as a line that will go from London to Manchester and from London to Leeds, and eventually from London to Glasgow and from London to Edinburgh. As hon. Members may know, I have said in other places that I do not see why we do not start building south from Glasgow and Edinburgh now, while the areas around London argue about where their terminus will be. The point is clear: High Speed 2 is vital in the long term for business in my area, and in my constituency in particular.
The other helpful development is the proposed northern hub, which will allow faster and more frequent services between the cities of the north and bring an estimated £4 billion of benefits to the region. That will be good for business and for job creation. In particular, the electrification of the line from Preston to Blackpool will be a major help to the growth of business in my area.
I am also pleased that the Department for Transport has finally agreed that the M6 to Heysham link road should go ahead. It has been on the drawing board for 50-odd years. When it is finally built, it should lead to better communication to the port of Heysham, which will help businesses and attract new businesses on both the Morecambe and Lancaster sides of the River Lune, and along the M6 corridor.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new link road will create pockets of investment in my constituency and in his constituency next door?
Eric Ollerenshaw
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in working with the chamber of commerce, the county council and Ministers to help them see the importance of that scheme, which promises much for business.
The transport links to Fleetwood remain poor. I have raised with Ministers the fact that although there is about four and a half or five miles of railway line in Fleetwood, unfortunately there are no trains on it. There is a plan, with the support of the council, to get that development, which needs capital of about £6 million. I will come back to those figures in a minute.
My last general point is that I fully support the plans to reduce the amount of red tape that businesses have to fight through. We need economic growth, and it is only right that we should make it as easy as possible for businesses and entrepreneurs to start up companies and create the jobs that are so badly needed. That is the greatest area in which businesses have asked me for support and talked about their hopes from the coalition.
The Government’s war on red tape—the red tape challenge, I think it has been branded—is welcomed by all businesses. I know that many previous Governments have talked the talk, but I hope this Administration will finally walk the walk. I am particularly hopeful of that because I know that the Minister has that type of background and has personal experience. I am sure that he will put his full weight behind the deregulation drive.
Those are the general issues, but I also wish to mention one or two specific local examples to demonstrate the problems. The first is that of a company called Nitratec, which is based in Fleetwood and supplies trucks and trailers both new and used for the UK and export markets. It asked me to visit last year. It was having a particular problem in getting help to access export markets, particularly in some less usual export destinations. For instance, it was keen to grow into Africa and Kurdistan. As it happened, I was able to put it on to the British embassy in Iraq via a couple of contacts, and I understand that that side of things is now going well. The lesson is that perhaps we could still be doing more to help companies understand where they can go to get assistance if they want to export goods or services. In that instance, it was just a fluke that I had contacts in the particular area where the company wanted to develop, but why should a business that has such potential have to rely on the chance nature of its MP’s contacts?
Increasing exports is, of course, a major policy plank for the UK. I note that only yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that if we could increase the number of small and medium-sized enterprise exporters in this country from one in five to the EU average of one in four, the extra exports from Britain would more than cancel out the trade deficits that we have experienced in recent years. I hope that more can be done to help companies get on the right track.
I shall give another example. Paul Banks is a constituent of mine who has a start-up business in Lancaster called Image Alchemy. It is highly innovative, as I saw when I visited him a couple of months ago. His potential for further growth is extremely high, and Lancaster university’s environment centre has recently “adopted” him, marking his business out as worthy of support. His new prototype system was an immediate hit at a recent German trade fair and a fair at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, and order inquiries came pouring in. To get the system to production he needs to get finance, which could mean the immediate creation of five new jobs in the community.
Mr Banks has funded the new product with his own money, but he has struggled to access local and EU funding designed to help expand small start-ups such as his. The bureaucracy that he has encountered in seeking a small five-figure sum has bogged him down with repetitive form-filling, but the rewards if his expansion can be aided are potentially huge. The key point that I wish to underline is the small sum needed to get the company launched. We need to make it easier for such businesses to find funding, especially when the sums needed are so small.
Another example is a scheme called the fish park in Fleetwood. One of the plans for the regeneration of Fleetwood was to develop a sea and shellfish processing park, providing a new unit for the already resident company AM Seafoods and various other units for some 20 SMEs. The industry is already worth some £135 million and 660 jobs to the local economy, but the enhancement and modern premises could mean the addition of 150 new jobs in a town that needs private sector growth.
A partnership between Wyre borough council, Lancashire county council and AM Seafoods is in place, and the plan is to split the costs 50:50 between the private and public sector. The public sector amount required is £6 million. The point that I am trying to make is that the sums needed in areas outside the major areas of deprivation are quite small, but the resulting employment would be quite large. In my postbag and my surgeries, virtually every fortnight I hear of a new business, whether small or large—although the businesses in my area are not huge—that has the same problem. Through innovation or expanding on existing orders, they could provide the extra jobs that the economy needs, but at the moment there seems no way for them to get assistance with that growth, and certainly not from the banks.
I need to give the Minister time to reply. I should like him to reconsider regional stock exchanges, and I should like him to consider enterprise zones being part and parcel of every university campus, to enable universities to develop innovation. Most of all, I look for some assistance from the Government, or for them to put pressure on banks to provide that much-needed assistance, so that we get the growth we need.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
I am extremely grateful for the chance to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing it. My last dealings with Fleetwood directly were around a decade ago, when, as shadow fisheries Minister, I visited that splendid town and stayed at the North Euston hotel, which is, of course, part of the Mount, which is perhaps the jewel in the crown—if I might put it that way—of Fleetwood.
How appropriate that we should today have this Adjournment debate following a debate on fishing, which forms such an important part of Fleetwood’s history. As I recall from my time as shadow fisheries Minister and from information I have gained somewhat later, 1,000 people are still employed in that industry, mostly in fish processing. As my hon. Friend said in his excellent speech, many more people are, I suspect, employed producing Fishermen’s Friends, which I understand are particularly popular in Japan.
John Ruskin said that the first test of a truly great man is his humility. I do not aspire to be a truly great man, but I do aspire to humility, and I should say at the outset that I could never know as much as my hon. Friend about his constituency, nor speak with the passion about it that he has demonstrated today. He comes to the House with a long and proud history in local government, and already, he has brought an energy, enthusiasm, commitment and, if I may say, an expertise to his dealings in this place as the representative of his splendid constituency.
I shall try to respond to as many of the points that my hon. Friend raised as I can, although he will appreciate that time is short. He knows how deeply the Government are committed to encouraging renewed economic growth and the new jobs and businesses that will spring from that, and I draw his attention to the work done leading up to today and the announcement on youth employment made this afternoon by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, with which I was pleased to be involved. They announced new policies for encouraging more apprenticeships, which is a subject dear to my heart, and for work placements and experience as a means of moving people from economic disengagement to engagement.
That will resonate in Fleetwood, as my hon. Friend suggests, but ensuring that we take advantage of the capital that lies, sometimes unused, among those who are currently disengaged, is a challenge for the whole country. The investment infrastructure to which he drew attention also means investing in human infrastructure. That is a central pillar of the Government’s macro-economic plans. It would be impossible to recalibrate the economy to make it more sustainable if we did not make that kind of investment, as he properly said.
Just as the Government have been honest with the British people about the scale of the deficit and its implications, we must now accept that the struggle for growth will not be without its setbacks. For example, I was particularly saddened to hear from my hon. Friend of Stena Line’s recent decision to close its service between Fleetwood and Larne, although I understand that the service operated at a loss for some time.
Having said that, just as we accept bad news, we should celebrate good news—better tidings, if I can put it that way. Only the other day, I was heartened to read in the Blackpool Gazette, which is always on my bedside table, as one might imagine, that my hon. Friend had formally opened the delightfully named Strawberry Gardens pub in Fleetwood. I gather that that is the first pub to be opened by the new and even more inventively titled Fuzzy Duck brewery, which has been set up in his constituency. I can assure him of my best wishes for their success.
The creation of a small business such as that one illustrates a fundamentally important point, as my hon. Friend said, for small businesses are the bedrock of our economy. Businesses in Lancaster and Fleetwood are primarily small and medium-sized enterprises, and the issues they face are typical of those experienced by companies across the country over the past few years. SMEs account for more than 99% of private businesses, and about half of all jobs. I do not need to tell you that, Mr Deputy Speaker, given your background and your commitment to that sector based on personal and family experience.
As my hon. Friend suggested, I, too, have a background in business, having been a businessman in the IT industry before coming to this place. I fully appreciate his points about regulation and tax, and in particular about the need to invest in small businesses—and, for that reason, the importance of banks getting behind those businesses, to allow them to form and to grow.
What, he might ask, are we doing to help with all that? Well, we will enable better access to both debt and equity finance. We will ensure that we have a predictable tax system that rewards endeavour. We will also reduce red tape and ensure that the support that we provide SMEs is delivered in the most effective and efficient way possible. I hope to return to one or two of those points in more detail, but I want to emphasise access to finance in particular, as that was a central part of my hon. Friend’s speech. As he said, the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth; and indeed, that is the core priority for this Government. We recognise the problems faced by small firms that do not have adequate security to obtain finance. That is why we have decided to continue the enterprise finance guarantee until 2015, to unlock up to £2 billion of additional lending to SMEs. The latest figures show that 18 businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency have so far been offered and have drawn down EFG-backed loans worth over £2 million.
The EFG scheme is of course intended to complement rather than replace mainstream bank lending. This Government have made considerable efforts to get the banks to meet the demand for credit from viable SMEs. Under the Project Merlin agreement, the banks have committed to make available £190 billion of new credit in 2011, of which £76 billion will be for SMEs—a 15% increase on the £66 billion lent in 2010. Clearly Banks still need to make commercial decisions, and it is not for the Government to intervene in these. In view of that, I would encourage any businesses having difficulties with their bank to continue to engage with the bank to try to resolve the issue.
My hon. Friend also made the important point that we need an independent review of such matters when things do not go right; and indeed, an independent reviewer has been appointed to monitor the banks’ appeal processes. He will publish an annual report on the effectiveness of those processes. The appeal process that we have set up is sensitive to the very sound points that my hon. Friend made. He can feel absolutely assured that this Minister, in this Department, along with my hon. Friends, will ensure that small businesses get the backing that they need and deserve.
My hon. Friend also talked about business mentors and advice. It is critical that we establish a network of experienced business mentors offering practical advice to existing businesses and people who want to start a business. We are setting up a new business coaching for growth programme to enable new small businesses with high growth potential to realise that potential. We are also refocusing the Solutions for Business range of products, so that they are better focused on helping firms grow.
We are also establishing local enterprise partnerships. We expect the new LEPs to be able to provide help to small firms, both with advice and by bringing together useful partnerships that will allow the sharing of good practice across the private and public sectors. That increased coherence will help my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it will others, in the ways that he requested. As set out in the White Paper, local enterprise partnerships will play diverse roles, reflecting the differing local priorities in different areas. These will include ensuring that both planning and infrastructure investment support business needs, and working with Government to support enterprise, innovation, global trade and inward investment. He will also know that we announced 11 enterprise zones in the Budget. They will be hosted by LEPs and will bring together a wide range of tools and incentives in an unashamedly pro-growth way, giving power back to local communities and businesses.
My hon. Friend has done a service to this House in highlighting the important issues facing his constituency. They reflect those facing constituencies up and down this country. He can be assured that this is a Government who are pro-business, pro-enterprise, pro-growth, pro his constituency and pro-him.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ruffley
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much (a) her Department and (b) its agencies have spent on the (i) design and production of new logos and (ii) employment of external (A) public relations and (B) graphic design agencies for each project of logo design or redesign in each year since 2000.
[Official Report, 3 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 652-54W.]
Letter of correction from Mr Damien Green:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) on 3 May 2011. The answer should not have included the 2005-06 spend attributed to the Information Commissioner, as it was not a Home Office agency.
The correct answer should have been:
Damian Green
The following table summarises the spend of the Home Office and its agencies (Identity and Passport Service (IPS), Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and UK Border Agency) on logo design and employment of public relations and graphic design agencies, broken down by project.
It is not possible to separate out design costs from design agency costs, and therefore costs provided above cover parts (a) and (b).
The Home Office has spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2008-09.
The UK Border Agency and IPS have spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2007-08.
CRB have spent nothing on design or production of new logos or on the employment of external public relations agencies for any project of logo design or redesign since 2002-03.
Owner | Project | Description | Cost (£) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2000-01 | HO | New Home Office corporate ID | Design, research, project management and style guidelines | 155,000 |
2001-02 | CRB | Criminal Records Bureau | Design and production of new logos and external Public Relations | 120,000 |
HO | Fire Service Branding | Design | 2,914 | |
HO | Positive Futures Branding | Design | 4,000 | |
HO | Drugs Prevention Advisory Service Rebrand | Design | 10.000 | |
Total 2001-02 | 291,914 | |||
2002-03 | CRB | Criminal Records Bureau | Design and production of new logos and external Public Relations | 200,000 |
2003-04 | HO | Active Communities Unit | Logo development and corporate ID | 45,200 |
HO | Immigration and Nationality Directorate IRIS Recognition Branding | Design and production | 35,000 | |
Total 2003-04 | 80,200 | |||
2004-05 | HO | Home Office | Modification and update of brand guidelines | 5,500 |
HO | National Offender Management Service | Identity creation, production of artwork and branding guidelines | 46,000 | |
HO | Her Majesty's Prison Service | Modification of logo and production of brand guidelines | 10,500 | |
HO | National Probation Service | Modification of logo and production of brand guidelines | 10,230 | |
HO | Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority | Logo update and literature production update | 4,999 | |
HO | Tackling Drugs, Changing Lives programme | Design and production of new logo | 21,890 | |
HO | Senior Careers Advisory Service | Design and production of new materials | 4,260 | |
HO | Immigration and Nationality Directorate | Research and registration of IRIS logo | 4,395 | |
HO | CENTREX Police Training Branding | Design and production | 15,280 | |
Total 2004-05 | 123,054 | |||
2005-06 | HO | Senior Careers Advisory Service | Final production costs relating to 04-05 work | 734 |
HO | Drugs Intervention Programme | Production to refresh programme materials in line with core Tackling Drugs, Changing Lives brand | 10,280 | |
HO | Respect | Design, research, project management and style guidelines | 56,733 | |
HO | CENTREX Police Training Branding | Final production | 3,760 | |
HO | Criminal Justice IT Programme | Design and production of materials to support programme | 10,080 | |
Total 2005-06 | 82,187 | |||
2006-07 | IPS | Identify and Passport Service | Brand clinics and brand photography | 37,825 |
2007-08 | IPS | Identify and Passport Service | Brand workshops and brand photography | 17,304 |
BIA | Immigration and Nationality Directorate rebrand as Border and Immigration Agency | Identity creation, production of artwork and branding guidelines | 79,920 | |
UKBA | Border and Immigration Agency rebrand as UK Border Agency | Logo and template design and brand guidelines | 30,200 | |
HO | Home Office brand refresh | Design | 2,540 | |
Total 2007-08 | 129,964 | |||
2008-09 | HO | Knives campaign | Design and publication of stakeholder comms materials | 50,000 |
Petitions
Green Belt Land (Mangotsfield, South Gloucestershire)
Sentencing Guidelines (Manslaughter)
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 12 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
Education Performance
(12 years, 12 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
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I am delighted to have secured this debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Underlying many of the key questions facing us, such as where our future growth will come from and issues about youth employment, is our country’s education performance, and how it compares with that of our international competitors. There has been much soul-searching around the world about education performance, so when Germany did badly in the programme for international student assessment tables in 2000, it upped the academic standards in many of its technical schools to address the issue. Other countries have delayed specialisation, and the US has introduced new policies in teaching. In Britain, there is not enough soul-searching, either in politics or in the wider education community and establishment, about our performance.
I want to talk about how our results compare internationally, the impact of that, and the main causes. I have identified two. The first is the false choice that is often presented between quality and quantity in our education system, which has led to a decline in standards, and the second is our process-orientated system, which does not rely on the student driving it. I also want to talk about how we can start to move towards the high-quality mass education system that should be our goal in Britain.
There has been much coverage of the hourglass economy. The number of high-skilled jobs has grown by 30% in the past 10 years, and the number of medium-skilled jobs has declined by 10%. There is an increasing return to education throughout the global economy, and if the 20th century was a human capital century, surely we will see an acceleration of that in the 21st century.
The US was very successful in the 20th century, having universal high school education and increased college access, but it has acknowledged that the quality was not there, although the quantity was. There has been a catching-up with that in the UK, where participation has increased at high school and university level, but unfortunately quality has fallen. We see the evidence for that in the PISA league tables. Although flawed, as all international comparisons are, they at least represent students sitting the same test in each country. They show that Britain has dropped to 28th in maths, 16th in science and 25th in reading. Some people will cite TIMSS—the trends in the international mathematics and science study—which shows that the UK came seventh, but we were still behind the Asian elite countries, such as Japan and Hong Kong, and France and Germany were not included in the comparison. However we look at the issue and however it is sliced and diced, we are performing worse than we should as the sixth largest economy in the world.
As well as our current standards not being good enough, our historical standards have also been poor. The problem is deep and historical. According to a CBI survey, 40% of people in the UK do not have basic skills, compared with 34% in the US, 28% in France and 22% in Germany, yet the political debate in this country has been dominated by the idea that our standards are rising year on year, despite the fact that we are clearly not producing enough rigorously educated students to fill available jobs. Schools are producing strings of A* students, when there would previously have been a smattering of As. According to Durham university, a maths A-level grade E in 1988 would now be a C or even higher.
There is still a persistent failure in basic qualifications, with 45% of students not achieving a GCSE in England and maths at grade C or above. The economic impact of all that is clear, and I see it in South West Norfolk, where companies struggle to recruit skilled engineers and graduate business managers, and we have a shortage of teachers in critical subjects such as maths. Between 1997 and 2007—the boom years for our economy—the number of jobs increased, but the majority were taken by people from overseas, many of whom filled our skill gaps. Employers consistently say that they are not satisfied with the quality of people leaving school and university—71% are unhappy with language skills, and half of all universities have remedial courses in English and maths to bring students up to standard. I have spoken to academics at Cambridge university, Greenwich university and throughout our university sector who say that our education system is not delivering people who are ready to learn and able to think for themselves. That is a crucial problem.
Some people say that it is inevitable that if we have more people in our school system, send more people to university, and have higher participation, standards will decline. They claim that there is a trade-off between mass education and standards. I have heard it said during the past year that some students are not suited to such education and are not up to it because they are not academic. I think that belief is holding our country back, compared with other countries, and has driven an unwelcome change in our school system.
Encouraged by the crazy equivalence in league tables and UCAS points, media studies has been given the same value as mathematics in our league tables. I studied both subjects, and I know that they are not equivalent. That has hastened the flight from academic subjects, particularly in comprehensive schools in this country. Employers and universities are absolutely clear about what they want: they want maths, languages, science, and people who can think and analyse. Nevertheless, fewer and fewer people are studying those subjects, and there has been a fall in the number studying GCSE languages from 79% to 44%. There was a fall in the number studying core academic subjects at A-level from 60% to 50% between 1996 and 2010.
That is a uniquely British phenomenon. It is not happening elsewhere. In fact, academic standards elsewhere are being tightened, so at the end of high school in a top US state such as Massachusetts, students will be studying maths, science, humanities and languages. In France, all students studying for the French baccalaureate study maths, French and foreign languages. In Japan, 95% of 18-year-old students are studying maths, sciences, languages and humanities. We are an outlier. Indeed, the Nuffield Foundation produced a report that showed that we are unusual in not requiring maths from 16 to 18, and that is feeding through into our school system. Unfortunately, we now have primary school teachers—I have seen this in classrooms—who do not understand maths concepts, and are unable to communicate those concepts to the next generation.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes interesting international comparisons. Does she have any data for China and India, the two great economic superpowers of the 21st century that she rightly heralds? The great changes being made in schools in those countries, and their passion for what my hon. Friend would regard as hard subjects, is equally important, and augurs badly for the state of our education system.
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that the Shanghai region of China is included in the study that I mentioned. The appetite for education in some of those countries—as shown by the thousands of applications for the Indian Institute of Technology—shows a cultural attitude towards education that will help drive those countries in the future.
In Britain, we hear the idea that introducing new subjects is somehow modern, or that it is inclusive to different types of people and that is what is wanted by employers in the broader world. That is simply not the case, and the accusation that it is somehow retrograde or old-fashioned to want those core subjects is wrong. We can see the subjects studied by our international competitors. The reason why those subjects are taken is that an in-depth study of an academic discipline provides a level of rigour and the ability to analyse and think, which prepares a person for any kind of job. Technology is changing rapidly, and we do not know what skills and abilities we will need in 20 or 30 years’ time. Studying an academic discipline to a high level gives a person that vital ability to think and learn. Such study is not an elitist or minority pursuit. If it were, how come 95% of students in Japan already study in that way? Why do many emerging countries aspire to study those subjects?
The system in Britain actively encourages students to study subjects that provide little return. I was pleased to hear the announcement earlier by the Secretary of State for Education that some of those qualifications will be removed from the league table, but I think we should go further and also remove low-quality GCSEs and A-levels that are not equivalent to the more rigorous core subjects. Our system hampers young people’s chances of going to university, particularly our country’s top universities. Computer programming can be studied at Oxford, but it requires maths, not an A-level in information and communication technology. A student is 20 times more likely to study A-level law if they attend a sixth-form college as opposed to a private school. If they take that subject, however, it will not help them to study law at a Russell group university, because that is specifically prohibited. Students are being misled about the kinds of subjects that will help them get ahead in life.
This debate is not only about the sort of subjects that people study, but about the way some subjects are studied. A combination of modular examinations and bureaucratic intervention has damaged the intellectual integrity of many subjects at A-level. I frequently hear academics in universities complaining that students do not have a holistic view of the subject, and that they have been taught a pick-and-mix of various elements and therefore do not have the deep understanding and practice that they need to move to a higher level.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Before the hon. Lady leaves the topic of subject choice, I recently visited many schools around the country, and the strong message coming across from young people was that they become interested in, and start thinking about, what they want to do quite early—perhaps as early as year 6 of primary school or the first year of secondary school. By the time they receive what they regard as good advice, it may be too late to have an influence on the subject choices that they need to make to achieve their aspirations. The hon. Lady makes an important point; it is about starting early and not underestimating pupils’ competence.
Elizabeth Truss
I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. Too often, limiting choices are made early in a student’s educational career. I support the English baccalaureate because if that becomes a more general qualification, people will not limit their choices early on. The lesson from other education systems seems to be that delayed specialisation is a good thing, and that too much early specialisation has a damaging effect. I oppose the suggestion that GCSEs be taken earlier, for example, as I think that would be damaging.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful speech. On early specialisation, and given the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), does she believe that selection at age 11, for example, is a good idea?
Elizabeth Truss
I would not personally have such a system, but existing grammar schools do very well, and to abolish the most successful schools would be a mistake; we should improve the other schools instead. My point is about how wide a choice students are given in each school. I am all for freeing up schools and enabling them to select should they so desire. A school in my constituency, for example, wants to select the 20% of pupils who find school hardest. That is a good thing, because it will put a group of learners together to study and achieve academic qualifications. I am in favour of more flexibility, although I am not in favour of imposing mass-selection across the education system.
I was speaking about examinations and how they have changed. One of my concerns is that in trying to ensure that examinations are fair for all students, a lot of use of judgment has been removed. For example, rather than having multi-step questions in which a student has to think about where they want to get to, we have one-step questions that ask for a simple response. That has damaged the ability of young people to think, be flexible and solve problems.
Our system has also diminished the role of teachers, who, for too long, have been forced to jump through hoops. We have a textbook regime; many textbooks are designed by exam boards and are essentially “how to” guides on how to pass the exam, rather than engendering a deep knowledge and interest in the subject. I speak to a lot of teachers who spend their weekends preparing lessons for the week ahead and essentially reinventing the wheel in subjects that have been taught for decades, if not centuries. Teachers in other countries often use a respected textbook that enables students to study in their own time, rather than only in the classroom. One of our problems is that not enough responsibility for study is given to the student; instead, it is passed to the system. The student is seen simply as a cog in the wheel, or a sausage in the factory. A process that focuses on getting through the exam encourages students to value education as a piece of paper, rather than as a way of gaining and developing capability.
I am an ardent free marketer, and in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I generally support freedom. However, I question our current set-up of examination boards, which is not a free market but an oligopoly of three organisations in a system. The innovation mentioned by those exam boards often involves innovating a race to the bottom to put easier qualifications into schools. The system also involves an incredible amount of regulation from Ofqual, which I have criticised in the past and which consumes a lot of public money. There is a strong reason for us to look again at the examination system and at how it can be better delivered. If we are to have national standards for exams such as the E-bac, and if we are to regulate exam boards, does it make sense to have those three exam boards in their current structure?
The issue of textbooks urgently needs to be addressed. We are one of the only countries in the world with this exam board structure, and where textbooks are set by the exam board. In my view, that is a conflict of interest. It would be better if independent bodies produced textbooks that students could study, and with which they could take responsibility for their own learning.
I mentioned subject choice. I want particularly to address the issues relating to low-income students, because one of the worst aspects of our educational performance is how much we let down low-income students compared with other countries. The OECD particularly highlighted that in its report; 77% of the performance in UK schools is down to socio-economic background. That is the second highest percentage after Luxembourg.
On the point about subject choice, someone at a private school or grammar school is twice as likely to study A-level maths as someone at a comprehensive school, and three times as likely to study a modern language. Students at comprehensives are seven times more likely to study media studies than students at private or grammar schools. What we have is essentially a reintroduction of the secondary modern in our school system. That huge segregation is a big problem. I have met bright students who are studying subjects such as psychology and media studies. Realistically, they will not have the opportunity to go to Russell group universities. We need seriously to address that.
The other point to make about Britain is that a study from Chicago showed that we have the largest differential between the teaching qualifications of teachers teaching low-income and high-income students. We are actively giving worse teachers to low-income students compared with other countries. The present Government have made excellent progress in reforming the supply side of our education system—opening up academies, developing the free schools programme and reforming the teaching profession. I would like further reforms, including an abolition of national pay bargaining. I would like teaching to become a really well-respected profession, and would like teachers to lead on some of the issues that I have been talking about.
However, the reform that we look to across our education system cannot be just about Government. We have been through 25 or 30 years of education reforms that Governments have tried to drive from the centre. That has happened under both Labour and Conservative Governments. It has shown that a wand cannot be waved by central Government. There must be a change in education culture in this country, and that must involve many institutions and people. One reason why I was so keen to have the debate today was to open up the discussion, not just in Parliament but at national level, about what sort of education system we aspire to.
We need to end the mindset that trades off quality and quantity. It is possible to have a high-quality, high-quantity education system. Countries such as Japan and Germany show that. Germany shows that it is possible to reform a system that has previously educated just the elite so that it becomes a much more broadly based system. The Germans are doing well on that basis. The English baccalaureate is a good start to focusing on the core subjects. We need to widen the number of people taking it. Reporting it on a points basis would be a good idea. Reporting how every student does proportionally on the E-bac would be a good idea. I would like that to be extended to A-levels, so that we get rid of the divide in what A-levels students are studying in different types of schools.
There is a strong case for removing low-value A-levels and GCSEs from the league tables. I said earlier that I thought that there was mis-selling of some vocational qualifications that were given the same value as other qualifications. We are lying to students if we say that those qualifications are of equal weight and worth when they are not. All we are doing is putting our universities in a very difficult position, because they are not getting the necessary applications. We are not getting people ready to enter the top universities because they simply have not studied the necessary subjects.
Simon Hughes
I will intervene just once more; I have come here specifically to hear the hon. Lady. Will she accept that another thing that might help—consensus appears to be growing on this—would be for all schools to have to publish information about their successes in widening participation and access? That would enable people to know where young people go on to from a school—what they do after 16 when they have those choices. Once we start showing that to the wider world, people will start challenging those schools that have a poverty of ambition and a poverty of aspiration.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that transparency is the way forward. I would like every school to find its 10 brightest pupils and suggest to them that they apply to the top universities—Oxford and Cambridge and the Russell group universities—so that we monitor how many people are applying from each school. I plan to write to every school in my constituency, asking them how many students from their school applied to Oxford and Cambridge and encouraging such applications next year. There are six secondary schools in South West Norfolk. I am sure that there are six secondary schools in many other hon. Members’ constituencies, and that is something we can all do.
My dad is an academic, so I was strongly encouraged in that direction, but many students at the Leeds comprehensive that I went to did not have aspirations in that direction and, frankly, a lot of teachers were not very supportive of those aspirations, perhaps because they had not been to such a university themselves or because they did not have any knowledge of them. There is a culture that needs to change, particularly in our comprehensive schools, so that those universities are seen as a place for the brightest students in the country, not just those who fit into a social perception.
I have already talked about reforming the examinations system so that we stop the tail wagging the dog. It is important that we understand what subjects ought to be examinable at that level, and ensure that the quality holds, rather than allowing a system of downward innovation, which is what we have seen in the past few years.
I hope that this is the start of a debate. I am very pleased to see so many hon. Members here on a Thursday afternoon. That shows the interest in the subject. Other countries have shown that it is possible to have a high-quality mass education system. We can do that here, but we need a lot of things to change, and it is about time we changed them.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing the debate. I was delighted to support her in securing it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time.
I will start with a quote that might ruffle your feathers, Mr Rosindell: “Education, education, education.” Perhaps that is the one thing on which I agreed with the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair—how important education is in our country. It is very important that we give our youngsters the best chance in life, to allow them to cast their net further and wider, so that they can reap a rich catch in life and become big fish in a big pond, not minnows in shark-infested waters.
Education performance matters for our country at different levels. At macro level, it is about preparing people to be innovative, and making them ready for business and work—ready to be our future doctors, nurses and teachers. It is about creating people who are flexible and skilled—people who will do the everyday jobs, as well as the ones that involve scanning the world for new wealth to come to this country. At micro level, it is about having people who are cultured and enlightened, and having a social country in which we live at peace with one another in a culture of respect and tolerance. At individual level, there is no question but that education is the passport to a bigger choice in life and to social mobility, that magic phrase that we often hear now. For me, nothing else fits the bill as well as education.
Educational performance is about preparing not only for university, but for life. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk said that there is a risk of imbalance between vocational and academic choices. Trying to say that one degree is worth the same as, or a similar amount to, another perhaps suggests that not going to university means that one has failed in life. Far from it; we need people to develop all their talents in whatever way they can.
I genuinely believe that every child has talents that can be nurtured through school and later in life, but every child needs a good foundation in reading, writing and mathematics to allow them to succeed. There is no one more disadvantaged than the voter I met in the streets of my constituency the other day, who said that he could not read. He had struggled all his life to find work that did not involve him using his hands. I am not saying that he did not have a valuable skill, but how much more he could have achieved! For instance, he could have set up his own business or something similar. Frankly, even Wayne Rooney and David Beckham need a good educational foundation if they are not to be reliant solely on their lawyers and accountants and are to get the best out of them; they need to be conscious of that.
I will not rattle off a lot of statistics. My hon. Friend has already given us some good evidence, and I know that others are prepared to do so. Instead, I shall take the House on a bit of a personal journey. I do not pretend that my educational history is typical. I did my first O-levels when I was 13; I then did some A-levels and finished my schooling in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I went to university and then changed universities; I effectively stopped attending one and moved to another because I could not cope with the way of learning at the first. I then went on to do a PhD. I do not pretend that that is typical, but during that journey I found out that, in a way, standards have changed, and that is unfair on those who are slightly younger than me. That leads me on to the challenges that the country is struggling with 20 years later. I know of them as a result of my science education.
I am old enough to have taken O-levels; I took them a bit early in 1986. When I went on to do A-levels, I happened for whatever reason to do physics for a year. I was working with students from the lower and upper sixth forms, doing a combined kind of crash course. When I was with one group—I should keep up to date; we now call them year 12 students—I was often told, “Oh, Thérèse, you’ll have to do an extra half hour because year 12 does not need to learn that any more, but you can add that topic during your extra learning out of class.” That happened quite regularly throughout my physics A-level studies.
Some might argue that I took a harder A-level, but that is not strictly fair. I genuinely believe that the year-on-year debate about A-levels, O-levels or GCSEs not being as difficult as they used to be gives rise to a false argument about standards. I do not want to make this into a generational slanging match. I would not say that those studying physics 20 years ago were any brighter than the youngsters doing it today, but the opportunity to stretch the learning, to stretch the imagination, may now be constricted. The differentiation, with more children getting A and A* grades, is the result of youngsters today having to learn a lot less. Frankly, if children now have to learn their times tables only up to three, when before they had to learn them up to 12, it does not surprise me that more children now get their sums right.
Mr Mark Field
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s journey. As she is a Liverpudlian, it must have been a magical mystery tour. Although I agree with much of what she says, I am not sure that she is correct about the exam system. There has been an utter debasing of the results system over the past 20 years in GCSE and O and A-level exams. The results are now largely discredited, and there needs to be an urgent rethink. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said, someone who got a grade E in an A-level exam only a decade and a half ago could now receive a mark as high as grade B. That does not allow great confidence in the system. There has been a debasing of the system, and we need to consider it afresh.
Dr Coffey
I fully accept what my hon. Friend says, but I am trying not to turn this into an inter-generational slanging match. There is nothing worse than getting these wonderful results in August and then, all of a sudden and from whatever quarter—not from politicians but from others—people say, “Oh well, standards are getting lower.” I imagine that that is really hurtful to those receiving their results because, frankly, they are doing the best they can with the course and the exams that are set. It is not their fault, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to challenge the education establishment and the Government.
That brings me to another part of my speech. We should not be ashamed to challenge the education establishment, and even ask it to pause and reflect, in order to improve educational standards and performance. The Government are already doing that with elements of the English baccalaureate. We saw it also with the acceleration of academies under the previous Government. I note that academies have longer school days, and that they build other activities into their school day; school is no longer a half-past 8 to 3 o’clock existence, with pupils then being sent out. Academies allow a much wider existence; they are building an education for the entire person, not just slotting pupils into classes. I accept what my hon. Friend said, but I do not want to attack the young people or teachers of today, because they are already in the system. It is our role to challenge it and to get it changed.
Stepping back a little further, I am sure that many Members who went to university did three-year degree courses. I did my BSc in three years. Just as I was finishing my PhD, I saw that many universities were starting to move to four-year courses, and that is now almost the standard; the degree is now called MSci. Although not many universities will say so, the reason for the change is that when students had finished their A-levels, they did not have enough of the curriculum to grab the university course in year one. It is not that they were doing a remedial year, but they needed a foundation year at university. They could then continue. Some courses were perhaps not really four years; they were three and a half years with an extended research project to make up the time. As a consequence, students now spend four years at university, and with fees going up, that means more money being spent on university courses.
It would be honest to ask whether A-levels are at the right standard for entry to university, so that we ensure that we do not leave the universities with the challenge of making up the gap. The Russell group universities have done a great service to schools and teachers—and, most importantly, students and parents—with their brochure “Informed Choices”, in which they give a list of subjects. The facilitating subjects are maths, English, physics, biology, chemistry, geography, history and languages, classic and modern. The Russell group believes that those building blocks allow students to go on to do almost any subject. I accept that those who want to do a degree in art need to study art, and that it would probably help those who want to do music if they have studied a bit of music on the way, but for most degrees, it almost does not matter what subjects have been taken at A-level; students simply need the ability to think and to analyse, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber yesterday when the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that he had no idea where the subjects that made up the English baccalaureate could possibly have come from. Would the list from the Russell group university be a suitable response?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has read the brochure; I shall be sure to send him a copy. I do not doubt that some of the softer subjects mentioned, such as media, photography and business studies, are popular. I see them when I visit sixth forms in my constituency, and I accept that they are valid A-levels. I do not decry them, but we need to get the message across to students that such subjects will not necessarily lead them to the wider choice of career and life to which they may aspire. It may take them down a narrow career path, and they should be fully aware of that.
Kevin Brennan
Given what the hon. Lady has said, does she think that I wasted 10 years of my life teaching A-level economics?
Dr Coffey
I would not say that the hon. Gentleman had wasted any of his life, although if he had had the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as a pupil, we might be in a better place today. However, I studied a bit of economics at university, and I can assure hon. Members that I did not do A-level economics beforehand. As to whether someone teaching business studies at school will have ever run a business, I do not know, but that may well be a possibility with Teach First and Teach Next.
Elizabeth Truss
When I speak to economics academics at university, it is interesting that they often say that they would rather that people did mathematics than economics as a precursor to the subject. There is a question about what level we are studying subjects at, and that is particularly true of law. One thing that economics—
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should make brief interventions rather than a second speech.
Kevin Brennan
In defence of economics, I should say that it is a rigorous academic subject, and mathematics is an extremely important skill to bring to the study of it. However, when a subject is left out of prescriptive lists such as the one the hon. Lady mentioned, we can understand why that can be insulting to some people—not to me, but to those who study it.
Dr Coffey
I understand that point. The hon. Gentleman will know the famous joke that there are different kinds of economists: ones who can count and ones who cannot. However, I think the Russell group is trying to help students and parents in choosing options. That can be early in someone’s life—we have talked about children aged 11, and some people have talked about even younger children. If people are not careful, they can narrow their choices later in life, which would be a shame. The Russell group is doing people a good service by making sure that they fully understand the choices they make. We are talking not about people making poor choices, but about people deciding not to do certain subjects in the full, conscious knowledge that that will restrict them later in life.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned selection. I am not suggesting that we return to selection, but I do praise efforts to differentiate and to ensure that people reach their full potential. One school I attended was a grammar school; it was not a particularly flash grammar school, but it produced Lord Birt, Roger McGough and Brendan Barber, who have all gone on to do extremely well in their chosen fields.
The Government have an opportunity to put the United Kingdom—particularly England and Wales—back at the top of the class. We need an A* and we need “education, education, education” to be the Government’s mantra. I am confident that we can carry on this journey, but I hope that we will accelerate and that the three R’s will no longer be a dirty word, but the founding blocks of a successful education.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for calling me to speak in this vital debate. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.
I want to focus on the improving performance of schools in our education system. I speak as a parent, an employer and a former governor of a large secondary school. As a parent, I know that it is vital to us all that our children make the most of the opportunities they have and meet their full potential. As an employer, I need—indeed, we collectively need—a good supply of well-educated, well-motivated and engaged employees at every level. They need not only the ability to learn, but the basic core skills to make their way in the world. As a former governor of a secondary school, I care deeply about the school system and the service that it provides to society. I want to ensure that we always recognise and applaud schools’ efforts.
The Government have made great headway in the short time they have been in post. I particularly welcome today’s statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on Professor Wolf’s report. However, there are other good things to celebrate, including the £2.5 billion for the pupil premium, the emphasis on vigorous and rigorous academic attainment, the encouragement given to schools to go for academy status and the fact that we are attracting more good graduates into the teaching profession. We also recognise the value of high-quality vocational education.
I want to focus on three issues. The first is the role of the head teacher in improving education performance. It is universally recognised that good schools have good head teachers. An energetic, dynamic head teacher really sets a school’s ethos. Their energy can drive forward improvements, and they set the framework in which the school functions.
One key aspect of that framework is discipline across the whole school, which is as much about the staff as it is about the students. If a head sets out clear and high expectations of the staff, that can quickly filter down into the student body. The consistent application of school rules means that everyone knows precisely where they stand. If that ethos is instilled in staff and students from day one, it can avert the problems that students may otherwise have had later in their school careers.
Teachers, too, have to set down clear guidance for behaviour and stick to it. Whether that guidance relates to uniform policy, behavioural standards or classroom etiquette, it must be consistent. A flaky approach to discipline undermines students so that they do not know where they stand from one day to the next. If schools get their approach right, that can dramatically improve their performance. We must recognise and accept that the head teacher plays a vital role in that.
Mr Mark Field
I entirely agree. In our time as Members of Parliament, all of us will have visited schools, and the single most important difference between well-performing schools, which have positive results and a positive attitude among parents, and less well-performing schools is the leadership of the head teacher, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Does he not agree, however, that clamping down on paucity of aspiration, which was mentioned earlier, and having zero tolerance for it, is an important part of that leadership?
Stephen Metcalfe
Absolutely—I agree 100%. I picked on discipline as one aspect of the framework that a head teacher can put in place in a school, but aspiration, energy, drive and ensuring that all staff want to get the maximum out of every pupil they come into contact with are also vital. There are other things, but I wanted to focus particularly on discipline.
Unfortunately, a good teacher does not always make a good head teacher, because the two roles require very different skills. I therefore want to ask the Government to examine a system that would allow for greater movement across the senior management team. I am aware of senior managers—members of a school’s top team—who may have had excellent pastoral skills and data manipulation skills, but who have been promoted to the role of head only to find that they did not have the entire skill set to do the job.
Unfortunately, the school and the individual are then left with few options. There is always the nuclear option of going down the competency route, but that is a painful experience for the individual and the school, and it normally results in someone who was a highly skilled professional leaving the service, which means that we have lost a good teacher, their skills and their commitment. Just because someone cannot be a good leader and a head in a school, that does not make them a bad teacher. I would therefore very much like to find a flexible system that would allow someone to recognise that they are perhaps in the wrong role.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in Australia, after someone has been in a job for 10 or so years, they are entitled to a year or six months off? I think that that is true in most walks of life. It is certainly true in most professions, including teaching. The state provides for that by taking a section of salary to ensure that the person is paid throughout the period. The benefits to a teacher are that they have a break and an opportunity to go elsewhere, perhaps into industry or whatever, and they come back refreshed. It also means that everybody is in a position to act up in another position to gain experience of being a head teacher or head of department, which is fantastically valuable.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should be brief. She is not on my list to speak. I would have considered putting her on my list if she had asked me to do so, but a long speech should not be dressed up as an intervention.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am aware of the system my hon. Friend mentions, and she is right that it is along those lines, but it is about more than that.
When an individual recognises that they have entered a role that they cannot fulfil properly, they are trapped. If we adopted a system that allowed them to move back to their original role or transfer to a similar one, without losing their skills in the profession, it would create a system that could allow more movement in senior management, which would ensure that we got the right people in leadership positions more quickly. As we accept, good leadership leads to good schools and we want to ensure that the right people are in the right roles.
Secondly, we must remember that education is about the students, not about the school, and we have touched upon that. Performance tables and comparisons among schools with similar backgrounds can be useful and help to drive improvement in performance, but we must not forget that at the heart of it lies the student. We all want to create a system that maximises the full potential of each and every student, makes the most of their talents and helps them to find their true vocation and motivation. For some, that may be a rigorous academic university or higher education experience, but for others it will be high-quality vocational work, other employment or apprenticeships. We must find some way of judging whether schools are making the most of the potential they are given. Although competition can drive up standards, it is not the be-all and end-all. We must remind schools that it is not about being better than the school down the road, but about being better at making the most of the potential of the people in their care and delivering on it.
We must accept that the potential that pupils come through our education system with each year will vary. It is highly unrealistic to expect a good school to deliver year-on-year improvements in exam results. Surely we must accept that different cohorts—year groups—have different potential and therefore different outcomes. If we do not and we end up in the trap of expecting exam results to be higher and higher every year, people, rightly, will begin to lose faith in the system because it does not reflect real-world experience.
We are not saying that students are any brighter now than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Although there have been improvements in how we deliver education, it is unrealistic to expect that to go on and on. If a school consistently achieves good results, one or two poor performances do not necessarily mean that it is failing. I ask that we expand how we compare and judge schools in a way that looks at every pupil and their performance and experience in the school. We could use the contextual value added measure more often, and educate the public about its potential value to create greater understanding in society, so that parents and pupils can better understand what a particular school can deliver.
Thirdly, a good experience across the whole education system is important. I am fortunate in my constituency to have six secondary schools all of which are performing or about to perform very well under excellent leadership—vigorous, dynamic and energetic. The one concern that is repeatedly expressed to me is that when schools receive their year 7 pupils, it takes time to prepare them for the rest of their school career in secondary education. They have to bring them up to speed, which can sometimes last well into the second year of secondary school education. That is not unique to my patch. There are reasons for it, including issues about communication between primary and secondary school, but we must put greater emphasis on the importance of primary education so that we attract the best teachers into the early years.
I suspect that when a teacher is training and looking at where they want to place themselves within the education system, those with more rigorously challenging academic degrees will look to teach in secondary schools. We need to bring some of that excellence into the whole of our education system. There are many excellent teachers and heads in our primary system, but that does not mean that we cannot do more. I would like to think that we can make primary education as attractive as secondary.
We also need to encourage more collaboration among primary schools. Many primary, infant and junior schools are quite small, and we need to encourage them to work more closely with their secondary schools and other schools in the system, to see if the intimacy and familiarity that they enjoy as a small school can be maintained while benefiting from the ability to share resources, staff and perhaps even head teachers. The recruitment and retention of good head teachers is particularly a problem for small schools. I would like to think that we can find a way to encourage local education authorities and schools to work more closely across the whole education system to see if we can deliver a better experience for all students.
Education is one of the most important gifts we can give our children. A good education that suits an individual’s strengths and talents will help them to make the most of a life full of opportunities. It falls to all of us to ensure that we do what we can to help schools to deliver that improving educational performance. We must recognise the vital role that they play in the future prosperity and success not only of our country, but of our children.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for being late for this important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)on initiating it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who I assume went to St Eddie’s in my constituency, and the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe).
The starting point of my contribution is the importance of us all taking seriously the available evidence and data about education performance. It may be legitimate self-criticism for all of us, wherever we stand in terms of our parties or on the issues discussed today, to say that we all have instincts and prejudices. We all went to school, many of us have children at school and we all have schools in our constituencies. Understandably, those things, as well as our political philosophies, inform our outlook on school policy, but we need to supplement those instincts and prejudices by looking at the data and evidence.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the importance of evidence when comparing countries, so is he a little concerned that we were not listed in the 2003 PISA results because schools did not provide the requisite amount of information? Does he welcome the fact that this Government will make it mandatory for schools to provide such information?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next part of my speech. I absolutely share his concern. In fact, I was Schools Minister at the time—I do not know whether he intervened on me with that knowledge—and I remember the difficult conversations we had to have. The subsequent judgment was that the figures, for both 2000 and 2003 I think, were invalid because there were not sufficient schools. All we have to compare is 2006 with 2009.
The hon. Member for South West Norfolk spoke about PISA before I came into the Chamber. I apologise for missing what she said. The Secretary of State has spoken about the PISA outcomes on a number of occasions. Clearly, we must all share his concern about how low down the PISA league table we are for maths, science and reading. There are issues about its methodology and about the new entrants that were not in previous studies, but I will not dwell on them. I share the concern of the hon. Lady and others that we clearly still face a very big challenge.
The hon. Lady referred to Shanghai, which is a part of China that was not in the previous PISA table in 2009 and that went straight in to the current table at No. 1, which is what they used to say on the top 40. It is now top of the PISA league table for maths, science and reading. Clearly, there are lessons that we need to learn from that part of the world.
Kevin Brennan
Let me caution my hon. Friend on this matter and recommend that he read the article in The New Yorker, which asked whether help had been given to those taking the tests in Shanghai.
Stephen Twigg
I will read that article.
Whenever we discuss test scores, there is always this argument about whether people are being taught to the test. Of course there are other pieces of research that show rather different outcomes. I know that this has been referred to in previous debates, but the trends in international mathematics and science study, which does not cover English or reading, looked at scores in years 3 and 9 between 1995 and 2007. In terms of progress in both mathematics and science, the United Kingdom was towards the top of the most improved countries in the world.
Elizabeth Truss
I mentioned TIMSS earlier. Part of the concern about TIMSS is that it is based on the curriculum of a particular country. It is not a standardised test that people sit across countries in the way that PISA is. Moreover, France and Germany did not take part in that study. We were still trailing all the Asian tigers, such as Japan and Hong Kong.
Stephen Twigg
Allow me to respond to the hon. Lady and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he still wishes to intervene.
From the information that I have in front of me, I can see that the hon. Lady is correct in what she said about Germany and France. As for Japan, we performed better in science and mathematics in year 3-4 and year 8. I accept her point about the validity of different forms of comparative research. None the less, on TIMSS, we were ahead of Japan and the United States. I know what she will say to that. What I am measuring is the improvement on the absolute score. After the improvement, we are still slightly behind Japan, but in that period we improved faster than Japan, although from a lower base.
Mel Stride
Is it not the case that our apparent improvements in the TIMSS can to some degree be attributed to the fact that the cohort of countries that we are looking at in each year has changed and that a number of non-OECD African and Asian countries have entered in more recent times, thus slightly flattering our figures?
Stephen Twigg
I do not believe so. I am relying on the particular table in front of me. In each case, it examines a country that was in the 1995 cohort and the 2007 cohort. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s criticism is valid. The hon. Lady’s implied criticism is a fairer one because I was relying on the improvement. She is right to say that, if we look at the absolute score for Japan, it is, in every case, slightly better than ours, but we have made a greater improvement in that period. Interestingly, the United States is behind us on not just improvement but the absolute score in every case.
Mr Mark Field
In the midst of this battle over evidence—I accept that evidence is important and that getting the figures right does matter—surely the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk that there is a problem. We are going down the league table, although perhaps not by as many places as might have been predicted. More importantly though, there is a lack of rigour in the choice of subjects that the average student is taking for A-level. We are not looking at academic subjects in the way we were in the past, and that is in stark contrast to many of our most important economic rivals in the 21st century.
Stephen Twigg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. At the end of the hon. Lady’s speech, she said that there is no contradiction between a high-quality and a high-quantity education system, and that is something with which I passionately agree. I do not necessarily agree with everything that she said in constructing that argument, but I certainly believe that we should be aspiring to that.
Let me take up something that the hon. Lady said and that has also been said by other Government Members. We face a real challenge in changing the attitude of many state comprehensive schools to getting their brightest kids into Oxbridge. As someone who went from a comprehensive school to Oxford—okay, it was quite a long time ago, as the hon. Gentleman will know—I relied on a particular teacher who mentored and encouraged me. He studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford and I was doing A-level economics. Without him, I am not sure whether I would have made that application. I do not think that that situation has changed as much in the subsequent 25 years as I would like. It is not just about Oxbridge, but if we are rightly to criticise Oxbridge for the comparatively low numbers of state school kids getting in, part of the challenge is for the schools as well as for Oxbridge.
Kevin Brennan
We are all in danger of confessing our educational backgrounds. I also went to a comprehensive school and ended up studying PPE at Oxford. That just shows how predictable MPs are.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I studied A-level economics and got an A in case anybody asks. Cambridge Assessment sent me an article this week about the PISA studies in which Andreas Schleicher, who is often cited by the Secretary of State as his hero, seemed to suggest that there is no evidence of decline in English pupil performance.
Stephen Twigg
I think I will move on from this part of my speech, partly because a lot of Members want to participate in the debate.
Elizabeth Truss
In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we are not arguing that the standards have necessarily gone down, but rather that the standards in other countries are going up faster. That is the key issue.
Stephen Twigg
I am not sure whether TIMSS shows that, but I want to move on. When the hon. Lady spoke about China, she mentioned the cultural attitude to education, and that is clearly a factor. We know that in our own country from the data for achievement by ethnicity. Chinese and Indian children consistently outperform all other sections of the population in tests and exams, even when they are from the poorest families, as measured by free school meals, so there clearly are cultural factors.
In my remaining time, I will say a little about progress over time and highlight some successes in Liverpool. I will say a little about the factors that shape success and then something about learning from elsewhere. I want to say a bit about Teach First and about the US and Swedish experience of chartered schools and free schools respectively and then finish by saying something about E-bac and the surrounding debate around measuring achievement.
Between 1997 and 2010, we saw a significant improvement in the scores in the key stage tests—the SATS—A-levels and GCSEs. The national improvement in the five A* to C measure was from 32% in 1997 to 55% in 2010. I wanted to use that fact to pay particular tribute to the schools in Liverpool, which improved by a more significant margin—from a miserable 24% in 1997 to 53% last year, which was just two points below the national average. Linked to that, because of the success that those children and young people have had in their GCSE results, more of them are staying on at school or college after the age of 16. Nationally, there has been an improvement from 64% in 1997, just below two-thirds, to 79% last year, just below four-fifths. Again, in Liverpool, there was much more significant improvement, from just over 50% in 1997 to 78% last year.
There is a very important debate to be had about why those rates are changing. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Norfolk that improving educational performance is not just about Governments waving a magic wand. We will always have a debate about resources. Resources are not the focus of today’s debate, but spending is clearly a factor. There is also a debate to be had about the appropriate accountability measures and I will return later to that issue. However, improving educational performance is actually about what happens at the school level and the local level. We know that, because we know that schools with very similar intakes that have very similar amounts of money spent on them perform very differently from each other. Improving educational performance cannot be only about the context or the amount of money that is spent, although clearly both those things matter.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock that the head teacher in a school is critical. The quality of leadership around and below the position of head teacher is also important. Governors are important, too; the hon. Gentleman referred to his own role as a governor. All those positions are also vital.
Let us consider what we can learn from elsewhere, because it is important that we examine all the evidence available. I have praised the Government for the expansion of Teach First. One of the earliest decisions that I had to make when I became a Minister in 2002 was about whether we should support a programme that was initially called Teach for London, but eventually became the Teach First programme. We can learn a great deal from the Teach First programme.
The hon. Member for South West Norfolk—or perhaps it was one of her colleagues—spoke about the attractiveness of teaching in some of the toughest schools and how the best teachers often may not want to teach in them. As I say, Teach First began in London before expanding to other parts of the country and the whole basis of the programme was to place some of the brightest graduates from some of the top universities in some of the toughest inner-city schools in London as teachers.
Some of the examples of teachers who have gone through the Teach First programme are truly remarkable. Moreover, the number of teachers who went through the programme and stayed in the education world rather than following other careers that are probably much better paid has been another truly remarkable achievement. Research by Manchester university shows that schools in challenging circumstances where Teach First graduates are first placed have seen a statistically significant improvement in their GCSE results and that there is a positive correlation between the degree of improvement at GCSE level and the number of Teach First graduates in a school.
Teach First is a great programme and a great example of learning from another country, because it was modelled on a scheme in the US that enjoys strong cross-party support. Whatever else happens in the field of education policy, we should all continue to support and encourage the further expansion of the Teach First programme.
Having said that, I should add that there is a need to be cautious when we are studying school reform movements in other parts of the world. When the case is made for the Government’s policy on free schools and academies, great emphasis is placed on the experience of the US charter schools and the Swedish free schools. In preparation for today’s debate, I have looked at some of the evidence from the US and Sweden, and I think that it is fair to say that the evidence from both countries is mixed.
I think that the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister who is here today have both referred to a US programme called KIPP, which is the Knowledge is Power Project. I had an opportunity to visit KIPP schools in New York and Texas some time ago and I was hugely impressed by what was being achieved in those schools. KIPP schools are a great example of how some of these new, more autonomous schools in the US are delivering, particularly for children from some of the poorest backgrounds. There is no doubt that both the US charter schools and the Swedish free schools are hugely popular with the parents of the children who attend them.
However, the evidence about the impact on standards of those schools is mixed. There have been a number of studies in New York that suggest there has been real improvement in the charter schools compared with non-charter schools and that in particular some of the poorest children from ethnic minorities have done better than they might have done otherwise. On the other hand, the Centre for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford university published a report in 2009 that suggested that there is a much more mixed picture across the US, including significant state-by-state variation. That suggests that the extra autonomy granted to those schools may in itself bring benefits—but there are clearly other factors at play in addition to that extra autonomy, which help to determine whether those schools are successful or less successful.
In some ways, the picture in Sweden is quite similar. The Swedish free schools are popular with parents. One piece of research that I looked at showed higher grade point averages in free schools compared with those achieved in other Swedish schools. It has been suggested that in an area with a concentration of free schools, there was a wider positive impact. On the other hand, other significant studies that I looked at earlier today suggest that there has been a general worsening of performance in the Swedish school system in recent years, so that it is perhaps the case that the free schools have not delivered the national system-wide improvement in Sweden that their proponents originally anticipated.
Furthermore, there is real concern in Sweden—this is different from the experience in the US of the charter school system—that the gaps in terms of socio-economic achievement have widened in the country. Admittedly, those gaps in Sweden have always been much narrower than the gaps in the UK, so I still think that we have a lot to learn from Sweden and from some of the other Scandinavian countries. Nevertheless, we still need to tread with care on both sides of this debate, because I have heard both advocates of the Government’s proposals and critics of them somewhat overstating the case for or against by citing evidence from the US and Sweden. As I said, the evidence from those countries is decidedly mixed.
There is a very difficult debate to be had about how we measure how well schools are doing—and, indeed, how such measurement can itself have an impact on what happens in schools. That is really the debate about E-bac. That is a very difficult debate; I do not think that it is easy or straightforward at all. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said something that I passionately agree with—that we should make the contextual value added the key indicator of schools. He then added a very important caveat by saying that we must also find a way to make CVA understood. I remember that when I was a Minister I said, “Why can’t people see that the value that this school is adding is actually far more significant than the raw score?” But people did not look at the value that was being added. They looked at the raw score.
The dilemma that all of us who care about education policy face is how we best measure schools and how we ensure that that measurement does not distort choices. I am concerned about E-bac, but that is not because I am not passionate about history, geography and modern foreign languages; I am passionate about all three of those subjects. However, I am not convinced that making them compulsory for all children, which could happen as a consequence of the E-bac, or emphasising them over other subjects, is necessarily the wisest way to encourage more children to have a passion for, and therefore to learn, foreign languages, history and geography.
The jury is out. We need to look at that issue further. As a Minister, I had some responsibility for the work that we did on modern foreign languages after they were made optional. I had mixed views. In the end, I think that it was probably right that they were made optional. What we sought to do was to encourage primary schools to take up modern foreign language teaching. We have seen a big expansion in such teaching in our primary schools in recent years. I hope that that will result in primary schoolchildren having a passion for foreign languages and that they maintain that passion as they go on to secondary school. That was the thinking behind encouraging language teaching in primary schools.
I can understand the desire of a new Government who are in a hurry to do something quick on E-bac, but I worry that it is effectively being introduced retrospectively. As I said in the Education Bill debate yesterday, there are schools in my constituency that are getting year 10 pupils who are midway through the year to change subjects so that they do E-bac subjects, because the school thinks that it will be measured by the performance in those subjects. I am not convinced that that will either prepare those children well for the world of work or give them a passion for those subjects that they have been told they must switch to.
I will finish by referring to the other thing that I agree with the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock about—the importance of recognising that progress takes time. The political and educational cycles are not exactly the same. When the Minister responds to the debate, he will say that of course the Government want to see progress. We were the same when we were in government.
We all want that progress for good reasons; it is not only to gain political kudos, but because all of us are passionate about children and young people being able to do well at school, so that they are fully equipped and have the best possible chances later in life. However, we often expect change in schools to happen too quickly. We set hurdles that cannot be crossed. As the hon. Gentleman said, schools cannot necessarily improve every year, because they have a different set of children each year. That is not an excuse for failure; it is just a recognition of reality.
When we assess how well schools do, let us look at subjects beyond English and maths, but let us not lose that vital core of literacy and numeracy. Let us look at a school’s progress over the previous five years, and let us look at value added—at how well particular children do at age 16 compared with how they do at age 11.
I very much welcome the opportunity I have had to participate in this debate, and I apologise for taking a bit longer than other Members. However, as I am the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches today, I can assure everyone that everything I have said is on behalf of all Labour Back Benchers. It is vital that we regularly debate education because, in spite of our real policy differences, we all know that education is vital if we are to be a successful economy and a fairer society with greater social mobility.
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
May I suggest that Members try to restrict their remarks to something in the region of 10 minutes? If that happens, there is a chance that everyone can be called and have a chance to contribute to the debate.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this extremely important debate. I shall try to make my comments even briefer than you have asked us to, Mr Rosindell. The debate has been very interesting and we have touched on a lot of issues to do with aspiration, but I just want to say a little about education for excellent pupils, a matter about which the Minister and I had a brief exchange on the Floor of the House only yesterday.
It is, I think, in a bid to dampen some of the political furore over tuition fees that fresh debate has recently emerged over access to our best universities. As everyone has been admitting which university they went to, I should say that I, too, was at Oxford but, as I had the misfortune—at least in the eyes of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)—of coming from a grammar school, I did not do a Mickey Mouse subject such as PPE, but read law—[Interruption.] Yes, I know, it has been downhill all the way from there.
It has been suggested that the Government would grant permission to charge more than £6,000 a year in fees only to universities willing to widen their intake, and suggestions of measures to avoid penalties have included lowering grade offers and taking background into account when handing out places. We all know that, in practice, that could mean preferring a less-qualified pupil from an inner-city comprehensive over a student with top grades from an independent school. It is not clear how that might objectively be regarded as fair or evidence-based, but I suspect that it was hoped that the airing of such plans might take the sting out of any accusations that the new fees system was making our higher education system too elitist.
I have long contended, and will continue to, that our education system cannot be elitist enough. For far too long, the British attitude has been one of slight embarrassment and discomfort at the notion of high performance, excellence and the pursuit of academic rigour. I am not sure that the rest of the world feels the same, at a time when the likes of India and China are relentlessly pushing forward in global league tables. The two economic superpowers of this century have the pursuit of excellence and academic rigour at the heart of their thinking.
The domestic access-regulation plans have also betrayed an expectation that politicians seem to have had in recent years that our higher education system should somehow miraculously make up for the lack of genuine attainment by children in their primary and secondary-school years, particularly in the state sector. If universities fail to take in students who are not up to the mark, we blame not a child’s upbringing or education but the university itself for being too exclusive.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and I were almost contemporaries at Oxford, and he will remember the outreach efforts that our colleges made almost three decades ago, which have continued—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman went up in 1985 and I went up in 1984, so it was almost three decades ago. Even at that time, tremendous efforts were made by the student union and, more importantly, by colleges via their tutors, to open up access. It is worth putting that on the record.
I do not believe that universities have an innate bias towards students from independent schools, but our top institutions are international leaders with worldwide reputations for excellence, which they aspire to maintain. In their admissions policies, they most pride themselves on recruiting the brightest and best globally. If the brightest and best have a tendency to come from a particular sort of school, we might be wise first to examine the deep shortcomings of the state sector.
That the private education sector has so flourished in recent years is a mark of how many parents have lost faith in the state’s ability to deliver their child a rigorous, thorough and excellent education. When articulate, active parents turn away, local state schools lose the key stakeholders that have traditionally helped to drive improvement. As a result, the poorest and most vulnerable children suffer, and they will not be helped by the state’s facilitating places for them at the best universities if they do not have the tools to make use of such places.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I cannot make a lengthy intervention, but my mind has been shifted somewhat, on the topic that my hon. Friend is addressing, by a visit to King’s College London, one of the universities in his constituency. I urge him to visit the medical department there and see for himself the fantastic work being done with state school students with lower grades who are enrolled on the extended medical degree. They struggle not with the science but with some lifestyle factors which, with additional support, they are able to overcome.
Mr Field
I very much accept that. I have visited King’s College on a number of occasions and get on very well with the authorities there. Funnily enough, a lot of the evidence suggests that medicine is one of the very few subjects in which a lot of the comparators about school performance and expected academic performance at degree level break down to a certain extent. I suspect that King’s had that very much in mind when it set up its very innovative and important programme.
It seems to me, however, that the relentless focus of the Minister, who I know has a passion for driving up standards, should be on giving state sector students the tools they need to compete on a level playing field with their peers in the independent sector, and I admire a lot of the work that he is doing in that regard. He instinctively understands the damage that has been done in recent years by the levelling down of standards and opportunities to the lowest common denominator that has so entrenched underachievement. I particularly praise him for his emphasis on phonics, which is an essential learning tool. Given my experience of day-to-day life with a three-and-a-half-year-old son, I can entirely vouch for what the Minister has said on that matter. In some respects, however, the Government could be more radical in promoting choice and competition in the state sector.
Yesterday, I spoke briefly in the House about the importance of looking after the special educational needs of the most gifted children in the state sector, in the same way as we strive to help children who are less gifted, because all too often their needs are ignored. My words provoked an e-mail later that afternoon from a teacher in Norfolk:
“What a breath of fresh air it was for me, as a retired educator, to hear your intervention. My wife and I are both graduate teachers who have experienced at first hand the consequences of an absence of special provision for the brightest of our pupils, to the serious detriment of their educational development and realisation of their full potential, not to mention that of wider society. The needs of the talented must be formally brought under the SEN purview and schools and Ofsted should be expressly required to give as much attention to these needs as to those of lower achievers.”
I ask the Minister to give greater consideration to that issue. We want to retain the most gifted students in our state schools, bring them to their full potential and use them as exemplars for other students, so that a golden thread of aspiration is sewn through each and every school, as has been suggested by a number of other Members.
I am the product of a grammar school, and I remember various episodes when I was there that allowed me to aspire to the university place to which my parents could never aspire, and also to running my own business, becoming professionally qualified and eventually becoming a Member of this House. We must push pupils upwards and not hold back their talents.
I finish this brief contribution by returning to a theme that runs through so many of my speeches, but which nevertheless is important to drive home once again. Our wont in recent years has been to tinker with our educational system to engineer particular social outcomes, but the attitudes of our competing nations could not be more different; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk covered that matter skilfully and in great detail. It is that sense of being in a highly competitive globalised world that will, and should, remain an important element of all our thinking. One need look only at the high number of highly skilled school leavers and graduates, not just in India and China but in Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, to understand that the world is not waiting for Britain to churn out the brightest and best any more.
In my 10 years as a local MP, I have regularly visited primary and secondary schools and higher education establishments to talk to students. Contrary to the negative image of young people sometimes portrayed in the media, I am always impressed by students’ sharp and inquisitive minds. Our country is brimming with talent, including here in our inner cities. That talent exists to be developed and can compete with the likes of India and China in the decades ahead, but that will happen only if we pursue excellence relentlessly and equip our young people with the tools to take on their peers. We do everyone a disservice by suggesting that there are shortcuts in this world.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and her colleagues on securing this debate.
I will not comment further on standards and international comparisons, because those points have been well made. The decline in standards in certain subjects and the decline in the study of foreign languages at GCSE level, to less than 50%, are worrying. The problem has many causes.
The first thing that strikes me from my experience as a school and university governor is that our expectations of students at independent and academically selective state schools are very different from our expectations of students educated in the state comprehensive sector. As politicians, we regularly congratulate our schools on increasing the percentage of pupils who pass five GCSEs with a C grade or above, including in English and maths, yet for those of us who aspire to send our own children to independent schools or pray that they get into state academically selective schools, that is an uncomfortable, almost hypocritical situation to find ourselves in.
We celebrate that standard, yet if it were applied to our own children, we would be aghast. For students in independent or academically selective schools, the standard is nine or 11 A grades, and we ask how many are A*. There will be a smattering of Bs, but not many. That division is intolerable. One would not expect the same standards in non-academically selective schools as in the independent and selective sector, but it is reasonable to expect them to be far closer than they are.
In my view, the league tables have contributed to the problem in a couple of ways. I recognise that there must be some externally validated way for parents to compare local schools, and I am mindful of the words of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), about how difficult such problems are to solve. However, the obsession with C grades has led to far too much teaching emphasis on children who are borderline D-C achievers.
In addition, it is a statutory requirement for all children with special needs—not only statemented, but on school action—to have individual learning plans and a huge amount of support. I argue, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), that too many schools put far more effort into children of lower ability than into stretching more academic children, who are on course for at least a B, so that they get A grades in the right subjects.
The second problem to which the league tables contribute is that too many children are encouraged to start studying vocational subjects at a young age, for no other reason than to boost their schools’ league table rankings. An ambitious boy aged 14 from one of the secondary schools in my constituency told me, while doing work experience for me, that he liked history. When I asked him what GCSEs he was doing, I was surprised to hear that history did not feature among them because he had been encouraged to take leisure and tourism instead. He was a bright boy. That is an example of how average schools, obsessed with league table rankings, have piled into BTEC qualifications.
That is the start of a slippery slope, as has been said. At age 14, many children, especially from families that have never benefited from higher education, make GCSE subject selections that narrow the choices available to them at A-level and finally divert them into a further education college or new university. I am not dismissing BTEC and other such qualifications, but we must be honest with students and their families—by taking such subjects, students set themselves on a vocational route in life.
In Stourbridge, just 25% of students now take history at GCSE level, and fewer than 20% take geography. I do not believe that only 25% of children in my constituency are academically gifted enough to be challenged intellectually and be candidates for top universities.
The prevailing culture militates against improving educational performance. Too many of us have talked in euphemisms about education. We have doled out excessive praise for mediocre performance, and we have eroded competitive sport by declaring no winners and prizes for all. Instead, we should stress that gain without pain is rare. Hard work, study, the pursuit of excellence and the productive use of time, including leisure time, should be imbued in all our children, as they are imbued in the children at our independent and academically selective schools.
The last of the myriad roots of the problem that I shall address is the restrictions on schools involved in contracts between schools and teachers, which I trust the academies and free schools will help overcome. Under the present system, it is virtually impossible for poorly performing teachers to be removed; at best, they are recycled to another school. As has been said, we all know that the important thing is quality of teaching and leadership by the head. I am pleased that the Education Bill will address that problem.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the length of the school day. When I was first selected in Stourbridge, I wondered what was happening when I saw children in school uniform milling around the streets at 3 o’clock, halfway through the afternoon. Then I realised that their day had ended. That was compounded when I toured schools and found that in the middle of the school day, children were playing football, netball and other such worthy pursuits and studying drama.
In independent schools, such things are studied between 4 and 6 o’clock and on Saturday mornings. Of course children taught in independent schools do better: they get hours more educational teaching work a week. It is no surprise that they come out with better grades and have time to pursue more academic subjects, as well as access to all the other pursuits that make up a good, rounded education. They are there for longer. It is almost as simple as that.
I am mindful of the time; I want to speak for only 10 minutes. I end with a plea for pupil referral units. I am a great believer in opportunities for late developers and children who go off the rails early in life, because I am one such. I think that I am the first speaker in this debate who did not go to Oxford. I am sure that there are some good PRUs, but provision in my area is patchy, they are not given enough priority and they can be seen as dumping grounds.
I know of one PRU in the black country where there is absolutely no discipline and no boundaries, which are precisely what children who end up in PRUs require. I suggest that that is an area where we need to encourage passionate voluntary sector providers to participate. We must not forget about those children. The same could be said for looked-after children, who also face many hurdles. We must ensure that voluntary providers are encouraged to come in. There are so many other things that we could discuss in this debate, but I end by congratulating those hon. Friends who helped secure it. I hope to hear so much more from other Members and hon. Friends.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I congratulate colleagues who helped secure this important debate, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). We often talk about budgets, structures and strategies, but we do not discuss performance enough. It is a key issue for my constituents in Portsmouth. We have heard some great speeches that have taken us over the globe, but I hope that Members will forgive me for concentrating on my constituency.
We have some serious challenges and low educational performance in Portsmouth, although it is slowly improving. To name one of the many challenges, we have particular problems in primary education, which means that a lot of children going into secondary school education have a 5% or less chance of getting a GCSE. Although we have very good services for high special educational needs, we do not, in my view and in that of Ofsted, have good provision for medium to low needs or, indeed, for gifted children either. Someone with dyslexia or a pragmatic language disorder really struggles to get the help they need. There is very little support for parents in getting access to the services that their children need. There is also a reluctance to intervene in particular cases and to have a focus on and a drive to get the services that a particular child needs.
In one case with which I am dealing, for example, a young lad who is due to take his GCSE options next year has never been to a secondary school. He has a very low special educational need that could easily be addressed and sorted out through a number of options, including a travel grant. It is a scandal that it has now taken more than two years—we are approaching the end of the third year—for any solution to be put on the table for that family.
A lot of children in Portsmouth have a challenging home life. A lot of our schools do amazing things in supporting such children, but one message that I want to get across today is that although intervention, behavioural support and all the things that those children need, such as being taught life skills, are important, they are no substitute for enabling them to follow an academic path. Sometimes and all too often, they are a substitute. We have to do much better for children from those kinds of backgrounds who do not necessarily have a strong parental advocate.
As an aside, we have discussed media studies and other softer subjects, and I agree absolutely with Members who have said that they are not equivalent and that we do young people a disservice by pretending that they are. However, I should like to mention the Heart of Portsmouth boxing academy, which has piloted a GCSE in boxing. It has been a hook for getting children who would otherwise never be in school to attend lessons. Until recently, 400 pupils a year in Portsmouth spent more than three months of the school year out of school. Pupils who study the GCSE get a taster of more academic subjects—human biology, maths and so on—and all those who have taken it are now involved in further education and going on to careers in sport and all sorts of other fields.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Lady is making an interesting point, but is there not a slight contradiction in what she is saying? She is saying that developing imaginative types of qualifications can stimulate the interest of young people to go on and study and succeed in what other Members have called the core subjects.
Penny Mordaunt
There is a role for those types of subjects, but I do not think that we do young people any service at all by pretending that they are equivalent qualifications. They serve a particular purpose. One reason why the boxing club and the GCSE were set up was to address a particular problem facing the individuals involved. It has led to them going on to do other things, but it is not an equivalent GCSE to a language, maths or those other core subjects. We do our young people a disservice if we pretend that it is. It is important, however, to pay tribute to some of the work that has been done in that area.
Another point—I shall not dwell on this, but it is key—is that there is a lack of aspiration. That is a consistent theme that I hear from secondary head teachers. It is one of the biggest long-term problems that they face. What can be done about it? I welcome the rigour that is being put back into the curriculum. I am particularly pleased about the focus on the fact that spelling, punctuation and grammar matter in GCSEs. I endorse what previous speakers have said about incentives for choosing particular high-return subjects. Part of that is better careers advice for young people when choosing those options.
We need to do better for those with a special educational need. Every child must get the support they need. I am dealing with the case of a very bright girl who has dyslexia. She is four years behind the reading age that she should be at, but her case is not considered critical or in need of any intervention by the local authority. We need to be smarter about how we provide those services. Some services are just not available, or they are supposed to be available but are not being provided in schools. Needs are dismissed and it is very difficult for parents to get some clout and make sure that the services are delivered.
Another area of great concern in Portsmouth is that about 50 children are not in a school—not because they have been excluded, but because nowhere can cater for their needs—and are being home taught, but not through the choice of the parents. A lot of those parents themselves have a learning disability but zero support. There is no support from the local authority to help them teach their children. In fact, if they admit that they are teaching their children at home, they are struck off the list to get a school place. That is a real problem.
We need to look at the flow of funding. I am dealing with a case in which a child has a high dyslexia need and has to have a specialist, full-time teacher who is accredited by CReSTeD—the Council for the Registration of Schools Teaching Dyslexic Pupils. Only one school in the city provides that kind of service, and it is in the private sector. It would cost the local authority less to send the child to that school than to try to bring in extra facilities to one of its own schools. Where it makes sense for that happen, I think we should allow funding to flow and to follow the pupil—even if they do not have a statement—if there is a clear, well-documented special educational need. I have a quick plug: on 8 June, I will ask the House whether I can table a Bill to address some of those issues.
Finally, we need much more vision in Portsmouth for our young people. We have some tremendous opportunities in the city. We are surrounded by high-tech industry. We have an MP who is a member of the British Astronomical Association. We have a university that is in the top five in the country for astrophysics and cosmology. Not only do we build aircraft carriers and Type 45 destroyers, but we build spaceships at Astrium. We also have the Navy. I would very much like to see a university technical college set up in the city in the near future.
Speaking of vision for the city, I would like to end by paying tribute to all those who work and volunteer to educate children in Portsmouth. I am very grateful for their time, effort and energy in helping me to put together a vision for our city. I need to ensure that they are properly supported—if not by education expertise in the local authority, then by expertise and support from elsewhere. The Department should be responsive to their needs. As their MP, I will play my role in debates such as this and in providing practical support on the ground.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Rosindell. I am afraid that I have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) that I am another Oxford graduate and, to compound her concerns, that I went to the same college as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field)—although, of course, he was there much later than me, which is why he is looking so much more youthful and fresh.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this extremely important debate. Education is one of the most important policy areas considered by our Government. It is important to the individual because a high level of educational achievement correlates to higher earnings, a lower propensity to be unemployed, better health outcomes and, indeed, greater longevity. As she eloquently pointed out, in a world that is increasingly dominated by global competition and where knowledge-based industries are king, education is also important to the economy.
I shall illustrate that point. In 1978, 6.5 million people worked in manufacturing. That figure is now down to 2.5 million. The scope for less-skilled jobs in our economy has diminished considerably. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in a recent survey, the CBI indicated that some 40% of the UK’s population could be classified as low skilled compared with just 22% in Germany. That is a serious problem for the economy.
Many hon. Members have mentioned social mobility. My parents left school at 15 and 14 for reasons of economic hardship. For them to have dreamt of becoming a doctor or a scientist would have been about as fanciful as any Member in this Chamber dreaming of walking on the surface of the moon—it was simply never going to happen. One of the most striking and pitiful statistics I have heard since becoming a Member of Parliament is that, in the last year for which figures are available, of the 80,000 children who qualify for free school meals, only 40 achieved places at Oxford and Cambridge, which is down from the princely figure of 45 in the previous year. That is simply not good enough.
I have listened with great interest to the debate about the programme for international student assessment figures and trends in international mathematics and science study statistics and so on. Of course, the problem is that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The Government will rightly point to what they see as a diminishing level of education performance over the past decade, and the Opposition will start to unpick those figures and say that they are unfair comparisons. As the shadow Minister may tell us in a moment, I accept that there is an issue with the 2000 PISA figures having a cohort of just 32 countries and the 2009 figures having a cohort of 65 countries. Of course, such factors make comparisons difficult. However, the Government make a good point that, of those new countries coming into the later figures, many of them are outside the OECD and are therefore lowering the average standard involved.
Kevin Brennan
I may or may not make the point about the figures when I speak, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the OECD itself has said—not just me—that we cannot make the comparison between the 2000 figures, the 2003 figures and the latest figures for the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned earlier: the inadequate size of the sample. Given the hon. Gentleman’s Oxbridge education, he would not want to make that mistake.
Mel Stride
From one Oxbridge man to another, I accept that that certainly is the case with the 2003 figures, where the lack of information provided by UK and English schools meant we were not included in the league tables. Although there was a paucity of data in 2000, we were included, as the hon. Gentleman will know. Therefore, some level of comparison is justified if we go back to that year.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the PISA surveys. Of course, Ministers and civil servants were not slow in coming forward in trumpeting the fact the 2000 PISA figures were so high.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for helpfully reminding me of that. I am sure that the shadow Minister will address that comment in due course.
Whether we have gone up or down a bit in such surveys is not the main point, as a number of hon. Members have said. At the end of the day, as I shall demonstrate, being average or around average is simply not good enough—as I think the Opposition accept, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) who very much stressed that point. According to the 2009 league table, if we were to have achieved at the level of the best—for example, Finland—67% of students in this country would have obtained five A* to C grades, including English and mathematics. The actual figure is just 49.8%. That is a huge loss of human capital and is to the enormous detriment of students who did not achieve those grades as a consequence of us not being the best. Average performance is clearly changing through time because those countries with good education systems that consistently put them at the top of the table are good at adapting and innovating. Such countries are not standing still and they are getting better.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Interesting evidence given to the Select Committee on Education this week from the OECD demonstrates how complex the matter is. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the OECD’s report that, although Finland is very good in terms of attainment, it is very poor at getting young people into employment? The UK is better at that than, for example, Finland. These issues are complex.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. Of course, these matters are complex. That is exactly what I have been arguing. However, there is no getting away from the fact that we have remained average for far too long across too many measures—PISA, TIMSS, the progress in international reading literacy study and so on.
PISA is, indeed, a complex study. It looks not just at 15-year-olds in terms of reading, mathematics and science, but at the background of those students. It looks at their aspirations and attitudes and how the schools in which those students are studying function. One of the key conclusions that is drawn by the OECD from those studies is that education in this country is not promoting social mobility to the extent that it should. One of the ways of identifying that point is to look at the different achievement levels of individual pupils. There is a high correlation between social deprivation and poorer students, and lower achievement. In fact, 13.9% of a student’s achievement can be attributed to their socio-economic background. That figure is far lower in other countries, including in Finland at 8.3% and Canada at 8.2%.
That brings me on to my next point. This is not a zero-sum game where having excellence and achieving well in these league tables means letting down poorer students. It is quite possible to achieve both—to make sure that we are at the top of the league table and that we are doing well by students from less advantaged backgrounds. That has been shown not just by Finland and Canada, but by Japan and South Korea. In this country, we have for too long tolerated a long tail of underachievement in the distribution of education performance, which is why I am pleased that a lot of the Government’s very radical education policies are specifically designed to address that.
My final point—I will be brief—is that the PISA studies also highlight the link between various underlying factors in education and performance, for example, the key effect of operational independence of schools on results. There is a clear correlation between schools being allowed to get on with it and good educational achievement. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the free schools and academies programme we have put into effect. Standards-based external examinations are also key drivers of performance in education. I also welcome the English baccalaureate and very much subscribe to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made about it.
The quality of teachers lies right at the heart of the issue and is absolutely key; in fact, it is referred to in the title of the White Paper that we have brought forward. It is absolutely right to raise the bar on qualifications for teachers and to be more rigorous in selecting them. That includes taking a close look at interpersonal skills as well as academic qualifications. I urge the Minister to look very carefully at the point about interpersonal skills for teachers. We can all remember from our student days—in my case, at Portsmouth Grammar school in the constituency next door to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Denny Mordaunt)—those teachers who were highly-qualified, but could not inspire. It is very important that we do what we can to identify them.
The final point that comes out of the PISA and OECD analysis is the importance of the culture in a school, specifically as regards discipline, an issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I welcome the Government’s approach: 24 hours’ notice will no longer be required for detentions; pupils may be searched if teachers are concerned; anonymity will be provided to teachers who face serious allegations from pupils; and head teachers and governing bodies will have more autonomy over exclusion. As a governor of a school, I think that all those things are absolutely spot on, and I congratulate the Government.
This is an important debate. For too long, measuring success in education has been with reference to the past. It has been done with reference to inflated examination results—results pumped up by resits, continuous assessment and diminishing examination standards—and we have simply disguised failure by doing that. Worse, we have also failed far too many of our young people. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk on securing the debate, and the Government on placing international standards right at the heart of our education policy.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this debate, which is indeed important, because while some things have unambiguously improved in education in the past 10 or 15 years—we should all be proud and celebrate that—overall there have clearly been insufficient returns on a very large amount of money spent. Universities struggle to differentiate between students and have to take remedial action, as my hon. Friend outlined. We again had employers in the Select Committee on Education this week complaining about the lack of generic skills in the people they see coming forward, and about a lack of work ethic, too. There is a yawning gap between the rich and the poor. Frankly, far too many young people are left behind, with a million young people not in school, not in training and not in a job.
That has all been happening at a time when we have been breaking records year after year in our presumed education performance. The fact is that many of the so-called comparisons are not comparable over time, and not comparable between schools, individual students or groups of students. Although PISA is not perfect, it gives us an anchor point. It gives us an external benchmark with which to compare. It is, of course, not just about our changed place in the league table, as it were. I fully accept that there are difficulties with the methodology and, of course, if the number of countries in the sample is changed, then that will change the rankings. What should concern us, however, is where we were in any year relative to others—both relative to our traditional competitors of Germany, the United States, Japan and so on, and relative to our new competitors, particularly China. A province of China was at the very top of the table, but as everybody knows, a single province comfortably dwarfs the size of our population.
That is doubly important, because the Chinese have already whupped us on low-cost volume manufacturing, and we will never again make t-shirts cheaper than China. It is already ahead of us in natural resources, and what it does not have, it makes up for by bringing it in from Africa and elsewhere. The arenas left for us really to compete and excel in are largely those in which academic achievement is very important, such as advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, the knowledge and creative industries, and education itself. Many of the others in which we need to excel, such as tourism and the non-tradable service sector in general, call for a much higher level of soft skills, interpersonal skills, communication skills and so on than we typically see from 18-year-olds coming out of large parts of the British education system.
I will not talk about what the Government are doing. I was going to say a lot, but most of it has already been said, which is lucky, considering the lateness of the hour. I will talk just about measurement and accountability. The English baccalaureate has filled up our inboxes to a degree that I suppose most of us did not really expect. I have been astounded, actually—
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman has not. Perhaps it is just me. I have attracted comments on the subject like a magnet—I am a very popular fellow, obviously. They have mostly been from teachers, not parents. In fact, I have not had a single parent or child spontaneously mention the English baccalaureate in any way whatever. People are particularly worked up, as we know, about religious studies, music and other subjects. They are particularly exercised about what they call the retrospective nature of the way the proposal was applied. I can understand teachers’ frustration on that in some ways, but only to an extent. The English baccalaureate tells us one really important thing, and I am not sure that we would have found this out any other way: the yawning gap that I mentioned between the rich and the poor. Among kids on free school meals—free school meals are not the only measure of deprivation, but it is the best and most accurate one that we have—only 4% were achieving the English baccalaureate. Overall, it was 16%, so that is a quarter of the level for the cohort as a whole. Even more worrying than the fact that only 4% of those children passed that set of exams, what really scares me is that only 8% were entered for that set of exams. That is truly shocking.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on what the pass rate among private schools was for the English baccalaureate? One of the problems with a retrospectively applied mechanism is that many schools were not doing the courses and subjects involved, so the figures that he mentioned are not really equivalent. Perhaps this is a debate and a point that he might want to make in two or three years’ time, when everyone has been forced to do them by this policy.
Damian Hinds
As the hon. Lady should know—her colleagues may help her—we are not talking about the national curriculum, but a measure of how many children take one particular subset of subjects. The measure is not to be compulsory. The fact that it was revealed that some private schools were not offering those subjects tells us other interesting things. We have not got time, sadly, to debate them all now, but I would love to on a separate occasion.
Conversations with colleagues from all parts of the House on the subject have been interesting. I am sure that there will be exceptions to this, but most colleagues to whom I talk, whether they went to a comprehensive, grammar or secondary modern school, all studied the English baccalaureate. We did not necessarily pass all those exams, but that was pretty much considered the obvious set of exams that kids would take. The fact that that happened in the past does not make it perfect or right, but it does raise the question of why that has changed. As I say, we are not talking about a perfect measure. In fact, I would suggest that any single measure of performance of any particular age group will promote gaming behaviour. A particular issue with the English baccalaureate—I fully accept this—is that not every child is ever going to be in contention, as it were, for making that benchmark. There needs to be a balanced basket of measures. Alongside the English baccalaureate, I would hope that we might see a technical baccalaureate, and perhaps others, too.
Ministers are going down that exact track. We had the opportunity to talk to the Minister about that in the Education Committee the other day. There are more, rather than fewer, measures coming through, but that memo does not seem to have arrived in a lot of staff rooms, where the assumption seems to be that the English baccalaureate will be the sole or primary measure. In fact, in that basket of measures—this was alluded to earlier—the most important measure or measures should be things that track not a snapshot of achievement, but progress over time. That is what school is all about: developing the individual and helping them to fulfil their potential. If we lead on measures of progress, we get rid of any incentive there might be to select only those children who will be, as it were, easiest.
Contextual value added is not that measure. I have now sat on the Education Committee for a year; I am still waiting for the first teacher, head teacher, union leader, educational psychologist, education professional or anyone else to mention contextual value added as a measure of the achievement of any school, local authority or anything else. That has not happened, because it is an impenetrable measure—it is impossible to figure out what it means. When I have asked people to explain, I have quickly wished that I had not.
The Government are working on a specific measure or measures of the progress of children at the most challenging end of the scale. In our recent Select Committee report, “The role and performance of Ofsted”, we recommended something in which I firmly believe: a metric system tracking the performance of all the different ability groups—by quintile, for example—and measuring the progress of those not only in the middle and bottom of the range, but in the gifted and talented category at the top. We recommended Ofsted as probably being in the best position to interpret the accompanying complex data and to convert them into the English language in a way that contextual value added struggles to do.
There is a real danger of drowning in a sea of measures—uncapped GCSE scores, five or more A* to C grades, five or more A* to C grades with mathematics, contextual value added, raw value added and the English baccalaureate—or, potentially, a technical baccalaureate, the new measure of progress among the most challenging and challenged students. Ultimately, we need one or two lead measures to hold schools to account so that parents know what the key things to look at are.
I am keen to hear the Minister’s comments, but I suggest that the five or more A* to C grades is not that measure for a couple of reasons: first, because of its tendency to focus on the average and on that borderline between C and D grades; and, secondly, because it is a cliff-edge binary measure, which therefore does not take into account enough of the richness going on in that cohort.
I suggest that the best lead way in which to measure school performance is a combination of some sort of average point score measure—perhaps the average point score towards the English baccalaureate subjects, or something else—and a progress measure, whether a simplified version of value added or something more like the progress by quintile that I was outlining.
I still managed to speak for more than the five or six minutes that I thought I was going to, for which I apologise profusely.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this timely and important debate. I listened with great interest to a variety of different speeches.
The simple but uncomfortable truth is that, under the previous Government, the British education system let our children down, systematically and consistently. My hon. Friend referred to the UK tumbling down the PISA ranking. We have heard a lot about the related methodological issues, but that is only one of a series of powerful indicators revealing the extent of falling—or at least stagnant—standards, despite the huge amount of money that has gone in. Interestingly, the OECD explicitly criticised the persistent grade inflation at A-level, which has disguised poor outcomes and undermined students’ achievements.
Leading universities have had to offer classes in essay writing to undergraduates who lacked the ability to structure an argument properly—not only the mid-ranking universities, but Bristol, Newcastle and the London School of Economics. I heard directly from the former head of Imperial college, Sir Richard Sykes, about the problems with science and constantly having to spend six months redoing the A-level syllabus, because the standards are not what they were a decade or so ago.
This week the CBI revealed that almost half of employers have to invest in numeracy or literacy training for school and college leavers. That situation would be unacceptable at any time, but it is untenable at the beginning of a century in which Britain needs to be delivering a first-class education for young people, so that they and Britain itself can compete in an increasingly competitive and globalised economy.
I welcome the measures initiated by the Minister and the Government to reverse the trend—in particular the plans to raise the professional status and standards of teachers and the respect that we as a society offer teachers. Some of the measures were set out in the schools White Paper. It is right that we expect a lot from teachers, but it is also essential that they get the best training and that they are better protected from violence in the classroom and from spurious and malicious allegations that we know from the polling is deterring graduates from going into the profession.
One of the Government’s most important schools policies is the academies programme. I commend the Minister on the Government’s record to date: the number of academies has more than doubled in the past year, and more and more schools are embracing the opportunity to acquire greater freedom and to innovate. In my constituency, I am delighted that Rydens school in Walton is currently applying for academy status—a great school, led by a dynamic head teacher, with really committed governors. I wish it every success.
Contrary to claims in attacks by the teaching unions, academies are raising standards. The Harris Federation achieved a 10% increase in pupils getting five good GCSEs in schools last year, while ARK academies saw a 12% improvement. That is a strong base on which the Government can build. We are only a year in, however, and challenges remain, one in England certainly being the pressure on school places—in my constituency, I have seen it cause concern to many parents in Elmbridge. I would like to know a bit more about what the Government will do to address such pressures on school places and parental choices, in addition to the academies and free schools programme.
At a time of financial pressure, funding is difficult and contentious, and the allocation of existing funding becomes even more important. The whole issue of the funding formula—its transparency and objectivity—is of acute concern to parents in my constituency. It is probably the No. 1 issue raised with me at open town hall meetings; I have held six recently. The issue comes up time and again. We know that the funding formula will be addressed in the context of the NHS and local authorities, but I am interested to hear more about the process in relation to the schools budget.
What further consideration is being given to the role of profit-based schools in providing extra capacity? I appreciate that talking about this is regarded as almost taboo, but a recent study by the Adam Smith Institute revealed how well placed such schools are to boost the number of free schools, which are a flagship Government policy.
Proprietorial schools deliver excellent academic outcomes—we all know that—but an impressive one third of them do so while charging less per pupil than is spent in the state sector, exposing one of the great fallacies at the heart of the previous Government’s approach, which is that outcomes are dependent simply on resources. The proprietorial schools also erode the dogmatic argument against any consideration of the idea of vouchers—namely that they allow middle class students to opt into the upper tier of a two-tier system. That accusation cannot be levelled against schools that cost less but deliver more.
Apart from the whole issue of structures, we also need to think long and hard about what we want our school leavers to do and about what they want to do; others have referred to that issue today. The previous Government’s target of 50% of young people going to university was an arbitrary and clunky piece of social engineering, resulting in more degree courses, quite a few of dubious value to the students taking them. Furthermore, quotas miss the point. I suspect that there will be broad agreement, but standards must be improved in our state schools and not dumbed down in our universities.
Does the Minister agree that we also need a cultural shift in this country? We heard one of the leading lights at McDonald’s talk about that earlier in the week. We must certainly do something to reverse the snobbery that insists that people must go to university to be a success in life. That certainly did not apply to my parents, who were both successful without going to university.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
I take my hon. Friend’s point about how 20 or 30 years ago not everyone needed to go to university to become a success in life. However, will he acknowledge that, for most jobs nowadays, the requirement is a 2:1 degree, even to get an application through the main gate? Unless employers agree to accept people without degrees, we have a real problem to deal with.
Mr Raab
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. That is why the question is not just about what the Government do, but about a much broader cultural shift. In my own profession, the legal profession, we can spend six or seven years training, but once qualified we do very little of what we were trained to do.
It seems to me that some of the high street practices could get young, aspirational, talented youngsters into the profession without the huge cost of going through the red brick university parade and on to postgraduate qualifications. There should be a way to open up the professions. They have been some of the worst culprits, and that is true not just of the legal professions. That is precisely why I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the number of apprenticeships. When considering the UK’s skills needs, two thirds of employers believe that apprenticeships should be the priority for Government funding. From what I have heard in the House and more broadly over the past few months, I suspect that that is an area of emerging consensus among the main parties.
I am acutely conscious of time. I shall close by saying that I am optimistic that the Government’s policies will reverse the decline and stagnation in the standards of teaching and education in our country. The recipe for success is not complicated and bureaucratic. We must trust teachers and parents more, demand academic rigour, and free up schools to innovate. I wish the Minister the best of luck in those endeavours, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk on securing this important debate.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I want to touch on some of the points that may help. I know that the Minister is already familiar with much of what I will say, but I will make my points none the less.
I have a particular passion for ensuring that children have a smooth progression and that we get the best out of them, and it will be no surprise to hear me mention middle schools. I am a big fan of middle schools because they provide an opportunity, particularly in rural areas where we have very small schools, for children to move from being a big fish in a small pool to being a medium fish in a medium pool. In view of the vast number of students in upper and secondary schools, we should think about how children fare when they move at the age of 11 from a school of perhaps 100 or 150 pupils to one of 300 or 350 in a year. We should consider what happens to their performance at age 11.
My second point is about teacher training. I hope that the colleges have been listening, and are aware of the evidence. So often, we have heard from teachers, the unions and others that little time is spent during teacher training on learning about behaviour and how to cope with it. I am sure that we could do something to help newly qualified teachers, because it can be traumatic for some of them when they are faced with situations that they are unable to cope with.
I mentioned during an intervention the Australian long-leave system, and I cannot emphasise enough what a good thing that is, because it provides teachers with a career break with the security of knowing that they can return to teaching. It allows them to broaden their experience by going into business or another area, or perhaps by following a personal interest for six months or a year. That must mean that they come back with a fresh look and a fresh start, ready to take on the next 10 years. It also provides the opportunity for teachers to try all levels of management. Comments have been made about whether some people are well suited to being heads. If they have a test run for six months, they may find that it is not their bag and may choose to take a different route.
It might be helpful if we made it possible—and perhaps even recommended—that newly qualified teachers should spend a period in a special school so that they become familiar with the difficulties of communication and of social and life skills that face young people who go into the special school system. That would be helpful, because it would allow people to build knowledge and have strategies to identify early and support children who may be in the mainstream system, but need a little extra help.
When Martin Narey was chief executive officer of Barnardo’s, he made it clear that people who naturally surround young children—nursery teachers, health visitors and so on—can spot difficulties coming when children are two and three. If we ensure that all teachers can spot difficulties as they occur, we may be able to interrupt what need not necessarily be an inevitable downward process. We should concentrate on that, and ensure that people have the opportunity to gain the skills that they may need.
They may not always be right, but there are stats for dyslexia, for example, suggesting that we may not always be able to identify children, particularly boys, who develop dyslexia at the ages of seven and eight—rather than six, when the Government are considering doing a screening test for reading and understanding skills. Ensuring that teachers have that extra ability and experience will help them.
I have spoken at length elsewhere about the fact that I am completely enthused about measuring students’ performance and progress, instead of spending the whole time looking at achievement and league tables. We have seen what happens, and it has been explained this afternoon. I have shown the Minister a 16-year-old boy’s report. It clearly shows the effort that he put in was generally marked as A in all subjects, with one or two exceptions, and attainment was generally marked at A, with one or two exceptions. However, the target grades were C, C, C, C. It is ludicrous to give such a report to any child because it will smash any chance of personal aspiration and desire to achieve. It is barmy for someone who is trotting along with As in a subject to be told to aim for Cs.
I have visited many different schools, and have spoken at length about the fact that primary school teachers are completely tuned into measuring progress. They may not do so formally, but they are used to the idea. They know every child in the class, their rate of progress, where the blocks are and where there may be problems. We must develop a system so that we do exactly the same in middle schools, senior schools, upper schools and so on. That will deal with those quintiles, and children who are achieving will be pushed a bit further so that we get to the point where every local school is a good school and measures the performance of all students.
Again, I have discussed this with the Minister, but I want to place on the record my dismay—this may be another aspect of what I have just said—at the examination system and the obsession with resitting and multiple attempts. We must stop that. We need a balance. I do not mean that no one should resit an exam, but there should not be automatic resits. A 16-year-old lad who had 102 questions right out of 106 in his GCSE maths was automatically put in for a resit. That just says, “Sorry, you’re not good enough”, but four marks off perfect is not so bad, is it? We should concentrate on extending such a child into a different sort of exam at the next level up, or whatever—it does not matter. But resitting the same exam is a disincentive.
I have two minutes left, and I apologise for taking up all this time, but I want to consider the impact—for me, it is a positive impact—of “Jamie’s Dream School” on the debate. When I visit my local pubs, schools and so on, people talk about education in a different way having seen the programme. Opportunity, inspirational teaching and genuine care clearly change outcomes. The other factor that is absolutely clear is that parents’ involvement is needed—they had to sign up to allow their young people to be involved in Jamie’s dream school—and that is the one parallel that I would draw with the independent sector, where parents’ involvement is absolute because they write the cheques.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this important debate. We have heard contributions from 11 Back-Bench Members, and it has been a useful opportunity for an extended discussion. The hon. Lady commenced the debate with a thoughtful and serious speech, and as the parent of a 17-year-old girl who is currently studying for AS-levels, I have a lot of sympathy with some of her comments about examinations. When I return home tonight, hopefully I will help my daughter to prepare for her English AS-level next Tuesday.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is no longer in her place as I think she is contributing in the main Chamber. She took us on a fascinating personal journey around her education, although I felt slightly upset when she did not mention economics as one of the core subjects that should be studied by everyone. We also heard a thoughtful and interesting speech by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Later I shall study it again as it will be worth reading on the page.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out—quite rightly as a former Schools Minister—the consequences of some of the policies that he set in train nearly 10 years ago, including the improvement in the numbers of those achieving five GCSEs, including English and maths, at grades A to C. He reminded us that that number rose from 32% in 1997 to 55% by 2010, and was even higher in his area of Liverpool. Despite the carping about that achievement, there is no evidence to suggest that a significant dumbing down of GCSEs took place during that period. Instead, it is evidence of real improvement in schools and of attainment by our young people.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) made a thoughtful contribution, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who to the relief of us all pointed out that she is not an Oxford graduate, went on to make important points about looked-after children and children who are referred to pupil referral units. I am sure that the House can work together on such issues. I did not agree with her remark about competitive school sport and perhaps she might like to walk to another place at the other end of the building and talk to Baroness Sue Campbell about the improvements that have been made in competitive sport over the past 10 years. As a former Minister responsible for school sport, I recommend that conversation. The Baroness is a Cross Bencher and will not be parti pris.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made an important contribution and provided the best pun of the debate when she told us that GCSE boxing was a great hook to get people on to studying other things. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Central Devon (Mel Stride), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Wells (Tessa Munt). The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) sounded as if he were supporting something akin to the report card proposed by the previous Government. Perhaps he should discuss his ideas with the Minister; I thought they were interesting and had some promise as a way of finding a more valid way to measure progress. He spoke a lot about the E-bac, which slightly contradicted what he said at the end of his speech. Perhaps I can ask all Government Members to raise their hands if they passed the E-bac.
Kevin Brennan
Just the Minister and the hon. Member for East Hampshire. [Interruption.] I see there are a few other late developers. Since I asked that question, it is only fair to say that I did not pass the first time round, and I admit to the hon. Member for Wells that I had to do the dreaded resit. We should be careful about banning resits; the Secretary of State would not be able to drive had he not been able to resit his driving test on several occasions. The hon. Lady should be careful what she recommends.
Let us move to the substance of my remarks. The context for this debate was reflected in the e-mail sent out by the hon. Member for South West Norfolk, and concerns the way that the Secretary of State has used data from international surveys as the evidence base for his reforms. We have debated some of those reforms elsewhere—the Minister and I were recently on a Public Bill Committee and I know he is sick of the sight of me.
Part of the context for this interesting debate was provided by the Secretary of State in the White Paper and concerns international evidence. Quite frankly, I thought that all hon. Members present today made a better effort than the Secretary of State to put that evidence into some sort of context, which is why it has been a better debate. When the Secretary of State speaks about our educational performance in international comparisons, he quotes only from the PISA survey. He did not turn up for the Education Bill’s Third Reading, but on Second Reading he stated:
“We moved from fourth to 14th in the world rankings for science, seventh to 17th in literacy and eighth to 24th in mathematics by 2007.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 167.]
It is, however, misleading to quote out of context the UK’s raw rankings in figures from the PISA survey between 2000 and 2009 because, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the number of countries that take part in the PISA survey dramatically increased over that period. I am sure that if a survey took place in Norfolk, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk would be found to be the best MP in Norfolk—there is probably no question about that and since there are no Labour MPs in that area, I can say it with safety. If that survey were extended to the whole of the UK, and for the sake of argument, the hon. Lady finished in 11th place—this is purely hypothetical; I am sure she would still finish first—that would not mean that she had become a worse MP, but simply that there was more evidence and more MPs included in the survey. That is exactly what happened with the PISA survey—over time, there has been a huge expansion in the number of countries that participate. Furthermore, the OECD has stated that it is not statistically valid to make the comparisons over time on which the Secretary of State has relied, because there was no statistically valid sample from this country in the first place.
There is no consensus among statisticians and educationalists that the PISA survey can be relied on, let alone treated as a sort of religious text in the way it is by the Secretary of State—I must be careful because the hon. Member for South West Norfolk is an expert in this area. The Secretary of State likes to say that Andreas Schleicher, who compiles the PISA tables, is the most important man in our education system, but if he wants to base his policy on evidence he should consider all opinions, not just that of one person.
The PISA statistics will be examined in the months and years ahead, but I warn the Secretary of State not to rely too heavily on them. A Danish academic, Professor Svend Kreiner, is preparing a paper that will soon be published. He says that the PISA survey does not compare like with like across all countries, and is not therefore an objective performance benchmark. In this country, Professor Stephen Heppell has long contested the accuracy and usefulness of the PISA results, and his website cites research into PISA’s methodology. Professor Alan Smithers doubts its ability to compare like with like. S. J. Prais of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in London has previously used the example of England’s results to demonstrate serious flaws in the response rates and sampling of Pisa, which necessarily lead to biased results.
Gjert Langfeldt of Agder university questions the validity and reliability claims made by PISA, pointing to
“constructional constraints, methodological mishaps and the cultural bias embedded in the PISA design”.
Svein Sjøberg at the university of Oslo analysed PISA items and found that some involved confusing and erroneous material. For example, he observed that the title of an article about cloning, “A Copying Machine for Living Beings”, was translated literally word for word into Norwegian, rendering the title totally incomprehensible. The questions are supposed to be culturally neutral.
I could go on, but the point that I am making is that it is not accepted universally or even in a widespread way among academics and educationists that PISA can be relied on solely to provide the evidence required. I would forgive the Secretary of State on this if it was the only evidence available to him, but he did not mention in the Second Reading speech that I referred to, which he did turn up for, that other pieces of evidence were available. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk did, but the Secretary of State did not. We might have presumed from what he said that PISA was the only evidence available, but as has been mentioned in the course of this debate and as the hon. Lady mentioned in her remarks, because she is a very honourable lady, there is the trends in international mathematics and science study—TIMSS. She rather played TIMSS down. I will not at this point, having just tried to trash some of the PISA methodology, say that the TIMSS methodology is perfect. All I am saying is that it should be cited at the same time by the Secretary of State when he is making policy that is supposed to be based on evidence.
TIMSS showed that between 1995 and the last tests in 2007, England’s primary school maths performance improved by a greater margin than any of the other 15 nations that had pupils taking tests in those years, including Singapore, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Norway. Our score went from below the international average in 1995 to comfortably above it in 2007. Our ranking improved from 12th out of 16 countries in 1995 to seventh out of 36 in 2007. It was an expanded table in which we had gone up. An example of that kind of performance would be the hon. Member for South West Norfolk going from 10th in Norfolk to 1st in East Anglia.
Kevin Brennan
“No chance” says the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal from a sedentary position. I did not notice her sneak back into the Chamber; I would not have said that if I had.
The most recent round of TIMSS brought even more good news relating to other tests. In secondary maths, England was the joint third most improved of 20 countries during the period 1995 to 2007, rising from 11th out of 20 to seventh out of 49 in the table. In science, the country was seventh most improved out of 16 at primary level, with its ranking moving from sixth out of 20 countries in 1995 to seventh out of 36 in 2007. It was the fifth most improved out of 19 at secondary level, its ranking improving from seventh to fifth between those two years, even though the number of countries taking part had increased from 19 to 49. I could go on—I am going on until 5.15 pm if the Minister wants to know. However, there is no mention of the alternative picture reflected by TIMSS in any of the things that the Secretary of State says.
We have had an extremely interesting and serious debate this afternoon about what we need to do to improve the education of our children, to improve our schools and to improve our economic performance. We should be doing that in the spirit of thinking about what the real evidence is, examining the statistics and accepting that we should all be striving for continual improvement.
Taking only one part of the picture, subjecting it to the extreme hyperbole of the Secretary of State, with his rather dramatic style, and making that the only basis for policy making is a serious mistake and undermines our shared wish to improve educational performance in our country, to improve opportunity for young people and to improve our economic performance. I therefore make a plea for a higher plane of debate than we have had from the Secretary of State—one that involves less flummery and exaggeration and that is more evidence-based. If that were the case, we could seriously have the kind of education debate that we need and that we want in order to improve our economic performance and to improve education in this country.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on securing this very important debate, which has seen excellent contributions and consensus on the need to improve our education performance. Her excellent opening speech reiterated many of the points made in her CentreForum report published earlier in the year entitled “Academic rigour and social mobility: how low income students are being kept out of top jobs”. Both her speech today and that policy paper are worthy of much wider circulation, and I hope that they will receive that, because she has made very important points.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s analysis and, in particular, with her forensic dissection of the UK’s educational performance in recent years: her insightful thesis, if I may describe it thus, that equivalence of qualifications has failed the poorest children; her conclusion that comprehensive reform of our education system is urgently required; and her suggestion that there is much more that we can learn from the best performing nations and regions of the world.
There have been excellent speeches from other hon. Members. It is heartening that a debate on education has been so dominated by my hon. Friends, almost all of whom are, as they say, fresh from the people, having been elected in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) spoke of her own educational journey and emphasised the importance of the foundation subjects of English and maths and the service that the Russell group provided in publishing details of the facilitating subjects, which just happened to match, if I may say so, the subjects in the English baccalaureate. It is a real concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, that only 4% of students on free school meals achieved the E-bac last year compared with 15.6% nationally. That figure itself—one in six—is lamentably low.
I wonder what the former Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), would have thought when he looked at the five GCSEs or more figures and the increase over the years—it is up to more than 50% today. I wonder whether he thought that most of those achievements would not be in the English baccalaureate subjects. Did he envisage that only 15.6% would achieve a C or more in the English baccalaureate subjects, compared with the more than 50% achieving five or more GCSEs?
Stephen Twigg
The Minister raises a serious point. As I said in my speech, I am passionate about the particular subjects involved—history, geography and modern foreign languages—but I think that I would have recognised that some people would be achieving five A* to C grades at GCSE with one of the subjects being religious studies or perhaps music. My concern is that in a laudable attempt to celebrate the subjects that he has added, other subjects will be crowded out.
Mr Gibb
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but of course there is plenty of room outside the English baccalaureate to study RE, music and art and, indeed, for some pupils to take a vocational subject. We have deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small to enable that to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) spoke of consistent application of school rules and pointed to how dramatically a school can improve its academic performance once behaviour is sorted out. He is absolutely right. He called for more flexibility in the movement of heads going back to teaching. The Government certainly intend to allow more flexibility in terms and conditions for our schools. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby was right to pay tribute to Teach First, and I welcome his support for its expansion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said that the paucity of aspiration was a key characteristic of poorly performing schools. He is absolutely right. We must grapple with that in all our schools, to ensure that we do not sell children short, particularly those from homes where there is not much aspiration; we need to replicate that aspiration in school. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for synthetic phonics. I hope that young Master Field is already reading at the age of three and a half.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) is right to be concerned about the growing gap between the independent and state sectors. The OECD has commented on the fact that the gap in the UK is one of the widest among OECD countries. I assure her that we are committed to raising the standard of alternative provision, and to including the voluntary sector and other providers that have a proven record of helping children with challenging behavioural problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said during her contribution that more widely based GCSEs, such as the pilot GCSE in boxing that she cited, can be valued without necessarily having to claim that they are the equivalent of academic GCSEs. That is an important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) provided an important analysis of the PISA figures from 2000 to 2009. We are determined to address the long tail of underachievement, another factor that was found in many PISA surveys.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) quoted Andreas Schleicher. However, as politicians tend to do, he failed to give the full quotation. It is true that he said that there has been
“very little change over the last 10 years.”
But he went on to say that we are an average performer and that
“improvement on the equality front from a social perspective somewhat declined; performance is average.”
He meant that in a pejorative sense, not as something to be happy with.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was right to point to the weakness of the figure for five or more A to C grades, and the inevitable focus on the border between grades C and D. We are considering the matter, but measures that look at the performance of the lowest quintile will help to address the problem. A column in the performance tables will show what schools have achieved for pupils qualifying for the pupil premium. Schools will not then be able to say, “Well, this is our intake and this is why we are performing poorly” if we consider GCSE results only of those children who qualify for the pupil premium.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about school places. We are doing a significant amount to tackle the problem. There has been an increase in the birth rate since 2001, which is now feeding through into an increase in primary school numbers, and there is £800 million of basic need capital funding to cover shortages. Capital funding is a priority, albeit that it rather short in the current circumstances.
The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) cited Australia. We are introducing a scholarship fund—an education endowment fund—of £125 million, to be administered by the Sutton Trust. Teachers will be able to bid for funds to allow them to undertake further study in their academic field, or to improve their teaching skills. That important initiative is on similar lines to the one that she mentioned.
I shall now address the debate more generally. The challenges that we face in the 21st century and the opportunities that we now enjoy are more global in scope than ever before, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The days are long gone when we could afford to educate a minority of our children well, while hoping that the rest would be okay. As we heard, China and India are already turning out more engineers, computer scientists and university graduates than the whole of Europe and America combined.
The success of other nations in educating more of their young people to a higher level is part of their resolute determination to secure their future prosperity. It is no longer good enough to say that we as a nation are doing better than we did in the past. What matters now is not so much how we are doing compared to the past, but how we are doing compared to the rest and, in particular, how we are doing compared to the best of the rest.
We need to ask ourselves how our 16-year-olds are doing when compared with those in the US, Singapore, China and Scandinavia. Sadly, the answer is that we are not doing anywhere near well enough. Across the globe, other nations are outpacing us, accelerating reforms, creating more innovation and pulling ahead in international comparisons.
As has been pointed out, in recent years the UK has slipped down the international league tables. Indeed, when the PISA tables were first published, to the disbelief of the German education establishment they demonstrated that its education system was nowhere near being the global leader it had always thought. In Germany, it became known as “PISA-shock”. Most important, it stimulated a furious debate about how Germany could catch up, and that is the approach that we should be taking. We should not be saying, “Now that the figures are low, this academic or that will not believe them.” That was not being said in the years after 2000 by Labour Ministers or civil servants when the figures showed us being fourth, seventh and eighth in science, literacy and maths.
Similarly, when the United States was confronted with evidence showing that that 15-year-olds in the far east were comfortably outperforming their pupils in maths and science, it was described as a “Sputnik moment”. Most important, it again prompted radical reform of science education in the US. The good news is that the coalition Government are determined to ensure that the latest PISA study leads to similar action here. We are doing so by using examples of what works in the best-performing education nations.
As well as the OECD’s findings, another invaluable contribution was made by Sir Michael Barber and McKinsey. The seminal 2007 report, “How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top”, provided a blueprint for all nations serious about reforming their education systems of what they needed to do to catch up. The 2010 report, “How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better”, provided further invaluable insights for all nations aspiring to improve their education system.
Stella Creasy
I am pleased to hear the Minister talking about science being an important subject and something on which the Government wish to measure progress. Will the Minister update us on what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the lack of science labs many schools will suffer as a result of cancelling the Building Schools for the Future fund projects and the lack of investment in science, particularly in areas such as mine?
Mr Gibb
We are concerned about science, of course, and we are concerned about science labs, but the state of our science laboratories came about over the 13 years of Labour Government. Of course there are problems, but we cannot debate now the Building Schools for the Future programme and the capital and funding problems that are the consequence of economic mismanagement over the past 13 years, which we are trying to tackle.
In the remaining minute, I wish to make a final point. If we dismiss what the OECD and McKinsey tell us, and fly in the face of the evidence of what works, we will not genuinely tackle the problems. Our recently published schools White Paper was deliberately designed to bring together policies that have worked in other high-performing nations.
I would have liked to talk about the academies movement. We have increased the number of academies from 203 to 658, and we have 1,000 applications to convert to academy status. Evidence of what works around the world shows that only by extending greater autonomy to schools, trusting professionals to get on with their jobs, providing stronger accountability to local communities and raising teacher quality can nations become among the best performing in the world. That is our objective.
Elizabeth Truss
We have had a most interesting debate. I thank everyone who has contributed, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Wells (Tessa Munt), who pitched with me to the Backbench Business Committee to secure the debate. I hope that we have future debates on this important subject, so that we can get to the bottom of what the issue is.
We have had a lot of disputes about what is in the table. My hon. Friend the Minister put it very well when he said that average is simply not good enough in today’s world. We have seen some acknowledgement of that by the Opposition. I am an optimist, and I hope that the Opposition will be less defensive about their record, so that they can focus on the future and on how to raise standards. That is important for everyone. If Japan can get 95% of students from 16 to 18 studying maths, science, languages and humanities, so can we and we can compete internationally.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Enterprise Partnerships
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
I would like to inform the House that today I have written to local enterprise partnership chairs and shadow chairs setting out the new measures that BIS is introducing today to support partnerships as they deliver their ambitions for growth. These initiatives include:
A new £5 million start-up fund for LEPs aimed at helping those partnerships which do not have any institutional capacity to get started and get themselves on a sustainable financial footing. This funding will be available in 2011-12 only.
The launch of a toolbox for LEPs, which provides information on economic development activity across Government Departments and ideas for strong LEP/ Government co-operation. This includes the contact details of the six local relationship management teams which BIS has put in place to provide the key first point for contact for LEPs on any issues they have.
More details of these initiatives can be found on the BIS website through the following address:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/economic-development/leps.
Government Olympic Executive
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I am publishing today the Government Olympic Executive’s quarterly report—“London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report May 2011”. This report explains the latest budget position as at 31 March 2011, and outlines some of the many wider economic and social benefits to the UK.
The overall public sector funding package for the games remains at £9.298 billion. As reported in the annual report in February this year, the breakdown of the funding package altered from April 2011 reflecting the changing focus of the programme from construction to the operational delivery of the games. We continue to seek value for money and cost savings in our day-to-day running of the project. Through a combination of further savings achieved in the quarter together with reducing risks, the overall anticipated final cost of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) programme has reduced by £35 million to £7.266 billion.
The ODA continues to make strong progress in preparing the venues and infrastructure in the Olympic park with 83% of the games-time construction programme now complete. The last piece of turf on the Olympic stadium’s field of play was laid in March, marking the completion of construction on the flagship venue. Construction started on the Olympic stadium just under three years ago in May 2008 and has been completed on time, under budget and with an exemplary safety record. Over 240 UK businesses have won contracts for the construction of the stadium and over 5,250 people have worked on the project over the past three years.
This quarter also saw the completed 6,000-seat velodrome unveiled in February. After the games, the legacy velodrome will be used by elite athletes and the local community and will include a café, bike hire and cycle workshop facilities. The ODA will also today announce that the handball arena is complete and that the basketball arena is nearing completion.
The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games are continuing to help businesses and people through the difficult economic times. Some 100 companies that have worked on the 2012 games have had their achievements highlighted in the first edition of “Springboard to Success” which was launched by UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the ODA and LOCOG at Sport Accord. The directory showcases 400 UK companies specialising in major infrastructure and sporting project supplies who have won contracts at domestic and international sporting events including London 2012, with a view to helping them win more work in this billion dollar sector. Notable contracts awarded by LOCOG in the last quarter include an agreement with G4S Secure Solutions (UK) for recruiting, training and managing a 10,000-strong security work force for the games. The terms of this major contract provide for extensive insurance coverage to address potential liabilities, and beyond this, LOCOG has agreed to indemnify G4S for certain claims which cannot be covered by insurance. The Government have confirmed that in the event of a shortfall between LOCOG’s revenues and its costs, LOCOG’s indemnification obligations would be covered by the Government as ultimate guarantor of games funding.
The games will also provide a golden opportunity for the tourism industry. The Government’s tourism policy, published in March, aims to help the tourism industry achieve its potential for growth through a range of measures including creating a sustainable new model for destination marketing and management, taking advantage of the series of major events which the UK is due to host over the next few years. Major companies have already pledged support to help match the £50 million of public money the Government have committed through VisitBritain. This initiative aims to generate 4 million extra overseas visitors over the next four years bringing in an extra £2 billion-worth of visitor spend and helping to create 50,000 new jobs across the country.
I would like to commend this report to the Members of both Houses and thank them for their continued interest in, and support for, the London 2012 games.
Copies of the quarterly report May 2011 are available online at www.culture.gov.uk and will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Inquests (Service Personnel Overseas)
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House with details of the inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. We wish to express the Government’s deep sense of gratitude to all our service personnel who are serving, or who have served, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As always, the families of those service personnel who have lost their lives in the service of their country in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are very much in our thoughts. Our deepest condolences go to them, and in particular to the families of the 14 service personnel who have died since our last statement.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner, and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 5 May.
I have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses to supplement this statement. The tables outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. They include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held.
Both our Departments will continue to work closely together to improve our processes and we will continue the Government’s support for coroners conducting inquests into operational deaths. We are grateful to them and their staff for their dedication. We would also like to thank once again all those people who provide support and information before, during and after the inquest process.
Since October 2007 both Departments have provided additional resources for operational inquests. These resources have been provided to the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner Mr David Ridley due to the repatriation of service personnel at RAF Lyneham and the formation of the MOD Defence Inquests Unit in 2008. These measures have been provided to ensure that there is not a backlog of operational inquests. On 16 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in a written ministerial statement (Official Report, column 11WS) that repatriation ceremonies for those killed in operational theatres will move to RAF Brize Norton, in the Oxfordshire coroner’s district, by 1 September. We will again provide additional resources to the Oxfordshire coroner Mr Nicholas Gardiner.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement there have been 17 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.
A total of 453 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 12 service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In three further cases, no formal inquest was held. In two of these cases the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident.
Open inquests
Fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan
At present there are 88 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, 21 involving deaths in the last six months. The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained 37 of the remaining open inquests, while 39 are being conducted by coroners closer to the next of kin. Hearing dates have been set in 16 cases.
There is one remaining open inquest into deaths from operations in Iraq.
Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
Twelve inquests remain to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. One hearing date has been set. The remaining 11 cases will be listed for hearing when the continuing investigations are completed.
We shall continue to inform the House of progress with the remaining inquests.
House of Lords
Big Society: Church of England
Baroness Perry of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to work with the Church of England in further developing the Big Society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Government are actively working with faith community leaders in order to create the big society. The Secretary of State and my noble friend Lady Warsi have discussed these matters with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and other senior church figures, and more meetings are planned. Faith communities including the Church of England have been a focus for philanthropic activity for centuries, and my department will continue to work with them.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Would she agree that the Church of England is particularly well placed geographically, because it has a presence in every community and also because its Christian values have long rested on caring for our neighbours and those in the community who most need help?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I can certainly agree with what the noble Baroness has said. The Church of England is well placed because, as she says, it has—I was going to say fingers in every pie—tentacles in every part. The Question is about the Church of England, but I emphasise that we work happily not only with the church but indeed with all faith communities.
Lord Tomlinson
Will the Minister acknowledge how much damage her party did to the big society when it promoted the demutualisation of building societies and mutual societies, which were the very origins of the big society?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we pass on in time, and the big society is something that we all now understand. [Laughter]
I am truly astonished at that response from the Opposition. Do they not understand that the big society is based on communities, on the value of the work that people do for other people and on neighbourliness? I do not understand why they are laughing.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, as county youth services have diminished, the number of youth workers employed by the Church of England has increased considerably. Faced with inflation, reductions in gift aid and the other challenges to charitable giving faced by the voluntary sector, what steps will the Government take to help the Church of England develop further the community provision so essential to building the big society?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate knows, the near neighbours exercise is currently under way, for which my department is providing over £5 million to the Church of England’s initiative, part of which is to ensure that people are trained, to ensure that there are interactions between faith communities and to help the big society in action.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, can the Minister now answer properly the question of my noble friend Lord Tomlinson by indicating whether she and the Government are indeed in favour of the mutual approach to which he referred?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, there is always value in mutualisation in various areas. I am not going to comment on the question that was raised; I have replied to it as I can. The relationships between people in local communities are invaluable.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, can the Minister do everything she can to encourage an end to the practice whereby local authorities refuse to give grants and support to organisations which have a religious dimension or conviction? This means that many organisations which do great charitable work are unable to get the support of local authorities, something which seems completely at variance with the big society agenda.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, my department has been working closely not only with the Church of England but also with other faith societies to ensure that the work that they do in local areas is understood and supported. Where contributions and grants are made from local authorities, we would expect them to be given to faith organisations and the Church of England for the work that they do, and in line with that. We would not expect local authorities not to do so just because it was the Church of England.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the value of what we do for others. Can she give us the Government’s reaction to today’s announcement that the value of the work of unpaid carers in the big society has been re-estimated from £87 billion to £119 billion every year?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I understand fully the interest of the noble Baroness opposite. She has been working in this field for a long time. My response is that I would not be surprised. The amount of voluntary work and caring in this country is enormous. We all recognise that many people are looking after members of their family full time, largely unpaid and unrecognised. The first thing we have got to do is recognise what they do, and I would not underestimate the value of their contribution. What the noble Baroness says is correct.
Lord Tope
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an executive councillor in the London Borough of Sutton, which is one of the Government’s three vanguard communities for the big society. What steps are the Government taking to remove regulatory burdens at both national and EU level to enable local authorities to provide practical support in facilitating faith-based and other community organisations to deliver services and grow community spirit?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, unless there are regulations standing in the way of that, we would want to look at it very carefully and see what is stopping that work. I am not aware of either the Church of England or any other faith community being debarred from helping people in the work that they need to do. I pay tribute to the work of those organisations and their presence in the community, and express the appreciation of the people who rely upon them.
Lord Inglewood
Does the Minister agree that the beginnings of implementing the kind of society that the big society envisages are in everyone recognising their responsibilities to other people in that society—
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, order! The noble Lord is standing in the Gangway. He should be speaking from the Bench.
Lord Inglewood
Does the Minister also agree that those interested in promoting the big society must recognise their responsibilities to others, and that this includes faith organisations as well as other elements in civil society?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I indicated, the big society is all about people helping others in local areas, neighbourliness, philanthropy, practical help and recognising that each of us owes a responsibility to others in the course of our lives.
Media: BBC
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to compel the BBC to open its books for audit by the National Audit Office.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, the Government are committed to allowing the National Audit Office full access to the BBC’s accounts for the purpose of undertaking value-for-money investigations. Her Majesty’s Government did consider, but disregarded, the use of legislation to secure full access. The objective will be achieved by amending the BBC agreement. The Government are not seeking to appoint the NAO as the BBC’s auditor, as we do not see this as central to delivering the coalition commitment.
Lord Touhig
I thank the Minister for her reply, and I very much agree with the Government—I do not believe that legislation is the way to resolve this matter. However, the fact remains that the BBC is the only publicly funded body that will not allow the National Audit Office to do value-for-money audits except on terms dictated by the BBC. That cannot be right—and the Culture Secretary agrees with me. Eight months ago, he said that there was an agreement for the NAO to audit the BBC. Two weeks ago, he said that the NAO should have unfettered access to audit the BBC. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will actually make this happen?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for asking this Question, as it provides me with the opportunity to clarify the present situation. The talks with the BBC that he mentioned have not broken down; indeed, the Secretary of State discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Patten when he met him just this Monday. The details of the new arrangements have still to be finalised. However, the Government’s commitment to the target date of November 2011 will be met and an announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
Baroness Deech
Does the Minister not agree that talk of compulsion in this field is entirely inappropriate given the independence of the BBC and its ownership by the licence fee payers; that services such as the World Service are expensive to provide but priceless to receive; and that number-crunching is not necessarily the answer?
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The Secretary of State, in Question Time in the other place, has announced that he will allow full access to the BBC World Service, S4C and all the accounts.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the public feel a need for transparency in these things? As she said, there will be no compulsion, but the National Audit Office will publish something for the public to see. What will be published? Will there be enough information to give the public an idea of what is happening? How will this be managed without conflicting with the lack of legislation? Personally I agree with her—I would prefer there to be no legislation on this subject.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner brings up a very good point. It is essential for the public to have all the knowledge possible regarding the accounts of the BBC, and the NAO will have access to all the information that it considers relevant. However, publication of information by the NAO will, of course, need to be consistent with the existing legislation on privacy and data protection.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his evidence to the Lords Communications Committee this week that the BBC should be transparent and accountable, but also that the NAO’s programme of inquiry should be properly planned and not just a random exercise or simply responsive to the whims of the media?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I am sure that I agree with the Secretary of State—and you would not expect differently. Her Majesty’s Government are not seeking to appoint the NAO as the BBC’s auditor as we do not see that as central to delivering the coalition commitment. However, we are aware that the BBC Trust is happy for the NAO to compete for this role when the current contract expires in 2012.
Lord Addington
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to assure us that no matter how the BBC is audited, it should not be at the whim of people—particularly politicians—to accuse it of bias; and also that there is a recognised process to go through, because the BBC has shown a remarkable capacity to annoy Governments of all colours?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Addington makes a valid point. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced in its structural reform plan of July 2010 that the National Audit Office would be allowed full access to the BBC’s accounts for the purpose of value-for-money investigations. This will be achieved by November 2011. It is more important to clarify the details, rather than rushing into implementing the new arrangements before the scheduled date. We are confident that this target will be met.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, as the BBC is owned by the licence payers, when can they be told how much the BBC presenters and stars are being paid?
Baroness Rawlings
I am sure that, when the time is right, the Secretary of State will announce—
Lord Inglewood
Does my noble friend agree that while it is proper that there is appropriate transparency and accountability in the books of the BBC, it is of overriding importance that, as an institution, it remains independent of any form of political control or direction?
Baroness Rawlings
I am sure that we would all agree with my noble friend Lord Inglewood. The most important thing is for the BBC to remain independent and to keep its very high standards, which we all respect.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, suggested in his initial question—that we are making a mountain out of a molehill? No legislation is required. The BBC is already subject to external auditors. Its books are published in an extensive report and accounts each year. The governors have to appear before the Select Committee. Ofcom actually has enormous powers over the BBC which very few people know about and which cost the BBC—and therefore the licence payer—a huge amount of money. All that is required in this case is an agreement between the Secretary of State, as my noble friend stated, and the new chairman of the BBC for this extra transparency to come about.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ryder, with all his long experience in this area, is absolutely right. It does need only a little tweak. As I said earlier, the Government did consider, but disregarded, the use of legislation to secure NAO access. Implementation of legislation to override the BBC agreement would run counter to the principles on which the BBC is established and its relationship with government.
European Financial Stability Mechanism
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the constitutional convention that no Parliament may bind its successor, they will review the commitment made by the previous Government to participate in the European financial stability mechanism.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the constitutional question is a red herring in this case. The Government are focused on looking ahead. At the December European Council, the UK secured an agreement for the European stability mechanism to be replaced, by 2013 at the latest, with a permanent mechanism for assisting eurozone countries. The UK will not be participating in the permanent mechanism.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I am sorry that he thought that part of my Question was a red herring. I will try a fish of a slightly different colour. I remind him that at the Davos economic forum President Sarkozy of France said:
“To those who would bet against the euro, watch out for your money … Mrs Merkel and I will never—do you hear me, never—let the euro fall”.
Given that unambiguous recognition that the eurozone ought to be able to sort out its own problems, will the Government now stop pouring good money after bad and give notice that they will withdraw from the European financial stability mechanism?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we inherited the UK’s participation in the European financial stability mechanism from the previous Government. The decision was made between the date of the general election and the change of Government. We inherited that position. We have taken rapid action, and reached agreement at the European Council in December 2010 that the current mechanism will be replaced by a permanent mechanism by 2013 at the very latest, and that the UK will not participate in it. It is great to hear that the eurozone leaders, who the noble Lord quoted, are completely committed—as we understand they are—to supporting the eurozone. That is for them, and the UK will not be part of that future mechanism.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is widespread surprise that the original financial stability mechanism was allowed to be established under Article 122 of the European Union treaty, which deals with natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods, not sovereign defaults, and that that was done despite Article 125, which specifically prohibits sovereign debt bailouts? Although my noble friend is absolutely right that the new stability mechanism is to come into place, that requires unanimity. If that is not achieved, is it not possible that Britain may be dragged into bailing out not just Ireland, for which there was an argument, but Portugal and Greece? If those provisions of the treaty are going to go on being ignored, surely the only result will be more scepticism and cynicism about the way in which the EU operates.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, my noble friend embedded a number of questions in what was apparently one question. As to the use of the different articles, another key part of the agreement at the European Council in December 2010 was that Article 122 would unequivocally not be used in future for these purposes. Without going into the debate about whether Article 122 should ever have been used for this sort of operation, it will not be used in future—that is agreed. As to Article 125, that is used for loans for medium-term financing under things such as the balance of payments facility and quite other purposes, and that will continue. As to the UK’s participation, the new mechanism has been agreed by the Council. Its resolution is completely clear. A treaty amendment will bring in the new mechanism. That position could not be clearer. As to Portugal, my right honourable friend the Chancellor has made it completely clear that as the negotiations go forward to completion, the UK will not participate in any bilateral loan to Portugal. Ireland was a special case, and the same considerations do not apply in the case of Portugal.
Lord Davies of Oldham
The House will have noted that the Minister brushed aside the constitutional preamble to the Question. I have some sympathy with him on that, but will he confirm that what took place after the general election had produced an inconclusive result and during the interim period was an entirely proper action by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, Alistair Darling, who sought consensus from the Conservative Party before he went to ECOFIN and subsequently had that consensus confirmed by the Government when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Justine Greening, confirmed it on 21 July? Will the noble Lord take the opportunity to clear that up?
Lord Sassoon
I am very happy to clear up the matter; I thought we had done that a week or two ago. Let me be absolutely clear. The previous Chancellor, Mr Darling, took the decision—it was still for him and the previous Government to take that decision. He consulted the Opposition. My right honourable friend the current Chancellor made it clear that he did not agree with the decision. The previous Chancellor consulted him on the course of action that was proposed and, in the words of my right honourable friend, it was for the previous Chancellor to reach that decision. The previous Chancellor reached the wrong decision. That was his decision; he made it.
Lord Harrison
Once again, the Minister is providing inaccurate information. The EFSM, to which we contribute through membership of the IMF, and the ESM, which we will contribute to until 2013, will be conflated into the new European stability mechanism, which we will still be funding through our membership of the IMF. Will he make that very clear?
Lord Sassoon
The position as set out in the decision of the European Council is completely clear; it is that the new permanent mechanism will replace the current one. The current mechanism will cease to operate and the new permanent mechanism will deal with any matters that might arise after it comes into operation.
Crown Prosecution Service
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Whitaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, given the reported intention of the Home Secretary to transfer decisions about whether to charge a suspect from the Crown Prosecution Service back to the police, the same officers will carry out investigations and take decisions to prosecute.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the proposals build on existing practice and are designed further to improve charging efficiency. The police already have responsibility for charging decisions in 67 per cent of cases. Custody officers, who play no part in investigations, will continue to make the decisions, in accordance with the provisions in the guidance of the Director of Public Prosecutions, on whether to refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that half-satisfactory reply. However, is she aware that, when I was a magistrate and the decision was made to set up the CPS and give it responsibility for prosecutions, it was universally greeted as a great step forward, not least because it removed the incentive, or perceived incentive, from the prosecutor to tailor the investigation so as to fit it for a charge—I am trying not to use the word “fit”, advisedly? How will HMG guard against that perception?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised a number of interesting points. However, the point is that, through modernising our charging programme, we are building on the trust that we have with our police forces and also making sure that we build in greater efficiency and reduce bureaucracy.
Lord Dear
Is the Minister aware, as I am, of the steady growth of the use of fixed-penalty tickets by the police in an expanding range of offences, which now includes theft and assault, as well as perhaps traffic offences, and which is giving rise to some disquiet, not least among the judiciary? Does the Minister agree that we have reached a point where it would be proper, and indeed sensible, to institute a full inquiry into this practice and to consider whether we have gone too far?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that we are going down a route from which we cannot back-track. We are monitoring everything we do. However, there are of course offences where it is best to go through fixed-penalty processes, and that reduces the queue of serious cases to be heard at trial in court.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, is the Minister aware that what she said about charging creates some disquiet? The present position in relation to charging approved by this House and the whole of Parliament, under which the Crown Prosecution Service makes the decisions, was recommended by an independent criminal judge—one of our most senior—and was followed by pilots, which demonstrated its efficiency and effectiveness? Is she also aware that there will be some concern, particularly in the light of anxieties already expressed in this House about the potential politicisation of the police, if independent prosecuting decisions are not still taken by the prosecutors? Can she assure us that what she has told us about the present system is not just the thin end of the wedge?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is also aware that the greater powers that the police have to charge came about under the previous Administration. We are just following through and building on that programme. The noble and learned Lord will also be aware that the CPS will keep control over serious offences but it will also have an overview of every single case that goes through the legal system.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
Is my noble friend aware that, when charging was transferred from the police to prosecutors seven years ago, attrition rates declined rapidly, pleas of guilty soared by some 40 per cent and the conviction rate rose? Does she recall that the reason for those improvements was that, when the police were responsible for charging in the old days, the courts were invariably expensively stuffed with too many badly flawed cases that were always going to fail? Why does she think that the situation is going to be any different seven years on?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I can only repeat to my noble friend that serious cases will remain with the CPS, which will still have an overview of every single case that comes through the courts. However, what we are doing is leading to reductions in bureaucracy and, I hope, an increase in the efficient use of police time. The piloted programmes have indicated a saving of 50,000 police hours. Building on that, by June of this year a further 40,000 police hours will be saved.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, will the noble Baroness address the second point raised by my noble and learned friend that it is the combination of the police being given prosecution powers on the one hand and the Government’s proposal for elected party-political commissioners on the other that brings a great deal of fear? Why are the Government pursuing these two policies, which will undermine confidence in the police force?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I completely disagree with the noble Lord. As he is aware, we are trying to introduce efficiencies to the way in which charges are brought. First and foremost the lesser charges are with the police because it is much easier and quicker for them to deal with them. The serious cases will be with the CPS. As to the noble Lord’s second point, he knows exactly where we stand on that.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, in 2010, 20 per cent of the abandoned cases came about because the CPS failed to review the cases before they came to trial. This obviously caused great distress for victims but was also very wasteful. Can my noble friend say what is being done to put that right?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend raises an extremely poignant point. Police charging of some offences will clearly cut out that time-wasting and it will also help do away with the duplication of case preparation. The need for the police and the CPS to co-operate and work together from a very early stage is crucial as it will ensure that victims, who are at the heart of this, can feel assured that achieving justice is not weighted against them.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was consulted about these proposals? If so, will she place a copy of the director’s response in the Library?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, we have probably consulted an awful lot of people, including the director. However, to ensure that I am completely safeguarded on that, I will write to the noble Lord.
Education Bill
Business of the House
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday 16 May to allow the Motions standing in the names of Lord Avebury and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath to be taken before the European Union Bill.
Business of the House
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Byford set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of Baroness Newlove to two hours.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the next debate is time-limited to three hours. If the debate is still continuing when that time is up, the noble Lord on the Woolsack will invite my noble friend Lady Byford to withdraw her Motion. I therefore invite noble Lords to do their utmost to keep their contributions within the time limits indicated on the Speakers List so that my noble friend Lady Byford has time to respond before the debate is brought to an end. In a helpful manner, I hope, I remind noble Lords that the Chamber Clocks show the time that has elapsed, indicating that noble Lords have already reached their speaking limit and will then be exceeding their time.
It might be helpful if Whips take the opportunity to remind noble Lords of these guidance rules in the Companion so that all noble Lords who have signed up to speak can make their full contribution to the House.
Agriculture: Global Food Security
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Byford
To call attention to the future contribution of British agriculture to global food security; and to move for Papers.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as set out in the Register.
It is a year since the formation of the coalition Government and I welcome the fact that the new Government have welcomed the importance of farming and placed food security high on the agenda. We have seen: the establishment of the regulation task force, which is due to report next week; the setting up of the new animal health and welfare board; a reduction in the number of quangos; and a welcome £26 million of new money for research at Norwich research park after years of research programme cuts. In the pipeline are the natural environment White Paper, the grocery market ombudsman, disease controls relating in particular to bovine TB, decisions on the use of GM technology, and, finally, CAP reform beyond 2013.
All of these issues affect the way in which we produce food and the level of security that we achieve. The RASE report, Working for the Future of Agriculture, offers this definition:
“Food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active, healthy life”.
The report states that food production will have to increase by 40 per cent by 2030 to meet world demand.
Raising world food output is a mammoth task. Even as world population expands, agricultural productivity in some areas is falling. David Richardson, writing last month in Farmers Weekly, quoted some frightening figures. In 1985, there were some 74 million ewes in New Zealand; today, there are 30 million. In Australia, the number of ewes has fallen from 200 million to 70 million. In the UK, in 1990 there were 21 million ewes; today there are fewer than 15 million, and the number of sows has fallen from 700,000 to fewer than 400,000. Over that period, annual net migration into the UK has been between 200,000 and 400,000, and our self-sufficiency in food has fallen. In part this reflects the growth in world trade that has enabled UK citizens to eat a wider range of food and consume some foods out of season. It also reflects the paltry rewards received by many farmers.
In a Written Answer in March, my honourable friend Jim Paice stated that the farm business survey calculated that the average farm business income from grazing livestock in 2009-10 was £22,000, which is below average earnings. The figure is an average; many farmers’ incomes are lower than that. The fall is partly due to the higher input costs and lower prices for finished cattle. Pig prices are dire: farmers are currently losing £16 to £18 per pig. This reflects the volatility and uncertainty that producers face when formulating their business plans.
Thankfully, many people are now aware of the threat to food security worldwide, and a number of committees and research groups are turning their attention to finding solutions to these problems. In January this year, the Foresight report into the future of food and farming was published. It bids fair to be to this decade what the Curry report was to the last. The report drew on the expertise of several hundred specialists across the world and received more than 100 evidence papers. It identifies the main future pressures as: the growing population; more demand for a variety of high-quality foods; greater competition for land and, in particular, for water and energy; the emerging effects of climate change; and new economic and political pressures.
The CAP after 2013 will be a crucial influence on the progress of European agriculture. The Commons Select Committee described the CAP’s role as the achievement of sustainable intensification of agriculture without causing irrevocable damage to the environment, and stressed the need for this to be done without disadvantaging UK farmers. I believe that the promised alteration to the CAP will be successful only if it does not disincentivise the production of any staple commodity. The world needs large quantities of high-quality nutritional food. However, it cannot be right to cap those who achieve higher production levels, just as it cannot be right to award subsidies for growing items such as tobacco.
Most taxpayers seem to be in favour of the ending of subsidies, but that will be viable only when primary producers receive a fair reward for their efforts. The CLA briefing makes the point that, over the past two years, Governments have made positive statements that must be achieved, but it queries where the action is. The CLA considers the CAP to be a major policy for the protection of managing Europe’s natural resources. This implies not only a cohesive structure but also the dedication of considerable funds—certainly not less than now.
The NFU in its latest paper, The Recovery: Why Farming Matters, states that the industry must be able to respond to domestic demand and contribute to global food supply. I heartily endorse those sentiments and ask the Minister how the Government will ensure that we make common cause with agriculture in the devolved Administrations. The interdependence of the agri-food sector as a whole should not be undervalued. An efficient viable farming base is critical for UK food processors to ensure their long-term access to raw materials.
We must farm in an environmentally sensitive way. Water, as I said, is key to food production, and we know that less will be available in the future. This is particularly true of countries in the southern hemisphere, where water and food shortages have caused riots recently. Dr Bruce Lankford from the University of East Anglia has produced a paper which expresses his concerns and explains his concept of virtual water. He claims that the UK received some 65 billion litres of water from other parts of the world embedded in imported goods. That comes in the main from areas which have less water than we have and which are likely to have less in the future. Every day each of us uses more of this virtual water than we consume for drinks, food preparation and hygiene. Can that situation continue? Surely, it is not sustainable when we know that the ground-water supplies are dangerously low. How much longer can we rely on access and global trading to meet our needs?
The whole question of food security is endlessly challenging. The traditional farming questions include what to plant, when to plant it, how to grow it, how to harvest it, how to conserve the soil, how to ensure sufficient water supply and how to maximise output. Farmers have no control over the weather. March and April have been the driest for years. Planting and harvesting are planned but often disrupted. Add to that the conundrums which include the use of energy and water for processing, transport, extension of shelf life and the reduction and disposal of waste, and one realises that food production is indeed a complex task.
I am glad that initiatives are being taken. The TSB sustainable agriculture and food innovation platform is funded to the tune of some £18 million per annum—50 per cent from BIS, 30 per cent from Defra, 10 per cent from BBSRC and the remainder by Scotland and AHDB. Its first programme was on new approaches to crop protection and its second will be on protein production and utilisation, including aquaculture.
The farming industry is also contributing to looking at new methods. In April this year, the English pig industry launched its road map, Towards Better Performance, which testifies its commitment to reducing the pigs’ carbon footprint and detailing targets it has set for itself. Earlier this week, I was at the launch of the dairy forum’s road map, which reflects the commitment of the whole dairy sector to minimising environmental impact throughout the chain. It sets targets for dairy farmers, processors and retailers, and shows how reducing the carbon footprint has already made economic sense.
Many other projects are underway, funded, for example, by the companies which supply seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and machinery. Government departments and agencies fund basic research. There is still some central support for applied research and the process of translating laboratory results into farming practices. In his response, will the Minister outline the Government’s programme for extending field trials and the application of research results into general farming, and will he also update us on the progress being made on the Taylor report?
Knowledge and skills development is essential if we are to meet the challenges of the future. EU Sub-Committee D is currently involved in considering innovations in agriculture. While I cannot predict its recommendations, knowledge transfer from scientific discovery taken through to farm application has been included in much of the evidence taken. Advances in machinery technologies such as GPS systems have resulted in fewer applications of chemicals on to the land, saving farmers money and, more importantly, lessening pollution. That is a win-win situation.
Sharing knowledge is crucial if we are to meet the predicted demand for food. I am glad that universities and colleges worldwide have become involved in this. For example, for the past 10 years Harper Adams University College has been working with a Beijing agricultural college on a joint degree programme that involves two years of study in China and a final year at Harper Adams. The focus is on food production and food quality. In addition, 18 out of the 30 applied research students are from overseas. They are looking at various aspects of agriculture such as poultry production, crop production, the effects of climate change and, what is most important, ways of improving food production both here and worldwide.
One of the important things facing us is the use of genetic modification. It has been around for a long time. The USA has embraced it in principle and parts of the Far East are using it widely. Its rejection in Europe and many parts of Africa can be traced to a number of factors that, quite honestly, I find irritating. Does the use of an antibiotic marker gene really threaten the health and safety of any of our population? How far can seeds travel unassisted? The French put it at 3 kilometres, a considerable distance. However, there are people who take a different view. I believe that we cannot go forward without appreciating and accepting in principle this technology. However, should the growing of GM crops be approved for the UK, which I hope it will, we must have regular scientific reviews. Climate change seems to be worsening and the incidence of animal and plant diseases spreading further afield is rising. Genetic modification, provided that it is carefully controlled, seems to be a logical and preferred way of helping to reduce some of these new challenges.
The “Farming Today” programme broadcast on Monday had an item on renewable energy, but I am afraid that it was not hopeful of success in meeting the stated targets. Once again, I feel that many more targets could be met if only we were able to unlock sufficient funding to take the necessary steps of monitoring and reviewing progress, as well as to chuck out what is not working and speed up that which is. Organisations such as LEAF and many others produce commercial food for us but are also working closely with others to link in with the environment. There is an enormous role for this type of farming enterprise in the future.
Finally, we have just two or three months of extremely cold weather followed by several weeks with very little rain. Watching the frantic efforts of birds to find enough food to eat, I was struck by the similarity between their plight and that of millions of people in other parts of the world. The UK is vibrant and positive. Over the centuries her people have travelled the world, using their skills to enable others to progress and live better lives. The threats facing us now are perhaps the most serious yet, but I believe that if we abandon entrenched attitudes and encourage our most original thinkers to devote their time to solving these problems, we will master them and we will survive. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Coles
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on securing this important and timely debate. I declare my interest as chairman of Sub-Committee D of the EU Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, which scrutinises, among other things, EU agricultural policy. I am also a farm owner. Allocating resources to a wide range of security issues has always been a challenging priority for government. Should there be more police; should there be more prisons; should there be more soldiers? These are frequently debated, yet probably one of the most critical issues that the world faces at the moment—food security—is rarely debated. That is why today’s debate is so valuable.
The past 50 years or so in agriculture have been a relatively benign period. Technology has increased productivity and more land has been brought into production. Generally, apart from in recent times, that has held down food prices. It has enabled us to feed the rising world population, which in that time has risen from 3 billion to 7 billion. That is quite an achievement. However, looking back over recent times, there are various occasions when the predictions of Malthus may have seemed to have become a reality. I think back to the 19th century and the famine in Ireland, the famine in Ukraine in the 1930s and the Bengal famine in the 1940s.
It is interesting that, in the lifetime of many people in your Lordships’ House, the Second World War showed us what the issue of food security meant. In 1939, 70-odd per cent of food was imported to this country; by 1945 we had got that down to 25 per cent and were still able to give everybody in the country—around 42 million people—2,200 calories a day. Contrast that with today when we import 40 per cent of food and still give everybody 2,200 calories a day. I suppose it might explain something that the decrease in manual labour has been tremendous in that period, so you would have expected the calorific intake to go down. Maybe that partly explains some of the healthcare challenges that we face. Looking forward, there is the challenge by 2050 of feeding a world population that will increase from 7 billion to 9 billion. Even as we seek to increase the yields from agriculture, we need to avoid the adverse environmental effects of some types of farming—hence the need to practise the sustainable intensification of agriculture.
As we look around, there are doubts that Europe and the UK can meet this challenge. In the medium term we are told that, already having suffered 10 years of stagnation in the rise in output, in the next 10 years agriculture output in the EU will rise by only 4 per cent. That will contrast with the United States, where it will rise by between 10 and 15 per cent, and Brazil where it will rise by 40 per cent. Various factors explain these differences. Those countries do not have the constraints of European agriculture, in which there is a great deal of focus on the size of farms and preserving rural communities. On that point, the average size of a farm in the United States is 420 acres. Contrast that with a country such as Hungary, where the average farm size is seven acres and the policy works as follows. If you have a back yard with two or more trees in it and you intend to sell your plums, apples or pears, you are eligible for an EU subsidy. It seems rather a strange policy.
The issue of rural policy, then, is important and will continue to be debated. I sense a shift in this. It is interesting that in the run-up to the French presidential election, Marine Le Pen really challenged the whole basis of France’s membership of the common agricultural policy, possibly challenging the whole compact that has existed between urban and rural citizens.
The key to the future of this must be technology. On the one hand, a country such as Brazil has expanded its output by bringing more land into use, by taking established technologies from Europe and the United States, and by embracing GM cropping. On the other hand, we have to look at the choices around the technology of things such as biotechnology and how we introduce that. The choice that Europe must make is whether it wants to do this. Will it embrace or reject the technology? Under current EU policies, the need for EU-level approval of cultivation of GM crops—which at this time offers the greatest prospect of increased productivity—means that there is an impasse in the adoption of this technology. Rich countries such as Germany may wish to remain GM-free, confident that their economic strength will enable them to sustain a more expensive food policy. This is notwithstanding the fact that 35 per cent of the animal feed imported into Europe is GM and is in the food chain anyway. It is a fact of life that is already here.
Others may choose to accept GM crops but with adequate controls, as the noble Baroness referred to. In my view, this is a position that demands to be considered. We cannot stand back from this technological revolution. It would be rather like a handloom weaver in the 19th century saying, “I just reject all this” and society saying “We support you”. We would thereby have missed the great technological revolution of the 19th century, in which we played a key part and from which we went on to build industries, with prosperity following.
Neither the UK nor the EU is doing enough to build up the intellectual property that is needed to develop and sustain a green agricultural industry. Thirty or 40 years ago, the UK was a world leader in soil technology, plant breeding and, above all, the know-how to transfer the work of the laboratory into the hands of farmers. Yet there is currently no domestically owned manufacturer of heavy farm machinery—for example, tractors—in the UK and the technology of GM has gone largely to the United States and China. When we have spoken to people in the United States, I cannot work out whether they have been amused or bemused by the position of the EU on the adoption of GM foods. They cannot believe why we do not just get on with it.
In order for Britain to help other parts of the world, we need a more dynamic approach to agricultural technology. We can do some of the simpler things to help the developing world such as building better grain storage so that rats do not steal it, but we need technology to help improve the quality of soil and minimise the use of water and chemicals.
On the subject of overseas development, the Prime Minister's announcement to the G8 summit last June that we would commit £1 billion over three years to food security in the developing world was most welcome. It is interesting that the All-Party Group on Agriculture and Food for Development thought that the contribution should be 10 per cent of our total aid budget. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how he feels we might get to that figure one day.
I am a naturally reluctant exponent of state intervention, but in the case both of the UK and EU, I believe that there is a strong case to be made for two things. The first is leading our citizens to make the choice on GM. If we do not, we will not get the right technology to meet the choice being made. If we decide to go GM-free, we will have to go one way; if we decide to embrace GM, we need to go the other. We need to make those decisions, push for these matters to become clear in the EU and then get on with it. We need then to support our R&D. If we look back at most technological developments, certainly in the 20th century when we moved into scientific development, we see that most of that basic research was generally funded by two groups, the state or people who had a monopoly-supply position such as the telephone companies, which had enormous research departments protected from market forces. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he can give us some comfort on continued support for R&D. GM or no GM, we need to step up our R&D so that we can create a green industry around solving the problems and helping to meet food needs worldwide.
Lord Plumb
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Byford for so ably opening this debate. If I was at a farmers’ meeting, I would probably stand up and say, “Hear, hear. I agree with every word”, and then sit down again. However, she might like to hear a few words from an old farmer who has been associated over many years with the struggle and progress in farming and food production.
The growth in the quantity and quality of food produced is very much down to the application and development of technology and science, funded from both private and public sources. I pay tribute to the many research workers who have been involved over the years.
It is 59 years since my father died. If he came back today, he would have a considerable shock and would be surprised at the development and the progress that has been made throughout the whole land in this country over the years. He would recognise, as we all recognise, that the farming sector faces many challenges—from the pressures to scale-up production and the growing demand for affordable food to the impact of disease outbreaks, many of which still occur in this country. One cannot bypass the importance of trying to move towards the eradication of TB, something that I know has to be done correctly to ensure that we are on course to eradicate that scourge, which is causing the country and those in the business of producing cattle great concern at the moment. We also face greater market liberalisation throughout the world.
The industry has been and still is remarkably resilient, adapting to the many policy changes and coping with the complicated rules and regulations. They apply whether a farmer is farming in the uplands or in the more fertile lowlands, on arable land or in the livestock sector, on the hills or the lowlands. As we face the next reform of the common agricultural policy, we surely have to look forward to greater simplification and incentives to improve the balance in policies for all sectors in agriculture. We know and must surely accept that the challenge for the next 50 years is likely to be of even greater magnitude.
The problem at the moment is that agriculture has never been more out of balance from one sector to another. I heard the other day that the average price of lambs at Lancaster market was £150 per head. It is not many years since they were £20 per head. There is a reason for that; the demand in other countries where a lot of our products are already going. That has happened on one side. The cost of input affects all of us, not just those involved in agriculture. The problem is the input against product price and the volatility that is linked to oil and energy. Some of our energy needs could be met from renewables in this country. We are way behind countries such as Germany in using renewables such as the waste products on farms, which are going to infill sites instead of into anaerobic digesters. Planners should wake up to the importance of getting through legislation and allowing this to happen in order to make better use of those products for energy.
Looking at costs, a local farmer told me only the other day that the cost of putting oil into his combine harvester last year for a day's work was in the region of £500 a day. He recognises as he starts the next harvest that it will be more than £700 a day for the same product, for use in the same job that it did last year. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, the weather in April has meant increased costs. I am told that wheat had to be irrigated on many farms, which farmers do not normally do at that time of year, and it cost something like £100 an acre.
In all this, our natural resources—our soil, water and biodiversity—must be safeguarded. That is the priority as we see it. To meet those global needs, farmers everywhere need to respond, and indeed they will. The young farmers who are entering the market, contrary to some opinion, are so enthusiastic. If you had been at the young farmers’ conference in Blackpool last week—I was not but I know all about it—you would have seen those young farmers keen as mustard to get on. I was, when I was a young farmer. Of course, we see the difficulties as time passes, but it is wonderful that those young farmers are there and that the colleges are bulging at the seams at the moment with young people who really want to get into the business. However, much of the market share in the global economy will of course come from elsewhere—India, China and developing countries, where there is tremendous potential. In the interests of our economy, British agriculture has to play a very important part.
It is right to question why agriculture is unique in benefiting from an integrated European policy in the form of the common agricultural policy. Without that common policy, member states would determine a policy that could distort the single market. The CAP helps to address the failure of markets to deliver fair returns; and, contrary to a lot of public opinion, without a single market there would be massive adverse consequences for consumer benefit. Farmers share the aspiration of reducing the reliance on public support. They will all say that at the moment, but at the same time they want a fair deal and a fair marketplace. To achieve that, we need a strategy that ensures that there is a process around the world. Our higher production and welfare standards are not always matched by our competitors, which often means that imports have a price advantage, so the objectives of the CAP are still valid: increased productivity, a fair standard of living, stabilised markets and the availability of supplies at reasonable prices.
As my noble friend said, to face the future after 2013 we have to maintain that production capacity and increase it. I am so pleased that both she and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the importance of developments in genetic modification, which is obviously there on the doorstep; we are consuming vast quantities of genetically modified products at the moment but are ignorant of the fact that they are coming in and are not allowed to compete on an equitable basis. There is also a greater role for food security—with fewer food miles, hopefully—so that we can produce more on the doorstep and prepare for the effects of climate change, which can, ultimately, as we learn more about it, be to our advantage; provide a buffer against the threat of market volatility, which undermines investment; and improve environmental performance, which is very much an overriding factor.
Successive reforms of the common agricultural policy since 1992 have sought to reduce the interference of the European Union in managing the market. The two pillars of European support should of course continue: to embrace the economic components of the CAP and to cater for different environmental needs in the different states. I believe there should be a third pillar that focuses on applied science and investment in a knowledge-based economy and deals with targets for research, development, training and education. What we are after is key consumer satisfaction.
The Minister will be aware of the Defra survey, which said that two-thirds of consumers regard British food products as important, that three-quarters look to buy British fruit and vegetables, and that half say seasonal food tastes better. I did not think I would live to hear the day when one-third of those same consumers support and like British farmers. It does not, I hope, mean that two-thirds of them do not. I am optimistic that farmers will accept the challenge and satisfy consumers and still remain competitive in the export market. We can play a big part in the economy, with more than £7 billion of gross value added supporting 500,000 jobs. In the interests of meeting those growing demands for supplying the food chain for distribution, I look forward to less form filling and the introduction of a grocery code adjudicator—an essential role in the food chain. Freedom to farm and care for the countryside in a friendly environment is all that we seek.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my own and my husband’s interests with our farm and of my role as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Agro-Ecology. I congratulate very warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, not only on securing the debate but on framing the question as she has. She framed it in a very accurate way, and it is particularly well framed because it raises the right issues. It does not suggest that we as a nation or even Europe can have food security without it being global security. We are not suggesting pulling up the drawbridge and just being quite satisfactory on our own. This is an incredibly timely debate, too, with food prices soaring; even though we have seen a slight drop this week, the overall trend in staple foods has been upwards at a rate that quite outstrips earnings here in the UK, in Europe and certainly throughout the world.
When the Minister was kind enough recently to reply to my Written Question about the increase over the past five years in staple prices and the factors that he saw as the reasons for that, his reply reflected the complexities—but the underlying trend was due to the unpredictable climate happenings. So the urgency with which we must address the effect of climate change on food production is there for all to see in the prices. The link between oil and food prices shows graphically why we must break the massive dependence of food production on fossil fuels. So there are immense challenges.
The reason why I struggled slightly with the question before us today is that our British agriculture has a long and proud tradition of improvement and innovation and many examples of excellence—and I am sure that we will hear about many more of them in the debate today. There is the quality of stock-breeding programmes, welfare and the excellence of all sorts of individual practice as well as research and knowledge. But no Government since the Second World War have really had a comprehensive food policy, so all that excellence in agriculture is not reflected in our diet. We recognise that we can produce the food in quantity and certainly in high quality and we can store it well. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, mentioned the amount that is lost globally. The inadequate storage issue means that globally we are losing upwards of 40 per cent of food produced, and probably much more than that, which means that adequate storage could answer a lot of the need for increased production to feed an increasing world population.
The overall effect of our agriculture is not reflected in the effect on consumers in the country today. There are more and more obese people—about 13 million now—eating the wrong sort of food in the wrong sort of quantities, and at the same time there are malnourished people. Also more and more food is wasted. A significant proportion of food waste, about 6.5 million tonnes, is produced by domestic households, and retailers are generating a further 1.5 million tonnes. Supermarkets have been criticised in particular for wasting damaged or unsold items, which the industry calls “surplus food” although it often remains edible. Most of the 7 million tonnes have been not only produced but transported, then probably wrapped, sold and transported again only to be thrown away. That is an expensive way to make compost or biofuel. While turning waste food into compost or biofuel is certainly better than throwing it into landfill, the aim must be to drastically reduce that waste mountain. In mentioning that, I commend the work of WRAP—especially its online toolkit, which shows those wishing to reuse food waste how to go about it.
As for producers, smaller and family farms have to rely on working outside the farm for much of the time to produce even a living wage for the family. At the same time, the profits of those nearer the market continue to show that there is money in food. I know that this statistic is often quoted, but Tesco is currently on record as making profits of about £10 million a day. I therefore join those who call for the speedy introduction of the groceries code adjudicator. Farmers also have to cope with the unpredictable weather that climate change is producing. As I speak, I am particularly aware of those whose crops have seen no decent rain for over a month, with temperatures last month being nearer to the post-harvest levels of August than to April’s.
There have been new entrants. However, if anyone is brave enough to go into farming today, they will discover that unless they have a family farm, finding new land is like finding hens’ teeth. The number of local authority tenanted farms has halved since the 1940s, covering about 100,000 acres today. The current financial squeeze on local authorities is likely to diminish the number further still; and, disgracefully, the previous Government decided not to take up the support offered under the new entrants’ part of the rural development regulation. Life for farmers in the UK is also made difficult because of a tremendous lack of support for co-operatives—for machinery rings, marketing co-operatives and all the other things that make life easier for the smaller producer. Those are problems for all of us because this is about assets for the future of food production.
Finally, we still have to work on soil and water quality in this country, let alone in the rest of the world. We also have our own problems with biodiversity. Defra, for example, has been measuring the number of farmland birds as an indicator of farmland health. It says that these bird populations are a good indicator of the broad state of wildlife on farmland because they are near the top of the food chain. Still, the number of farmland wild birds has decreased at a rate of about 10 per cent over 10 years. That may not sound much but it is an awful lot of birds to be lost in 10 years. Those who listened to “Farming Today” this morning will have heard about the plight of the bumblebee. The general health of that population is very worrying indeed.
Although our agriculture model is fit for export and could make a contribution, it is not a model that the rest of the world would want to take up more generally in relation to diet.
Perhaps the jewel in our crown is our knowledge and research base. On this point, however, I differ from some of the other speakers. I would worry tremendously if we concentrated only on GM research. I would not rule it out, as it might have a part to play in the future, but in view of what is happening with some of the other incredibly valuable research going on, there are other things to worry about. For example, in a letter to the Times last September, the leading academics in the world of entomology underlined how drastic the situation is:
“There are now less than ten pest management specialists teaching in all UK universities”.
If you think of where pests are likely to be, the increases that will happen under climate change and the threat that insects pose to our global food production, that is really serious.
I make a plea that research does not concentrate on GM and that it starts to address the wider issues as well. Another example is the Rothamsted Institute, home to much excellent research, which saw a win-win situation when it looked at the issue of stem borers in east Africa and striga weed. The ecologically based system of intercropping that it came up with increased animal forage, increased soil quality and fertility and managed the borer problem, so it was a win-win-win. If it had simply had a crop that was resistant to borers, those other things would not have been realised.
It is important that our contribution to global food security is to underpin with resources the research base that this country has given the world throughout the past decades—indeed, the past century. That is in danger. What is the project in real terms over the next three years for research funding for UK agriculture, food storage and, in particular, entomology?
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a farmer and as chair of the partners’ board of the Living with Environmental Change research programme, a collaboration of public funders and research agencies. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Byford on this timely debate. It is extremely appropriate that, only a few weeks after the publication of the Foresight project report on the future of food and farming that she mentioned in her excellent introduction to the debate, we have an opportunity effectively to address the issues that are so well analysed in that report. The Government Office for Science commissioned that report. As my noble friend reminded us, it took advice from all around the world. Now that it has made such an analysis and pointed to the global challenges that are being faced, it is, as I said, extremely appropriate that we should today address the issues of which of these challenges have implications for the United Kingdom, not just in agriculture but wider afield, and of how that should impact on our land management and agricultural policy in Europe as a whole.
The analysis points to at least four main tranches of issues, each one of which on its own would present real problems of food security. Put them together and they amount to a powerful combination. The issues are demographic, economic, environmental and political. Never underestimate how little support agriculture gets in the parts of the world where one would assume it would be a high priority. Together, these four pressures amount to substantial challenges, and the UK must consider how we can contribute to meeting them.
What is inescapable, whether at national or global level, is that the only way we are going to be able to meet these food security issues is to produce more food from the same quality of land or less—there will not be any more—using fewer inputs, fewer resources and less demand on natural resources, particularly water; with reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, and indeed of other pollutants; and with a reduced environmental footprint. That sounds like a tall order. It is summed up in the Foresight report as “sustainable intensification”, and I like that expression. The problem is, of course, that most people seem to object to the word “intensification”—illogically so. Rather in the way in which people object to the word “pesticide”, it sounds as though it is a force that should be denied as a tool. You cannot produce the food or achieve food security without increased intensification, but it must be sustainable. We have to think through very carefully what we mean by “sustainable intensification”.
Globally, we are trying to balance future demand and supply, but we are also trying to ensure stability. It is no good having spikes up and down; they are equally disastrous. We have seen two spikes in the past three or four years. We must also ensure that, even if we produce enough food, there is adequate access for those who at the moment are deprived of it. There are areas that are exporting food alongside communities who have no access to that food themselves.
Then there are the environmental issues that have been touched on, which cannot be divorced from the issue of food security. How do we manage these food systems while mitigating the effects of climate change? And, of course, how do we maintain our biodiversity? It is asking too much for every culture to enhance biodiversity, but we must certainly maintain it and, of course, the ecosystem services on which we ultimately all depend. The national ecosystem assessment will, I believe, be published next month. That will be an enormously important document from Defra, which will remind us just what we mean by ecosystem services and what must be done by land managers and others to ensure that we protect these services.
Whatever our contribution back here in Europe, one thing that we cannot go back to is protectionism. We all recognise that. Indeed, during the food spikes in 2009 and later, countries such as Russia imposed export bans on grain, which of course exacerbated the problem. Protectionism is a disastrous reaction. We cannot promote self-sufficiency by that means. However, that does not mean that we should neglect the interests of our own population. It is perfectly legitimate for this country—indeed, it has a moral responsibility—to promote the improvements in productivity that will be needed to meet future increases in demand, always supposing that those increases are sustainable.
Agriculture has always relied on its research base. We farmers tend to take a lot of credit for increasing our yields, but a moment’s thought shows that the agricultural engineer, the animal husbandry and plant sciences and the like have served us very well. When the Prime Minister of the day, my noble friend Lady Thatcher, came to the Royal Show in 1983, she reminded us that if other sectors of the economy had been able to adopt new technology so rapidly and successfully the country would not have faced the problems that it faced then in its balance of payments and economy. Agriculture has a proud record, and it should not allow its reputation of intensification to cloud the fact that, through such intensification, we have helped disprove Malthus, who has already had a mention.
The problem is that for 30 years our research base has been whittled away, although not so much in the basic sciences, such as plant sciences, which in fact have done really rather well. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who did a lot when he was Science Minister to ensure that the basic sciences were protected. In the 1980s, to which I referred, when the Government of my own party were so impressed by the contribution of agriculture, they were saying at the same time, “Well, really, you should be standing on your own so far as applied research and extension services are concerned. These, in effect, will be privatised”. That is what happened.
Worse than that, whole tranches of research that had been commissioned by what was then the Ministry of Agriculture were simply cut and replaced by research that was deemed more relevant to policy-makers of the day. It was certainly not cut to support agricultural production. I am sure that there was feeling that the cost of the common agricultural policy was running out of control, and that if there was nothing else you could control you could at least hit the applied research budget. That is what happened, and we were left with a research spectrum—research, development and extension—that was patchy, to say the least. It no longer had the regional representation, the experimental husbandry farms and the experimental horticulture stations. They all went, and we were left with an inability, very often, to take the rapid advances in genomics and animal health through to the farm because there was no longer the applied research.
These problems have been recognised in recent years—all too late, given the lack of capacity—not least by the Taylor review, which, again, has been mentioned. It is an excellent report, and I hope that when the Minister responds he will be able to assure us that that, in turn, is being addressed. We are losing disciplines such as agronomy, soil sciences and animal husbandry.
There are enormous opportunities for agriculture to reduce its emissions globally and nationally, and to increase its carbon sequestration. The management of soils, particularly peat soils, can with adequate research demonstrate how much more we can do to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Second-generation biomass is another very exciting prospect. I do not think that any of us are suggesting that research should concentrate on GM, although I recognise that GM will certainly have a contribution to make in global terms, at least. We need to remind ourselves of the gaps in applied research and put together a coherent collaboration between the public and private sectors, something for which there has never been an overarching plan. It is time that we had one now.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer, still practising, and landowner in Essex. Essex is a peculiar place and not particularly well understood. When I discuss my rainfall average with foreigners—I have kept records since 1961—or even with Londoners, who never have to think about this sort of thing, they say, “But that is arid”. My rainfall would suggest that it is arid. My average rainfall over that period has now pushed up to about 19 inches per annum. Anywhere else in the world, that would be semi-desert. We need to remember how enormously privileged we are in this country to live in a temperate climate. I farm land that is highly productive.
My life has to some extent been coloured by the experience of accompanying my father, who was an active member of something that most people have forgotten: the War Agricultural Executive Committee. I used to accompany him on farm visits during the war. Those people began the revolution that has brought in modern agriculture as we see it, with its highly productive state. However, I fear that if we ever face another crisis such as that which we faced in 1940, we no longer have the capacity to expand our output to meet such a crisis. When we consider the way in which our population is developing, when we are already highly dependent on imports, and look at the global economy, with a world population of 6.5 billion going up to 8.5 billion, becoming more prosperous and therefore competing more for the food imports upon which we depend, we need to worry.
It is perhaps worthwhile putting ourselves into perspective as a nation. I pulled some figures off Wikipedia, which put us right in our place. The global landmass, including Antarctica, is roughly 148.5 million square kilometres; of which 49 million square kilometres are classified only as agricultural; of which 14 million square kilometres are classified as arable land. In this country, our total area is 41,000 square kilometres. We have 1 per cent of global population. In 2050, by neat coincidence, we will still have 1 per cent of global population. We are bit players, but we are of course highly vulnerable to international competition for food supply as the global food circumstances become more difficult. It is estimated that agriculture must double its global output to meet demand in 2050. We have no capacity to double our output so we shall become increasingly dependent, which means that we will have to develop our economy in other ways to sustain the people who will live in our islands in the future.
As my noble friends Lord Selborne and Lady Byford stressed, if we are to increase our farming output we will have to rely hugely on technical developments, technical change and intensification. Indeed, we do rely on them hugely. We face particular problems. We have extremely good plant breeders in this country but they will not undertake research if they know that their remit is limited. On my wish list is something that would revolutionise global agriculture. I desperately want to see a nitrogen-fixing wheat with the same characteristics as plants in the legume family. That would enormously reduce the need to apply artificial fertilisers and would increase soil fertility and enable us to produce good nutritious food. Such a wheat does not exist and cannot be achieved through conventional breeding. That implies that genetic modification must be used, yet, on a psychological level, genetic modification is not accepted in Europe. One hears people speak of dreadful Frankenstein foods. However, our future survival will depend on developments such as I have mentioned. Therefore, I ask my noble friend, when he winds up, to say how he proposes to persuade the European institutions that rule our agricultural lives to change their ways. We need these developments if only because, as the rest of the world increases its output of genetically modified agricultural products, we will cease to be able to purchase the non-genetically modified imports on which we depend. There will be no alternative.
The same attitude applies to herbicides and insecticides. In the old days I used to burn every field of straw on the farm, which I found exciting. I took extreme care over it as a main road runs through my farm but I never had a problem. However, that practice was stopped, and rightly so because one of its bad effects was that it increased what I call the mining aspect of farming—that is, the amount that we extract from our soils. One of the benefits of stopping that practice is that all our waste organic material now remains in the soil and our soils have reverted to the condition they were in when they were originally ploughed up and converted from permanent pasture. That has happened in the past few years and constitutes a highly beneficial change. If we are to maintain our farming going forward, we have to look at that. I have always envied the Fenland farmers who farm highly organic soil. However, they are “miners”, and that practice cannot be sustained.
The use of agricultural by-products for energy production has not been raised but is worth mentioning as a lot of people talk about it. Given the factor that I have mentioned, certainly those of us who farm in the solidly arable parts of the country have no biological waste products as we need to put them back in the soil. The other day I heard it said that even if we used all the agricultural land in the United Kingdom to produce energy, apart from the fact that we would produce no food, we would be able to produce only half the energy that we require. That represents an even lower proportion of our national requirement than is the case with food so we would be better off by far sticking with agriculture and finding our energy from other sources, of which there are plenty.
Speaking from a narrow perspective, we need to keep a very close eye on our long-term vulnerability. Although I have some sympathy with those who want to keep the countryside pure, unsullied and environmentally friendly, I have to warn them that in the longer term that simply may not be practical. The attitude that prevailed in my youth, with which my noble friend Lord Plumb will certainly be familiar, when food output had to take priority over planting trees and other such measures, may well have to be reasserted. If we do not, we may not be able to survive in the way that we would wish.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, like others I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for introducing this debate with, as has been stressed, its global dimension and its perspective on global food security. I congratulate her on her introductory speech.
I begin by picking up the theme of research and development that has been referred to by a number of speakers, not least because, as we are all acutely aware, in times of financial cuts and stringency R&D is so often one of the earliest casualties. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked the Minister what funding will be made available over the next three years in the light of the reductions that have taken place over the past 30 years, about which we have already been reminded. What resources will the Government continue to devote to this area, and will they increase those resources? What encouragement will they give to our universities and other institutions to broaden their research to cover many areas other than GM as we need that breadth of research?
The Future of Food and Farming picks up a number of the areas where research and development is so vital. Those include, for example: producing more food efficiently and sustainably; securing ecosystem services; keeping pace with evolving threats such as the emergence of new and more virulent pests and diseases; and addressing new challenges, many of them arising, as we have been reminded, from climate change, including resistance to increased drought, flooding and salinity. Although much of the research and development that goes on is rightly and necessarily undertaken with our international partners, some of it has to be specific to the context of these islands. Our geography, and therefore our climate and geology, have a particularity which means that the research that we need is very much an essential part of the sustainability, continuity and development of our farming here in Britain. It is not enough for us to rely just on partnerships with others elsewhere in the world.
If we are to sustain and develop our farming, that requires, naturally enough, among other things, fair prices for our farmers. We do not want businesses to collapse, nor do we want there to be a lack of money for financial investment in the future. Achieving fair prices requires all of us, including the Government in terms of the contribution that they can make, to play a role. For a long time, the church has championed the important role of farmers in producing our food, securing the UK’s food supply and receiving a fair price for what is produced. At the same time, as an institutional investor, the church holds shares in and meets with major supermarkets.
In 2007, the Church of England produced a report, Fair Trade Begins at Home: Supermarkets and the Effect on British Farming Livelihoods. That report clearly stated the damage that was being done and that continues to be done to farming livelihoods by inappropriate and, I regret to say, at times pernicious practices applied by supermarkets during purchasing. Labelling, promotions, payments, contracts and working practices were, and remain, of particular concern. The Church of England contributed to, and has consistently supported, the implementation of the Competition Commission recommendations and welcomes the proposals for a groceries code adjudicator.
Recent conversations with farming businesses have elicited examples of barriers to new products coming on to the market or to scaling up supply, such as prohibitive payments for listing. Squeezes on the profitability and indeed the viability of primary producers, who find it hardest to get fair prices, remain recurrent complaints. This is particularly relevant for the dairy sector, beef production and pigs, where the prices paid are often below the cost of production.
When one party holds the power in a relationship and the other holds the risk, this can lead, at best, to unbalanced transfer of risk and, at worst, to abuse of power that is extremely damaging and, if I may say so, immoral. With the appropriate powers, the adjudicator will have the potential to address these injustices, which are impediments to the successful operation of the grocery supply chain in the long term, and to UK agriculture contributing to global food supply. I therefore ask the Minister to bring forward the proposals in the coalition programme for government about which we have heard a good deal in many ways. However, we still need a groceries code adjudicator and the terms of reference. We still need this to happen.
I turn to a different area. If UK farming and agriculture are to be sustained, we need a proper farming ladder and points of entry for those who want to come into farming for the first time. The national chairman for the Tenant Farmers Association, Jeremy Walker, spoke yesterday to the RABI at its AGM. Among other things, he said:
“County Council smallholdings are vital for continuity of access into the industry and for the maintenance of a proper functioning farming ladder”.
We agree. It is alarming to know that the number of local authority smallholdings has reduced by nearly 10,000 in the past 55 years. That represents a massive reduction of 77 per cent. As we know, these county farms have often been the way into farming. If they are taken out in the way that they have been, huge difficulties are caused for the whole industry. As Sir Don Curry said in 2008, the county farms should be considered to be a national asset. I should again be pleased to hear from the Minister in what way, as a national asset, the Government are seeking to safeguard the remaining number of county farms, whereby the farming ladder can be as secure as possible.
Another aspect that Jeremy Walker picked up on was about ensuring that there are not only entry points but dignified exit points for older farmers. He continued:
“The Government should consider a number of measures including tax incentives for landlords who provide accommodation to retiring tenants”.
I should again be pleased to hear whether the Minister agrees with that and whether he can say what can be done to help those who want to retire to do so, again to help new people come into farming and therefore continue to sustain the farming that we not only have but want to grow and develop further.
The emphasis in the debate is on global issues and, therefore, exports and fair trade, about which we have heard, are vital. We have been reminded of the statistics and that we will need to double food production by 2050. We cannot afford, as we have been reminded, any trade barriers or dumping that destabilises food production in other countries. We need to continue to address the issue of waste, whereby 7 million tonnes, as we have been reminded, and up to 40 per cent of what is produced are wasted. These are urgent issues for us all to face and we must play what part we can in ensuring that continuity is there, and within the UK to address this global need, and to ensure global food security.
Lord Lyell
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Byford for giving us the opportunity to hear a number of incredibly good speeches. I apologise very swiftly to my noble friend Lord Plumb because I missed his marvellous contribution, thanks to a minor emergency. I shall certainly read his speech carefully tomorrow. The six-letter word, wisdom, comes from my noble friend.
Your Lordships may discover my interests in agriculture in the booklet, so I shall say no more than that. Further back in my parliamentary career, your Lordships may find that in 1984 I was, if I may put it politely, catapulted across St George’s Channel to Northern Ireland. I hope that I do not tread on any of my noble friend Lord Arran’s toes or say anything out of place, but one of the first things I learnt in Northern Ireland was that we are on the other side of the United Kingdom to that area so beautifully described by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. He was very humble about rainfall. Although he did not mention it, my understanding is that there is less rainfall in Essex than in Israel. That is something to take on board and appreciate when it comes to agricultural production in the United Kingdom.
What I certainly discovered in Northern Ireland were the skills of men in adapting what you can produce and the tools of the trade to the climate. There is enormous rainfall in Northern Ireland, but the skills of everyone in the agricultural industry, including animal production and welfare, and its products, meat and fish, were second to none. The environment in Northern Ireland very much met what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, was so keen on. Perhaps it was a tribute to me that when I went to Northern Ireland, I was told that drainage was particularly important. By the time I left it was called—never use one word when three will do—water course management. Nevertheless, it was a crucial aspect of agriculture in that neck of the woods.
I hope that the right reverend Prelate will accept that I take on board—I hope we all do—what he said. I was told that one duty of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland was to advertise, if not necessarily to sell, the wonderful products that we had. Extraordinarily, I found a tiny use for my qualities, I would not say talents, in foreign languages when I went to ANUGA—what a marvellous acronym—one of the world's biggest food fairs, in Cologne. I went on to Paris, to SIAL, another colossal food fair. I finished up in Berlin at what they call Green Week, which was more or less retail, it was not giant corporations, it was everyone coming to see what was available. All those great expeditions gave me a huge insight into presentation and notification to the public of what we have available and what is available on a world basis in food and agricultural products.
One of the main themes of my noble friend’s subject for debate is food security. If we open the newspapers, we read about enormous grain shortages—we shall hear more about that later. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, there were huge shortages in Russia and serious problems in Australia. Thanks to much improved worldwide communication and markets, there will not, we hope, be a serious problem of world hunger. That may come, and we shall hear more about that from the Minister.
One of the most useful things for me to read in preparing for today's debate was the report produced by Sir John Beddington, the Foresight report, which has been referred to by my noble friend and many others. In the O-level copy given to me, on page 3, it refers to the cold northern areas having a longer growing season. On a UK basis, those of your Lordships who follow me, let alone my noble friend Lord Caithness, to the far north, to Wick, will discover that we may get shorter nights in winter but by gosh, in summer we get much longer evenings. That has given me some education as to why Speyside is one of the great producers of one of our natural product in Scotland, Scotch whisky, because we get at least an hour or an hour and a half longer of growing time and sunshine than may my noble friend in Essex. The wise words in the Foresight report about northern areas chimes with what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, about global warming and environmental change. There may be global warming and threats of grapes being grown in our neck of the woods—although my next-door neighbour, the Earl of Strathmore, was growing grapes in greenhouses in his garden five years ago. That was not global warming, but it shows what can be done if you take great care.
Further on in his report, Sir John Beddington uses the marvellous phrase “a perfect storm” by 2030. He refers to genetically modified crops. I just add the word “please”. I hope that the wonderful research institutes can push their studies a little further and use the enormous knowledge not just in the UK and Europe but around the world to piece together the scientific knowledge to ensure that those new techniques can be brought into production without damaging the environment or human health or presenting a danger to anyone. I read about one example—it was not in the specialist press; I think it was in the Financial Times, which I have tried to study because it gives me education. Genetically modified cotton and other crops tend to use substantially less water, let alone need substantially less sunshine—sometimes up to 50 per cent less. Please let us keep, with all humility, studying genetically modified crops and, above all, use the wonderful talents of humans in research.
I hope to stay under my time and that my noble friend on the Front Bench will lower her blood pressure mildly, because I shall sit down fairly soon, but my noble friend Lady Byford was concerned that agriculture be sustainable. Several speakers have referred to Defra—that happy acronym for the ministry. My noble friend Lord Arran may have more to say about that. In Northern Ireland, I saw the unique talent of our research department in the Department of Agriculture at a place called New Forge Lane in Belfast. It had unique talents in grass management and animal welfare.
One morning in Belfast, I was rather startled to find a delegation from Saudi Arabia. I wondered whether it was a full moon, or that I had not looked at the seasons. I thought, “Good heavens, what are they coming here for?”. Dr Sullivan, the head of the research department said, “Oh no, Minister, they are coming to look at”, not poultry—as is typical in Northern Ireland, he never used one word where two will do, “the fowl sector”. That is spelt “fowl”; I do not discuss football. I made suitable noises, but I was stunned and delighted that we had experts from Saudi Arabia who could have gone anywhere in the world and anywhere in the United Kingdom. They came to Belfast because of our unique experience in producing hens, eggs, poultry and the beloved fowls. They came there to learn.
I hope that when my noble friend comes to wind up the debate, including the far wiser remarks than I have made, he will be able to reassure us that finance and support will be available for research in agriculture throughout the United Kingdom. In my neck of the woods, in Scotland, that is devolved. Just 20 miles from me, in Invergowrie, we have world experts in soft fruit and raspberries. I declare an interest in considerable consumption of them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that agricultural research into boosting our sustainable agriculture will be encouraged and that he will give all support to it.
I conclude by thanking my noble friend for her wisdom today and for a long time. We know that she is an enormous expert in her neck of the woods in Lincolnshire.
The Earl of Shrewsbury
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Byford on securing this important debate today. My noble friend is of course a formidable expert in agricultural matters and a stalwart supporter of the industry and those involved in it. I should declare an interest: I used to farm, very badly, in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and my youngest son is a producer of free-range eggs in Lincolnshire. I agree entirely with all the right reverend Prelate said regarding supermarkets.
It is both right and important that British agriculture should contribute to global food security. Our agriculturalists are renowned worldwide for their expertise. Our methods and practices are the envy of the world. Our standards of animal welfare are among the highest. Yet the UK has allowed her self-sufficiency to decline steadily over the years. Since 2008, Governments of all political colours have realised the need, in the face of high prices and shortages of raw materials and energy supplies, as well as a less benign geopolitical climate, to ensure that the UK has adequate food security. That is to be welcomed but, for example, the proportion of home-grown vegetables fell from 70 per cent in 1997 to 58 per cent in 2007, while self-sufficiency in eggs fell from 87 per cent in 2000 to 80 per cent in 2010. It is the egg industry on which I wish to concentrate today and, as my noble friend Lord Lyell just mentioned, the fowl sector.
Free-range egg production has been one of the few bright spots in agriculture over the past couple of decades, but that star has waned somewhat of recent months. Year-on-year growth has been steady and, most recently, in double figures, which is remarkable in that industry. It has been consistently profitable for producer and packer alike. However, two events occurred last autumn which have made life very difficult for all free-range producers. The first was a massive jump in feed costs—and the industry would very much welcome GM crops—over which the industry has absolutely no control. Secondly, at the same time, the egg market in general was in oversupply both at home and on the continent. The cage sector situation was probably down to some parallel-running of old conventional cages which were closing, with some of the new enriched colony cages already in production. In most cases, the moves on cages have meant building new farms rather than re-equipping existing ones. I understand that the industry has had to invest well north of £400 million in the move to the new colony cages in order to comply with the new EU legislation, which is the welfare of laying hens directive. The oversupply in the cage production sector has been rapidly eliminated by the market conditions and has hastened the closure of the old cage farms.
At this stage, I should like to ask the Minister what message Her Majesty’s Government have for egg producers in the United Kingdom who, at considerable cost to themselves, will have complied with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/74/EC—the welfare of laying hens directive—as against other producers elsewhere in the EU who have not, and will not do so by 1 January 2012, but none the less will still enjoy unfettered market access to the United Kingdom.
Free-range egg production is still suffering. The overexpansion of this sector probably came about by some packers encouraging expansion when they did not have a market for those eggs. Because the market had been growing so well, they simply assumed that they would be able to sell them somewhere to someone. In addition, capital grants available in Scotland and Wales for free-range production have not helped and have encouraged production in areas where the egg is not going to be consumed locally. In addition, because of this glut, the packers have been unsuccessful in achieving a price rise to justifiably cover the increased cost of production. This is where the supermarkets come in. That is a typical example of supply and demand.
Significant changes to the way in which egg production is allowed across the EU threaten to impact on the UK’s egg sector. This new legislation, which prohibits the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens from 1 January next, has already cost UK producers around £25 per hen housed. That is a massive cost for producers to bear. However, while this country will be fully compliant, as we always are, not all producers in the EU will comply with the ban.
What view do Her Majesty’s Government take of a partial derogation, for a defined limited period, of the requirements of this Council directive, which would allow the continued production and sale of eggs and egg products produced from conventional cages not in compliance with the requirements of the directive within the member states producing such eggs and egg products?
In conclusion, the United Kingdom egg industry employs 10,000 people directly, with a further 13,000 indirectly. It has a turnover of some £1.5 billion annually and is a massive user of cereal corn. Ninety per cent of eggs produced in the UK meet the stringent standards of the Lion quality code of practice. British Lion quality eggs are consistently rated the safest in the world and are produced to the highest possible welfare standards. This really is a huge success story for British agriculture and we need to support it.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, it may be appropriate for a Sandwich to follow both chicken and egg. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who is as conscientious now as she was in opposition in bringing these issues forward. My name may be for ever associated with fast food, and I have to declare an interest in both agriculture and the food industry, but, as the noble Baroness knows, today I shall concentrate on world food issues.
Most of us are fortunate to live in rural Britain and not in parts of the world where people are starving. Yet, the noble Baroness has already described the shrinking production and income, and the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has said that farming is out of balance. Farmers in the West Country near to where I live face severe droughts this week, in spite of the rainfall, while being urged to maintain or increase production for the benefit of mankind.
Feeding the hungry also costs lives. Across the world in southern Sudan, three weeks ago a senior programme assistant of the World Food Programme was killed in an ambush when his vehicle was attacked. He leaves behind a wife and two children. Every year, dozens of aid workers and their drivers are killed, and hundreds of lorries are hijacked or destroyed. That is the price of bringing food to the hungry during conflict, and perhaps it should be costed as part of the waste of food in the world.
Sudan is the World Food Programme’s largest mission. It brings food to up to 6 million people, including those on the front line in Darfur, Abyei and several other areas of conflict. In the south, it is currently providing food assistance to 1.5 million people, including returnees to the south and communities recovering from decades of instability and conflict.
Another 5 million are awaiting food in the Horn of Africa this year, but here the story is a little better. Following the drought in east Africa two years ago, there were areas of surplus in Kenya, Uganda and even Ethiopia last year, and the WFP was able to buy grain from all three countries at a value of $139 million. Therefore, with Zimbabwe still out of the grain market, it is a relief to see surpluses coming from Africa, especially east Africa.
I was in northern Ethiopia in March and, although I saw ox-ploughs and drills in action on semi-arid land, there is now concern that the current long rains are below normal. In some areas, the maize price is going up from 25 to 120 per cent, and cereal prices may increase by 40 to 50 per cent, compounded by rising fuel prices.
The Foresight report is an authoritative document and benefits from the wisdom of both farming and international development experts being brought together—people such as Dr Camilla Toulmin, who has vast experience of the environment and development. The report says that our present system is unsustainable, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already described the need for sustainable intensification. On a global level, we have more than 900 million hungry people to feed out of a total population of 7 billion, and that may reach 9 billion by 2050. Incidentally, considering that it is the lunch hour, it is worth mentioning that perhaps 1 billion people overeat and that the problem of obesity should also be addressed.
I was glad to read in the CLA briefing for today that its emphasis is on maintaining, not increasing, productivity. We all remember the rush to use those embarrassing subsidised grain surpluses incurred at that time, with the farmers’ Send a Tonne to Africa campaign, and a well known Cambridgeshire farmer actually following his surpluses out to Eritrea. In the 1970s, when I first joined Christian Aid, aid agencies were still paying for Land Rovers full of grain to cross the desert to reach the starving.
Now, the crisis seems further away. The surpluses have gone and we speak in more measured tones about the need to sustain and broaden our own agriculture and support the “greening” of the CAP. However, there is no less urgency to feed the world. It is the language that has changed and the questions now, both here and in developing countries, are all about inputs, GM crops, biofuels, more applied research and the careful handling of natural resources.
On GM and fertilisers, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I still have misgivings about the concept of the highly irrigated green revolution because of the amount of irrigation and inputs that it requires and the social divisions it can cause. It is all right for the Punjab but not for most of the Deccan, for example, and I doubt whether it would pass the stringent tests of the Foresight report in terms of carbon emissions. As the noble Baroness said, there are many available alternatives and dry-land farming is now a highly developed and respectable science which benefits from research right across Africa and India. I am not a biofuels enthusiast either because of the amount of land and forest they consume in countries such as Brazil where the sugar industry is based literally on the backs of forced migrant labour. I hope that Africa does not follow Brazil down that route.
I notice in looking at the DfID website that while climate and environment is one of the emerging policy areas, agriculture is not. It seems that the first millennium development goal, eradicating poverty and hunger, will not be met in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. Investment in agriculture in Africa, which also means infrastructure—especially rural roads and bringing more land into production—has been long neglected and is still at a very low level. I was encouraged by the conclusion in the Foresight report that there was a lot of potential in Africa and that investment is recovering. However, DfID estimates that with a 2 degree increase in temperature, up to 400 million could be at risk of hunger and up to 2 billion could be short of water. I suspect that these are not new numbers. Most of these people are already included in the world’s hungry. Perhaps these alarming figures will be a catalyst to getting more investment in water conservation and rain-fed agriculture.
A lot of sensible, practical agriculture, of the kind already undertaken out of necessity by the poorest communities, can be done under the heading of climate change. It is the same old story under a new environmental label. To take, for instance, Ethiopia, in much of sub-Saharan Africa and the arid central belt in India, stone walls, terracing and tree-planting are essential, and have been for many years, to prevent erosion and deforestation. DfID says that it is climate-proofing all its aid programmes, and this is also the EU Commission’s policy. The same is true of the CAP. We are relabelling farming as sustainable agriculture and attempting to move further away from outright productivity. It is difficult and the Minister will agree that we are in a dilemma here. We are entering discussion on the EU financial framework from 2014 and there is very little room for manoeuvre. Will the Government, as our EU Committee has recommended, move away from direct and environmental payments towards rural development and a more flexible farm policy in Pillar 2? That means adjustment which will not necessarily go down well with our own farmers.
Finally, the Minister will remember my interest in the Government’s decision to establish a groceries adjudicator, and many voices have been heard in support today. If the office is now established, there will be a lot of staff in proportion to the interest that has been expressed.
The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I join all your Lordships in thanking once again my noble friend Lady Byford for securing this very important debate. She has always been a tremendous supporter of British agriculture in your Lordships’ House and she always brings issues of food production to our attention—and very important they are, too. I start by declaring an interest in that my wife is a farmer with an extensive dairy herd in Devon. I am also on Sub-Committee D with the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, as my chairman—and a very good chairman he is.
We have had an extraordinarily well informed debate from a variety of experienced contributors covering a broad range of topics. I do not make much of an apology for covering those topics again, though briefly, because each is critically important. I should like to concentrate, although not exclusively, on the role that retailers and processors play in the food supply chain, as already so ably expressed by the right reverend Prelate, and how their attitudes and actions impact on Britain’s ability to feed itself and, where possible, the rest of the world. While the dominance of the supermarkets is often highlighted in debates around the viability of farming, it is still a vital issue in the context of this debate.
It is undeniable that we have an inequitable food supply chain. The pig sector, for example, provides some concrete evidence of this. Over the past three years, it is estimated that retailers have maintained a profit level of more than £100 per pig and processors have maintained a profit level of £40 per pig. Meanwhile, producers are currently losing more than £20 per pig and have been moving from loss to profit and back into loss again for years. It is not just the pig farmers to whom this applies. Something must be done to remedy this wholly unsustainable situation, and it seems that the supermarkets are not willing to take responsible action themselves to secure the future of the British food industry. It has therefore fallen to government to address this issue and save the British farming industry from predation by retailers. Part of the problem is that retailers have shareholders but their food is of a different kind, which is profit. There is nothing wrong with profit, but it must be balanced with sensible returns to producers, which at the moment it is not.
The greatest chance the Government and your Lordships have of ensuring greater equality in the food chain is by establishing, as already mentioned, a grocery code adjudicator to police the existing grocery supply code of practice. The coalition’s programme for government contained a pledge to introduce such an office but a year on, we have seen little action on this. In addition to the timely introduction of the GCA, the office must have enforceable powers to take firm action against injustice and irresponsibility. Naming and shaming of retailers who breach the code is simply not enough. The GCA must be given authority to issue punitive fines to those who flout the agreed rules. In addition, complainants to the GCA must be allowed to remain anonymous should they desire. If the retail and processing industries were allowed to create some sort of blacklist of dangerous producers the whole regime would be undermined and innocent farmers simply trying to claim their rights would be punished and could be forced out of business. It is imperative that the GCA has real teeth, which need to bite when necessary to deal with issues of abuse in the supply chain. It will fall to this Parliament to ensure that the legislation, which is due to appear in draft form imminently, contains the necessary provisions. The GCA must not—I repeat not—be a mere talking shop that purely pays lip service.
I now turn to wider issues in the farming industry, many of which have been covered already, but I shall do so briefly. The efficiency of British agriculture is obviously central to the debate around food security. Britain has long been a centre of agricultural research and development but it is imperative that it remains so in future. There are two substantive points here which I will deal with in turn. First, there is research and development, already strongly mentioned by many of your Lordships. There are a variety of technologies related to farming which play an important part in ensuring global food security. Research into these fields must be supported so that it can continue to flourish. British agricultural R&D has been in savage decline over the past few years and is now at a critical level. The agricultural industry already contributes to research funding through levies on industry participants but this needs to be reinforced by government, not only through direct financial support but through mechanisms, such as taxation, science policy and other initiatives.
Secondly, briefly, I shall refer to GMOs. It is a fact that Europe lags far behind the rest of the world when it comes to revolutionary technology. In 2009, there were roughly 35 million hectares of GM maize grown worldwide, compared to a pitiful 9,000 hectares of GM maize within the EU. These are not good statistics and show just how damaging the emotive issues around the development of GM crops are to the farming industry in Europe. GM crops allow for increased yields, which will be a key tool in helping farmers sustain production levels amid reducing water resources and increased pressure from climate change. We must push Europe for action on GM crops to allow us to take advantage of this powerful technology. Before that, the Government will need to demonstrate clearly the safety and reliability of GMOs. Unless they do so, the public will be sceptical and will remain unconvinced.
I turn to the grave issue of bovine TB. Many of us are all too familiar with the problem and the disastrous effect that it is having on the British livestock and dairy industries. The Government are taking their time on the issue, given the need to ensure that the policy is implementable, effective and legally sound. However, this does not allay the constant fears of stockmen that their herds will contract the disease. This is yet another issue that on the surface may seem to have no direct impact on food security. However, if one looks a little deeper, it certainly does. Bovine TB is forcing some farmers out of business. This closes down supply chains, reduces breeding stock and diminishes the overall farming industry, as well as having wider impacts on the industries that feed in to farming. That is why the Government must come forward with an effective plan to deal with bovine TB, and the reservoir of the disease in wildlife.
Badgers are causing very severe problems, particularly in my part of the woods, the West Country. As they are protected and unchecked, they move from herd to herd, spreading the disease across the country. Vaccination and culling both have a part to play in eradicating the disease from wildlife, but we must have an effective policy in place or risk the disease becoming endemic and creating a disastrous situation for wildlife and livestock. I understand that it will take up to four years to provide an effective vaccine. We cannot wait that long.
The crux of the issue of competitiveness and food security is ensuring that each country plays its part in feeding its own people and, where possible, the people of other nations. In order for this to happen, we must ensure that all countries remain competitive so that their food production industries are sustainable. Self-sufficiency is not a silver bullet for the problem of food security, but reducing unnecessary imports and unfair exports will help to ease the problem. British agriculture has to remain competitive for the sake of the rest of the world.
This point ties up all the issues that I have mentioned. First, supermarkets must not be allowed to undermine domestic production with the threat of cheaper imports. Secondly, we must continue to develop and share new technologies that will allow more efficient production. We must allow European farmers to produce their own GM feed and crops, rather than relying on and being undermined by those countries that already embrace the practice; and we must stop the spread of bovine TB, which is severely damaging our livestock industry, with all that that entails.
I cannot overemphasise the importance of the points that I have raised. The Government have the authority and responsibility to deal with them—and quickly. Britain has a huge part to play in global food security. We have a responsibility, not only to our own people but also to our neighbours, near and far, to live up to expectations and contribute to our full potential. As concrete steals across the western world, the scarcity of land continues to increase at an alarming rate. This does not bode well for an ever-increasing global population that needs to be and must be fed.
Lord Selsdon
My Lords, I am extremely honoured to be able to speak in the debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Byford. However, I feel a sense of nervousness, surrounded as I am by landed Barons and belted Earls—although I am not sure what a belted Earl is. I doff my cap to them because I have the humility to be a peasant farmer. I am a French peasant farmer, with a numéro SIREN and SIRET, in a vineyard in Provence from where wine shipped to the United Kingdom in the second century BC arrived at Hengistbury Head. It was in this area that vin clair was first introduced, which later became claret and Bordeaux. As noble Lords will know, Bordeaux of reasonable troisième cru is selling at £124 a bottle, and China is buying more wine from Bordeaux than the United Kingdom and America put together.
As a peasant farmer, I suffer and feel for others around the world. We suffer inevitably from the dangers of flood, pestilence and frost. This year has not been good—and when a year is bad, there is often intervention by the state. The river has risen by 12 metres three times this year. The house has had to be redecorated and the roof taken off. At the moment we are struggling to find sufficient vines to replant to replace 8,000 that were lost. Wild boar ate nearly six tonnes of grapes last year while we only managed to get one. Here there is a problem with bureaucracy. You cannot eat a wild boar unless it has been slaughtered in an official EU slaughterhouse. Six people with guns do not qualify as an EU slaughterhouse, so I have not been able to eat any part of a wild boar.
Against this background I raise certain issues. When there are problems, the state helps. However, it surveys you from above. It counts the number of vines to make sure that you have no more than a certain number of empty ones, otherwise you may lose your appellation contrôlée. It is confusing because they are not used to having an idiot like me down there. I am meant to be Lord Selsdon, but the name does not matter because I have to be called “Monsieur Lord”. I have the great privilege to announce further benefits in kind. I have received a grant from the state—and an international one at that. It was addressed to “Lord Catastrophe Naturelle”. For a long time I have been a walking disaster at most things in life, but I am proud of this.
In my job around the world, I have always looked at peasant farmers and the community that comes with agriculture. My interest in the subject of global food security goes back to when I found myself, aged four and with my two year-old sister, in a strange British nursery school that had emigrated from Rottingdean to Canada because the Germans were coming. I did not know my parents at all in Canada, but I liked the war because I liked ships. Sometimes I listened to Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt. I wanted to know why all the ships were being sunk by U-boats. Someone said that it was because England—I was Scottish but they did not mention Scotland—would starve without food. It never entered my mind that war and lack of food were related. Starvation was coming because of a lack of food.
As one looks around the world today, one concludes that there are plenty of places to produce food. When I came back to England, I went to my grandfather's farm. I did not know much, but I was put in charge of chickens, ducks and rabbits. There was rationing, which I was not used to because I had been well fed. We had to send the eggs to people in London, unless they were laid in hedgerows, when you could not tell their age. You could float them, but you were not allowed to send eggs that had been laid in hedgerows because they might be bad by the time they arrived. These eggs were put into that lovely substance called isinglass, where you would keep them for ever and a day. Occasionally, one of the ducks would kill a chicken. We did not have to send off the chicken, but could eat it. We had an American airborne division nearby. They wanted eggs and, as a small boy, I would do a trade. They would give me petrol from the Jeep and that would enable my grandfather to let me, at the age of six, drive the green van.
All my life I have been interested in agricultural production. After I left industry, I went to work in a team doing agricultural and economic research. We looked at the world. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, I asked: “Where does food come from?”. When I was trying to save the shipbuilding industry in England, which failed, the Department for Transport kindly gave me a chart which I still value desperately. The chart shows the position of Her Majesty’s ships at sea and in harbour 14 days after I was born, in 1937. I should add that the figures for British commodity imports at that time—the amount we had to import as a percentage of the total—from 20 world regions were: wheat, 64 per cent; maize, 93 per cent; barley, 86 per cent; rice, 72 per cent; meat, 80 per cent; coffee, 79 per cent; cocoa, 90 per cent; tea, 96 per cent, and so on—including rubber and other agricultural products. I realised that we would never be self-sufficient in this country, but also that we had a duty to our Commonwealth countries.
The first job that I took on involved agricultural work for the States of Jersey. We found that Jersey royal potatoes were being priced out of the market but that we could get a higher price if they were shipped on a Sunday from Southampton and were all the same size and put in round, rather smart buckets. This idea of agricultural production led us also to sell daffodils in bud to families—you could not sell them to boyfriends and girlfriends. Daffodils in bud could be shipped cheaper. From there I moved to economic work for the Government of India and what they could produce—namely wool and, mainly, minerals, but not much food. My job always was to work out the most economic way of getting something from its place of growing to the market, and that taught me a lot. When I chaired the Government’s Middle East trade committee we looked at food shortages and where things came from. We went on missions together, often pushed by Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe, to such places as French West Africa. I never realised that the Ivory Coast produced so many pineapples or what happened in other countries. Products from French territories would arrive the next day fresh in the markets at Les Halles and later in Rungis.
I now turn to one of the forgotten opportunities. One of the main reasons for our being in all the British territories—the Commonwealth, as we call it today—was to produce food, at which we were very good. It was highly organised and highly efficient, with very good security of transport. We have forgotten that. Of the other territories, the greatest in my view is the Sudan, where I spent a long time looking at the production of grain. Sudan was meant to be the breadbasket of the Middle East. We had the Gezira scheme for cotton, which produced some of the best in the world. All those areas and territories could return.
I thought that I would make some suggestions to some of your Lordships, in particular to the rich, belted Earls and Barons who might join in. We have a certain technology in the United Kingdom. I have already declared that I am intending to order six agricultural satellites. With the new technology we can plot from satellites the growth pattern of deserts and everywhere else over the year, and predict where there will be famine. We have forgotten this technology. Although we may be able to produce things here, the British in one form or another may often be better at managing other people’s affairs than they are their own. At 44,000 kilometres, the Commonwealth has the longest coastline in the world. We look at global food security, which must inevitably include the sea, and we say that there are great opportunities for our resources, particularly our human and technological skills, to be used worldwide. I would hate for us to concentrate just on little Britain.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, we owe a debt to my noble friend Lady Byford for introducing this debate. Over the years, she has done so much to focus the eyes of British Governments on farming, especially real farming and the problems of farming. This debate is particularly useful at this time. Without any dispute, agriculture is the oldest industry in the world, and unlike many other industries it is quite certain to survive for the wholly foreseeable future. However, it will have great demands put on it and the problem will be seeing how these demands can be met.
I shall talk primarily about British agriculture, but I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, went further and spoke about some of the terrible problems that there are. I was rather struck when he talked about the billion obese people, which is a tremendous reflection of the imbalances among human beings. Hundreds of millions of people are starving, yet a lot of people are obese. That is a big problem in Britain, which I know the Government are addressing. It is very sad. The problem is soluble in only one way and it is not by fad diets and all these other things. Very simply, one must eat less. I wish that people would recognise my own recipe, which I hand over freely to anyone; for the lives we lead, most of us need only two meals a day. You need breakfast and one other meal. You do not need three meals a day. If anyone tries that, it will work more certainly than any of the fad diets on offer.
Farming is a wonderful life. It is very demanding but it gives farmers tremendous scope for entrepreneurial management. Farm workers are having increasingly satisfactory lives because they are getting increasingly responsible lives. They have more capital at their disposal and use more highly complicated and very expensive machinery. Therefore, a life in farming is a very good life, which, not surprisingly, many people wish to continue to have.
Above all industries I can think of, farming must be based on free enterprise. The greatest case history ever to show that is collectivisation in the Soviet Union. One of the tragedies is that in Russia today that legacy lives on. Agriculture in Russia, like many other industries, has made virtually no progress since the end of the Soviet Union. I have talked to people who have been there and have looked at some of its crops, and the yields are staggeringly low. Countries in Africa put Russia to shame in what is happening. Therefore, we must never forget that farming, above all industries, is an industry for individual farmers and entrepreneurs, whatever the scale. Peasants can be just as entrepreneurial as larger farmers, but this industry must be as free as possible from bureaucracy.
Sadly, we are all dependent on a huge amount of subsidy, which is primarily a substitute for market prices. I am very glad that so many noble Lords, starting I think with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Hereford, talked about the need to get a better balance between farming and the marketing of the products of farming. The subsidies are a curse, but they are a necessary curse at present. They cause huge bureaucracy. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who was here earlier, for what he did to improve the Rural Payments Agency. It was the most ghastly mess when he took it over and it now performs very much better. I declare an interest as a farmer and as a receiver of the RPA’s single farm payment, about which I have no complaints because I got it in full very early. The administrative system is a great deal better than it was. Further, I am glad that my honourable friend Jim Paice, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, has now taken on a role as chair of the oversight board of the RPA, which is an extremely good move. There is inevitable bureaucracy under the CAP and we must continue to try to minimise it.
Some very large-scale mistakes are being made, one of the biggest in the world being the business of growing food for fuel. Much of it started with the Americans, who were anxious to subsidise their maize producers. It has gone on increasing and it is a very bad idea. Those subsidies come from the taxpayer and they are a distortion. I suggest that for the foreseeable future what is needed is the production of food to eat, not food for fuel. It is a distortion that has been dressed up, as have so many other things, in spurious arguments about climate change. The Americans in particular are doing that. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will look very closely indeed at food for fuel, subject it to rigorous questioning, and greatly reduce it.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, agree that recent studies in the United States show that there is actually net carbon expenditure in the creation of these biofuels because of the enormous costs of processing? It is as much of a delusion as the noble Lord has implied.
Lord Marlesford
It is a huge mistake; I totally agree with the noble Lord. The carbon-generating inputs to turn food into fuel are colossal, arguably sometimes almost as great as the fuel that is eventually produced, and at a considerable cost to many people who need the money. In my view, it is therefore an immoral activity.
On the technology side of agriculture, a lot of discussion about GM has reflected some incredibly Luddite views, even in this House. I am surprised by my noble friend Lady Miller, for whom I have much respect in many ways. I made a note of what she said in her remarks: “GM may have a part to play in the future”. When I was very young and enthusiastic in the early 1960s, I tried to persuade the British Government to use computers more in the administration of hospitals, prisons and so on. A very senior civil servant said to the young pipsqueak that I was then, “Mark, before we spend public money on computers, we have to be sure that they are here to stay”. I was reminded of that by the attitude that some people take towards genetic modification. Let us remember that genetic modification is something that has always happened. The business of moving from wild agriculture to organised cultivation and selecting plants is genetic modification by selection, although not under the microscope. I very much hope that we will not oppose what is probably going to be the single biggest advance in agriculture.
Let us take one example. In Suffolk, which is my part of the world, we along with others are now suffering hugely from drought. In our case, we have actually halved the estimate of the wheat yield that we are going to have this year, so serious is it. There is the irrigation of wheat, but at £25 an acre inch it is very expensive. In March and April alone we were short of four inches of rain, so irrigation is £100 an acre. It is questionable whether the yield can in fact make up that expenditure.
I hope that the agricultural policy approach of this Government will concentrate on two things. The first should be to correct some of the mistakes made, such as growing food for fuel, and the second should be to reduce bureaucracy so that farmers can make the best use they can of the land. Finally, in case anyone thinks that farming does not have a spiritual side to it, one thing farmers have in common is the care of the countryside. No one could mind more than me about the beauty of the countryside. There are very few things that we can leave behind us in this world, but one of them is a more beautiful countryside than we found.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, like everyone else, I welcome this debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on securing it. I think she will agree that it follows well on previous debates in the House, such as the one a few months ago on the reform of the common agricultural policy, and more recently our debate on the report produced by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles on EU agriculture and forestry in the context of the important business of adapting to climate change. Indeed, the debate also follows well on previous debates initiated by the noble Baroness, and I too pay tribute to her assiduity and the knowledge that she displays in such debates. Some time ago she initiated a debate on the Royal Society report, Reaping the Benefits, in which she rightly made great play of the contribution that British agriculture can make to the future.
As the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said, we have benefited from a great deal of the personal experience of Members who have talked about their involvement in a variety of agricultural sectors and regions. Those range from arid Essex, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to the slightly less arid Northern Ireland, as described by his neighbour on the Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Reference was made to many agricultural sectors, whether they be arable, livestock, dairy or the egg industry, which was mentioned in some detail by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury and Waterford. There has been a lot of consensus around the themes that have arisen in the course of the debate, not only on the problems and challenges but on the opportunities for British agriculture in the years to come.
I also detect a lot of continuity between the approach of the coalition Government and that of the previous Government to these issues. In 2010, the Labour Government produced a food strategy that, in its detail, shows a lot of continuity with the pronouncements made by the coalition on its food strategy for the future. As the background briefing for the debate stresses, including the useful note from the House of Commons Library, UK food security is structured around six themes, which were outlined by the previous Government and confirmed by this Government: global availability, global resource sustainability, UK availability and access, UK food chain resilience, food security at the household level, and confidence in the safety of our food supply.
Not surprisingly too during the course of the debate, there has been a lot of consensus around the huge challenges that we face in feeding the world and tackling climate change. Mention was made of the 1 billion people in the world who actually suffer hunger, and another 1 billion who, while not technically starving, suffer from malnutrition and undernutrition in many ways. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, and as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, echoed, there is also the rather grotesque contrast with the 1 billion people in the world who are claimed to overconsume, leading to the problem of obesity, which was referred to by several speakers. Another important stimulus for the debate was the report of the Foresight project published in January this year, entitled, The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. In the words of the Ministers’ preface, the report,
“makes a strong case for governments, the private sector and civil society to continue to prioritise global food security, sustainable agricultural production and fisheries, reform of trade and subsidy, waste reduction and sustainable consumption”.
All speakers have referred, as does the debate as a whole, to the issue of food security. Several speakers rightly made the point that this is not the same as food self-sufficiency. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that we are not pulling up the drawbridge and retreating into isolation. That would be impractical and wrong, as speakers pointed out. Food security involves many things as well as production. It certainly involves such things as supply routes, port infrastructure, supply chains and transport policy. As one of the Library notes in the information pack for this debate points out, food security is closely related to energy security—again, a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred.
Given, therefore, that when we talk about food security we talk about several different interests across government, co-ordination across government on this issue is very important. Obviously Defra has an important role to play, but so have DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in our relations with other countries, and developing countries in particular; the Department for Transport; the Department for Education and higher education in training and research; BIS; the Department of Energy and Climate Change; and, indeed, the Treasury. Could the Minister tell us when he replies what discussions have taken place across government on these issues? What mechanisms exist to take the co-ordination forward for the future? This is something that the Government need to concentrate on.
It would not make sense to talk about these issues simply in the context of the UK. Not surprisingly, for this reason the debate has had a strong international focus as well. I welcome that. For a start, we are part of the European Union. Reform of the CAP, which is so vital in this area, is a very important issue for the future. A briefing prepared for us by the CLA, which contained many excellent points, stresses the importance of the EU for many aspects of this debate. That means not only the CAP but external trade policy, food health policy, large areas of environment policy and areas of research policy.
On CAP reform, my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles rightly referred to some of the choices that Europe has to make for the future and some of the challenges that it will have to face up to if reform of the CAP is to make economic sense and make sense to the general public who, after all, support that policy through their taxes. The Society of Biology has said:
“The CAP should achieve a balance between the economic, social and environmental benefits of agriculture”.
It also said:
“There should be no public subsidy without public goods”.
Certainly, the public will support spending in this area if they believe that clear environmental and other public goods will accrue as a result. To change the CAP in the way that many of us would like, the Government will have to build up allies within the EU context and take into account some of the changing attitudes—which, again, my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles mentioned—among EU countries that have traditionally perhaps been strong supporters of the CAP but are now starting to see things slightly differently.
We have a duty to promote free and fair world trade, as was mentioned by many Members in this debate, and to get the best possible relationship with developing countries. This includes transferring technology that could help those developing countries to increase their productivity. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, despite recognising the problems that exist, pointed out some positive sides and signs of hope in production, particularly in Africa.
We must also honour our international climate change responsibilities. In this respect, and thinking of some of the issues that were raised in the other place in agricultural questions this morning, I hope that the Government are still committed to mandatory carbon reporting. It would be good to get the Government’s reaction to that. The extreme weather events that have taken place also concerned many Members over the course of this debate. It is vital, therefore, that there are changes in water policy, for example.
Research was mentioned by virtually all Members in this debate. Time does not allow me to pick up on the many excellent points, but the message about the importance of research will come over very strongly to the Minister today. In that respect, I also say to the Minister who deals with higher education policy that it is somewhat concerning that, when we are trying to get new and well qualified people into agriculture, most of the universities with specific agricultural and farming courses are charging the highest tuition fees. Far from this being the exception, it now looks as though charging at the highest level will be the rule, particularly for students taking agricultural degrees.
I have run out of time but I shall say finally that this is my swan-song as the member of the Front Bench who deals with these issues. I am standing down from the Front Bench, and I take the opportunity to thank the Minister. We have not always agreed but there have been quite a large number of issues on which we have agreed. I thank him for his courtesy while I have fulfilled this role. Although I am neither a belted Earl nor a peasant farmer, to use the phrases of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, I will remain interested in and committed to the future of agriculture and our countryside. I wish my successor well. I conclude by thanking the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed. I should add to these, since poultry has been mentioned by several speakers, the ownership of five maran hens and two Barnevelders. They are very free range and I occasionally get some eggs from them.
I start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, who, as she has just announced, is stepping down as the Opposition’s official spokesman on Defra matters. She ended with two rather tricky questions. One, on HE and the level of fees, was directed to me. Since her successor has put that Question on the Order Paper for next Wednesday, I look forward to answering it then. Her other very good point was about the extreme weather that we increasingly face in this country, and how we must adapt to climate change. I remind her that we published our own department’s report on adaptation to climate change earlier this week, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, launched here in London. I will make sure that we get hold of a copy of the report and send it to the noble Baroness as part of her retirement package. She can look forward to reading that in due course. I am sure we look forward to the noble Baroness taking part in debates of this sort from the Back Benches in the future.
Like all other speakers, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Byford for the timeliness of this debate. It was earlier this year that the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, issued his Foresight report. I will certainly say something about that in due course; it is very important that we cover that subject. Since noble Lords have ranged far and wide over the course of this debate, I will cover, albeit briefly, several of the subjects that have come up before I move on to the Foresight report. A whole range of different subjects, all of which are connected, have come up.
I start with water quality. Noble Lords have ranged from Essex, where my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith lives and which is very dry, to Northern Ireland, which can be very wet. There is a range of water problems within England, but we also face a range of water problems worldwide. For that reason, it was right of my noble friend Lady Byford to talk about the problem of our imports of embedded water—that is, the amount of water that we in effect consume when we import salad crops or cotton in our shirts. My noble friend referred to the report from the University of East Anglia. I am not aware of it, so I cannot confirm or deny the figure it gave, but we use the WWF figure of 46.4 billion cubic metres of water imported in agricultural products. That is about 45 per cent of the UK’s total water use, embedded or otherwise. It is a fairly horrific figure which we should take into account in any decisions we make on these matters. I was grateful to other speakers, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who talked about the problems of drought that people face worldwide as well as, on occasions, in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, was the first to talk about biotechnology and GM. He was followed by a great many other speakers, the vast majority of whom—I shall not identify them all—seemed to think that we should be doing more to encourage GM and to persuade our colleagues in Europe to follow a more pro-GM route. The noble Lord quite rightly said that others overseas, such as in the United States, were “bemused” by the EU’s attitude to GM. We believe that decisions here should be taken on the basis of the scientific evidence that is before us, but it is also important—as was touched on by my noble friend Lord Arran—that we take the public with us. There is a degree of public scepticism, although I find it quite extraordinary, particularly so when it seems to be an alliance—dare I say it?—between the Daily Mail and Friends of the Earth, with their use of the expression “Frankenstein crops”. All scientists have a duty to help get the explanation over and to try to push these matters forward. It is important that we take public opinion with us in this matter. That will be important, as others have made clear, if we ever want to feed the extra people in the world during the coming 50 years, with its population likely to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, and my noble friend Lady Miller were all right to talk about problems of waste, particularly in less developed parts of the world—waste that comes from inadequate storage and poor transportation. It was said that something like 40 per cent of food is wasted in those parts of the world, sometimes on its journey from the farm to where it is consumed and sometimes on the farm. Some of the solutions to these problems, as many people have pointed out, are very low-tech and simple, such as improving storage in green silos—indeed, simply to keep the rats out. That should be looked at. For that reason, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, was again right to say that these are matters not just for Defra; they should also be considered across government because they affect DfID and all those, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will be aware, in the aid world.
My noble friend Lady Miller was right to talk also about the problems of food waste in this country. Where local authorities are persuaded to collect food waste and provide buckets for people to put it into, we see a reduction in the amount of food waste as people become aware of just how much they are throwing out. If we can collect our food waste in the right manner, it is right that we look at anaerobic digestion as a means of disposing of it—I shall say a bit more about AD in due course. I was grateful to my noble friend for stressing that it is far better to prevent waste than to have it to dispose of in the first place.
Supermarkets get knocked quite a lot, but they have quite a low level of waste. However, because they get through so much food, that very small percentage can seem quite a large amount. Although some of that waste will have to be disposed of by means of AD and other such methods, there are other ways of doing it. I refer my noble friend to a very worthy charity called FareShare, which takes food that supermarkets cannot use but is still perfectly viable and has not reached its sell-by or use-by date and sends it off for charitable purposes. If my noble friend wishes to know more about that, I shall certainly make her aware of it in due course.
Noble Lords expressed great concern about supermarkets’ buying behaviour and demanded to hear more about the grocery code adjudicator. However, before we knock the supermarkets too much, we should always remember what they deliver. They deliver cheap food to a very high standard and in very great variety, and we should be grateful for what they provide. However, I accept that, within the food chain, there are many people who feel that they have been badly treated by the supermarkets. For that reason we accept that there is a need for a grocery code adjudicator. I can therefore assure all noble Lords who asked about this, especially my noble friend Lord Arran, who seems to be particularly well informed, that we are close to publishing a draft Bill, which will emerge from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I cannot give a precise date, but, for those who have been in government, I will say that it will be published shortly or very soon—that is an expression that I think most Members of the House will recognise.
I promised to return to AD when I was talking about waste. This was first raised by my noble friend Lord Plumb, who thought that we were making some progress on waste and that there was a need for more anaerobic digestion. I agree with him that anaerobic digestion is a very good way of dealing with a certain amount of farm waste and one often needs some crops, but not many, to go into it. However, I stress that the Government are very keen that we do not go down what I would call the German route, where there has been excessive growing of crops, particularly maize, purely to feed into on-farm anaerobic digesters. We do not see that as a great use of land; we would prefer for that land to be used for growing food.
Perhaps I may make just one point about the virtues of anaerobic digestion from my personal experience of visiting a number of digesters. One that I visited recently when it opened in east Yorkshire in effect provides free products from its digestates. Not only is it producing energy and saving that waste from going to landfill but it is also producing a solid, manure-type material from the digestate. It is also producing a concentrated liquid digestate that could be put on to the land or used in farms and, importantly in terms of other concerns raised earlier, clean water that could be used for crop irrigation. So there are great many things that can be produced from anaerobic digestion, which can be a very useful way of diverting waste from landfill.
The right reverend Prelate raised the problems of getting into farming. I recognise his concerns about the county farms, which came up a few weeks ago in Questions in this House. I make it quite clear that it is a matter for the local authorities and county councils that own those farms as to whether they sell them. We have no powers under existing legislation to prevent that. Again, one should be wary of implying that county farms are an effective ladder in terms of assisting people into farming. It seems that those who go into county farms tend to stay there instead of moving on. Therefore, they can be a blockage in the system.
Moving on to the importance of biodiversity, we all recognise that we have to increase food production and try to improve the biodiversity of the land that we farm. The point raised by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Selborne is that we need to do that while improving production. My noble friend Lady Miller talked about the problem of farmland birds and said that the numbers were still declining even after the number of years that we have had various agri-environment schemes that allegedly help increase numbers. When you look at land management practices and some of the research about what can be done—and there is possibly a case for further tweaking of these agri-environment schemes—we should be able to do something to increase the numbers of farmland birds. Again, as was made clear, they are a crucial indicator of what is going on in terms of the biodiversity of the land that is farmed and our land mass as a whole.
My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned the Taylor review. I discussed this only recently with colleagues in the department and also with my noble friend Lord Taylor himself, who was the author of that review. I assure my noble friend Lady Byford that we will be progressing it further. If she goes to the Defra website she should be able to find out exactly what is happening. A grid shows exactly how the different recommendations in that review are being progressed as is appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury mentioned poultry. He was right to say that we in the UK have been fully compliant with the changes that were made to cages at considerable cost to the producers. There is a worry that there will be an import of eggs in large numbers from countries that have been less compliant. We strongly urge the Commission to put sufficient enforcement measures in place to protect compliant producers if other countries do not meet the 2012 deadline. We would favour a time-limited intracommunity trade ban. We have suggested that opportunity to the Commission to prevent member states that still have conventional cages from selling their eggs outside of their borders. That is one of the enforcement options that is being considered by the Commission. I will let my noble friend know if further developments take place in due course.
My noble friend Lord Arran raised the question of bovine TB. I agree that it is having a devastating effect on many farm businesses. Last year, something of the order of 25,000 cattle in England were slaughtered because of it. We will announce a comprehensive and balanced TB eradication programme for England by July. This will include whether the Government intend to proceed with the proposed badger control policy, which we consulted on at the end of last year. My noble friend is fully aware that this is a difficult and sensitive issue and it is important to take the time to make sure we get our approach right. Many people, whatever decision we make, will consider that we have made the wrong plan.
I turn now to the amount of money spent on research. I agree with all noble Lords that this is an important matter. It is important that we do what we can through R&D. I can give an assurance that the Government spend £365 million a year on food and farming research. Defra and BBSRC are the main funders, but there is also an indicative budget allocation for global food security in the BBSRC’s delivery plan of some £104 million per annum in the next four financial years.
Sir John Beddington’s report, The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability, was published in January this year. The report identifies the scale of the challenge posed by global food security. Put simply, the global food system is consuming the world’s natural resources at an unsustainable rate.
The Foresight report highlights the vulnerability of the global food system to: population growth, which as I stressed earlier is likely to reach 9 million by 2050; changes in per capita demand for food as populations become wealthier and are likely to want more meat; governance of the food system both nationally and internationally; climate change, which we touched on earlier; competition for key resources such as land—as my noble friend Lord Selborne reminded us, they are not making it any more—energy and water; and the ethical stance of consumers, particularly around the new technologies of GM, cloning and organic farming and production methods, sustainability and biodiversity.
The report also discusses the problems caused by recent increases in the volatility of food prices—an issue that is now being studied by the G20 under France’s presidency. As my noble friend Lord Plumb made clear, volatile prices cause problems for producer and consumer alike. In particular, they make it difficult for farmers to plan the investment needed to increase capacity and competitiveness in order to cope with the challenges of growing more food with less impact on the environment. In the G20, Agriculture Ministers will be looking at ways of helping this situation.
The report concludes that if we are to be able to continue to feed the world’s population, doing nothing is not an option. Put simply, we must act now and grow more food at less cost to the environment. The report recognises that the farming and food industry in the UK contributes positively to the transition to a green economy by increasing sustainability, seizing opportunities and providing innovative solutions for the future. We should all be grateful to the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser for that report. Again, I am grateful to all noble Lords, and in particular my noble friend Lady Byford, for their contributions.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which reflected the enormity of the challenge that we face—not just within the UK but globally. I am very grateful for the variety of contributions that we received. As my noble friend has just said, the report warns that doing nothing is not an option. That was the thing that struck me straightaway. Another thing that struck me was the huge urgency of this. The sad thing is that while we have food on our shelves 24 hours a day, people do not stop and think that it may not always be there. Clearly, the Foresight report draws to our attention the challenges that are coming with coping with greater numbers of people.
Many noble Lords spoke about GM technology. I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for saying that it is nothing new. It is not, but for some reason the general public people think that it is new and it is bad news. In fact, it is an extension of what has happened over the years as we have managed to increase yields. Our continued care for water and soil quality is the most important thing we can do. It is of huge import for the future.
Volatility was mentioned, particularly in terms of the cost of imports. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury talked about the egg industry. At the age of 16 that was the profession I wanted to go into. The problem was raised with me only this week by one of our big suppliers of eggs. He said that he could not get GM-free feed and how difficult the problem is—not only the expense, but in getting hold of it. It is something that the debate has highlighted, which is well worth while.
I again thank noble Lords for participating in the debate. I also take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for the work that she did when she was in another place and was an Agriculture Minister. We are grateful for the way she has done her work and led for the Opposition in this House. My sincere thanks go to everybody for enabling this debate to take place. I wish it would go across all government departments to say, “Wake up, there is a huge challenge ahead”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Communities
Baroness Newlove
To call attention to the report Our Vision for Safe and Active Communities; and to move for papers.
Baroness Newlove
My Lords, I thank you for the amazingly warm and supportive welcome to your Lordships’ House following my maiden speech just two weeks ago. It is just 10 months since I joined this House, was made Government Champion for Active Safer Communities and produced the report that is being debated today. I have not learnt the ropes yet, so I apologise to noble Lords for not ensuring they had a chance to join this debate and will know for next time to warn them personally in advance. Please excuse me if my voice is strained—nothing, including this infection, could stop me standing before you today.
I want to explain why I feel so passionately about anti-social behaviour and building more active and safe communities. As a victim myself, my mailbag yields sad, shocking examples of people whose lives are so devalued by it. I know of one elderly man who creeps around in silence and darkness, with curtains drawn. He is too scared of intimidation and violence to show any sign of life, because he knows that it will be magnet for these feral people to start harassing him again. Other examples across the country are too shocking to list here: you would find it unbelievable that they exist in our country. This is the harsh, gritty reality of our lives. I am sure that, like me, all noble Lords will leave this House to return to a warm, comfortable and safe home. Please spare a thought for those who do not have the same security; and we are not talking about challenged, deprived areas, for this exists as much in leafy country areas as it does in tough inner-city estates.
I thank all noble Lords who have put their name down to speak on my report and I am sure that I echo all present when I say I am particularly looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Noon. There is such a bank of knowledge, experience and wisdom in this House and I am begging you to help me, as a representative of ordinary people everywhere, by supporting some of the recommendations in my report, Our Vision for Safe and Active Communities. I am humbled, but also delighted, that this debate has been tabled as I feel so very passionately that together we have to solve some of the worst of society’s ills—particularly for those most affected, who are the vulnerable and sidelined victims of cruelty and crime.
I was put here to be champion for activists and victims, by people power. This is a golden opportunity for their voice to be heard nationally. Although reported crime might continue to fall, I support the plans of my colleague, Police Minister Nick Herbert, to keep focused on driving it down faster and deeper through new approaches. Nick has said that there is no room for complacency, and he is so right. Speaking from bitter experience, statistics are meaningless if you are the person whose existence is a living hell, day or night, thanks to bullying, thuggish behaviour; or someone who fears for your child’s safety every time they leave your sight. The public remain concerned about levels of crime, particularly anti-social behaviour. As I have said before, anti-social behaviour is viewed as low priority. However, it is an evil, insidious growth. Its spreading roots undermine the very foundations of decent society and if we let it grow unchallenged, its fruits and its malignancy can kill.
The British Crime Survey says that around one in four of us has issues with public drunkenness, drug dealing, loitering teenagers, rubbish, litter and vandalism. We cannot sit by and allow any more neighbourhoods to be fearful places where residents scuttle to bolt their doors and feel sanctuary and safety lies only in retreating to a fortress. My report is a work in progress, as we have to start somewhere. I have total faith that if we make radical changes and adopt its recommendations in approach, delivery and accountability and, more importantly, breathe fresh life into stale bureaucracy, we can help roll back the years and recreate that country where everyone is able to walk safely, day and night, and children roam free to explore and enjoy their childhood.
The journey of 1,000 miles starts with one single step, and this report is, I hope, that threshold for the voyage we make together. It may have to be small steps to start with, but I hope we will be taking giant strides very soon towards our goal. We will be guided by our powerful national moral compass, which has steered us so well for generations and which makes us such a great country. It will be our faith leaders who, united, can help uphold our resolve when we falter. We must encourage every citizen to embrace the word “home” and understand that it does not apply to bricks and mortar of their four walls, but is a concept that includes other houses, the environment, the people and the services around them. Personal responsibility should be the norm, not abnormal. Parents who are unable or unwilling to look after their children must be encouraged and supported. However, if they wilfully expect the rest of society to shoulder their responsibilities for bringing up their children, that is totally unacceptable and we cannot allow that to continue. Their out-of-control offspring cannot terrorise decent, hard-working people and cause blight on their neighbourhoods.
Agencies in England and Wales, such as the 43 police authorities and some 450 local government authorities, depend on charities, volunteers, active citizens and thriving businesses to be effective in carrying out their own jobs. I am sending out an SOS for them to join this national movement. My report recommends more transparency, the sharing of resources and devolving decision-making to the very people affected by their service delivery. I want to see the creation of resource hubs; a national hub that will act as a signpost to anyone wanting to get out of their comfy armchair and work for better communities so that they have access to the knowledge, help and finances that they need to do that. “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke” is never so true as needed here. Parts of our society are broken, and we need common-sense, easy toolkits if we are to “DIY” it—to fix it ourselves.
That is why I welcome my move to the Department for Communities and Local Government. This year, I will be helped to implement my recommendations, which started out in the Home Office. It is a very lonely life being an active campaigner and I welcome this Government’s support, which I hope will make a difference to people’s lives. Too often, good ideas from ordinary people wither and die because it is just too difficult to navigate rules, red tape and regulations. Let us turn on the lights and lift the gloom of ignorance. It is more than time to lose some of the stranglehold of big, unwieldy and expensive government, and empower the small, potent big society, which is lots of small groups of activists and neighbours changing their part of the world.
My local hubs should be transparent ports of call, giving councillors access to people’s concerns and giving people access to their local representatives. The people put them in power in the first place. This is what I understand by the term “localism”. Local people should have a say in how the money that they pay in taxes and community charges is spent. I want to see money directed to a proper community-led cohesion project, signposted at the very lowest level. I also want to see “Bling Back”, whereby money confiscated from criminals such as drug dealers is spent in the very communities that were robbed in the first place. If communities help to keep a young person out of an offender unit by supporting them within the community, turning their lives around, and save huge amounts of money in the process, why should not they get rewarded for their efforts? It is odd that when areas help to reduce anti-social behaviour, their reward is to have their police numbers reduced. To me it is the carrot-and-stick scenario in reverse. Why punish those who produce the right result? That is so wrong. We should give them incentives to get more involved and drive down crime, which means spending money on whatever community project they choose in order to build resilience in their neighbourhoods.
I have been travelling the length and breadth of England and Wales looking at what triggers anti-social behaviour, who is working at grass-roots levels to address it and what is really happening in our communities. I cannot pretend that I have seen every good practice, but I can share the fact that there is an amazing network of good citizens willing and able to make the changes that we ask for. We have to connect them, learn from them, support them and most of all celebrate them—but for them the most important thing is to make the climate easier for them to roll up their sleeves and just get on with it.
The heart of my report is to showcase and applaud some of these wonderful people. They run local Cubs, Scouts, Girl Guides and youth clubs; they help with shopping for the elderly, infirm and vulnerable; and they work unpaid to support charities. They do this willingly and for no other reason than that it is the right thing to do. I have seen fantastic role models, champions and projects in my travels, good police and public servants who are really reaching out to engage and work alongside the people they serve. I have been amazed how this new way of working can break down those huge walls that prevent people having a say. Read their own words in the report and see how they have tackled their community problems and won through—but despair also because of the stupid, pompous obstacles still being placed in their way.
When I am asked how I expect busy people to get involved in volunteering in this way, I have only to point to Hayley, a mother of eight young children, one of whom is in poor health, who started play activities with her own children in her own area. She extended it to others and in only 18 months has tackled anti-social behaviour on her estate, which is now down 40 per cent.
I am sick and tired of hearing the phrase trotted out so many times, “Lessons will be learnt”, when obviously they have not been because we see and hear over and over again tragedies and neglected cries for help. We should hold to account those who should have learnt lessons and if necessary remove them from positions of power and replace them with people who have learnt and can behave with humanity and understanding. So how can we tackle violent anti-social behaviour? Is there any evidence that it is already happening? The charity, Victim Support, runs a ground-breaking project in Southampton, pulling together all parties in a multi-agency partnership, with tenants, residents, housing managers, Neighbourhood Watch, police and others throwing a protective arm around victims of anti-social behaviour. These victims come from all ages and social backgrounds. Many have mental health issues and learning disabilities; each victim has tailored support, including emotional and practical help, signposting to specialist help, and advocacy with other agencies. Nearly 550 victims in the past 12-month period have had help through their darkest days to find light at the end of the tunnel. We need more of this joined-up work.
Also on Monday I accompanied Housing Minister Grant Shapps to Liverpool, to another Westminster—a blighted housing estate with a thriving residents’ association whose members are the eyes and ears of the community. Monthly “Have your Say” meetings pressurise other residents to take responsibility for the behaviour of friends, families and visitors on the estate. They keep diaries of incidents and take an active part in an intensive community payback scheme for offenders. Elaine and Harry are truly the pillars of their society. The outcome of this work has been a 50 per cent drop of reported anti-social behaviour in just three months. That is a huge success.
One of the main factors of the violent gang behaviour that led to the murder of my husband, Garry, was underage binge drinking. I intend to use my report to enlist support from the alcohol retail industry to reclaim our streets and reduce violence on alcohol abuse. I know that there is a way to return us to the days of social, not anti-social, consumption, and to take back our streets at night.
I have always been an optimist, even after my experience, and as a loving mother to three young women, I demand a better world for them. I am not swayed by the argument that we have to throw tonnes of money, meet loads of targets and use mountains of resources to make change. I look forward to shifting the resources already allocated to be more cost-effective and more in line with the people’s wishes. My report challenges the mindset of what I think is a complacent nation and one which has allowed the quality of life in our country to slide down to a totally unacceptable level in some areas. This is a national disgrace. I look forward to hearing your Lordships’ suggestions in the coming debate and afterwards, and to learning how you feel you can add your many talents and contacts to help us reach our final destination. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, it is with a great sense of humility that I rise to address your Lordships. For nearly 13 years, until last May, I had the privilege of serving in this House in the office of the Leader of the Opposition and assisting the work of the usual channels. For that opportunity, I must thank the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. They were both remarkably kind to me, and occasionally they even made the eccentric mistake of repeating to your Lordships something I had recommended them to say. I toyed with the idea of allowing my noble friend the Leader of the House to get his own back by asking him for advice on my own speech, but the risk was too great that noble Lords would recognise his own choice phrases.
One of my earlier perceptions of this House was formed 20 years ago in Downing Street at those regular morning meetings, often quite impatient, when the then Leader of the House came to explain to the then Prime Minister how your Lordships had ventured to vote against legislation that always seemed at the time something without which not only the Government but the entire universe would collapse. I rather suspect those meetings are still going on. But when I came to work here in 1997, I soon found that what, from the standpoint of the Executive, were seen as the capricious actions of your Lordships' House were usually rooted in common sense and deep humanity. In short, the more I listened to this House, the more I learned. I did not always agree, but I grew to respect this place beyond almost any other I have ever known, and then hold it with equally great affection.
I could not be more grateful for the kindness with which I was received, back then, and again when, to my surprise, I returned as a Member earlier this year, not only by your Lordships on all sides of the House but by the staff of this House, many of whom with my service here I am proud to count not only as old colleagues but old friends.
I spoke a moment ago of this House's common sense and deep humanity. That, of course, brings me to the subject of this debate, and my noble friend Lady Newlove, whom I warmly thank for introducing it and allowing me to speak. It is daunting to follow her; I agreed with every word that she said. She will forgive me if I do not follow entirely on the subject only of anti-social behaviour, because what she said applies to so many other areas of life. In the way that she has turned a savage, personal loss into a commitment and prospectus for common good, my noble friend exemplifies the qualities of common sense and humanity—and how much we need those as we survey the shards of a society which is in all too many places broken but which the noble Baroness inspires us to believe can be built again. I believe that it will be built again if those in authority truly listen to the calls that my noble friend brings to us to help people take small steps to big ends.
I have the privilege to be leader of a local authority, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. It is in many ways a comfortable authority, where some of the issues set out in this report might seem less pressing than they are elsewhere. Yet I believe that many of my noble friend's ideas are as relevant in prosperous areas as they are in poorer ones. Anti-social behaviour and crime, as she said, respect no borough boundaries, and anxiety, alienation and disengagement know no economic frontiers. In my view, it is the urgent calling of all of us, in whatever capacity in politics, to join in the task of rebuilding broken bridges of trust and confidence between politics, public bodies and the citizen. We need to remember, as my noble friend reminds us, who are the employees and who are the employers in the relationship between public bodies and those we are elected or appointed to serve.
As my noble friend's report eloquently tells us, bureaucracy, complex language and slow responses deter active communities and community action. Perhaps I may give a small example from last month's uplifting national coming together, the royal wedding. Shortly after we were elected to office in Richmond, I enjoyed that horrible moment—which many of your Lordships who have been in office will well remember—of being rung up by my press office to be told that, quite unexpectedly, we were being targeted by a national newspaper. We were being cited as the local authority most restrictive of street parties, with the highest insurance requirements, the most prescriptive rules on street signs and so on. Be there so much as a whiff of a sizzling sausage in the streets of Richmond, the report suggested, and Councillor True’s enforcers would be down on you, probably dressed in uniform.
I did what any worried politician under fire does—I called for a report, courageously. That report told me that, in all essence, the story was true. It was not that my predecessors or the council officers had wanted it, but simply that a well-meaning climate of risk aversion, health and safety first and written policies on almost everything had led to an accretion of complexities in rules and regulations, which no one had ever sat down and planned or even really wanted. The response was obvious—to scrap most of those rules. We simplified the rules for approval, with the result that what had been targeted as the most restrictive council in England ended up hosting more street parties on 29 April than any other. How much I agree, then, with what the noble Baroness says in chapter 5 of her report about providing services on the public’s terms and about simplifying processes. I also find her idea of a general power of competence for local residents highly compelling.
However, I believe that local authorities can and should be catalysts to the creation of active communities. The will is there—I do not believe the cynics. Last year we asked people in our borough to define for themselves their own communities and say which things they most valued and which they most wanted to change in their own area, and cynics said that only a few hundred people would respond. In fact, getting on for 14,000 people did, and we are now following that up with a process of public meetings and plans that cover the 14 different self-selected communities which local people chose. Predictably, their priorities are different. Some are concerned about crime, some about school places, some about improving open spaces, some about losing their high-street shops and some about parking. We must accept that different areas have different priorities and be ready to implement different solutions.
Top-down, one-size-fits-all, town-hall-knows-best has had its day; I welcome that, as I know that people on all sides of politics do. However, I agree with my noble friend in her report that that does not mean sitting back and waiting for things to happen bottom-up. We need to go out and meet people in the middle. Helping active communities to plan and create a better future is just as much about creating and defending the spirit of place, which is what I think local authorities must do; and it is infinitely more rewarding than creating the umpteenth centralised strategy document and calling in the PR men to sell it to those who have had no say at all in writing it in the first place. The role of local authorities evolves, but I am sure that they have a constructive role in meeting the challenges that my noble friend’s report lays down.
I will not trouble your Lordships further on this occasion. However, I must conclude by saying that I do believe that there is an immense opportunity for the creation of community enterprise. When I looked, coming here today, for example, at the hideous scarring of our urban railway lines by graffiti put up by those selfishly intent on imposing their identity, or their vile gang's identity, on public space, I asked myself, “Is there not scope for creating a great enterprise to remove this blight from our lives? Would not hundreds of young people wish to be involved in doing that?”. I am certain that there is, and we should take that challenge, with support, to Network Rail.
There are myriad things, great and small, that people, once allowed across the barriers marked “health and safety” or “risk”, could and will do for themselves. My noble friend’s inspiring report points us along this road. Along with many other local authority leaders, I look forward to helping her achieve her vision across our country, in all regions, whether rich or poor, and in other areas of policy, as well as in the crucial war on anti-social behaviour in which she so powerfully calls us to engage.
Lord Addington
My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord True, on his maiden speech. When I looked at his CV I discovered that, in his relationship with the Liberal Democrats in Richmond, he has been someone who—as his colleagues have described best—has exchanged heavy blows with relish, punched his own weight and could take a shot, but who was also a gentleman afterwards. The borough of Richmond, Surrey is well represented among the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, but it was actually a clean fight down there. That relationship is probably something on which the noble Lord will go far in this House and in Parliament, and I congratulate him on that.
It is also very unusual to welcome to this House someone who probably knows more about it than do some who have been here for more than 20 years. That degree of knowledge and grounding in local politics will be extremely useful to this House. It will, I hope, build up the sum of knowledge and the ability to reach out which is so necessary for this House. I again congratulate the noble Lord on his speech. It was good and thoughtful. We hope to hear many more such speeches from him, because we can use them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, introduced a thoughtful and considerate discussion on the backdrop which makes the big society necessary. Over the years, by accident and by design, problems have arisen in society whereby people have allowed society to disintegrate and some unacceptable behaviour to become the norm. It is also true that, when dealing with these problems, the perception can often be far worse than the reality; it depends on who and where you are and what has happened to you personally. The noble Baroness's experiences in life will of course give her deeper insight into what can really go wrong, but how can the rest of us get involved?
The central theme of what the noble Baroness said is the fact that we have to take on much of this responsibility ourselves, and that the Government have to allow that to happen. When I was reading about the report, some of the comments said that however local the activity, volunteer-based groups cannot do all the work themselves. There is a balance here, aimed primarily at ensuring that we allow volunteers to grow. We should provide the fertile soil for these fertile ideas to bloom in.
How is that done? Regulation is a great thing for bashing. We are all against regulation—or, rather, every single one of us is against regulations that inconvenience us but not against regulations that do not inconvenience us and that we think might be a good idea in order to stop someone doing something that we do not like. That is the eternal balance.
We all want to have a drink in a pub now and again. Some of us may think that closing time, to take an extreme example, should be 12 am on a Friday or a Saturday, but if you happen to live on that pub’s main exit route on the way home you will have a different point of view. I have been in both camps. Unless we try to balance that and make that interaction more positive, we are going to get it wrong; we will always lurch from the red-top tabloid description of what is going on—“Society is never going to be the same again”—to the reaction against it from the killjoys, often in the same newspaper on the same day. The two sides are constantly getting at each other. You can imagine the editors of these newspapers or programmes saying, “Now, how much coverage are we going to have about overregulation and how much saying that it’s disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed?”. In the middle there is usually a revelation about the love life of someone whom you have never heard of.
This is something that we have to try to get a hold of in adult ways. It struck me as I was researching this that it is important not to allow areas to be thought of as forgotten, as not counting. Much of the work that has gone on around here has concentrated on little things, like ensuring that rubbish is not allowed to sit on the streets for any length of time. We tackle things like fly-tipping, and involvement from local government, or possibly even other forms of government, allows that to happen. We get involved and that creates a better atmosphere.
If you do not like teenagers sitting on a corner of the street, you make sure that they have somewhere else to go at reasonable times of day. Wearing my other hat, I worry about sport; if you say, “No, we can’t have anyone noisily kicking a ball around. No ball games”, and then wonder why they are kicking a can around and shouting at you, you have created that situation yourself. By denying them a chance for personal responsibility, society has created the problem. If you say that you are going to provide somewhere that a game of football or basketball can take place, if it is well lit and if local law enforcement officers come round, have a chat, have a look and go away again at regular times, you will probably have a safer environment to allow people to interact than you would have otherwise, even if it is slightly noisy and there are a few teenagers outside. If those officers do that job properly, you will probably have an interchange of information that will make it less likely that there will be unreported crime. If, however, you simply turn around and say, “No, someone doesn’t like the noise”, you have enhanced the problem.
We are always going to find this balancing act difficult. It is as important to ensure that community groups have a place to meet and interact as it is for teenagers—they should not have to rely on meeting in someone’s crowded house—but those groups will require support, effort and back-up. Unless the noble Baroness’s ideas are allowed to flourish in a positive environment, unless you allow this space, all the good ideas will come to nothing.
When I started looking at this, I considered talking about the importance of other groups apart from amateur sports clubs. They are my favourite because they embody much of what is good in society. Any amateur association that brings people together, whether that be for train-spotting or for amateur dramatics, and gives them some sense of responsibility for themselves, is something of a model. If you can encourage these groups and allow them to function, and if local government is encouraged to allow them to function, you have taken two steps forward: the first by example, and the second by providing a focus.
I do not have to tell politicians that if you get a bunch of people together who know how to organise, every now and then the problem is to get them to stop organising. We have to try to allow these things to happen. Hopefully, the noble Baroness’s report is the start of an ongoing process that will allow us to get the best out of what naturally happens and to take what can happen everywhere into everywhere.
Lord Noon
My Lords, I am very honoured to be making my maiden speech today and to follow the eloquent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord True.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for introducing this very important debate. Her contribution in this area is significant. Her maiden speech greatly moved this House, and I am sorry that it was born out of such a great personal tragedy. I commend the noble Baroness on her most excellent report, Our Vision for Safe and Active Communities. I hope that I can do justice to the wisdom of that report as I talk about my experiences and understanding of how we can make safer, stronger and more active communities.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friends Lady Jay of Paddington and Lord Sainsbury of Turville for having introduced me on the Floor of the House in January this year. Since my arrival here I have been most graciously and respectfully received by everyone. I have been made to feel most welcome. I acknowledge and thank the officials of the House for their courtesy and their time.
It was only a few years ago that I was made to think that I might not be here today to make this speech. I am of course referring to the night in November 2008 when I was trapped in the Taj Hotel in Mumbai while it was attacked by a group of terrorists. So I have had my own close encounter with terrorists, which made me realize how quickly life can be taken away. On that November morning in 2008 I woke up in my hotel bed as a businessman. By nightfall I was a hostage of a terrorist cell.
I had taken a small trade delegation from my parent company, Kerry Foods. The terrorists were hunting down British and American nationals, which we all were. We sat in the dark room listening to the sounds of grenades and bombs exploding in the building. Smoke soon poured in from under our door and we panicked. Had I known then what I was to learn later—that the terrorists were in room number 360—then we would really have panicked. For, you see, we were in room number 361, right next door, separated by only one wall. It was the longest night of my life.
Next morning, in the light of dawn, we saw the fire brigade on the street below. My suite was on the third floor. We frantically waved to the fire brigade. They sent their long ladder up to our balcony, broke the glass and hoisted us on to a platform. The TV images of our rescue went round the world as it was happening. The handlers of the terrorists were also watching TV and directing their foot soldiers by mobile phone. As we were coming down, they shot at us from inside the hotel. We were lucky that we all escaped with our lives, but 176 others who died in the Mumbai attack were not so lucky. The terrorists attacked two hotels, a railway station and a tourist café, as well as targeting a Jewish centre. The victims were all ordinary people minding their own business and were killed randomly. These matters go to the very heart of our debate today. If we are to have safer communities, we must deal with all the forces that seek to harm us and threaten the very fabric of our society.
Just a few days ago we got the news of the death of the terrorist mastermind who had dedicated his life to murder and mayhem. The religion of Islam has been hijacked by such people. Let me say here what I believe Islam stands for. My beloved mother, Bilquis, instilled in me the Islamic values of peace and tolerance. I grew up in a household in India where we were on very friendly terms with people of other communities. Our neighbours were non-Muslim. The community was fully integrated and it seemed to us the natural way to live. It was a cosmopolitan society.
London, too, is a cosmopolitan city and this great country gives its people many benefits. Britain provides its citizens great freedom to worship, to educate and to work, and let us not forget our compassionate National Health Service. There is also the benefit of retiring with a state pension. The citizen is given all these things by the nation. In return, we owe the community, society and country our allegiance. We all have a moral obligation to fulfil our duties as citizens. We must live with honour. The freedoms we enjoy in the UK, including the freedom of religious belief and practice, are given freely. However, with freedom comes responsibility. It is our responsibility to be active, to take part and do what we can to make all our lives better. It is inevitable that there will be friction at times, difficulties of adjustment, but we are all the same under the skin.
On a personal level, I have worked hard to create a food industry and provide employment in Great Britain. I have even made chicken tikka masala our national dish. At the same time, I have not forgotten that I am a member of a greater society and have tried to pay back through my Noon Foundation, a charity personally endowed by me. Through our projects I have come across everyday heroes who work in hospices and community mentoring projects, the brave soldiers of our Army and many selfless people who make life worth while. In our democracy, we have the freedom to speak up, to comment and to criticise. There is room for every shade of expression. No matter what our origins, no matter what our faith, no matter what our culture and opinions are, we are ultimately stronger and safer in the community with each other. We are better off when we watch out for each other.
I thank your Lordships for listening to me. I look forward to taking part in many more such debates.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Noon, and hope that we will indeed hear from him very often in your Lordships’ House. His services to the British food industry have been enormous, and I imagine that quite a number of us in the Palace of Westminster have taken advantage of the ready meals produced by Noon Products Ltd, especially after late sittings. I am sure that he has fed many of us already with his products; now he is feeding us with his words. The company that he founded in 1989 has become a tremendously substantial employer, and he is known for the quality of his employment practices. We pay tribute to him.
We have of course heard why the noble Lord is so well qualified to speak on this subject today, since he knew what it was to fear for his personal safety when trapped in the Taj Mahal Palace hotel in Mumbai during those ghastly terrorist attacks. His powerful denunciation of extremists within his own Muslim community, which he has gently repeated here today, is matched by his many positive community engagements. I understand that his company collaborates with the Prince’s Trust in setting up in-school clubs for 14 to 16 year-olds at risk of truancy, exclusion and underachievement—causes of so much of the anti-social behaviour that concerns us in this debate. In addition, he is vice-chair of the Maimonides Foundation, which focuses on promoting Jewish-Muslim relations. All this illustrates why we hope to hear much more from him in future. It has been wonderful to have two marvellous maiden speeches in this same debate.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her report, which is written from the heart and with many refreshing turns of phrase. Quite apart from its other strengths, the report has a pleasing absence of bureaucratic language and dense, impenetrable jargon. For that alone, much thanks. It also has the merit of passion. Of course, it includes the passion of the noble Baroness, which she brings to her theme through her own very painful experience, which she has made, remarkably, the springboard of creative service to others. Her report is also grounded in the passions and stories of so many other people. What unites them is a desire for a better community life. These pioneers in community self-help have made their neighbourhoods safer places.
As the Bishop of Norwich, I am naturally glad to see Norfolk mentioned honourably, although this is generally a report with a very strong urban bias. I know that the noble Baroness does not think this, but we must not imagine that that is because rural communities are all active and safe already. They are not. A rural location is no defence against low-level anti-social behaviour and sometimes much more serious social disruption, too. One can, indeed, lead to another. As the noble Baroness illustrated, as the irritation level grows people retreat into themselves and into their homes. Isolation from neighbours breeds fear of crime, which is surprisingly high in rural areas. Where there are relatively low levels of crime, there are very high levels of the fear of crime. That diminished social interaction creates fertile territory for the growth of more serious offending. This does not happen so easily in communities where there is a strong sense of neighbourliness and social engagement. Where people meet each other a lot, they care for and look out for each other. What the noble Baroness recommends in her report seems to me to be nothing less than what humanity is actually for.
As I have mentioned, I was glad to see Norfolk mentioned on page 26 of the report, which stresses the value of community panels in identifying the tasks to be done in their areas by those serving a community sentence. Far too much community service has been prescribed by statutory authorities and has not always felt beneficial to communities themselves. We need to change this. This report is a spur to doing so more widely, not only in Norfolk.
The report also commends restorative justice at page 22, but I was surprised to see that it did not feature in the recommendations. Will the Minister comment on the place of restorative justice in relation to the picture presented in the report? As your Lordships know, in restorative justice people who have been the perpetrators or victims of a crime or incident come together to consider what happened, to repair harm and to develop a strategy together that will avoid a recurrence. In Norfolk more than 12,000 people have been involved in restorative justice since 2007, and 89 per cent have been satisfied with the outcome. That figure has gradually increased and in the past year was well over 90 per cent. These people believe that this is the best way to deal with low-level crime and anti-social behaviour. The percentage of those reoffending in Norfolk after restorative justice has been just 10.4 per cent for juveniles and 14 per cent for adults. Those are impressive figures. They also illustrate, because the bias is towards the young, that restorative justice is even more effective for younger people as their characters and dispositions are still being formed; you have a chance with juveniles. That is why Norfolk is bidding to become one of the first restorative counties with a designated champion for this work.
However, restorative justice needs a neutral, trained facilitator so that those involved in an incident can engage constructively with each other. It is not a matter of putting perpetrators and victims together, hoping for the best and trusting that they will produce a solution; the third party is essential. That is where someone from one community can help people in another, since we are talking almost entirely about volunteers. The dynamic of care extends. Our communities cannot be silos of safety; they learn from one another and give to each other. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, helps us raise our sights.
There is one other passing comment in the report that I wish to endorse and develop more fully. The noble Baroness says:
“If communities are to build trusting relationships with their services, then services need to be available when their community needs them. It is crazy … that many staff whose prime function is to support and assist the community only work standard office hours when most people are busy at work or in education”.
That makes good sense, but it illustrates an uncomfortable truth; most of those providing statutory services to our most needy communities do not live in them. A long time ago, when I was working as a curate on a large council estate in Peterborough, my vicar brought together many of the social workers, probation officers, health visitors and some of the teachers working on that estate to share our experiences. It is a commonplace initiative now but 35 years ago it was a bit more radical. I vividly remember from all that time ago that at our first session we discovered two things. The first was that about 10 families on an estate of more than 15,000 people occupied a great deal of all our time. We had not got our act together, nor had we recognised that so many of the problems on the estate were caused by so few. However, only two of us—my vicar and me—actually lived on the estate.
The clergy live in the communities they serve; they do not go somewhere else after office hours. Rectory and vicarage families often experience the same levels of anti-social irritation as their neighbours, even sometimes worse, as an increasing number of tragic incidents illustrate. It is not surprising, therefore, that when there is a major incident the media often seek out the vicar as a community spokesperson. You see it on the television all the time. He or she is often the only official person to be found living in the place they visit. I say this not simply to illustrate the value of the parish system of the Church of England, although I believe in it and believe that it is incredibly valuable, but to endorse the contention of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that those who live in a community are best placed to determine how to make it safer. The devolution of decision-making, which we hope will be a characteristic of the Localism Bill, is to be welcomed. Therefore, I confess that I was a bit surprised to see that churches seem strategically marginal to the report, despite the very good example of the Church of England parish of St John at Hackney. I hope that, in following up the recommendations of this report, churches and other faith communities will be fully involved; we are certainly willing to be.
Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister indicated what steps the Government are taking to extend restorative justice and, in particular, what steps will be taken to ensure that decisions affecting the well-being of communities are increasingly taken by those who live in them.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The predecessor of his whom I knew best was Launcelot Fleming, now long-since dead, but I cannot help feeling that his spirit emerged in all the speeches I have heard in this debate, and that has made it the richer.
I join others in congratulating both noble Lords who have made maiden speeches. Of course I congratulate my noble friend Lord True. He had the good fortune to have been born into a family with a name to which everyone is likely to respond enthusiastically and warmly. Those with the ill luck to have been born into families who are less happy gradually manage over the years to change that. However, I am personally sorry that that admirable firm of solicitors in County Sligo, Argue and Phibbs, which I always looked up in the Irish telephone directory every time I went to Ireland, has finally and at last gone out of business. As to the noble Lord, Lord Noon, he and I met only once. He may well not remember it, but we broke bread on the subject of cricket. Anyone with that avocation is bound to be worth listening to on almost any subject. I congratulate him most warmly.
Of course I congratulate my noble friend Lady Newlove, not only on providing us with the opportunity for this debate, but on the quality of her report. I do not know how many noble Lords who are not taking part in the debate, but are sitting in the Chamber, have had the opportunity to read the report. To those who have not done so, I commend it very warmly indeed. It is comprehensive, and the fact that it has more than two dozen footnotes is itself an index of the extent of the reading that my noble friend has done. I am enormously impressed by the great storehouse of material that it fulfils.
My noble friend has a particular characteristic in the way in which her views come through, which was reflected in a remark long ago by Ronnie Knox, the Catholic convert theologian, who said that history has been changed by people who start their sentences with, “I believe”, rather than, in the English manner, “One does feel”. I have to say to my noble friend that throughout her report, “I believe” came through very strongly in every sentence. I have to say also that those thoughts remind me of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I cannot conceive of the words “One does feel” falling from her lips. My noble friend Lady Newlove has the same adamantine convictions. I hope we can envisage a pocket version of her report in a Penguin format that we can slip into our pockets, because there is so much material in it that is sensible to carry about one’s person.
I particularly admire her insistence on clear purposes. When I was brought up, I was once taught by someone who said, “If you do not know where you are trying to get to, any road will get you there”. There is much to be said for having a clear idea of where you are trying to get to and how you are going to do it. The report has lots of suggestions, stories and recommendations. Beyond my noble friend’s conviction comes through the sense of her stamina. During the war, Winston Churchill had 10 ideas a day; one was normally good and the other nine were less good. My distant kinsman, the 1st Viscount Alanbrooke, a great-granduncle to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, had the responsibility, as Churchill’s CIGS, of explaining to him that the last nine ideas were not very good. That was not the easiest thing to do. The great thing about my noble friend’s report is that she will have a much higher strike rate and—I think she realises this already—although some of the ideas in the report may not necessarily find acceptance among those to whom they are directed, she gains greatly by the rich number and variety of ideas that she has put forward.
My qualifications for speaking in this debate, I suppose, are that I represented for nearly a quarter of a century the inner-city seat of the Cities of London and Westminster, known as the “Two Cities”. It was an interesting seat to represent because of its particular profile. The European Union, with slightly mistaken statistics, believed that it was the richest area in the whole EU. I will not go into what the statistical error was, but it was also almost certainly the only Tory seat in the country which came in the top 50—or the bottom 50, if you like—for poverty, and possibly the only Tory seat in the top 100.
An inner-city seat is likely to have considerable poverty. I may not be able to produce examples to which my noble friend will respond, but my two favourite examples were in the wards of Soho and Pimlico. When I was first elected, there were 10 candidates standing. We all received an examination paper from the Soho Society to find out how much we knew about Soho before we arrived, which was an extraordinarily good stimulus to subsequent research. It is a community where 2,000 people live and 40,000 people work. The marvellous thing about it is that it is a totally united community, from both quarters. In 1981, it had 164 sex establishments. Although that is a different kind of antisocial behaviour than that which my noble friend is talking about, it was a major task to transform it, but transform it we did, so that old ladies who had hitherto not been too keen on having to walk down the street past Sodom and Gomorrah suddenly found that their visits to the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers had become possible again.
The drugs tsar under the previous Administration was against the silent majority giving money to beggars in Soho because she knew perfectly well that it was all going to go on drugs; but as an index of the integrated society, it was a Soho beggar, invisible to most people as they walked up and down the street, who made a significant contribution, literally at street level, as an observer, to the swift arrest of the bomber whose third attack was on the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho. Everybody plays their particular role, however they are operating within the community.
I entirely endorse what was said earlier about living in the neighbourhood. When we were taking the Licensing Bill through in 2003, when the Government were moving powers to magistrates, it was noticeable to everyone who lived in Soho, the people who were going to be on the receiving end of the changes, that the magistrates who would be making the decisions lived 50 miles away and would not themselves have any experience of what it was like to be in Soho at three o'clock in the morning.
As for Pimlico, in 1987, the Peabody Trust, which has a large estate not only in Pimlico but in Victoria and elsewhere—it has at least 2,000 homes in my former constituency—decided that no priority was to be given to those who came from families who had been living in Peabody accommodation for the past four generations. I told the trust that I thought that it was making a significant mistake and that the integrity of an inner-city community such as that was greatly assisted by continuity. I am glad to say that, 10 years later, in 1997, it agreed and introduced a quota system to make it possible for families to remain. That was wholly to the good. The noble Lord, Lord Best, who knows much more about these matters than I do, says that the shift that I described in 1997 is now prevalent throughout housing management. Although it is 10 years since I was the local Member, I have a continuing interest in the St Andrew’s youth club, half a mile from here, which is, if I may say, oxymoronically described as the oldest youth club in the world.
To the wide variety of subjects in my noble friend’s report, I add a few grace-notes. I respond extremely well to her emphasis on thinking outside the box. Personally, I believe that help is defined by the receiver rather than the giver, and it should be our watchword to make more important the Duke of Wellington's insistence on working out what is happening on the other side of the hill. The drugs tsar whom I quoted a moment ago had previously been the homelessness tsar, and she actively discouraged charitable groups from the Midlands who were paying away-day visits every two or three months to provide a soup kitchen in Soho. That was not the most effective way of responding to the problem and it was better done by those who were living with the problem on a day-to-day basis.
One problem that my noble friend Lady Newlove identified was the level in government departments and other public bodies at which decisions are taken. I am personally in favour of decisions being taken in organisations at the lowest possible level, but I am conscious that government departments vary, and that shows up in the level at which submissions to Ministers are signed off. Some take it right back up to the top before putting them in front of the Minister; some, happily, can even do it below the level of an assistant secretary. However, that is something of which anyone who deals with public bodies has to be aware.
I concur with my noble friend’s observations and ideas about funding and incentives. I commend to her the practice followed by Mr Ben Whitaker, the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, when he was the United Kingdom director of the Gulbenkian fund. In the distribution of small grants, he identified a single individual to be the distributor in each county, and he then drip-fed them with cash as their money ran down so that consistency was maintained in that area.
I have one question for my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to whose wind-up speech I greatly look forward. What are the lottery guidelines of the Big Lottery Fund, which has taken over the combined original roles of the Millennium Commission and the charities distributor, established in 1993 and 1994? My noble friend Lord Heseltine, who was the only Millennium Commissioner to go right through from the beginning to the end, was very keen on matching funding. However, as my noble friend identified, matching funding is potentially a problem. It would be helpful to know what the Big Lottery Fund’s instructions are, because the big society is a prime potential target for the Big Lottery Fund as a client.
I concur with my noble friend’s request about simplifying paperwork. I understand what she implies about auditors but, as Oral Questions frequently remind us in connection with the European Union, audits and auditors are necessary concomitants in the use of public money. When I was in the private sector, we did pro bono work for appropriate causes but at a level of 10 per cent of our ordinary fee. We insisted on 10 per cent because that left the client with a stake and an ownership. Therefore, when we served Jack Profumo in finding a chief executive for Toynbee Hall, he got a bill which stated the whole fee and we then gave a discount of 90 per cent, leaving him to pay the last 10 per cent himself.
I strongly approve of my noble friend’s ideas about people having to spend one day in outside organisations. In a longer speech I would refer to one that I did myself in my constituency. Given the present excitement about House of Lords reform, it would be no bad thing if Members of the House of Commons had to spend a day here in order to get a rather better idea than they have at the moment of how we operate. I totally agree with my noble friend’s views about having people in continuity.
Finally, I much admire the projects that she cited at the end. I hope that my noble friend is moved by her clients calling her projects “Newlove projects”, and I hope that in the fullness of time her clients will say in suitable gatherings, “Yes, we’ve been Newloved too”. I realise that, as 14 appears on the Clock I have to sit down, but my last words must be, as she recommends in her report, “Thank you”.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I start by adding my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord True, and my noble friend Lord Noon on their thoughtful and informative maiden speeches. I, too, hope that they will both be regular contributors to debates in your Lordships’ House as, clearly but not surprisingly, they both have much to contribute.
I also add my thanks and words of appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for the debate that she has introduced and for her report after what has clearly been a thorough and painstaking investigation into the issues she has addressed. It is to the eternal credit of the noble Baroness that she did not allow herself to be overwhelmed by the truly appalling and sickening experience that she and her family have been through, and no doubt continue to go through since you cannot forget—or perhaps want to forget—such a traumatic happening. Instead, the noble Baroness has shown great mental and emotional strength in her determination and resolve to campaign assiduously and make the case for action to encourage local activism and create more safe and happy communities, in a bid to reduce the likelihood of others having to endure a similar experience.
I read the report with great interest and I agree with the thrust of its message and intent. It was refreshing to read the noble Baroness’s statement:
“The ‘Big Society’ is already out there”.
That is a welcome riposte to those who appear to think that it is some great new policy or concept. Such a stance is in reality a bit of a slap in the face to all those thousands and thousands of good citizens who for years, quietly and without seeking publicity and celebrity recognition, have been doing the kind of work to which the noble Baroness refers in her report.
As the report says, levels of volunteering in the United Kingdom are higher compared to many of our European neighbours. That is despite having longer working hours than most if not all of our European neighbours. Rather than trying to present the big society as some new concept, the report puts forward a range of proposals to encourage more people to become active in their localities, and to follow in the footsteps of those who have successfully gone down this road and whose work the noble Baroness has highlighted in the case studies in the report.
One of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, makes, is that to encourage more participation, people need to feel that they will have a direct influence over decisions affecting their own communities and that their time will not be wasted through existing organisations and agencies simply ignoring their views, ideas and aspirations rather than treating them as partners. Accordingly, I am sure that after all the time, thought and effort that the noble Baroness has put into her report and recommended courses of action, she will be expecting to hear something more than warm words from the Minister in response. Having said that, I think that the noble Baroness may well now be in a position to ensure that her recommendations are enacted since she has recently joined the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The Minister may refer in his response to the Government’s Localism Bill and the intention to devolve power. I am sure that when we consider the Bill in your Lordships’ House there will be much debate on the extent to which the Bill does or does not achieve that objective, the potential implications of devolving power, and where in reality decision-making power and influence will actually rest. Last night your Lordships’ House showed that it did not share the Government’s view that handing over considerable power with few checks and balances to single individual elected police and crime commissioners, responsible for large and diverse areas, was a move that would in reality increase local accountability. The Government stating an intention is not the same thing as the Government actually putting forward proposals that will be accepted as achieving that intention in a reasonable and realistic way.
The statement in the report by the noble Baroness about the popularity with local communities of neighbourhood policing teams and police community support officers will be welcomed by many. I have had local police community support officers knocking on my front door to introduce themselves and to ask me about issues of specific concern to me in my locality. I hope that the Government will stick to their pledge that levels of front-line policing will not be affected by the cuts and that there is no dubiety that neighbourhood policing teams and police community officers are regarded as front-line positions.
In that context, perhaps I may digress for a moment and thank the Minister for sending me—finally—a reply to my Written Question of 16 March asking for the Government's definition of “police front-line positions”. It is quite a coincidence that I finally received the delayed and long awaited reply on the very morning of this debate, in which I was down to speak and in which the issue of front-line policing was likely to be raised. Bearing in mind that the reply simply refers to a definition in an HMIC report published on 30 March, it is not clear why the response took so long—way beyond the accepted timescale for responses to Written Questions. This is not the first time recently that this has happened with the Home Office. Unless there is a good reason why it has taken so long to reply, one can conclude only that this is a failure at ministerial level, since statements have previously been made—at ministerial level—that such delays should not occur. It is perhaps also a reminder, following last night's debate, that the presence of an elected person at the head of an organisation should not be taken as meaning that it will be responsive to those with whom it has dealings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, stresses in her report that it is crucial that individuals and communities, statutory agencies, the voluntary and community sectors and central government work together and regard each other as equal partners. One such statutory agency is the police. From my experience under the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme, with just one police force, certainly the willingness and desire to do so are there. The police know better than anyone the value of reliable information and intelligence; the value to them of being regarded as vital and respected parts of the communities that they serve; and the importance, if they are to be regarded as part of the solution to problems, of addressing the issues of most concern to local people. I well remember a meeting I attended a considerable time ago in which the local police divisional superintendent spoke about the work they had been doing to identify the principal issues of concern to the local population. Those issues were not about major crime, but about anti-social behaviour of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, addresses in her report, which can impact so heavily on the quality of life, and on what I recall the divisional superintendent describing as a desire for tranquillity and a feeling of well-being in the neighbourhood.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is suggesting not that the recommendations she has made would be a complete answer to the issues that she has addressed, but rather that they could make a significant and important difference, particularly if they lead to the change in culture and in mindset to which she refers. As the noble Baroness says in her report, the reasons why people engage in anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood crime must also be addressed if we are to improve the position. The reasons are many and varied, but if someone has been brought up in a home environment where anti-social behaviour, indifference and lack of thought for others appear to be accepted, one can hardly be surprised when that approach is copied and carried forward.
Other things can also lead the less determined and resilient to adopt such behaviour even when it does not seem to flow from the environment in which they have been brought up. Unemployment, boredom, a lack of constructive things to do and a lack of money to do anything much other than survive can also contribute. These are issues that local community action, or action by individuals, may also be able to address, as some of the case studies in the report show. They are also issues on which actions by central government can and do impact through, for example, the economic, social and financial policies that it pursues. The Government have a choice over the extent and the speed at which, for example, they invest to address the financial situation through growth and a resultant increase in tax revenues and reduction in unemployment and benefit claims, and over the extent and speed at which they decide to address the current financial situation by cutting expenditure and jobs, cutting levels of benefits and cutting facilities provided by central and local government. The Government will argue that they have currently got the balance right but that is not a view that we accept. However, I ask the Minister whether the Government, in determining their view on how they would address the financial situation, made an assessment of the likely impact of their decisions on the issues of the levels of anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood crime that are the subject of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If such an assessment was made, what were the conclusions?
Levels of crime have fallen not inconsiderably in recent years, which we should remember, albeit acknowledging, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, that such a statement can have little meaning to all those who have experienced as victims either directly or indirectly the horrors of crime and its impact. The noble Baroness’s report addresses in particular the increased contribution, with the necessary vital and appropriate encouragement and changed attitudes to which she refers, that individuals and local communities can make through their own actions and involvement to help address in particular anti-social behaviour and the cultures and the environment that seem to increase the likelihood of such behaviour. If the noble Baroness has found not the answer, but an answer to reducing anti-social behaviour, and creating safer, happier and closer communities, a great many people will be eternally grateful to her. I am sure that the Government will give the recommendations in the report the careful consideration that they most certainly deserve. I know that the House will be looking forward now to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this has been a very valuable and constructive debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, immensely for giving us all the incentive to read her report carefully: part of what debates are for is to give wider responses to useful reports. This report deserves to gain a wider reading and a much wider debate. As we talk to others, I hope that all of us will help to contribute to that. I should also like to thank both maiden speakers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, in particular, for his emphasis on the role of local government in rebuilding stronger local communities, which was one of the things I felt was not touched on as much in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as might have been the case and why I particularly welcome that she is now moving to the Department for Communities and Local Government to take on this work. The DCLG, with its responsibility for the Localism Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, and for grabbing hold of the issue of how we effectively decentralise power, is very much the right place for her to continue. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Noon, particularly for stressing the importance of faith communities in helping to build and maintain a sense of community solidarity and in bringing and holding people together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has been tireless in her efforts as a community campaigner and it is not just her report but also her example of which we should be conscious. That things get done only when people get off their backsides to do them is one of strongest messages of this report. We all face this problem that Britain has become a more passive society. The report several times refers to the need for more active citizens, which is a problem. Again, all of us recognise—this is not in any sense a partisan point—that we need a more active society and more active citizens. We have got to turn around some of the long-term trends which have led to that. The noble Baroness has conducted an intensive and thorough review of the ways in which local people can get involved in having a say on how they are policed and on making communities safer. She also looked at how a number of areas had overcome the barriers in the way and she highlighted the successes they had achieved.
The noble Baroness noted, and I strongly agree with this, that communities have become overly dependent on professional agencies, expecting them to sort things out on their behalf. As we all know, that is one of the problems we face. I have to say that it is there far too much in the younger generation. I recall my wife and I talking to a young acquaintance of ours last winter who was complaining that the path to the station had not been cleared of snow. “Why have they not done something about it?”, he wanted to know. We chorused, “Who do you think ‘they’ are?”. That is an attitude from which we have to pull back, saying that we have to do something about a lot of things, not simply depend on the state or the professionals. Everything in the report suggests that in our local communities we expect everything from clearing the snow to keeping an eye on our neighbours, to joining neighbourhood watch schemes or whatever it may be, to be done for us. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that one piece of quite substantial evidence that the Government have collected is that communities with neighbourhood watch schemes have lower levels of crime, even when adjusting for other things. There is evidence that this sort of approach is extremely valuable.
The noble Baroness says in her report that people do not see the safety of their community as something they have any influence on or control over. Those of us who have been in politics, particularly in the inner cities, know of the sense of powerlessness that many people feel, particularly in the big inner city estates. You do not know who to go to, you do not know how to do anything, and you are often told by council officials that such and such cannot be done. The winter before last, I recall an agonised and irritable debate we had with a local official who assured us that it was almost impossible to have a 20 mile an hour speed limit in Saltaire. We happen to be a world heritage centre and we think we are entitled to a speed limit. However, all sorts of bureaucratic obstacles were being put in our way. We are a fairly articulate, middle-class collection of people, and we did not see why they should.
That, of course, is partly the difference in our communities. We also have to recognise that one of the long-term trends we have suffered from is the extent to which we have separated out different classes of people into different communities. As the right reverend Prelate remarked, the professionals often live somewhere else. Single class estates do not help to build integrated communities. So I very much welcome everything that is said in the report about the culture needing to change. We need a radical culture change in which neighbourhoods no longer see crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder as somebody else’s responsibility.
What are the long-term trends and changes we need to reverse in order to build a society in which citizens recognise that rights have to be balanced by personal responsibility? We have seen social change, such as in the revolution of the position of women. So often they were the people who actively held communities together. I am sure that many of us remember our mothers taking part in informal and formal voluntary activities because, when they married, they were not supposed to go on working. Their energies were poured, first, into their children, secondly, into their extended families, and, thirdly, into their wider communities. We now have a world of two-career and two-job families, so we have to look elsewhere to find active volunteers, asking people to take a day off a week, a day at the weekend or an evening, or to use the fit retired, that large new element in our society who are now beginning to take over that role.
The disappearance of local shops, pubs and schools and thus the loss of points of easy contact and informal information exchange has also weakened local communities. There is also the extent to which we have become a car-borne society, so that you do not mix easily with your neighbours because you can go somewhere else for your social activities. It is a real problem increased by the extent to which we have been building new estates where each house has two car parking spaces. You go five miles in one direction to the supermarket and 15 miles in a different direction to work, so you do not interact with your neighbours. I have some sympathy in this respect with what the Prince of Wales has for some time argued: we build our communities and we have, to some extent, been building poor communities through the way in which new housing has developed. I declare a very strong interest. I live in the village of Saltaire, where most of the houses are terraced. The community is very concentrated and it is impossible not to know your neighbours. That is one of the reasons why we have built a very strong community.
Secularisation has weakened communities, as the right reverend Prelate remarked. There has been a weakening of the social glue that churches and faith communities provide. The right reverend Prelate talked about rural crime, but I recall the Church of England’s excellent work on Faith in the City and how difficult it was in one or two Yorkshire dioceses to persuade rural congregations that the city and its problems counted and were high priorities.
The long-term trend of weakening local government over the past 40 years, through successive Governments, has also weakened local communities. That is why the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to the Department for Communities and Local Government will be so valuable. There have been some very useful experiments, under the control of different parties in different cities, in decentralising responsibility below the level of now very large councils to local communities. There have been experiments with urban parish councils and community councils, as well as with other community groups. That is clearly something that we need to take much further. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, we have a long way to go in finding consensus on what we all mean by localism.
Then there is the long-term trend of declining trust in the state and in state agencies as a whole. When yesterday I was looking at a report by Policy Network—a European organisation in which the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Mandelson, are very active—I was rather shaken to find that in Britain 29 per cent of those asked said that they saw no advantages in the state intervening to improve matters. How many people have now given up on trust in state action is a real shocker.
We have a culture in which too many people believe that only professionals can act. We have the health and safety culture, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, also referred. The idea that all responsibility for tackling social problems lies with “them” is another of the things that we need to reverse. The report of the noble Baroness is extremely welcome in encouraging communities to be more self-reliant, giving them real influence and ensuring that agencies are ready, willing and able to back them up when needed, working in genuine partnership. Her report touches on the most difficult issue, which is finance.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I intervene with hesitation but I will be brief. There seems to be a certain amount of time. My noble friend has listed many of the down-side factors, which are difficult in comparison with when we—probably I rather more than he—were young. There have been a lot of changes. My mum had to give up work when she married in 1936. She put a lot of energy into being a pillar of the local Red Cross, which would not now happen. However, there is one factor on the plus side: a gathering army of people who are older than what used to be regarded as retirement age, and who are fit, active and want to put something back into the community. They are not all in here, although there are quite a lot of us. There is a new resource to be tapped, which is a positive factor in looking to the sort of objectives that my noble friend Lady Newlove is looking for. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I had indeed referred to the fit retired as a new resource. I would like to have been among them but my wife complains that I am at present working much harder than I have ever worked before. It is clearly a resource; we see it in local communities; and I hope that we will benefit more from it as more of us go on living longer and being fit.
I was just about to touch on finance and the problem of transparency and accountability. It is a real problem; we all know when the sources of finance are public. There is much more to be considered in the noble Baroness’s report on how substantial public finance can be transferred to autonomous community groups. That raises all sorts of questions about the relationship with local authorities, but, as she rightly pointed out, there are also local charities and contributions from private business to consider. I am afraid that I cannot answer the question on the exact guidelines for the Big Lottery Fund, but I shall write to those who spoke about it in the debate.
The right reverend Prelate referred to restorative justice, which is also recommended in the report. I have followed a number of the experiments in this area, particularly the very successful experiments in south Somerset. The Government’s intention—the previous Government followed all this with interest, too—is to take restorative justice further and as far as we can in helping to resolve local conflicts and tensions. We should recognise that we have lost a certain amount of ground by building fewer magistrates’ courts. In a health and safety culture which has demanded decent steps up into buildings and all sorts of other things, we have taken justice further away from localities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, suggests, we have to find ways of bringing justice closer again to local communities.
There are a whole host of other things that we can do to reduce crime. My wife and I visited some weeks ago an excellent voluntary group in Bradford, Together Women, which focuses particularly on young women who have been caught up in first offences and tries to help them to put their lives back together so that they do not get caught up in repeat offences. I am sure that all noble Lords here who are familiar with life in the cities know that there are some young women of all ethnic groups who fall out of the community. The work which Together Women and others have done has reduced reoffending by between 50 per cent and 80 per cent over the previous five years in different parts of Yorkshire. That is the sort of thing which we have to do. It can be done only at the local level because one is often working with different ethnic groups and different local circumstances.
I am very pleased that the noble Baroness will continue the work begun in the Home Office in her new role at the Department for Communities and Local Government. She will cross over from the Home Office, where neighbourhood policing and other issues are considered an important part of this. She will not entirely forget that. I should reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that neighbourhood policing is regarded as the front of front line. I should apologise on behalf of the Home Office for the extreme delay in answering his Written Question.
The Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government will work closely together and with other departments to formulate the cross-government response to the report, which we hope to produce this summer. I hope that noble Lords here will all agree that this work needs to be done to build stronger, safer and more active communities. As the noble Baroness’s report has shown, there is enormous commitment and passion in communities on which we can build. There is a real appetite among individuals to get involved and make a difference, often accompanied by their not quite knowing how to do so. It is very much one of the values of the report that it reminds us that we have to connect people to mechanisms and groups which can tell them how to use their energies in a constructive community fashion. In responding to the noble Baroness’s report, we will do all that we can to create the right environment for this to happen.
Again, I thank everyone who has contributed to this excellent debate.
Baroness Newlove
My Lords, I thank each and every speaker for their positive, insightful contributions to this debate. The two excellent maiden speeches were entertaining and thought-provoking. I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord True, a seasoned local authority leader, feels that elements of my report can make a difference and I look forward to learning from him how to approach his counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Noon, a well-known benefactor, has had his brush with death and appreciates the fragility and the precious nature of life. His thoughts on the other side of this noble House warm my heart as my work transcends politics, creeds and geographical boundaries. We are one nation.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich will be pleased to hear that I believe very strongly that it is people of faith and integrity who possess the leadership skills to help support community activism. Indeed, in one of my neighbourhoods that I visited in Shepway, many faith sectors have opened youth clubs.
I also believe in what happens in our rural communities where perception of crime is low. I support the neighbours who patrol duckling watch as well as tractor watch. To them, it is their life and they need to be there.
I also thank all noble Lords who have written such kind words to support my maiden speech and now my report. I am overwhelmed and humbled. It lifts my heart to know that we are united in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that he would welcome my solutions. Anyone who knows me personally will know that this is a path that I will fight until my last breath: to make sure that when I close my eyes we have made sure that our communities are active and safe and that we get to know one another for who we are. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Education: Vocational Subjects
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on vocational education made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a Statement today on the next stage in this coalition Government’s radical reform programme to make opportunity more equal. I should like to outline our response to Professor Alison Wolf’s ground-breaking report on vocational education. In her work, Professor Wolf stresses the importance of fundamental reform across the board to improve state education and I would first like to update the House on our progress towards that goal.
It is a year to the day today since the new Department for Education was created to raise standards for all children and narrow the gap between rich and poor. In that year, we have introduced a pupil premium, £2.5 billion of additional spending on the poorest pupils. We have extended the free provision of nursery education for all three and four year-olds and introduced free nursery education for all disadvantaged two year-olds,
We have launched the most comprehensive review ever of care for children with special needs. We have overhauled child protection rules to ensure that social workers are better able to help the most vulnerable. We have allowed all schools to use the high-quality exams which the last Government restricted to the private sector. We are ensuring spelling, punctuation and grammar are properly recognised in exams.
We have recruited Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to restore proper narrative history teaching. We are doubling the number of great graduates becoming teachers through Teach First and doubling the number of great heads becoming National Leaders of Education. We have also created more than 400 new academies, tripling the number that we inherited, creating more academies in 12 months than the last Government did in 12 years. I can confirm to the House today that we have now received over 1,000 applications from schools wishing to become academies and more than 300 applications to set up free schools, many from great teachers like the inspirational head Patricia Sowter and the former Downing Street aide Peter Hyman.
These achievements have been made possible by the united strength of two parties with a shared commitment to social mobility working together and I would like to take this opportunity to underline my thanks for the part they have played in pushing this programme forward, to the Deputy Prime Minister, my right honourable friend the Member for Old Southwark and Bermondsey, my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families and my right honourable friend the member for Yeovil. It is my personal hope that we will all be able once more to make use of his talents in the country’s service before very long.
We will be building on the momentum generated by our reform programme by today accepting all the recommendations in Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education. Professor Wolf found that while there are many great vocational education courses and institutions providing excellent vocational education that are heavily oversubscribed, we also have hundreds of thousands of young people taking qualifications that have little or no value.
That is because the system is overly complex. After years of micromanagement and mounting bureaucratic costs, it is also hugely expensive; and there are counterproductive and perverse incentives to steer students into inferior courses. In short, the damaging system of vocational education that we inherited is failing young people and must be changed now before the prospects of generations of young people are further blighted.
Securing our country’s future relies upon us developing our own world-class education system, from which young people graduate not just with impeccable qualifications and deep subject knowledge but also the real practical and technical skills they need to succeed. This Government do not only support high quality vocational education for its utility—vocational education is valuable in its own right. It is part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every pupil should be able to enjoy. It allows young people to develop their own special craft skills, to experience the satisfaction of technical accomplishment and to expand what they know, understand and can do.
As my honourable friend the Minister for Further Education has repeatedly and eloquently argued, we need to elevate the practical and treat vocational education not, as it has been seen in the past, as an inferior route for the less able but an aspirational path for those with specific aptitudes; which is why we are taking immediate steps to rebuild the currency of vocational qualifications. As recommended by Professor Wolf, we have reinstated several qualifications which lead to professional success—for example certificates in electrical engineering and plumbing—which we know are highly valued by schools and colleges and admired by employers.
Because we know that the current set of qualifications do not meet all needs, we will work with awarding bodies and others to ensure that more high-quality courses are available for all students of all levels; because we know that the current league table system does not reward the progress made by students of all abilities, we will reform league tables to recognise the achievements of the lowest and highest-achieving; and because we know that not all qualifications are equal, we will further reform the league tables to guarantee that vocational qualifications are given a proper weighting. Their value will no longer be inflated in a way which encourages students to pursue inappropriate courses, nor overlooked in a way which unbalances achievement. Because we know the current funding system creates perverse incentives, we will reform it. At the moment schools and colleges are incentivised to offer lower-grade qualifications which are easier to pass because they get paid on those results. That must end. The dumbing down of the past has got to stop if the next generation are to succeed. Students should choose the qualifications they need to succeed, not those which bureaucracies deem appropriate.
However, while choice in the qualifications market is crucial there are certain inescapable facts in the labour market no student can ignore. Employers rightly insist that students are properly literate and numerate. They remind us that there are no more important vocational subjects than English and maths. However, as Professor Wolf’s report lays bare, huge numbers of students leave education without proper qualifications in those areas—making it increasingly hard for them to secure jobs.
This Government will put an end to that by ensuring that all 16 to 18 year-olds who were unable to get at least a C in English and maths at GCSE continue to study those subjects through to 19. The best-performing education systems not only offer a strong grounding in the basics such as English and maths, they ensure a good general education which cements the ability to reason, to assess evidence, to absorb knowledge and to adapt to new opportunities. In this fast-changing world, few 16 year-olds know exactly what they will be doing at 21, let along when they are 25, 35 or 45. So we need to ensure that every 18 year-old has followed a broad programme of study and has a core academic knowledge that provides them with a secure foundation from which to progress. That is why Professor Wolf backs our English baccalaureate as a springboard to future success in a rapidly changing world and stresses that it gives students the maximum freedom to choose between academic and vocational pathways throughout their life.
We know that the most prestigious vocational pathways require a rounded school education as preparation. Professor Wolf’s report underlines that some of the best vocational education in the world exists in our private sector apprenticeship programmes. The best are massively oversubscribed. BT typically has 15,000 applicants for 100 places each year. Rolls Royce has 10 applicants for every place and Network Rail is similarly oversubscribed. There is far greater competition for some of these courses than there is for places at Oxford or Cambridge.
We want to ensure that all employers get the support that they need to offer high-quality apprenticeships. My honourable friend the Further Education Minister is working to reduce the bureaucracy that employers face and ensure that every penny spent by Government and employers on apprenticeships can be used to the very best effect, including by studying best practice with similar schemes around the world.
Professor Wolf emphasised the need for clear routes for progression, but for greater flexibility within them. She was right to do so, and we will consider, alongside the general educational component, what further programmes of study are needed to give 16 to 18 year-olds the broad education they need.
For more than a century, there have been numerous failed attempts to reform vocational education. It is now more important than ever that we finally bring an end to the two-tier education system that has scarred our country for too long. Professor Wolf’s report, together with wider reforms, such as the fantastic university technical colleges being pioneered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, sets out a clear map of what we need to do.
I am delighted that Professor Wolf has agreed to continue to provide regular and ongoing advice to government as we implement her recommendations. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to help us offer young people the genuine and high-quality technical education they have been too long denied. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, we found much to welcome in Professor Wolf’s vision for a higher quality vocational education. In particular, we welcome the commitment to ensure that every young person reaches a decent level of proficiency in English and maths before they leave school, an area to which we devoted a considerable amount of resource, with some success, and gave them the opportunity to make progress in those important basic skills. I declare an interest at this point, as I am a school governor of my local primary school, which I am pleased to say recently received an “Outstanding” assessment by Ofsted. English and maths are the key sets of achievements when pupils reach year 6.
We welcome the efforts to simplify the system and qualifications to make it easier to navigate for young people so that normal programmes of study lead to progression. Professor Wolf recommends the adoption of multiple measures of school performance, echoing moves that we made in government towards what we described as a balanced school report card approach. The Secretary of State has accepted that and is proposing new performance management measurements in addition to the English baccalaureate. But will teachers’ hearts not sink a bit when they hear that there are to be more targets, and will they not question whether the Government are delivering the autonomy to get on and teach that they promised? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that they will consult teachers before dropping any new measurements on them, as they did with the English baccalaureate? Even with the range of measures, Professor Wolf’s report rightly warns of the consequences if a single performance measure becomes dominant. She says that,
“there remains a serious risk that schools will simply ignore their less academically successful pupils. This was a risk with the old 5 GCSEs measure; a risk with the English Baccalaureate; and will be a risk with a measure based on selected qualifications. It needs to be pre-empted”.
Rather than pre-empt that risk, did the Secretary of State not in fact pre-empt the Wolf report by presenting his English baccalaureate as the gold standard for schools?
More broadly, have this highly prescriptive league table measure and its arbitrary subject selection not already damaged the deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision by relegating vocational learning to second-division status in the public mind and in the minds of schools? Creative and practical subjects are crucial to the quality vocational education that Professor Wolf advocates, but already they are an undervalued currency in our schools because of the Secretary of State’s action. We ask the Government to think again on the English baccalaureate and allow more breadth and flexibility so that it caters for all students. You cannot design a school system that works for everyone around the requirements of the Russell Group.
The deliverability of Professor Wolf's vision is also affected by some of the Secretary of State’s action in other areas. She rightly stresses the importance of a quality careers service to inform young people about their options, which is surely more important in a world where young people are struggling to make their way. Yet, as we speak, the careers service in England is simply melting away. We welcome the vision of an all-age careers service but ask again: where is the long-promised transition plan to deliver it and will it be adequately resourced? At a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and access to further and higher education is becoming more difficult, is not the web and telephony service that the Government propose only part of the solution?
The Government say that they are focused on social mobility but they are, we believe, systematically knocking away some of the ladders of support that help young people to get on in life. More young people in FE colleges on vocational courses are in receipt of the EMA than in schools or sixth forms. They need the money to buy equipment or support their courses. Will the scrapping of the EMA not hit those young people disproportionately hard and, again, make Professor Wolf's vision hard to deliver in practice? Colleges and students are four months away from the start of the academic year but still none the wiser about what the replacement scheme will provide. Is it not now time to listen to no less than the OECD and reinstate the EMA scheme?
Because time is limited, I will focus some of my contribution on apprenticeships, which I am sure will not surprise the Minister. There were three explicit recommendations in the Wolf report. I want to focus on two of them; I am only dismissing the other in the interests of time. In recommendation 14, Professor Wolf says:
“Employers who take on 16-18 year old apprentices should be eligible for payments (direct or indirect), because and when they bear some of the cost of education for an age-group with a right to free full-time participation. Such payments should be made only where 16-18 year old apprentices receive clearly identified off-the-job training and education, with broad transferable elements”.
That is worth pursuing if we are serious about trying to get more and more employers involved with apprenticeships—and we have a long way to go in that area.
I also want to refer to recommendation 16, where Professor Wolf says:
“DfE and BIS should discuss and consult urgently on alternative ways for groups of smaller employers to become direct providers of training and so receive ‘training provider’ payments, possibly through the encouragement of Group Training Associations”.
If I wanted to amend the report, I would delete that “possibly” as we know that group training associations are a tried and trusted formula. We put in hand a scheme to enlarge and expand upon them but we seem to take an inordinate amount of time before taking a tried and trusted formula and expanding it in the way that is needed. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that recommendation.
On the general question of apprenticeships, I listened carefully to the Minister and if I have a criticism it is that I wish we would not always talk about high-level apprenticeships—remembering that there are well over 200 types of apprenticeships—as though implying that if you are not doing a Rolls-Royce or a BT apprenticeship, it is somehow second class. We need people in the catering industry and I know that it is fashionable to mock McDonald's but it has a damn good training and apprenticeships scheme. You can progress through to management and get a foundation degree, so there should be a little less focus on implying somehow that those are the only apprenticeship programmes which count. They are not, but we need to ensure that every apprenticeship programme has proper training and educational elements to it. We have all the necessary measures in place to achieve that.
I hear what the Government are saying about apprenticeships, but some of their actions are unfortunate in that they undermine their intentions. It was unfortunate that the Government decided to do away with the guarantee that we had in a previous Education Act that by 2013 every young person who wanted an apprenticeship would receive one. It was an ambitious target, I freely admit, and we might not have achieved it, but it was a real signal of intent, of commitment, by a Government to ensure that we did not waste another generation of young people by leaving them unemployed. This Government really ought to reconsider that because it was the wrong signal to give.
I am also puzzled why, every time they issue a government contract, the employers who benefit from those contracts do not have to indicate how many apprentices they will recruit and what training programmes they have. It does not cost any money to do that, and if the Government are serious about trying to engage more employers then, for the life of me, I am baffled why they have not continued with that.
The comments that have been made suggest that, somehow, only private sector apprenticeships count. That is not true. There are lots of very good public sector apprenticeships. I have a concern about the Government’s economic policy. I do not want this to be a debate where we try to score points off each other, because we can do that in debates about whether we believe in the Government’s current economic policy, but the plain fact of the matter is that, unfortunately, we now have 43,000 more young people unemployed.
We are in a situation where we have to do everything we possibly can. The points that I have made about apprenticeships are practical and I hope that the Government will give them serious consideration. We, too, welcome in general the Wolf report and the recommendations contained therein. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I congratulate the noble Lord on the success of the primary school of which he is a governor. It is very much the case that the role of governors in primary and secondary schools is often unsung. They perform a hugely important role, and everyone who has performed it will recognise the amount of time that it takes and the difference that it makes, so I am delighted that his primary school has done so well and been rated as outstanding.
I also welcome his broad welcome of the report. I listened with care to what he had to say about apprenticeships because I know from previous exchanges with him that he speaks with great authority on that subject. I have recently been lucky enough to have a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who spoke along similar lines and made similar points to me. I accept many of the noble Lord’s points. Payments to employers for 16-to-18 apprenticeships, for example, are something that the Government said that we would need to look at in the light of our response to Wolf. I think that that was one of the noble Lord’s concerns; certainly it was one that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, raised with me. I agree that we need to do more to get employers involved.
I also agree that public sector apprenticeships have an important part to play alongside private sector apprenticeships. Many good public sector apprenticeships are being offered. On the noble Lord’s point about how important it is to stress the central role that apprenticeships can play—this is not only about Rolls-Royce—we all need to send that message out.
On the guarantee, which we have debated before and about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Knight, feels strongly, the reason for making that change was not in any way to try to diminish the importance that we attach to apprenticeships; there is more funding going into them, and we all want to see them increase. Rather, it is because ultimately we are dependent on employers to provide work-based apprenticeships, so that is not a guarantee that the Government can give. If employers will not provide that guarantee, we cannot give it. However, I certainly agree with him that we need to try to attract more employers and raise the quality of apprenticeships if we can.
I take the point that the noble Lord made at the beginning of his remarks, about targets and not having more and more complex targets. Getting the balance right between having a set of measurements that does not lead to perverse incentives and providing more varied information so that we can all see what is going on is not easy. However, we need to try.
I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of creative and practical skills in education. The point of the EBacc was not to suggest that an academic route is superior to a vocational and technical route. The Government very much accept that we want good education, whether it is academic, vocational or technical, fitted for the particular aptitudes of the child. The point around the EBacc is that there are children, particularly from poor backgrounds, who are not being given the chance to study academic subjects and are therefore not given as much chance as they might to progress into higher education. That is what we hope that the EBacc will, in part, address.
I am glad that the noble Lord welcomes the all-age careers service. I take his point about the importance of getting the transitional arrangements right. My honourable friend the Minister for Further Education in another place issued a Statement on April 13 giving guidance to local authorities about trying to work our way through the transitional period, but we will need to keep that under review.
So far as the EMA is concerned, I also accept that people want clarity. We are running, as the noble Lord will know, a consultation on the proposals that we announced at the end of March, which runs to May 20. The reason for that consultation was to have the chance to talk to schools, colleges and others in this sector so that we could try to ensure that the arrangements that we outlined in our response in March are practical and can be delivered. We will try to ensure that the funds which we have will go to those who need them most, and encourage them to stay on in education.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and we, too, welcome the Wolf report. We particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the quality, status and availability of vocational education.
I will pick up two concerns that I heard expressed earlier today in another place. The Chairman of Committees was concerned that, although it is welcome that schools will be made accountable for how they deliver vocational education, teachers and parents may find it rather confusing to have another system alongside the English bacc for holding schools accountable. Given the Government’s commitment to improving the quality of vocational courses, once that has been done to the Government’ satisfaction, would they consider adding an additional section to the English bacc to include vocational courses, and perhaps arts and cultural courses, once they are convinced of the quality of those? Of course we all agree with the objective of giving young people a broad and balanced curriculum. Once we have achieved that quality, surely there is a case for expanding the English bacc.
Secondly, on the amount of timetable time given to the English bacc, will the Minister confirm, as his right honourable friend the Secretary of State did in another place this morning, that the 80 per cent of timetable that is supposed to be spent on English bacc subjects is only advisory and not statutory; and that schools are very open and able to allow young people to choose subjects which would means that they spend, say, 40 per cent on vocational subjects and not just 20?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome for the Wolf review and her recognition of the importance of vocational education. One of the performance measures that we are keen to try to develop is a destination measure for schools and colleges so that we can see where children and young people go on to when they leave, and so that parents can see how a school or college is doing, whether it is vocational or academic.
We are keen to have more information generally. As that spreads and people are able to look at data and find their own ways of using them, the measure that my noble friend mentioned of seeing how schools and colleges might be doing, particularly as regards vocational or technical subjects, will develop of its own accord. The point of the EBacc is to try to have a small, narrow basis on which to shine a spotlight, particularly on academic subjects. It is not meant to betoken any kind of judgment and is obviously not compulsory. It is not a qualification in its own right. We want schools to decide for themselves whether it is something that they want to pursue. As my noble friend flagged, there is no statutory requirement on timetabling around the EBacc. There is, indeed, no statutory requirement that anyone should offer the EBacc at all.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I, too, found much of the Wolf report interesting and valuable. The beginning part of the Statement had a slight annual report feel to it with its list of achievements. It may be slightly cheap to say that I noted there was no list of the number of U-turns that the Secretary of State has performed, but it is time that there was a U-turn on the English baccalaureate. The commitment to end the pervasive two-tier system in education, which many of us have worked hard to try to get rid of, would be more credible if the English baccalaureate included practical learning for everyone, so that the Secretary of State’s commitment to ensure that academic subjects are available to everyone extended also to vocational subjects. Then we might be able to make some progress. The 80 per cent of curriculum time devoted to the English baccalaureate subjects leaves 20 per cent not just for vocational subjects but also for statutory religious education, sport—to which I am sure the Minister is committed—and a number of other things that we all want to see delivered in our schools. How can he show that the Government’s commitment to end the two-tier system as between vocational and academic subjects is credible while the English baccalaureate continues?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I know that the noble Lord has worked for a long time to try to overcome the problem that we all see regarding the perception of a two-tier system. I certainly share that objective. Many have strong feelings about the English bacc. I come back to the point that its purpose is not to be discriminatory in the way that the noble Lord suggests—although I know that he did not use that word. The motivation behind it was to tackle the fact that children from poor backgrounds have not had the chance to study certain subjects—such as modern foreign languages, which have declined in number, history or other subjects—as much as one would like. Only 4 per cent of children on free school meals achieve the EBacc. That has a very narrowing and limiting effect on their possible progression to higher education. The measure we are discussing is intended to tackle that situation.
I entirely take the noble Lord’s point that one does not want to entrench a sense of difference in this regard. As he knows very well, alongside things such as the EBacc, which I hope we do not take in isolation, we are committed to university technical colleges and studio schools, which I am very keen to encourage the spread of so that children who are in danger of becoming disengaged get the change to re-engage, learn practical skills and, in the process, pick up some academic ones as well. I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I hope that he and other noble Lords may see the EBacc in the broader context of what we are trying to do across the piece to raise the prestige of academic study, alongside raising the prestige of technical and vocational subjects.
I hope that Professor Wolf’s report, in giving us pointers to how we can give everyone confidence in the quality of vocational qualifications—and I very much welcome the support for that across the House—will be another leg in tackling the problems that the noble Lord identifies.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Government’s response to the Wolf report. They are clearly trying to find a solution to a problem that has eluded all previous Governments—namely, to dramatically improve the practical, skilled and high-quality training of technicians and engineers, alongside higher academic education. If we do not resolve that, because there is a desperate shortage in our society of technicians, skilled workers and engineers, the great forecasts of this Government will simply not be met.
I welcome, in particular, one or two specific recommendations. The first is that the difference between qualified trainers in FE colleges and qualified teachers should be removed. That is an absurd class distinction. They should be at the same level and paid the same. I hope that amendments to that effect will be introduced to the Education Bill which will come before this House later this Session. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend will recognise that vocational education below 16 in schools is an expensive option. It requires workshops, equipment and qualified trainers. It cannot be left to two hours’ craft studies on a Friday afternoon. It requires much more than that.
Finally, I thank the Minister warmly for the support that the Government, the department and he personally are showing—as well as the support that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are showing—to university technical colleges. The Chancellor granted us another £150 million in the Budget to expand them. The purpose of UTCs is to recognise that youngsters at 14 can make their own choices about the courses of study they want to take. The whole idea of bringing under one roof the training of the hand and the education of the mind is already proving to be very successful. One such college is already operating, and even at the end of the second term two things are outstanding. First, there is behavioural change. At 14, they are adults. Truancy and bloody-mindedness have disappeared. Secondly, there has been dramatic improvement in the quality of English and Maths, because students are studying those subjects alongside engineering. I am glad to say that this programme has all-party support. The former Minister is nodding, and I see that this is something that the coalition also supports. Therefore, I hope that there will be a substantial expansion of these colleges over the coming years.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful for my noble friend’s remarks, particularly on the support that we have been able to give to UTCs. I am glad that that commands support from all sides of the House. I note in particular his comments about trying to break down the divide between people working in FE and giving them the chance to work in schools. Like him, I think that that is a sensible way forward. I look forward to working with him on trying to raise and spread UTCs in the way that my noble friend Lord Baker would like—although never as fast as he would like, because he is an extremely hard taskmaster regarding UTCs. I look forward to doing everything we can to spread them as far and as fast as we can.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I welcome Professor Wolf’s review and the Government’s Statement, in particular what they have said about reviewing the league table system, making it more sensitive and, I hope, looking more closely at the distance travelled by all children in the education system. I would like ask two questions. The first relates to achieving literacy in children, which enables them to be successful in these courses, and the other relates to the quality of mentors in the workplace.
First, does the Minister recognise the important contribution of charities working with children in schools, and indeed within their families, to address their difficulties in attaining literacy? For instance, Voluntary Reading Help works in more than 1,000 primary schools and trains adult volunteers in the community to work on a one-to-one basis, with a commitment over a year to work with individual children twice a week. Also, Learning School Help works with children, in their families and in their schools, to help them achieve literacy. As to the workplace, can the Minister give more detail about how mentors are developed, how good-quality mentoring is recognised and celebrated, and whether there are any schemes to certify good-quality mentoring in the workplace for apprentices?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Earl about the importance of charities. One announcement made today in the broader context of tackling the NEET problem—no one has found a better way of saying it than NEET, because otherwise it takes too long—is a new £10 million-a-year fund to be set up, which I hope will be taken up by charities and the voluntary sector, to come up with solutions to help those children, such as I was lucky enough to see recently, to re-engage, undertaken by Fairbridge, which does a fantastic job in helping to re-engage those children. I very much agree with the noble Earl about the role of charities.
If I have more detail on the noble Earl’s second point about mentoring, I will come back to him. I will follow that up; but he and I may also have a chance to discuss that further outside the House.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
I, too, welcome the report, and may be keener on it than others. I chaired a seminar yesterday in this House with 25 employers, including British Airways and some other big employers, but also some small ones. We started off by talking about schools and what happens in the curriculum. Every one of those employers had the same concern which we have all heard over and again about the lack of career guidance in schools, particularly about apprenticeships. Today, there is still a void in how that is raised with young people, where the push is always for the academic and for those who do not go that way, who go for apprenticeships, to be considered failures. How can we make a serious effort? The previous Government tried to get across the equal value of both those aspects of education.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I would be very happy, if the noble Baroness has particular suggestions, to discuss them with her, because I agree that we need to do that. One of the new duties that we will place on schools in the Education Bill, in which I am sure that she will take a particular interest when it comes to our House—all too soon—is to give schools a duty to ensure that careers advice is independent and impartial. That is in part driven by some of the concerns of the noble Baroness: to try to ensure that a child is not, in one way or another, shoehorned into the wrong choice—either into the vocational route when that is not right for them, or into an academic route when that is not right for them. I recognise the problem that the noble Baroness describes and would be keen to have a discussion about her experience of practical ways in which we might ensure that we get that balance right.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I fear that I may be less in touch with this field than I used to be, but am I not right in saying that one of the difficulties in maintaining standards, which is all-important in any qualification, is the tension between the real interests of employers and the perceived interests of students, which meets in the awarding bodies? They have a commercial interest in increasing throughput and therefore making more qualifications, successful applications, whereas employers want to limit successful applications to those who really deserve them. Is not a possible approach to that to give the employers a financial interest in maintaining the awards equal to that given to the students and those providing them with finance?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My noble friend raises a number of interesting points. One issue that the Government are going to look at concerning employers offering apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds is where the funding goes and whether there should be, as I think Professor Wolf suggests, consideration of some kind of subsidy to employers. We certainly need to make sure that, in moving forward with these proposals, the role of employers in helping to construct good qualifications is fully allowed for. Ultimately, if we construct qualifications that employers do not want, we will not do anyone any service at all.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and say how pleased I am that, among other things—although this is not mentioned in the Statement—the government response equates QTLS status in schools to QTS. There has long been a need for that if we are to get high-quality teaching in vocational subjects. Perhaps I may bring the Minister back to the EBacc and the two-tier system. He has emphasised the degree to which the Government see the EBacc as opening routes to higher education, yet surely one reason why we are anxious to see high-quality vocational education is in order to open up progression routes through different pathways. For example, the university technical colleges, which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been espousing and whose expansion we are all quite glad to see, are precisely the sort of route that we want to be developed. Very high-quality vocational education has also been a route to technician training, and from technician training on to degree-level training and even on to PhD training.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend’s first point about QTLS and I am glad that she welcomes that. I also agree with her basic points about progression, about making sure that vocational qualifications have esteem attached to them, and about there being clear progression that people can see.
Lord Empey
I return to the issue of careers. One experiment with which I was associated was making careers advice available on the high street. Careers advisers were trained and the department made free, impartial and professional advice available on the high street. Younger people with their parents or people of any age could walk in off the street, book an appointment with a professionally trained adviser and get free, impartial and professional advice. If teachers in schools give careers advice only on a part-time basis, they cannot keep up with the dramatic changes that are taking place in all trades and professions. Would the Minister be prepared to look at that and at the results of the experiments that have already taken place to see whether anything can be learnt from them?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I should certainly be interested in seeing the kind of evidence and examples that the noble Lord has mentioned. As I said earlier, we are developing our proposals for an all-age careers service and are trying to make sure that schools have a duty to provide impartial, independent advice. My honourable friend Mr Hayes has responsibility for taking that forward and I shall relay to him the points made by the noble Lord. If he is keen to discuss the matter further, I shall see whether I can arrange that too.
Government: Convergence Programme
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s convergence programme.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate the information that will be provided to the European Commission under Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. I also welcome the chance to exchange views on two closely related topics: the UK’s National Reform Programme 2011, the NRP; and the Government’s response to the Lords EU Select Committee’s 5th report. On behalf of the House, I thank my noble friend Lord Roper, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, as the sub-committee chair, and the whole committee for putting forward these two reports for debate. I assure noble Lords at the outset that the Government look favourably, in principle, on both the committee’s recommendations.
While it might not be possible to synchronise the national reform programme and the convergence programme, since they are intrinsically different documents and therefore produced according to markedly different internal procedures, we will give careful consideration to debating the NRP alongside the convergence programme again in future years. I also note that the timing of the Budget announcement meant that it was not possible to hold this debate in advance of the spring European Council, in line with the committee’s recommendation.
I now turn to the main matter in hand. Each year the Government report to the Commission on the UK’s economic and budgetary position and our main economic policy measures in line with our commitments under the stability and growth pact. By sharing information from the Budget with our European partners, we can help to maintain an appropriate and effective level of economic policy co-ordination and contribute to stability and growth across the economic union.
European economies have suffered considerably in recent years. The financial crisis, bank bailouts and rising national debts and deficits have all left their legacy. As a continent, we have had to learn the hard way that in an open, global marketplace, no economy exists in isolation. The frailties of economic policy in one country can all too easily be exported to other nations and imbalances are seldom constrained by national borders or jurisdictions. That is why it is in all our interests to improve co-ordination of economic policy-making to tackle those imbalances and to increase the resilience and strength of the European Union as a whole. Our position on EU economic governance could not be clearer. We need better macro-economic surveillance and fiscal frameworks because sustainable economic growth across Europe is vital to the success of the British economy. Even though we are not part of the single currency we cannot consign ourselves to being bystanders in this debate. A strong and stable eurozone is firmly in the UK’s own economic interests. The EU is our largest single trading partner with more than 50 per cent of our exports going to other member states and a long history of shared success and prosperity.
However, just as our success has been and is shared, so are our problems. Therefore, we must act to ensure that the EU has the right warning mechanisms to identify future economic crises with a common set of rules in place and tough measures applied to those who step out of line. These rules exist in the form of the stability and growth pact but in over a decade of monetary union the sanctions it contains have never been used. That is why Britain has welcomed the EU’s recent proposals: to strengthen European economic governance; to encourage greater fiscal responsibility across member states; to address the macroeconomic imbalances that have built up between member states; and to ensure that in the future Europe is able to absorb future shocks.
I should like to reassure the House that the UK is not subject to sanctions under the stability and growth pact. The treaty is clear that they apply only to euro area countries. Moreover, the UK protocol to the treaty, negotiated at Maastricht, clarifies that we are exempt from any extension of sanctions, such as those proposed by the European Commission that are currently under discussion. We fully support the Commission’s moves to ensure greater fiscal responsibility across the euro area and its endorsement of the UK’s domestic consolidation plan. The plan that is enshrined in our convergence programme is one that will tackle our record deficit. Even though noble Lords will be familiar with what follows, I should summarise what constitutes our convergence programme. It is a plan with expenditure falling as a share of income in each and every year of this Parliament, and national debt falling as a proportion of GDP by 2014-2015. That is the right approach, and we need only to look across the Channel to see that this is the case.
Britain has a higher budget deficit than both Portugal and Greece. Last year, we had a similar level of national debt to Ireland. Yet our market interest rates for 10-year sovereign debt are a fraction of those of these three countries. In Greece they stand at more than 15 per cent, in Portugal more than 9 per cent and in Ireland they have increased to more than 10 per cent. In stark contrast, Britain’s market interest rates have fallen to below 3.5 per cent and our triple-A credit rating has been secured.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Do experts not forecast that the rate will go up to 5 per cent quite soon?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we are debating the convergence programme and the national reform programme. What is critical about the convergence programme is that we discipline ourselves in the way that eurozone countries are required to discipline themselves, and that the best test of the basic disciplines that we are putting in place is our relative interest rate. Of course, the Government do not forecast where absolute interest rates will go. However, a critical test of the credibility of our policy is the relative interest rate that the UK enjoys. I am pleased that it is at a very low level.
I turn now to growth, which is critical to the convergence programme. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast growth in each year of this Parliament, starting with growth of 1.7 per cent for the current year. This is in spite of the rise in world commodity prices and higher than expected inflation, which in turn has a bearing on interest rates, as the noble Lord suggested. The OBR points out that this effect,
“creates scope for slightly stronger growth in later years”,
than previously forecast. Therefore, while it expects real GDP growth of 2.5 per cent next year, it forecasts that that will then rise to 2.9 per cent in 2013 and 2014, and 2.8 per cent in 2015. The European Commission has published its own economic forecasts. These show that the UK will grow more strongly in the coming year than Spain, Italy, France, the average for the eurozone and the average for the EU.
That brings me to the other document that we are here to debate today: the UK’s national reform programme for 2011. The NRP reports on the structural reform agenda that the Government are taking forward. It paints a comprehensive picture, with which noble Lords will be familiar, of the progress that we are making across the UK. I will summarise its main features and stress that the document has a particular focus on the measures taken by the devolved Administrations and on the ways in which civil society stakeholders are helping the Government to deliver the reform agenda. Most importantly, the NRP sets out the Government’s Plan for Growth, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out in the other place as part of this year’s Budget.
The plan has four ambitions at its heart: that Britain will have the most competitive tax system in the G20; that it will be the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business; that it will be have more balanced economy, by encouraging exports and investment; and that it will have a more educated workforce that is the most flexible in Europe. These objectives form the basis of the information that we will submit to the Commission. I will touch briefly on each in turn.
I turn first to taxation. Britain used to have the third-lowest corporate tax rate in Europe. We now have the sixth highest. At the same time, our tax code has become so complex that it is now the longest in the world. This is something that we have to address. Our taxes should be fair, predictable, simple to understand and easy to comply with. They should also be efficient and support growth. Therefore, in April, our corporation tax was reduced not just by 1 per cent, as we announced last June, but by 2 per cent, and will continue to fall by 1 per cent in each of the next three years, thus taking our corporate tax rate down to 23 per cent. That rate, in relation to other European countries, is 11 per cent lower than France and 7 per cent lower than Germany, and will give us the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. That is alongside our decision to introduce a highly competitive tax rate on profits derived from patents and our fundamental reform of the complex rules for controlled foreign companies making them more territorial.
As I have said, it is also the Government’s ambition for Britain to become the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. In the past decade alone, countries such as Germany, Denmark, and Finland have all overtaken us in the international rankings of competitiveness. In the Government’s Plan for Growth and, hence, in the NRP, we have taken action to abolish £350 million worth of specific regulations; to implement, in full, the recommendations on health and safety laws made by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham; and to impose a moratorium exempting businesses employing fewer than 10 people, and all genuine start-ups, from new domestic regulation for the next three years. That will free the private sector from the unnecessary burdens that have been holding them back.
The Government’s third ambition for growth is to encourage investment and exports as a route to a more balanced economy. In the Plan for Growth we set out specific measures to help a wide range of businesses. In life sciences, we will radically reduce the time it takes to get approval for clinical trials. In our digital and creative industries, we will improve the intellectual property regime, and in manufacturing we are also taking forward important reforms.
Over the past decade, manufacturing as a share of our economy has fallen by almost a half, yet under this Government we are already seeing a reversal of this trend. Manufacturing, as a sector, has been growing at a record rate. To help that continue the Government are creating new export credits to help smaller businesses, launching Britain’s first technology and innovation centre for high-value manufacturing, and funding a further nine university centres for innovative manufacturing. This will help ensure that we have a more balanced economy with growth across a broader range of sectors and places. Lastly, we want to create a better educated workforce that is the most flexible in Europe.
It is alarming to see that Britain’s working age population has lower skills than the same demographic in France and Germany, which is perhaps the biggest problem facing our economy in the future. That is why the Government are committed to funding new university technical colleges, which we were discussing a few minutes ago in this House, to provide 11 to 19 year olds with vocational training that is among the best in the world.
However, that alone will not solve the problem. In Austria, Germany and Switzerland around one in four employers offers apprenticeships, while in England fewer than one in 10 employers do so, which has got to change. That is why we are providing funding for another 40,000 apprenticeships for the young and the unemployed, which will deliver a total of 250,000 more apprenticeships over the next four years as a direct result of the Government’s policies. That will help to ensure that all parts of the country have access to a better educated workforce. In brief summary, that is the content of the two major documents in front of us.
Submitting the NRP and CP to the European Commission is an essential step in the new European semester process but it is far from the end of the road on the process. The Commission will now examine both documents in detail and will shortly come forward with proposals for recommendations based on its analysis. These recommendations will be agreed by heads of state and Governments at the European Council on 28 June.
The Government support the multilateral surveillance of member states’ economies. The role of the European Council is particularly important since it allows for a genuine peer review process at the highest levels and enables member states to take account of the advice addressed to them when formulating future policy. Member states will reflect progress against the recommendations issued to them in their next national reform and stability and convergence programmes. However, it is important to note that the EU’s advice is just that, merely a set of recommendations, and it will be up to the Government, not Brussels, to decide whether and to what extent they should be implemented in the UK. No matter what they decide, as I pointed out earlier, our opt-out from the single currency means that the UK cannot be subjected to any sanctions.
To conclude, our budget, our growth and our spending plans are wholly consistent with the EU’s objectives under the stability and growth pact and under the Europe 2020 strategy. So the Budget document, along with the forecast produced by the independent OBR, forms the basis of the UK’s convergence programme. I have taken up a lot of the time of the House, so I hesitate to stress that in what I have said and what the documents contain, there is no information on the convergence programme. It is drawn entirely from material that has already been presented to Parliament and is in the public domain. The national reform programme also draws on a range of material, including the Budget and the Government’s Plan for Growth, and contains no new information. These documents restate the Government’s plans to deal with the economic problems they inherited and set the UK’s economy on a path towards sustainable growth. It is clearly important that we do not have to include additional information. If we did have to do so, it would show that our own domestic plans were deficient.
The Government are clear that their plans for the economy should be presented to Parliament before they are seen by the EU. That is exactly what we have done. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support these Motions, which I commend to the House.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this Motion, for his contribution to the EU Select Committee scrutiny of the Europe 2020 strategy, and for giving the committee evidence on the production of the UK national reform programme. Following that session, one of our recommendations was that the NRP should be debated in the House at the same time as the UK convergence programme, and I am delighted that this has happened today. I am even more delighted that my noble friend has just told us that he would hope to be able to do this again on future occasions.
The chairman of the EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, would normally move this Motion, but as the Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, Energy and Transport, which I chair, has taken the lead in scrutinising the EU’s Europe 2020 strategy, of which the national reform programme forms a part, it was considered more appropriate that I should be in the hot seat. That is no problem and I am delighted to take part. I am also very glad that three other members of the sub-committee have decided to take part in this debate, and I thank them for doing so, as I do for all the hard work they put into our meetings and witness sessions. Several other members of the committee would have participated in the debate if they had not had previous commitments which were impossible to change at short notice.
Europe 2020 is the successor to the Lisbon agenda, which in 2000 was launched with enthusiasm, but unfortunately did not match expectations. The objective had been to make the EU,
“the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion”.
But at least one of the problems was that the Lisbon agenda lacked any credible means of enforcement. It had great aspirations but no oomph. One of these days there might be an “emperor’s clothes” moment which could, if we are lucky, result in fewer aspirational mirages and more results-oriented policy. It is not just the EU that is guilty of this, but also many governments, economists and policy wonks throughout the world of business and politics.
In drawing up Europe 2020, the member states and EU institutions have developed a more robust system of engagement, which, if it is given a chance and if it works, will enable close monitoring of the progress of each member state towards the five headline targets of Europe 2020. The five targets are: a 75 per cent employment rate for those aged between 20 and 64; 3 per cent of GDP to be spent on research and development; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent, increase the share of renewable energy to 20 per cent and increase energy efficiency by 20 per cent—all compared with the 1990 levels—which, as I remind myself, is 20/20/20 by 2020. Unfortunately, some of this has already slipped, so it is not as neat a description as I thought. The fourth target relates to education: less than 10 per cent of the population aged 18 to 24 should have left school early, and at least 40 per cent of the 30 to 34 year-olds should have completed tertiary education. The final target of the five is the reduction by 25 per cent of the number of Europeans living below the poverty line. Yes, it is aspirational, but there is at least some guide to where we should be focusing our policies and effort.
The cycle of economic development aimed at meeting the five targets has been arranged into a system or programme, as we have already heard, known as the European semester. The objective is to synchronise the economic planning cycles for convergence towards the eurozone entry criteria and growth—hence today’s debate looking at both the convergence programme and the national reform programme. The semester commences each year with the production of the EU’s annual growth survey, which analyses progress over the five targets and assesses the macroeconomic and fiscal context. This is followed by the setting of priority actions for member states in respect of achieving the targets. The next step in the process involves discussions in ECOFIN and at the spring European Council.
Progress on the seven flagship initiatives of Europe 2020 is also considered. Noble Lords must realise that the five targets I have already spoken about are not the flagship initiatives for 2020. The seven flagship initiatives are clearly and simply laid out on page 5 of the Select Committee’s fifth report of the 2010-11 Session, entitled “The EU Strategy for Economic Growth and the UK National Reform Programme”. I commend it to Members of the House, who should read and digest the initiatives.
At the end of the process, the European Council provides policy guidelines to the member states. I have tried to be as clear as I can in describing the process. It is a sensible, comprehensive exercise, which should highlight clear actions that we hope will result in economic growth—the ultimate aim of the whole exercise. The penultimate block in the edifice is the embodiment of member states’ specific actions in each state’s national reform programme, submitted in April at the same time as the convergence programme. The deadline for the convergence programme has been put back to facilitate this dovetailing. Finally, the European Commission analyses the national reform programme issues and country-specific recommendations in June before the whole process starts again the next January.
I apologise for this rather lengthy and cumbersome explanation of the process. I felt it was necessary to detail it so that the background to the committee’s report is understood. I know that many know all of this but we have many new Peers. It is also incumbent on all of us to understand better what goes on in the EU. After all, we contribute a lot for the privilege of being a member.
The report that we are taking note of today deals largely with the procedure for parliamentary engagement in the production of the national reform programme. It also takes the opportunity to discuss the process in more general terms and to make suggestions concerning consultation. In November we suggested to the Minister that local authorities, business organisations, trade unions and NGOs might also be consulted. I would be most interested to hear from him whether the suggestions have fallen on stony ground or will blossom and bear fruit. Was this suggestion followed through in the production of the final national reform programme?
In those same discussions, we raised the monitoring and accountability of the European semester process. It would be useful to know how national Governments are to be held to account for performance against their programmes and by whom. In the case of the UK, we have chosen to publish indicators in each relevant area against which progress can be tracked, with performance published each year in the national reform programme. The UK has not published targets in every area as other member states have done, just in every relevant area.
My noble friend the Minister agreed with us in November that there was a role for independent analysis along the lines of the Lisbon scorecard produced by the Centre for European Reform. Has any progress been made on this?
My noble friend was very cautious on the question of policy warnings, suggesting that they should be used very infrequently. He felt that enforcement should largely be as a result of peer pressure and peer review through the process of publishing national performance reviews which would be incorporated in discussions on the annual growth survey and at ECOFIN. The committee, however, felt that the discussion in ECOFIN might be circumscribed.
Since then, ECOFIN has had its first chance to discuss the plans of member states. I ask my noble friend whether the discussion was particularly robust, as, since then, we have had the bailouts for Ireland and for Portugal, and Greece seems to be in trouble again. In view of these subsequent events, does the Minister remain convinced that policy warnings should be used “very infrequently”?
Other issues have been raised, both in the European Union Select Committee and in our Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, Energy and Transport, including the role to be played by the private sector in achieving the targets, whether the targets are ambitious enough and the extent to which the final reform programmes published by member states build on drafts. I am sure that my colleagues in the sub-committee will wish to deal with these issues in more detail, but I thank the Minister for his opening comments.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, my interest in this debate is less in the economics, which we have heard from the Minister today and on several other occasions, and, indeed, have debated on several occasions, than in the way the system works and whether it is all worth while.
I should explain that I am a co-opted member of European Union Sub-Committee B. As the noble Baroness explained, our responsibility is to scrutinise the working of the single market—business, employment, transport, innovation and technology. Our work of course is highly relevant to this debate, so I start by joining the noble Baroness in welcoming the recommendation in paragraph 30 of the EU Committee’s report that the NRP report and the Select Committee's report should be debated together. That is very helpful, and I hope that we will do it in the future.
I also noted in the committee’s report that some members were sceptical of the value of these reports. I could almost hear murmurings of national plans meaning too much administration and too little management. I do not agree. Indeed, I agree with the Minister. In his evidence, he said that, used properly, the reports are a way of galvanising action and of having a dialogue with other countries and among ourselves. Yes, there are problems. One is keeping up with the times—the globalised world seems to be moving very quickly; the other is making the reports meaningful to ordinary people and ordinary businesses.
The NRP report suffers from both of these. The section on bottlenecks may have great meaning to a Treasury economist, but less so to somebody running a business or working in industry. You can correct this by putting it another way. Instead of setting out how we are going to tackle these bottlenecks, we should ask what we actually want to achieve. People would then understand the report better. It would have a purpose; it would point to action. It would be more inspirational, more easily understood and more likely to be implemented.
Let me give an example. One bottleneck is to facilitate,
“an increase in aggregate fixed private investment”.
Quite rightly, business reacted to the recession by cutting costs and it is crucial that as the economy recovers these costs do not return. After all, that additional competitiveness and productivity are helping us to recover. To sustain these lower costs means more investment and lower head count—lower head count with greater skills. Said that way, it means something to people. I put it to the Minister that, if the Government would like to involve the public more, putting things in terms of what we wish to achieve rather than what we need to overcome will mean more.
In his evidence to the committee, the Minister also spoke about consultation. The record of this Government on consultation is pretty poor. Your Lordships’ Merits Committee commented on that and the Minister may have heard the debate on 3 May when I had to point out how decisions in the Home Office had cut right across policy laid down in the Treasury's plan for growth. We must do better at consulting both inside and outside government.
The paper calls for fewer regulations, but if the Government want the support of the general public, they must understand that one man's red tape is another man's polluted water or difficult working conditions. It is the rules that are important—how they are targeted and how proportionate they are. The numbers are of secondary importance. Regulatory failure is because the rules are wrong, not that the numbers are high. More and more of these rules are part of Europe 2020 and are being made in Brussels, outside our direct control. The Government have not made it clear how they will engage with this, so perhaps the Minister could say something about that.
In contrast with Europe 2020, I find the NRP paper pretty thin on the green economy. Certainly, the plan for growth talks about putting the economy on a low-carbon basis, but Europe 2020 makes energy efficiency one of its highlights, especially in transport and buildings. Indeed, it offers financial support. Will we take advantage of that? Our plans seem reluctant to commit investment in this area. Presumably that is because the Government do not want to burden our grandchildren with the debt. However, neither will our grandchildren thank us for burdening them with a high-carbon economy. Debt is less dangerous than global warming.
In these reports, keeping up with the times is essential but difficult because globalisation is moving really fast. I strongly support the intention of producing and debating an NRP each year. Personally, I would find it helpful if there were a section that told us what had changed from year to year. For example, in previous years, all the talk was about the inexorable move of manufacturing to Asia, particularly to China. Indeed, I was one of those businessmen to go there in 1979 when it started the open-door policy.
However, the wheel has nearly turned full circle. Rising wages and an ageing population in China, rapidly rising transport costs and rising productivity here in Europe, mean that it is already attractive to produce goods here in Europe that require frequent design changes or are of low volume. That is especially true for products where labour is a third or less of the cost. Our hourly worker wages adjusted for productivity are now much the same as Germany’s and are lower than those of France and Italy. Yes, that does have something to do with the weakness of a pound against the euro, but this is a very important change for the economy of Britain and Europe. It is an important trend and I would like to see this sort of thing highlighted in the National Reform Programme. It not only points towards a new trend in globalisation, it also justifies our concentration on skills and investment, and on productivity and innovation. That is why I would like to see a section on what has changed over the year.
Another way in which this kind of approach is helpful is that it helps us to address the problems that globalisation has thrust upon us and justifies our impatience to complete the single market as well as the work and the expenditure on doing that. Incidentally, it also helps explain the benefits of the single market, something that we never do enough of. In its NRP 2011 paper, the Government say they strongly support Europe 2020, its challenges and its opportunities. Who could disagree with more jobs, more research and development and innovation, more investment, greener energy, better education and less poverty? It is because we are all in agreement with the aims and objectives of Europe 2020 that I would like to see this support shouted from the housetops and given a much higher profile. Could it be branded in some way, so that projects that contribute towards these objectives are identified as being part of Europe 2020?
The Government’s paper, Let’s Choose Growth, is a start. As well as calling for change, it expresses a lot of the right ambitions and identifies many things that we have to do. But who has seen it? Has it had an impact? Most of the people I know have actually never seen it. Some people would like to separate the economic from the social aspects, but the two are intertwined and cannot be separated. That is why it has to be expressed in terms that explain its impact on the lives of ordinary people. As the committee said in its report, the Lisbon strategy suffered because it had a low public profile and a low political profile. I join the committee in calling for a high profile to be given to Europe 2020. It creates a purpose to which all of us want to contribute. If there is one thing that I would like to take away from this debate, it is that we are all committed to that.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that we are debating the two documents together not least because had we not been debating the document introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, we would have been having the fourth general economic debate in your Lordships’ House in about five sitting weeks on what is happening to the UK economy. Although many of us like nothing better than to discuss the state of the economy, it is a bit like pulling a plant up on a weekly basis to see how the roots are doing. I do not think we would have served any useful purpose by it.
The more important relevance of debating the two documents together is the point that the Minister made in his introduction when he said the UK was not a bystander in the debate on fiscal stabilisation within the EU. The fact that we are not in the eurozone does not mean that we are somehow less affected than before by what happens more generally in the European economy. For example, it is very clear at the moment that when we are looking for additional investment for infrastructure, and into small or large businesses, the funds that might be available from banks based in London to support this investment are not being liberated by the banks, in part because they are worried about what is happening in the eurozone. They are worried that Greece may default, or that their holdings of Greek bonds may take a haircut, and therefore they are hanging back on making investments in the UK. So there is an absolutely direct link between the level of investment here and the stability of the rest of the EU. It is in our absolutely direct economic interest that stabilisation of those eurozone countries that have got into difficulty takes place swiftly. Many noble Lords wish that we were not part of the European financial stabilisation mechanism, but to the extent that our membership makes the stabilisation of those countries’ economies go forward more quickly, that is just straightforwardly in the national interest.
On the Europe 2020 programme, I completely agree with what the noble Baroness said about the Lisbon agenda. Before we were in coalition, that was the kind of thing that Liberal Democrat policy-makers used to do on wet Saturday afternoons. They would write down huge lists of aspirations which at the end of the afternoon made you feel great. But if you had been in government you would not have had the faintest clue how you would have brought them about. The extraordinary thing about the Lisbon agenda is that heads of government did the same; they signed up to this wonderful statement, which they had no means and not even the political intent to try to bring about. They felt very happy that Europe was going to take this leading role and then they sat back and let China, India and the rest of the world take the leading role.
Therefore, the fact that the flagship policies under Europe 2020 are in a way less ambitious is a good thing. However, they fall into two categories. One category includes policies or areas in which the EU itself can make an impact and there are other areas in which the EU can make very little direct impact. I am not an expert on the European platform against poverty, for example, but to the extent that you are taking direct action to deal with poverty, it will be done on a member state basis. The EU has no levers to pull on poverty other than having a framework for growth, which means that the economies of member states are doing better so it is easier for them to pull people out of poverty.
The key thing from Europe 2020 revolves around those actions that the EU itself can undertake. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has taken an initiative on this front, although I think whoever chose the title “Let’s Choose Growth” for the pamphlet needs their head examining. What else are you going to choose—stagnation? The two things that the Government and the Prime Minister were proposing, which I hope the Government will push really hard, because they are pragmatic and will make a big difference, are a series of measures to strengthen and deepen the single market. We are talking about pragmatic things that the EU can do—it is in its competence. Secondly, we should push very hard for the completion of the Doha round. I know that it has had a very long and tortuous history, but trade remains one of the main motors of growth and we need to keep pushing to see what progress can be made. Those are two very specific things. I hope the Minister can reassure me that the Government, having written their letter and pamphlet, will keep the pressure on to see whether we can get concrete movement.
I am more sceptical about the national reform programme, the Government’s programme and the whole process. I have in my mind the sight of 27 national reform programmes stacked on top of each other, sitting and accumulating dust. I do not know how that immense weight of material can be effectively analysed and peer reviewed. I am not sure how the peer review system works, but the document we are discussing says that the NRPs of all member states will be peer reviewed at the ECOFIN council in January. I do not know how you can effectively peer review anything at an ECOFIN council. If you are doing it beforehand, who are the peers and who are reviewing whom? Which named individuals from the UK are doing this review and do they do it for everybody or are we given half a dozen to peer review this year? When you have produced all the peer reviews, you presumably have a long document with thousands of detailed comments. What happens then? The more I think about the process, the more depressed I become because I wonder whether it actually achieves anything—particularly given that, for a number of member states, the noble aspirations of Europe 2020 and their bottlenecks to growth are so difficult to deal with that I cannot imagine this process being of any help at all.
Given what Ireland, Portugal and Greece are going through, does a document called the National Reform Programme with “bottlenecks” have any relevance? When I was attempting to brief myself on this debate, I made the mistake of typing into Google not “national reform programme” but “national recovery programme”. Amazingly, there are national recovery programmes: Ireland has one but it also has a national reform programme. In those circumstances, I wonder whether that has any great value.
I am very supportive of the Europe 2020 approach and of efforts by this Government and by the EU to deal with their own bottlenecks for growth. I hope very much that they can be pushed by the Government. I have a final question for the Minister. We in the UK, and in every member state, have bottlenecks identified by august bodies such as the IMF and the OECD. Does the EU itself have bottlenecks that it is attempting to address? What is the equivalent of the five bottlenecks that we are grappling with—if you can grapple with a bottleneck—that the Commission is dealing with and what milestones are the Commission having to account against as it seeks to promote what is, as I say, an admirable aim?
Baroness Valentine
I declare that I am chief executive of London First, a not-for-profit business membership organisation. I am also pleased to serve on this House's European Sub-Committee B, under the able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
I welcome this debate. The EU Committee’s report says of the reform programme,
“No surprises, no panacea, but still worth doing”.
It is worth doing because transparency and scrutiny by other member states, EU institutions, the OECD and others can only be helpful in establishing good practice. However, I take note of the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the practicalities.
Europe 2020: UK National Reform Programme 2011 makes clear the importance the Government rightly attach to growth. The national reform programme states:
“As Europe recovers from the worst recession since the 1930s, Europe 2020’s aims of higher growth and increased employment represent the most important long-term challenges, and opportunities, facing the EU”.
I will focus my remarks on the “bottlenecks” to growth identified in Chapter 3 and suggest some areas where the Government can perhaps do more to overcome these challenges.
First, on competitiveness in financial services and taxation, after tackling the deficit the first challenge identified by the report is,
“ensuring a well-functioning and stable financial sector capable of meeting the financial intermediation needs of the real economy”.
The Vickers commission’s work to improve competition and stability within the banking sector is relevant, but we need to add a third leg to this stool—the global competitiveness of the UK sector. There have been failures in governance, supervision and regulation, but the UK has demonstrable competitive advantage in the financial services sector. We must make sure that any unilateral action does not diminish that competitiveness.
The EU’s annual growth survey calls for Europe-wide co-ordination in the taxation of the financial sector. That is commendable, but London is the EU's only world-competitive financial centre, so taxation in other global financial centres outside the eurozone is just as important. What we actually have, though, is a unilaterally applied banking levy that satisfies neither point. The Government made a good start by consulting on their approach to the introduction of taxation last year. Post credit crisis, politicians attempted to shoot from the hip, but boring, slow, internationally compatible and considered changes in taxation are much better. So, while the tax hike on oil and gas exploration may or may not have been right, its abrupt introduction was almost certainly not.
I welcome the national reform programme’s section on,
“Facilitating an increase in aggregate fixed private investment”,
which reiterates the Government’s objective of creating,
“the most competitive tax system in the G20”.
However, the UK heavily depends on its service sector for growth. We are claimed to be the second highest exporter of professional services worldwide. In this context, the international competitiveness of our personal taxes is important. Recent Treasury signals of a future reduction in the top rate of income tax are welcome. Unfortunately, other changes—to personal allowances for high earners, national insurance contributions, the non-dom levy, pension tax relief and the banking bonus tax—portend anything but a stable and predictable tax regime.
Secondly, on infrastructure and investment, the Government are right to aim for industry to have the confidence to invest in our economic infrastructure. Londoners are relieved that the Government have maintained the much needed and long overdue investment in our transport infrastructure, and we look forward to the forthcoming national infrastructure plan.
However, I would like to highlight some concerns. The Localism Bill, while motivated by an admirable desire for local empowerment, risks giving local authorities powers without resources—again. It risks frustrating development on the one hand by giving weight to the nimby vote while on the other failing to provide the tools to local authorities to fund the infrastructure that underpins regeneration and growth. How does one get the Northern line extended to Battersea power station to create a new economic quarter? While we have good progress with the Olympic Park Legacy Company in sorting out the park and indeed, under the Localism Bill, turning that company into a mayoral development corporation, who will act as client for investment in energy and the public realm south of the Olympic park to catalyse the East End regeneration that we all desire? Surely, alongside localism we need to give local authorities the benefit of the doubt in raising the finance to invest in the infrastructure that is a prerequisite to that regeneration.
The thorny question of aviation capacity in the south-east also remains unsolved. The NRP recommends rebalancing towards net exports. With £20 billion of business services exports driven by London, according to the Work Foundation, the capital’s links to the world are critical. Aviation policy should expand businesses’ international links rather than funnelling them through the most overcrowded airport in Europe.
I turn to Brussels. As the Minister asserts, policies to drive the UK’s growth are largely in the hands of the UK Government, not the EU, but there are important areas of European influence. We need to ditch our little England approach to Brussels. By that I mean not embracing some great Utopian European dream but concentrating on the key areas of policy that affect our businesses and citizens. We must be sure to shape policy-making at the front end of the process and not as a desperate afterthought. In football-speak, we are last-ditch defenders when we have all the skills to be creative midfielders.
I am concerned about two areas in particular: labour laws and financial regulation. Europe 2020 seeks a 75 per cent employment rate across Europe. The Department for Business’s own research indicates that more flexible labour laws lead to higher employment. Well meant protection for existing employees risks reducing employers’ appetite for creating new job opportunities or employing more challenging candidates, when they worry about having their hands tied. The UK and Europe need to get the balance right between what is fair and what leads to more employment.
My second worry is financial regulation. The British financial sector is the most global in the EU and therefore needs more sophisticated regulation, but this regulation must be well informed both about products and about real-world market practice. The UK has 12 per cent of the EU population but makes up just 6 per cent of Commission staff. The UK needs to value people who serve in Europe; it should be seen as a boost to a career in either the public or the private sector. Given the vital role of the new European supervisory authorities in relation to our financial markets, would it make sense for, say, 20 per cent of their staff to have experience of London’s financial services?
In these and other areas, politicians need to get in early and help to set the rules, rather than regarding Europe as a perennial irritation. I wish the national reform programme well.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, asked a lot of highly relevant questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
I start by paying tribute to the sub-committee’s chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. She is a guiding example in what a chairman should adopt. She chaired the sub-committee with skill and charm, and has enabled the sub-committee to work with undoubted success. Part of that success has been to enable all members of the committee to have their say. I thank the noble Baroness very much.
Charm, of course, is not always disarming. The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, has demonstrated that today. I have a high regard for him, as he well knows, but he is something of an optimist, where pessimism is not the right answer but something between optimism and pessimism would not be averse.
To quote the former press secretary of President Eisenhower:
“One day I sat thinking, almost in despair; a hand fell on my shoulder and a voice said reassuringly: ‘Cheer up, things could get worse’. So I cheered up and, sure enough, things got worse”.
I think the same of the present Government’s policy: things will certainly get much worse. The Minister failed to see that as a possibility in any way. For example, their comments about unemployment are dealt with in paragraph 3 on page 2 of the report, which says,
“getting the unemployed back to work … the Commission calls for Member States to design benefits to reward return to work”—
by—
“linking training and job search … to benefits”—
and by increasing the—
“coherence between the level of income taxes … and unemployment benefits”.
How on earth has that got any relevance to the present unemployment problems? Of course we ought to adopt the ideas, but they are only part of the solution, not the entire solution.
Unhappily, the current facts indicate a rather different situation. They will, in most of Europe, form a vastly different situation: one of rising unemployment, probably to very high levels which will have serious political, as well as economic, problems. In the final paragraph of this report, the commission addresses part of the problem, but certainly not its entirety. It concentrates its fire on some unnamed member states with inflexible labour laws, but who are they? We do not know. That is hidden from view. The UK Government go to the other end of the spectrum. This situation is entirely wrong. In my view moderation, which calls for a modus vivendi, is the preferred remedy.
What does the second paragraph on page 4 really mean? It is full of verbiage but what does it mean? The situation cannot be approached in the way that the Government are doing. They have to be clear about the position, and that is certainly not the case.
I turn to the United Kingdom National Reform Programme 2011. I depart from the complacency which the noble Lord assumed at the beginning of this debate. I cannot endorse the programme that is advanced. It is long on verbiage and short on experience. Myths replace truths. It is extremist in tone and distorts recent history. It lives in hope, ignoring real problems that exist.
Paragraph 1.3 of the introduction is a repetition of the old canards and a strenuous refusal to recognise the mistakes which the Government are making. Is the Minister entirely convinced that the Government have 100 per cent of the answers? No Government have succeeded so far as that is concerned.
While trying to play a constructive role in the sub-committee, I have real doubts about the present European Commission and, indeed, about our Government: one mirrors the other. Despite significant problems, our economy was growing in 2010 at an annual rate of about 4 per cent. Now all that has changed disastrously, with a collapse of consumer confidence and a refusal on the part of many businesses to invest. None of this is confronted by the Commission or the Government.
The current orthodoxy reflected by the European Commission and others is that demand must be diminished by 1.5 per cent over the next four years. Inflation is likely to increase and personal disposable income is likely to decline. Those are not simply my words but those of many economic experts. All this will be accompanied by an inexorable rise in unemployment. My own view is that when all this happens—I do not say “if”—there will be an enduring political fallout. Ordinary people will, regrettably, be affected. They will be worse off than they were 12 months ago.
Labour certainly made many mistakes when in government but it is quite untrue that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling left Britain on the brink of bankruptcy. That has been repeated many times by Ministers. However many times it is repeated, it is completely untrue. I hope against hope that Britain and the European Commission will pursue policies both of job creation and growth over a period of years. Wages must not be cut and the taxes of the squeezed middle should be dealt with in a similar way. Of course we cannot ignore the situation, but it has to be handled in a rather different way from that of the present Government. That is a way to disaster. That is my view. Others may have a different view; but that is what I really think. In my submission, all this demands a radically different approach from that of the Government and of the European Commission.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate, not least because of its focus on the valuable documents before us—those provided by the Treasury, by the Office for Budget Responsibility and, of course, the extensive work done by the European Union Committee of this House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, on her work in the committee, to which tribute has been paid during the course of the debate, and on her contribution this afternoon.
It is also a timely debate, for while the situation of the UK economy at the turn of the year was grave, today it is worse. In the first half of 2010, it should be recognised that under the recovery strategy put in place by my right honourable friend Alistair Darling the economy grew at an annual rate in excess of 2 per cent, with a beneficial effect on tax revenues that led to welcome reductions in the deficit that were substantially in excess of what the forecasts had predicted. Now the economy has effectively ground to a halt and there has been no growth at all since the third quarter of last year. Indeed, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research said last week that the performance of the UK had deteriorated markedly since the autumn, that economic output would grow by just 1.4 per cent and that the weak recovery would feed through to lower tax revenues. That meant that even if the spending plans are met over the next four years, the public sector deficit will substantially exceed the Government’s professed target. Yesterday, the Bank of England downgraded its growth forecasts and added in the extra spice of a predicted rise in inflation in the not-too-distant future to 5 per cent. This is a new coalition of low growth and high inflation.
As this debate is set in a European context, what of convergence? How are our major European partners doing on the road to recovery and in the face of rising commodity prices that we also confront? Germany has growth at around 3 per cent, with inflation at 2.6 per cent. That is almost double UK growth and half our predicted inflation rate. France has growth at 2 per cent with inflation at 2 per cent—higher growth and lower inflation. Italy has growth at 1.5 per cent with inflation at 2.5 per cent. Growth is about the same as ours, but with much lower inflation.
Indeed, despite all the financial problems in the eurozone, the eurozone as a whole is forecast to grow just as fast as the UK this year, with less than half the UK’s rate of inflation. The new UK coalition of low growth and high inflation is just like another coalition that I can think of—it tends to bring out the worst elements in each partner. Low growth undermines productivity, stoking the fires of inflation. High inflation not only cuts growth of demand by cutting real income, it also means that Britain becomes less competitive at home and abroad. Inflation is likely to erode all the advantage that we obtained, particularly in our manufacturing industry, from the devaluation a couple of years ago.
I referred to the Treasury documents. They are indeed valuable, because they contain clear, succinct statements of the Government’s economic strategy. It is particularly well put in paragraph 2.10 of the 2010-11 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom, which states that the policy has four components: cutting the deficit to promote confidence; monetary policy to secure price stability—it is pretty obvious how well that is working—reform of financial regulation; and microeconomic policies to make the UK the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Underpinning all that is the deficit reduction programme and the rate at which the Government want to see that programme completed. The link that the Government make between deficit reduction and growth is very clear. On page 7, we are told:
“Tackling the deficit is essential as it will: reduce the UK’s vulnerability to further shocks or a loss of market confidence, which could force a much sharper correction; underpin private sector confidence, supporting growth and job creation over the medium term”.
That is what serious economists, such as the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, call the confidence fairy theory of growth, where the confidence fairy is like the tooth fairy, but with a bit less credibility. Sad to say, the confidence fairy does not seem to have sprinkled much stardust on the UK economy. Not only has consumer confidence plummeted over the past six months, the recently updated survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants reveals that,
“business confidence has fallen sharply over the past three quarters”.
The chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply stated last month that in the construction industry:
“Confidence remains at a historically low level as the number of jobs continues to drop”.
We have rising inflation and falling confidence. No wonder that in April, the UK's manufacturing sector grew at the slowest pace for months. On page 8 of Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom, there is a valuable table. It compares the impact on the deficit of what is called the policy inherited by the Government—in other words, Alistair Darling's strategy to halve the deficit in four years—with the Government's policy of eliminating the deficit in four years, the clear implication being that Labour's policy was just a timid version of that of the present Government.
That is a quite incorrect implication. The thinking behind Labour's policy was and is entirely different from the policy stance of this Government. The coalition argues that cutting the deficit is the prerequisite of growth, whether via the confidence fairy or microeconomic measures—something that I will talk about in a moment. Labour argues that the only way to secure a sustainable reduction in the deficit is for the economy to grow. Preserving, as far as possible, a steady rate of demand is the key to securing growth. That is exactly what was happening in the first half of last year. Exactly the opposite is happening now.
It is only fair to ask whether the fourth element in the coalition's economic plan, the microeconomic measures, will achieve what seems to be beyond even the confidence fairy's magic wand. Of course, there are some sensible sounding measures; and I would be the first to recognise them. There is a focus on science and research and development, on apprenticeships and on tax incentives for entrepreneurs. Sadly, when we look more closely, the actual measures are either too small or badly targeted. Research and development tax changes sound good until one realises that they benefit just 7,000 of the 4.8 million small firms in this country. The entrepreneurs’ relief sounds good until one realises that the benefit will go to just a few hundred people. The idea that higher education is being put on a “sustainable financial footing”, when this week David Willetts, the Member of Parliament and Minister, has produced another dimension of uncertainty with regard to higher education, indicates that the Government’s funding projection for higher education is beyond a joke.
However, of even more concern is the idea that at the heart of the growth strategy is a policy to,
“create the most competitive tax system in the G20”.
The Minister emphasised the extent to which corporation tax was going to be reduced. As we all know, the problem with corporation tax is that it is an extraordinarily efficient device for enhancing capacity for tax avoidance. Of course, there is nothing wrong with lowering taxes to create the right climate for business when it is part of a wider growth strategy that includes finance for industry, increased investment in research and higher education, and the maintenance of growing demand, which is the key motivation to invest. However, when cutting taxes and deregulation are central to the strategy, there is a risk of a race to the bottom—a risk that we will be involved in competitive tax-cutting, which has the effect of draining the Government of the funding they need for vital investment in infrastructure and other foundations of competitive success. Will low growth, weak regulation and low taxes build a manufacturing industry in this country to compete with Germany? I think that the answer is clear.
However, we can leave to the Office for Budget Responsibility the final verdict on the Government’s so-called growth strategy, which is at the heart of this debate in relationship to our perspective on Europe. Considering the growth measures in the recent Budget, the OBR concluded that the impact on growth would be “minimal”. No wonder. Without the prospect of growth, there is no incentive to invest, however low taxes might be.
Of course, we all recognise that economic forecasting is a hazardous activity, indulged in when projections over 10 to 15 years enable one to avoid some of the harsh realities of the immediate and clear future. Why do we need the crystal ball when the book is open before us? Under the coalition Government, the recovery has stopped in its tracks, with no growth since the third quarter of 2010. The previous Government’s strategy of supporting the growth of demand in the recovery process has been replaced by the economics of low growth allied with high inflation—a coalition perfectly designed to reduce confidence, discourage investment, postpone recovery and, as the national institute has argued, reduce tax revenues in due course and therefore make the deficit problem more acute. This is the world of the Government’s economics, and the Minister will no doubt set out to defend them once again.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we have had an interesting and valuable debate. It got into a new gear towards the end. We were having some very positive and practical suggestions about the content of the documents that we are talking about today and how they should be handled both domestically and in Europe, and then we suddenly went off into hyperspace, thanks to the contribution of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Davies of Oldham. My response, therefore, will be in two parts. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I think my noble friend Lady O’Cathain was criticising Europe for a lack of oomph in relation to Lisbon. She certainly got the debate off with plenty of positive oomph but we ended with a lot of tired hot air coming from certain of the Benches.
I start by confirming that we will be reporting to the Commission each year. We are required to report on the UK’s economic and budgetary position, which is part of our commitment under the stability and growth pact. This is, of course, to ensure that we can help to maintain an appropriate level of macroeconomic policy co-ordination, which in itself contributes to stability and growth across the economic union. This is where the debate, particularly in its second half, presents some difficulties. What we get from certain noble Lords on the opposition Benches is all carping and critique but absolutely no alternative. The NRP and convergence programme is clear and comprehensive—not remotely complacent, to use the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I meant the Minister rather than the Government as a whole.
Lord Sassoon
It would be nice to know what on earth the Opposition have to offer and we could then have a meaningful debate about the alternatives. Only this morning, one of Gordon Brown’s close former Treasury and Downing Street advisers, Mr Dan Corry, wrote an article in the City A.M. newspaper, headed:
“Balls must offer alternative instead of carping”.
I would insert the names of a couple of noble Lords for “Balls”.
The article states:
“Balls and Miliband … should spend time developing and articulating what Labour’s economic strategy for growth is, and why it can work. That is the real task ahead and they need to get to it”.
I very much address those remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, and it would be much easier if next time we had a debate when we knew the alternative.
What underpins the plans is a,
“strong and credible multi-year fiscal deficit reduction plan … essential to ensure debt sustainability”.
Those are not my words but the words of the IMF in September last year, and that is what we are talking about this afternoon. Of course there are issues on which we are not remotely complacent as a Government. We have said all along that the recovery will be choppy and difficult. Yes, we recognise that inflation will be high this year but it is forecast by independent forecasters at the OBR and elsewhere to be coming down very significantly in 2012. We could trade all sorts of critiques about our plans all night, but one of the latest commentators with immense credibility on this, the US Treasury Secretary, said only recently that he was impressed with the basic strategy that had been adopted. He said that if we do not act with force to stabilise confidence, we will be confined to a much worse outcome economically. When asked whether we were going too fast, the US Treasury answered, “I don’t think so”.
We could spend a long time going over the substance of the Government’s basic economic strategy but I would merely say that the debate confirms that we certainly have a very clear strategy. It is at the heart of the documents we are discussing today. As I say, it would be nice in due course for the Opposition to come forward with something of an alternative if they think that our plans are not appropriate for the economy.
In the rest of the debate, many constructive points were made. I will first address issues to do with consultation, the way in which the document was presented and how it might evolve. A number of useful policy and other issues were raised; I may have time to address a few of them. Similarly, a group of points was raised concerning the handling in Europe of the NRP and the convergence programme, and how the process will go forward. I will take the points broadly in those groupings.
I turn first to the nature of the process that led to the document. My noble friend Lady O’Cathain and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked about consultation and the inclusiveness of the process. Certainly I can confirm that as we drew up the growth plan that underpins the document, we consulted all those parts of society that my noble friend mentioned—NGOs, the private sector, civil society partners, local authorities and so on—and we will continue to engage in this process as we consult on the next iteration of the Government's growth plans.
As far as concerns the nature of the document, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, was suitably challenging and positive about the way in which the NRP and Europe 2020 should be presented. It would be great if the enthusiasm that he shows for making this a more popular document in which a wider set of people was interested could be fulfilled. However, we should not be overambitious in this area. I very much take to heart some of his suggestions about the way in which the document could be structured. We are, in particular when it comes to setting out the bottlenecks, following a template that Europe sets for us. The noble Lord suggested that the document should show what has changed from year to year. I agree with him. This is the first full NRP under Europe 2020, and I am sure that future documents will chart progress from year to year.
The noble Lord has very high standards and perhaps was a little uncharitable about some of the themes that were not in the document, such as the impact on people. Our aim was to give the document more colour, flavour, appeal and interest to a broader readership. Noble Lords will know that there are a number of boxes throughout the document that give practical studies of the way in which some of the reform ideas can operate, whether through colleges, major companies, small businesses or voluntary organisations. I take the noble Lord's point, but we worked hard to make sure that the document contained illustrations from a broad section of society of how the themes in the NRP should operate.
I turn now to one or two specific policy areas to which attention was drawn. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, referred in particular to employment and labour law. This theme was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I should like to assure the noble Baroness that as we go forward with our reform work, employment law will be at the heart of it. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor said only yesterday at the Institute of Directors conference, the Government will publish a detailed timetable for the wholesale review of employment law in this country. It will include plans to review the unlimited penalties currently applied in discrimination employment tribunals, to simplify the administration of the national minimum wage, to review the TUPE regulations and to reform the consultation period for collective redundancies. The Government of course recognise that some of these issues may be controversial but, as we go forward with a challenging reform programme, it is essential and necessary that we leave no stone unturned, including in the area of employment law.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, questioned whether the NRP was thin on green detail—for example, on energy policy. Although I am sure that the noble Lord has seen it, I would point out that there is a section on climate change and energy which details the Government’s key objectives and policy actions in that area. Of course they cannot give the full detail, but the underlying policy documents are referenced in the NRP. More generally, on the question of a transition to the low-carbon economy, the announcement in the Budget of the carbon price floor sets a very challenging underpinning and basis on which investment can be made in the range of energy projects which we need going forward in this country, including, critically, in the low-carbon space.
The NRP sets out for each bottleneck and target the Government’s key objectives and details the policy action being taken forward towards meeting those objectives. As I have described already, we have examples of the way in which stakeholders are implementing these policies. Although the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, may challenge the structure of the document, it is very much responding to the way in which the European Commission would like to see it. We have tried to make it as illustrative as it can be, but of course we will take note of any suggestions as we think about the second and future iterations of it.
My noble friend Lord Newby raised a number of questions, including a very important one about trade and the Doha round. Of course he is right that Europe needs to become one of the key engines of world trade. I can confirm that the Government support concluding the Doha development round this year, but I would also bracket that by saying that there is another important European dimension to this. We want the European Union to build on the success of recent bilateral free trade agreements—that with Korea in particular—and further agreements to be concluded with India, Canada and Singapore this year. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to that. Europe has an important role to play on both Doha and the bilateral agreements and we will be pressing it forward in both those dimensions.
I turn now to some of the other Europe-wide issues and the process points on the documents. My noble friend Lord Newby asked whether the EU has its own bottlenecks and what is it doing about them. That is absolutely the right question to ask, and it will certainly strengthen my own resolve to make sure that we put the institutions at the heart of Europe on the spot in terms of identifying the bottlenecks in the areas for which they are responsible. Principally that means strengthening and deepening the single market, the free trade issues to which my noble friend drew attention, and reducing regulatory burdens at the EU level. Those are issues that we press vigorously with Europe, but his read-across on the bottleneck theme is an interesting one, although this particular exercise is principally one for individual member states.
On how this is now being addressed, my noble friend Lady O’Cathain asked about the robustness of discussions. They are indeed robust and I hope that, as we get into the key discussions that will take place over the summer, they will continue to be so. There are some interesting differences perhaps of expectation about the nature of the process going forward. I have to say that on balance I am probably more in tune with the way the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, characterised at the beginning of her speech the nature of the scrutiny process and the expectations we should have of it rather than with my noble friend Lord Newby. What is critical about this is that these issues will be debated at heads of government level, having first been discussed at ECOFIN. Of course we cannot expect leaders to debate all the fine detail, but what is important about this—I take up a point made by my noble friend Lady O’Cathain—is that there is a basis on which national governments can be held to account. Peer group pressure by discussion at heads of government level is very important, and the UK has certainly put down a document that challenges our partners in a number of key respects.
Lastly, my noble friend asked about independent analysis. We would like to see independent analysis of the sort that the Centre for European Reform has been conducting to carry on, but of course it is independent and it is for the centre to come forward with further analysis. We would welcome that.
In conclusion, this has been a full and interesting debate. The UK has laid down an NRP and a CP which are challenging documents in that they show how we are going to reverse the trend that we have seen over the past decade to create an economy that is more balanced and one in which the deficit is brought under control. These are plans that we will drive through and plans on the basis of which we will participate enthusiastically in exerting peer pressure on our member state partners. We will use this process as far as we can to enhance Europe’s fiscal disciplines and to encourage the structural reforms in Europe that are necessary to underpin Europe’s sustained growth.
EUC Report: Economic Growth and the UK National Reform
Baroness O'Cathain
That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on the EU strategy for economic growth and the UK national reform programme (5th Report, HL Paper 81).
National Reform Programme 2011
(12 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
That this House takes note of the National Reform Programme 2011.