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, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)
1. What his policy is on UN membership for a Palestinian state.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
12. What his policy is on UN membership for a Palestinian state.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Membership of the UN by September is one option under consideration by President Abbas. We believe that Israelis and Palestinians should return to negotiations. We will make a decision on UN membership only at the appropriate time.
Margaret Curran
Time and again, the Secretary of State has said that he is in favour of an independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. Surely with events going apace in the middle east, the time is right to show solidarity with the Palestinians, support them at the United Nations and prove, once and for all, that we are on the Palestinian side.
Mr Hague
We have lent a great deal of support to Palestinians at the United Nations. For instance, as the hon. Lady will know, in February we voted for the Palestinian resolution on settlements. We voted the opposite way to the United States on that occasion, which is unusual for this country. We strongly support a future state based on 1967 borders, and we welcome President Obama’s recent speech in that regard. We must remember that the way to a viable and secure state is through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. It is to those negotiations that we want both parties to return.
Sandra Osborne
I am disappointed in the Foreign Secretary’s answer. If we wait for negotiations to resume, we will wait for ever, given how things are going. President Obama made self-determination the focus of his speech to the middle east and made reference to the brave people struggling for freedom in the Arab world. Does that not also apply to the Palestinians, and would UN membership not take us a step forward?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady will have to be disappointed with the position of all European countries, because we have all withheld a decision on the question of Palestinian recognition and membership of the UN. It is vital to remember that the way to a secure Israel and a viable, prosperous Palestinian state is through negotiations between the two. She is right to be frustrated or exasperated by the time that the negotiations have taken. Nevertheless, there is no way to lasting peace in the middle east other than through those negotiations.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary impress upon the Israeli Government in a friendly but firm way that the only manner by which they can avoid an overwhelming vote in favour of a Palestinian state at the General Assembly is if the Israeli Prime Minister gives an unequivocal commitment in support of a two-state solution, as proposed by President Obama, and a commitment to enter into early and meaningful negotiations to that end?
Mr Hague
Yes, I agree with that. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that it is important for Israel to show a readiness to negotiate in the light of President Obama’s speech and what could happen at the United Nations in September. Indeed, one advantage of the United Kingdom and other EU nations considering our position on this matter over the next few months is that it will maximise the pressure on both Israelis and Palestinians to enter such negotiations.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an essential feature of statehood is identifiable and recognised borders? Will he therefore confirm that there will be no compromise on the principle that any settlement must be based on the borders of 1967?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend will know what the President of the United States has said about 1967 borders. We have always said that we mean 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps of land. I therefore do not think that we can be as categoric as my right hon. and learned Friend, but based on those borders, subject to agreement, there will be a good deal of latitude.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the moves towards Palestinian unity? Does the reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas make it more or less likely that the United Kingdom will support UN membership for Palestine?
Mr Hague
Our stance on that, if it comes to that point in September, will depend on many things, including the issues that I have commented on. It is important that the reformed Palestinian Authority—we still await many of the appointments to that body—uphold non-violence, are committed to a negotiated two-state solution, and uphold the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Those are the factors by which we will judge the Palestinian approach.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict. No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.”
They are not my words, but those of President Obama. Might not moving too quickly towards a unilateral declaration of statehood undermine moves towards peace entirely, and should we not be seeking negotiations towards an agreement between the two parties outside the UN?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend will have heard in my answers that we have placed our emphasis strongly on that. There is a need for a return to negotiations by both sides, and now that President Obama has made his speech about 1967 borders, I hope that Palestinians will take that approach. We have already talked about the Israeli approach.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the threat to UK shipping from piracy off the horn of Africa.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
7. What recent progress his Department has made on its work to counter piracy off the horn of Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
Thanks to international navies and the self-defence measures used by large sectors of the shipping industry, there have been no hijacks in the critical gulf of Aden trade artery since November 2010. However, piracy continues to pose a significant risk to shipping and seafarers in the Indian ocean, with 18 successful hijacks having taken place this year, so we are not complacent. Britain is playing a leading role in the counter-piracy operations at sea, and we are leading the international work with regional countries to help put in place penal and judicial facilities to deal with this evil.
Eric Joyce
The Minister is no doubt aware of the role of many British service personnel, and indeed ex-service personnel, in protecting shipping off Somalia in particular. Does he agree that in the end, only when Somalia has a high degree of law and order, which it does not at the moment, will the problems be properly solved?
Mr Bellingham
That is exactly why Her Majesty’s Government are putting so much effort into leading the international initiatives to help rebuild that failed state. Indeed, the Department for International Development has a four-year, £250 million programme for Somalia, which will focus on building regional judicial and penal structures, strengthening the police, strengthening regional coastguards and trying to help coastal communities find alternative livelihoods. As the hon. Gentleman says, the problem will be solved only on land.
Laura Sandys
We need to have a deterrent to piracy, and currently the British Chambers of Commerce states that 80% of those who are captured are then released. What measures can we put in place, and can my hon. Friend expand on the international agreements that we need to counter piracy?
Mr Bellingham
I share my hon. Friend’s great concern, because catch-and-release simply encourages further piracy. I recently visited the EU Operation Atalanta naval headquarters at Northwood, and the Minister for the Armed Forces made it very clear to me that the Royal Navy and other navies are doing all that they possibly can not just to capture pirates but to gather sufficient evidence for them to be put on trial in courts in the region. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are working very hard with regional countries to build the vital penal and judicial capacity.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I regret that the Minister’s reply was rather complacent. At a conference in Singapore last month, his colleague the Defence Secretary will have heard several Asian Defence Ministers express alarm at the considerable rise of piracy in the Indian ocean. Suggested solutions have included a greater use of convoys, Q-ships and private security; particularly importantly, changed and toughened rules of engagement; and possibly exclusion zones. The international community is united on the need for the matter to be brought to a head. As we are a major maritime nation, when will the Government get a grip and take a lead to combat this menace, particularly by getting international agreement and changed rules of engagement?
Mr Bellingham
I can understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration. As I explained, there has not been a successful hijack in the gulf of Aden artery this year, because activity has been displaced into the ocean, and we are having significant successes. I can tell him that the EU agreed in May to amend its operational plan to deliver more robust action. I cannot discuss that publicly, but it is largely the result of efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are very much on the case.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We welcome Croatian’s progress towards EU membership, and the arrest of Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic. We are seriously concerned by the political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where there remains a need for sustained EU focus and a clear international strategy. There is also major work to be done on the dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo; to resolve the issue of Macedonia’s name; as well as in restoring a functioning political dialogue in Albania. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe visited the western Balkans last week to discuss those and other issues.
Harriett Baldwin
At the recent NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the noble Lord Sewel presented a draft report on Kosovo, which described a dire economy with weak institutions, ethnical divisions, corruption and organised crime, and poor relations with neighbours. Kosovo is not universally recognised as a state, but does the Foreign Secretary believe that it will one day be a viable European democratic state?
Mr Hague
Yes, I believe it will be, but bringing that about requires a great deal of work. We have been encouraging other nations to recognise Kosovo, but it is important that work takes place on economic development and the rule of law. It is also important to develop a positive track record of compliance with the requirements of the IMF programme. We look to Kosovo to do all those things.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I welcome, as I am sure the Foreign Secretary does, the arrest of Ratko Mladic and his dispatch to The Hague? Eight thousand Europeans were taken out and shot one by one in the biggest single mass murder since Katyn. It was not, if I may say so, Britain’s finest hour in foreign policy.
As we move forward in the Balkans, will the Foreign Secretary join me in urging President Tadic and responsible Serb politicians to recognise Kosovo, and to stop the blocks to Kosovo trading in the region and to its joining international institutions? The reason that Kosovo has the economic problems to which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred, is that Serbia will not allow it—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have the thrust of the question. We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Hague
I went to Belgrade last summer to discuss those issues with President Tadic, and urged him to enter into an EU-facilitated dialogue with Kosovo. That was the essential first step towards what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. President Tadic agreed, and I now urge the Governments of Serbia and Kosovo to engage with each other constructively. With good will on both sides, a dialogue can help to move both states towards EU accession.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scourge of organised crime in the Balkans is one of the biggest obstacles to good politics developing there?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely—it is extremely important to tackle those things to maintain the European perspective of the western Balkans countries. That is why in Croatian accession negotiations chapter 23 is of such importance. That will be true of all those states, and they should heed my hon. Friend’s words.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State believe that Croatia’s membership of the EU would act as an effective catalyst for other states? Will he offer a time scale on that?
Mr Hague
We hope that Croatia’s membership will encourage other states, although we also hope that they will draw the lesson that it is important to meet the conditions of EU membership. That is vital if the accession process is to have credibility in future. We are now in the closing stages of the negotiations on EU accession, and the Commission has made a positive recommendation. The matter will be discussed at the European Council next week; it would be premature for me to discuss dates ahead of that.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of further popular protests in north Africa and the middle east.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Demands for greater political, social and economic participation will continue in the middle east and north Africa unless Governments work to fulfil the aspirations of their people. Through our Arab partnership initiative, the review of the European neighbourhood policy and the Deauville partnership announced at the G8, we are working with partners in the region to support those who seek political and economic reform.
Graeme Morrice
Given that Governments have disrupted access to the internet during protests on a number of occasions in recent months, what specific measures have the UK Government taken to support peaceful demonstrators organising online?
Mr Hague
Of course, we always support access to the internet politically and diplomatically. Indeed, one measure in our draft resolution on Syria, which is before the UN Security Council, seeks freedom of access to the internet. We sometimes also take practical measures to try to maintain access to the internet or give people advice on how they can access it. I do not want to give any technical details of that, because it would of course make it easier to frustrate them.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
One of the features of the popular protests is the flow of information from organisations such as the BBC World Service. I know that the Foreign Office is having another look at the budget for the BBC World Service, but when are we likely to get a decision about its future shape?
Mr Hague
The Government have taken full note of the debate in the House two or three weeks ago calling for a review of that decision, and we are accordingly looking at the subject, along with the World Service, which is also considering its allocation of priorities. I think that by early July we will be able to come back to the House.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Owing to the popular protests in north Africa and the middle east, the Opposition have been arguing for months that the European Union’s External Action Service budget should be rebalanced in favour of post-Ben Ali Tunisia, post-Mubarak Egypt and, we hope, a post-Gaddafi Libya. Following the Deauville announcement, of which the Foreign Secretary spoke, will he tell us whether he now feels that the EU contribution is adequate to the challenge and risks, and what proportion of that money is new money?
Mr Hague
The crucial thing is the money available for development and economic partnership, rather than the budgeting of the External Action Service. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the proposal published on 25 May by the Commission set out a plan that included €750 million of additional resource in order for the EU to work with the economies of north Africa. That is subject to further discussion at the European Council next week, but that is the Commission plan.
Mr Alexander
Let me ask about one country in particular—obviously, Libya. On 13 April, the Foreign Secretary told us that
“the United Nations should take forward lead planning for early recovery and peace-building in Libya.”
Last Tuesday, he told the House that rather than the European Union or the United Nations,
“Britain is in the lead in post-conflict planning.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 38.]
Given his further worrying statement last week that planning is only at “an embryonic stage”, can he tell us who precisely is responsible for post-conflict planning? Is it the United Kingdom, the United Nations or the European Union? Furthermore, when will they come forward with something more than an embryonic plan?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman is conflating several different subjects. What I said needed fleshing out in more detail was the immediate planning of the national transitional council in Benghazi for the day after Gaddafi—if we can express it like that. It is doing a lot of that work, and we are looking forward to it communicating that. That is taking place, and we are in the lead in terms of looking in detail at the stabilisation response. Our stabilisation response team has been in Benghazi and is now writing its report, but we have been working with Italy and Turkey on that. So the UN will have that responsibility for co-ordination of humanitarian assistance and for the future, but Britain has taken the lead in putting people on the ground and doing the thinking. None of those things is inconsistent with the others.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Will the Foreign Secretary take up with the Bahraini Government the specific case of Ayat al-Qormozi, the young woman who has now been imprisoned for nothing worse than reading out a poem to freedom at the Pearl roundabout, and can he do that as part of a more robust approach to the Bahraini Government and their Saudi guardians?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course we take up and express to the Bahraini authorities the need for universal respect for human rights, including for due process, and that is what we look to them to bring about in their judicial process. I have strongly expressed that view to the Crown Prince of Bahrain, and we will continue to make those representations to the Bahraini authorities.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
6. What representations he has made to the Government of Belarus on standards of governance in that country.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We have made direct representations at ministerial, ambassadorial and senior official level on a number of occasions, and of course we continue to condemn the imprisonment of Opposition politicians in Belarus, as well as the persecution and harassment of civil society leaders and human rights defenders there.
Pamela Nash
President Lukashenko’s Administration are responsible for a series of enterprises, the profits from which are kept within the presidential Administration, including the KGB. Owing to clear close financial links between state oppression and such enterprises, is it not time that the UK looked at prohibiting British trade and investment with those companies?
Mr Lidington
As the hon. Lady knows, together with our European Union partners we have agreed a set of sanctions targeted against leading members of the Belarusian regime. There is also a review of the possibility of additional economic sanctions. Not every EU country has expressed itself in favour of that course, and we must take account of the need to get the balance right between harming the regime and not trying to impoverish further a people already oppressed. However, I take seriously the point she makes.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that, in light of its economic failures, Belarus has requested a further £5 billion bail-out from the IMF. What discussions has he had with the Treasury to ensure that Britain will not support a bail-out package unless it comes with a firm commitment from the Belarusian regime to recognise the basic rights and freedoms of its media and civilians?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend puts her point well. As she rightly says, the economy of Belarus is in a dire state, and the Belarusian Government’s economic policies, as well as their internally repressive policies, are making a bad situation even worse for the people of that country. We are considering—both internally in the United Kingdom and in concert with international partners—what our approach might be in the event of Belarus applying for further help from the IMF.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Tunisia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We believe that the relationship between the interim Government and the growing number of political parties in Tunisia is a stable one, as we head towards the democratic elections in October. There are challenges—partly in the technical arrangements for a nationwide election and partly, of course, in the economic challenges that the country faces because of the events of recent weeks—but we believe that the building blocks for democracy will be in place as we get to October.
Graham Stringer
I am generally less optimistic about the Arab spring than the Government as a whole. However, given the unique history of Tunisia as probably the most progressive country in north Africa, it could act as a beacon of hope, yet there are reports of interference from fundamentalists in the proposed Tunisian democratic process. What further help can the Government give to the democratic forces in Tunisia?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman’s caution is well balanced and understood. It is right to recognise the good things that are happening—he is right about Tunisia’s background—but there are risks attendant. We have already committed about £1.5 million of the original £5 million of the Arab partnership initiative to work in capacity building, strengthening political institutions and other such issues as we head towards the election. There will be more money available through the partnership, but we are also looking to swap expertise and help to build up the embryonic political parties in just the sort of areas in which the hon. Gentleman would expect us to be involved.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Office on setting up the Arab partnership fund to enable the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other participators to help the emerging political forces in Tunisia to march towards democracy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important not to overlook the moderate Arab states—Morocco, alongside Tunisia, and, a little further away, Jordan—which have not had a revolution but which are doing the right thing and moving towards democracy? We should be supporting them, too.
Alistair Burt
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will do that. Relationships with both Morocco and Jordan are good. They appear to have put themselves ahead of the curve by responding to the aspirations of the people in what we would all consider to be an appropriate manner. We are looking to the WFD to deliver quite substantially on its obligations. Helping the political parties to develop is a heavy responsibility, but one in which the WFD can play an important part.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Minister will obviously also be aware of the growing humanitarian pressures at the border between Tunisia and Libya. What offers of assistance, either technical or financial, have been made to try to address the issues of clean water and access to sanitation in that area?
Alistair Burt
We are very conscious of those pressures. First and foremost, most of them are being absorbed by the Tunisian people themselves; indeed, it is remarkable how many families have taken into their own homes those fleeing from neighbouring Libya. However, DFID has also been at work providing exactly the support that the hon. Lady would expect from us. Millions of pounds have already been committed, and this support will continue to assist people.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
9. In what circumstances his Department considers providing financial assistance for legal fees of British citizens charged with offences abroad.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not provide financial assistance for legal costs for British citizens arrested overseas. We provide information about the local legal system, including whether a legal aid scheme is available. We can also provide a list of local English-speaking lawyers, and we work with non-governmental organisations that might be able to offer support.
George Eustice
The Minister will be aware of the plight of my constituent, Stephen Scarlett, who remains in prison in Senegal despite the fact that his sentence ended in February. His family have been unable to get any financial support from the Foreign Office to help them to navigate the local legal system. Does the Minister agree that, in such extreme cases, the needs of such people are the most acute of all? Will he look into providing financial assistance in this case so that Mr Scarlett can be reunited with his family?
Mr Browne
I understand the distress felt by Mr Scarlett and his family over the length of time that it is taking to resolve his case. He has been assisted by the British embassy in Dakar, and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole. However, the responsibility for ensuring that he receives the best possible outcome rests with his lawyer. I can add that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office supports and part-funds three groups: Prisoners Abroad, Reprieve and Fair Trials International, all of which assist British citizens. We are aware that Fair Trials International has offered its services to Mr Scarlett’s family.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
10. What support his Department is providing to co-existence projects and joint business initiatives between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The Department for International Development spends about £73 million in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories on a range of measures to promote peace through the conflict prevention pool and on economic development. The Foreign Office is spending some £70,000 this year on the kind of co-existence projects that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, ranging from language development to courses and work inside Israel to help to bind communities together.
Michael Dugher
According to answers to written questions in January, only 1% of European Union aid to the Palestinians goes to civil society projects. What are the Government doing to ensure that a greater proportion of EU aid is spent on developing the co-existence projects that are so vital to the peace process?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is right about the proportion spent, which I picked out for the answer that I have just given him. Sometimes it is difficult to separate these things out, category by category. For example, the £30 million that goes into the promotion of Palestinian economic development feeds into work on prosperity and co-existence issues. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is open to more project applications coming in for exactly such projects, and I will certainly work with the posts involved, in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, to see what more we can do to encourage the activities that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that an attack on any future humanitarian flotilla would be met by international condemnation?
Mr Speaker
May I gently remind the Minister that we are talking, narrowly, about co-existence projects and joint business initiatives?
Alistair Burt
I believe that I would be right in saying that we see events such as the reopening of the Rafah crossing in Gaza as an opportunity to help economic development and to encourage co-existence, because the greater the economic development on the west bank and in Gaza, the more opportunity there will be for both, and the less need there will be for anyone to be tempted to try to use a flotilla as a means either of bringing in produce or of making a political point.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
11. What steps he is taking to increase international legal protection for those affected by corporate abuses in conflict zones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
The Government totally deplore any company anywhere in the world that ignores human rights. It is especially important that companies set the highest possible standards when operating in failed states or conflict zones. That is why we support the excellent work being carried out by Professor John Ruggie, the United Nations expert on business and human rights. We particularly welcome the final version of his guiding principles, which deals with this subject.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he go just a little further? Given the effect that legal protections could have on the lives of ordinary people in countries such as Peru, Indonesia, Mexico and even the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, where there have been cases of abuse, torture and even killings when citizens have protested against large-scale private sector projects, will the Government confirm that they are supporting Professor Ruggie’s recommendation that the UK Government explore additional legal protections for victims of corporate abuse in conflict zones?
Mr Bellingham
I had the chance to meet Professor John Ruggie the other day, and I am working hard to ensure that the guiding principles are incorporated and endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, as that would provide extra clout and credibility.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
13. What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the political situation in Afghanistan.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I last met Secretary Clinton on the eve of President Obama’s state visit. We had a productive discussion on a range of issues, including the political situation in Afghanistan.
Owen Smith
I am grateful for that answer. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether those discussions also touched on the prospect of British troops remaining in Afghanistan post-2014, and if so, how many and with what remit exactly?
Mr Hague
Yes, such matters were included in our talks, but they are also a matter of our public policy position. As we have said, British troops will not be engaged in a combat role after 2015 or in anything like the numbers that are involved today. We have set out our intentions in line with the prospects and aims for transition to Afghan security control throughout Afghanistan by 2014.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given that it is highly unusual to set a withdrawal date in the middle of a counter-insurgency campaign, has my right hon. Friend received any indication from the Americans that they are considering the retention of a long-term strategic base or bridgehead area in the region so that real pressure can be exerted on both sides to reach an appropriate settlement?
Mr Hague
The long-term relationship—after the insurgency and after the transition in 2014—between the United States and Afghanistan is subject to negotiation at the moment between those countries, so it is not possible to give a precise answer to my hon. Friend now, but it is possible to say that such matters are under discussion.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Last week, members of the Home Affairs Committee visited the border of Greece and Turkey and the detention centre at Filakio, where we were told that 50,000 Afghanis had crossed the border between Turkey and Greece last year. In his discussions with the Americans, will the Foreign Secretary talk about the mass migration—the illegal migration—of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis from Afghanistan into western Europe?
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given that the Taliban will not be beaten and that the situation does not seem to be getting any better, despite the surge, may I press on the Foreign Secretary again the need for the Americans to open meaningful, non-conditional talks with the Taliban, because the Americans need to realise that, as we proved in Northern Ireland, it is possible to talk and fight at the same time?
Mr Hague
Yes, I think that point is well understood. In her speech of 18 February, Secretary Clinton called for a political surge alongside the military surge. That is very much in line with our country’s approach, so that is of course the case. At the same time, another thing that is changing, for which my hon. Friend should give credit, is the huge expansion and intensive training of the Afghan national security forces. That bodes well for the longer term.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
14. What recent reports he has received on Syrian protests on the borders of Israel; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We are deeply concerned by reports that a number of protesters have been killed and others injured. We recognise Israel’s right to defend herself. Any response must be proportionate, avoiding lethal use of force unless absolutely necessary, and the right to protest should be respected. I call on all parties to do everything they can to protect the lives of civilians and to avoid provocative acts.
Mark Menzies
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but what does this incident tell us about wider foreign involvement in Syria and the Syrian Government’s handling of protest and unrest?
Mr Hague
I am not sure what this incident in itself tells us about international involvement in Syria. I certainly believe that Iran is engaged in giving direct support—both advice and technical equipment—to Syria in the suppression of the peaceful protest, which is an extraordinarily hypocritical position given Iran’s support for protests elsewhere in the Arab world. I cannot say that that is connected with this particular incident, but since the area on the other side of the Golan heights is under the direct control of the Syrian authorities, people can draw their own conclusions.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the recent incidents on the Syrian-Israeli border were organised by the Syrian Government in an attempt to distract attention from the brutal way in which they are dealing with their own internal rebellions?
Mr Hague
I do not want to add to what I said a moment ago about that. It is a remarkably convenient distraction from the point of view of the Syrian Government. The position requires both sides—Israel in its response to such provocations, and Syria in any role that it may play in such provocations—to exercise much greater restraint.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
On a point of fact, have there been any Syrian protests on the Israeli border? I thought that the protests were in the Golan heights, which, last time I looked, were Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Libya; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
When I went to Benghazi I was impressed by the progress being made, by the sense of optimism, and by the belief in a democratic future that I heard about from ordinary Libyans and the leaders of the national transitional council. The Gaddafi regime is isolated and on the defensive, and, through a combination of military, economic and diplomatic means, we are ramping up the pressure for a genuine political solution for the Libyan people.
Mr Jones
Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that further defections from the highest level of the Gaddafi regime, further loss of ground to the opposition forces, and the growing authority of the national transitional council all point to an inexorable squeeze on the regime?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend sums up the situation very well. All those are indeed increasing pressures on the regime. The high-level defectors included a number of generals and the head of the state-owned National Oil Corporation, and we have reason to believe that many others would defect if they could do so safely, or if their families would not be under threat if they did so. Certainly the morale of the regime is much lower than it was some weeks or months ago, and, as I saw myself, the morale and organisation of the national transitional council have improved considerably.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm once and for all that the purpose of Britain’s military, economic and political involvement in Libya is regime change? Will he also confirm that, for that reason, it has been impossible for any traction to be applied by the European Union, NATO or Britain to bring about an urgently needed political solution and a ceasefire to prevent any more lives from being lost, before the war gets worse?
Mr Hague
Our military role is defined by United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, and it is our implementation of that resolution that has saved thousands of lives. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an opponent of the resolution, but if we had not had it, far, far more people would have died than have done thus far in the situation in Libya. It is, additionally, true that we believe Colonel Gaddafi should go, but that is the belief of the vast majority of nations in the world—even many around Africa now, and even Russia at the G8 summit—and, judging from what I saw in Benghazi, it is the belief of a vast number of Libyans as well.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
16. What recent reports he has received on the use of violence against pro-democracy protesters by the Syrian Government; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Syrian Government continue to use unacceptable violence against pro-democracy protesters. Syrian security forces have launched an offensive against Jisr al-Shughour and neighbouring villages. There are reports of a military build-up in other towns in Syria, including, overnight, Deir ez-Zur in eastern Syria. There are credible reports that more than 1,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the protests. The violence is unacceptable, and it should stop.
Diana Johnson
Has there been any progress in giving the Red Cross access to civilians who have been attacked by the military in Syria?
Mr Hague
That is a good question. Sadly, the answer is no. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development discussed the matter directly with the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross a few days ago. One of the things that we have called on the Syrian Government to grant is humanitarian access, which remains a prime consideration in Syria. I will discuss tonight with the Turkish Foreign Minister what further work can be done with Turkey— Syria’s closest and, perhaps, most important neighbour in terms of diplomatic relationships—to try to persuade the Syrians to grant such access.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
17. What recent assessment he has made of the state of bilateral relations with Japan; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The United Kingdom has a strong and broad bilateral relationship with Japan, encompassing long-standing commercial, cultural and official ties. These relations have been enhanced in recent months with the visit of the Japanese Foreign Minister to London and the Business Secretary to Japan. I also plan to visit Japan next month to develop the relationship further.
Tom Blenkinsop
I thank the Minister for his response. Will he update the House on what the UK Government are doing to support British businesses that work in, and with, Japan, and particularly to ensure that supply chains operate effectively?
Mr Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valuable point, because there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in Britain whose jobs depend either directly or indirectly on direct inward investment from Japan, and about 17,000 Britons work in Japan. We therefore constantly turn our attention to how we can deepen the commercial relations between our two countries, which are, after all, the third and sixth biggest economies in the world, so this is crucial to the prosperity of our country.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In addition to the many situations we have already discussed, I am deeply concerned by the worsening situation in Sudan. We call upon all parties to cease hostilities and return to negotiations, and to allow full humanitarian access. We are working very closely with the African Union to support the peace negotiations currently under way in Addis Ababa.
Stephen Hammond
Further to those remarks, when does the Secretary of State expect those negotiations to resume, and what further action do the British Government intend to take in this regard?
Mr Hague
Our special representative is intimately involved in those negotiations. A few days ago, I spoke to former President Mbeki, who is leading the conduct of the negotiations. In recent days, I have also spoken to President Kiir on the south Sudanese side and the Foreign Minister in Khartoum for the north, so we are highly active in trying to push for a solution, and that includes working with Ethiopia. It is not possible to say when the negotiations will resume, but real progress needs to be shown before 9 July, which is, of course, the date for the independence of South Sudan.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The whole House will be aware of reports that more than 5,000 Syrian refugees have registered with officials on the Syria-Turkey border and that many more are poised to flee Syria. I welcome the statement the Foreign Secretary has just made, informing the House that this evening he will be speaking to the newly elected Turkish Government about the situation in Syria. How hard will he, as a friend of Turkey and its EU membership aspiration, be pressing for that country to step up its regional leadership role, particularly in relation to Syria?
Mr Hague
I will, of course, be doing that, and the Prime Minister has already spoken to the Prime Minister of Turkey since the Turkish election results on Sunday night. Turkey plays a strong leading regional role, and, despite its own election campaign, has made many efforts in recent weeks to persuade the Assad regime to adopt a different course. I am sure it will want to redouble its efforts now, given the worsening situation on its border, and I will strongly encourage it to do so, as well as take its advice about the wider international handling of Syria.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
T5. The whole House will share the concern felt by many British nationals at the spread of violence and unrest in the Sudan. Will the Minister therefore update us on the current situation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about what is happening in Abyei, South Kordofan and Unity state. To add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are keen to see action at P5—the permanent five—level and for the issue to be raised at the United Nations Security Council in the very near future, hopefully this week.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
T2. My constituent, Mr Jamal Teer, was evacuated from Libya as part of the British evacuation, along with his pregnant Libyan wife. They have now received a bill from the NHS for £1,255 for the birth of their child. Is this any way to treat a family fleeing Gaddafi, and will the Minister undertake to look into the matter with his ministerial colleagues here and in Wales?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I am clearly unaware of the precise circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, although of course I will happily look into this matter. The case might be to do with regular UK status, and would therefore be hit by certain benefit regulations about being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. The decision might have more to do with that than anything else, but at this stage I would be very happy to look at the circumstances and see what can be done.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T6. What measures will we put in place to support the French at the G20 on food security? It is an issue that links foreign policy with prices in supermarkets for my constituents.
Mr Bellingham
We welcome the French presidency’s aim to tackle high food prices through the G20. Since 2010, prices have pushed 44 million more people across the world into poverty and they are being driven fundamentally by a shortage of supply and increased demand. I urge countries such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, which used to be net exporters of food, to start producing food again, not least for their own people.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. The Secretary of State will be aware of the case of my constituent, David Petrie, who is one of a number of British citizens who, for more than 20 years, have been trying to secure equal pay under their European rights in Italy. I understand that the Minister for Europe will meet his Italian counterparts in a few days’ time. Will he take up this case again and try to bring the sorry saga to a conclusion?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Yes, I intend to visit Italy in the next week and this is certainly one of the items that will be on the agenda for discussion.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
T7. Will the Foreign Secretary please confirm the UK’s policy on the use of Predator drones and, in particular, its legal and moral basis?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
T4. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in welcoming the release of the Iranian trade unionist, Mansour Osanloo? Despite this encouraging step, Iranian trade unionists Reza Shahabi and Ebrahim Madadi are still in jail in Iran simply for belonging to a trade union. Will the Foreign Secretary agree to meet me and other interested MPs on this issue?
Mr Hague
This is another example of the appalling human rights record of the Iranian Government. Either I or one of my ministerial colleagues will meet the hon. Gentleman, if that is acceptable to him. Iran’s human rights record has deteriorated steadily, even throughout this year. There are more journalists in prison in Iran than in any other country. The two leading opposition leaders have been detained. It is an appalling record of human rights abuse and the hon. Gentleman gives just another one of those instances.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
T8. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the worrying situation in South Sudan and the considerable increase in violence in the disputed states of Abyei, South Kordofan and Unity, which are of course the subject of talks today in Addis Ababa between the Presidents of north and South Sudan, the former President of South Africa and the President of Ethiopia?
Mr Bellingham
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is why we have called on all parties to end this violence, to respect their humanitarian responsibilities and to allow access to urgently needed international assistance. It is essential they take action and do so immediately.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the legislation passed in March in Egypt restricting the right to strike and criminalising protests. Will the Government raise concerns with the Egyptian authorities about restrictions on the right to protest and to take part in industrial action?
Mr Hague
This is the kind of issue that I discussed with Egyptian authorities on my visit to Cairo last week. Clearly, we want to see a much more normal state of affairs in Egypt. We hope that the onset of elections and greater political freedom will bring that about. People having basic rights, including those to which the hon. Lady refers, is an important part of that.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Europe stands united in condemnation of the atrocities perpetrated by the Syrian regime, but progress in getting the Security Council similarly to declare condemnation of these abuses is frustratingly slow. The support of countries such as Brazil, South Africa and India could reduce the likelihood of a Russian or Chinese veto, which highlights the importance of these emerging powers. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen further the ties between Britain and the emerging powers, in terms not just of trade but of shared interests, such as human rights?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the wider conclusion about the need to elevate these bilateral relationships. A good example of that is the UK-South Africa bilateral forum that we held here in London on Thursday, which included four South African Ministers discussing with their counterparts from the UK a whole range of issues and emphasising in particular the shared values between our country and a country such as South Africa. We will take forward that work energetically in the years ahead.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
T9. Last week, many of us met constituents who took the time to have tea with us and discuss overseas aid. Many Members of Parliament have been concerned for many years about aid in return for trade. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his Department would never get involved in negotiations about overseas aid, in line with the commitment to give 0.7% of gross domestic product in overseas aid, in return for the privatisation of public utilities or contracts for British companies?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman might want to ask this question at International Development questions to get the authoritative answer. As he knows, across the House we are in favour of giving development aid on its merits and not for the kind of deals or arrangements that he talks about.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The recent elections in Nigeria exceeded international expectations as a fair process and a true democratic choice. Will the Minister encourage the Nigerian Government to extend that in the business sphere by tackling corruption and supporting a pro-entrepreneurship agenda, as that is the best way to secure a true and economic future for the Nigerian people?
Mr Bellingham
I had the opportunity of representing Her Majesty’s Government at President Goodluck Jonathan’s inauguration in Abuja last month and I was very struck by his determination to root out corruption, to lift the burdens on business and, above all else, to put in place a road map for oil and power sector reform.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Can the Minister update the House on the progress that has been made in getting Palestinian leaders, including in Hamas, to recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist?
Mr Hague
Clearly, at the moment Hamas does not recognise the right of Israel to exist. Hamas will remain a proscribed organisation from our point of view until it commits itself to a negotiated solution and a peaceful approach. The criteria that we apply to the new Palestinian Authority are those that I set out to the House earlier and last week, including accepting the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
What discussions were had with President Obama when he was here concerning recent US calls for negotiation on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Was he persuaded to support democracy in the south Atlantic as well as in the middle east?
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Ahead of Channel 4’s screening this evening of “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”, what recent assessment have the Secretary of State or Ministers made of the credibility of the Sri Lankan Government’s lessons learned and reconciliation commission and its new deadline to report in November this year?[Official Report, 16 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 9-10MC.]
Alistair Burt
I spoke this morning to the Foreign Secretary of Sri Lanka, who had the opportunity to update me on some positive measures that were being taken in relation to Jaffna. I was in a position to remind him of the importance of having a credible and independent investigation of the various allegations that are now very much on the table from the United Nations and others. It is essential that those are dealt with. We note the new timetable for the LLRC to report in November, but, however long this takes, it will not be possible for Sri Lanka to move forward unless it has addressed some of the horrors of the past.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
Returning to the western Balkans, the Foreign Secretary will be aware of the large and growing Serbian expatriate community in London. What positive message can we send to them about the prospect of visa requirements being eased in future and about how and when Serbia could eventually join the European Union?
Mr Lidington
As my hon. Friend knows, British visa requirements are a matter for the Home Office, and Serbia’s wish for visa liberalisation will be considered by Home Office Ministers when they next review the visa waiver scheme. I think that the message to Serbia is that this country strongly supports its ambitions to join the European Union and wishes President Tadic every success in taking through the very demanding programme of reforms that will be needed for it to meet the conditions for entry.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware of why his German counterpart went to Benghazi and said that the German Government were now recognising the transitional Government there? Does that represent a welcome shift in Germany’s position, given that the Germans abstained on Security Council resolution 1973 and opposed NATO action?
Mr Hague
Actually, Germany has been supportive of what we have been doing. Although, as the hon. Gentleman points out, Germany abstained in the Security Council in March, it has since then been part of the contact group, and the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, attended the London conference that I hosted at the end of March. Although Germany has not made a military contribution to the NATO effort, it has been helpful in many other ways and given political support to what we are doing. What the hon. Gentleman points out is further evidence of that consistent approach.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
In far too many parts of the world, freedom of religion and belief either does not exist or is being severely undermined. Will my right hon. Friend establish a commission on freedom of religious belief to advise the Government on these important issues?
Mr Hague
I have already established a human rights advisory group, and at its second meeting last week we had a specific discussion about that very subject—freedom of religion and freedom of worship. The Foreign Office paper for that discussion will be discussed at a Wilton Park conference to be held shortly. This is a vitally important subject in which the Foreign Office and many other people are now engaged.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said that he had a conversation with the Crown Prince of Bahrain and that he is in favour of dialogue. It is all very well saying that, both here and in the United States, but at the same time the Government in Bahrain are crushing dissidents and locking up the people who should be part of the dialogue.
Mr Hague
The right hon. Lady makes a very powerful point. The point I make in return is that, yes, we should be highly critical and condemn human rights abuses in Bahrain, but it is very important for us to play what role we can in encouraging the most constructive and moderate figures on both sides of the sectarian divide in Bahrain to make a success of the national dialogue that is now meant to resume on 1 July. The Crown Prince made a sincere effort in that dialogue at the beginning of the crisis, and I should like to see the moderate members of the regime do so again.
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, interest has exceeded the time available and we must now move on.
Petition
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Will Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? There is more business for the House to deal with.
Diana Johnson
I beg leave to present a petition signed by Kerry Stansfield and Abigail Flavell, both of whom are constituents of mine, and by more than 440 other people who oppose the closure of the McMillan day care nursery, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted and which is managed by Andrew Shimmin, the excellent head teacher of McMillan children’s centre and nursery school.
The petition
Declares that statements made by Ministers of the Crown to the effect that Sure Start children’s centres across the country have sufficient funding to continue providing the level of service that they have attained in recent years, appear to be contradicted by the reductions that are happening across the country; further declares that the petitioners believe that the resulting reduction in the affordable childcare in children’s centres will discourage some parents from seeking employment and will prove damaging for the long-term development of children.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ministers to review the funding arrangements for children’s centres to ensure that the valuable investment in the future that they represent is protected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000929]
Waste Review
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the waste review in England.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
Apropos of the written ministerial statement listed on today’s Order Paper, I have laid in the Library copies of the waste review, to which we received 1,800 responses.
The Government’s waste review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England. We want to make it easier for people to do the right thing and recycle more, so today’s review is good news for householders, businesses, councils and industry.
We will make it easier for people to recycle, and we will tackle measures introduced by the previous Government that encouraged councils specifically to cut the scope of collections. We will remove the criminal sanctions applying to householders, so that households are not menaced for simple mistakes. We also propose to introduce a “harm to local amenity” test to tackle “neighbours from hell”, ensuring that enforcement is targeted at those who deliberately and persistently break the law.
The review is good for business. We are abolishing landfill allowance trading schemes, because they create a perverse incentive for local authorities not to collect waste from business. We are giving them certainty about landfill tax; the escalator will move annually by £8 to a floor of £80 by 2015. We are announcing a voluntary agreement so that small and medium-sized enterprises can better access recycling services. We are providing business with a clear signal that energy from waste will be a key technology in the future.
Today’s review is good for the environment. We will start consulting on restricting wood waste from landfill and go on to review the feasibility of bans on metal, textiles and biodegradable waste. We shall also consult on increased recycling targets, to 2017, for packaging waste.
The review changes the way we look at waste by unlocking the economic opportunities for transforming waste into resource. We have set out a clear direction for cutting landfill, preventing waste and increasing recycling.
Mr Reed
That is barely credible, and it is no wonder that DEFRA is rapidly being seen as the equivalent of the mad woman in the attic. As usual, today’s announcement was spun to the media before it was laid before Parliament. Among the spin was yet another broken promise, this time on weekly bin collections. The Secretaries of State for both DEFRA and Communities and Local Government spent their time in opposition promising the public that weekly bin collections would be introduced, but today we discover that this is not the case. Before the election the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said, to much acclaim from his own party:
“It’s a basic right”—
I emphasise the words “a basic right”—
“for every English man and woman to be able to put the remnants of their chicken tikka masala in their bin without having to wait a fortnight for it to be collected.”
Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain why the Government’s position has changed. Is she happy that the waste review contains no recycling targets at all for England, and that the UK’s recycling commitments under the European Union’s waste framework directive will therefore be met on the backs of recycling targets in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland? Is that right?
Will the right hon. Lady also tell us why she chose, on becoming Secretary of State, to abandon the Labour Government’s consultation on stopping wood going to landfill, only to waste a year and today reintroduce it? Instead of taking the chance to boost recycling, reduce waste and create jobs, the Government have abandoned Labour’s target of moving to a zero waste Britain. Under the previous Government recycling increased from 10% to 40%, but there is still more to do.
Today’s announcement fails to establish a framework for the green growth that the country needs and through which thousands of green jobs could be created. The waste review is a huge missed opportunity that looks set to do little for our environment or our economy. The Secretary of State should explain why it took so long and looks set to deliver so little.
Mrs Spelman
First, I wish to make it clear that the written ministerial statement was available to Members before I spoke to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management. Of course the Government will work with all parties to increase recycling rates, but the recycling target is a European one of reducing waste by 50% by 2020. I am confident that we are on target. This is a devolved matter for the other nations.
It is a bit rich, coming from the Opposition, who had 13 years to get to grips with landfill. They could, if they had so wanted, have got on and banned wood, materials, textiles and metals. I fear that the Opposition are still in denial about the dreadful economic legacy that they left to the Government.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about green growth. I have just spoken to the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and shared with them the fact that we estimate that there will be a growth of 3% or 4% per annum in green jobs through the waste industry because of the positive framework that we are setting out to help people do what they want to do—the right thing: waste less and recycle more.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State laid before the House today. May I share with her the fact that the district council serving my part of north Yorkshire will be well on its way to meeting the target that she has set. There will obviously be some perverse implications from abolishing LATS—landfill allowance trading schemes—because rural communities have done very well out of that.
I welcome the fact that anaerobic digestion is to be increased. It deals primarily with waste food. What are the implications for other energy from waste facilities in the next few years?
Mrs Spelman
I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her warm welcome for the Government’s waste review and her recognition that LATS fulfilled a role whose impact the landfill tax has largely overtaken in helping us reduce the amount that goes to landfill.
At the same time as publishing the waste review, I have published the Government’s anaerobic digestion strategy. We see the future for anaerobic digestion as very important. The Select Committee Chairman makes an important point. It is not just food waste that can be used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion, and we must be careful that food crops are not caught as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. We should be using waste.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I suspect that the Communities Secretary eats rather more chicken tikka masala than the right hon. Lady. Does she agree that the chicken tikka masala remains would be much better put into a food collection than into a black sack? Will she make some progress on further recycling? What does she think of the Friends of the Earth target, which I very much support, of halving black sack waste by 2020?
Mrs Spelman
I have to feed teenagers who are rather partial to chicken tikka masala, and there is very little left at the end of the day. The Government will be working with local councils to increase the frequency and quality of rubbish collections and make it easier to recycle, to tackle measures that encourage councils specifically to cut the scope of collections and to support them where they wish to provide a weekly collection for smelly waste.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome the publication of the review today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to address the challenge of the regularity of waste collection, we need particularly to look at pages 58 onwards of the report in relation to the management of food waste? What will the Government be doing to reassure people that we will meet ambitious targets to reduce food waste going into the chain?
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask colleagues to ask short questions. There is a lot of interest and there is little time.
Mrs Spelman
I thank my hon. Friend for a question that obviously shows that he has read the review. He will know that it contains the startling fact that we waste £12 billion-worth of food a year, which we can ill afford to do. We need to work with all involved in food production and packaging to try to minimise the amount of food waste.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Why is the right hon. Lady sparing the blushes of the Communities Secretary? Was it not always nonsense for a Government to pay lip service to localism but then to try to force local authorities to reintroduce weekly collections? Will she confirm that most of the local authorities that have alternate weekly collections are Conservative-controlled, and that there is a strong correlation between high recycling rates and alternate weekly collections?
Mrs Spelman
It is important to encourage councils to respond to what local people want and need. That is the very essence of localism. Therefore, we will proceed with a new commitment from councils to redouble their efforts to listen and respond to the wishes of their residents on refuse collection.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unacceptable to have rotting food waste hanging around for up to two weeks in bins, and will she tell councils that she hopes that they will have at least weekly collections so that we do not have the danger and risk of that situation?
Mrs Spelman
I said in response to an earlier question from the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that we believe that it is important to support local authorities that want to provide a weekly collection of the smelly part of the waste, and DEFRA will make available £10 million to assist them in that.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is obviously quite adept at U-turns, but why is she so selfishly hanging on to this U-turn when she could have let the Communities Secretary make his very own U-turn today?
Mrs Spelman
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are a coalition Government, a Government of two parties, and he might like to read the coalition agreement commitment that said the Government will
“work towards a ‘zero waste’ economy, encourage councils to pay people to recycle, and work to reduce littering.”
There will also be measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion as set out in our review today.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for her flexibility, in contrast to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). My local authority works with the private sector and provides a two-weekly service, but a weekly food waste service. The key factor has been the flexibility of a good contract with the private sector. Does she agree that those local authorities that have been dogmatic about not using competitive tendering should think again?
Mrs Spelman
I agree with my hon. Friend that waste services are a matter for local authorities and that they should develop fit-for-purpose local solutions. However, the Government believe that better procurement and joint working can improve the efficiency of collections while improving the front-line service for the public in an affordable and practical manner.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Five years ago the Conservatives in Newcastle-under-Lyme made exactly the same promise on weekly collections and then promptly broke it. They then spent £2.5 million with their Liberal Democrat friends on a complicated recycling scheme with 10 different bins, boxes and bags, which has turned Newcastle into a curiosity. They now cannot afford to reinstate weekly collections—
Paul Farrelly
Is the Government’s pickle over this not reflective of—[Interruption.]
Mrs Spelman
The most important message is that the Government are trying to make it easier for people to do the right thing. Whether they are at home dealing with household refuse, at work or on the go, we need to make it easier for them to waste less and recycle more.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that developing technologies can turn waste into biofuels and chemicals? Will she encourage such plans and support those currently being put forward by INEOS at Seal Sands on Teesside?
Mrs Spelman
I am not aware of the specific technology being developed by INEOS, but I would be delighted to learn more about it. It is important that we embrace all new technology. I have today mentioned anaerobic digestion, for which I have set out a strategy, but new technologies are coming on stream all the time to turn waste into resources and we should explore them all.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is all very well hiding behind the language of local choice, but the Government promised that they would bring back weekly bin collections across the country. Will the Secretary of State apologise to families who have been led up the garden path by what she said?
Mrs Spelman
I have made it clear that the coalition consists of two parties that struck an agreement, including on provisions relating to waste, which we are fulfilling today. I have set that out very clearly.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
In stark contrast to the strong-arm tactics of the previous Government, in what ways has the Secretary of State encouraged incentives to drive up recycling rates?
Mrs Spelman
Absolutely. This is such an important point. The previous Government, with their punitive approach, lost public confidence by punishing a little old lady for making the genuine mistake of putting the wrong waste in a recycling container. They lost the plot. Today, we are restoring a proportionate response to the penalties that should apply and are going after the real waste criminals.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady is acting as a human shield for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—I have heard that no Liberal Democrat is available to do the job. One of the key issues at local level that encourages cleaner communities is the proper containerisation of waste, particularly trade and household waste. Will she confirm that the fines that councils can impose on businesses will be retained, and what does she suggest to a council—
Mrs Spelman
There were perverse incentives in the regime in place under the previous Government. As I have mentioned, LATS actually deterred the collection and recycling of business waste, so their abolition, which was a coalition agreement commitment, will re-incentivise councils to collect and recycle more business waste. We want to help to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, to benefit.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
In contrast to Cumbria’s recycling rate of 37%, Suffolk’s is more than 60%, no doubt helped by regular weekly food waste collections. We are also giving planning permission for anaerobic digestion. Will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that the Department of Energy and Climate Change gets through those issues so that more such facilities are available across the country?
Mrs Spelman
It is right to applaud householders and the way they have actively become involved in trying to increase recycling rates. That is what people want to do, and the Government’s job is to make it easier for them, including through food waste collections if that is what local people want. I have already said that we will support authorities that do that and I will work with DECC to make that easier.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the cuts mean that councils cannot collect rubbish once a week, what chance is there for the NHS or other services?
Mrs Spelman
I am not the Secretary of State for Health, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, just like everyone in his party, is still in a complete state of denial about the mess in which it left the nation’s finances.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome the fact that small businesses can now have their collected waste count towards recycling targets. Will my right hon. Friend therefore lobby her friends in DECC in the hope of introducing a renewables obligation certificate for recycled cooking oil that could be used as a biofuel?
Mrs Spelman
I will of course discuss that possibility with DECC. The DCLG, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills work together very closely, and that is helpful in drawing together this review.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I have the largest incinerator in the country in my constituency, and it reaches the end of its useful life in 2014. The replacement anaerobic digestion plant was cancelled because private finance initiative credits were withdrawn. What reassurance can you give to my constituents that your strategy will lead to the ending of incineration in my constituency?
Mr Speaker
Order. I have no strategy on this matter, but the Secretary of State might.
Mrs Spelman
I have made it clear that energy from waste has its place in turning waste into resources. I have also made it crystal clear today that the Government are committed to helping local authorities that want to use anaerobic digestion, and we will make funds available to achieve that.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State congratulate Malvern Hills district council and Wychavon district council? The former kept weekly bin collections, the latter moved to two-weekly bin collections, and both were recently soundly re-elected as Conservative councils for a further four-year term.
Mrs Spelman
That demonstrates that good local authorities that respond to the wishes and needs of their residents and supply refuse collection services of good quality and sufficient frequency receive their reward through the ballot box and are returned to office.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
In the Secretary of State’s opinion, does the Prime Minister require a weekly bin collection to dump rubbish policies such as the NHS reforms?
Mrs Spelman
I do not think that that is a proper question about the waste review. The Prime Minister enjoys a very good refuse collection service in his Oxfordshire constituency.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State wants to meet her waste targets and tackle recycling, why has the availability of feed-in tariffs been reduced?
Mrs Spelman
That is more accurately a question for DECC, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his question to a Minister from that Department.
NHS Future Forum
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
With permission, Mr Speaker, and further to the written ministerial statement I laid in the House earlier today, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s response to the NHS Future Forum.
We established the independent Future Forum on 6 April, under the chairmanship of Professor Steve Field, to look again at our proposals on the modernisation of the NHS. Yesterday it published its report and recommendations. I would like to thank Professor Field and his 44 senior colleagues from across health and social care who have worked so hard these past eight weeks. I would also like to thank more than 8,000 members of the public, health professionals and representatives from some 250 stakeholder organisations who attended some 250 events across the country—and also the tens of thousands who wrote to us with their views. I want also, if I may, to thank the many officials in my Department who supported this unprecedented engagement across the country.
Two months ago, I said to the House that we would pause, listen, reflect and improve our plans. Our commitment to engage and improve the Bill has been genuine and has been rewarded with an independent, expert and immensely valuable report and recommendations from the Future Forum. I can tell the House that we will ask the forum to continue its work, including looking at the implementation of proposals in areas including education and training and public health.
In his report, Professor Field set out clearly that the NHS must change if it is to respond to challenges and realise the opportunities of more preventive, personalised, integrated and effective care. The forum said that the principles of NHS modernisation were supported: to put patients at the heart of care, to focus on quality and outcomes for patients, and to give clinicians a central role in commissioning health services.
The forum set out to make proposals for improving the Bill and its implementation, to provide reassurance and safeguards, and to recommend changes where needed. As Professor Field put it, it did this not to resist change, but to embrace it, guided by the values of the NHS and a relentless focus on the provision of high-quality care and improved outcomes for patients.
We accept the NHS Future Forum’s core recommendations. We will make significant changes to implement those recommendations and, in some cases, offer further specific assurances that have been sought. There are many proposed changes and we will publish a more detailed response shortly. However, I would now like to tell the House some of the main changes that we will make.
The Bill will make it clear that the Secretary of State has a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, as in the National Health Service Act 1946, and is accountable for securing its provision and for the oversight of the national bodies charged with doing so. We will also place duties on the Secretary of State to maintain a system for professional education and training within the health service, and to promote research.
One of the most vital areas of modernisation to get right is the commissioning of local services. For commissioning to be effective, the process of designing services must draw on a wide range of people, including clinicians, patients and patient groups, carers and charities. We will amend the Bill so that the governing body of every clinical commissioning group will have at least two lay members, one focusing on public and patient involvement and the other overseeing key elements of governance, such as audit, remuneration and managing conflicts of interest. Although we should not centrally prescribe the make-up of the governing body, it will have to include at least one registered nurse and one secondary care specialist doctor. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, neither should be employed by a local health provider. The governing bodies will meet in public and publish their minutes. The clinical commissioning groups will also have to publish details of all their contracts with health service providers.
To support commissioning, the independent NHS commissioning board will host “clinical senates”, which will provide expert advice on the shape and fit of health care across wider areas of the country. Existing clinical networks will be developed and will advise on how specific services, such as those for cancer, stroke or mental health, can be better designed to provide integrated and effective care.
Building on that multi-professional involvement, clinical commissioning groups will have a duty to promote integrated health and social care with regard to the needs of their users. To encourage greater integration between social care and public health, the boundaries of clinical commissioning groups should not normally cross those of local authorities. If they do, clinical commissioning groups will need to demonstrate to the NHS commissioning board a clear rationale for doing so in terms of benefit to patients.
I have always said that I want there to be “no decision about me, without me” for patients when it comes to their care. The same—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us hear the Secretary of State’s statement with some courtesy.
Mr Lansley
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
We will further clarify the duties on the NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups to involve patients, carers and the public. Commissioning groups will have to consult the public on their annual commissioning plans and involve them in any changes that would affect patient services.
One of the main ways in which patients will influence the NHS is through the exercise of informed choice. We will amend the Bill to strengthen and emphasise the commissioners’ duty to promote patient choice. The choice of any qualified provider will be limited to areas where there is a national or local tariff, ensuring that competition is based solely on quality. The tariff development, alongside a best-value approach to tendered services, will safeguard against cherry-picking.
Monitor’s core duty will be to protect and promote the interests of patients. We will remove its duty to promote competition as though that were an end in itself. Instead, it will be under a duty to support services integrated around the needs of patients and the continuous improvement of quality.
It will have a power to tackle specific abuses and restrictions of competition that act against patients’ interests. Competition will be a means by which NHS commissioners are able to improve the quality of services for patients.
We will keep the existing competition rules introduced by the last Government—the so-styled “Principles and rules for co-operation and competition”—and give them a firmer statutory underpinning. The co-operation and competition panel, which oversees the rules, will transfer to Monitor and retain its distinct identity. We will also amend the Bill to make it illegal for the Secretary of State or the regulator to encourage the growth of one type of provider over another. There must be a level playing field.
We will strengthen the role of health and wellbeing boards in local councils, ensuring that they are involved throughout the commissioning process and that local health service plans are aligned with local health and wellbeing strategies.
In a number of areas, we will make the timetable for change more flexible to ensure that no one is forced to take on new responsibilities before they are ready, while enabling those who are ready to make faster progress. If any of the remaining NHS trusts cannot meet foundation trust criteria by 2014, we will support them to achieve that subsequently. However, all NHS trusts will be required to become foundation trusts as soon as clinically feasible, with an agreed deadline for each trust.
We will ensure a safe and robust transition for the education and training system. It is vital that change is introduced carefully and without creating instability, and we will take the time to get it right, as the Future Forum has recommended. During the transition, we will retain postgraduate deaneries and give them a clear home within the NHS family.
The extension of “any qualified provider” will be phased carefully to reflect and support the availability of choice for patients. Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts will cease to exist in April 2013. By that date, all GP practices will be members of either a fully or partly authorised clinical commissioning group, or one in shadow form. There will be no two-tier NHS.
However, individual clinical commissioning groups will not be authorised to take over any part of the commissioning budget until they are ready to do so. Individual GPs need not take managerial responsibility in a commissioning group if they do not want to, and April 2013 will not be a “drop dead” date for the new commissioners. Where a clinical commissioning group is not able to take on some or all aspects of commissioning, the local arms of the NHS commissioning board will commission on its behalf. Those groups that are keen to press on will not in any way be prevented from becoming fully authorised as soon as they are ready.
I told the House on 4 April that we would secure proper scrutiny for any changes that we made to the Bill. In order to do that without trespassing on the House’s time to review the Bill as a whole on Report, we will ask the House to recommit the relevant parts of the Bill to a Public Bill Committee shortly.
Through the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum and our response, we have demonstrated our willingness to listen and to improve our plans; to make big changes, and not to abandon the principles of reform, which the forum itself said were supported across the service. However, we are clear that the NHS is too important, and modernisation too vital, for us not to be sure of getting the legislation right. The service can adapt and improve as we modernise and change, but the legislation cannot be continuously changed. On the contrary, it must be an enduring structure and statement, so it must reflect our commitment to the NHS constitution and values and incorporate the safeguards and accountabilities that we require. It must protect and enhance patients’ rights and services, and it must be crystal clear about the duties and priorities that we will expect of all NHS bodies and local government in the future.
Professor Field’s report says that it is time for the pause to end. Strengthened by the forum’s report and recommendations, we will now ask the House to re-engage with delivering the changes and modernisation that the NHS needs. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement, although I learned more from the Prime Minister’s press conference than from the statement.
Humiliating! The Health Secretary has had health policy taken out of his hands. He spent the last nine months telling anyone who criticised the Government’s health plans that they were wrong, and that they did not understand. Today, he admits that he is wrong. How can he argue for this latest blueprint for the biggest reorganisation in NHS history with any credibility or integrity? The man who messed up so badly last year is telling us how he will mess up next year too.
Why no apology to NHS patients and staff for the wasted year of chaos, confusion and incompetence? Why no apology for breaking the coalition agreement to stop top-down reorganisations? Why no apology for patients, who are already beginning to see the NHS go backwards again because of this reorganisation? More than one in 10 people now waits 18 weeks for operations, three times the number of patients wait more than six weeks for tests, and casualty waits are at a six-year high.
This is the first Prime Minister who has been forced to ask 45 experts for a report on how to protect the NHS from his own Government’s policies. Now he is reorganising his reorganisation. The Future Forum report yesterday was a demolition job on the Government’s misjudgments and mishandling of the health service. Why is he wasting £800 million on redundancy payments when some of the same people will be re-hired to do the same job? Why is he holding back £2 billion promised for patient care when it could fund 55,000 nurses? Why is he ploughing on with the Health and Social Care Bill when what he announced today could largely be done without legislation, and certainly without the risk and cost of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history?
This is a political fix, not a proper plan for improving care for patients, or for a better or more efficient NHS that can meet the big challenges that it must face for the future. Make no mistake, today’s plans will mean that the NHS is mired in more complex bureaucracy, more confusion and more wasted cost in the years to come. In the battle of spin, with all parts of the divided Government claiming a win, the big losers will be NHS patients. The Opposition and the public will judge the Government on what they do, not on what they say.
I lost track of the bureaucracy that the Health Secretary announced in his statement. Will he admit that this reorganisation creates five new national quangos, set to spend tens of billions of pounds? Will he admit that this reorganisation replaces one local body—the primary care trust—with at least five others, all of which will play a part in commissioning? Will he admit that the plans still cut hospitals loose from the NHS, with no limits on treating private patients while NHS patients wait longer, and no support from the NHS if they run into financial trouble? Will he admit that hospitals will no longer have the protection as a public service from the full force of competition law?
What was a very bad Bill will still be a bad Bill. This House should be allowed to do its proper democratic job, as the only elected House, and scrutinise in full in Committee the whole Bill. At its heart, the Bill will still be the Tory long-term plan to see the NHS set up as a full-scale market, and the NHS broken up as a national public service, so that patients increasingly see the services on which they depend subject to the lottery of where they live.
The public have rumbled the Prime Minister. They know that they cannot trust him with the NHS. Fewer than one in four now trusts him to keep his NHS promises, and more than half believe that the Conservative party’s plans for the NHS are just a way to privatise the health service. Today, the Government have recycled their plans for the NHS when they should have been scrapped. People are right to conclude that they cannot trust the Tories with our NHS.
Mr Lansley
Well, I was hoping that, having got past the abuse, the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he agreed with the NHS Future Forum, but he did not even mention it. He welcomed the listening and engagement exercise that we announced—he said it was the right thing and that it would be good government to do it—but then when an independent group of experts reports and makes recommendations, he ignores it and says he will oppose the Bill regardless. He did not listen to what people in the NHS were saying. I think it was shameful how he dismissed everything that has happened over the past year as though it did not matter at all—a year in which the coalition Government said we would increase resources to the NHS. We have done that and are committing to investing an extra £11.5 billion in the NHS over the next four years. That is money that, as we will continue to remind the British public, the Labour party told us we should not give to the NHS.
In the past year, the coalition Government and the NHS across the country have implemented a cancer drugs fund from which 2,500 more patients have benefited, and in the past four months, we have cut the number of breaches of the single-sex rule by three quarters, and the number of hospital infections by 22% and C. difficile infections by 15%. Some 750,000 more people are accessing dentistry, and waiting times for people going into hospital are down compared with March 2010. We said that we would reduce management costs, and we will do so, and we have taken 3,800 managers out of the NHS since the election, while the number of doctors has gone up. Six months ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that he supported the reform principles in the Bill. All he said today was sheer opportunism, but it will come back to haunt him, because the NHS will benefit from the changes we are proposing today. It will take greater ownership of its own service; patients will be empowered; and clinicians across the service will be empowered and will deliver better outcomes for patients, and when that happens, we will be able to say, “The Labour party would have denied the NHS the resources and the freedom and responsibility to deliver those better outcomes.”
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Is not the key challenge facing the national health service today the need to reverse a decade of declining productivity bequeathed to us by the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement today provides the basis for us to do that based on the evolution of effective commissioning engaging the entire clinical community, which will address the fragmentation of service and progress the integration of service around the needs of individual patients?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is precisely that process of engaging clinicians, who will come together to design services around the needs of patients in a way that delivers not just improving productivity, but improving quality of services for patients, that is at the heart of the shift from primary care trusts and strategic health authorities. Let’s face it: the Labour party spent a decade presiding over declining productivity, while the costs of bureaucracy and management in the NHS doubled. We will empower people in the NHS to deliver improving services and reduce bureaucracy. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition Front-Bench team should not be yelling at the Secretary of State when he is answering. [Interruption.] Order. On both sides of the House, right hon. and hon. Members, whatever the passions they feel, need to simmer down just a little. A fine example of that calm and stoicism can now be provided by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson).
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that forcing the national health service to start implementing his changes before the law had been changed has resulted in vast expense to the NHS, in chaos to services and in the diversion of NHS staff from the treatment of patients? Does he also recognise that just cobbling together a few amendments to the Bill will not make things better but worse? Will he not recognise—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to finish his sentence. We must press on.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will have the question finished. I do not require any help from any Member.
Frank Dobson
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that pretending to produce a collaborative silk purse from a competitive pig’s ear will not work?
Mr Lansley
It is slightly confusing, because the right hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was just telling us—erroneously—that we could have done this without legislation anyway, but now the right hon. Gentleman is accusing us of proceeding without legislation. It is not true: we are doing things in the NHS by way of changes that are absolutely essential in any case. I have to tell him and the House that sustaining the structure that we inherited from the Labour party, with all the strategic health authorities and all the primary care trusts—this vast bureaucracy— could never have happened. We had to take out administration costs in the service, and empower clinicians and patients, and we are doing it now regardless of whether the legislation has made progress.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I welcome the statement and the change. I have a list here. The Government’s response has satisfied 70% of the demands for change on that list, but it is seemingly not enough—nor can it be enough—because ironically, it is the list of amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee. Why does the Secretary of State think that it is so hard to build consensus? Given that in many cases the amendments are ones that Labour has asked for, why is the Labour party being so pointlessly churlish?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are many things that are beyond many of us to understand. One of them is the Labour party and the way it approaches policy. As he and the House will know, the fact is that the Labour party has no policy; it simply had opposition for opposition’s sake.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to say two things. First, questions and answers must focus on the policy of the Government. That is the parliamentary position, and Members know it. Secondly—[Interruption.] Order. Secondly, I want to accommodate the level of interest in this statement, but Members must help me to help them, by being brief.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
In fact, the last Labour Government left record low waiting times and record levels of public satisfaction with the NHS. I welcome the fact that Professor Steve Field has said what many of us in the Opposition have been saying for at least a year. How much has this year’s shambles cost the NHS, and how much has it damaged patient care?
Mr Lansley
It has not damaged patient care. The right hon. Gentleman should not denigrate the NHS. In May 2010, at the last election, patients waiting to be admitted to hospital waited 8.4 weeks for their treatment; on the latest figures, that went down to 7.9 weeks. Out-patient waiting times for May 2010 were 4.3 weeks on average; that went down to 3.7 weeks, and that in the midst of rising demand on the NHS and continuously improving performance.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
This is clear evidence of a listening Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that what the NHS now needs is consensus across all political parties, and for everybody to put their money where their mouth is and support the NHS and these changes as we move forward?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. The Future Forum made the point that what people across the NHS want now is the certainty of knowing what the policy is and to move forward to make that happen.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In view of the NHS Future Forum’s comments about the
“importance and relevance of the NHS Constitution”
in guiding its work, does the Secretary of State accept that the seven principles set out in the constitution were more effective in protecting the NHS from a hostile Government than the Prime Minister’s five pledges?
Mr Lansley
No, I do not accept that. The Prime Minister’s commitments are absolutely what the public and the people working in the NHS expect and wish to see. They are vital, and they would not have been true under a Labour Government. For example, a Labour Government would not have increased resources for the NHS. The only part of the United Kingdom where there is now a Labour Government is Wales, where resources for the NHS are being cut this year by 5% in real terms compared with last year. When I went to north Wales in the middle of the recess, I saw on the front page of the Liverpool Daily Post that the number of patients waiting more than 36 weeks for their operations had risen from 16 to 989.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I welcome the proposals, but will the Secretary of State give details of the safeguards against cherry-picking of the kind that, if unchecked, could fatally undermine rural district hospitals such as the West Suffolk hospital in my constituency?
Mr Lansley
Yes; we have to ensure that commissioners are increasingly able to use a tariff involving an established national or local price to determine the service that they commission, and that that does not allow the private sector—or anyone else, for that matter—to cherry-pick services by undercutting on price. We also need to ensure that that price reflects the cost of the treatment for the conditions involved, including complex conditions. This is why we have committed to carry out work, not least with the Royal Colleges, to identify where we need to develop tariffs in order to ensure that that happens.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, not least because it pays tribute to the future of the NHS commission. What is the Secretary of State’s thinking on the forward planning for the commission?
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will interpret the hon. Lady’s question in relation to the NHS Future Forum. I freely acknowledge that I wish that we had instituted the Future Forum after the publication of the White Paper last year. Although we had a full, formal consultation process at the time, to which 6,000 people replied, the character of the engagement that has been achieved over the past two months has been superlative. As we make further progress on the development of education and training proposals, for example, I want to ask the NHS Future Forum to continue that process of engagement in that and other areas across the service.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have a great deal of time for most GPs—in particular for the one sitting in front of me, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—but what part of the Bill would allow communities to rid themselves of underperforming GP practices?
Mr Lansley
That would need to be initiated by the NHS commissioning board. Under the legislation, the board would respond to the health and wellbeing board in the local authority in question, or to the local clinical commissioning group. In my hon. Friend’s area of Hertfordshire, the health and wellbeing board will provide a new and powerful means by which the voice of the public can be expressed to challenge all the poor performance that occurs in the service.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind the House that Members who came into the Chamber after the Secretary of State began his statement should not expect to be called?
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State must know that the biggest threat to the stability of the national health service is the introduction of competition law into clinical services. Will the clause that says that the mergers of NHS trusts will be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission be removed from the Bill?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Future Forum has recommended that the powers to be held by the Office of Fair Trading or the Competition Commission should be exercised by Monitor. That is because it believes it to be in the interest of the NHS for them to be exercised by a health service-specific regulator that is sympathetic to and has an understanding of NHS interests.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are part of a top-down management structure that has led to waste and bureaucracy and tolerates poorer patient outcomes. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be abolished, and that the £5 billion that that will save over this Parliament will be ploughed back into front-line medical services?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I can do that. It is essential to move to a world where we reduce administration costs, relieve bureaucracy in the service and free those providing services by offering them the resources to deliver improving care without the burden of bureaucracy, cost and waste inflicted by a Labour Government in the past.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does not the Secretary of State understand that when the Labour Government were in power, they increased spending from £33 billion to £111 billion in one decade, and that we are now witnessing, at a cost of £2 billion, a new Frankenstein monster all to pacify these tin-pot Liberals? Judas only got 30 pieces of silver.
Mr Lansley
I have a mission for the hon. Gentleman— he should head to Wales. In England, this coalition Government have committed to increasing the NHS budget in real terms in the life of this Parliament. The King’s Fund reported the other week that in Wales, a Labour Government intend to reduce the NHS budget in real terms by over 8%.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I believe that the very act of listening to patients and the public will have done a lot to improve these proposals—as, I suspect, once the dust has settled, it will have done for the Health Secretary’s reputation, too. Given the requirement for greater local accountability in these proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman make the same recommendation to local clinical commissioners in the changes they are yet to make for health services in their areas?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I have to tell him that I am not looking to achieve anything in terms of reputation; I just want a positive outcome for the NHS. I have said before that this is not about me; it is about achieving for the NHS the opportunity to deliver better services for patients. That is all I am interested in.
The proposals on public and patient involvement illustrate what we needed to do—and will now do in response to the Future Forum—as many people wanted to see set out in detail in the legislation how patient and public involvement would work in the respective NHS bodies. The legislation had set out the fact that these bodies existed, but the detail was not prescribed. There is always a balance to be struck in legislation between the degree of prescription and the degree of freedom. Clearly, through engagement with the NHS, we have approval for putting much more of the detail into the Bill, now that it is clear that it will engage patients and the public.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Along with the vast majority of the public, I welcome most of the changes announced today. I always welcome U-turns when they bring about the right thing. I am very concerned, however, that the bureaucracy that will be around after all these changes have gone through could be worse than what we have at the moment. I would genuinely like to be reassured on that point.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the majority of the recommendations. The bureaucracy will reduce in the NHS as a consequence of the changes for one very simple reason—because we are shifting the ownership of commissioning and the responsibility for the design and delivery of services from what is essentially a distant managerial organisation into one that is locked into the clinical decision making of doctors and nurses across the service. Let us be clear: this is about delivering benefit to patients by empowering the doctors and nurses who care for them. That in itself will cut the bureaucracy.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have no plans to decrease the budget for the NHS—unlike the plans of the Labour party to slash it by £30 billion?
Mr Lansley
Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. If we had listened to the Labour party last year, we would have cut the NHS and would not have increased the resources going into it. The £20 billion efficiency savings required to respond to demand and cost would have been £30 billion, which would have put an unsupportable degree of pressure on the NHS. As it is, we are giving the NHS not only resources but the opportunity to deliver improving care.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
After the White Paper was published in July last year, 6,000 representations were received from health professionals and from the Select Committee on Health asking the Secretary of State to think again about breaking up the NHS, so this “listening exercise” has been a waste of public money. Either the Secretary of State was wrong then, or he is wrong now. Which is it?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid I have to say that that was all nonsense. As the hon. Lady knows, we responded positively to the consultation last year and made changes then. However, as the details of the Bill have been emerging, people have been trying to work out how they will make it all work in the future. They have been saying, “We want to set out in the legislation precisely how it will work.” There is no better way of making that process effective than talking to people in the NHS, engaging with them, listening to them, and then implementing the changes.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that the single biggest challenge facing health care in the United Kingdom is the economic and human challenge of looking after an ageing population. Does he also agree that the key to that is better integration of health care services—better integration of hospital services with community and social services—and that these reforms are a good way of going about that?
Mr Lansley
I agree very much with that. The Future Forum’s report, particularly the part that deals with clinical advice and leadership, has given us a robust structure for engagement with the range of professions that are capable of delivering that kind of integrated, joined-up and more effective care.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State reassure us that no services or hospitals will be taken over by the private sector?
Mr Lansley
There are no plans in the legislation or, indeed, in the Future Forum’s recommendations that would lead to that. In particular, as the hon. Lady will see in the detail published with the written ministerial statement this morning, we have proposed that Monitor should have no power to allow the private sector access to NHS facilities for reasons of competition and to take them away from NHS providers.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We have a Prime Minister who loves the NHS, a Secretary of State who is the most experienced Member in the House when it comes to the NHS, and a coalition Government who have done something that the Labour Government never did. They listened, and they were willing to improve their Bill. This is a great day for democracy. I congratulate the Secretary of State on that, and on referring the Bill back to a Committee—and if he is looking for volunteers for the Committee, I am available.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is because I believe in the NHS and the people who work in the NHS that I think it right to listen to and engage with those people, and to give them much greater control of the service that they provide for patients.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
What can we conclude from the fact that the Prime Minister is not here with us this afternoon to support the Secretary of State, but is involved in a PR stunt at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust? It was once said on the other side of the Atlantic that you could put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day it was still a pig. Is that not true of the Bill?
Mr Speaker
Order. We are starting to get involved in issues perhaps not of order, but certainly of taste.
Mr Lansley
If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, I do not think that I will favour that question with an answer.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State expand on the support that organisations such as the Spinal Injuries Association can expect through specialised commissioning?
Mr Lansley
I believe that as a result of our proposals the NHS commissioning board will be able to provide more consistency in much specialised commissioning, and I hope that that will apply to people with spinal injuries. I am well acquainted with the work of the Spinal Injuries Association: I think that it has done terrific work, and we have already worked closely with it in trying to ensure that we improve commissioning and services for those with spinal injuries.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is utterly disgraceful that Liberal Democrats and Tories are scrapping with each other to claim credit for the alleged listening exercise. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to my colleagues and me for not listening to us when the Bill was in Committee?
Mr Lansley
Yes, in relation to the changes we are now bringing forward, I do indeed give credit to some of my colleagues—very much so—but I also give credit to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the time and trouble they have taken; they have spent a great deal of time listening, and engaging with people across the health service. We give credit, too, to the NHS Future Forum and the thousands of people across the NHS who have now made their contribution to the NHS’s future, and I think they will be very disappointed to hear Opposition Members just wanting to denigrate that, and to make political capital out of it, rather than supporting the NHS in its future objectives.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
GPs collectively throughout Oxfordshire told the Field commission that they wanted to get on with GP commissioning, and that they were wholeheartedly committed to it because they believed they could be catalysts for change and better design NHS services for local people. When are GPs in Oxfordshire going to be able to get on with GP commissioning?
Mr Lansley
I can assure my hon. Friend that I know his local GPs, and that they want to work with their professional colleagues across their area and to get on with that now. We will continue to be able to delegate commissioning responsibilities to all commissioning groups who are ready to do that; if they show that they are ready, we can give them the capacity to do it through existing NHS structures.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
This is not a U-turn; it is a body-swerve around the Liberals. The Secretary of State has spent the last year telling us that cherry-picking for profit in the NHS will not be possible under his Bill, yet today’s report has told us that he must take action to prevent such cherry-picking. Does the Secretary of State understand that this is now an issue of trust, and that nobody trusts him on the NHS—made in Britain by Labour, stolen by the Tories, and given away to his fat cat friends?
Mr Lansley
I will not attempt to compete with the hon. Gentleman on any driving analogies, but we have been clear that we will not countenance cherry-picking against NHS providers. The Future Forum has made recommendations on that, but they are not all to do with the Bill: for example, the processes I described of using a tariff lie outside the scope of the Bill. The Future Forum is making recommendations, and we are responding positively to them.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the discourtesy and mock anger from Opposition Members demonstrate why it is so important to take politics out of the day-to-day running of the NHS, so that we avoid this sort of political football nonsense every time we try to implement sensible reforms of this vital public service?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that may be why Opposition Front-Bench Members have not told us whether they agree with the Future Forum. The truth is that they know they have to agree with it, because it makes good sense, but they are also trying not to let their political opportunity drift away from them. People will be deeply disappointed, and in some cases angry, that they cannot abandon trying to turn the NHS into a political football.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Will the new, revised GP consortia still be allowed to outsource commissioning, either in whole or in part, to private health care firms, many of them probably American, which would create a major conflict of interest?
Mr Lansley
The clinical commissioning groups will be statutory bodies, and will therefore not be able to delegate the responsibility for such commissioning to any other organisation, including a private sector organisation.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My constituents will be reassured to hear the Secretary of State say that it remains the duty of the Secretary of State to deliver a comprehensive health service, but was that duty ever at risk?
Mr Lansley
It was always clear that we would retain section 1(1) of the 1946 Act, which states that the Secretary of State will have a continuing duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. What has been asked of us is that the Secretary of State should have not only that duty but a duty to secure the provision of that health service and an oversight responsibility in relation to the national bodies charged with providing it, and we will respond positively to that request.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
This is a sorry tale of the Government going too far, too fast. What we have now is in danger of being a dog’s breakfast and the worst of all possible worlds. How much has this top-down reorganisation cost the UK taxpayer so far?
Mr Lansley
The listening exercise has to date—on 14 June—cost £36,640.97. The process of modernisation in the NHS is saving hundreds of millions of pounds every month. We know that we have to not only increase resources to the NHS but deliver continuously improving productivity and efficiency in the NHS. The Labour party always ignored that and failed on that; we will not fail on that.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Today’s proposals are clearly winning the support of the health professionals and of political colleagues, but to win the support of the public and the patients I hope the Secretary of State will be able to give one further assurance that these plans will give greater local democratic accountability for the NHS than ever before and will therefore mean no enforced local privatisation of services, which happened under the previous Labour Government.
Mr Lansley
Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that in our response to the Future Forum we will strengthen the role of health and wellbeing boards, deliver more integrated care and ensure that the local health and wellbeing strategy is a central document in determining the shape of commissioning in the NHS, social care and public health. The powers, including those for service reconfiguration in an area, will be maintained so that they must continue to meet the four tests I set out last year. The public voice will therefore be at the forefront of the response to any changes in the local service.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Given that the Secretary of State is about to waste £2 billion on this reorganisation—money that would be better spent on patient care—will he give us an assessment of how many A and E departments will close over the next two years?
Mr Lansley
That is pretty rich. When I became Secretary of State, I found that all over the country there were threats to accident and emergency departments and to maternity departments generated under a Labour Government. Let me tell the hon. Lady that this is about delivering continuously improving care and cutting costs. We set out very clearly that although there are costs involved in reorganisation, they will be recouped severalfold over the course of this Parliament, saving in total some £5 billion in reduced administration costs.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that tens of thousands of families throughout my constituency are deeply concerned about the reduction of services at Fairfield hospital in Bury. Will any of the changes that my right hon. Friend has outlined enable that process to be reversed?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend and I have visited Fairfield hospital on a number of occasions and I have every sympathy with him and his constituents. He inherited as a Member of Parliament, as I did as Secretary of State, very advanced plans for changes to services at the hospital. What will now come to the forefront is the ability of the local authorities, through the health and wellbeing board and the clinical commissioning group, to bring clinical staff and the public together to say that in his area, north of Manchester, they can take greater ownership of the design of services to meet local needs.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I am sure that I am not the only Member who noticed that the title given to the urgent question required only one consonant to be added for us to use it for the ministerial statement: “Wasted Review”—[Interruption.] Wasted review—was that the sound of a large penny dropping? Given that the Minister is constantly dodging questions about the cost of the review, will he tell us how many nurses and doctors could have been put in post using the money the review cost?
Mr Lansley
The latest figures on the changes in staffing in the NHS since the general election have shown a reduction of 3,800 managers, an increase of 2,500 in the number of doctors and no reduction in the number of nurses.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In Dover and Deal, we have dynamic GPs, many of whom want to get involved in commissioning, but not every GP wants to do so. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no individual GP will be forced to be involved in the work of the commissioning group and that that was always the case under his reforms?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many GPs across the country understand that clinically led commissioning is the right thing to do, but they do not personally want to be involved in that process. There are, however, leaders who do, and leaders across the country have already come forward through pathfinder consortia and will be a basis on which we can create much greater clinical leadership across the service. The Future Forum was very clear that leadership from within the service, from doctors, nurses and other health professionals, will be instrumental in improving care in the future.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Everyone knows that the Conservatives opposed the introduction of the national health service and that they brought it to its knees when they were last in power. Now they are trying to undermine it by wrapping it up in bureaucracy. With waiting lists increasing, what assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that they will not increase further as a result of the measures he is bringing forward in the Bill?
Mr Lansley
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to or heard the Prime Minister when he made absolutely clear our commitment to keeping waiting times low. Not only did the Prime Minister make that commitment, but it is in the constitution. In practice, the opportunity for patients increasingly to see the performance of the hospitals to which they can choose to go will help to drive increases in performance. As I told the House in response to an earlier question, waiting times are now lower for in-patients and out-patients than at the time of the last election. I am also old enough to remember that in June 1944, Winston Churchill, as the leader of a coalition Government, went to the Royal College of Physicians and set out an ambition for a national health service that would give everybody in the country access to the highest quality health care, free for all, regardless of means.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Cure the NHS group, founded by Julie Bailey in Stafford, has rightly stressed the importance of a culture of caring and zero harm to patients—something that my right hon. Friend has always emphasised. How does he think the recommendations of Professor Field’s report will help with embedding such a culture across the NHS?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend knows, much can contribute to that change of culture, not least making safety one of the central domains for measuring outcomes in the NHS. In addition, it must be personal to each member of staff in the NHS that they have that responsibility. We have too often seen cases in which people have been professionally responsible but have not acted in line with that responsibility. A central part of what we need to do is not about organisations and structures but about creating that sense of personal responsibility in professionals across the service to look after their patients and those for whom they care and to blow the whistle if there is harm or abuse; and we must protect and secure that whistleblowing when it happens.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State promised to reduce bureaucracy, but he has now spent more than £760 million on a botched reorganisation that gives us commissioning consortia, senates, a whole host of national quangos and PCTs being abolished to transfer their staff somewhere else. Is it not time he accepted that this is a botched reorganisation and withdrew the Bill?
Mr Lansley
Most of that was pure invention, including all the numbers. We are going to save money with these changes to the NHS. We are going to transfer resources from bureaucracy, management and administration into front-line care. Through clinical commissioning groups we are going to empower staff in the NHS, and abolishing two tiers of management in the NHS will save us, in total, a third in real terms out of administration costs.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that despite the existence of clinical senates the primary driving role in commissioning will remain with GPs, who know their patients best and know which services they require?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. General practice—not just general practitioners but general practice—has a central role for patients because there is a long-term relationship with patients and an understanding of the whole population and the health of a whole area. However, GPs recognise that in order to get the right services for patients, they have to design services alongside the range of professionals whose job it is to deliver them.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Let us be clear: this is just a dog’s dinner and these amendments have proved it. What we have here is a slow-privatisation-of-the-NHS Bill that is backed by the Rag, Tag and Bobtail party—the Liberal Democrats. This is the beginning of the privatisation of the health service and it is time it stopped.
Mr Lansley
This Bill and our proposals were never to support privatisation; they are not to support privatisation and they will not be to support privatisation. The hon. Gentleman should have attacked the Labour Government who gave the private sector £250 million for operations it never carried out; they paid it 11% more than they would have paid the NHS for that. They tried to push the NHS out of the provision of services when it could have provided them and competed. The Labour Government did that, and we shall legislate to make it illegal for a Secretary of State or any regulator to engage in that kind of preferential treatment for the private sector in future.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I welcome the revised proposals, in particular the focus on competition not as an end in itself but on informed—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Whatever feelings the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) entertains in relation to the Liberal Democrats, who seem unlikely to feature on his Christmas card list, I urge him to exercise what modicum of self-restraint he can muster in the circumstances.
Gavin Barwell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the focus not on competition as an end in itself, but on informed patient choice to improve patient care. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the Opposition, the Government believe that NHS patients in my constituency deserve the best that the public, private and voluntary sectors can offer them?
Mr Lansley
I understand. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely clear. We know that informed choice for patients is a serious contributory factor in improving outcomes for patients. When there is informed choice, of necessity we must have a diversity of providers to support it. There is no doubt that to that extent competition is an essential part of delivering improving care in the future, but it is not an end in itself. It should not be elevated to that point, over and above delivering the integrated services that best give patients the care they need.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My constituent Rosie Edwards suffers from a rare congenital heart condition, known as Fallot’s tetralogy. Fortunately, for all her life, both as a child and now as an adult, she has had to have all her treatment at the Royal Brompton hospital in London. Unfortunately, the Government are proposing that that paediatric cardiac service is terminated—[Hon. Members: “Not true.”] It is completely true. There is no provision in the suggestions that have been brought forward for the service to continue. My constituents are asking whether, if reorganisation will cost a lot of money, it would not be better to spend that money on protecting those services.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman tried to characterise that as he did. The joint committee of primary care trusts is conducting a consultation. The Government are not doing it; I am not doing it; the committee is doing it, and the consultation closes on 1 July. People across the country are quite properly making representations to the consultation, including on the Royal Brompton and other units. The committee has not made recommendations to me; it will come to its conclusions after that consultation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the structure of the proposals I am referring to today.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My constituents will not be interested in hard left, old school scaremongering. They simply want to know whether the Bill will put local health services under a greater degree of local control.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will know that many of us in the House were deeply frustrated in the past that Ministers would say at the Dispatch Box that primary care trusts were responsible for local decisions, and then nobody found locally that the PCT was in any practical sense accountable to them or the population they represented. In future, there will be proper accountability: clinical accountability through the commissioning groups and democratic accountability through local authorities.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State apologise to the people of this country for a botched process that will lead to nothing but chaos and confusion in the NHS?
Mr Lansley
I think the hon. Lady should read the NHS Future Forum report where she will find that right across the service there is support for the principles we set out, and agreement that change is necessary. I do not know where she imagines that change will come from if not by going through a process of the kind we have engaged in.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Public health continues to be an important priority, particularly in Cheshire East which, surprisingly, is ranked 15th in the league table for hazardous drinking. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what remit he is giving the Future Forum in this important area?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Future Forum has made recommendations in relation to public health. One of them, which I announced today, is that we want to combine the direct integrated work on health protection and response to emergencies through Public Health England with continuing independence for expert advice, so I am proposing that Public Health England should be established as an executive agency. What is critical is that we create through the legislation a greater opportunity for local authorities to lead health improvement plans locally, so issues such as alcohol abuse and problem drinking will need not only national leadership, which we will give, but local leadership, which the Bill will empower.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Accountability is not at all clear. The Secretary of State said that clinical accountability will be in one place and democratic accountability in another. We are replacing one organisation—the PCT—with five. My constituents will just want to know where the accountability lies for important local NHS decisions. That has not become clear from the statement so far.
Mr Lansley
I repeat: from the public’s point of view, we know that what they wanted was genuine accountability, in the sense that the doctors, nurses and other health professionals who care for them should be able directly to design and influence the shape of services locally to meet their needs, but they also want a patient voice and a public voice. That has not existed in the past; we will enable it to happen. They will come together at the health and wellbeing board, where they will establish a strategy for their area.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
In the commendable listening exercise, was it not clear that there is now broad support for the principles of reform? Is it not better that we now take that forward, rather than being opposed to reform and opposed to the resources for the NHS, as the Opposition are?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is indeed the message that came through to us from the NHS Future Forum and its extensive engagement with the NHS and beyond. I will not go down the path urged on us by the Opposition, which for the NHS seems to be spend less, do nothing and let the crisis happen when it will.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is still talking about the Bill as if it is a way of promoting localism and local accountability, but is it not still the fact that most of the extension of locality commissioning that that would involve could happen without the Bill? I refer the Secretary of State to the role of the national commissioning board. What is that, if not a massive and bureaucratic centralisation of power?
Mr Lansley
With respect, the hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. Without the legislation we could not transfer out of the hands of a managerial top-down bureaucracy into the hands of clinicians and local people, but he is right—it is not just the localisation of decision making. There is also in the NHS a nationally funded service with an expectation of national standards, and many services that require high levels of national consistency in commissioning. There is a job for the national commissioning board, which we will establish. That in itself will inject a considerable level of consistency in standards and quality, and considerable efficiency in commissioning some services.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his reforms. I know how hard he has worked and conducted consultation across the political spectrum. That should be respected by the Opposition. The reforms empower our medical practitioners—doctors and nurses—and in doing so, as I am sure he would agree, will stop the litigation culture that has galloped away over the past 13 years under the previous Government.
Mr Lansley
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. We need—not least in a further emphasis on safety and some of the other measures that we as a Government, including my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, have said we would bring forward—to try to offset a rising tide of litigation and cost associated with clinical negligence cases in the NHS. My hon. Friend is kind to me about working hard. I never imagined I would not do so, but if I have worked hard over the past eight weeks, it is nothing compared to the leaders of the NHS Future Forum who, in the space of just eight weeks, produced excellent work which will be of enduring significance.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Last year, the NHS in Wirral tried to respond quickly to the Secretary of State’s top-down reorganisation and has since spent months in uncertainty and stress. Will the Secretary of State apologise now to staff and patients on the Wirral for all the unnecessary problems he has caused them and all the money he has wasted?
Mr Lansley
I met many of the previous practice-based commissioning groups in the Wirral and south Merseyside, who came together to tell me how enthusiastic they were about the possibilities for designing clinical services more effectively in future. They are doing that. They want to get on with it and the Future Forum is right: we need to give them the opportunity to get on with that now.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
What assurance can the Secretary of State give that his plans will abolish the rigged market introduced by the previous Government that ended up giving £250 million to the private sector for delivering nothing?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will legislate to stop precisely that distortion and that favouritism to the private sector. The private sector must know that it will have to provide additional services to the NHS on the basis of quality, not on the basis of any preferential system, as under the previous Government.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I remember that under the previous Conservative Government people died while on waiting lists. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] It is a fact. I was a Member of Parliament at the time and it happened. Labour’s targets transformed that. The Secretary of State has been forced today to retake responsibility for the delivery of the NHS. He has talked about what has been happening. Will he make a specific promise today about the future waiting lists under his jurisdiction?
Mr Lansley
I will make clear to the right hon. Lady, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that we will not let waiting times rise. We will continue to maintain downward pressure, but it is very important that we do not treat waiting times in the NHS as the only measure of performance. It is more than that: it is the quality of care that is provided, not just the access to care.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am very sorry to say that the Secretary of State demonstrated a creative interpretation of the coalition agreement when he launched his policy last July. What can he say to the House to reassure us that he will not make the same creative interpretation of the Future Forum’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the risk of the marketisation of health services?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that when I came forward with the White Paper last year, or the Command Paper in December, or the Bill, we did so collectively as a Government, and I can assure him and all my colleagues that we will continue collectively to agree on the basis on which we take all these issues forward.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Some say that the reason the Secretary of State went too far, too fast and has now come up with a fix that is too little, too late is that he has a bit of a tendency to be pig-headed and cloth-eared when people disagree with him. I do not agree with those who say that, but could he now find the humility and courage at least to say sorry for the mess he has made?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind the House of the wise stipulation in “Erskine May” that moderation and good humour are the defining features of parliamentary language.
Mr Lansley
In that spirit I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his remarks and encourage him likewise to apologise for the performance of a Labour Government in Wales who are cutting the NHS budget by 5% and seeing the performance of health care in the NHS in Wales deteriorate considerably relative to that in England.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
My constituency has borders with Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Shropshire. The NHS Future Forum has recommended that commissioning group boundaries should not normally cross local authority boundaries, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that my local commissioning consortia can work with doctors in other areas?
Mr Lansley
The Future Forum is perfectly clear that there is a benefit associated with integrating health and social care if clinical commissioning groups do not normally cross local authority boundaries. But it is clear, and we are clear, that they should be able to make a case to do so if they think it appropriate. We have the benefit of being able to look at the pathfinder consortia, of which there are 220 and I think that 16 cross local authority boundaries, so it is already the exception rather than the rule.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the NHS be the preferred provider of choice for health care services for my constituents?
Mr Lansley
No, I have said that we will legislate to ensure a level playing field, so her constituents should have access to whichever provider their clinical commissioning group views as best able to deliver quality care.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
The Government are incorporating the co-operation and competition panel into Monitor to advise the NHS on competition rules. Given that the Opposition seem to be engaged in collective amnesia this afternoon, will my right hon. Friend remind the House which party first established the CCP and the concept of competition in the NHS?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because, as the Future Forum report acknowledges, the Bill does not extend the application of competition rules in the NHS, which were introduced under the Labour Government. The co-operation and competition panel was established under the Labour Government in 2009. The rules that we will maintain as a process of evolution, rather than revolution, are the ones that were consulted on in January 2009 and most recently published by a Labour Government in March 2010. To that extent, and despite all the hot air from the Labour party on competition in the NHS, we are adopting an evolutionary approach and starting precisely from the situation that applied under the Labour Government.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In his earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), the Secretary of State, if I understood him correctly, said that commissioning consortia would have to do the commissioning themselves and could not franchise it out to private providers. Will he confirm that that is the case and that he has powers to limit the number of private patients who can be taken into NHS facilities under the regulations he is proposing in the Bill?
Mr Lansley
I reiterate that the clinical commissioning groups will be statutory bodies with a statutory responsibility for commissioning, so it would not be legal for them to delegate that to another body that was not subject to the same obligations. As far as access to private patients is concerned, we have made it clear—I do not believe that the Future Forum makes any recommendations on this—that foundation trusts, which often have arbitrary rules relating to limits on their income from private patients, should have that cap lifted, but we propose to put additional safeguards in place to make it clear that, if they do so, not only must that income be separately accounted for so that there is no subsidisation from NHS facilities, but the trusts must demonstrate how that will support their continuing primary purpose of providing services to the NHS in England.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Having very much supported the listening exercise, I know that for many of us the most important aspect of these reforms has always been the new focus on outcomes, as illustrated by the inclusion of the one and five-year cancer survival rates in the outcomes framework. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Future Forum’s suggestions will in no way detract from that new focus on the quality of care?
Mr Lansley
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I can go further and say that one of the reasons the Future Forum has made no recommendations on the outcomes framework is that it found enthusiasm across the NHS for focusing on quality and outcomes and nothing but approval for the framework. Of course, the Labour party ignores the fact that, as stated in the White Paper we published last year, that is one of the central aspects of what we are setting out to do. He is right that the focus on outcomes, which enables people to see how this country performs in health, relative to other countries, and continuous improvement in health outcomes, rather than just a small number of focused targets, is instrumental in continuous improvement.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is aware of the situation faced by Trafford acute trust. Will he reassure my constituents that there is no prospect of Trafford General hospital being either broken up or taken over by a private company?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will have a further opportunity to discuss that shortly. She will know that the NHS trust in Trafford is examining whether it might merge with one of two possible foundation trusts and whether it might change its corporate configuration, as it were, but entirely within the NHS.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Last Friday, I met two members of the local Labour party in my constituency who presented me with an apparently independent petition on the NHS reforms. At that meeting, they told me that it was a fact that our reforms would lead to the removal of a comprehensive health service; we now know that that is a load of old nonsense. They also told me that it was a fact that these changes would open up the NHS to European Union competition law in a way that it is not at the moment. Is that a fact, or is it just shameless scaremongering?
Mr Lansley
It is entirely scaremongering. My hon. Friend might like to look at what the Future Forum report says in relation to choice and competition, which sets out very clearly that the extent to which EU competition rules apply in the NHS will not change as a consequence of this Bill.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
So far, £768 million has been wasted on this failed reorganisation. In my region, Freeman hospital’s cardiac unit for children is under threat, South Tees Hospitals trust has had £20 million removed by the Government, and the Government are proposing a national commissioning board that sits in private, is unelected, produces no minutes, remunerates itself and sets its own sub-committees. Where is the front-line quality of care for people?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid that that is a further repetition of invention by Labour Members, who appear to have been given one or two figures of their own. It is complete nonsense. In the impact assessment associated with the Bill, which we will now revise to reflect these changes, we explained that there was an estimated £1.4 billion total cost of reorganisation, but that that would lead to a £1.7 billion recurring annual benefit in savings, which would accumulate to more than £5 billion over the course of the Parliament.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), HealthEast pathfinder consortium in my constituency crosses two district councils—in fact, it crosses two counties—and it might be appropriate for GPs from a third council area to join it. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no barriers will be put in the way of what should be effective care for patients rather than simply political boundary lines?
Mr Lansley
As I have said, we will expect, and the Future Forum says, that commissioning groups should not normally cross local authority boundaries—in this respect, boundaries for social authorities—but they should be able to make a case for doing so based on benefit to patients. The one thing I would urge is that they are very clear with their local authorities about how they can secure the continuing integration of health and social care at a local level.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Is not the reason the Secretary of State has so much support from the right wing of his party that they know that this will lead to privatisation of large parts of the NHS, as he confirmed in his answer on preferred suppliers?
Mr Lansley
I hope that my colleagues would support me in saying that I have support from colleagues right across the coalition, because the coalition Government are supporting the NHS in enabling it to deliver improving services. That is what it is all about.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is appropriate that I am last, because I come at this from a different direction from everybody else. Given that no extra cash is available—we know that—how will the watering down of Monitor’s duty to promote core competition help to deliver the efficiency gains that are the future of the NHS? How will the Secretary of State now achieve that?
Mr Lansley
I say three things to my hon. Friend. First, let us be clear that there is £11.5 billion of additional cash available to the NHS over the course of this Parliament—but we have to use it better and deliver greater quality and effectiveness. The job of the commissioners and Monitor together is to deliver that—partly through tariff development in ensuring that they get those efficiencies by the price that they set, based on benchmark-to-best practice prices, but also through using their commissioning strength to design services. We all know that if we simply said every year to the NHS, “You must save money by cutting the price of what is paid to you”, its response would be to cut services, cut staffing or cut quality. In fact, achieving greater quality and effectiveness is about the redesign of clinical services—the transfer of services into the community and keeping people well at home rather than through emergency admissions to hospital. It is about clinical leadership and clinical redesign, and that is what these proposals will bring to the forefront.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s manifest interest in Wales, I invite him to come to Wales to meet some Welsh patients with me to find out at first hand which party they trust to safeguard the heritage of the NHS—Labour or the Tories. I suspect that the answer would be revealing for him. How much Welsh taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this needless reorganisation of the NHS?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman must know that the money available to the NHS in Wales is available to the NHS in Wales, and that it is separate from England. The Labour Welsh Assembly Government have made their own decisions about the priority that they attach to the national health service in Wales, and the result is, as the King’s Fund says, that they plan to reduce its budget by 8.3% in real terms. We are going to increase the NHS budget in real terms. The result can be seen in waiting times, which we were talking about. In England, the proportion of patients admitted to hospital who are seen within 18 weeks, according to the latest data, is 89.6%. He might like to reflect on the fact that the figure for Wales is 64.5%.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Although it has been difficult to hear during this debate, I would like to address my comments to the statement made by the Secretary of State.
Rosie Cooper
Question, sorry. [Interruption.] Let us get to the point and stop playing around. The Secretary of State said in the statement that consortia will now have one nurse and one secondary care doctor and that:
“To avoid any potential conflict of interest, neither should be employed by a local health provider.”
How will the Secretary of State apply that rule to GPs? Would not the Secretary of State and his reforms be best described as like Schrodinger’s cat—in a state of uncertainty and both alive and dead at the same time?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady misses the point. If GPs were providers as well as providing primary medical services, they would be unable to make decisions about those responsibilities because of a conflict of interest. Of course, as primary medical services providers in their area, they are not commissioned by the clinical commissioning groups—if the hon. Lady is listening to the answer at all—because the commissioning of primary medical services is undertaken by the NHS commissioning board, not by the local groups.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State accept that he would not be in the position he is in today had there been proper pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill? Will he recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that that process is used for all future legislation? It is a case of more haste, less speed.
Mr Lansley
We as a coalition Government are engaging in more pre-legislative scrutiny than any of our predecessors. In this instance, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s proposition. What has been done by the NHS Future Forum could not conceivably have been achieved in pre-legislative scrutiny, because it was essentially about engaging people across the service in how we will implement principles that are widely supported across the service. It is very much of the here and now, rather than something that could have been done in advance.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I ask the Secretary of State to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer. How much money has so far been outlaid on this NHS reorganisation?
Mr Lansley
I have made it very clear that the impact assessment set out that we expect the total cost of the reorganisation—these figures will be revised because of the changes—to be about £1.4 billion, but that it will deliver recurring savings of £1.7 billion a year, leading to something approaching a £5 billion net saving in administration costs over the life of this Parliament.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. All 65 Back-Benchers who stayed in the Chamber and sought to catch my eye were successful in doing so. I hope that the House’s inquisitorial appetite has been satisfied on this matter, at any rate for today. I was going to come to the ten-minute rule motion, but not before we have entertained a point of order from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—nothing new there.
Point of Order
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to do this, but yesterday, when questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), you mentioned the fact that it would be inappropriate for a Minister to make announcements about changes to such an important policy as we have just discussed before they were made in the Chamber. Yet the Prime Minister went ahead, at 12 o’clock today, with a press conference at which large amounts of the statement were announced. There is no point in the House continuing to say that we deprecate this if we do not do something about it.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I well recall—I would have a serious problem with my short-term memory if I did not—the exchange that I had with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) yesterday. I made it clear that policy announcements should be made first to the House. The Government tabled a written ministerial statement this morning, which is not unprecedented but is a common practice, and there has been a full oral statement this afternoon. I hope that it has been noted, and is approved of by the House, that every Member who wanted to take part in the exchange had the opportunity to do so.
Mr Speaker
No, I am going to leave it there. [Interruption.] No, I am not going to debate the issue with the hon. Gentleman. He and I have known each other a long time, and if he is dissatisfied, he can always contact me again. If he wants to pursue the matter on subsequent occasions, that opportunity will exist for him. [Interruption.] Order. I would not for one moment seek to deny him that opportunity, but I cannot have a debate with him on the Floor of the House. He has made his point, and I am happy to reflect on it further. If he feels strongly he will probably write to me, and who could deny him the chance to do so? However, today we really must move on to the 10-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) has been waiting patiently.
Private Landlords (Register and Duties)
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a register of private landlords; to require private landlords to take certain actions in the event of anti-social behaviour by their tenants; to give additional powers to private landlords and local authorities in cases of anti-social behaviour by tenants; to establish a community fund to which private landlords must contribute; and for connected purposes.
In every community, the number of private landlords and the size of the private sector are increasing. It has been estimated that, by 2020, 20% of the UK’s housing stock will be private lets. At the beginning of the 21st century, about 10 years ago, 3% to 4% of the housing stock in Sedgefield was private lets. Today the figure is about 11% or 12%. In inner-city areas of London such as Camden and Newham, it is as high as 30%. Shelter estimates that the proportion of households in private lets stands at 15%—an increase of 40% over five years. Such households with children have grown at an even faster rate, increasing by 16% in just 12 months.
With proposed changes to homelessness legislation, cuts to housing and high house prices and deposits, private renting will be under increasing pressure, especially at the lower end of the market among the most vulnerable groups. The private rented sector is rife with problems. Some 36% of Shelter advice queries come from private renters, more than double the proportion in the population at large. Satisfaction is lower, and accommodation is more likely to be of a poor standard. According to Julie Rugg’s investigation of the private rented sector in 2008, 50% of privately rented properties failed to meet the decent homes standards.
The expansion of buy-to-let lending over the past decade saw a much wider range of individuals become landlords, many of them with little or no experience, knowledge or understanding of their responsibilities and the complex legal framework of renting. In fact, the buy-to-let sector includes more than 650,000 homes that could have been in the owner-occupier market, and the fact that they are not has helped to force up house prices.
Where there are high concentrations of private lets, some have caused a blight on the local community, especially in low-demand areas. In Sedgefield, where there are several ex-colliery villages with rows of terraced housing, private landlords have moved in. In some streets up to 40% or 50% of the properties are private lets. In others half the landlords are absentees, with some even living abroad. Over the past four years I have had numerous cases of private landlords who have neglected their properties and tenants. Antisocial behaviour has become a major problem in the affected areas, and some of the residents who have lived in the streets in question for years now do not feel part of the local community that they have known for a long time.
Two areas of Sedgefield—Dean Bank in Ferryhill and an area of Chilton—have been designated selective licensing areas, in which private landlords have to sign up to special conditions and protocols. They have been successful, but more needs to be done.
The basic problem is not private landlords. Some are a problem and some are very good landlords, but the vast majority are amateurs without the skills and wherewithal to deal with being a private landlord. The buy-to-let market has led to a huge increase in such landlords. The market has grown because people saw it as an opportunity to make capital gain, for example, from increased profits from the value of properties.
To help the huge number of private landlords, it is in their interest for a national register to be set up. With satisfaction lower in the sector than in others, and problems with private renting leading so many people to seek advice, it is clear that private renting is not securing the needs of households and communities. The universal cover of a national register will be a significant help to local authorities in identifying and targeting rogue landlords, and in enabling better joint working between local authorities to tackle such landlords across multiple areas. Serial offenders could be struck off the list.
In the immediate future, however, the private rented sector is under increasing pressure and there is a need to strengthen local authorities’ response to tackle rogue landlords and the many amateur landlords who need help as much as anything else. The purpose of the register would be distinct from licensing. It would be mandatory and its purpose would be to enable local authorities to get a handle on the local private sector so that they can work with landlords. The register could be run by local authorities or housing associations, or it could be outsourced to a third party. A fee could be charged for administrative costs. Sanctions for failing to register could be preventing landlords from serving section 21 notices, rent payment orders or fines.
The register could help local authorities to determine how many private landlords there are in a given area. If the number reaches a certain level, I believe that landlords should pay a community levy, especially in those areas where they dominate the housing stock. If people take out of the community, they should put back into it. If, for example, 25% of homes in a given area are private lets, or if one landlord owns several properties in an area, a community levy should be payable into a fund to put towards the upkeep of the area. Local people, in the spirit of localism, could decide how the fund is spent, whether to help with policing, environmental issues or whatever. Social landlords already do that, so why not private landlords? Again, the levy could be administered by a local authority, housing association or another arm’s length organisation. The more efficiently the community levy fund is administered, the more money will be available for investing in community programmes.
If in nine years’ time—by 2020—one in five of our homes is a private let, the whole sector will need to be professionalised. The private rented sector is the only sector that is currently expanding. The sector is necessary, but it needs to live up to its responsibilities. I have seen that for myself in my communities.
The sector needs regulation. Even the Rugg report says that market forces alone do not adequately police management quality in the sector. Therefore, intervention is required, not only for our communities, but for tenants and private sector landlords themselves. The Bill goes some way towards redressing the balance. In any event, I hope it raises what is a growing concern to many in the House, but more importantly, a growing concern to the people and communities whom we represent.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Phil Wilson, Tom Blenkinsop, Mrs Jenny Chapman, Nic Dakin, Lilian Greenwood, Graham Jones, Ian Mearns, Owen Smith, David Wright, Stella Creasy and Lyn Brown present the Bill.
Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 201).
Armed Forces Bill (PROGRAMME) (no. 2)
Armed Forces Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:40 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:27 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:41 - divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 and 15.
Mr Robathan
The new clause reflects the importance that the Government place on their reserve forces, and amendments 14 and 15 are concomitant with it. The new clause is designed to align more closely the circumstances in which reservists may be called out in the United Kingdom with those in which regular personnel may be used. It would enable reservists to be deployed in the UK more widely than at present so that their skills can be used in a wider range of circumstances.
Legislation has been in place for some time allowing our reserves to be called out to serve on warlike or humanitarian operations worldwide. Indeed, it is worth stressing that there have been more than 24,000 reservist mobilisations in support of operations both at home and overseas, including Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2003. I am sure that the Committee would wish to pay tribute to those reservists who have deployed on operations—with some losses, I fear. During those operations, 27 reservists have made the ultimate sacrifice.
In the UK, local reserve troops were mobilised under existing legislation to provide assistance during the Cumbrian flooding in November 2009, and helped to build Barker bridge—so-called after the tragic death of Police Constable Barker during some of the worst UK flooding in living memory. This assistance could not have been provided so quickly and efficiently without the excellent support of reserves from the local Territorial Army unit. However, we do not have legislation in place to allow us to use the numbers of reserves available or their specialist skills in all appropriate circumstances. The Secretary of State’s power to call out reservists in the UK is currently limited by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to the defence of the realm or
“the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life and property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”
There are many circumstances falling short of “disaster or apprehended disaster” in which reserves could make a valuable contribution, but under the existing legislation, they cannot be mobilised. I have in mind a number of examples. The first is the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, when we could not call out reservists because the work that needed to be done was not to alleviate distress or preserve life or property. The second is a major disruption to the road and rail network, such as we saw at the beginning of this year, when reservists could not be mobilised to deliver vital food and blood supplies to a large number of people over a wide area, and when we had to resort at the last minute to volunteers. The final example is a requirement for unarmed, low-level support to the security operation for the London 2012 Olympic games. Currently in such circumstances, it would be possible to use regular forces because there is a power to use regulars for urgent work of national importance. This power has been used for a wide range of activities, such as dealing with the consequences of flooding, heath fires, severe snow, hurricanes and the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001.
I propose to amend the 1996 Act so that reserve forces, like regular forces, can be called out for urgent work of national importance. The amendment represents an improvement to the existing position, where there is one test governing whether regulars can be used, and another slightly different test governing whether reserves can be mobilised. Being able to mobilise reserve forces would offer a number of important practical advantages. First, there are more than 30,000 committed individuals in the volunteer reserves. Secondly, reservists are based in every part of the UK and can bring to bear important local knowledge in relation to local problems. Thirdly, this would enable us to draw on a range of specialist skills held in the reserves that do not exist in the regular forces—for example, medical skills, meteorological expertise, and rail and maritime expertise. Over the last decade, we have seen the ever greater integration of the reserves into our force capability. The new clause is proposed in that developing context. The Future Reserves 2020 study, which will report to the Prime Minister this month, is taking a wider look at the role of the reserves and making better use of their specialist skills. I expect the study to recommend that we should make more of the strengths and skills that reservists offer. The new clause represents a first step towards that.
Mobilisation is an essential tool for two reasons. First, it gives the Department the guarantee of the reservists’ service; secondly, it activates statutory employment and financial assistance safeguards for reservists and their employers. These help to minimise any disruption that mobilisation may cause. Under the new clause, as now, no reservist will be out of pocket as a result of mobilisation, and every employer will have the right to apply for financial assistance that will allow him temporarily to replace any member of staff who is mobilised. In addition, existing restrictions on both the length of mobilised service that an individual can be required to undertake and the frequency of mobilisation will apply. Furthermore, reservists and their employers will be able to appeal against mobilisation under the proposed new power, just as they can under existing powers. There is also a further appeal to a tribunal that will be independent from the Ministry of Defence. In reality, the MOD works with employers to identify potential concerns at the earliest stage and support the employer throughout.
I hope that I have covered the major implications and benefits of the new clause. Let me stress that this change to the legislation strengthens the role of reservists in our armed forces and society more widely.
Government amendment 14 provides that the provisions in the Bill relating to the call-out of reserve forces will come into effect two months after it receives Royal Assent. That is the standard period of time for bringing provisions into force, and we see no need to deviate from the norm in this case. Government amendment 15 changes the long title of the Bill. The amendment is necessary because the new provision about the call-out of reserve forces is a subject that would not be covered by the long title as it stands.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by paying tribute to the men and women who serve our country as reservists. They show immense dedication to serving our country. As the Minister said, we have only to look at the vital role played by reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the importance of reserve forces.
The Government are undertaking a review into the future of reserve forces. If we are to believe what we read in the newspapers, reservists are likely to be given greater responsibility in the coming years. Indeed, the logical conclusion to draw from the strategic defence and security review is that we must seek to make the most of the assets that we have, and that includes the reserve forces. In bringing forward these amendments, the Government are perhaps pre-empting the conclusion of that review. The amendments give the Secretary of State greater powers to call in reservists. That is something that, in principle, we are more than happy to support; indeed, the Minister gave some good examples of the circumstances in which such powers would be useful. However, the Government need to be honest with the men and women of the reserve forces. If they are to ask them to do more, they also need to provide the necessary protection and support in the workplace. We are talking about people who join up to serve their country, and we have a duty to protect their jobs when they are mobilised. It is in this area that there are some questions for the Government to answer.
We know that the Secretary of State is not necessarily on the best of terms with the Prime Minister and his other Cabinet colleagues. I wonder whether there is much joined-up thinking taking place in Government about the role of reservists and the duty of care that we owe them. The Cabinet Office has a Red Tape Challenge website, which consults the public on legislation that could or should be scrapped. When launching the site, the Prime Minister wrote to all Ministers to say:
“We know we have inherited far too much costly, pointless, and illiberal government red tape.”
In the employment law section of the website, item No. 1 in the list of legislation up for being scrapped is the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985. The Act states that reservists have a liability to be mobilised and provides two kinds of protection. The first is protection of employment, providing protection from unfair dismissal and making it a criminal offence for an employer to terminate a reservist’s job without their consent solely or mainly because he or she has a liability to be mobilised. Secondly, there is a right to reinstatement. The Act provides a legal right to the reservist to be reinstated in their former job, subject to certain conditions. When pressed on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) at the most recent Defence questions, the Secretary of State refused to deny that those provisions were under consideration. The Government are therefore considering scrapping legislation that protects reserved forces employment on a day-to-day basis and when on a tour of duty.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Lady is making a good point, but I have to say that I am unsighted of the 1985 Act. I thought that it had been superseded by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. She obviously knows a great deal about this, but I thought that that was where the current regulations sat. Will she illuminate the matter for the Committee?
Gemma Doyle
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not make that clear when asked about this matter. If he or the Minister could give the Committee a concrete commitment on the protection of employment for reservists today, that would be very welcome. It cannot be right for the Government to consider asking more of the men and women of our reserve forces while cutting the protection that they need in their place of work. Will the Minister make an unequivocal commitment not to scrap the vital protection provided by the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985 or, if he believes that it has been superseded, will he clarify the position? We support the new clause, but the Government must be clear about retaining the support and protection that the reserve forces expect and deserve.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I should like to speak briefly in support of new clause 12, but I must start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces.
My understanding of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 is that it contains three separate sections under which a reservist may be mobilised: section 52, under which no one has been mobilised to date; section 54, which involves war fighting, and under which I was mobilised to Afghanistan; and section 56, to which the new clause relates directly, and under which I have previously been mobilised to Kosovo and Bosnia. I want to underline the points that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) made in his opening remarks. It might seem odd that I am supporting a new clause that could result in my being mobilised even more often, but this amendment to the Act is long overdue.
Speaking from my experience as an explosive ordnance disposal operator, I want to add to the examples that the Committee has already been given. During 2003-04, under Operation Telic in Iraq, we found that as the threat from improvised explosive devices continued to grow, the call on our EOD operators also increased. The Committee might be aware that, here in the UK, we continue regularly to dig up world war two munitions. That constant threat is covered by a 24-hour operation known as Operation Midway, which is based in Wimbish, in Cambridgeshire.
The problem that we faced in 2004 was that, as the threat of IEDs grew in Iraq, our qualified bomb disposal officers were slowly being drawn out into theatre and we were struggling to cover the UK threat. Under section 56, members of the Territorial Army were mobilised to go and sit in Wimbish to cover the Operation Midway threat. It might surprise the Committee that most munitions are normally dug up on a Friday afternoon. They are invariably found on building sites, although probably not on a Friday afternoon. No one wants to interrupt the works, however, so the munitions magically seem to turn up on a Friday afternoon, which is an ideal time for the members of the Territorial Army who come in to play at weekends to deal with the munitions.
The terms of section 56 are clear. Subsection (1)(a) states that a reservist may be mobilised only
“on operations outside the United Kingdom for the protection of life or property”.
Clearly, the UK disposal of munitions under Operation Midway does not count in that regard. Subsection (1)(b) states that a reservist may be mobilised
“on operations anywhere in the world for the alleviation of distress or the preservation of life or property in time of disaster or apprehended disaster.”
Now the problem was that although that might cover UK operations at the time, was it fair to say that the potential digging up of a world war two munition in London was a potential disaster? It was very much a grey area. What tended to happen was that people were mobilised under section 56; they sat in Wimbish for a number of months and then, right at the end of their mobilisation, they would be deployed out to theatre in Iraq simply so they could be “covered” under the mobilisation. That was obviously nonsense, which is why I believe it is so important for the Government to introduce the new clause so that in such specialised situations—along with examples that the Minister provided—we can allow reservists’ actions to continue.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel from his personal experience that if people are constantly going to be asked to serve, it could act as a disincentive to joining the reserve forces?
Mark Lancaster
I am making the point that we must be careful how we use these powers. The point I was coming on to was that an employer might have to give the job back to an employee who has been away on mobilised service, but he does not necessarily have to promote him. Who is going to be promoted—the person permanently at work or the person who comes and goes every two or three years? I support the extension of these powers, but I add the caveat that we must be very careful how we use them. We should not use them in a manner that could act as a disincentive along the lines that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) suggested.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we should be careful how we use these powers. Does he agree that we should also be careful how we communicate them to potential employers, so that they know exactly how the powers might be used and will not disadvantage people in the reserve forces?
Mark Lancaster
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like to commend both this Government and previous ones for the amount of support they have offered to SaBRE—the organisation that does so much to communicate with reservists’ employers.
My final point, on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister, is that the new clause will make no amendments to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, which deals with the duration for which a member of the reserve forces can be mobilised. Although it is a fairly complicated clause, the basic point is that a member of the armed forces can be mobilised for a maximum of nine months beyond their enlistment. If I read it correctly, that means mobilisation could run for a period of three years and nine months. It is unlikely that that has ever happened—I know of no example of it happening—but given what the new clause is intended to do for localised UK operations that are likely to be short in their enduring operation, I would ask whether the Minister is happy about the absence of any amendment to section 57 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, pay tribute to the work of the reserve forces. Some time ago I was in Iraq and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the commanding officer at Baghdad airport was a reservist. Much good work is done by the men and women of the reserve forces. No doubt there will be greater calls on their time in the future, bearing in mind the likelihood of an announcement in the coming week or two.
Subject to what the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, I think the amending provisions are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, if we think of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they are perhaps overdue. Unfortunately, we in the United Kingdom are subject to increasing natural disasters, with which I am sure the men and women of the reserve forces are more than adequately equipped to deal. They may well prove a useful addition to the powers that we already have to deal with what are, unfortunately, frequently occurring natural events.
Subject to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, I think that the new clause and amendments are perfectly reasonable, and that the Government were right to table them.
Mr Robathan
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and to other Members who have spoken for their generous support.
I do not know where the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) gets her ideas. As far as I am aware—and I have seen them together—the Secretary of State is on very good terms with the Prime Minister and, I am sure, with his other Cabinet colleagues. They are probably on better terms than the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), and the leader of the Labour party, although I am not sure about that. It is just what I read in the newspapers. Perhaps I am wrong, because one should not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers. When I last said that at the Dispatch Box I got into terrible trouble, not least because a newspaper correspondent was sitting in the Press Gallery. He wrote about me in a way that was not entirely polite. Anyway, I am sure that my right hon. Friends are on very good terms.
I can confirm that the new clause has been discussed with other Departments, and I understand that it has been cleared by the Cabinet, but it was discussed in particular by the Home Office, which deals with civil contingencies. I do not think that the hon. Lady need worry about that. As for the Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment) Act 1985, I will write to her about it, but I can tell her now that we have absolutely no intention of removing employment protection from reservists. Unlike the hon. Lady, I am not an authority on the Act, but I will write to her—I am looking at my officials now—to confirm that there is no intention of repealing the Act. The protection must, of course, continue.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), on the basis of personal experience. He gave the excellent example of Operation Midway, of which I had not known because, needless to say, it took place under the last Administration. As for the duration of deployment, I think that were we to deploy any reservist for three years and nine months, the House would have quite a lot to say about it. I am not minded to change the legislation, but I do not believe that circumstances would ever arise—apart from general war, which I hope we are not expecting—that required the mobilisation of people for that length of time. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is smiling. I hope that we are not expecting it, and I do not think we are, at least not in the review.
Mr Robathan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his confirmation.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 12 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 31
Commencement
Amendment made: 14, page 29, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1A) Section [Call out of reserve forces] comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.’.—(Mr Robathan.)
Title
Amendment made: 15, line 4, after ‘Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915;’ insert ‘to make provision about the call out of reserve forces;’.—(Mr Robathan.)
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Armed forces covenant report
The Temporary Chairman (Mr Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
(a) education;
(b) accommodation;
(c) healthcare;
(d) mental healthcare;
(e) pensions and benefits;
(f) employment and training;
(g) support for reservists and their employers;
(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;
(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and
(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.
Amendment 3, page 2, leave out line 11 and insert ‘including—
(a) the operation of section 359C (Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter),
(aa) the operation of section 359D (Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers),
(ab) the operation of section 359E (Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups),
(ac) the operation of section 359F (Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum),
(ad) the effect of the following issues upon service people—
(i) welfare benefits;
(ii) housing;
(iii) healthcare;
(iv) education, including educational courses and training;
(v) employment advice;
(vi) budgetary and life skills;
(vii) debt management;
(viii) alcohol and drug treatment;
(ix) relationship skills/domestic violence courses for perpetrators and victims; and’.
Amendment 17, page 2, line 11, after ‘housing’, insert—
‘(aa) in the operation of inquests’.
Government amendments 11, 12 and 13
Amendment 4, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2A) The report shall include expert recommendations on improving the welfare of former armed services personnel.
(2B) Expert recommendations shall include a timeframe in which these recommendations should be implemented.
(2C) If the Secretary of State will not implement any of the expert recommendations as directed then he shall lay a report before Parliament explaining why they have not been implemented, within 40 days of the laying of the armed forces covenant report.’.
New clause 2—Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel
‘After section 359A of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
“359B Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel
(1) A Minister shall be appointed within the Cabinet Office who shall be known as the Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel.
(2) The roles and responsibility of the Minister shall be set out by the Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office by order and shall include—
(a) Laying the Annual Armed Forces Covenant Report, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Defence.
(b) Conducting such activities as shall be seen to be positive for the well-being of former armed services personnel.
(c) Conducting detailed and independently verifiable research to establish a baseline on which future progress can be measured.
(3) The Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel shall be appointed within three months of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.”.’.
New clause 3—Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter
‘After section 359B of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
“359C Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter
(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published, indicating the rights to assistance that former armed services personnel shall expect.
(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be made by a Minister of the Crown by order made by statutory instrument and include—
(a) the requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces,
(b) the requirement of a resettlement assessment, conducted approximately six months prior to the expected date of discharge,
(c) the requirement of access to advice from relevant voluntary organisations, approximately three to four months prior to the expected date of discharge, regarding the following possible needs—
(i) welfare;
(ii) housing;
(iii) educational course and training;
(iv) employment advice;
(v) budgetary and life skills;
(vi) debt management;
(vii) alcohol and drug treatment; and
(viii) relationship skills/domestic violence courses.
(d) the requirement of back up support and advice, provided in person, by telephone and other reasonable means, to all former armed services personnel at any point within the first six months following discharge,
(e) the requirement of tailored support for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system,
(f) any other relevant assistance considered necessary by the Minister in pursuit of the improvements in former armed services personnel welfare.
(3) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be published following consultation with relevant stakeholders.
(4) “Relevant stakeholders” includes members of veterans’ support agencies.
(5) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
(6) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Rights Charter shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
New clause 4—Former armed services personnel support officers
‘After section 359C of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
“359D Former Armed Services Personnel Support Officers
(1) A former armed services personnel support officer post shall be appointed in each prison and probation service in England and Wales.
(2) The role of the former armed services personnel support officer shall be to ensure continuation of support in the criminal justice system.
(3) Former armed services personnel support officers shall be appointed within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
(4) The operation of the former armed services personnel support officers shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
New clause 5—Financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups
‘After section 359D of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
“359E Financial Support for Former Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups
(1) Financial support shall be provided for former armed services personnel welfare groups in each financial year to provided assistance to former armed services personnel.
(2) Former armed services personnel welfare groups eligible for such financial support shall be those approved by the Minister.
(3) The criterion for such eligibility shall be published by the Minister following an independent scoping study into the needs of former armed services personnel and the services currently available which will provide a baseline for future progress.
(4) The independent scoping study shall be published not later than one year after the Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
(5) The operation of the Financial Support for Armed Services Personnel Welfare Groups shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
New clause 6—Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum
‘After section 359E of Armed Forces Act 2006, insert—
“359F Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum
(1) A Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be created to ensure best practice in the treatment and discussion of veterans’ welfare issues.
(2) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall have membership comprising representatives of the statutory, private and voluntary sector.
(3) The chair and members of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy forum shall be appointed by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders and shall include a government representative.
(4) The criterion for membership and responsibilities of the veterans’ policy forum shall be determined by the Secretary of State following consultation with relevant stakeholders.
(5) “Relevant stakeholders” shall include Ministers in devolved legislatures and veterans’ support agencies.
(6) The Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall report from time to time to the relevant authority.
(7) “Relevant authority” means Ministers responsible for the implementation of policies relating to veterans’ welfare, including Ministers in devolved administrations.
(8) The Former Armed Services Personnel Rights’ Policy Forum shall be introduced within one year of Royal Assent to the Armed Forces Act 2011.
(9) The operation of the Former Armed Services Personnel Policy Forum shall be reported upon in the Armed Forces Covenant Report.”.’.
New clause 13—Armed Forces Advocates
‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
“359B Armed Forces Advocates
(1) The existing network of Armed Forces Advocates will be extended through the nomination of supporting advocates at regional and local level to ensure that local authorities work together to identify and resolve issues in local policy or the delivery of services that may affect service people.
(2) In this section “Armed Forces Advocate” means public servant nominated to monitor and resolve policy or legislative issues that arise for service people.”.’.
New clause 14—Duties of ombudsmen and Covenant commitments
‘After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
“359C Duties of Ombudsmen and Covenant commitments
‘The Parliamentary and Local Government Ombudsmen shall have the duty to investigate complaints from service personnel that a public body or local authority has failed to meet the commitments outlined in the ‘The Armed Forces Covenant’ and ‘The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow’.”.’.
New clause 17—Duties of public bodies and Ministers
‘(1) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must have regard to those matters to which the Secretary of State is to have regard in preparing an armed forces covenant report, under subsection (2A) of section 359A of AFA 2006.
(2) In preparing policy, public bodies and Ministers must consider whether the making of special provision for service people or particular descriptions of service people would be justified.’.
Mr Llwyd
I am pleased to be able to speak to the amendments, but also rather baffled by the fact that I was unable to raise my points earlier. Although I spoke on Second Reading and expressed a strong interest in being involved in the earlier Committee stage, I was unfortunately denied that opportunity. For the first time in the current Parliament, the number of Members dealing with a Bill in a Select Committee was reduced so that a representative of a minority party would not be present. I am sure that my disappointment is shared by my colleagues the hon. Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson). Be that as it may, however, I am very glad to have been given the opportunity to speak.
My amendments and new clauses focus on the need to strengthen the provision of welfare for veterans of the armed forces, an issue on which I have been campaigning in the House and outside for a number of years. They would establish a more robust structure of support for personnel leaving the forces, and would ensure that veterans were not disadvantaged in any way when trying to gain access to public services as a result of the service that they had given. They were heavily influenced by the recommendations made by the justice unions parliamentary group on veterans in the criminal justice system, of which I am chair. They also deal with the need to enshrine the military covenant in law, a move that I am glad to hear that the Government will be making in the coming months via the Bill. I hoped to see a little more detail about the covenant in the Government amendments, given that the devil is always in the detail, but the Government have at least acknowledged the need to uphold, maintain and develop further that all-important relationship between our armed forces and the public.
My amendments set out what we in the justice unions parliamentary group believe is a firm course of action to tackle the problems faced by vulnerable veterans, and it is my earnest hope that the Committee will give them due consideration. New clause 2 and amendment 2 seek to introduce a Minister for Former Armed Services Personnel, who would sit in the Cabinet Office and among whose responsibilities would be the laying of the armed forces report before Parliament each year. Most important, the Minister’s remit would extend across Departments, and he or she would therefore be ideally placed to tackle veterans’ issues, needs and priorities in an holistic way.
The Bill provides for the armed forces report to be laid by the Secretary of State for Defence. I mean to cause no offence whatsoever to the present Secretary of State in arguing that a Minister with such a wide remit cannot possibly hope to dedicate as much attention to that document as I believe it deserves, and that the report should therefore be written by someone whose sole ministerial responsibility lies with veterans’ welfare and who will not be unduly compromised—in the strict sense—by other vested interests.
Amendment 3 seeks to broaden the remit of the armed forces report, and is relevant to a number of new clauses to which I will return briefly later. Amendment 16, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), makes many of the same points. My recommendations were made before the earlier Committee stage, from which I was excluded, but I am glad that they can be raised in the Chamber now.
As Members will know, the Bill specifies that an armed forces covenant report shall be laid before Parliament each year, and shall cover the effects had by membership, or former membership, of the armed forces seen in the fields of health care, education, and housing. Let me make the genuine observation that that is a welcome step, given that the regulation of the services available to veterans is a prerequisite for improvement of those services. I believe that the proposed report’s remits do not go far enough, however. My amendments demand that they inquire in greater depth into how having a military service background affects personnel in obtaining public services. The report should not simply discuss education, housing and health care; I have specified that it should also cover other subjects, including welfare benefits, employment advice, budgetary and life skills, debt management, alcohol and drug treatment and relationship skills.
Chris Bryant
For the record, I think it is a shame that the full range of views in the House were not represented on the Committee in question because a Member such as the right hon. Gentleman was unable to serve on it.
New clause 3 states that there should be a requirement to undergo a psychological assessment immediately prior to leaving the armed forces. Does the right hon. Gentleman that think there would also be value in making sure there is a psychological assessment on entering the armed forces, as many of the young men and women who enter the armed forces have psychological needs, and they ought to be met while they are serving members, and not considered only when they leave?
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Having served on Committees with the right hon. Gentleman, I know that he always makes an important contribution. On the question of whether his proposal is the best way of ensuring all disadvantages are covered by the report, does he share my concern that by listing all the various areas, he may, in some sense, be prescribing them, and that it would be better instead to leave some discretion with the Secretary of State to be able to look at any disadvantage and report on that, because it is hard to predict exactly where such disadvantages may lie?
Mr Llwyd
I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman makes that point with complete sincerity, but the Secretary of State can look at further areas in any case; he is not limited to dealing with only certain areas. One matter is of concern to me, however, especially from having spoken to representatives of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Not so long ago, I spoke with a gentleman who told me that about 70% of the work he does is debt management, and, unfortunately, drug and alcohol abuse are also big issues. I felt that by specifying these areas, they could at least be identified. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, so the Secretary of State would not be prevented from looking at other issues. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes and appreciate the way in which he expressed it, but I do not think listing would necessarily cause any harm.
SSAFA suggests that debt management is one of the greatest problems facing former armed services personnel, since being in the military provides stable employment for them. Armed forces personnel are thus able to access relatively high levels of credit, although little or no training is given to them on how to control their finances. On leaving the forces without proper financial management training, problems with debt can easily arise, and lead to homelessness and crime.
When leaving the forces, an individual is officially made homeless. Former servicemen and women—although it should be pointed out that this problem is primarily associated with men—often end up relying on relatives or friends for temporary accommodation, putting strains on relationships in the process. If they are unable to gain employment, the patience of their relatives may wear thin, while, perversely, an inability to provide a permanent address decreases the likelihood of their finding a job. Ex-servicemen are thus catapulted into a vicious circle of social exclusion, which can be tackled only by strengthening the advice available to them prior to discharge. I shall briefly return to this point.
Equally importantly, the armed services report must give an account of how service life can increase the likelihood of people turning to drug and alcohol abuse. Post-traumatic stress disorder receives much attention in the press, but it is alcohol and other substance addictions that present the most significant threat to veterans’ mental health. Regrettably, anecdotal evidence suggests that at certain stages of Army life, alcohol is treated as a catalyst to unwinding—or, to use the fashionable phrase, self-medication.
Mr Llwyd
Yes, as the hon. Gentleman humorously says, unlike in Parliament, but let me return to my serious point.
It cannot be a coincidence that so many veterans leave active service displaying an over-dependence on alcohol. I hardly need say how quickly such a dependence can, if left totally untreated, feed into other habits, violent behaviour and crime. That is why I would like the report to address the point of counselling on substance misuse playing a vital part in, as it were, the decompression of personnel.
As those who have worked with or encountered veterans grappling with social estrangement will testify, these problems often do not arise singly, but are part of a package of social hindrances faced daily. It is thus only right that the report should take account of the multi-faceted nature of this rupture. Amendment 4 specifies that the report should take into account the recommendations of a panel of outside experts in the field, as well as specify a time frame in which they should be implemented. Proposed new subsection (2C) to clause 2 ensures that the Secretary of State is obliged to implement recommendations, rather than simply write things he or she has no intention of doing, by the fact that he or she must lay a further report before Parliament within 40 days of the laying of the initial report, explaining why certain recommendations have not been implemented.
Amendment 3 also specifies that the report should outline the operation of the former armed services personnel rights charter, the former armed services personnel support officers, financial support for former armed services personnel welfare groups and the former armed services personnel policy forum, all of which are explained in the Bill.
New clause 3 pertains to the former armed forces personnel rights charter, which would put in legislation an obligation on the Government to ensure that veterans undergo psychological assessment before leaving the armed forces—and possibly on entry, as has been said; that they have a resettlement assessment approximately six months before the expected date of discharge; that they have access to advice from voluntary organisations on how to combat potential problems after leaving the forces; and that they are given access to that advice in good time before they are discharged.
At the moment, many veterans feel when that when leaving the forces people are on their own. Regardless of whether that is the case, I think we need to intensify personnel’s awareness of the support that is available to those who need it.
Mrs Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be able to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and take this opportunity to thank him for his incredible work for veterans not just in this Parliament but over many years, for which the entire House will commend him. May I put it to him, however, that his amendments are, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) pointed out, a little too prescriptive? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a simpler way to address the needs of our veterans would be for this country to have a veterans’ administration or Department, as every other nation in the English-speaking world does?
Mr Llwyd
I thank the hon. Lady for her very generous comments, but I visited the United States in September and I visited the veterans’ agency. It is the second largest Department of State in the United States and it costs an absolute fortune to run. It was put in place, I believe, because the United States had to deal with the fallout of Vietnam. There is a much smaller scale operation in Canada. In an ideal world, the hon. Lady would be right, but in these straitened circumstances, it would be rather unrealistic of me to make that call. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we, too, will have such a Department. I do not make that call now, because I do not think it is realistic so to do.
I take the hon. Lady’s point about my amendments being prescriptive and so on. It is a moot point: I may well be wrong and she may be right; I do not know. One thing we should consider urgently, however, as I have mentioned, is having a Minister in the Cabinet Office to cross-cut all available services and to consider everything in each Department that might or might not impact on veterans. I think that would be a useful step forward, albeit that it is not so dramatic a step as a veterans’ Department, which, at the end of the day, she and I would undoubtedly favour although it is perhaps unrealistic to call for it at this stage.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am a little uneasy about the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal about a Minister in the Cabinet Office and about the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mrs Mensch) for a Department for veterans’ affairs. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Defence, the three services under him and under them the regiments and units to which people are attached are responsible for looking after veterans when they leave the services. To remove that responsibility from them and to give it to somebody else in the Cabinet Office or a separate Department would seem to me to be quite wrong.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Gentleman misses my point. That Minister would look at every single Department in turn, including the MOD, and when there was some form of engagement with veterans in that Department he or she would report accordingly on whatever he or she found to be the case. The responsibility would ultimately still lie with the military. I say, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman and those from the military who might be listening, that hitherto the military has not been very good at looking after veterans and that is why I am on my feet at the moment.
Sandra Osborne
I, for one, would love to see a dedicated Department for veterans in this country, notwithstanding the expense. If we feel that they deserve recognition, we should be prepared to put our money where our mouth is, perhaps not right now but in the future. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the huge step forward we are witnessing today is that the military covenant will be in law, which the Government previously resisted? That is a huge step forward.
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred to drug and alcohol abuse, which is unfortunately prevalent among large numbers of those who have served in our armed forces and among some in the armed forces. Sometimes the solutions are not all state run, however. The most successful organisation in helping people with alcohol dependency is Alcoholics Anonymous and, sometimes, the state and the Ministry of Defence have been rather reluctant to involve voluntary organisations such as Alcoholics Anonymous in helping people out of their addiction.
Mr Llwyd
I am sure that is right—I have no argument with that—but what is to prevent signposting and sending personnel to be assessed? For example, just down the road from here is an organisation called Veterans’ Aid, which is run by Wing Commander Hugh Milroy. Under his good offices, very few ex-service people are sleeping rough in London. There were quite a number of them 10 years ago; now there are hardly any. He has done that work. There are numerous organisations doing excellent work for ex-forces personnel, but I am arguing for a more consistent approach across the piece—a more holistic approach. I could use the words “postcode lottery”: there are good services and good practice, but we need to ensure that they are accessible across the piece and across all the constituent parts of the UK, wherever veterans are, wherever they served and whichever regiment they were with.
Mr Robathan
At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gale, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and all in the House would like to join me in congratulating Wing Commander Milroy on his richly deserved OBE in the birthday honours only last Saturday.
Mr Llwyd
I am delighted to congratulate Wing Commander Milroy on that—it is a well-deserved honour for a lot of hard work in difficult circumstances.
I do not want to take up too much time this evening, so I shall seek to truncate my remarks. Let me explain one or two more amendments. I will not press the Committee to a Division, because I want to make my points and to return to them at another time.
New clause 3 specifies that back-up advice, in person and by telephone, should be made available for the first six months following discharge. Finally, tailored support should be made available for former armed services personnel in the criminal justice system. The issues surrounding veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system have been the subject of debates in this House and I shall not go into great detail about them now, but holistic support is required, I believe, for such veterans to ensure that they get the support they need.
New clause 4 would appoint a support officer for former armed services personnel in each prison and probation service in England and Wales. That might sound a bit airy-fairy and pie in the sky, but those people are out there. They are often people who are interested in the subject and who are ex-service personnel, but that turns on the question of whether we have the ex-services personnel in a prison, which is often the key to whether services are properly delivered for these people.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I just want to make one comment, which is that a heck of a lot of people leave the armed forces and go on to lead perfectly normal, decent lives. They do not need help and I am a little worried that we are giving the impression that everyone needs some sort of help. They do not; only a small percentage of people require that help.
Mr Llwyd
I agree entirely and I do not want to give the false impression that the majority of service leavers are in dire need of help. That has never been true and never will be. I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board and I agree with what he says. He, of course, comes from a service background and knows this patch rather well—probably far better than I do.
Mr Llwyd
I will move to finish my remarks fairly quickly because we are subject to some rather strange remarks at the moment.
The role that support officers would play would be to ensure that relevant individuals who came into contact with the criminal justice system received support while they were held within the system. Only a small percentage end up in the criminal justice system, but it is entirely possible that a goodly number of those people would not be in the prison system if they had been assisted in other ways when they came out of the services. That is my point. As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not saying that the majority are affected, as that would be absolute nonsense.
Concurrent with the need for support officers is the need to improve the recording of the number of veterans held in prisons, on probation or on parole. At no time hitherto has an individual been asked, upon entry to the justice system, whether they have a service record, but that is now changing I am pleased to say. I shall not go into this topic at length, but I note that a survey conducted by the Home Office in 2001-02 recorded that roughly 6% of inmates were veterans, whereas a survey carried out by the MOD in 2007 estimated the percentage in one prison, Dartmoor, at 17.5%. I shall not get into bandying figures around, as we have had this debate before. These are MOD figures, not mine or NAPO’s. I remember that the last time we had such a debate everyone clubbed together to denigrate Harry Fletcher, but these are not his figures.
Mr Jones
I know that discussion of this issue can be a bit like “Groundhog Day”, but when I was a Minister, I—under pressure from the right hon. Gentleman, who takes a great interest in this matter—had the Ministry of Justice’s figures, going back to 1967 for the Royal Air Force, cross-referenced with service records and the figure came out at just over 3%. That is not to dispute the fact that there might be more of those individuals in certain prisons, but the facts were established independently and I do not know why certain people keep disputing them.
Mr Llwyd
I will tell the hon. Gentleman why, if we have time to talk turkey. They are disputed because of the scoping exercise that was recently carried out, which came out with a figure of about 5% or 6%. The figure does not really matter, but figures he mentioned excluded women who had served, the reserve forces, those who had served in Northern Ireland and people under 18.
Mr Gray
May I make a subtler point, rather than disputing the numbers? Although some of the people we are discussing may theoretically be veterans, in that they may have served in the armed services at some time, the only ones we should be concerned about and who need special care of the kind being described would be those who have recently left the armed services, possibly having had combat experience, and those whose crimes can be directly attributable to their service. The mere fact that someone perhaps did national service 30 years ago should not necessarily distinguish them from other prisoners.
Mr Llwyd
I agree. The only slight note of caution I would add is that, whatever the figure, there are a number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, PTSD can show itself within a month or can take 15 years to develop.
New clause 5 sets out that financial support shall be made available for ex-services personnel. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work of service charities. New clause 5 also sets out the importance of conducting a study of the services already available to veterans, which would provide a baseline for future progress. There is perhaps a little too much room for overlap in some services, whereas some needs are hardly catered for at all. Joining services together and learning from best practice would establish a holistic means to tackle the problem.
Finally, new clause 6 would establish a veterans’ policy forum that would draw its membership from the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. The aim of this forum would be to consult the Government on best practice in the treatment of veterans and their welfare. This once again rests on the vital importance of those with vested interests in this field working together so that no veteran will be made to feel abandoned by a system that is unable to tackle the peculiar problems they might face. I note that a number of amendments surrounding the military covenant have now been withdrawn. I know not what the reason for that is, but I conclude by saying that having the covenant in statutory form is a historic step. I hope that our debates on these clauses will lead to further action being taken in the not-too-distant future as well.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady may speak to any of the amendments that have been grouped. They will be moved, if they are moved, when they are reached at the appropriate point in the Bill, so it is simply a question of speaking to them now.
Gemma Doyle
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Gale. I will speak to amendments 16 and 17 and to new clauses 13, 14 and 17. As the Committee knows, the vast majority of debate and discussion on the Bill has been about clause 2 and specifically about the military covenant and how best to ensure that it is honoured. Our concern all along has been to ensure that the Government achieve what they have said they want to achieve by enshrining the covenant in law. At the heart of this debate is the overriding principle that no one should be disadvantaged because of their military service. Indeed, many service families have told me that they do not want special treatment—just fair treatment. I welcome the Government’s amendments as a step in the right direction on the military covenant, but the path to get them to this point has been far from graceful. It has been both tortuous and frustrating to watch Ministers deny what was in black and white on paper in front of them, but however they got here I am certainly glad that they have progressed.
We spent many hours debating the covenant in the Select Committee, with the Government arguing both that the unamended Bill enshrined the covenant in law and that it was not necessary to do so. I am not sure whether they have changed their minds on either or both of those points, but I welcome the change of heart none the less and I am pleased to confirm that we support the amendments in the name of the Minister for the Armed Forces although they are not as strong as we had hoped. They enshrine in law the principles of reporting to Parliament, but they are still a step away from fully enshrining the covenant in law. I suspect that Ministers have once again been thwarted by lawyers and civil servants.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady accept that what we have before us is a vast improvement on the situation a year ago?
Gemma Doyle
The amendments tabled today are a vast improvement on the Bill as it stood. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, I wonder why he did not support my amendments in the Select Committee that would have achieved that. Instead, he voted down any proposals to strengthen the covenant or the Bill.
New clause 17 would fully enshrine—
Gemma Doyle
I should at least like to finish my sentence if that is all right.
New clause 17 would fully enshrine the principles of the covenant in law, not half-heartedly but unambiguously.
Mr Robathan
The point the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was trying to make was that between 1997 and 2010 there was a Labour Government—new Labour, old Labour or whatever we like to call them—and nothing was done. I do not hold the hon. Lady responsible because she was not in the House then. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, when we took office a year ago there was no mention of the covenant, yet now we are putting it on a statutory basis for the first time. I think I first used those words in the House on 10 January.
Gemma Doyle
On frequent occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that plenty was done for veterans under the previous Government, including the creation of his job. If he wants to keep it, perhaps he should have got this right in the first place.
New clause 17 would place a duty on all Departments and public bodies to give consideration to service families and veterans in policy making and implementation. Although it is very welcome that the Secretary of State will report to the House, I would rather such matters were integral to the policy-making framework from the beginning and the new clause would ensure that.
Chris Bryant
In her amendment 16, my hon. Friend draws a distinction—unlike the Bill—between health care and mental health care. Many people hope that there will one day be a time when nobody has to draw that distinction because we treat the two exactly the same, but unfortunately it is still an important area that we have to highlight, particularly for armed forces veterans, because all too often there is a Cinderella service that gets no attention. Does my hon. Friend think that it is essential to maintain that distinction? Otherwise, Ministers might just put a single sentence about mental health care into the Bill and that would be wholly insufficient.
Gemma Doyle
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Without amendment 16, there will be no requirement whatever for the Secretary of State to look at mental health care or to come to Parliament to report on it. As I have said on a number of occasions, I welcome both the duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament and the consequential annual debate, but I still have great concerns that as the Bill stands, only health, education and housing are cited as issues that the report should cover. That is not sufficient. The list in amendment 16 is more comprehensive and more appropriately reflects the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It was a pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. She says that she is keen to see things in black and white, and she refers to the prescription that she would like to see on the face of the Bill. May I point her to the evidence given by Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion in answer to my question? I asked:
“You seem to accept, therefore, that having a prescriptive set of pillars—areas that need to be focused on—in the Report would make it too exclusive and that it is better to have three or four areas that are clearly set out, as required by law, and a catch-all clause to incorporate anything else that is necessary at a point in time.”
To which Mr Simpkins responded, “I would indeed.” Why does the hon. Lady think she knows better than the director general of the Royal British Legion?
Gemma Doyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and I have debated that point before and, as he knows, I think he is confusing a list of prescribed entitlements with a list of issues on which the Secretary of State has to report. My point all along has been that the Secretary of State should not be reporting on the work of other Departments without reporting on the work of his own Department. It would be bizarre if a report criticised local authorities, or indeed the Department for Education, for disadvantaging the children of service people, but had no reference at all to the MOD’s responsibilities, such as pension provision for the armed forces. I cannot envisage a time in the near future when pension provision will not be an area of concern for our armed forces, so it should be included in the list.
The list does not limit the fields on which the Secretary of State should report; it expands them and makes provision for further relevant issues to be included as circumstances dictate.
Mr Robathan
When the Secretary of State comes to the House to make his annual report and, if the hon. Lady is still in her place—
Mr Robathan
Very unlikely, if I may say so—as the hon. Lady has already suggested.
Is the hon. Lady telling the Committee that, if she is still in her place and there is no mention in the report of pension provision or mental health care—on which we are doing a great deal of work, as she knows; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has done a lot of work for us and we are taking it forward—and she thinks that is an issue, she will not mention it?
Gemma Doyle
I give the Minister a categorical assurance that I will mention it. My concern is whether the Secretary of State will even consider those issues. As the Bill stands, he does not have to; he need only look at education, health and housing, and that is not good enough.
I should have liked to explore further with the Minister why education, health care and housing had been chosen at the expense of the many other issues that have been of great concern over the past 12 months. However, he declined to give evidence on his Bill.
I am also concerned that there is nothing in clause 2 that applies to Scottish or Welsh veterans. At the very least, the Bill should be amended to send a clear signal about the UK-wide responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If the family of a Scottish service person live off-base in local authority housing, their housing requirements are devolved. We have been advised that the Secretary of State will update the House even when those matters are devolved. It seems odd that such a thing could happen, because the Secretary of State is not responsible for the delivery of devolved services; nor is he or she accountable, and thus could not answer questions on the matter.
Sandra Osborne
I am quite surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that. I understood in the Select Committee that the Government had undertaken to discuss that with the devolved Parliaments. I would have expected it to be resolved, including legislation, by now.
Gemma Doyle
I entirely agree, but the correspondence I have seen does not indicate that that is the case.
Mr Robathan
I think the Opposition are fishing in desperation for things to get excited about, but they do not need to. I have in my hand a letter from the right hon. Alex Salmond, who describes himself as the First Minister of Scotland, for that is indeed his post. The letter is dated June, although I cannot actually read the day. It thanks the Secretary of State for Defence for his letter about the armed forces covenant and states that the Scottish Government have and will continue to provide unequivocal support for the armed forces, families and veterans. I shall not read the whole thing out, but it welcomes the new armed forces covenant as an important step forward from the 2008 service personnel Command Paper.
There is no disagreement between us. We are in discussion with the devolved Administrations. We are interested in results, rather than the box-ticking that the hon. Lady describes.
Gemma Doyle
The letter that the right hon. Gentleman has read out does not address the point I just made. Constitutional issues are involved. I believe that it would be unconstitutional for the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch Box here and report on devolved matters. My understanding is that if I were to secure an Adjournment debate on a devolved matter, it would not be taken on the Floor of the House. It would be ruled out of order, as indeed it should be. I am afraid that the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not address that point.
However the process with the devolved Administrations is handled, the inclusion of pensions and benefits as a defined area in the report would ensure that the report reflected issues for service people throughout the whole United Kingdom. As the Bill stands, Scottish and Welsh veterans in particular are being ignored. Fundamentally, I want the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and report on the matters for which he or she is responsible.
It is one thing to talk about the military covenant; the real test is how that acknowledgement is reflected in the decisions of Ministers. Their actions mean that thousands of servicemen and women will be made redundant, many more will see cuts to their allowances and all will be hit disproportionately hard compared with other workers by plans to downgrade public sector pension rises. These are just some of the many decisions taken by the Government in the past 12 months that have undermined the military covenant and given no cognisance to the unique nature of the work that our armed forces do. I am glad the Bill will recognise that through amendment 11, and I hope that Ministers will reflect that in their decision making, in which such recognition has been absent so far.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady talks about honouring the armed services. Does she not think that a £38 billion black hole in the armed services budget dishonours the armed services—a black hole that her Government left behind?
Gemma Doyle
I should like to see the hon. Gentleman justify and explain that figure. It is not true, as he knows.
Chris Bryant
I am interested in outcomes as well. One of my concerns has been that armed forces personnel who live in different parts of the United Kingdom end up being treated rather differently because of the devolution settlement. That is not an argument to undo the devolution settlement; it is simply to say that, for instance, council tax relief for second homes for those who live in Army bases in Wales has been allowed at a different rate from that in England and in Scotland. It would be a good thing to be able to highlight those differences so that all the different elements of the United Kingdom heighten their support for veterans and those in the armed forces, rather than ignore them.
Gemma Doyle
My hon. Friend makes a good point. My concern is about how that will happen. I do not believe that the mechanisms have been fully worked through. That is why I want to strengthen the report and the fields that will be included in it.
On new clause 13, the nation demands a great deal from its servicemen and women, as is often stated in the House. They are required to follow orders without question. They and their families are often separated for long periods. Frequent moves, often at short notice, can disrupt family life. Forces accommodation is sometimes remote, making it difficult for partners and children to mix with civilian communities. Service personnel are entitled to expect as normal a family life as their military obligations permit.
Through the implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, the Labour Government worked to ensure that servicemen and women were seen not as ordinary citizens, but as people deserving the very best in public services. However, public services have not and do not always take account of their particular needs, and the Government should work across Departments to ensure that their needs are always taken into account. Major General John Moore-Bick from the Armed Forces Pension Society said:
“There is a unique nature to what armed forces families go through. This is not special pleading. In the armed forces you are asked to do things nobody else in the public sector would be asked to do. It is only right that they should have a special status.”
Governments of all parties must be committed to giving due consideration to the needs of servicemen and women, their families and veterans when it comes to public service delivery, working hard to create a level playing field so that forces families suffer no disadvantage.
Armed forces advocates were established by the Labour Government to identify and resolve policy or legislative issues that might affect the service community. They advise on how public services can best meet the service community’s needs. At present there are a number of armed forces advocates from various Government Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Treasury. This complements the work of organisations, associations and charities that offer advice and support to service personnel and their families.
The advocates network has worked well. New clause 13 would extend the existing network to ensure that all levels of government in the UK are represented and can therefore help to resolve the issues that may disadvantage our service community.
Mark Lancaster
What is the hon. Lady’s estimate of the cost of extending that body of advocates?
Gemma Doyle
I envisage that the advocates would be drawn from the staff already working in Departments, who are linked into the knowledge that exists and would be a useful point of contact for armed forces and their families interacting with those Departments and public bodies.
During the evidence sessions in Committee we heard time and again from charities that they wanted those with responsibility for the delivery of services to be involved in resolving issues, rather than the Secretary of State or a Minister directing from the centre. New clause 13 would ensure that those involved in service delivery at every level, including local government and NHS trusts, are aware of the special nature of service and of the need to tailor their services accordingly. We have talked a great deal about the need for accountability, and the new clause would ensure that accountability is enhanced by bringing into policy formulation and delivery those who are truly responsible for providing the service that people need.
Bob Stewart
I am a bit worried about including inquests in the annual report. This is such a sensitive area and I feel that it should be taken separately. I am not fixed on that, but let us be cautious about bringing inquests into an annual report. That might appear trite or to be dealing with them too lightly, when they are such an important and sensitive matter for families. That is just a comment. Although I am not sure where exactly I stand on the issue, that is my initial feeling.
Gemma Doyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I certainly appreciate his concerns. There is great concern among the families who are involved in the issue. Based on their reflections, I believe that further attention needs to be given to the matter.
Mr Gray
The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. I am slightly concerned by her observation that the amendment has come about as a result of representations from families. My experience, bearing in mind that all the inquests in recent years occur in Wiltshire, is that families are extremely well satisfied with Mr Masters, who has been the main coroner involved. I am not certain that there is a huge problem to be solved.
Gemma Doyle
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the office of the chief coroner was set up, following a great deal of consultation, to address issues that were raised. Indeed, it was established with cross-party support. Those issues have not gone away as far as I am aware, although I respect his experience in this matter. There have been varying reports from around the country, and that may be where the difference lies.
The office of the chief coroner is to be abolished by the Public Bodies Bill as a cost-saving measure. The Royal British Legion calls this “a betrayal” of bereaved armed forces families which threatens the military covenant. That intention was confirmed today in a written ministerial statement. I understand that the Government say they are transferring responsibilities, but the improvements that the new chief coroner’s office would have brought about will now be lost.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being very generous. Trowbridge is in my constituency and it is where the military inquests have been taking place under the supervision of Mr Masters, to whom I have spoken on the issue. Does the hon. Lady accept that the main concern that families have expressed over the past several years is not to do with the lack of a chief coroner, who could easily be biddable in the way that local coroners have not been, but because there has been a disparity in the legal support given to either side? The MOD has been sponsoring—paying for—barristers in what is meant to be a non-adversarial situation, something which, happily, is no longer the case.
Gemma Doyle
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The office of the chief coroner would seek to address some of the issues that he raises about the variations and the inconsistencies in families’ experiences. Each time that the office of the chief coroner has been considered by Parliament it has been supported—twice in 2009, and just last December the other place voted to save it. The Secretary of State for Justice does not seem to be listening, and not for the first time. He cites cost as an issue, but the Royal British Legion and INQUEST have been clear that they are prepared to open discussions on how the cost can be reduced. I hope that the Minister will listen to these pleas. This is exactly the sort of decision that must be subject to greater accountability and scrutiny. At present an issue so central to the armed forces community would not be covered by the armed forces report on the covenant, and that is why we tabled the amendment. I ask the Minister today to commit to making representations on behalf of the armed forces community to keep the office of the chief coroner. I hope that at the very least the Government will support this amendment to ensure that this vital issue is reported on annually.
As I have previously said, we were all entertained in Committee by the Minister with responsibility for veterans as he performed verbal gymnastics on the issue of whether the Government were meeting the Prime Minister’s famous commitment given on the deck of the Ark Royal. However, just as important as writing the covenant into law, the Bill should provide a form of accountability so that the principles contained in the covenant mean something in reality, and that is what new clause 14 seeks to achieve.
During the debates in preparation for Green Paper in 2009, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) tells me that he argued strongly, against the wishes of his officials, that parliamentary and local government ombudsmen should provide a system of accountability. The ombudsmen were happy to take on that work and it was included in the 2009 Green Paper—the nation’s commitment to the armed forces community: consistent and enduring support. The Opposition continue to believe that that is the right approach. In Committee, the Minister was at pains to point out that officials advise and Minister’s decide, but given the weak nature of what has been proposed in the Bill, it appears that his officials are more in control than he would care to admit.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
For a number of years I dealt with the case of a constituent of mine who had served in Iraq, been wounded and shipped home, and then, frankly, hung out to dry by both his former public sector employer and, to a lesser extent, the local authority. This concept of an ombudsman to take up such cases is important.
Does my hon. Friend agree that scores of hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to see a national defence medal inaugurated so that every former soldier, sailor or airman who has served Her Majesty the Queen in the last 50 years can have a medal that they can wear with pride on Remembrance day? I hope very much that we will be given good news on that tonight.
Gemma Doyle
My right hon. Friend highlights the reason to have such ombudsmen. It is essential that there should be a system of accountability as a last resort, should all reasonable means fail. This is not about creating justiciable rights, but a system of accountability is needed if the covenant is to mean anything. Principles must be enforceable if they are to be anything more than words on a piece of paper.
We will support the amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, but we are still somewhat disappointed as we believe that the Bill could go further, specifically on the military covenant. Our amendments would strengthen those provisions and the Bill. I would very much have liked to press all our amendments, but in particular we will press amendment 16 and new clause 17.
Bob Russell
I congratulate the coalition Government on bringing forward the armed forces covenant. I served throughout the Committee—
Bob Russell
I am grateful. Thank you.
I would like to confine my remarks on this string of amendments to the narrow subject of housing and matters relating to the welfare of Army families. However, I hope that before we finish this evening the Minister will be able to assure the Committee that not a single penny will be cut from the wages of a single member of the Parachute Regiment or 16 Air Assault Brigade more widely.
The last Government can take a lot of credit for things that they did. I hope that what happened previously, under the Veterans Minister and so on, will be built upon by the coalition Government. However, when it comes to the accommodation of the families of our military personnel, successive Governments have failed. The last Conservative and Labour Governments failed. When it comes to single people’s accommodation, Merville barracks in Colchester is the best to be found anywhere in the country, but that only sharpens the contrast with the unacceptable housing for married families. Either Colchester garrison is unique or the accommodation there is typical of that which our military families are required to live in. What makes it worse, is that former Army housing in my constituency has rightly been modernised to a high standard through the Department for Communities and Local Government, while on the other side of the road Army families, looking out on these modern buildings, occupy what an Army wife described in a letter to the Essex County Standard on Friday as the worst in the country.
That unnamed soldier’s wife says:
“I have been married to a soldier for 20 years and lived throughout in services accommodation.
The married quarters in Colchester are the worst I have ever had to live in, and the system in place to rectify faults is laughable.
The direct line puts you through to a call centre in Liverpool, to talk to someone who has no idea of the conditions you live in or the stresses you endure while your husband’s away. They will then expect you to take a day off work so a tradesman can turn up, and it’s then a lottery as to the standard of the repair.”
The letter goes on at great length to describe the woeful inadequacies of the Defence Housing Executive. The soldier’s wife says:
“We’ve given up complaining to the Defence Housing Executive, as all we get are curt replies, from staff who seemingly have never served or been married to a serving member. It is apparent they have never seen inside the properties.”
There is a critical suggestion that perhaps things have got worse since the Defence Housing Executive took over.
We are talking here of the families of soldiers who only last week marched through the centre of Colchester in a welcome home parade and the next day had a thanksgiving and memorial service at Bury St. Edmunds cathedral. Yet we expect their families to live in accommodation that this soldier’s wife described as the worst in the country. If the Government can rightly find money to modernise former Army housing to accommodate civilians, the same Government should be able to find the money to modernise housing fit for the heroes who have just returned from Helmand province.
Allied to that, the armed forces covenant refers to education. I look at education in the broader sense—not just the education of serving military personnel but the education of the children of military personnel. Once the former Army houses are occupied by civilian families, the adjoining schools, the Montgomery infant and junior schools—that gives a clue to the military ethos—will be full up. There will not be room at the Army schools for the children of Army personnel. If anything, the armed forces covenant should look at the families of military personnel as well as the serving personnel.
Dr Murrison
Will the hon. Gentleman give the Government credit for including service children in the pupil premium, which will benefit his constituents as it has done mine?
Bob Russell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and am delighted to endorse that point. The pupil premium has been a great asset to all children of military personnel and has certainly been a great bonus for those in the five schools in my constituency that have a large proportion of service children—as much as 80% in one case. Military families also require peace of mind, and I greatly regret the fact that the previous Government dramatically reduced the number of Ministry of Defence police officers, from 30 to three in my constituency. I heard over the weekend that, regrettably, up to 1,000 MOD police officers are to lose their jobs.
Gemma Doyle
I sympathise entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Does he think that it would have been appropriate for the Minister to attend the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference on Monday? I was there, but instead of looking at him I had to look at an empty chair that the Defence Police Federation had set out for him.
Bob Russell
I have no knowledge of that, but the hon. Lady has made the point and there will no doubt be a response.
Mr Robathan
Indeed there will be if I may intervene. Has the hon. Lady visited the headquarters of the MOD police in Suffolk?
The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)
Order. The Minister cannot question the hon. Lady because she does not have the Floor.
Bob Russell
This is a serious issue. To the best of my knowledge, the MOD police are an integral part of the wider military family. However, over the past 10 years the previous Government were determined, as I regret the coalition Government now appear to be, to reduce MOD police numbers to the point where I suspect at some future stage we will be told that they no longer have a purpose and can be done away with. All I can say is that where there were once 30 MOD police officers serving an exclusive Army estate in excess of 2,000 dwellings, there are now just three such officers. The expectation that Essex constabulary can suddenly conjure 27 police officers to fill that breach will not be met.
We now have a situation in which we have Army families and civilian families and the demarcation between policing is not clear. The lifestyle of civilians is not always compatible with the military ethos of the service families. I am trying to choose my words carefully. All I am saying is that the presence of MOD police officers brought a security and comfort to military families which has been lost at the same time as the ethos of a 100% Army estate has been dramatically reduced. I put it to the Minister that the Government need to look carefully at their proposals to reduce dramatically the number of MOD police officers. It will have little effect in Colchester because 27 police officers have already been got rid of and, with only three left, we do not have much further to go.
I welcome the armed forces covenant, previously known as the military covenant, and congratulate the Royal British Legion on all it has done. We should all be grateful to the legion. My only regret is that some people appear to be trying to turn it into a party political football.
Mr Robathan
I will respond initially to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). I do not want to mislead him, but I am pretty sure that the pay will continue for all members of the Parachute Regiment who are able to parachute, and certainly for those in parachuting jobs, so we are not scrapping parachute pay. I think that I am the only Member in the Chamber who has received pay for jumping out of aircraft, and it was very welcome at the time.
Bob Russell
May I just point out that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and I got not a single penny when we were thrown out at 13,000 feet?
Mr Robathan
Well, the hon. Gentlemen obviously got parachutes, which might not be my intention for one or two other people.
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s serious concerns about housing, which is an ongoing problem that we wish to improve. We inherited a bad situation, but I do not question the good faith of the previous Administration because it is a difficult matter—[Interruption.] Well, I do not think that we can be blamed for the state of housing 14 years ago.
Mr Robathan
I do not think that we want to revisit debates from 1996 and I doubt that you, Dr McCrea, would allow it—[Interruption.] Shall we revisit that debate from 1996? I have to say that I had words with Ministers at the time and was not entirely enthusiastic about the policy, but there we are. It is important that we continue to work on housing because we do not wish people to live in substandard accommodation.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) mentioned the Defence Police Federation’s annual conference, which took place up near the Clyde, next to her constituency. The head of the federation works on the floor above me in the MOD, and I have invited him to come to talk to me about the issues. I do not think that that is particularly unreasonable, especially since the conference is taking place today and I have to be here.
I will consider the large number of amendments in three chunks. I will speak first to the Government amendments, secondly to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and thirdly to the official Opposition’s amendments. When the Government decided to include clause 2 in the Bill, we had two main objectives: to recognise the armed forces covenant in legislation, as we are committed to doing; and to strengthen the Government’s accountability to the House through the mechanism of an annual report on the covenant.
The clause rightly places the covenant at the heart of our national debate on whether we are treating current and former members of the armed forces as they deserve to be treated. This is not a matter in which only the Government have an interest; right hon. and hon. Members are well aware that groups that aim to speak for the armed forces community, including the Royal British Legion, take a close and constructive interest. The legion has now made clear its overall support for what we are trying to do in relation to the covenant. I do not apologise in any way for listening to what it and others have said and, having done so, making changes to the legislation.
Gemma Doyle
Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the process by which the Bill has come about? What exactly changed his mind?
Mr Robathan
I do not regret the process at all. What has happened—I would have thought that the hon. Lady had spotted this, because she is a capable person—is that we have been discussing and listening to things and came to the view that we might enhance the Bill, which is what we have done.
Mr Robathan
Contrary to what the hon. Lady says from a sedentary position—perhaps she is reading what is on her BlackBerry—it is not chaos.
Those other organisations are as concerned as the Government are to avoid the pitfalls of the covenant ending up in the courts. They have also pointed out where they think we can do better, and we have listened to them. They argued persuasively that the language of the Bill that related to the armed forces covenant report did not go far enough in explaining our intentions. Our amendments aim to put that right, and I hope that everybody in the Chamber welcomes that.
Mr Kevan Jones
So why did the Minister, along with his Liberal Democrat colleagues, argue forcefully in Committee on numerous occasions that the Bill as it then stood enshrined the covenant in law, when clearly it did not?
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman, together with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, is continuing to fish for any minor criticisms that he can make. We have listened to what people have said and responded, and they might welcome that rather than carping at it.
Christopher Pincher
Does my right hon. Friend think that this is rather rich coming from Labour Members, and certainly from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)? Having had 13 long years with the time, the majorities and the money to introduce a Bill, they merely produced a Green Paper, whereas we introduced a Bill within 12 months. Is not my right hon. Friend rather proud of that?
Mr Robathan
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.
Our amendments do not seek to introduce new constraints to prevent the Secretary of State from using his discretion in preparing the report. They do not try to prejudge in detail exactly which subjects will be relevant—unlike, I fear, several of the amendments that we are discussing. Rather, they allow us to be clear about the principles to which the Secretary of State must have regard, especially now that the armed forces covenant has been published. The three ideas or principles contained in amendment 11 are, I trust, the subject of agreement in all parts of the Committee. The
“unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by”
our service personnel are matters of fact: the requirement to deploy anywhere in the world at no notice, to put themselves in harm’s way, and to use lethal force—all without question, as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire said. No other part of our society is called upon to undertake those obligations. The sacrifices made not only by those who suffer injury or death, but by those who give up the kind of family life which the rest of us take for granted, are also of a different nature from what is expected of others. We are not in danger of forgetting that, but we recognise that there should be no doubt that the Secretary of State will take it into account when he is preparing the annual armed forces covenant report and considering the effects of service.
The other two principles listed in the amendment are not statements of fact in the same way, but they should command the same level of consensus. They are at the core of the Government’s and the nation’s obligations under the covenant. We can never remove all disadvantage that results from membership of the armed forces—the very nature of the job prevents it—but we can, and must, do all we can to minimise disadvantages, particularly when it concerns access to public services. In preparing the amendment, I paused for a long time over the word “desirable”. Surely it is more than desirable to remove disadvantage. “Desirable” gets overruled by words such as “essential” or “important”. Nevertheless, we must recognise that it will not always be feasible to remove every disadvantage. Therefore, in terms of legislation, we must not express the principle in language which we could never achieve. Let the Committee be in no doubt, however, that where it is appropriate to take action, the Government see that as much more than “desirable”.
The question of disadvantage is dealt with more fully in amendment 12—an important new provision that clarifies how the annual report will deal with removing or reducing disadvantage. The first part requires the Secretary of State to make a judgment about whether the effects of service constitute or result in disadvantage when he is looking at a particular field—an element of the covenant such as health care or housing. He is also required to look at service people or
“particular descriptions of service people”.
In other words, he will be looking at individual elements of the armed forces community. That could be a very broad category including families or ex-service personnel, or it could be a smaller grouping such as those injured in service or foreign and Commonwealth personnel. The Committee will understand that this gives the Secretary of State the ability to drill down to find the real problems, which often do not affect a whole group but a small part of it. The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the responsibility of deciding who should be the subject of that comparison. In some cases, the right comparison will be with the ordinary civilian; in others, it may make sense to look at a rather more specialised comparison such as with members of the emergency services.
The second part of amendment 12 sets out what the Secretary of State must do with his judgment. He must go on to say in the annual report what is his response to the disadvantage that he has identified. Perhaps nothing can be done about it—it may be an inevitable result of the military profession—or he may be able to announce how the matter is to be resolved, or who has responsibility for doing so. In all cases, the House will be in a position to decide whether that response is satisfactory.
The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)
Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to keep the noise down. We want to hear the response from the Minister. A lot of people intervened and asked questions. It is only appropriate, proper and courteous to hear the answers.
Mr Robathan
If Members have come in at the behest of the Whips because they expect a Division, they might as well go out for a bit longer, because I have a lot more to say that will delay the Division. They are very wise to do so.
New clause 4, which I was addressing, proposes a legal obligation to appoint a former armed forces personnel support officer to every prison and probation service in England and Wales. That would impose an unnecessarily legislative framework. The veterans in custody support programme focuses on the early identification of ex-service individuals who would benefit from extra support. It offers advice on a range of issues from housing and mental health to medals and war pensions. The voluntary sector provides excellent additional support.
New clause 5 would require financial support to be provided for a range of welfare groups. I pay tribute to the invaluable role played by numerous service and ex-service organisations in promoting the welfare of the armed forces community. Some have been doing so for a very long time. Only this month, we celebrated the 90th anniversary of the Royal British Legion. Indeed, there was a garden party—indoors because it was raining—at No. 10 on Friday, at which the Prime Minister spoke. Members of the Royal British Legion and its supporters, such as Vera Lynn, all appreciated it enormously. Similarly, last week I went to the service at the Guards chapel on the 40th anniversary of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, with which we are in touch a great deal. Many such bodies have an expert understanding of the needs of service and ex-service personnel. Their support sits alongside the provision of facilities from public funds and we have close working relationships with many of them.
However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give general financial support to such groups. Registered charities are and should remain independent. It is right that they raise their own funding, whether they are concerned with the armed forces or not. It is a long-standing practice that central Government do not provide funds raised through taxation to assist the core activities of individual charities. In any event, given the number of charities, the Government would not be able to do that in a fair manner. I pay tribute to the many charities that are raising a great deal of money at the moment, such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress—we have been discussing mental health. They are working to raise funds to support our armed forces and I pay tribute to them.
New clause 6 proposes the creation of a policy forum for former service personnel. Is there a need for another policy forum and, if so, do we need to legislate to create it? There are already a number of groups that help to shape the delivery of veterans’ welfare. The external reference group on the covenant brings together armed forces advocates from across Government and external members from ex-service organisations. It provides co-ordination for the effort across Government and oversight of the Government’s performance in rebuilding the armed forces covenant, and it allows ex-service organisations and other experts to influence the development of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations. There are regular meetings between COBSEO and senior MOD staff and Ministers, including myself. The annual welfare conference organised by the MOD allows many smaller organisations to debate these issues. There are 13 veterans advisory and pensions committees throughout the United Kingdom that provide assistance to the service and ex-service community and local public service providers. They raise awareness in public bodies and the local community about the needs of veterans. I trust that I have made my point that establishing another former armed services personnel policy forum would not offer any tangible benefit.
I now turn to the second half of amendment 3. [Interruption.] For the benefit of people such as the shadow Secretary of State for Defence who have just walked in, perhaps I should repeat what I have said.
The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)
Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members once again to be courteous and to listen to the responses. If they want to have conversations outside this business, they can do so outside the Chamber.
Mr Robathan
For those who have arrived recently, it would be discourteous of me to not respond to those who have raised points, such as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I have yet to achieve the same length of speech as the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. [Interruption.] Indeed, the night is yet young.
The second half of amendment 3 sets out nine headings that must be covered in the annual report. I do not deny the importance of any of those topics. Some are broad and some are fairly narrow, such as “debt management” and “domestic violence”. However, it is not a comprehensive list and I am sure that other hon. Members could add many suggestions. We would rather not legislate for such a list because it may change over the next few years. The question is whether we should cram all possible issues into the legislation and turn the annual covenant report into a box-ticking exercise, or whether we want to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to identify and investigate the problems that are actually faced by service people. Amendment 3 would deny the Secretary of State the flexibility to deal with the effects of service that are considered to be the most important or relevant at the time of each report.
Finally on this group of amendments I come to amendment 4, which we do not believe would add a great deal to the Bill. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he will seek views and evidence in preparing each annual covenant report. If there are issues, he will respond to them and give a time frame for implementing any recommendations. The amendment would simply get us into questions about who is and who is not an expert in this field. This country is fortunate to have an active community of well informed, constructive and articulate groups that are committed to improving the welfare of service people and want to work with the Government to achieve that. Many are brought together in the external reference group, and I can assure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that they are not slow in coming forward. We have stated that we will publish their observations alongside the annual report.
Mr Robathan
I do not think the hon. Gentleman needs to offer to do that. That is a bit sexist, if you ask me, but there we go.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire asked earlier from a sedentary position where we got the idea from that there was a £38 billion black hole. May I tell her that it came from the National Audit Office report “Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2010”?
Mr Robathan
Well, Dr McCrea—[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on then, why not?
Mr Jones
I am sorry, but if the Minister reads the NAO report, he will see that it states that the figure is between £6 billion and £37 billion. The only way we can get to the £37 billion figure is if we include all the forward programming for the forward thing. The problem is that, like a lot of his colleagues, he cannot get away from the spin of central office.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman talks about the “forward thing”, but we have to do the sums, and I am afraid his maths is obviously not very good. If he does not believe that the Ministry of Defence is short of money, he is wrong.
The Opposition’s amendment 16 represents a further attempt to reduce the discretion of the Secretary of State to consider which subjects to include when preparing his annual report. I have three difficulties with it, and they lead me to oppose it. [Interruption.] I can find more, if the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) would like.
Mr Robathan
Well, one is that the amendment, no doubt with the best of intentions, describes in more detail the subjects to be covered in the covenant report. As drafted, clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to address accommodation, health care, including mental health care, and education. We have included those topics because it is pretty inconceivable that there would ever be circumstances in which they were not relevant. However, the list is meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive. Any attempt to be comprehensive in the clause would run the risk of missing out something significant, and it would be doomed to become out of date as circumstances change. All the topics listed in the amendment are important and deserve consideration by Parliament, yet the list leaves out many other important matters such as pay, recognition and how we treat personnel on deployed operations.
That leads to the second difficulty with amendment 16. Its supporters may argue that if they fail to make their list comprehensive, the gaps will be filled in by others, hence the reference to
“such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.”
I am a great admirer of the work of the external reference group, as I have made clear to the House on numerous occasions. By coincidence—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State obviously does not want to hear my response to his colleague the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, who has raised a great deal that needs to be covered in the debate. That is why we have a Committee stage in the House of Commons.
Mr Robathan
He obviously does not realise that.
By coincidence, the external reference group is meeting tomorrow. I offered to go to the meeting, but it wished to consider how it may respond to the covenant report when it comes out. After discussions, it was thought that I might be in the way rather than anything else. The group’s advice and expertise will be of huge benefit to the Government in preparing the annual report, but we cannot place on the group the duty of deciding what subjects the Secretary of State will cover. That must be his decision, so that he is answerable to the House for it.
Finally—[Interruption.] I mean finally on amendment 16. It would remove the reference to “particular descriptions” of service personnel. That is a vital provision, despite the slightly arcane language, because it allows the Secretary of State to distinguish between different groups rather than cover the whole of the armed forces community when there is no need to do so. Leaving it out would make the annual report unwieldy and less useful.
That leads us directly to amendment 17. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. Two of my hon. Friends from Wiltshire mentioned the matter earlier. Although inquests allow families to learn in detail how their loved ones died, and help them to reach closure, they also bring home to all of us the tragedy of loss and the cost of the operations on which we are embarked. Ensuring that the inquest system is fit for its very important purpose is a responsibility that the Government must never forget.
However, the amendment makes for me precisely the point that I raised earlier. It is an afterthought. Having tried to list the subjects that the Secretary of State should cover, the Opposition realised that they had left one out. That shows the weakness of trying to come up with a comprehensive list in legislation. Next week, people might come up with another category, but it would be too late to amend the Bill. I hope that we can look forward to a happier time when the operation of the inquest system is of less concern to the armed forces community because we are not involved in deployed operations and there are no fatalities.
Gemma Doyle
It is somewhat rich for the Minister to say that it is we who are treating inquests as an afterthought, given that it is his Government who have scrapped the office of the chief coroner. How would he respond—I urge him to make it a brief response—to the comment of the Royal British Legion that it is a betrayal of service families to scrap that office?
Mr Robathan
Unfortunately, as the Members on either side of the hon. Lady—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the shadow Secretary of State—will understand, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. It would be beyond my remit. May I also say that she spoke for longer than I have yet achieved? Don’t worry, I’m working on it.
New clause 13 relates to armed forces advocates. Advocates are an excellent idea, and in UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations they face in two directions. They ensure that their own Department’s policies take account of the special needs of the armed forces community, and they communicate their Department’s perspective to my officials and external stakeholders.
I turn briefly to new clause 14, on the ombudsmen. I pay tribute to the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen for their work. I do not think any of us doubt the important role that they can play in helping members of the armed forces community, and they have welcomed the familiarisation events that my officials have organised. However, the new clause is unclear about what exactly the ombudsmen are intended to do, and we are not minded to accept it. The Government will continue to work with public bodies and local authorities to implement our commitments, and we will encourage them to help to remove the disadvantage faced by service people and afford them special treatment where appropriate. The ombudsmen have a vital role to play, but it is not the one described in the new clause.
Finally—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Yes, finally, I come to the Opposition’s new clause 17. Once again, the concept outlined in it is perfectly reasonable. I want, just as much as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire does, a world in which those who make policy take into account the needs of members of the armed forces community as a matter of routine. The best way of ensuring that we avoid problems of disadvantage is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The issue is how to achieve that. We must consider whether the right course of action is to create a legal duty to have regard to certain matters, or to adopt a more practical approach. In the Government’s view, placing a general duty on all public bodies and Ministers in the preparation of all policy would be unhelpful and unfocused. It would lead to more of a box-ticking culture and a cottage industry of assessments. As I have said throughout the debates on the Bill, we are interested in results and want the armed forces community to be looked after better, but that does not involve box-ticking.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I agree with the Minister that results and outcomes are the most important thing, but with reference to the earlier discussion on devolution, how will he ensure that all servicemen and women and ex-servicemen and women are treated equally in all parts of the United Kingdom? There may be some resistance at devolved level, particularly in Northern Ireland where vetoes are in operation.
Mr Robathan
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I know that he takes the matter very seriously. We did not put forward the devolution settlement, of course—that was done by the previous Government—but we are working with all three devolved Administrations to try to ensure that there is no disadvantage to any ex-service person. However, I absolutely take on board his point and the particular circumstances that he mentions.
Rather than the system set out in new clause 17, I would prefer one in which I and my ministerial colleagues across Government continue to work with public bodies to ensure as far as possible that they take account of the armed forces covenant in their preparation of policy. Much progress has already been made, and the imposition of a new statutory duty would not be of benefit.
The Government look to the annual report to be a powerful, flexible tool to focus Parliament’s attention on the key issues of the time. I fear that the Opposition’s proposed amendments would make that task more difficult and impose a package of unnecessary processes. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I have only another 300 pages to go, but I shall leave it at that, and allow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up.
Mr Llwyd
I am not altogether happy with the Minister’s response—in fact, I am desperately unhappy with it—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 16, page 2, leave out lines 8 to 12 and insert—
(a) education;
(b) accommodation;
(c) healthcare;
(d) mental healthcare;
(e) pensions and benefits;
(f) employment and training;
(g) support for reservists and their employers;
(h) the running of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme;
(i) progress on Armed Forces rehabilitation services; and
(j) such other fields as the External Reference Group may determine.’.—(Gemma Doyle.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 16—UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission
‘(1) An independent UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission shall be established.
(2) The Commission shall be comprised of 12 members reflecting the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
(3) The Select Committee on Defence of the House of Commons shall, within a fortnight of the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review, propose the membership of the Commission, giving due weight to—
(a) the nations and regions of the United Kingdom;
(b) military and strategic expertise; and
(c) experience in assessment of economic impacts.
(4) The proposed membership shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) The Commission shall convene following the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review to consider a draft force structure plan submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, and shall arrange for its reports to be laid before Parliament within six months of the conclusion of such a Review.
(6) The Commission will make recommendations for base closures and realignments following consideration of the force structure plan, the economic effects of a closure or realignment of a military installation and the strategic military presence across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission which shall be brought into effect only if approved by resolution of both Houses.
(8) The Secretary of State shall not give effect to the draft structure plan referred to in subsection (5) until parliamentary proceedings under subsection (7) are concluded.’.
Amendment 1, title, line 2, after ‘Police’, insert
‘to provide for parliamentary control of proposals to close or realign bases for the armed forces.’.
Thomas Docherty
New clause 1 stands in my name and those of several colleagues. It is a pleasure, once again, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship. I very much enjoyed serving on the Finance Bill under your leadership, and I hope that you will keep me in order as we go through this evening’s proceedings.
New clause 1 should be relatively non-contentious. We have seen, in the last strategic defence and security review, an unprecedented attack on our defence of the realm capabilities: we have seen, as the Secretary of State himself admits, a Treasury and financially driven round of armed forces restructuring; we are seeing the British Army reduced significantly; we have already seen the closure of RAF Kinloss, as well as the loss of our Nimrod capability, which, as the First Sea Lord admitted to the Defence Committee, has placed our maritime surveillance capabilities at a severe disadvantage; and we are also bringing home the British Army from the Rhine.
Each Government, over the past 40 or 50 years, have reconfigured our armed forces structure to best suit the challenges as they have seen them, but never before have we seen one so radical and based not on the nation’s defence needs, but on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s needs. For that reason, there is great concern in communities up and down the country that decisions are being made not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury, and that therefore those decisions are not being made because they are the correct defence decisions but because they are the most expedient or financially convenient for the Treasury and in order to save money.
I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and his ministerial colleagues, and I know that they are fighting valiantly to persuade the Chancellor that he is plain wrong, but we cannot assume—because we have not seen any letters yet from the Secretary of State to his counterparts—that he will be successful in persuading the Treasury to provide additional money. If the MOD team are unsuccessful, next month there will be some extremely bad news for a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom.
Bob Russell
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what a Labour Government would be doing differently, because I have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers to indicate that they would be doing anything different.
Thomas Docherty
I will happily answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. In fact, I would point him towards his colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who has articulated exactly what is wrong with the defence review. What would normally happen is what happened in the defence review that Lord Robertson of Port Ellen carried out in 1998. The correct order of events is to begin by determining our foreign policy objectives and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, what the strategic defence risks facing our nation are. He and I would probably agree on the likely scenarios—one would undoubtedly involve Tehran; another would be terrorism. From those two decisions, we would determine the defence posture that we needed to adopt. Having determined that defence posture, we would configure our armed forces to deliver it. Finally, we would sit down and have a relatively civilised conversation with the Treasury about how best that could be funded. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman’s Government have done the absolute reverse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to the Defence Secretary, “This is your pot of money. Now you need to make your armed forces fit it.”
Our Front Bench team has made it absolutely clear that we would freeze this defence review and have another, fresh defence review based on the criteria and priorities that I have set out. We have made it clear that we would not close RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leuchars or RAF Marham. We would also approach bringing home the troops from Germany in the following way. First, moving 18,000 soldiers and their dependants back to the United Kingdom would have to be in the best interests of the Army. Secondly, we would make the needs of their families the top priority. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of standing up for constituents at his local Army base, and he will know that we face housing challenges. When we debated the issue previously—in December, I think—he and I were at one in recognising that the previous Government did a lot of work to improve the housing of the families of those in our armed forces, but there is still a lot more to be done.
Notwithstanding the redundancies that will take place, one of the greatest challenges in bringing back that part of the Army that is based in Germany will be in rehousing probably half the current number and their families at bases around the United Kingdom. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions earlier this year to ask the Government what discussions they had had with the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about how we would educate the 7,000 children who are currently being educated in Germany. It will probably shock the Committee to discover that the Government have had no conversations at all with either the Scottish Government or the Department for Education about how to move 7,000 children back from Germany into schools in this country.
I do not know whether the Under-Secretary—[Interruption.] I know that he is paying close attention to this discussion, but will he update the Committee on what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government or the Department for Education in recent weeks. I suspect that the answer will be: “Not much more than we’d had several weeks ago.” Therefore, to answer the question that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked—some time ago now—before we made any decisions, not only would we conduct a thorough, rational defence review, but we would ensure that the infrastructure was in place to house those armed forces personnel and their families.
As we have debated the issue over the past eight months, it has become increasingly clear that the ongoing briefing, leaks and speculation coming out of parts of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have been causing a great deal of distress in various parts of the country. I know that the Minister would dissociate himself from any such leaks or briefings against the Army or the Air Force, or about the thinking, but we have left those communities in a state of uncertainty and limbo for too long.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is not just the distress caused to the service and non-service communities in places such as Moray, Fife, Norfolk and elsewhere? Scores of businesses are going to the wall because of the delay in the review process. It is absolutely right to highlight the distress caused for service families—“Will I remain in service?”, “Will I remain here?”, “What will I do with my house?”, “What will I do about the education of my children?”—but there is also an existential question for the many people in those areas whose businesses are going to the wall totally unnecessarily.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One thing that the Government have not yet fully grasped is that a lot of those service personnel will have been at their bases for significant periods, particularly those at Royal Air Force bases. Indeed, one of the differences between the Army and the Air Force is that those in the Royal Air Force tend to spend the vast majority of their careers based in one location. I was recently told the story of some aircraft mechanics who had been at the same base for going on for two decades. People make family connections. Their husbands or wives move with them permanently to the bases at which they are stationed, and they then seek local employment and raise their families in the area. There will also be local businesses that depend on work from those RAF bases, as the hon. Gentleman said. They now face a period of great uncertainty.
I say very gently to the Minister that we have seen the date gradually slipping back. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that our understanding now is that we will not get a decision until the very day that the House rises. I would not for a moment seek to besmirch the Ministry of Defence’s thinking, but some uncharitable people outside the Chamber might suggest that the Government were hoping to sneak out the announcement on the last day when no one was looking, although I am sure that Mr Speaker would ensure that the Secretary of State at least came to the Chamber.
Mr Robathan
Were any Minister to try to slip something out on the last day, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be here to ensure that they did not get away with it.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I am happy to confirm that I will not be going anywhere on the last day for that reason. However, I am sure that if the Secretary of State waited until the last moment and if it then slipped his mind to request an oral statement, Mr Speaker would ensure, for the probity of the House, that he found a suitable opportunity—
Thomas Docherty
The Minister shakes his head. I understand that there might be some vacancies coming up at the Department of Health shortly. I think that he might be up for promotion, so I could not possibly comment on whether he would be on the Front Bench next to the Secretary of State for Health—although the Defence Secretary is a GP, of course, and would be eminently suitable as a Health Secretary, if such a vacancy were to come up. However, having to wait until 19 July—the last day before the recess—is frankly not a comfortable position to be in.
I understand why the Ministry of Defence did not wish to make an announcement during the period of purdah for the Scottish elections. When the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife had a debate in the House on RAF Leuchars in January, the Minister of State made it clear that he did not wish to do anything that might upset the election results—I should point out to him that putting that decision off did not do the Lib Dems much good in North East Fife. However, we are now well past the Scottish elections. There is no particular reason why the Government could not come to the House now and announce the decisions that we know they have made.
The purpose of my new clause is to ensure parliamentary oversight of the decisions made by the Ministry of Defence. As I said earlier, we are talking about a unique set of closures. We have probably not seen anything like it since the days when Denis Healey was a Minister for the armed forces and we reconfigured and abandoned our positions east of Aden. Now, however, the decisions are being driven entirely by the Treasury.
The purpose of new clause 1, which thankfully I will not read into the record, is not to affect the way in which the Ministry of Defence gathers information. It does not seek to make the process more transparent or, as the Minister said earlier, to tie the hands of the Government so that they cannot carry out these processes. The new clause proposes that, once the Ministry of Defence has determined which bases it wants to close or realign—for example, by switching their use from the Royal Air Force to the Army, or, as we read in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend, by switching the Condor base in Arbroath from the Royal Marines to the Army—the decisions would be subject to two conditions. First, the Secretary of State would be required to lay a report before the House setting out not only his rationale for making the decisions but the weighting he has given.
Those colleagues who have attended the Adjournment debates on these matters here and in Westminster Hall will have noticed that there has been inconsistency between the views expressed by the various Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about what weighting is being given to each of the criteria: the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the other Under-Secretary of State—he is the Minister for aviation, as far as I can tell—seem to have different views. One Minister will tell us that the finances are paramount; another will say that defence needs come first; yet another will tell us that the RAF’s needs are the most important, while another says that the Army’s needs are the priority. Then we get back to the arguments about the socio-economic arguments and the wider impacts of the decisions that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has mentioned. Those are all valid arguments, and the Ministry is right to consider the socio-economic factors, the financial costs to the Treasury and how best a base can be recycled for use by another service. However, that all needs to be done in a transparent and coherent manner.
Mr Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. He referred earlier to the unique context in which he is proposing his new clause. Does he not regret the fact that a Bill such as this was never introduced under the Labour Government? We have suffered base closures in Northern Ireland that had a serious impact on the local communities, yet none of these considerations was discussed at the time, despite the best efforts of some of us to point out the consequences. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot go back in time, but will he acknowledge that that is the case?
Thomas Docherty
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I know that he takes a keen interest in the armed forces. He is right to say that the previous Government did not get everything right, but I am not sure whether a Bill was ever introduced to put this process on to a statutory footing. I think that the idea is relatively new. I first came across it when, as part of the British-American Parliamentary Group, I visited the Pentagon last September. The process was explained to the delegation at that time; I think that it has been in place there for about 18 years. It is possible, therefore, that previous Governments were not fully au fait with how the system has worked in America, and that could be why we have not had this debate before. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the closures that took place in Northern Ireland were, thankfully, driven by the peace process and by the leadership of the then Prime Minister and members of parties that are present today. That is obviously different from the situation today, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is calling the shots—please pardon the pun—on the Ministry of Defence.
Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would compile a report setting out what weight he was giving to each of the criteria, which might be quite mixed. Having had a chance to review the report, a future Defence Select Committee might wish to invite the Secretary of State to appear before it and to scrutinise it, although I cannot bind any such Committee to do so. The report would then be subject to a straight-up-and-down vote in the House. There would not be an option to cherry-pick individual bases; it would be a straight-up-and-down report, as they have in the United States. If the House really felt that the Government had got it wrong, it would send the matter back and ask the Government to reconsider.
Angus Robertson
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I have listened closely to his arguments, and I found them tremendously persuasive. When discussing his new clause and mine, the question we must ask is whether the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures or realignments is adequate. Is the way in which the criteria are established widely understood? Is there transparency and consistency in the process?
It is well known to the Minister that I represent the most defence-dependent constituency in Scotland. We have already heard about the sad and, I believe, avoidable closure of RAF Kinloss. The present basing review is also considering the potential to make this a unique double base closure involving RAF Lossiemouth as well. I therefore have a close understanding of the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures and realignments. I hope that, having listened to me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, the Minister will at least concede that there are areas in which improvements could be made.
The Secretary of State has been gracious with his time, and he has met me on three occasions to discuss the impact of base closure considerations in order that I might share those matters with the community that I represent. The insight from those meetings was quite constructive, because what he said to me then was not what he has said in the Chamber thus far. On the day of the announcement of the strategic defence and security review, he told me that he understood that Moray was a very defence-dependent constituency, and that any delay would cause distress to the service and non-service personnel and have an impact on the local economy. He was confident that the basing review affecting RAF Lossiemouth would be concluded by December—December 2010.
Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of State had another meeting with me at which he said that the considerations in the basing review had changed. He said that it was no longer just a consideration about where Tornado aircraft should be based—and hence a straight choice between RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham—as the Ministry of Defence was looking at issues such as the repatriation of UK forces from Germany, so it made sense for the Department to roll into one all the issues around basing. He was confident at that time that a recommendation would be made by the Department by February and that the decision would be taken within weeks thereafter. That meant spring 2011. Then, at our third meeting, I was told that the announcement on RAF Lossiemouth and all other bases would not take place on the second date that had been promised, but would take place some time before the summer recess.
I have to tell the Minister that I represent people who are making decisions about their mortgages, their rent and their children’s education, and businesses that are finding it difficult enough in these times of economic austerity to get a loan from the bank and are holding it together from one month to the next. Thus, having been told authoritatively, as I was by the Secretary of State, that an announcement would be made within weeks—that is, before Christmas—it is not good enough to then be told that, unfortunately, because the criteria for the basing decisions were being changed it would not happen until the spring after the recommendation at the end of February and on and on, only to be told at the end that we shall have to wait until just before the summer recess. That is no way to run a basing review.
When we talk about a covenant, it should not be a covenant only with our service personnel; surely it should also be a covenant with the communities that have associations, long and deep, with the armed forces, whether they be based in Fife, Moray, Norfolk or anywhere else. The Ministry of Defence owes it to our defence communities to treat them better than they have been treated throughout this basing review.
My experience led me to try to understand what represents best practice—what I encountered is certainly not best practice—in the United Kingdom. I visited the United States, which has two approaches that I believe it is important for Members who care about defence matters to understand. Frankly, I believe them to be the gold standard.
First, the process through which decisions on base realignment and closure are considered in the United States is totally transparent. The criteria need to be explained by the Department of Defence in the US—and the procedure is not ad hoc. First of all, the DOD needs to come forward with an explanation of how it plans to base its service personnel. These matters have since time immemorial—whether it be in the United States or in the United Kingdom—always been the subject of discussion and questions arise such as whether there has been political intervention. Are decisions made more on the basis of geography, which might have more to do with the advantage of political parties, than on military or strategic considerations?
The US took a decision more than 20 years ago that it needed to deal with base realignments and closure in a totally different way. It still protected the important role of the Department of Defence in making suggestions about what it believed needed to happen, about which bases should remain open and which should be changed through use realignment. What I have sought to crystallise in my new clause is the fact that a commission was created and its members were people with real military experience. Nominations were made from both sides of the aisle to ensure that it was a non-partisan process.
The commission’s criteria include ensuring that the impact of the decisions brings about a defence footprint across the United States—not just in one or other part of it—and looking closely at the recommendations of the DOD. The commission then makes a recommendation that goes to the Hill for approval on a “yea or nay, take it or leave it” basis. This ensures that party political considerations are taken out of the equation. It ensures that the recommendations coming forth from the commission make sense across the US. All the legislators I spoke to from both sides of US politics said that this process was a Godsend, which had made a profound difference to how these matters were dealt with in the US. I believe that that is worthy of consideration.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made the point that it is important to have parliamentary oversight; I totally agree. The way in which our review has been conducted over recent months has, frankly, been lamentable. For one thing, those of us who are reasonably close to understanding how the processes have worked are aware that the criteria have changed and that political decisions have been made about how many bases should be in different parts of the UK, with people then being asked to get a fit around which bases they should be. That is no way to run an orderly base realignment after the strategic defence and security review has been concluded.
I agree that there should be parliamentary oversight; this should not be conducted only by the Ministry of Defence. I have no reason to believe that the information provided to Ministers to help them make their decision is not well thought through: I am sure it is, but it has taken such a long time. The issue is not just about parliamentary approval, however, as there needs to be a degree of independent insight, which is why I believe we should have a commission nominated by the Defence Select Committee.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman says that the information might have been well thought out within the Ministry of Defence, but is it not the case that what we have seen is a rushed and ill-thought-out defence review that was thrown together on the back of a fag packet at the very last minute? That applies to the decision to take the Ark Royal out of service and the decision on the aircraft carriers. Is not the Ministry of Defence now having to play catch-up after the ill-conceived decisions made last October?
Angus Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes valid criticisms of the SDSR, but I am talking specifically about the process in which issues of base realignment and closure are addressed. There was some debate across the Chamber about the criticisms of the SDSR, but I think that might have detracted from both the hon. Gentleman’s proposals and mine. Frankly, our proposals should win favour from the Government Front-Bench team. Why? Because this is the gold standard. This is the best way in which the very difficult process of base realignment and closure has been dealt with, very effectively, by another nation.
I have not yet decided whether to press the new clause to the vote. My proposals might be new to the Government Front-Bench team, so I will be looking for assurances that the Government acknowledge that the process of base realignment and closure should be subject to improvement. If the Government propose ways of ensuring that there will be no delays, that there will be transparency, and that the criteria used in the current round of base realignments and closures will be changed, I may be persuaded not to press the new clause to a vote. However, I believe that communities—in Moray, in Fife, in Norfolk or anywhere else—that have suffered as a result of delays deserve something better. If at least one good thing comes out of this botched process, namely an acknowledgement from the Government that they could and should improve it, I will not proceed with my new clause, in the hope that the Government will return at some stage with better-thought-through approach for the future.
Gemma Doyle
The Government have created a huge amount of worry and uncertainty through their decisions about bases in Scotland and, indeed, other parts of the country. It is entirely understandable that communities feel aggrieved about the process that the Government are undertaking, and I sympathise with the aims of both my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). As we have heard, serious complaints have been made about the process. Defence Ministers have been dragged into the House on a number of occasions of late, and this is yet another area in which they need to get their act together.
Mr Robathan
I have huge sympathy for those who have been put in a position of uncertainty and, perhaps, adversely affected by the closure of bases. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has stood up for his constituents a great deal, and he has made the point that it is his job to make. I take that entirely on board. I am afraid I cannot say that we will change everything, but I will deal with his points later. First, however, I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—and let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I do know who he is.
New clause 1 is very unwelcome at a time when we are trying to streamline the way in which the Government conduct operations. It would require the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament to any alteration in the function of, and any closure of, any of our bases anywhere in the world. As well as bases in the United Kingdom, it would affect bases in Germany, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Afghanistan. That would hamstring our operations. It would involve our revealing publicly our plans and, no doubt, a great deal of highly sensitive information so that the Houses could debate it.
Even assuming that the real intention of the new clauses and amendment relate only to bases in the United Kingdom, as I am sure is the case, I believe that the proposed action would be inappropriate. In practice, Parliament would be notified of any major base closures or realignments. The Department already undertakes a significant amount of consultation on stake sales with local authorities, interest groups, trade unions and local Members of Parliament. Notwithstanding the widespread view that we do not listen, I have undertaken consultation with local Members of Parliament about certain cases, not necessarily involving big bases but involving MOD sites. I have taken a couple of issues very much to heart, and am looking into them in detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not just a case of window-dressing.
Base closures and changes are already subject to a number of legislative requirements through, for example, planning consents and the need for sustainability assessments. Parliament already has ample opportunity to make its views about proposed major changes known to the Government, and Parliament and indeed the nation will no doubt hold the Government to account for the decisions that they make. We believe, however, that it must be right for the Government to make those decisions. Requiring advance approval would constitute an abandonment of the Government’s responsibility, and would make vital strategic decision-making impossible.
Thomas Docherty
I asked earlier what discussions the MOD had been having with stakeholders such as the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about school provision, which was clearly a huge problem. Are those discussions still taking place?
Mr Robathan
The Minister for the Armed Forces has been dealing with specific bases. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he has asked, but I should be happy for him to meet me or, perhaps more appropriately, my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I shall mention that to my hon. Friend, although he will spot it in Hansard in any event. Amendment 1, of course, is linked to new clause 1.
I did not know that the hon. Member for Moray had engaged in a discussion that seems to have continued for longer than he may have wished, but I think it important for us to get this right. Contrary to what people think, we care what happens not just to our service personnel but to the people who work in and around service bases, because it affects their lives. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the review of defence basing and estates requirements over the last year, not only to represent his constituency interests but because RAF Lossiemouth has featured heavily in speculation. Given that the hon. Gentleman is his party’s defence spokesman, of course he is interested in what is happening in Scotland.
One of the problems with this new clause is to do with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in the United States. The hon. Gentleman may have offered that before as a model that we should follow, but we take the view that the Defence Secretary must act in the best interests of defence—that is what he is appointed to do—and where defence assets and personnel are based must depend on strategic considerations for the security and defence of the United Kingdom and value for money for the taxpayer.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the process used in the United States, but in our parliamentary system the Secretary of State for Defence is accountable to Parliament in a way that does not apply in the United States. Members of Parliament can, and do, make representations directly to Ministers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that those representations are heard. This is not pure window dressing, so I hope he, too, will not press his amendment to a Division.
Thomas Docherty
I will be brief, as an important set of new clauses are to be discussed next and I know colleagues wish to have a full debate on them.
I have been heartened by some of the Minister’s remarks. I did not agree with all he has said, but he nevertheless offered an eloquent defence of his position. I was particularly heartened by his offering me a meeting with his ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I will be delighted to accept that offer. In turn, I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Defence Committee has decided to undertake a review of the basing decisions in the autumn. I suspect he and his colleagues will therefore eagerly anticipate appearing before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee, along with his Select Committee colleagues, including myself.
Based on the assurances I have received and the good debate we have had this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Voluntary discharge of under-18s
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”’.—(Dr Huppert.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11 —Enlistment of minors
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 328(2)(c) (Enlistment) the words “without the consent of prescribed persons” are omitted.’.
Dr Huppert
It is a great pleasure to move this amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who is present. It would allow under-18s to leave the armed forces as of right, if they so wished. There have already been some discussions on this with the Minister, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long. It is an important issue, however, and a number of groups have worked hard, along with my hon. Friend, myself and others, to press for this change. I wish to note in particular the efforts of the Quakers in Britain, especially Michael Bartlet, who has spearheaded much of the awareness-raising that has led to our reaching this point.
The proposal to allow under-18s to leave as of right has also been supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I should declare that I was a member of it at the time, which may or may not be coincidental. It gave a clear recommendation that—astonishingly—fits extremely well with the amendment I am now proposing:
“We recommend that a right to discharge for under-18s be established, and that all those recruited under the age of 18 be told of this right.”
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to under-18s having a right to leave. I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee and we took some evidence on this matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept that they do currently have a right to leave, but that the length of notice is different from that which he proposes.
Dr Huppert
They do not have the right to leave before they turn 18. After the first six months, a 17-year-old, or a 16-year-old even, does not have the right to leave. In the case of the Army, they are there for, I believe, six years after they pass that first six months. In practice, that is not necessarily enforced, but that is not the same as their having a right.
Thomas Docherty
I have heard the argument about five or six years before. When personnel turn 18, they have an absolute right to choose to leave at that point. I accept that, perhaps, that is not as well publicised as it might be, but this talk of their being in for five or six years is not entirely accurate.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I think he would agree that somebody who joins on their 16th or 17th birthday currently has no right to leave, although in practice they might be allowed to, which is a slightly different issue.
Why is this an issue for under-18s? We have a whole lot of rules for under-18s: we do not allow them to vote—although many of us think that we should because they are adult enough to do that—we do not allow them to have credit cards or to enter into other legal decisions because they are not treated as adults who are able to commit themselves for such a long time; and they cannot bind themselves to a credit agreement to pay a certain sum of money the next month, except in very exceptional circumstances. They can, however, commit themselves to an extended period in the armed forces.
It is quite clear that in many cases they are allowed to leave, even though they do not have that right. It is hard to be sure, however, whether that covers every case of somebody under 18 who wishes to leave. We would not know if they were too scared to ask their commanding officer or if some other social pressures made it hard. We know that there are cases of bullying in the armed forces and although I am sure we all abhor the fact that that goes on, there are a number of such cases and it is hard to know what would happen then.
The situation is unclear, so we proposed an amendment to make it absolutely clear what was and was not allowed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the report produced by the Select Committee on the Bill after the amendment was tabled and after a number of discussions, parliamentary questions and so on. He has made a welcome announcement, stating that
“for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 26WS.]
I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for taking that step, which is very welcome to a number of the people involved. I have a few specific questions, however, and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation for me.
First, what is this period of consideration or cooling off and roughly how long would it last? My amendment allowed 14 days’ notice; I suspect he has a different figure in mind and it would be helpful to know what it is. The second part of the JCHR’s report and of the amendment state that any person enlisting under the age of 18 should be informed of their right and I hope the Minister would agree that it would ideal for them to be told that they have it, even though he would hope that many of them would not avail themselves of it. Finally, will he update the Committee on the process as it stands? Has he given instructions that the rule should apply as of now and will people be told that there is this right? He talks about requiring secondary legislation to make such a provision, which I look forward to seeing, but when will such an instrument be laid before the House?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want, briefly, to support new clause 7 and I also want to express my thanks to the Minister for his statement about improving the system. He seems somewhat surprised to get unanimous support—
John McDonnell
I can assure him that it will not last for long.
I also want to argue in favour of new clause 11. My new clause, like new clause 7, is based on the briefings that we have received from the Quakers and I pay tribute to them for the work they have done in raising the issues about the recruitment of under-18s into the military. I also want to thank Michael Bartlet for the work he has done in raising the profile of the issue over some time.
My new clause would simply end the recruitment of anybody under the age of 18, because I find it extraordinary that when it comes to military recruitment or their engagement in the military, we do not treat under-18s as minors. Legally, that is what they are. I therefore find it extraordinary that we allow children to sign up to involvement in the military, legally—currently—making a commitment for six years. They are minors, signing up to a process that could put them in harm’s way and which certainly puts them under a disciplinary regime and environment that has made a number of them vulnerable over the years.
For the record, I understand that there are currently 580 16-year-olds and 1,970 17-year-olds serving in the British armed forces. I have been surprised to learn from parliamentary answers and MOD information that between April 2007 and April 2010, three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq. I have also been concerned to learn, in answer to a parliamentary question, that on 1 December 2010, there were five under-18s serving sentences at the military corrective training centre at Colchester for having gone absent without leave.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I thought this might be a good opportunity to point out that new clause 7 would alleviate some of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. With extensions to education and training in 2013 and 2015 up to the ages of 17 and 18, more young people might find themselves momentarily attracted to joining the forces. They can get through the first part but, as the hon. Gentleman’s point about the young people who have gone absent without leave shows, they sometimes experience a crisis in their lives. New clause 7 would alleviate the problem.
John McDonnell
I think that new clause 7 would bring an immense improvement to current practices and I support it, but I object in principle to the recruitment of children into the military. For 13 years, I was the part-time house father of a children’s home when they were run as family units and one could pursue one’s own career while also operating as the father of a family group. In that time we dealt with a large number of young people from extremely disturbed backgrounds and prepared them for fostering into ordinary homes. A number of those who came to us were extremely vulnerable and I remember many of them going into military service at a very young age, almost because they were looking for the security of an institution because they had, frankly, been institutionalised as a result of their lives in care. At the time, I thought those young people were extremely vulnerable and were making the wrong decision. At the age of 16, people are too young to make that major decision to go into the armed forces and put themselves under a disciplinary regime that can result, as it has done, in a number of youngsters being put in corrective establishments. As I have said, some others have been sent to war zones. I would welcome a careful rethink from the Government about this issue and I hope that they will consider coming back with proposals to accept the measures in new clause 7 and to follow other European countries in phasing out the recruitment of children into the Army.
Mr Robathan
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their compliments. I am not used to that and, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, I do not expect it to continue. Never mind. We enjoy these things while they happen.
I was interested in some of the comments that were made because I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is quite keen on reducing the voting age to 16, which seems not entirely at one with some of the things that were said during the debate. However, I shall not dwell on that.
Young people who join the armed services at the ages of 16 and 17 are a valued source of manpower—it is particularly man power in the Army—but we take the duty of care seriously too. When the subject was first raised with me, I had not appreciated that there was what we might describe as a certain element of confusion over whether people could leave at the age of 18. The situation is changing, but currently if a young man—they are typically young men—approaching his 18th birthday said that he was unhappy, he would be dubbed an unhappy minor and in practice he would be allowed to go after a cooling-off period. However, the situation is slightly confused.
People who go absent without leave do not necessarily do so because they want to leave the armed forces. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might say that that is ridiculous, but sometimes people go AWOL because they have done something wrong and they do not want to face the music. There can be other reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) has spoken to me about the situation too and, after listening to people and to the debate in the Select Committee, it seems to me that it is important to clarify the position. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, people will have a right to leave up to the age of 18. However, I am not saying that we want them to leave, so we shall give them a cooling-off period. It is likely to be longer than two weeks. It is a genuine change and will be enacted in statute, because it is right that people understand that they do not have to beg to leave; they have the right to leave, but we shall make every effort to dissuade good young people from leaving if we wish to retain them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the time scale. People are currently informed of their rights and that will continue. The answer to his question is the old parliamentary expression, “We expect secondary legislation soon.” I hope it will be before the recess, but it may not be. I do not want to get it wrong.
I turn to people who are less satisfied, if I can put it that way, such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. We want good young people to join the armed forces and we get a pretty high quality of recruit these days, as I think the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) would agree. Prohibiting the enlistment of people under the age of 18 would be to the detriment of the armed forces. We take real pride in the fact that the armed forces provide challenging and constructive education, training and employment opportunities for young people.
Not all the young people who join the armed forces come from happy backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman talked about young people leaving care and joining the armed forces because they saw it as a way out of their difficult circumstances. It is important to bear that in mind.
I shall digress if I may, although it is absolutely germane to the discussion. Probably—notwithstanding other claims—the most decorated man in the British Army at the moment has two conspicuous gallantry medals, a George medal and an MBE. He is now a lieutenant-colonel. When I met him last year, he told me that he spent the night before he joined the Army, aged 17, in a police cell in Bradford. He will not mind my saying this because he told me quite openly—[Interruption.] I know; being in Bradford is a bit much—[Laughter.] Oh God, I’ve let myself in for a few questions now. Humour never translates on to the pages of Hansard.
That man decided that the future for him was either one that did not look very good and might involve further visits to prison and police cells, or that he would join the Army. He joined the Army at the age of 17 and he has not just made an outstanding career for somebody without great educational qualifications but, if I may say so, has made himself a role model for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the Minister agree that although there are such individuals, there are also many who go, for example, through the Harrogate college and gain qualifications, or through the excellent Welbeck college where they do A-levels? Not all are from the kind of background that he describes, although I accept that some are. Those colleges give them life chances and educational opportunities that they might not get elsewhere.
Mr Robathan
The hon. Gentleman is right. I could not agree more. We get some very high-quality people—I presented the prizes at Welbeck two weeks ago, and there is also the apprentice college, Harrogate.
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more that young people should be in college or in education of one sort or another. If that is attached to a military establishment, that is fantastic. Will the Minister confirm, however, that three 17-year-old service personnel were deployed to Afghanistan and two to Iraq between April 2007 and April 2010? I know that that is not very many young people, but the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is no longer in his place, implied that in Committee he had heard evidence that that did not happen. I may be incorrect. Can the Minister clarify the position?
Mr Robathan
I think the hon. Lady has in her hand a parliamentary answer that I gave her on exactly this issue. Those cases occurred under the previous Government and it was a mistake in each case. Funnily enough, the young men involved wanted to go on operations. A mistake was made, out of 24,000 reservists, as we have just heard, deployed on operations Telic and Herrick. Thousands are deployed each year and I am afraid that mistakes are made. If memory serves me right without having the answer in front of me, I think that two of the individuals mentioned were within a few days of their 18th birthday, and one was found out and sent back. We try to rectify mistakes when they are made, but there are a large number of people and if they do not own up to their age, that can be a problem. We do not intend that that should happen and we will pursue the matter to make sure that it does not.
John McDonnell
So that we get absolute clarity, it is the unanimous view of the Committee, therefore, that no minor should be taken to a war zone. Let us get that on the record.
Mr Robathan
That has been policy since before I joined the armed forces, which I am afraid to say was in 1970. [Interruption.] No, not 1870. It was 1970.
I can assure the Committee that we recognise the need for special care in recruiting and training under-18s. There are currently no plans to revisit the Government’s recruitment policy for under-18s, which is fully compliant with the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister may have been about to answer my question. What action has been taken since the UNCRC 2008 report, which asked the Government to look again at their proactive policy of recruiting under-18s? [Interruption.]
Mr Robathan
I hear from a sedentary position the suggestion that perhaps the previous Government did not take any great action on that. We do not intend to revisit our policy on the matter. However, it is important to say that all service in the armed forces is voluntary, unlike in many other armies around the world. Furthermore, no person under the age of 18, because such a person is deemed a minor, can join the armed forces unless the application is accompanied by the formal written consent of a parent or guardian. As I have just said, our defence policy is that no such service personnel are knowingly deployed on any operation outside the UK that could result in their becoming engaged in hostilities. We take very seriously the duty of care of all recruits, particularly those aged under 18, who, inevitably, can be more vulnerable than some older people. This is not a partisan position, because we have inherited this from the last Government and it has run through several Governments.
To this end, parents or guardians of all younger personnel, as well as the applicants themselves, are given comprehensive written and face-to-face guidance on the terms and conditions of service and the right to discharge during the selection process, and will be when it changes. This occurs at various times before the parent or guardian provides formal written consent for the child to enter service.
In the light of that and our clear determination to give good careers to young people under the age of 18, be it for three or 30 years, I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge will withdraw the motion.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for answering all my questions. My only reservation is that I hope that the time period for cooling off will not be too much longer than two weeks. Sixteen days would be absolutely fine. I look forward to seeing what the Minister says.
I also thank the Minister for his comments about adulthood at 16. I look forward to his joining our campaign to get votes at 16. That is a welcome step. He shakes his head, but I assume he really means to be supportive. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Defence statistics
‘(1) The Secretary of State for Defence shall publish annual statistics on—
(a) defence spending by each Government Office Region by—
(i) equipment expenditure;
(ii) non-equipment expenditure;
(iii) service personnel costs;
(iv) civilian personnel costs; and
(b) defence spending in each local authority area by—
(i) equipment expenditure;
(ii) non-equipment expenditure;
(iii) service personnel costs;
(iv) civilian personnel costs.
(2) The Secretary of State for Defence shall publish annual estimates of national and regional employment dependent on MoD expenditure and defence exports.’.—(Angus Robertson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Angus Robertson
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of new clause 15 on defence statistics, which, for some, might appear a dry subject but which, after a strategic defence and security review and during an ongoing basing review, is quite important. It is especially important to those of us who have concerns that the way in which the Ministry of Defence has been managing its infrastructure, manning levels and spending is grossly imbalanced. We know all this because it has consistently provided parliamentary answers that show it to be true. It is true in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in a number of English regions. The worrying prospect is that the result of this basing review will confirm that many of the trends that I have raised repeatedly here, in Westminster Hall and in parliamentary questions will continue.
There are reasons to be worried. For example, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that since the last strategic defence review in 1997, 10,000 defence jobs have been lost in Scotland. We also know that between the last strategic defence review and this current review, the gap between Scotland’s population share of defence spending and the amount of money actually spent on defence in Scotland was £5.6 billion. The underspend statistics for Wales and Northern Ireland during the same period are £6.7 billion and £1.8 billion.
Gemma Doyle
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that if he had his way and Scotland was independent, the MOD footprint would be non-existent in Scotland. He may wish to come to an arrangement with England or with the MOD in an independent Scotland, but he has to assume that all military assets would be withdrawn. Furthermore, he supports the scrapping of Trident so, implicitly, the MOD spend would be less than it is now.
Angus Robertson
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s intervention. I am sorry that she did not take the opportunity to support the case I am making. The case about defence statistics is quite important, which is why the leader of her party in the Scottish Parliament, Iain Gray, put his name to a joint submission that used those very statistics, together with the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party and the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. Incidentally, all those party leaders have hinted at their resignations, having lost in the recent Scottish Parliament elections. None the less, all three leaders, together with the Scottish National party, put their names to that submission.
The hon. Lady wishes to entice me to talk about the advantages of independence in relation to defence, which I am happy to do at any point. I note that she did not take the opportunity to apologise for the loss of 10,000 defence jobs in Scotland while her party was in power. I am more than confident that using our population share of defence spending in Scotland would provide a net increase in spending and manpower, protecting the bases that have been closed by both her party and the Conservatives.
To return to the publication of defence statistics, I would have thought it was a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House that rather than continuing to provide statistics on these matters, the UK Government have simply stopped answering parliamentary questions and providing the important information. Members who have not looked at the issue might be asking themselves, “Are the statistics that the SNP is taking about available in other countries?” The answer is, “Yes, of course they are.” The Canadian Department of National Defence provides statistics to its parliamentarians across the range of expenditure. In the United States, members of Congress and everyone else can access information on defence spend across the communities and states of the US. Until recently, that was the case here in the UK.
On jobs, we know that when Labour left office there were 10,480 fewer people in defence jobs than there were in 1997. That leaves the current uniform contingent in Scotland at 12,000, which is significantly less than our population share. Looking at the Government Front Bench, I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Defence acknowledged when giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee that there had indeed been a disproportionate reduction in defence jobs in Scotland under Labour. However, it must be pointed out that for a number of years we had consistent answers to parliamentary questions on service personnel costs, civilian personnel costs, equipment expenditure and non-equipment expenditure.
In fact, there is a complete dataset from 2002 to 2008 showing a number of important but very worrying facts. It shows that the defence underspend increased from £749 million in 2002-03 to £1.2 billion in 2007-08, a 68% increase in just six years. Between 2002 and 2008 the underspend on defence in Scotland under the Labour Government was a mammoth £5.6 billion, contributed by Scottish taxpayers to the MOD but not spent on defence in Scotland. Between 2005 and 2008 there was a drastic real-terms decline year on year in defence spending in Scotland.
I note that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) is not seeking to intervene to explain why the defence underspend was so large under Labour. There was actually a 3% cut in defence spending between 2006-07 and 2007-08, a shocking indictment of the previous Labour Government. If we widen the scope of the statistics to include Wales and Northern Ireland, we see that in the six years from 2002 to 2008 there was an accumulated underspend of £14.2 billion. In the same period in which there was an underspend of £5.6 billion in Scotland, there was a staggering £6.7 billion underspend in Wales and a £1.8 billion underspend in Northern Ireland. I point out to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches representing constituencies in England that regions across England similarly have significant issues of defence underspend.
What the statistics show is shocking enough, but just wait for how the Ministry of Defence chose to deal with this! Did it make policy choices to deal with the underspend or make decisions to remedy the fact that there were these cuts in defence manpower? No, it did not. In 2009, tucked away at the end of a report, there was an “important note” entitled “Cessation of National & Regional Employment Estimates”, which stated:
“Ministers have agreed that after this year (2009) the Ministry of Defence…will no longer compile national and regional employment estimates because the data do not directly support MOD policy making and operations.”
I thought, my goodness, surely there is some mistake—that could not be the case. Then, on 6 April last year, the then Secretary of State for Defence provided what turned out to be the last parliamentary answer on defence expenditure in Scotland, confirming that it was not a mistake, and that rather than dealing with the policy challenges the MOD was going to get rid of the proof:
“Since 2008 the MOD has not collected estimates of regional expenditure on equipment, non-equipment, or personnel costs as they do not directly support policy making or operations.”—[Official Report, 6 April 2010; Vol. 508, c. 1200W.]
The information is still readily available within the Ministry of Defence, but the decision was taken not to provide it to Parliament.
This has happened since the time of the last Labour Government. Given the public pronouncements about transparency, new politics and the respect agenda that we heard from the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition allies, I hoped that their rhetoric might be matched by openness. I have not been encouraged by much in the coalition agreement, but it says on page 7:
“we”—
that is, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—
“are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and develop new approaches to government. For years, politicians could argue that because they held all the information, they needed more power. But today, technological innovation has—with astonishing speed—developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before. So we will extend transparency to every area of public life.”
Section 16 of the agreement, entitled “Government transparency”, continues:
“The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending, and help us achieve our aim of cutting the record deficit. Setting government data free will bring significant economic benefits”.
There were two specific commitments. First,
“We”—
the Government—
“will require full, online disclosure of all central government spending and contracts over £25,000”;
and secondly,
“We”—
the Government—
“will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public”.
Aha! I was encouraged. Surely, given those commitments, we would see the information. I am delighted that the Minister for the Armed Forces is able to join us at this stage, because what I am about to say relates directly to him.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
Our position then, as today, was that we are only too ready to share with hon. Members any information that we have and that we compile. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the previous Government ceased to compile that information, and frankly for very good reason. It was unreliable information being measured against an old and out-of-date baseline. No defence decisions were being made in the light of that information. It is several years since that information has been compiled. We are happy to share with him any information that we have in this regard, but we do not have that information any longer.
Angus Robertson
I am terribly sorry, but I just do not think that is good enough. I know that the Minister has just arrived, and no doubt he has come from an important engagement, but before he arrived I was making the case that there are very good reasons to continue to have this information. It seems to me that the very good reasons in the MOD for stopping the publication of these datasets is that, frankly, they are so embarrassing.
I return to the turn of events, which it is important for Members to understand. Having received those assurances from the Minister for the Armed Forces in this Chamber, I wrote a grateful letter to him:
“I wanted to thank you personally for your unambiguous commitment during this week’s debate on the Strategic Defence and Security Review that the new Coalition Government will continue to publish both employment and defence spending statistics for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom… Towards the end of the term of office of the last government it was proving difficult to secure these important statistics and I am appreciative that you have given such a clear assurance that they will continue to be published.”
In the blink of an eye—I assume it was written as soon as my letter arrived in the Minister’s private office—I received a letter back saying much the same as he has just said from the Dispatch Box. In an instant, the Ministry of Defence reneged on a promise made in the House of Commons and in the coalition agreement that there would be openness and transparency. There are also vital clues that should concern everybody who cares about the defence footprint across the UK. Apparently, the Government think that there is
“no clear defence benefit to be gained”
from collating statistics by region and nation, and national and regional data do not
“directly support MOD policy making”.
That will come as a shock to many people, not least the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has said publicly in terms that economic considerations will form part of the basing review. How on earth can we have an informed debate when the Government do not even provide the statistics?
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is some value to the MOD in exercising its duty from collecting this dataset. Is there a value or not? If there is, what is it?
Angus Robertson
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is the crucial question. The information was viewed as essential by previous Governments. Why? Because it informed us about the impact of MOD policy making on the nations and regions of the UK. That was why the figures were collated in the first place and why the answers were provided to MPs. Members asked questions about the information because we thought it was important, and the Hansard record will show that those questions were asked by MPs of all parties.
The information is not just important in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales but should be a matter of concern to people throughout England, too. They need to understand what impact MOD policy making is having on their part of the country. The figures should inform us of that. Should they lead all decisions? Of course not, but they should inform policy decisions.
Mr Dodds
We are talking about the publication of information and statistics that were previously published and are published elsewhere across the world. Such statistics are published on other matters, not just defence. Surely no one can argue against the hon. Gentleman’s central theme, which is that we should know the impact that this vast area of expenditure has on the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Angus Robertson
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that everybody should understand. Providing the information is not difficult. Governments here have done it, and Governments elsewhere around the world do it. Frankly, we would be in dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we did not try to inform ourselves of how the Department that we are trying to hold to account is spending our constituents’ tax money. How that informs our political priorities is a totally different matter, but the coalition parties made an express commitment to everybody in the United Kingdom that they would seek and deliver transparency. When it comes to defence statistics, they have reneged on that.
This is an opportunity for both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—and Labour Members if they have found their conscience on the issue—to understand that this is an important problem that is easily remedied. The new clause would allow that to happen, as it would force the MOD to provide and publish the statistics that we all deserve. That is why, unless the Minister agrees to publish the statistics, I will force a Division on this important issue.
Mr Robathan
Having listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I have to say that I thought his indignation was completely synthetic. What is important is how the money is spent, not how statistics are gathered, and I will put on record what we feel.
The Ministry of Defence has no plans to reinstate the publication of annual estimates of regional defence spending or the employment effects of that expenditure. The Department decided to stop the compilation and publication of those statistics three years ago. Although the statistics were valuable in giving national and regional employment context to defence spending, the data did not directly support MOD policy making and operations. Furthermore, the compilation of the series depended on external sources that had not been updated for some years. The MOD had been struggling to maintain the quality of the statistics even to a basic level. To reinstate their compilation would cost the Department about £500,000 in the next four years.
The purpose of the defence budget is to maintain the armed forces so that they can contribute to our nation’s security—a nation that includes, I am glad to say, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Every pound that the MOD spends must contribute to the security of the United Kingdom, and it gets doled out not on a regional basis but on a defence-needs basis.
Mr Dodds
I stand as a member of a Unionist party in Northern Ireland that is proud to be part of the United Kingdom, but this is not about being part of the UK. It is about the information that is available to Members of Parliament and the public. Surely the Minister should recognise that distinction.
Mr Robathan
Information on employment is quite readily available with a little bit of hard work, but I am afraid that we must consider the cost of compiling inaccurate statistics. The previous Government took their view, and we support it. Decisions on where personnel are based and which contracts are let to which firms are based solely on what is best for the armed forces and the defence of the realm. It is the duty of Government to ensure that the defence budget is spent wisely, maximising the resources available on the front line and ensuring that every pound counts.
Angus Robertson
The Minister points out that because a caveat in the coalition agreement suggests that the publication of some statistics is more expensive than the publication of others, he has a get-out-of-jail card in respect of publishing statistics on defence and the MOD.
Mr Robathan
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately obtuse. The point is that the Government do not have all the statistics to publish, and compiling them would be extremely expensive—and, as I just said, they are becoming increasingly inaccurate. We do not compile statistics on everything.
Those estimates were difficult and intensive to maintain. They relied on analytical tables produced by the Office for National Statistics that have not been updated since 1995. As I have explained, the statistics did not support the MOD’s decision making. I have looked into how much it would cost to reintroduce the estimates and the cost is higher than the benefit to defence. My main focus, and our main focus, must be on doing what is best for the armed forces.
I note from previous debates on this subject that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the cessation of those statistics will mean that a gap emerges in information on defence, particularly with regard to Scotland. It should be noted that assessments of the employment effects of MOD expenditure will continue to be undertaken for individual defence projects, and as part of the regional impact assessments that are conducted to inform MOD base closures. For instance, we know how many people are employed at specific bases—that is quite straightforward—but we do not compile huge tables of statistics that are of no great value. Decisions and policy in these areas will continue to use evidence about the employment impacts.
In the light of that, I hope the Committee rejects new clause 15.
Angus Robertson
I pointed out that the coalition parties made a pledge on transparency in their agreement. They said that they would provide all information on contracts of more than £25,000. I am sorry to say, however, that the Minister has suggested at the Dispatch Box that, somehow, the coalition does not have to live up to that commitment in defence matters. The commitment that the statistics would be provided was also given to me in this Chamber, but it has been reneged on. More importantly, Members of Parliament should have those statistics as a matter of course. The fact that the outcome of those statistics is unfortunate for decision makers in the MOD is no reason not to publish them. That is why I press new clause 15 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
McMillan Daycare Nursery (Hull)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Will Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? There is more business for the House to deal with.
Diana Johnson
I beg leave to present a petition signed by Kerry Stansfield and Abigail Flavell, both of whom are constituents of mine, and by more than 440 other people who oppose the closure of the McMillan day care nursery, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted and which is managed by Andrew Shimmin, the excellent head teacher of McMillan children’s centre and nursery school.
The petition
Declares that statements made by Ministers of the Crown to the effect that Sure Start children’s centres across the country have sufficient funding to continue providing the level of service that they have attained in recent years, appear to be contradicted by the reductions that are happening across the country; further declares that the petitioners believe that the resulting reduction in the affordable childcare in children’s centres will discourage some parents from seeking employment and will prove damaging for the long-term development of children.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Ministers to review the funding arrangements for children’s centres to ensure that the valuable investment in the future that they represent is protected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000929]
Hospital Food
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on hospital food. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and many Members will know, I have long been interested in this issue and have pursued it in Parliament, so when I was fortunate enough for my name to be drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot at the beginning of this parliamentary Session, I was clear about the Bill I wanted to draft. I wanted it to introduce minimum nutritional, environmental and ethical standards for the food procured by the public sector and served in our hospitals, care homes, armed forces institutions and the rest of the public sector.
The Bill gained widespread support from industry and from more than 60 health and environmental groups, including organisations as diverse as the caterer Sodexo, the women’s institute, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. These organisations have witnessed years of failed attempts to improve public sector food through voluntary initiatives, and have seen first hand the damage caused by bad food in our public institutions, and they are united in the belief that the only way to improve public sector food is to ensure that all public bodies buy food according to national minimum standards. Despite that, the archaic parliamentary procedure that applies to private Members’ Bills means my Bill has still not received its Second Reading debate, and without Government support it is very unlikely to proceed.The Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into parliamentary sitting hours, and I hope it takes seriously the inadequate procedure relating to private Members’ Bills and proposes reforms that allow MPs the opportunity to introduce a Bill and proper parliamentary time for the consideration of its merits. My experiences in that regard have led me to seek an Adjournment debate to address this general issue from the perspective of health and the procurement of sustainable food in so far as that affects the Department of Health.
The procurement of sustainable food by the public sector is a cross-cutting issue. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has lead responsibility for cross-cutting sustainable development issues, and I expected it to have been more decisive and to have taken an effective initiative in exploring how progress can be made. I wish to bring to the attention of the House a letter from the DEFRA Minister with responsibility for food, which basically said there was an ongoing review and he hoped to have the opportunity to report to the House by March, but we still have not had that opportunity.
Tonight’s debate arises at a timely moment given today’s announcement on the Health and Social Care Bill, and I want to link the issue of sustainable food and procurement with health and healthy food in hospitals. If, indeed, the stated aim of our NHS is to have excellent care for all, we need to address the issue of hospital food, so I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the procurement of sustainable food in hospitals as well as the equally important issue of the quality of hospital food—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am sorry for the interruption, but the procedure caught up with us. Please, continue.
Joan Walley
I am most grateful for the explanation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was confused by the fact that this Adjournment debate started before 10 o’clock. That might explain some of my slight nervousness, as I was unsure about whether I was speaking in order with the proceedings of the House. I am grateful.
Sustainable food procurement links to health and to hospital food, too. I want the Government to set out the role that food plays in patient pathways and the priority I believe that hospitals should give to ensuring that, where required, patients are assisted to eat the food that is served. We have heard too many shocking accounts of malnutrition and dehydration as well as the plain criticism that hospital food is bad and unappetising. We should be doing something about that.
At the core of this debate is a central contradiction. The Government are happy to rail against regulation and boast about their bonfire of red tape, but they are equally proud—and rightly so—of their standards for the procurement of sustainable food for the Olympics and of their intentions for there to be a Government buying standard for food. They promote their localism agenda aggressively, leaving choice to those at a local level, but the net effect, I believe, is that no overall quality standard applies to the food served in hospitals. I do not see how such a postcode lottery can be justified and I want to consider that in more detail.
Let me turn first to malnutrition. It is not just a matter of having appetising food for patients; this can literally be a matter of life and death. In its 2009 report submitted to the Department of Health, the Nutrition Action Plan Delivery Board showed that in the region of 47,800 people had died with malnutrition while in English hospitals in 2007. Of those, 239 patients died directly because of malnutrition—that is an important distinction to make. In the report, the delivery board recommended as a key priority that the Government should clarify nutrition
“standards and strengthen inspection and regulation”
to address this problem. The issue is being flagged up.
In its recent report, “Still Hungry to be Heard”, Age UK found that the number of people leaving hospital malnourished is on the increase. A recent answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), placed in the Library of the House of Commons, acknowledged that from 2006-07 to 2009-10, instances of malnutrition increased in total from 2,581 to 3,773 and, as regards discharged episodes, from 2,883 to 4,412. That inevitably leads to further serious consequences, including longer stays in hospital, the need to take more medication and an increased risk of infection and even death.
To put it in purely financial terms, the estimated cost of malnutrition to the NHS in 2006 was £7.3 billion a year. Although we do not have an accurate figure for how much it costs the NHS today, given the fact that malnutrition is on the increase it is likely to be higher still. I believe that the Department of Health should have up-to-date figures on the cost of malnutrition, and I urge the Minister to look into the matter and give us an indication of what the costs are.
Dealing with malnutrition in hospitals is not simply about making food taste better. Even if we could do that, a whole range of other issues must be addressed. First, hospital staff must be aware of what food patients can and cannot eat. They need to be able to identify which patients need help with eating their meals and to be willing and able to provide that help or, if they cannot provide it, to have a robust system of volunteers to assist. Age UK has produced a seven-step guide to eradicating malnutrition in hospitals, to which I urge the Minister to give his attention. There is also an issue with dehydration and it is important to make sure that patients in hospital have proper access to water. That simply cannot be taken for granted.
It is not only nutrition and malnutrition that need to be addressed. There must be recognition by Government of the role that healthy food plays in healthy lives. The Government estimate that 70,000 preventable deaths each year in the UK are caused by diet-related ill health. One simple thing that the Government could do to tackle that problem is to ensure that the food served to patients in hospital is nutritious. That sounds simple but the issue is how it will be done. It is also important that the Government prioritise the role of public health.
I also want to mention the dignity and nutrition reports—[Interruption.] I am most grateful. Talking of dehydration, it is important that I refer to the dignity and nutrition reports recently published by the Care Quality Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. If the hon. Member wishes to take a seat and take some more water so as not to strain her voice, I am sure that the Chamber will not mind waiting a few seconds more.
Joan Walley
I am most grateful Madam Deputy Speaker.
The first tranche of what will be 100 dignity and nutrition reports into individual hospitals found that in four of the 10 hospitals investigated, the nutritional needs of patients were not being met. The reports also stated that the quality of hospital food remains a long-standing concern. This highlights both the extent of the problem and the importance of the Care Quality Commission’s role in monitoring and reporting on hospital performance in relation to nutrition. I believe that its resources should be increased so that it can carry out more such checks and fulfil the delivery board’s recommendation of strengthening inspection and regulation. I also believe that the CQC should be made fully accountable for how that work is done.
I want to discuss regulation because that is ultimately the best means of improving hospital food. It is remarkable that there are still absolutely no legal standards governing the quality of the 330 million meals served in the NHS each year. In its report, “Yet more hospital food failure”, published earlier this year, Sustain’s “Good Food for Our Money” campaign surveyed dozens of Government-backed initiatives to improve the quality of hospital food. Alas, it found that those initiatives have cost at least £54 million of taxpayers money and have achieved improvements in only very few isolated cases. The reason is simple: they have all been voluntary, so except in those few isolated cases they have been largely ignored. Let us contrast that with the successful attempts to improve the food served in schools, where meals have to meet legal nutritional standards. A survey by Consensus Action on Salt and Health—CASH—in October 2010 showed that most meals served to children in hospital could not legally be served in a school because they contained too high a level of salt and saturated fat. The reason for the success in schools is simple: minimum nutritional standards in schools are legally binding, but in hospitals they are purely voluntary.
To date, successive Governments have failed to send a clear message to hospital caterers that the quality of their food is critical to patient health and the sustainability of our food system. It is not asking for the impossible. For many years, the Royal Brompton hospital in Chelsea has practised a progressive approach to its food procurement, providing nutritious and appetising meals prepared from fresh ingredients, which enables patients to recover faster.
Unfortunately, the Government’s ideological commitment not to introduce more regulation, regardless of its merit, is a serious block to improving hospital food. I return to Government buying standards. The coalition Government have at least recognised that voluntary initiatives have limited effect; they do not work across the board and over time. As a result, they will introduce Government buying standards that set compulsory minimum standards for food served in central Government institutions. I hope it will be soon, as the standards were promised for March 2011, and we have waited for more than a year. They were promised by the Conservative party pre-election; they were welcomed by the coalition Government and were the subject of a great deal of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs civil servant attention throughout 2010. The work also involved the Department of Health to integrate badly needed health standards for food served in central Government institutions. The integration of health and sustainability standards for food bought with public money was an innovative and much needed approach, and should act as an inspiration for the wider catering sector to follow suit. Tackling health, ethical and environmental issues together should save the country money and be of great benefit to food producers and the environment.
The real issue for me is that even when the Cabinet Office home affairs committee signs off the Government buying standards, they will not apply to hospitals and hospital food. That is the heart of the concern. On the day the Government are revising the Health and Social Care Bill and recommitting it to further scrutiny, should the Health Minister not be exploring with colleagues at DEFRA and in the Cabinet how the long-promised Government buying standards can be extended to hospital food? If that is ruled out, surely there should be urgent discussions with the NHS Future Forum, the National Audit Office and expert groups, such as Age Concern and Sustain, which have a track record on this matter, with a view to tabling amendments to the Bill so that we have minimum standards for nutrition in hospital food.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
There is another part to the equation. I have worked in further education colleges and it would seem logical that when we train chefs they should take a module on the specifics of nutrition for people in hospital. That is a different element. Does the hon. Lady think we could focus on that to improve standards?
Joan Walley
I am glad to take that intervention. It is an extremely important point. Basic minimum standards should be applied to schools and in future to hospitals, but that will not happen by accident. It will happen only if we put in place all the necessary education, training and skills. Whoever is responsible for providing the food needs to be trained. I agree that that is a third dimension to the issue.
I apologise to the House for having lost my voice because of my cold. In conclusion, surely there is no other institution where it is more vital to serve healthy, wholesome food than in our hospitals. That is important in so many ways—for the recovery of patients, staff morale, and the atmosphere that fills the wards. When hospitals serve good nutritious food, everyone benefits. I therefore call on the Government to introduce minimum nutritional, environmental and ethical standards for hospital food that will radically improve the quality of food served, reduce costs to the NHS and improve the health of the nation.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on securing this debate on hospital food. I hope she gets better swiftly. I have considerable sympathy with her as she was clearly suffering through no fault of her own, and I wish her a speedy recovery.
I know that food and nutrition is a subject dear to the hon. Lady’s heart, and that she has done a considerable amount of work in her constituency, bringing together schools, primary care trusts, the city council and others, Prue Leith not least among them, to see what can be done locally to improve the diet of her constituents. I pay tribute also to the many NHS staff who have worked so hard to push nutritional care up the agenda, and who continue to make it their priority.
Good food—nutritionally balanced, clinically appropriate meals that taste good— are right up there with good hygiene and good clinical care when it comes to a patient’s experience of the NHS. They are all things that we should be able to take for granted while being cared for by the NHS. Good food contributes directly to recovery from illness and it adds structure to a day that can be all too long and featureless. Although I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said, there are some details on which we may not have such close proximity of views.
As the hon. Lady mentioned in the course of her comments, we will shortly publish the Government buying standards for food. Developed by DEFRA and the Department of Health, they will support and encourage public bodies to provide a healthy balanced diet for public sector workers. They will also help to reduce the environmental impact of food and catering in the public sector. However, as the hon. Lady said, within the NHS, these standards will be voluntary, not mandatory. Government buying standards are already promoted through the NHS operating framework for 2011-12 and through the Boorman review of health and well-being on the NHS, now being implemented by NHS Employers. We will promote the Government buying standards through training and materials developed to help NHS organisations to procure more sustainably.
The Government believe in giving far greater responsibility and control locally to NHS providers. NHS trusts must be allowed to determine their own procurement policy. Hospitals need to find out the wants and needs of their local population and then work out how to meet them efficiently. Government’s role is to set the direction and the policy, but it is for local experts to deliver the food locally. This is not to say that the NHS is on its own. There are a number of resources available, including guidance on reducing food waste, sustainable procurement and developing menus and food services.
No health care catering manager need feel unsupported. If hospitals wish to increase the proportion of locally-sourced food, there is guidance to help them do that. If they have a problem with food waste, there are resources that can help them to tackle it. This is the way we should tackle problems—with assistance and support, not restrictive legislation and diktat. It is wrong for Government to meddle in the detail and to attempt to micro-manage the NHS from on high. Our job is to create the right environment, to set standards and to lead, and that is what we are doing.
Joan Walley
Is not there a contradiction in having minimum standards in schools but not having minimum standards that would apply in the same way to patients in hospitals?
Mr Burns
No, I do not think so, for the reasons that I have already given and because of our ethos that the modernised NHS should respond through local decision-making rather than top-down diktat from Whitehall or Westminster. However, as I have outlined, we are prepared to, and we have and we will, provide the guidance to enable local deliverers to seek advice and take decisions based on the best needs of their patients.
We should also bear in mind that the food needs of patients are already regulated and checked by the Care Quality Commission, through the choice of suitable food, the food and nutrition to meet reasonable needs and the support to enable patients to eat and drink—a subject that I will come on to because I feel very much, as the hon. Lady did, that that is an essential part of the care of patients in a hospital setting.
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about poor standards of nutritional care. In too many cases, food has slipped off the menu of some NHS providers, and that is not good enough. Of course, proper nutritional care is a multidisciplinary affair. There are many links in the chain from field to fork. Food must be well sourced and properly cooked by well-trained catering staff, delivered efficiently by the porters, and properly presented on the ward. The chain is a long one, and if any single link breaks, the good work that went before it is undone. Of course, the best food is of no value if it is not eaten, and many people, particularly older patients, will need help, and they must have it. Stories of food left out of reach, or taken away before a patient has had the chance to eat it are shocking and, sadly, too common, as are stories of those unable to feed themselves left without the assistance they require.
The latest in-patient survey found that less than two thirds—64%—of patients always got the help they needed to eat. But that sadly meant that 36% did not always get the help, which, frankly, is unacceptable. That is something that hospitals must concentrate on to ensure that we quickly and dramatically raise those figures. In a civilised society, in this day and age, that is unacceptable as part of patient care, particularly for elderly people.
That is why we asked the CQC to inspect 100 hospitals, focusing on issues of dignity and nutrition. The CQC has begun to publish reports on individual hospitals, and we expect a final report in September. In most cases so far, the care was every bit as good as one would expect. There were many examples of high-quality nursing and of people enjoying healthy, nutritious meals. Indeed, in a number of cases, the quality of food was actually complimented. But the inspections also identified a number of hospitals that were failing to provide the nutritional care their patients need. In one damning example, a doctor was forced to prescribe water on a patient's medicine chart to ensure they got enough to drink. That, again, is unacceptable, and something that one would find hard to believe if it had not shown up in the inspection. Where there are deficiencies, the CQC has demanded that improvements are made. Progress against these demands will be followed up and, like everyone in this House, I expect such follow-up to be rigorous and complete.
The CQC's inspection programme is just one example of how we are shining a light on all aspects of the performance of NHS providers—in this case on hospital food. There are also the annual patient environment action team inspections, the CQC's in-patient survey and patient feedback through NHS Choices, along with any local surveys that trusts choose to undertake. This information is crucial if patients are to make informed choices about their care and if pressure is to be brought to bear upon providers to improve.
Improving the patient experience of care is vital to drive up standards. Providers need to listen to patients’ complaints and suggestions and to change and improve in response. This will be one of the main ways in which the NHS will improve in coming years. Our information revolution will mean that patients are better placed to understand and influence the NHS, and we expect to see standards increase as performance becomes more transparent.
When it comes to hospital food, people know what they want. They expect good-quality, wholesome meals that are attractively served, arrive on time and taste good. They want to receive the food they ordered, not what is left over. They want to be able to eat it in comfort, they want sufficient fluids to drink, and they want the help they need when they need it. That is hardly asking the earth, so we owe it to them to be clear about what they can expect in their local hospital, however good or bad it may be.
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about hospitals that are built without kitchens. However, there are many ways to provide food in hospitals. Excellent meals can be delivered ready-made, either chilled or frozen, and poor-quality food is not an inevitable consequence of being made off-site. Although the quality of the food at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire has been rated as among the poorest 20% in the country, that is not simply because it is not made in a hospital kitchen. Other hospitals, such as those in Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, also have meals brought in and maintain in-patient survey scores that are among the highest in the country. In fact, for a small hospital, delivered meals can combine a wider choice of food and more accommodating meal times, with economies of scale and greater flexibility.
Delivered meals can also help hospitals to meet high sustainability standards, because although on-site kitchens might at first seem more likely to be sustainable, that is not necessarily the case. Larger off-site kitchens are often more efficient because, by utilising economies of scale, they can reduce the amount of energy they use. What is important is the quality of the finished product and whether it meets the specific needs of patients, not where or by whom the food is produced or prepared. If the best solution for a particular hospital is to do that on site, that is what should happen. However, the service should be contracted out if that is in the best interests of the individual hospital and its patients. We should reject any knee-jerk reaction that says doing it in one way will automatically be a disaster, or vice versa. With food, as with all aspects of NHS care, it is the outcomes that are important to patients, not the process. We need to remember that whoever provides the food, the trust management retains the responsibility for its quality. If the provider does not meet the standards that the trust has set, it must take action.
Of course, efficiency and value for money are also important. We have to find ways of producing excellent food at manageable cost. For some hospitals, that will certainly mean looking at delivered meals. This is sensible and prudent management, but it need not and should not mean poor quality. As long ago as 2002, the Audit Commission found no relationship between the amount of money spent on meals and their quality, and the Department of Health’s more recent internal analysis backs this up. Across the country there are trusts that provide great meals at low cost, which is precisely what all providers should aspire to. The Queen Victoria hospital NHS foundation trust is in the top 10% of NHS organisations rated by patients for having good food, but in the lowest 5% for production costs.
As ever, improving patient experience is central to the Government’s vision of the NHS. Good food is not only a vital element of that experience, but vital for improving clinical outcomes. However, I do not accept that the answer to these problems is to impose ever more controls that would prove expensive to administer, undermine local accountability and stifle the innovation and flexibility that hospitals need to tailor improvements to their specific local needs and constraints. Where food services are not as good as they should be, we should highlight the fact in order to improve care for patients. I do not pretend that making improvements will be easy or fast. Although there is much to do, I am confident that we now have the right approach and that the real winners in all of this will be patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 11 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
Coastguard Service
(12 years, 11 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
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dr McCrea. This is the latest in a long series of debates on the coastguard service and I look forward to debating it again with the Minister.
With the coastguard station, police officers, community support officers and the second fire engine under threat in Crosby, it struck me as odd that the Government had not carried out a risk assessment of the impact of such cuts on public safety. I want to look at the co-ordination between the emergency services and see how police, fire and ambulance services will carry out their duties without coastguard staff, who have immense local knowledge and years of experience. There will also be an impact on the RAF mountain rescue service, the British Transport police and the many volunteers who carry out vital rescue services up and down the country. I plan to look at the ability of other emergency services to support the remaining coastguards to carry out their duties following the cuts to their budgets.
In the spirit of “Have I Got News For You”, I have brought along two guest publications. The Royal Yachting Association’s members’ magazine stated:
“It is clear that changes to the current system are needed to improve the safety of boaters.”
Will the Minister tell us how organisations such as the RYA were involved in drawing up the original plans?
The second guest publication, Firefighter, is probably well known to the Minister because he has a distinguished record in the fire service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I would not go as far as that.
Bill Esterson
Well, he has served in the fire service.
Firefighter states:
“Voluntarism, good neighbourliness and a desire to perform ‘public service’ have a limited place in the fire and rescue service on safety grounds.”
I raise that comment because cuts in budgets and staffing have led to the expectation that some of the work of the emergency services will have to be delivered by volunteers. The question is whether that is a safe or acceptable risk for the public. It would be helpful to see how the emergency services and public safety will be affected by the planned cuts. Coastguard staff at Crosby work closely with the police, fire, ambulance and search and rescue services.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, some of which he will be able to answer and some of which he may have to refer to his colleagues in other Departments. The proposed changes to the UK-wide service will have a huge knock-on effect and this debate aims to tease out some of the wider issues, many of which have been briefly addressed in our previous debates.
There is a disagreement between the Minister and many coastguard staff and stakeholders about whether an adequate risk assessment was carried out as part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency plans. It would be interesting to hear what assessment was carried out of the impact on other emergency services and on their ability to continue to support the coastguard. I include in that assessment the impact of funding cuts on voluntary organisations, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—an organisation’s ability to raise funds may suffer as a result of the economic climate—and local volunteer services such as the Southport rescue service.
I attended a consultation meeting at which more than 200 people were present, including representatives from the Southport rescue service. Concerns were raised by the shipping industry, the oil and gas sector, search and rescue volunteers and pleasure craft users. Will the Minister tell us how far those sectors were involved in the drawing up of the original plans? It is said that staff were not asked for their views, and that has been repeated right the way through this process and by many hon. Members here today. Could the Minister confirm whether the plans were drawn up by former front-line staff with no recent operational experience? Will he tell us whether the police, fire service, ambulance service and volunteer search and rescue teams were asked for their views before the plans were drawn up?
The lack of front-line involvement in drawing up the proposals is a key flaw and a matter of grave concern for hon. Members here today and the staff and public who rely on the coastguard and other emergency services. It is at the heart of the difficulty that the Government face during this process.
The way in which Ministers pushed ahead with the proposals is similar to the way in which so many other policies are pushed through by the Government—too fast and too soon. They failed to engage with stakeholders and staff and they failed to involve the other emergency services when they drew up the plans. That led to many of the flaws that have been so graphically illustrated during the consultation. It would have been far better to get the proposals right in the first place and not to have the plans systematically dismantled by staff, volunteers, maritime experts, commercial and leisure users and the general public.
Like many other places in the country, the Merseyside fire and rescue service is set to lose its marine service as a result of Government cuts. I would be interested to hear what discussions have taken place between the MCA and the fire service about the work done jointly between coastguards and river and coastal fire and rescue boats, and what the impact of the cuts will be. Has the Minister spoken to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about the cuts in the fire service and has he raised concerns about the impact of the cuts on Merseyside and elsewhere in the country?
Did the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ask the Minister or the Secretary of State for Transport whether the cuts in the fire service would have any effect on the coastguards and what the impact would be on public safety? These questions would have been addressed if the fire service had been asked to help draw up the plans for the coastguard.
Co-ordination between rescue services would have helped to deliver changes without compromising safety. This story appeared in the Liverpool Echo on 5 March:
“Four people had to be rescued from a pilot boat that caught fire on the River Mersey today. The alarm was raised at around 3.10 am that the crew of the Dunlin were drifting in the river after the fire knocked out the engine. The New Brighton RNLI boat was launched to save the people onboard, who were transferred to another pilot boat, the Petrel. Firefighters tackled the blaze on the water before the stricken Dunlin was towed back to the landing stage at the Pierhead. The fire crews finished dampening the smouldering boat down at around 6 am. No-one on the Dunlin was hurt.”
There is praise there for the RNLI and the fire service, but after the cuts, will the RNLI have the contacts to respond? Will the coastguard be able to direct the RNLI or another rescue team to the scene in time?
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome you to the Chair, Dr McCrea, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. Does he agree that the whole issue around the coastguard stations has opened a real hornets’ nest in a number of regions? In Northern Ireland, the Bangor station is causing something of a controversy. Does he agree with the First Minister in Northern Ireland when he said that reducing the Bangor station—the only coastguard station in Northern Ireland—to a daytime service would have a significant effect on the levels of service and rescue?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. His example ties in with the concerns that I was expressing about the co-ordination of rescue services and about getting them to the scene in a timely fashion.
That point was illustrated by the example I gave concerning the Dunlin which suggested that a combination of organisations work together to effect speedy rescue services; that all of them are affected by Government plans; and that all of them have raised questions for a variety of Government Ministers. I hope that we will start to get some answers from the Minister today.
The suspicion remains that the reorganisation has been rushed and that the cuts to police, fire, ambulance and voluntary agencies that provide an emergency response have also been rushed. The cuts to all the emergency services are possibly the worst example of cuts that are happening too fast and too soon, as they will undermine the ability of the emergency services to protect the public.
The issue of local knowledge applies to all emergency services. When discussing co-ordination of emergency services, it becomes a critical issue. The loss of Crosby coastguard station would mean that the police and fire services, working with search and rescue volunteers, would be ever more crucial in identifying where incidents take place. The cuts to police, fire and voluntary organisations mean that those organisations will not be in a position to provide a replacement service for the coastguard service. That brings me to another question that I want to put to the Minister—how will that replacement service be provided? I would like an answer to that question.
The Government must now come clean on the estimates that they have made about the increased time that it will take to reach maritime incidents as a result of these closures. If the coastguard at Crosby goes, if the local fire service loses its river service and if the funding for the RNLI and other voluntary rescue services is under pressure, what will happen in incidents such as that involving the Dunlin? How will co-ordination of services happen in future? What assessment was carried out before the proposals were published? Was the RNLI asked to help draw up the plans? Did the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues about the impact of cuts to organisations such as the RNLI and whether the funding of such organisations would be affected by the slow-down in economic growth that has resulted from the Chancellor cutting public spending?
Mike Penning
Evidence was given to the Transport Committee the other day by the RNLI, but what evidence is there of any cuts in the RNLI services anywhere in the UK and southern Ireland? If there is no evidence, the hon. Gentleman is scaremongering and frightening communities around the country. There is no evidence at all.
Bill Esterson
I am glad that the Minister has asked me that question, because it highlights the fact that that was the sort of issue that was not considered when the plans were drawn up. The reason that I raise the issue is—
Bill Esterson
The Minister can shake his head, scowl and express his dissatisfaction all he wants. However, the reality is that in a downturn—in tough economic times—charitable giving falls. He must know that; I think that everyone in Westminster Hall today must know that. I am interested to know what assessment was made of the impact of the downturn, not only on the RNLI but on all the voluntary organisations that provide emergency services. That is the key question and I had hoped that I had asked it clearly before.
Mike Penning
The specific point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that there are likely to be cuts in the service of the RNLI. The RNLI gave evidence to the Transport Committee only the other day and I myself have met local and national representatives of the RNLI on numerous occasions, and there is absolutely no evidence that such cuts will happen. To suggest that they are likely is scaremongering. As I say, I have met the relevant bodies and the Select Committee has taken evidence on this subject, so the hon. Gentleman must not scare the public by saying that there will be cuts to RNLI services.
Bill Esterson
I do not need lectures from the Minister about what I must and must not do. He should really think through what he is saying before he makes that sort of comment, because I am asking questions about the kind of assessment and analysis that was carried out about the impact of these plans, and about the process that was gone through when the original proposals were drawn up. This issue is of grave concern to many staff, many members of the public and many people who rely on the coastguard. It is about what analysis was done on a range of issues related to the ability of all the emergency services to protect the public. I am asking about that.
I say again that in a downturn—in tough economic times—charitable giving falls. We have already seen evidence of that. I do not know what the situation is with the RNLI. That is why I am asking the Minister about the RNLI. It is a very important question and I would be very worried if the Minister did not consider it so.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I will declare an interest. I am a member of the council of the RNLI, so I know that there really are concerns about charitable giving. Obviously, that issue is separate from the issue of the Government plans. However, the evidence given to the Transport Committee inquiry—this was said very clearly—was that in the consultation about these cuts only about four or five of the hundreds of RNLI stations across the country gave evidence. Privately, many RNLI members are concerned about the level of cuts and the disappearance of local knowledge. That is a fact. If anyone talks to RNLI members, volunteers and full-time crew members, they will find that they are concerned about the impact that these cuts will have on local knowledge and on their operations.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend has addressed some of the wider issues that the Minister raised with me. I had been looking at the issue of funding, and we have heard evidence that there is concern about that issue. The point that I was making was about the way that the Government proposals were drawn up, but my hon. Friend makes a much wider point about the impact of the loss of local knowledge and the concerns that the RNLI has raised about that issue. I think that we will discuss local knowledge in greater depth shortly.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Regarding the wider point about the RNLI, I have long-held reservations about the way that the RNLI has gone about this process of consultation. Local crews have felt that they have not been able to speak out publicly and have had to go through RNLI channels. I know people who work on lifeboats who have plenty of opinions on this subject, but their opinions have not actually been fed through the RNLI. Actually, because of the process that the RNLI has gone through, I would say that the RNLI evidence is incomplete and it could have been stronger if there had been greater input from certain crews in certain areas. I will put it no more strongly than that.
Bill Esterson
I welcome the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.
I make the point that this issue is not just about the RNLI; it is about other voluntary rescue services too. I mentioned the Southport coastguard services, members of whom I met at the consultation meeting recently. There are other services in the Crosby area and of course around the UK that carry out these rescue services. They all make similar points about co-ordination and the loss of local knowledge and expertise; they are extremely worried about that loss. In addition, they all make the same point about funding. That is why I am asking about funding—it is an important question. Neither I nor the people I have listened to feel that that has been considered.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I represent the RNLI headquarters; it is in my constituency. I had a meeting a couple of months ago with the chief executive of the RNLI, Paul Boissier. I just want to make it clear that he is an ex-admiral and an ex-commander of a nuclear submarine. The head of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is also an ex-admiral. They talk regularly and there is no holding back of views. The RNLI is in dialogue with the MCA all the time. If there were any general concerns, we would know about them. The RNLI is not holding back. There is a dialogue and a good relationship with the MCA. The RNLI wants the best service possible, so that the people who risk their lives every day can actually get out there and save lives.
Bill Esterson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is very important that there is communication at the top of the organisations involved. However, I think that everybody would accept that communication happens at many different levels and one of the main concerns about the way that these proposals have been put forward is the lack of involvement of front-line staff in the process of drawing them up. So, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about top-level communication and I accept that point, but we also need to look at issues right the way through the organisations involved and around the UK, because the RNLI is not just one organisation in one area with one central structure. It is much more of a devolved organisation than that.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
On the point about funding, on Saturday I met my volunteer lifeboat men in Looe who have just raised an enormous amount of money in a very short space of time for the provision of a new vessel. I must make it clear that there may not have been the impact on RNLI fundraising that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. However, there is a lot of concern among the people working at the sharp end that the proposals will adversely impact on their doing their jobs and on marine safety, and that needs to be put on the record as well. The hierarchy might be putting a particular message forward, but that is not what we are hearing at the coal face.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady speaks from tremendous personal experience, and I know that all Members recognise her involvement in the matter and the sadness around the loss of her husband. I pay tribute to her involvement in putting the case for the coastguard. She has made a very good point about the RNLI, and I am pleased to hear the evidence about fundraising—that is very important. The reason for my question is to tease out that sort of information and to look at the wider impact.
I have raised the issue of the impact on the fire service, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has submitted a series of written questions about cuts to the maritime incident response group by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Does the Minister have any further information on that?
Many Members have expressed concerns about how the plans were drawn up. The maritime industry was asked for its views about pleasure craft users and the fishing industry, but was it asked about the impact of the cuts in fire, police and ambulance services and about the loss of the ability to co-ordinate services?
On the police, Merseyside police authority says that it is not recruiting new officers. It expects to lose 480 officers over two years, and its budget for community support officers ends in two years’ time. The Liverpool Echo estimates that up to 800 front-line officers will go over four years, and across England and Wales the figure is 12,000 over two years. Has the Minister discussed with the Home Secretary the impact of such job cuts in the police service? How will police officers replace the relationships they have built up with coastguards, and will police officers be available to cover some of the work done by coastguards and search and rescue volunteers who tell us that they will call it a day because of fears for their own safety without the co-ordination of trusted, local coastguards with years of experience? If the Government perform the U-turn that they should, what will happen to the joint working with police and fire services anyway?
I have asked many questions about co-ordination, about the impact of the MCA plans on police, fire and voluntary emergency services connected to the coastguard, and about the effect of the cuts on the ability of emergency services to support the coastguard, whether or not the Government close most of the coastguard stations. The more I investigate the matter, the clearer it is that this is yet another issue governed by pound signs rather than by efficiency, putting saving money before saving lives. A recent Crosby Herald article stated that the original review had excluded Crosby coastguard station in my constituency. Crosby was hastily reinserted, however, when Ministers were reminded that the work force there were well organised and would almost certainly put up a fight. That is the view of staff and of local people. The suggestion is that the consultation was a sham and that Crosby was going to be closed whatever the outcome. We will clearly see before very much longer whether that is true.
I am sure that the Minister will remind me of his visit to Crosby. He told staff there that the coastguard was like the fire service and that he, as a firefighter, did not need to be told where the fire was. It was pointed out to him that along the coast of north-west England there are many mud and sand banks, but no roads, and creeks and gullies with similar names, and that it could easily take someone who did not know the area many minutes to identify the correct location to which to send search and rescue. A delay of a few minutes could well cost lives.
My questions today suggest that if a coastguard station closes, the lack of local knowledge could become even more critical because of the cuts to other emergency services. The coastguard, the other emergency services and the public all need assurances that the Government’s plans for the coastguard are not one of their many political cuts, and that they will reconsider the proposals. The reality is that the coastguard cuts, along with the cuts to the other emergency services, go too far and too fast. They have not been planned or thought through, and they should be reversed.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate. I am pleased that we are looking at the co-ordination role of the coastguard co-ordination stations, which has not always been focused on in other debates, and at their role in overseeing incidents at sea. It is the local coastguards who pull together the emergency services during an incident and who, over many years, have built up relationships with those services. We remove that local relationship at our peril.
I firmly believe, as did my late husband, that there should be modernisation of coastguard equipment to allow, for example, the position of vessels transmitting with the voluntary class B automatic indicator system to be identified easily, but that there should be no cull of marine rescue co-ordination centres. Because of my personal position, I have received representations from concerned sea users all over the country, but it is appropriate for me to concentrate on my own area.
The marine rescue co-ordination centre in Brixham covers my constituency of South East Cornwall, and has built up unique experience from so many incidents over many years. The search and rescue area covered by Brixham stretches from Dodman Point halfway along the south coast of Cornwall to Exmouth in Devon, and it is essential to emphasise something I am sure the Minister will recognise and agree with—that local knowledge of topography saves lives. The care that I was afforded on 25 March by Looe RNLI crew and Brixham and Looe coastguards was beyond anything I could have expected, and I thank all those involved in the emergency services, and indeed the south-west fishing industry, for their kindness.
This past Saturday I spent time with my local RNLI personnel and my local volunteer coastguards, who are all concerned about the Minister’s proposals. They feel that he has not had the opportunity to speak to people who operate at the sharp end, and I would like to invite the Minister to visit Looe—if his busy schedule allows it—to hear for himself their concerns.
Some examples of co-ordinated sea rescues undertaken by Brixham are the Santa Anna, the MV Willy, the MV Kodima, the Ice Prince, the Kukawa and the Bothnia Stone.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Would I be right in saying that Brixham dealt with 1,300 incidents in 2010, saving 300 lives? Its work is absolutely valuable. When we talked about introducing technology, we said that we would move to a paperless society, but we have not, and although technology undoubtedly has a place—we need modernisation—without local knowledge we will not save the numbers of lives that we have done in the past.
Sheryll Murray
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I was coming on to the number of incidents. As far as technology goes, it was only last Wednesday that the London ambulance service system failed, and it was recording emergency calls with pen and paper.
The incidents involving MV Willy and MV Kodima both happened off the coast of my own county division, when I sat on Cornwall county council. I witnessed at first hand the superb co-ordination provided by the Brixham marine rescue co-ordination centre, with the marine emergency rescue organisations and the Cornwall fire service and its emergency planning department. I doubt that the Minister has experienced that unique way of working within a coastal fire and rescue service, but I appreciate that he has absolute expertise as far as an inland fire and rescue service is concerned.
I would like to highlight in more detail three incidents in which Brixham MRCC has been involved in co-ordination with other emergency services. The first occurred just before midnight—that is, outside daylight hours—on 13 January 2008 and involved the Torbay and Salcombe RNLI lifeboats, coastguard rescue helicopter India Juliet, HMS Cumberland and several merchant vessels. They proceeded to merchant vessel Ice Prince, with 20 persons on board, 27 miles south-east of Start point after its cargo shifted in heavy weather and it began to list to port. The vessel was abandoned by 12 crewmen, one with a suspected broken leg, and they were airlifted to Portland by helicopter. The remaining eight were rescued by Torbay lifeboat and conveyed to Brixham. A French tug attended the scene, and damage was assessed in daylight.
The second incident occurred on 11 October at 8.38 am and involved a missing person. Brixham took broadcast action and tasked the warship Westminster and coastguard helicopter R106 to assist the French coastguard at Cross Corsen in a mid-channel search for an 80-year-old male reported missing from passenger vessel Balmoral.
Finally, on 10 February this year at 6.43 pm—again, outside daylight hours—Brixham coastguard received a mayday distress call from fishing vessel Amber J reporting that fishing vessel Admiral Blake had collided with MV Boxford approximately 30 miles south of Start point. The Amber J reported that two crewmen from the Admiral Blake had entered the water and only one had been recovered. Salcombe RNLI’s all-weather lifeboat, coastguard rescue helicopter 106 from Portland and Royal Navy helicopter 193 were tasked to search for the missing crewman. After a mayday relay, numerous vessels assisted in the search, along with a rapid rescue craft from the Boxford. After a brief search, the missing crewman was located by the Boxford’s rapid rescue craft, winched aboard the coastguard rescue helicopter and taken to hospital. Rescue helicopter 193 stood by while the Salcombe lifeboat assessed the damage to the Admiral Blake. After the damage was assessed and controlled, the Admiral Blake was towed back to Plymouth, where the Plymouth lifeboat met the vessel and took her into port. That shows essential local partnership working among our local coastguard stations at the moment.
Complicated incidents at Brixham have increased year on year since 1998, when 767 incidents were recorded. In 2002, there were 903 incidents, in 2003 there were 1,025, in 2009 there were 1,324 and last year there were 1,355. Of greater concern is the fact that this year, there have already been 546 incidents, an increase of 90 from the same period last year. I acknowledge that, taken at face value, the number of incidents at Falmouth appears higher, at 971. However, that can be broken down into 233 incidents similar to those that I have just described and another 738 that occurred under the international global maritime distress safety system. Some of those incidents might have been search and rescue, but others would have been passed to the relevant MRC centre to deal with.
I am afraid that I must take issue with the Minister’s comments about Falmouth’s international role during a debate on 2 February this year. He said:
“Falmouth is internationally renowned for its international rescue capabilities. If we have a problem in Falmouth, where does that get picked up? Nowhere.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; Vol. 522, c. 320WH.]
He is clearly unaware that Brixham takes over GMDSS when Falmouth suffers an outage, and has taken over the system every Thursday for the past 12 months. Perhaps he will take the opportunity when he speaks to correct the statement that he made in February. It would also be interesting to hear from him whether there have been any incidents in which both stations in a pair have gone down at the same time.
As I am sure the Minister knows, Falmouth was allocated GMDSS due to its proximity to Goonhilly Downs satellite earth station, which has closed. Many incidents are subsequently passed on to other coastal co-ordination stations, and it is unfair of him to include them in the number of incidents dealt with by Falmouth alone.
I am disappointed that the Minister chose to describe Brixham and Falmouth as “ridiculously close” during the Adjournment debate last week. In fact, Brixham and Portland, Milford and Swansea, Thames and Yarmouth, Portland and Solent, and Forth and Aberdeen have fewer road miles between them, and if we measure as the crow flies, we can also include Holyhead and Liverpool on the list. Does he consider those stations to be ridiculously close?
Brixham MRCC is bought and paid for. We now need to cover only the station’s running costs. It contains an operations co-ordination room, an emergency planning room, a coastal safety manager’s office, a sector manager’s office, coastguard rescue equipment for the Berry Head rescue team, a coastguard rescue emergency vehicle, a marine surveyor’s office, a coastguard training office for the region and an aerial site, and it still has space to expand. Brixham has been approached to lease a whole floor to another emergency service for its offices and operation area. If the property is sold, new premises will need to be found and bought for all of the above.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech. It underlines the fact that the more we find out about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s plans and the more detail emerges, the more concerned I become, as I am sure do other hon. Members, about what the MCA was thinking when it first took its plans to the Minister. I am sure that he would not have started the process if he had known the sort of detail that the hon. Lady has described.
Sheryll Murray
I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Minister has the best intentions, and that he does not intend to make savage cuts to the best rescue service in the world.
Brixham is the busiest fishing port in England. It has the third highest number of leisure vessels registered on CG66, the voluntary safety identification scheme, at 2,200, and that number is increasing daily. It has a search and rescue area and is a popular holiday destination. Brixham has unique expertise in UK search and rescue. Due to its position along the busiest shipping lanes in the world, it has gained unique search and rescue expertise from incidents such as those that I have listed.
I end with a message that I hope the Minister will accept in the spirit in which it is given. He says that we will not end up with the proposal outlined in his consultation document, and I welcome those words. However, he must accept that by issuing a five-year-old proposal that takes massive cuts as a starting point, he has effectively moved the starting line as well as the goalposts. Coastguards all around the coast have told me that their response would have been different if they had not been working with a proposal to cut MRCC numbers and hours so drastically. That is why it is essential that we start with a blank sheet of paper.
No one knows better than I how dangerous the sea is and how important it is to co-ordinate all rescue services locally when an incident occurs at sea. The proposals remind me of 1994, when two fishermen lost their lives off the Cornish coast, below a recently closed coastguard post, and local people decided to open and restore the visual watch. That could not happen once we lose our marine rescue co-ordination centres around the coast, because they are professional. I make a plea to the Minister to think again about the closures. He has used examples of other nations operating with fewer stations, but has failed to mention that in those countries the coastguards operate in different ways, with different responsibilities. Yes, modernise, and yes, have better equipment, but please do not destroy the best coastguard service in the world.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her courage in taking part in this debate. Several Members have indicated that they want to speak and I would like to get as many of them in as possible. However, we have to commence the winding-up speeches at 10.40 at the latest. I am, therefore, in the hands of the Members that I will call.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate on such an important topic. My constituency of South Down in Northern Ireland has two fishing ports, so I know just how important the Bangor coastguard station is. I know of the necessity of maintaining a service that has developed a comprehensive knowledge of our seas. It is important that we keep the coastguard station in Bangor to protect those who use the seas around the island of Ireland, and those who use our coastal and inland waterways, including, in the case of Northern Ireland, those who use inland locations and are subject to search and rescue. Many of the people involved and those in other emergency services risk their lives to protect not only those in the fishing industry, but people involved in recreation and tourism.
The Government will announce their decision by 19 July and it is fair to say that the process has been marked by uncertainty for many people throughout Northern Ireland. Such uncertainty must give cause for concern regarding the outcome. The Government now seem to be re-evaluating and rowing back from their initial proposals. It is clear that they underestimated the value of the local knowledge developed over time by our vastly experienced coastguard personnel, and that they were prepared to risk losing this vital asset. I ask the Minister: was that really the purpose of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s proposals, or did it have better thoughts at heart about protecting the service?
It is vital that the Minister and the Government listen to those experts who have spoken up during the consultation and arrive at a decision that safeguards those who use our waters. I and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland believe that there is a duty to protect our coastguard station in Northern Ireland and to ensure that it can operate at full-time capacity. I recently attended a meeting hosted by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in Bangor, which the Minister, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, also kindly attended. It was made clear to the Minister, via a range of robustly made proposals by staff, that it was possible to retain the coastguard station in Northern Ireland on a full-time basis by using other measures and means. I and other hon. Members from Northern Ireland would like to hear the Minister’s response to those proposals in advance of the final outcome, because it is particularly important.
The other key point is that the Bangor coastguard station co-ordinates closely with the Irish coastguard. We would, therefore, lose out on that vital resource for protecting all of Ireland’s waterways. I recently had the opportunity to raise the issue with the Taoiseach—the Irish Prime Minister—and it is clear that closing or downgrading the Bangor station would be a great loss not only to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the people of the Irish Republic. Indeed, it is our coastguard that is nominated by the Irish Government to respond in the case of an emergency off the Donegal coast. It cannot be overlooked or ignored that our service operates on a cross-border, north-south basis on the island of Ireland.
Another difficulty in shutting the service and depending on a coastguard station in Liverpool—I use these words with caution, considering the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central—is that the island of Ireland operates with the Ordnance Survey at the point of origin, which is totally incompatible with the English mapping system. That is another reason why we need a full-time coastguard station in Northern Ireland.
All those concerns have been reflected during the consultation process. Indeed, I am reminded of the words of the chairman of the North West mountain rescue team in Northern Ireland, who expressed concern that the closure of the station would adversely affect the relationship between the Northern Ireland coastguard and the Irish Republic.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The hon. Lady has referred to the fact that the Northern Ireland coastguard also covers Donegal, but part of the reciprocation for that is access to the Irish Republic’s search and rescue helicopters. Does she share my concern that a breakdown in those closely maintained relationships on the island of Ireland could cause political difficulties and jeopardise some of that close co-operation?
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important point. I discussed the issue with the Taoiseach last week. He mentioned the need for greater north-south co-operation and made the point that the proposals could jeopardise services and the reciprocal agreement, which is vital for the running of an important maritime rescue service on the island of Ireland.
The chairman of the North West mountain rescue team said:
“The local knowledge and the rapport the NI coastguard have with the Republic’s coastguard means that we get a very effective and efficient service and I would doubt that would happen if that local knowledge disappeared.”
There is no doubt that, if the service disappeared, that would jeopardise that vital north-south arrangement on an inter-governmental basis.
Mr MacNeil
I note the hon. Lady’s words on efficiency but, over and above efficiency, this is a maritime insurance policy. Sometimes, we have to be careful that we are not spoiling the ship for a ha’penny worth of tar. We have to make sure that when something is needed it is there and that we do not dismantle it beforehand. In that respect, it is important that we keep Liverpool, Bangor, Clyde, Stornoway and Shetland. Losing Oban a few years ago has had its own knock-on effects and I am sure that that will come through in the inquiries that are going on at the moment. I reiterate the importance of keeping those stations and the fact that this is an insurance policy over and above efficiency.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that vital intervention. He raises the serious point of co-ordination throughout the British isles. That should be taken on board and given due recognition during the whole consultation process. I hope that the Minister will respond to that particular point in an apt and empathetic way.
In conclusion, the courage of those who devote time to rescue efforts on our shores must not be taken for granted by Government. The Bangor centre is the only full-time station in Northern Ireland and its funding must therefore be protected. As we approach the end of the consultation process—it is one month away—we must end the current state of confusion. I strongly urge the Minister to respond in a helpful way to those officials in the Bangor coastguard station who have suggested strong and compelling proposals to safeguard the service for the people of the island.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate and on giving us another opportunity to demonstrate the strength of feeling there is about the coastguard service.
The Government are, of course, right to consider ways of modernising the coastguard service—they must constantly look at options for improving all their services—but I want to draw their attention to my concerns about the closure of the Clyde coastguard station in Greenock, which is just outside my constituency. The tragic early death of David Cairns means that Greenock does not have a Member of Parliament at the moment, but it is incumbent on hon. Members such as myself and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who secured an Adjournment debate last week, to point out the importance of the Greenock coastguard station to the west of Scotland.
My constituency has many islands and peninsulas, which means its coastline is longer than that of France and that the Clyde coastguard station has a longer coastline than any of the coastguard stations to look after. Islands, peninsulas and sea lochs create a wide variety of currents and sea conditions, which is one reason why local knowledge is very important. The most spectacular area is the giant whirlpool in the Gulf of Corryvreckan. If I may put in a tourist plug, that is well worth going to see. In addition, as my constituency is on the west coast, its coastline is regularly battered by severe storms. All those factors make local knowledge very important.
I also want to stress the importance of local knowledge in differentiating between different places that have the same name. On the islands and the mainland of the west of Scotland, a large number of places are called Tarbert because Tarbert means a narrow neck of land in Gaelic. It would be easy for someone not familiar with that to send the rescue vessel to the wrong place. It is also important to be able to differentiate between, for example, East Loch Tarbert and West Loch Tarbert. They are only a few hundred yards apart as the crow flies, but one is on the Clyde and one is on the Atlantic, so it is very important for someone to know the difference between the two.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentioned East Loch Tarbert and West Loch Tarbert and said that one is on the Clyde and one is on the Atlantic. I would argue, of course, that one is on the Minch and one is on the Atlantic, but I am talking about the island of Harris.
Mr Reid
That is correct. There are plenty of other places called Tarbert, including one called Tarbet without an “r.” It would be very easy to get confused.
Those seas are sailed by a wide variety of different kinds of ships: for example, cargo ships, cruise liners, ferries, fishing boats, naval vessels—both surface and submarine—fish farm support vessels and leisure craft, in which there has been a significant increase. In addition, in the coming years, an increasing number of vessels will support offshore renewable energy installations. Over recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of leisure craft of all kinds and it is important to remember that most of them are crewed by amateur sailors. If an incident should occur, inexperienced amateur sailors are obviously more of a challenge for coastguard staff to deal with. There are many new marinas around the coast and there will be a vast increase in leisure craft in the years to come.
Clyde station has 41 coastguard rescue teams under its control, and seafarers have received a first-class service from the Clyde coastguard station over many years. Once the Government have had an opportunity to consider the responses to the consultation, I hope that they will recognise the unique challenges posed by the area served by the Clyde coastguard station and that they will keep it open to retain the valuable local knowledge that exists. It is important to point out that, if staff are forced to relocate to Aberdeen, as appears to be the case from the Government’s proposals, that is well over 100 miles away and many staff will not be able to do so, either for family or financial reasons. Valuable local knowledge will therefore be lost.
One positive part of the Government’s proposals is that there will be a significant increase in the number of regular coastguards who will be supporting Coastguard Rescue Service volunteers. It would make sense to spread those regular coastguards across the country to minimise their travel time to where the volunteers are based and to ensure that they have contact with local emergency services. It is important to stress that getting to the remoter parts of Argyll takes a long time even from Greenock. The journey would be even longer if the support staff were travelling from Aberdeen to remote parts of the west coast all the time.
I am aware that the lease for the Clyde station comes to an end in 2012. That appears to be a major consideration in the reasoning behind the Government’s decision to close the station.
Mr MacNeil
Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was when I mined into the MCA’s proposals and realised that, as he is saying, the lease of Clyde station is coming to an end? When I first spoke to the MCA, it was apparent from the outset that the prime driver for the decision on the Clyde station was real estate and not maritime safety. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that.
Mr Reid
The hon. Gentleman is right. Real estate considerations should not be paramount. Safety should be the prime consideration and the fact that the lease is up for renewal should not be a major factor. I am sure that there are plenty of buildings that the Government could secure in the Greenock area if they wanted to continue to have a coastguard station in that area. I hope that the Government will secure further premises.
For all those reasons, the most important of which is local knowledge, I hope that the Government will recognise the importance of the Clyde coastguard station and realise that they do not want to lose its staff’s experience and expertise. I hope that they will reflect on the consultation and will agree to keep the Clyde coastguard station open.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr McCrea, for calling hon. Members from all four nations to make a contribution this morning. I join you in paying tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for her contribution to the debate and for the courage she has shown not just today but over the year she has been a Member of Parliament. When I have been in the Chair, I have seen her contributions to debates on fishing, coastguard and coastal issues. She brings experience, knowledge and a forthright and honest opinion that we need in such discussions.
This is an important debate. The linking and co-ordination between the coastguard and other emergency services is just as important as the coastguard’s internal co-ordination among the different stations. It is absolutely vital that that happens. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been listening through the long debates we have had since December and that the Government are prepared to pause and to look again at the proposals and the consultations. That is what we were calling for originally, and I think we have achieved that.
If the Minister had taken up my offer of coming to Holyhead station, he would have been very welcome. He could have seen at first hand not just the best practice of that coastguard station, but the co-ordination with other emergency services that takes place. Throughout the process, I have argued that, as a local station, Holyhead is strategically important to the whole of the Welsh coastline and, indeed, the Irish sea. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the Irish link. That has been very important for Holyhead and RAF Valley. I want to talk about the search and rescue at RAF Valley, which is the headquarters of search and rescue for the whole of the United Kingdom. It moved there from a different part of the country because of the strategic importance of Anglesey to the whole of the United Kingdom—it is equal distance from many places in the north and the south—and also to the west in Ireland. Search and rescue at RAF Valley has been involved in scrambling to some very important rescues and incidents.
It is important and timely that we have this debate in an open and honest manner because although we are all talking about local knowledge and our local stations, we have been mindful—I pay tribute to every Member who has taken part in such debates since December—not to put down other coastguard stations. We have stressed the importance of our own areas and their strategic importance to the whole coastguard family in the United Kingdom.
In the short time available, I just want to give the Minister a few examples—I appreciate that we are rushed for time, otherwise I would have elaborated further—of the strategic importance of Holyhead in terms of search and rescue and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. On the record, I have to say that I speak regularly—on a weekly basis—with members, crews, volunteers and full-time crew members of the RNLI and that, as I indicated, I am a member of the RNLI’s general council. They are concerned that they did not get the opportunity to have their views put openly into the system, but that they were channelled through the RNLI. As I said, and as was pointed out in the evidence session to the Select Committee, only four or five out of 100 RNLI stations took part in the consultation. We have not, therefore, had a true flavour of the opinions of the RNLI.
Naomi Long
In Northern Ireland, many of those who work for the coastguard also volunteer for the RNLI, so the loss of personnel would have a direct implication for RNLI services.
Albert Owen
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Some people volunteer for both, or have members of their family who are in each of the emergency voluntary services. I want to echo the importance of that co-ordination. Time saves lives. Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the MCA, has said that there would be some time delay—he has been honest enough to acknowledge that. That could translate into the loss of lives if local knowledge and expertise is gone due to the closure of local stations.
We all want a modernised MCA with improved technology for the 21st century, but that must not be at the expense of closing local stations and losing local knowledge. I have been consistent in making that argument for many years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was the Minister and was given advice by the MCA, he carefully and rightly ignored it to an extent—not all of it—because this needed to be done properly. We now have an opportunity for a proper and open debate to look at all these issues. The consultation paper and the proposals, which the Government produced jointly with the MCA, did not allow that to happen. We have moved beyond that and we are having a better informed debate. The Government and the Minister can now come to the right decision, which is to retain the best coastguard services we have, retain local knowledge and enhance it with new technology and the best station personnel. They must improve the confidence, morale and abilities of station personnel, but also the co-ordination with the other emergency services, which are facing tough times themselves. As the Minister knows, the future of the search and rescue service has been put on hold and there is uncertainty. That causes great anxiety not just among the search and rescue people within the RAF, the MCA and the Royal Navy, but in the RNLI and other services—the family of search of rescue.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that public expectation and public confidence is critical to the Government’s overall direction of travel?
Albert Owen
Absolutely. I echo the point, made by hon. Members in their speeches and interventions, that the coastguard service personnel, volunteers and full-time, and the RNLI are important members of those communities too. They have strong links with other emergency services.
For the benefit of the Minister and the shadow Minister, I would like to highlight the link with the fire service. I recall a ferry adrift in Holyhead which had 1,200 to 1,400 people on board, and which had lost control. The local knowledge of the coastguard got the fire service there immediately. I have taken part in exercises with the fire service. I do not have the time to go into it, but of course the ship’s crew think that they tackle things better and that the firemen just get seasick when they come on board the vessels, and the firemen think that they do things better. The serious point is that there is regular dialogue and liaison between those important services. That could be—I believe would be—lost if we closed local stations and lost local expertise and knowledge. Time saves lives, and I think that the Minister understands that and wants to move forward. I want to work with him, and with other hon. Members, to have those strategic, important coastguard stations enhanced to do the job for the 21st century.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who gave what I know was a difficult, but well-heard speech.
I understand the great concerns that we have heard today. We have had numerous debates and that is why the Government are having a consultation—to hear what people say not only from this House, but local areas. I suspect that at any stage when there has been modernisation or change of the coastguard service, whether 20, 50, 70, or 100 years ago, one might have had similar concerns. The way of the world is that, years ago, we needed a lot more stations than perhaps we need today. With technology, the upskilling of the service and having to move people through a career path, there has to be change. I understand, however, that local knowledge is an issue. Indeed, Sir Alan Massey acknowledged that local knowledge has to be a key concern. I am sure that when the Government look at the consultation, that will be a key point in what they eventually decide to do.
I have really risen to make a plug for the RNLI, which I am glad has already been plugged by a number of hon. Members. It is a phenomenally good organisation with a wonderful ethos. We are very lucky, as a nation, to have an organisation that raises money, as a charity, to provide a vital service that has saved 139,000 lives since 1824. There were concerns about its income. I think that that income is holding up reasonably well, which is partly due to how people feel about the lifeboat service. Even in southern Ireland, the bucket tin collections are holding up well. Given its economic problems, that is a phenomenal tribute.
The lifeboats have had to amend and change, not least because as a nation we had a large merchant navy, fishing fleet and Royal Navy. Many people who now man our lifeboats are landlubbers who have to be trained. Poole has very good training facilities, where people can experience wave machines and go through a simulation of saving at sea. I do not want to say very much more, in order to let the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) speak. The RNLI is a phenomenal organisation. It is very well managed and organised. The fundraising is good, and people’s commitment is tremendous. This is a really dangerous job. There is a memorial outside the headquarters in Poole that lists all the lifeboat men who have died, and I was privileged to be there when that opened. The organisation has a very good outreach to many of the families who have lost loved ones in lifeboat disasters—it keeps in touch. I cannot speak highly enough of RNLI, and I think that all hon. Members appreciate what it does for our nation.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for being so generous in allowing me some time to make a few points. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing the debate. Rescue co-ordination in Northern Ireland raises particular challenges, and I want to touch on them.
I think that everyone supports the idea of modernisation, but there is concern in Northern Ireland that the loss of the Belfast coastguard station would be a blow not just to the North Down constituency in which it is located, but to Northern Ireland as a whole. The coastguard in Northern Ireland is held in universally high regard, and I think that that has been the case throughout its history. While people often focus on rescue at sea, and that is certainly an issue for Northern Ireland, there is also the matter that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) raised with regard to inland search and rescue, which is also co-ordinated by the Northern Ireland coastguard. It is worth noting that in Northern Ireland, unlike in other parts of the UK, there are only two category 1 responders to emergencies: the Police Service of Northern Ireland and HM coastguard. We are all acutely aware of the significant security pressures faced by the PSNI. It is therefore important that HM coastguard can provide that search and rescue facility at a local level.
The Belfast coastguard station is the only one in the UK with a direct land border with another European state, so it fulfils a unique role in providing liaison and co-ordination with the Irish coastguard. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am concerned that some of the close working relationships, which are not just beneficial to Northern Ireland, would be lost as a result of any changes to and relocation of that co-ordination point.
I do not wish to repeat much of what has been said and I do not have the time to do so. In conclusion, I want to mention the impact on volunteerism in the RNLI. I referred specifically to the fact that people who work for the coastguard also volunteer, as do their families. Given the work of Bregenz house, those local relationships have been hugely important in encouraging people to engage with the RNLI. My concern is that, with dislocation and distance, that link might not be as effective as it has been in the past.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) powerfully indicated the importance of local knowledge. I cannot add anything to her comments, so I simply commend her for what she said.
I am aware that the coastguard has produced alternative proposals, and I hope that those address not only the wish for modernisation but the concerns we have raised about the Government proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I trust that he will be able to provide us with additional reassurance that the Government are listening and will respond positively.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate this morning, Dr McCrea.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important matter again.
It is good to see the Minister in his place, back under pressure, which is where Ministers should be—keeps him honest. I know that he is well regarded by most Members in the House and by the shipping community, and we are also confident that he is doing everything he can to protect the service, given the coalition’s deficit plan.
As I have said before, the Opposition are not here to oppose all the coastguard reforms, nor am I a deficit denier. It is important to say straight away that the global financial crisis happened in every country—it was not a recession made in Britain, but was caused by the banks, and Labour accepts that we should have been tougher on them. Like every other country, though, we need to get the deficit down, which means cuts. We recognise the Government’s position.
However, the Tory-led coalition is creating a vicious circle in our economy because it is cutting too far and too fast. That is our fear about the coastguard proposals: they are too deep and too fast. We certainly disagree with the presentation of options, such as either Stornoway or Shetland, and we are uncomfortable with having to choose between Belfast or Liverpool—to name just two of the main locations. We therefore seek and hope to hear assurances about the future from the Minister.
We have heard from several Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central asked the central question about the role of the other emergency services and their relationship with the coastguard service. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has more reason to be listened to on this issue than any of us—I am sure that the Minister is listening to her and her constituents. She made the point about local input. There has been huge interest in the consultation exercise, as we have heard from hon. Members. Despite the miles clocked up by the Minister, about which I am sure he will tell us in due course, areas such as Cumbria and the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), would have been pleased to have the opportunity to meet the Minister as well, to express their real concerns about the possible closure of the Liverpool station. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall made her points on local knowledge and the case for Brixham strongly—as ever.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) made a powerful case for the station at Bangor and the international implications given its cross-border arrangements. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned Greenock and, generously, that our departed and much missed friend, David Cairns, championed this matter when in the House representing his town. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned language issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who has spoken knowledgeably on the question on several occasions, again raised the issue of Holyhead. His role in the RNLI council gives him greater insight. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who was generous with his time, and gracious as ever, rightly applauded the RNLI and paid tribute to everyone involved. Given that he is the MP for RNLI headquarters, which I had the pleasure of visiting during my time as shipping Minister, he is the right person to make such comments. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) repeated the concern of her constituents—and more widely—about the future of their station.
I wish to ask about the maritime incident response group, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central and for Ynys Môn, and about the future of the emergency towing vessel contract in association with the reform of the coastguard services. I submitted some questions to the Minister, but can he furnish more information on top of his answers of 26 April? First, he addressed the maritime incident response group, which was set up to help fight fires on board vessels around Britain’s coast, given the gap in our armoury:
“We are finalising a risk assessment on the review of Maritime Incident Response Group which we hope to publish shortly.”
I wondered if that was likely to be soon. He also said a consultation exercise was going on with the fire and rescue services, and:
“Final decisions on future arrangements will be taken once this consultation is complete.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2011; Vol. 527, c. 91W and 92W.]
Has the consultation been completed? Finally on the response group, are discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government complete, given that it has responsibility for Britain’s fire services? What was the outcome of those discussions?
The question of the emergency towing vessel contract still causes concern, which was expressed most powerfully by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) in the February debate because of the Donaldson inquiry and its recommendation about the contract and the £100 million cost.
Mr MacNeil
Last week I happened to be in Torshavn in the Faroe Islands, where the West Nordic Council was meeting—Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, with Denmark present as well. Coastguard safety generally was discussed, but emergency towing vessels were taken especially seriously because of the increase in cruise ships in the north Atlantic, and that applies to the north and the west of Scotland. We should be playing our part internationally—international countries with difficulties were mentioned, Iceland in particular is having them, but it is not cutting back on maritime safety. In fact, Iceland is going in the opposite direction of travel. There is a lesson there for us, as well as for international safety—anyone we know could be on a cruise ship.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The hon. Gentleman speaks knowledgeably on the issue, which I am grateful that he raised, and which the Minister has been considering, so an update on whether the work on the replacement service or arrangements has been finalised would be helpful. Can he say anything further, given the suggestion of some movement in the area?
I am sure that the Minister has seen the Oxford Economics report on “The economic impact of the UK’s Maritime Services Sector”. I was generously supplied with a copy by Mr Doug Barrow of Maritime UK, who is well known and highly regarded in shipping circles. The summary of this authoritative report reminds us that the UK maritime services sector directly creates 227,000 jobs, contributes more than £13 billion to the UK economy and generates £3 billion plus for the UK Exchequer. It also supports considerable activity in other sectors, including direct, indirect and induced impacts supporting more than 500,000 jobs and generating more than £7 billion for the UK Exchequer. Given, in addition, the millions of recreational users of our seas and coasts, we must get the conclusions of the consultation right.
As colleagues have articulated this morning and previously, here in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber, there is much disquiet about the initial Government proposals. The Minister has given us some encouragement in previous appearances here and at the Dispatch Box that the proposals are not set in stone. The coalition’s policy adjustments in recent months—on forests, NHS reforms, sentencing guidelines, school sport partnerships and housing benefit rules, not to mention something we might be hearing today on bins—give some encouragement that the Government will listen to the various contributions from Members and from those outside the House and not proceed with the original proposals.
I congratulate all Members on their efforts. We know that there will be reforms to the coastguard service—of that, there is no doubt—but we will strive to ensure that they are neither too deep nor too fast. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing the debate, although most hon. Members linked it to matters wider than the link between the emergency services and the coastguard service. I pay tribute to their ingenuity in doing so, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for bringing her knowledge to the debate. I know how difficult that must have been, and she did so courageously. We may not agree on everything, but I promise that we will remain friends.
The Government set out the consultation process, we extended it, and we are reopening it so that the report of the Select Committee on Transport can be included in our thoughts. We will almost certainly have another consultation process because, as I have said since day one, as has the Secretary of State, what comes out of the process will not be the same as what we went in with, because we are listening. We have said that from day one, and I have said that as I have gone around the country. How that can be deemed a U-turn is strange. We did not say at the start that we would not come out with something different. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Opposition would prefer me to ignore everything that is said in the debates, be rigid, ignore public opinion, and have sham consultation, which is what happened under the previous Administration.
Mike Penning
I am conscious that colleagues have, rightly, used most of the time available, and I am also conscious that I may repeat what has been said again and perhaps again and again, but I will not give way because I have about nine minutes left, and I want to cover the issues, especially those that are slightly different from those that arose around the country.
I praise the hon. Member for Sefton Central, because the debate is important, and its title has helped me. I was not aware that there were problems regarding the roles of the Merseyside fire and rescue service and Her Majesty’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Mersey estuary, especially involving mud rescues. That was interesting, but I understand now, and with some impetus from the debate and perhaps a bit of size 10 from me they will be resolved. Clearly, there is duplication in who co-ordinates the service.
May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall that although I represent a landlocked constituency, I was a member of the fire and rescue service in Essex, and was based at a coastal station for many years? About the third major incident that I went to was a freighter fire. As the shadow Minister, my friend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is my friend—knows, that is one of the most frightening experiences.
We heard that there is often a difference of opinion between the crew of a ship and the firemen about how best to put out a fire. That is not surprising, because firemen have a habit of chucking a huge amount of water at fires—that is what we are trained to do—and if you do that to a fire on a ship, it tends to sink. Such instances have happened around the world. There is a debate about what should be done about fires at sea. It is right that that debate is taking place, and it is happening around the world. The truth of the matter is that it is enormously dangerous to put fire crews on to ships at sea to fight fires, and we must make a decision between lives, cargo, pollution and other issues.
I met Roy Wilsher, the country’s lead fire officer and Chief Fire Officer of Hertfordshire the other day and we discussed where we are with the agreements in place, and where we should be.
Albert Owen
As an ex-merchant seaman, but a humble rating, I understand the dangers, as does the Minister from his perspective. My point referred to a master mariner—they must decide whether to abandon ship, or to protect cargo or the environment—who raised directly with me the importance of coastguard stations’ local knowledge. That is why I raised the matter in this debate.
Mike Penning
Such concerns were properly raised in the debate, and the shadow Minister raised the issue of fighting fires at sea, which was also important.
Another issue was the future of emergency towing vessels, and negotiations are continuing. We intend to terminate the contract, which costs £10 million a year, in September, and I am fixed in that position, because if I move one iota, the commercial sector and everyone else will say that I have gone soft, but they do not have to cough up the money. The key is where the risk is.
Mike Penning
I apologise, but I cannot give way. I am sure that there will be another debate on the subject fairly soon. During the remaining five minutes I will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised, but I will write to every hon. Member about any specific points that they raised, and particularly those issues that do not come within my portfolio.
We have a legal responsibility to co-ordinate the work with other emergency services, and I know that that happened when I was a humble fireman. My previous history was praised, and I was proud to be a fireman but, as when I was in the Army, I did not rise far through the ranks.
Interestingly, although during these debates colleagues have not been saying, “Save my station and close someone else’s,” that is not quite what we have heard from the coastguards themselves in the larger and more detailed submissions that we have received. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to my visit to Bangor. It was a wonderful visit, and it was like groundhog day, because I had not been in the Province since I had served in another way. She rightly said that the proposals on the service’s future nationally, not just on individual stations, were detailed and indicated clearly that no change is not an option, as the coastguards are saying, and that nine or 10 stations is the optimum number. The shadow Minister said that some stations should not close, and it would have been interesting if he had said which ones should close, because that would have been informative, especially as most if not all the proposals were on the table when he was a Minister.
Sheryll Murray
Does the Minister accept that the response from the coastguards about closing one station or another is because he has moved the starting line? I know from my coastguard and others that if he started with a blank sheet of paper, he would not get the same answer. Does he accept that?
Mike Penning
I would like to accept that—I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from—but I cannot, because the proposals were on the table before I was the Minister and even before the shadow Minister was the Minister. There has been discussion about the matter and people have buried their heads in the sand for years and years. My hon. Friend asked whether, if we had a blank sheet of paper, the format of coastguard stations around our coastline would be as they are now. No, they would not. We must all accept that.
My hon. Friend asked me to retract what I said about only Falmouth carrying out international rescue. Falmouth is twinned with Brixham, and I fully accept that it picks up when Falmouth goes down, and that regular exercises take place—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend said from a sedentary position that it takes responsibility. Yes, it does, but it also regularly carries out exercises. Falmouth made it clear to me that it is the centre for international rescue. It gave evidence in its submission on the future of the coastguard.
I honestly believe that this is the way that consultation should take place. Political parties may play different games, but we will come out with a national emergency service with the resilience, pay and training infrastructure that it needs and deserves. I hope that everyone understands that the Government and the MCA are acting for the right reasons, and not just to make cuts. The issue was on the table years before cuts were thought about. What we need is a 21st-century service.
Information Technology (NHS)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am reminded of Fidel Castro’s old maxim that any speech of less than three or four hours cannot be any good, and when I reviewed the material available for this debate, I felt that it might be difficult to put everything I want to say into a shorter time. I appreciate, however, that this debate lasts only 90 minutes and that the Front-Bench speakers will be called fairly soon. I am not planning to take many interventions during my remarks, so that I can get through everything I wish to say as quickly as possible.
The importance of information technology to good health care cannot be overstated. As leading health informatics expert, Dr Anthony Nowlan, put it:
“Redesigning the ways care is organised and conducted and supporting those new ways with information science is more important to people’s health overall than any new drug we could develop in the next decade.”
He also stated that
“the engagement of clinicians and managers is not just about telling them what is going to happen.”
Sadly, those words accurately summed up a significant part of the problem that we faced.
The national programme for IT in the health service is the largest civilian computer project in the world. It was spawned in late 2001 and early 2002, after the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, met Bill Gates and was bowled over by a vision of what IT could do to transform the economy and health service. The idea was for information to be captured once and used many times, transforming working processes and speeding up communications. A far-reaching vision set out a programme that would supposedly lead to a transformation in people’s experiences of health care. Hospital admissions and appointments would be booked online—the choose and book system—pharmacists would no longer struggle with the indecipherable handwriting of GPs; and drug prescriptions would be handled electronically. There was to be a new broadband network for the NHS, a new e-mail system, better IT support for GPs and digital X-rays. Most important of all, medical records would be computerised, thus transforming the speed and accuracy of patient treatment through what became known as the NHS care records service.
The NHS care records service comprised two elements: first, a detailed care record that contained full details of a patient’s medical history and treatment. That was to be accessible to a patient’s GP and to local community and hospital care settings, so that if treatment were required, all the information would be available. Secondly, there would be a so-called summary care record that contained medical information about things such as allergies and would be more widely available.
It became clear that Tony Blair was in no mood to wait when he asked Sir John Pattison, who attended the Downing street seminar in February 2002 where these matters were discussed, how long the IT programme would take. Sir John Pattison later stated:
“I swallowed hard because I knew I had to get the answer right… and I said three years.”
Tony Blair replied, “How about two years?” and they settled on two years and nine months from April 2003—in other words, until December 2005. Given the extent of the proposals, that was a ludicrous timetable. Nevertheless, the decision had been made, and everything had to be done at breakneck speed.
Sir John Pattison and his team set to work and produced a blueprint entitled “Delivering 21st century IT support for the NHS: national strategic programme”, which was published in June 2002. The aim was to connect the delivery of the NHS plan with the capabilities of modern information technology. There was, however, an odd discrepancy at the outset. At the back of the original document were four appendices, one of which contained the project profile model and stated that the project’s estimated whole-life costs were £5 billion. It provided a total risk score of 53 out of a maximum of 72. In other words, the project was very high risk. When the document was published, however, that project profile model had been removed and there were only three appendices—the likely costs of the project and the true risks were concealed right from the start. After the publication of the document, the Department of Health established a unit that later became the Connecting for Health agency. In September 2002, Richard Granger was appointed as director general of the NHS IT programme on a salary of about £250,000. His job was to turn the national strategic programme—which soon became the national programme for IT in the health service—into reality.
Richard Granger was a former Deloitte consultant who had successfully overseen the introduction of the London congestion charge. Speaking at a conference in Harrogate some months after his appointment, he announced that the cost of the IT programme would be £2.3 billion. That figure contrasted with the unedited version of Sir John Pattison’s “Delivering 21st century IT support for the NHS”, which a few months earlier had come up with the larger estimate of £5 billion.
Mr Granger commissioned a study by McKinsey into the health care IT market in the UK, which was then dominated by medium-sized firms that sold systems to hospitals and GP surgeries. The study concluded that no single player was capable of becoming a prime contractor in a multi-billion pound programme, and Mr Granger soon announced that the procurement process for the programme would be structured to attract global IT players. He had little respect for the skills of most public sector buyers of computing systems—perhaps with good reason if one looks at the track record—and knew that IT contractors routinely run rings around their customers in government.
Mr Granger made it clear that things would be different on his watch. Contractors would not get paid until they delivered, and those not up to the mark would be replaced. He even compared contractors to huskies pulling a sled on a polar expedition:
“When one of the dogs goes lame, and begins to slow the others down, they are shot. They are then chopped up and fed to the other dogs. The survivors work harder, not only because they’ve had a meal, but also because they have seen what will happen should they themselves go lame.”
Mr Granger started as he meant to go on, and potential contractors were left in no doubt that the procurement process was to happen quickly. In May 2003, potential bidders were given a 500-page document called a draft output-based specification, and told to respond within five weeks.
One of the classic failures in many IT projects is the failure to consult adequately with those who will use the systems once they are delivered. The national programme followed that pattern in many respects, but in this case that did not happen by accident. Mr Granger had no patience with what he saw as special pleading by medical staff, whom he believed were unwilling to accept the ruthless standardisation that was necessary to deliver the advantages offered by the IT system. He effectively believed that he knew what the clinicians needed better than they did themselves.
Some clinicians were keen to ensure that they had proper input into what was happening. Sir John Pattison asked Dr Anthony Nowlan, the health informatics expert who at the time was the executive director of the NHS Information Authority, to secure the involvement of health professionals in the programme. The aim was to obtain a professionally agreed consensus about what was the most valuable information to store, and what was achievable in practice.
After several months the group had hammered out a consensus, but although that work was fed in when the contracts began to be specified, it formed only a relatively small part of the overall specification. The large majority of the so-called output-based specifications, and the crucial major hospital systems at the heart of the programme, were developed without involvement and scrutiny by the leadership of the health profession. That happened despite the fact that involvement by users is essential if one wants software that works and that people will use.
The great speed at which contracting was completed meant that all complex issues had to be faced after the contracts had been let. Anthony Nowlan began to realise that his efforts were not welcome, and he told the Public Accounts Committee that
“it became increasingly clear to me that efforts to communicate with health professionals and bring them more into the leadership of the programme were effectively obstructed.”
Worse still, Nowlan was subsequently asked to provide a list of the names of hundreds of people who had been involved in specification work, so as to provide evidence to reviewers that the work was valid. In fact, all that had happened was that an e-mail had been sent out. Quite understandably, Dr Nowlan thought that saying that people had been consulted because they had been sent an e-mail was not consultation in any proper sense, any more than compiling a list of people who had been sent an e-mail was proper validation. He regarded the claims as a sham, and refused to co-operate.
It turned out that serious clinical input into the programme was not really wanted. As Professor Peter Hutton later told the PAC,
“it was like being in a juggernaut lorry going up the M1 and it did not really matter where you went as long as you arrived somewhere on time. Then, when you had arrived somewhere, you would go out and buy a product, but you were not quite sure what you wanted to buy. To be honest, I do not think the people selling it knew what we needed.”
The result was a set of contracts that were signed before the Government had understood what they wanted to buy and the suppliers had understood what they were expected to supply.
When the then Health Secretary John Reid—now Lord Reid—announced the contract winners in December 2003, the value of the contracts had already shot up to £6.2 billion from the original £2.3 billion mentioned by Mr Granger in Harrogate. The time scale had tripled in length, and instead of the two years and nine months from April 2003 originally promised—to which Sir John Pattison had been obliged to commit at the Downing street seminar—the contracts were now to run for 10 years. Later, one of the most senior officials in the national programme, Gordon Hextall, even claimed that it was always envisaged that the programme would run for 10 years.
Four winning bidders were appointed: Accenture; Computer Sciences Corporation, or CSC; Fujitsu and BT. They were known as local service providers, or LSPs. BT and Fujitsu picked a US software firm, IDX, to work with, while Accenture and CSC both picked a British software company called iSoft. iSoft was a stock market darling that had been spun out of the consulting firm KPMG in the late 1990s. The company’s flagship was a software system called Lorenzo, which was portrayed enthusiastically in iSoft’s 2005 annual report and accounts. The chairman, Patrick Cryne, told shareholders that Lorenzo had made “impressive progress”, while chief executive Tim Whiston stated that Lorenzo would be “available from early 2004” and that it had
“achieved significant acclaim from healthcare providers”.
With such promising statements from the company’s directors, the stock market was delighted, and it was no surprise that iSoft’s share price rose sharply. Mr Cryne, Mr Whiston and their fellow directors then sold large tranches of their personal shareholdings in iSoft, making around £90 million in cash. In 2004, Patrick Cryne bought Barnsley football club.
There was a slight problem. The flagship product, Lorenzo, which was described in such encouraging terms by the directors, was not finished. That caused a big headache for Accenture, the biggest LSP, with two contracts worth around £1 billion each. It was in partnership with iSoft and was trying to implement software that was basically not implementable. CSC faced a similar problem in the north-west. Under the Granger rules of engagement, no one was supposed to get paid until something was delivered. As iSoft had not produced a working version of Lorenzo, the brutal reality was that neither Accenture nor CSC had any software to deploy.
There were still big concerns about the programme’s indifference to securing clinical buy-in from users—clinicians in hospitals—even though numerous studies had pointed to such buy-in as the key ingredient for success in any IT project. Professor Peter Hutton wrote to the then chief executive of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, to express his continuing disquiet:
“I remain concerned that the current arrangements within the programme are unsafe from a variety of angles and, in particular, that the constraints of the contracting process, with its absence of clinical input in the last stages, may have resulted in the purchase of a product that will potentially not fulfil our goals.”
Soon after pointing out politely that the emperor had no clothes, Professor Hutton was asked to consider his position, and he tended his resignation. The IT people were simply not interested in what the doctors were telling them. To give it belated credit, however, the Department of Health began to realise that securing the support and buy-in of clinicians who would have to use the systems might be a good idea.
In March 2004, the deputy chief medical officer, Professor Aidan Halligan, was appointed alongside Richard Granger as joint director general of NHS IT, and joint senior responsible owner of the programme, with specific responsibility for benefits realisation. That was welcomed by clinicians. One delegate at the Healthcare Computing conference in Harrogate said that Halligan’s appointment was “really, really good” because
“he has the trust of clinicians and can stand up to Granger”,
although a general practitioner delegate at the same conference said that it “spoke volumes” that nobody like him had been in the post earlier. Halligan acknowledged that not enough had been done to win the support of clinicians, whose buy-in, he said, was critical to the success of the project. Listening to clinicians was now the flavour of the month. However, there was one insuperable difficulty—the contracts had already been signed. As Professor Hutton later explained to the PAC,
“it became clear from discussions with suppliers in early 2004 that what they had been contracted for would not deliver the NHS Care Record”.
Accenture and CSC struggled on with the unusable Lorenzo. Eventually they commissioned a study that produced a confidential report in February 2006, which confirmed their worst fears. The report stated that the Lorenzo had
“no mapping of features to release, nor detailed plans. In other words, there is no well-defined scope and therefore no believable plan for releases.”
That was over five years ago.
In March 2006, Accenture announced to its shareholders that it would use $450 million to cover expected losses on the programme. It made repeated offers to the programme that it would meet its contractual obligations by using other software. However, that might have bankrupted iSoft, and Richard Granger was having none of it. He responded with a threat when Accenture talked about walking away. Referring to tough penalty clauses contained in the contracts, he said that
“if they would like to walk away, it’s starting at 50% of the total contract value”.
Accenture had two of the £1 billion-a-piece prime contracts, so it appeared to be facing a cool £1 billion in penalty payments to the Government if it abandoned the programme. Strangely, it did not work out that way. Accenture engaged in swift negotiations with the health service and in September 2006, after making a penalty payment of just £63 million, it duly exited the programme. Mr Granger’s threat, that if Accenture left the programme it would face gigantic penalty payments, proved to be of little account. There were rumours that if Mr Granger had demanded any more money, he would have faced serious and embarrassing counter-claims from Accenture for failures by the national programme to stick to its own contractual obligations.
CSC, with its own £1-billion contract for the north-west and west midlands regions, was in no better a position than Accenture to implement the unfinished Lorenzo software. It was also struggling to mop up after having caused the largest computer crash in NHS history, when its Maidstone data centre was hit by a power failure, followed by restarting problems. The back-up systems did not work, and data held in the centre could not be accessed. That meant that, for four days, 80 NHS trusts could not use their patient administration systems and had to operate as best they could with paper systems.
Another worry for CSC was its shareholders. Accenture had set aside hundreds of millions of pounds against expected losses and told the stock market accordingly, but CSC had done no such thing. In addition to its problems with losses in the UK, the company had troubles back home in the United States, where it faced allegations of corruption. The US Department of Justice had alleged that CSC was part of an alliance, which included virtually all the major sellers of hardware and software in the United States, that had swapped unlawful kick-backs in Government agency technology contracts. CSC finally agreed to a $1.37 million payment to resolve those allegations. That was reported on the news blog of Cnet.com on 13 May 2008, under the heading:
“CSC settles with feds over kickback allegations”.
In such circumstances, having extra contracts from the NHS might look reassuring to the US stock market. Despite the fact that there was no implementable software—Lorenzo still was not finished—CSC quickly took on both Accenture contracts, tripling its involvement in the programme. However, there were continuing problems at iSoft, which was supposedly writing the Lorenzo software. One of the problems related to the publication of iSoft’s financial results, which had been repeatedly delayed, up to the point where one of iSoft’s own advisers, Morgan Stanley, a brokerage, declined to publish a profit forecast, stating:
“We don’t feel we have enough visibility to offer a recommendation”.
With friends like that in the stock market, who needs enemies? Finally, iSoft was forced to declare a loss of £344 million, which wiped out all the company’s past profits. The Financial Services Authority launched an investigation.
Now, three fifths of the programme was dependent on one troubled local service provider, CSC, which was using a software supplier, iSoft, that was itself under investigation by the FSA. One regional contractor, Accenture, had been replaced by another, CSC, which had less experience. The central problem remained: the software that they had been trying to deploy, iSoft’s Lorenzo system, was still not finished.
In those circumstances, iSoft started to deploy software products that predated the programme, which Connecting for Health duly paid for. Those older products did not meet the specifications for the national programme. It is important to remember that fact, because that is what many acute hospitals have now been given—old and outdated software that was deemed inadequate nine years ago to meet the programme’s specifications.
Meanwhile, the other two providers, BT and Fujitsu, were having their own problems. They were trying to implement American software, which is not such an easy thing to do in a British hospital, because American hospitals rely on billing for each and every activity and do not, conversely, expect to have to handle waiting lists. An American software system cannot be just uploaded to an acute hospital main frame and be switched on—it is not that simple.
In June 2005, IDX was dropped by Fujitsu with Richard Granger’s consent and replaced by another American firm, Cerner, which had a software package for large acute hospitals called Millennium. BT, some 18 months after winning its LSP contract, was still struggling with IDX. By July 2005, BT was facing serious threats from Richard Granger that it could be axed if it did not start to perform. In an interview with Computing magazine, Mr Granger said:
“BT had better get me some substantial IDX functionality by the end of summer or some predictable events will occur.”
However, it was not that simple. As the leading health care IT website, e-Health Insider, pointed out, replacing BT as the local service provider
“would represent a major failure for the programme, and raise questions over the whole IT-enabled NHS modernisation”
and lead to even more delays. The website added:
“Such a move would also potentially raise serious questions about whether the adversarial management style of Connecting for Health is the most likely to deliver new systems that provide clinical benefits to patients in a timely and cost-effective fashion.”
BT was allowed to continue as the local service provider and eventually, with Granger’s consent, it was allowed to follow Fujitsu’s lead and replace IDX with Cerner Millennium.
At a London conference in July 2005, Mr Granger gave a stern warning to suppliers who were lagging behind on delivery:
“We will get very soon to a point where they will either come good with what they’ve got, or they will get a bullet in the head.”
Mr Granger was also showing signs of defensiveness about the programme, stating:
“It might be a policy disaster, but it isn’t an IT disaster. The system was delivered to spec”,
and he gave the example of the electronic staff record. He added:
“If some of my colleagues do not think sufficiently through as to what was wanted then it’s a specification error.”
Such statements by Mr Granger led to howls of rage from some industry observers, including one who, after Granger’s speech, posted a comment on the e-health Insider website, saying:
“Now and then I check myself from hatred of what Richard Granger stands for and has done to NHS IT, and then the sheer arrogance and ignorance of his public statements brings me back. He set the ridiculously short timescales for decision-making, procured before there was a clear idea of the scope, handed all the ‘choice’ from NHS clinicians to private contractors. CfH”—
Connecting for Health—
“hasn’t solved the funding crisis for computerising the NHS, rather landed us with a massively expensive way to do what some of us were achieving already”.
Meanwhile, the National Audit Office had embarked on a study of the national programme, which was due to be published in summer 2005, but there were considerable delays. As Members may know, NAO reports involve a clearance process, during which a report’s factual content is cleared with the Government before publication, and that has benefits for both sides. However, something different happened with the national programme report. It was as if Connecting for Health wanted to use the clearance process to expunge the slightest criticism of its activities. It undertook a war of attrition with the auditors, in a process that the NAO later described as fighting
“street by street, block by block”.
The final report was delayed again and again, and it finally appeared in June 2006. It was much weaker than seasoned health IT observers had expected. The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who was then a member of the PAC, described it as “easily the most gushing” he had read, while a BBC correspondent described it as a “whitewash”. Most of the key criticisms were eventually excised, as Granger and his team ground down their opponents. It later emerged through freedom of information requests that earlier drafts had been much tougher.
Tom Brooks, a management consultant with years of worldwide experience in health care, wrote a devastating submission to the PAC, in which he questioned the whole rationale for central procurement in the programme. He said that
“the poor quality of the negotiation of the NPfIT contracts by Mr Granger”
was a subject of criticism. He described the view that central procurement would produce systems that met local requirements as “a fundamental error”. He told the Committee:
“MPs are mis-informed if they view the central infrastructure as making reasonable progress”.
Dr Anthony Nowlan, whom I mentioned earlier, described the programme as “back to front”, given that the contract stating what would be produced had already been let. He pointed out the sheer absurdity of a consensus document produced by the programme stating:
“Now that the architecture for England has been commissioned, designed and is being built, there is a need for clarity concerning how it will be used”.
A group of health IT experts sent the PAC a detailed paper offering a devastating critique of the entire programme. The group provided evidence that it was likely to deliver neither the most important areas of clinical functionality nor the benefits required to justify the business case. The group simply stated:
“The conclusion here is that the NHS would most likely have been better off without the National Programme in terms of what is likely to be delivered and when. The National Programme has not advanced the NHS IT implementation trajectory at all; in fact, it has set it back from where it was going”.
In view of the frequent misunderstandings about the national programme among so many journalists, broadcasters, politicians and commentators, it is worth quoting the expert group’s document at some length. It starts by saying:
“It is useful to begin with the question: What is the central point of NPfIT—its chief raison d’etre? Is it a shared medical record (otherwise known as the ‘Central Spine’ or ‘Central Summary Care Record Service’) across England?
The answer to this important question is simply: no…the central point of NPfIT is to provide the local Care Record Service...Compared with the local CRS, the Central Spine is a much lower priority because it is totally speculative and even if delivered is likely to result in very little clinical benefit…This is a subtle but critical point. The Local CRS systems…are a proven technology…These local CRS systems have always been costly investments (several million pounds per hospital over several years) but have been proven in the NHS and elsewhere to deliver real clinical benefits…This picture is entirely different for the so-called Central Spine record, or Central Shared Summary record, which NPfIT (and the government ministers) would like the public to believe is the central point of NPfIT. It is not. The Central Spine record is just a concept…The problem is that clinicians have told us medicine does not work like this. Clinicians do not just use a summary record to deliver care. They build and depend upon detailed and specific medical data that are relevant for each patient.
They do not rely on some other clinicians’ definition of what will be most relevant to put in a summary record. What is relevant clinically will inevitably vary from patient to patient.
The concept of a summary Central Spine record has no scientific basis and no significant clinical support to back it up—just an overly simplistic and naïve storyline about a Birmingham patient falling ill in Blackpool. In fact, no one has ever provided any figures on how often this situation is likely to arise to show whether or not the investment in the Central Spine record is worthwhile.
The point here is that the Local Care Record Service”—
I emphasise the word “local”—
“is the essential building block for clinically useful health IT to support clinical care in progressive, modern and proven ways. Yes, it is difficult to implement and can take 2-3 years to roll-out across the whole hospital (or organisation), and yet it is always worthwhile…These Local Care Record Service systems are the building blocks and are the point of NPfIT, and what NHS Trust Chief Executives want, need and expect. They are not waiting for a Central Spine record to run their hospitals.
However, the Local Care Record Service systems (or the Local Service Providers’ newest versions of them) are not likely to be fully deployed now (only the rudimentary patient administration elements of them will be) because NPfIT is putting in old ‘legacy’ products in place of new modern Local Care Record Service products in its panic to show deployment and because the systems have been so late in being delivered by the LSPs”—
the local service providers. The document continues:
“The key point of the National Programme for IT is to provide both depth of clinical systems functionality and breadth of integration in terms of delivering the contracted Local CRS functions across organisations and care-settings (acute, primary, mental health, social services).
This is the true vision of health IT promised by the National Programme which is embodied in the Local Service Provider contracts and it is what their price reflects.”
The trouble is, with all the delays, the LSP schedules are being down-scoped behind the NHS’s back and without any accountability to the local NHS Trust chief executives to whom the original vision was promised.”
In September 2006, with the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), I published a paper called “Information technology in the NHS: What Next?” In it, we identified four fallacies and offered a way forward. The fallacies were that
“Patient data needs to be accessible all over the country…Local trusts can’t procure systems properly so the centre has to do this for them…Large areas of the NHS need to work on a single massive system”
and that the
“National Programme saves money.”
The suggested way forward was to allow hospital chief executives to buy the systems they actually wanted, subject only to common standards, and to fund such purchases partially from the centre, while making local chief executives contractually responsible for delivery.
Shortly after we published that paper, the NHS chief executive, David Nicholson, introduced the NPfIT local ownership plan, but it did not follow our suggestion of giving local chief executives autonomy in what they bought. Under the NLOP, hospital chief executives would still be required to buy the software that the local service provider was contracted to provide—the difficult-to-install American system, Cerner Millennium, or the non-existent Lorenzo.
Furthermore, instead of there being one senior responsible owner for the programme, which is a central tenet of good project management practice, there would be many dozens of senior responsible owners dispersed among the different primary care trusts, strategic health authorities and hospitals across the country. Those bodies were given responsibility for implementing and delivering software that was not available or which did work properly, without a free choice to buy something else that did work. The NLOP looked more like an attempt to decentralise impending blame than a serious attempt at reform. That is why Tony Collins, one of the country’s leading computer journalists, playfully said that NLOP actually stands for “No Longer Our Problem”.
In February 2007, Andrew Rollerson, a senior Fujitsu manager who had assembled and then led the winning Fujitsu team in the original bid process, mentioned more or less en passant at an IT conference that his view of the national programme was that
“it isn’t working and it isn’t going to work”.
To many informed observers, it was just a statement of the obvious. The PAC called him to give evidence, and when asked if he felt that he had been the
“one who let the finger out of the dam”
and allowed
“a whole collective sigh of relief”
to go round the health IT sector, he replied
“I think that is absolutely spot on.”
Fujitsu then wrote to the Committee stating that Rollerson was not a senior executive of the company and had not been involved for a long time, but neglecting to mention that he had led the winning bid team.
By 2007, another accounting probe had been launched into iSoft by an accounting standards body, and in the following month, April, the PAC published its report, which concluded that
“at the present rate of progress, it is unlikely that significant clinical benefits will be delivered by the end of the contract period”.
By June 2007, Richard Granger had announced that he would quit at some point and shortly afterwards stated that he was “ashamed” of some of the systems put in by Connecting for Health suppliers, singling out Cerner for criticism. David Nicholson, the NHS boss, appointed several new senior executives to join Granger at the top table, while continuing to reject calls for a full review. Tony Collins wrote in Computer Weekly that the future of the national programme for IT in the NHS was “hazy” and that it was becoming
“difficult to delineate success from failure”.
Derek Wanless, whose major review for Tony Blair into the future of the health service had first identified investment in IT as an area for improvement, publicly questioned whether the NHS IT programme should continue without a full audit. He said that
“there is as yet no convincing evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs of this substantial investment”.
In October 2007, the Department of Health rejected rumours that Matthew Swindells had been appointed interim chief executive of Connecting for Health, but in an industry survey he was named the 12th most influential person in the NHS—10 positions above Richard Granger. It appeared that Richard Granger’s influence was on the wane and that he was being eased out. Tony Collins mused on his blog that the programme might be even worse without Richard Granger—
“the thought of this juggernaut being without a driver is even more scary that when it had a driver but no controls”.
Mr Granger’s last day as an employee of the NHS was 31 January 2008, though, curiously, it was a week, on 6 February, before the interim director of NPfIT and systems delivery, Gordon Hextall, sent a letter to Connecting for Health staff to tell them that Granger had gone and that two appointments would replace him: a top-level chief information officer and a director of IT programmes and systems delivery. Meanwhile, the interim chief information officer would be none other than Matthew Swindells, whose involvement the Department had denied earlier.
In February 2008, the Commons Health Committee published a report on the electronic patient record, which stated that it was “dismayed” by the lack of clarity about what information would be included in the summary care record and for what the record would be used. It also said that there was “a stark contrast” between the “specific and detailed” vision set out for the integrated care records service in 2003 and the “vague and shifting” vision set out in 2007. The Committee concluded that there was now a
“perplexing lack of clarity about exactly what NPfIT will now deliver.”
In May 2008, the NAO published a progress update, which was much more robust than its earlier report. It concluded that the programme has
“largely failed to deliver on its central objective of detailed care record systems for acute hospital trusts”.
Not a lot was happening at that point because there was no software to deploy, so many people were employed but they were not necessarily doing very much. In October 2008, Nick Timmins of the Financial Times wrote about the national programme in a front-page story:
“Progress has virtually ground to a halt, raising questions about whether the world’s biggest civil information technology project will ever be finished”.
He quoted Jon Hoeksma from e-Health Insider who said that
“the key part is stuck”
and added that hospital chief executives did not want to take the system
“until they had seen it put in flawlessly elsewhere”.
The second PAC report, published in January 2009, concluded that the programme’s failures raised questions about the feasibility of the whole project and that the central contracts—the enormous local service provider contracts—were an encumbrance. Only nine months into his job, Matthew Bellamy quit as the chief information officer’s right-hand man. Just before Christmas 2009, the then latest Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), gave an interview in which he sang the praises of the national programme and said that
“parts of the NHS cannot operate without it”.
Unfortunately for him, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), took a different view—and said so in a television interview a couple of days later. He said that the national programme was
“not essential for the front line”
and announced that he was imposing a £600 million spending cut that took its budget down from £12.7 billion to a mere £12.1 billion.
Meanwhile, new year 2010 was not a happy one for the iSoft directors. The Financial Services Authority—the chief City regulator—announced that it had laid criminal charges against four former directors of iSoft: Patrick Cryne, the founder and former chairman; Timothy Whiston, the former chief executive; and former directors Stephen Graham and John Whelan. They were accused of conspiracy to make misleading statements. The four denied the charges.
Where are we now? We have yet another NAO report, published on 18 May this year, which states in even more bald terms that
“the aim of creating an electronic record for every NHS patient will not be achieved under the Programme.”
The central aim of the programme will not be achieved under the contract. Several conclusions regrettably emerge about Connecting for Health. The first is about overpaying. It massively overpays: acute trusts are costing £23 million, when they should be about £8 million; the system for mental health and community trusts—RiO—is costing £8.9 million per deployment, when it should be about £1.5 million; and the other systems, such as the picture archiving and communications systems for digital X-rays—PACS—and N3 broadband, which everyone says is not particularly good anyway, are also massively overpriced. I should say in parenthesis that the digital X-rays are very good, but Connecting for Health should not have paid so much for them.
The second conclusion is on de-scoping. Connecting for Health has dealt with the problems it has faced by drastically reducing the scope of what is being delivered, but without corresponding reductions in cost. The third conclusion is the hiding of increased costs. The late deliveries meant there have been no running costs for systems that have not been delivered, and the surplus cash is being used to hide the increasing cost per deployment.
Fourthly, there are serious doubts about the commercial judgment and skill of Connecting for Health. It seems that every contract revision makes things worse. Very little of the originally expected system has been delivered, but despite that, the NHS seems to have little or no commercial cover. The Fujitsu termination, when it was fired from the programme, was farcical and generated massive potential costs and liabilities. The local service providers appear to be running rings around Connecting for Health commercially. As the Financial Times noted on 25 May this year, CSC is offering a one-third reduction in the cost of its contract in return for doing two-thirds less work. As the Cabinet Office observed, that would roughly double the cost compared with the original agreement.
The fifth conclusion is the danger of future high costs. When the contracts finish, there is inadequate provision to manage the systems in future. It takes a special skill to leave trusts stuck with systems that are functionally very poor and out-of-date, which were not deemed adequate nine years ago, and still manage to expose them to enormous future costs over which they will have very little control. That is precisely what Connecting for Health is managing to do. Finally, there is a serious danger that Connecting for Health will put CSC in particular in a monopoly position. The proposed revised agreement may be open to legal challenge from other suppliers who have not had the chance to bid.
What should happen now? It is plain that the NHS IT programme has not worked and there is no evidence that it will work. Rather than squandering another £4 billion to £5 billion, which is still unspent, the NHS should recognise reality. Connecting for Health has failed to achieve its central purpose and should be closed down. I am afraid that it will not help and is now more interested in the preservation of its own position than in protecting the interests of taxpayers. NHS trusts must be set free to choose the systems that meet the needs of patients and medical professionals. They should have the power to source products locally that suit their needs, subject only to common standards.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing the debate. In this field, he is very expert, persistent and learned, and I believe that he is writing a book on the subject—I shall give him a plug because he is too modest to do it himself. We have both followed the debate for a fairly long time. We have had Commons debates and there have been PAC sessions on the subject. We have attended meetings with Mr Granger and been to numerous conferences. We have even sat in Richmond house and watched the Lorenzo system work—it proved to be a little more difficult to get it to work in a hospital in real time, but none the less it looked good when we saw it.
I do not want to sketch out the sorry history, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has done so most lucidly. Everybody in the Chamber realises that it was a procurement disaster, and a project management disaster. It did all the things that are not supposed to be done, such as failing to shift risk to the private sector, failing to be clear about the actual benefits, failing to involve practitioners and stakeholders, and failing to control costs. It was a bright idea, but it was not realistically assessed and ultimately had to be scaled back.
Much of it, as the hon. Gentleman said, might have happened anyway. The good side of it, if I can so describe it—the PACS, e-prescriptions, improved broadband access, telemedicine and so on—might well have happened, and we ought to recognise the fact. However, the project would not have done well in front of Alan Sugar on “The Apprentice”, let alone the Public Accounts Committee. That is history, however, and to some extent we must now consider the present.
We are in unprecedented times of cash restraint, and we have to find £20 billion within the health service over the next few years. I doubt whether we will succeed, but we cannot abandon that target. Twenty or so hospitals will not achieve foundation trust status, and we cannot magic away their PFI debts or ignore the consequences that flow from dodging difficult reconfiguration issues. However, as we roll out Connecting for Health, the cost certainly matters. I believe that some of the costs, particularly those of the patient administration systems, are still being picked up by the ailing hospitals.
It is not easy to see how current health reforms will ease matters, as they will increase the diversity of providers and complicate somewhat the recording of data, as providers do it in different ways. That will add to the potential problems of data sharing and interoperability. Ultimately, we will require some merging of social care and medical records, and the changed landscape will necessitate appreciable changes in the choose and book system. I do not know whether we will be transferring or binning the existing IT programmes of PCTs, but it could be said that what we originally designed is now inappropriate—that NPfIT, an awful pun, no longer fits.
I believe that the Government have done all the sensible things in response to a difficult situation. They have allowed NHS trusts to adapt and develop existing systems. They have emphasised open standards and interoperability, and continue to do so, in order that we can have variety without undue chaos and do not end up being captive to a major supplier. That is the ultimate nightmare, and it was a big fear throughout the process. Indeed, although Granger tried to prevent it, it seems that he could not. The Government have sought to reduce and shave costs through negotiation or by cutting back on specifications. However, there appear to be a few problems with what is otherwise a sensible strategy.
First, I understand that, in these difficult circumstances, some of the key managers of the programme are to be the chief executives of strategic health authorities, but when they have gone I have no idea who will persist with the task and take up the burden. Secondly, savings within the NHS will lead to many of the much-maligned back-office staff going, and I presume that that will include NHS client-side IT people. The loss of client-side expertise will be a big worry, as it will make us even more dependent on the expensive consultants who got us into this mess. I note that McKinsey was pivotal in advising us to go ahead. I note also that, to this day, McKinsey has its feet well under the table in Richmond house, and is advising the Government on a number of problems.
The big problem, however, appears to be that we do not seem able easily to extricate ourselves or to revise contracts. Everyone agrees that that is necessary at the moment. Rather, I should say that we seem unable to do so without making matters worse. We seem doomed to spend another £4.3 billion, yet we need to save a further £20 billion. The fatal breakfast that Mr Blair had with the IT industry in February 2002 has come back to haunt us. Mr Blair might have been worried about his legacy, but it is now a worry for us.
I understand through the grapevine that this was a matter of heated debate at the last meeting of the PAC, which was a rather rumbustious affair. I saw Mr Nicholson shortly after that meeting, and I have to say that his account of events differed slightly from that of some hon. Members, in terms of how satisfactory an occasion he thought it was and how far they had got in their Socratic examination of the flaws. However, it seems that he and we are trapped between a rock and a hard place, and that there is not an easy way out.
The dilemma is not only ours; it is one also for the IT industry. The industry can help us to meet the Nicholson challenge, or it can compound it. It can work ever more closely in areas such as telemedicine and so on, and on how to produce genuine cost savings, including on the implementation of IT; or it can simply go on as before, selling us more kit that we do not need and software that we cannot use. If that is the industry’s choice—it is the industry’s choice as much as ours; we have to throw down the challenge to suppliers—it will face years of adversarial attrition as we try to cut costs, presumably followed by bad feeling and empty order books, and endless fulmination from the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who becomes increasingly frustrated as the drama continues. However, the industry could accept that it is a collective problem.
It is a very big collective problem, because at some point in time it will throw into stark relief what we do with the summary care record, which has less utility than we ever imagined and more complexity than we ever realised.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
As a member of the PAC who was present at the rumbustious meeting to which my hon. Friend referred, I gained the impression that the suppliers were completely unprepared to consider the correct option of considering things differently and trying to be positive. It seemed that they were prepared to protect their positions to the hilt, which is partly why it was a rumbustious sitting. Does my hon. Friend have any advice on how to change the attitude of the suppliers?
John Pugh
Given that, uniquely in the UK, many suppliers are dependent on Government contracts in the long term, they have a stark choice between pleasing their shareholders and pleasing their long-term customers. They must recognise that. However, I am not sure how to achieve that while doing anything useful with the summary care record. I suspect that that may be a matter for another debate—and possibly a longer one.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to his tenacity in pursuing the subject. I know that he has a long-standing interest in it, and rightly so given the amount of money being spent on the project. I cannot compete with the way in which he articulated his case, or with his forensic and almost anorak-like knowledge of the subject, but I associate myself with the conclusions that he draws.
The project has always been over-ambitious. We would all agree that it has been poorly led and ineffectively delivered. As with many procurement projects in the public sector, the cost has escalated considerably. We have seen it happen too many times, and it is always entirely predictable. Indeed, senior leaders in the NHS were warned about that from the start.
The intention to ensure that health data should be made available at any time and anywhere was laudable, but delivering it has to be offset against the cost and whether it offers good value for money. Clinicians, practitioners and IT specialists throughout the NHS said that it would not work. Ultimately, clinicians will find their own way of doing things, and a top-down system will not work unless it is executed from the bottom up. As my hon. Friend explained, the decision to involve clinicians in the design of the system was not taken until late in the day and probably beyond the point when they could have had a useful input to ensure that the programme was fit for purpose.
Let me underline what my hon. Friend said. If we look at the initial programme of delivery and what we have achieved, we can see that we have not progressed far. Of the 4,500 sites that were contracted to receive the system, some two thirds have yet to receive anything. If we examine the progress made by Computer Sciences Corporation—my hon. Friend has outlined the history of its involvement with this case—we will see that it is contracted to deliver its systems to 97 hospitals, but so far it has delivered only four and none has been able to confirm that the system has been installed satisfactorily. Put simply, CSC has not delivered the goods against its obligations on the contract.
Once the contract is in place, everyone signs up even though it is quite clear that the company is not delivering what it promised. To be fair, in this case, the NHS started to renegotiate the contract in December 2009. None the less, more than 18 months later, no new contract or renegotiated contract is in place. CSC is still working on the same terms that it initially agreed to and we still do not have adequate delivery.
The NHS was quite clear when it said that it would not sign a new contract until it could see that Lorenzo was working. It is clear that we have to take some tough decisions because it simply is not working. As it is taking so long, we have to decide whether we are managing the project efficiently. Just how poorly does a contractor have to perform before a serious charge is made as to whether that contract should be maintained?
The NHS is an extremely powerful client. I know that suppliers have duties and obligations to their shareholders, but surely maintaining a good relationship with a customer that is as big as the national health service or even as the Government is important. We would expect suppliers to be slightly more conscious about what they are obliged to deliver.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I listened very carefully to the initial speeches in this debate. The story that I heard was that there are suppliers and contractors who have fallen by the wayside and who have been shot and had their business fed to the others. That leaves us with the dilemma of what happens if we are left with only one supplier. Where does that leave the bargaining position of the NHS? My hon. Friend will find that there have been contractors who have found that they were not going to get paid because of their inability to deliver on their contracts.
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. To be fair, those suppliers have acted extremely honourably with regard to their obligations under the contract. When it became clear that they could not deliver the software under Lorenzo because it was not fit for purpose, they took the honourable action and negotiated their way out. Such behaviour shows a lot about those suppliers. It is increasingly worrying that CSC in particular is finding itself in a monopoly position because it has acquired and strengthened its shareholding in iSOFT. Who we negotiate with in the future is a long-term worry.
I associate myself with the conclusions of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk about when we should take a decision on this project. Is it time for an emperor’s new clothes moment, or are we going to continue throwing good money after bad in a project that is clearly not going to deliver?
Jackie Doyle-Price
That is a good point. I was coming on to say to the Minister that he must examine this matter with considerable rigour before deciding on the right course. The message that we got from the Department was that such contracts are complex, although it was rather unclear just how complex this one was. I urge the Minister to achieve maximum value for money because ultimately this is a lot of money that could have been spent on patient care rather than on delivering this programme.
My final point relates to how these big procurement projects should be managed. We have examined a number of them on the Public Accounts Committee. Too often we find examples of poor project management. Poor leadership is assigned to these projects, which then go on to spend incredibly large amounts of taxpayers’ money.
When Sir David Nicholson appeared before the Committee, he was unable to answer a number of questions that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk put to him even though he has been the senior responsible owner of the project since 2006. Until the machinery of government can put in place good project management disciplines to deliver effective leadership, we will continue to spend a lot of money and to fail to deliver on the intended project. I hope that this is a lesson not just for the Department of Health but for the Government as a whole and especially the Cabinet Office as it looks at how it delivers these projects and puts in place good disciplines, so that this unhappy experience is not repeated.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on the important and fascinating debate. The detail he went into about the past 10 to 15 years was striking.
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
There are some key issues that we need to consider. Procurement on this scale has to be properly thought out. The purposes of the project itself have to be properly defined. The question of value for money is obviously a key one. Let me go back to the introduction of the fax machine to illustrate my point. When the fax machine was first launched, lawyers found it difficult to accept that instant results could happen. They went through court cases to test the validity of a fax result, because it could deteriorate and so on. None the less, the problems had little to do with the technology and rather more to do with the culture of lawyers. There is a thread running through this whole sorry episode. We need not only better information sharing in the NHS, but the right culture and desire for it. Above all, we need a real reason for the system. I have been to one or two meetings about this whole scheme, and I have never yet really heard a proper description of its central purposes, except of course to exchange information. Obviously, one of the purposes is integration. I am talking about integrating the systems and the parts of the NHS that need to talk to each other rather more than they do at the moment.
Yesterday, I went to the Care Week event in the Jubilee Room and I met several carers, all of whom had similar stories to tell. One said, “The person I have been caring for has been going to two departments, but neither of them knew about each other.” That is the sort of cultural issue that we must tackle and think about when we talk about IT. The real danger about IT is that people think it is a good idea so they must use it and apply it, but it is actually the other way round. We must be careful and set out the proper parameters and purposes for this IT project, and ally it to value for money. My hon. Friend’s story shows that that has not been happening. We need to be much more careful about procurement, setting out commissioning requirements, understanding the need for cultural change, and properly looking at these contracts.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mrs Brooke. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this important debate.
I want to start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for his tireless work on this issue. His determination and tenacity in highlighting the problems and difficulties of a national programme for IT have been second to none. He frequently made the life of the previous Government difficult and I am sure that he will also be a thorn—perhaps a constructive thorn—in the side of the current Government. In his work, he has demonstrated the importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny and the difference that a Back-Bench MP can make. As a new MP, I hope to learn from his experience and follow, at least in some ways, his example.
The reason for the debate’s importance is that effective IT can and must play a key role in improving both the quality and efficiency of health care. At its best, IT helps clinicians and patients share information about the quality of services that are available, which not only supports patient choice but improves standards of care. Good IT can also help patients to get care in different parts of the system without having to give the same information repeatedly about their conditions and treatments to different doctors and nurses. In addition, it can help clinicians and managers to develop more effective and efficient services, organising treatments and services around the needs of patients rather than vice versa.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) rightly pointed out, one of the key challenges facing the NHS is to ensure that GPs, their primary care teams, social care professionals and specialists work much more closely together, so that care is more effectively co-ordinated. Indeed, the NHS Future Forum said yesterday:
“Better information systems and the development of more integrated electronic care records will be a major enabling factor for this.”
The national programme was meant to help the NHS secure those objectives. However, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has eloquently outlined and as countless reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have also shown, the programme has fallen far short of achieving them. There were poor specifications about what was required by Government and what suppliers could deliver in return. In addition, as the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) have said, there was over-claiming by both sides about what could be delivered and by what date. Furthermore, there were poor lines of accountability and responsibility for the programme, at least in its initial stages. All of those problems have led to one delay followed by another and, crucially, to a lack of control over costs.
I do not intend to go over those problems in detail. My knowledge of the subject is nowhere near as comprehensive or forensic as that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk. Instead, I want to take a step back and suggest three broad lessons that need to be learned from the problems of the national programme, as part of a constructive contribution to the Minister that he can take forward in his thinking on this subject.
The first lesson is that any IT system, whether it is in the NHS or elsewhere, must be led by its users. In the case of the NHS system, it must be clinically led. That is not only about getting clinical “buy-in” but about ensuring that doctors and nurses directly shape and develop the IT system so that it helps them do their job properly for the sake of patients.
NHS clinicians have said that they want IT to achieve five key objectives: first, allowing information about appointments to move around within hospitals, and between hospitals and the rest of the NHS, so that appointments can be booked; secondly, communicating information about discharges from hospital to hospital, and from hospitals to GPs and community services, so that staff in all parts of the system know what conditions patients have; thirdly, allowing staff to book tests such as MRI scans, ultrasounds and so on, and to get the results back to the patient and their clinician at the right time and in the right place; fourthly, the ability to schedule all the different tests, treatments, operations and so on that a patient has in a way that meets the needs of the patient; and finally, enabling electronic prescribing of drugs and the gathering of necessary pharmaceutical information to ensure that patient care is as safe and effective as possible.
Those five key objectives emerged from a consultation exercise with clinicians in 2008. However, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has said, that was too late; the consultation exercise should have happened before the contracts were signed and not halfway through the process.
Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that clinicians continue to be involved in developing the IT strategy for the NHS? Did the NHS Future Forum consider the IT strategy as part of its recommendations to Government? I ask because there was only one small line on the IT strategy in that report. Also, have the Government received any specific responses on this issue and, if so, will the Minister publish them?
On a related point, can the Minister say when he will publish the Government’s information strategy? In October 2010, the Government published “Liberating the NHS: an information revolution”. That document set out the Government’s plans to ensure that patients, the public, clinicians and managers have the information that they need to improve health and health care. I do not agree with some of the tone of that document; it seemed to suggest that the previous Government had done nothing on the matter. When Labour was in government, we acted on he issue. For example, if one considers a programme such as NHS Choices, to which there was quite a lot of opposition at the time, one can see that we moved the agenda forward. Having said that, I absolutely agree that we all need to go further.
My concern is that the consultation on the Government’s information strategy closed six months ago today. In that time, the Government could have provided more information to patients and the public to improve choice and quality. When will that strategy be published?
The second lesson that we can learn from the national programme is that we cannot have a one-size-fits-all IT system in the NHS, or indeed in any health care system. As Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, told the PAC on 23 May, attempting to provide one type of medical record that covers everything for everybody everywhere in the country “has proved unworkable”. The challenge is striking the right balance between what—if anything—is delivered centrally and nationally, and what is delivered locally. That is a perennial challenge in all parts of the NHS and needs to be thought through.
The national programme is currently being reviewed by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects Authority. On 18 May, the Minister told Radio 4’s “Today” programme that he wants to allow local hospitals to adapt their existing systems rather than to get rid of them altogether or, indeed, to scrap the national programme for IT. Last month, David Nicholson told the PAC that the Department of Health wants to move towards a situation whereby hospitals have their own direct relationship with software suppliers and where individual organisations take responsibility for their IT. However, he also said that, with all the reorganisation of the NHS that is going on, we need an interim step, a transitional body that will
“look very similar to Connecting for Health”.
He said that it was very important to have that body,
“to enable us safely to transit from where we are at the moment to a place where individual organisations take responsibility.”
I would like the Minister to explain a few things. What is that transitional body? Who will be responsible for running it? How much will it cost? How will it be different from Connecting for Health? At what stage will it disappear and how? Finally, if a national, centrally led programme has been part of the problem in the past, why will this new national, centrally led body somehow deliver the future when individual trusts are in control?
The final lesson that must be learned relates to a point that the hon. Member for Stroud made, which was about a much bigger problem for Government than the other problems that I have mentioned. How do the Government have an effective relationship with the private sector in contracting with it, not only in relation to IT projects but to all sorts of other projects? I am thinking, for example, about the problems that the Ministry of Defence has experienced with its contracting. Successive Governments have found it extremely difficult to negotiate effective contracts with the private sector, and not just IT contracts. It is fair to say that they have not exactly covered themselves in glory in that respect.
Duncan Hames
Will the hon. Lady reflect on whether one reason why Governments have such difficulty in controlling contracts with the private sector is that politicians routinely make policy changes that alter the specifications for what is required, and contracts are not able to accommodate that? I wonder what lessons she might learn if we looked, for example, at how the choice agenda was rolled out in the NHS during this period, and at the demands that that placed on changing requirements for private contractors.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the nature of the political process, with politicians frequently determined to fill the newspapers with headlines about new policies, while the difficult process of implementation takes far longer on the ground. When I had the privilege of working in the Department of Health, I saw the NHS Choices project and thought, “This doesn’t look like what I thought the politicians meant. It wouldn’t give me, as a patient, the information I needed about which consultant or hospital to choose.” There is, therefore, the problem of how about we go from a political idea to a policy on the ground, and how quickly that changes.
With the greatest respect to the civil servants sitting in this room, we have perhaps not thought through effectively what kinds of skills and experience are necessary in Departments. What steps has the Minister taken since the Government were elected to ensure that the Department of Health has people with the right skills and experience to deal with such high-level negotiations? Have the Government as a whole decided to look at that issue? Has the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, considered how best to ensure that there are people across the whole civil service with the skills and experience that politicians urgently need to support them in their work?
I thank all Members for their contributions today. This is a very difficult subject, and we need to find a way through that does not waste more taxpayers’ money but understands that IT and information are crucial to improving health and health care. The key issue is how we get there.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) on securing this debate. His forensic analysis of what has happened over the past decade or so made it clear that he has a justifiable reputation as a leading expert in the House on the subject, and it is due to his tenacity that things are done and things are found out, and that we can be kept on our toes through the legislature holding the Executive to account. In a mood of bonhomie, I also congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) on her tribute to my hon. Friend. That was particularly magnanimous of her because, for the vast majority of his 40-minute speech, he was criticising her Government’s performance in creating the situation we are in, and for the mistakes and problems that have flowed from the decisions taken at the beginning of the century.
I agree that IT is crucial to a modernised NHS. We need to be able to record, store and exchange information if we are to realise our ambition of having health outcomes that are consistently among the best in the world. The previous Government’s centrally driven, top-down vision of NHS IT began in 2002, and the original title was “Delivering 21st century IT support for the NHS.” Sadly, however, the vision took an approach that was more akin to the early post-war years of the 20th century. It was clear to us, even before we took office, that the approach made little sense, and that to deliver a modern health service we needed a more flexible and locally driven approach—a view shared, ironically, throughout the NHS.
Last September, I announced that we should no longer talk about a “national programme for IT”:
“Improving IT is essential to delivering a patient-centred NHS. But the nationally imposed system is neither necessary nor appropriate to deliver this. We will allow hospitals to use and develop the IT they already have”.
So, rather than the old “replace all” strategy of the previous Government, we favour a strategy of “connect all.” It makes no sense to rip out and replace systems that trusts already successfully use, and we have, therefore, put local NHS organisations in control of introducing new systems. Rather than a single national programme, we should view the strategy as a series of related projects, categorised under national infrastructure, national applications and local services.
It is clear that, over the years, the scope of the national programme expanded, but it is now vital that we focus our investment and energies on the things that will make a difference to the quality of care. We asked clinicians what they wanted from NHS IT systems and they came up with five things that they believed were critical to them and their ability to carry out their duties. They were: a patient administration system that integrates with other systems and provides sophisticated reports; order communications and diagnostic reporting; letters with coding for patient discharge, clinics, and accident and emergency; scheduling for beds, tests and theatres, and e-prescribing. In addition, we are focusing suppliers on key departmental systems, such as those needed to support maternity, child health and accident and emergency, which, taken together, will make a significant difference to the experience of patients and the working practices of clinicians and managers.
At the same time as changing the approach and scope of the programme, we have closely examined its costs. There is little we can now do about the money that has already been spent, but we have been able to reduce the cost forecast from 31 March 2010 by £1.3 billion— about 18%. The savings will come from the companies supplying services, from reduced local costs and from our internal overheads in managing the programme. Suppliers will reduce their costs by £670 million, local costs will reduce by £200 million and we expect to save £400 million on our internal central costs. That is a 25% saving of the total internal budget, and 40% of the amount that the previous Government expected to be spent from the end of March 2010 to the end of the programme.
We have asked local service providers—the companies delivering the contracts—to change their scope and their delivery model and to reduce their costs. We have reached agreement with BT but still have some way to go before we come to an agreement with CSC. We will absolutely maintain the principle that suppliers will get paid only when they deliver working systems. We are pushing harder for faster results, and have made it clear to suppliers that we will not tolerate further delays. It is important to state that every single penny saved will be reinvested in improving patient care.
When it comes to NHS IT, there are, I am afraid, no easy choices. Several Members have mentioned that we have just carried out another major projects review, the outcome of which we expect to know in two to three weeks’ time. Until we have had the opportunity to consider the review’s conclusions, we will not be making any decisions on future investment.
It should not be said, however, that nothing has been achieved over the past decade, as many essential elements have already been delivered. Regarding national infrastructure, there is the spine, which is the core service that connects all other systems at both national and local level and handles, among other things, more than 11 million daily queries made on the personal demographics service.
N3, the secure network that links all NHS organisations to each other, to outside data centres and to the internet, has almost 50,000 connections. The NHS internal e-mail service handles 2 million e-mails every day.
As for national applications, every day, choose and book processes about 30,000 appointments, the electronic prescription service sends about 660,000 prescription messages and about 2,000 records are transferred electronically using the GP2GP system. On the summary care record, as a result of the two reviews that I commissioned last summer, we now have agreement on the core data to be held and the approach to roll-out. More than 30 million patients have been contacted about the summary care record.
Systems implemented by the programme are making a difference to patients’ experiences and to clinical efficiency, safety and effectiveness. For example, at Morecambe Bay, infection prevention is now fully electronic, using the Lorenzo system. In St Barts, clinicians are alerted to all patients carrying MRSA through the Millennium system. The Royal Free hospital has also used Millennium to create safety procedure information, including for endoscopy data and bleeding guidelines.
Although progress in delivering local systems has been slower than anticipated, BT has delivered community and mental health systems to all trusts in London and the south that requested them, and the Cerner Millennium system to just over half the London trusts that require it. CSC has delivered to 83 acute trusts in the north, midlands and east of England using upgraded interim systems. It has also delivered iSoft’s Lorenzo e-patient record system to 10 trusts and completed delivery of 137 prison health IT systems across the country.
The NHS needs local systems to be fully integrated with the core components supplied by the programme. The interoperability toolkit will help. It is a core part of the “connect all” strategy, enabling trusts to exploit their existing systems fully. There is a great deal of interest in the approach; 78 suppliers and 71 health organisations attended the last forum on the toolkit. It is already being used to good effect at Newham hospital to deliver a patient check-in kiosk, and at Liverpool Broadgreen hospital to provide a consolidated view of patient information across multiple care settings.
All but 14 of the more than 8,000 GP practices in England have a system supplied by either the national programme or the GP systems of choice scheme, which has allowed us to maintain several small and medium suppliers in the market. In the south, we have used the additional supply capability and capacity framework for community and mental health to bring together 10 trusts to leverage their combined buying power while increasing their choice.
Security must always be at the front of our minds when we consider NHS IT systems. Great care is taken to ensure that systems are secure, and we carry out regular tests to ensure that they cannot be penetrated inappropriately. My hon. Friend will have heard late last week about the hacking of the SHINE sexual health website run by the East London NHS Foundation Trust. The website was an information-only site that carried no patient data and a local service that was not connected to any data held nationally. The issue was dealt with promptly, and the trust urgently reviewed its local security arrangements and is satisfied that no further breaches are possible. We also operate a rigorous process of role-based access controls to ensure that only the clinicians treating a patient have access to sensitive clinical data.
Because NHS systems are so critical, they need to be far more robust and stable than those outside the programme. We invest a great deal of money in ensuring that if systems go down, each and every component can be automatically recovered. Should a whole system fail, it can be recovered and made available for clinicians to use within two hours. Of course, such a level of disaster recovery does not come cheaply, which helps explain differences in price between some systems in the programme and similar systems procured by some trusts outside the programme. Systems bought locally will need to meet the technical and data standards laid down by the national commissioning board in order to participate in the networked environment.
I turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Leicester West and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). The hon. Member for Leicester West asked about the role of the NHS Future Forum. There were no specific responses about NHS technology systems, but it is clear that information flows are essential to link interventions and outcomes. However, as she said, we concentrated on the information revolution through the document that flowed from the White Paper last summer. As she also said, a consultation was held. We have been considering the responses, and we will publish them in due course. At the moment, I cannot give her a definite time.
The reason for the delay—I hope that she will appreciate this—is that during the eight to nine weeks of the listening pause on NHS modernisation, a decision was taken not to publish the responses to the information revolution consultation, if only to help the hon. Lady, so that she could not accuse us of not pausing sufficiently to listen to people and of carrying on regardless of what was going on in the listening exercise. I hope that she will give us credit for holding a genuine listening exercise and appreciate why we did not publish during that period. It was not least to forestall her criticism of us for doing so.
The hon. Lady also asked about the transitional vehicle. As she will appreciate, it is required to manage the existing arrangements and support local systems. It will not determine what needs to be done; the shape, scale and timeline have still to be determined exactly. We are working on it as part of the response to the pause, and we will determine in due course how it will operate to provide that support and move forward under the auspices of the national commissioning board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked about ensuring value for money and checking everything. I can give her assurances on that, because it is crucial. There is little point continuing to talk about the past, partly because we were not responsible and would not have done things as the last Government did them. We are where we are. We must learn from our mistakes and move forward. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from my comments that we have grasped the nettle, accepted that the approach was wrong and learned from our mistakes, and that we will continue to learn and to seek to ensure that we have the information system critical to a modernised NHS and improved and enhanced patient care and patient experience, while minimising the problems that have haunted this episode ever since its introduction a decade ago.
I hope that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Leicester West will accept that we are moving forward, learning lessons from the past and seeking to ensure that we have a system that meets the requirements of a modernised NHS and, above all, is fit for purpose and does what the NHS needs it to do.
Property Regulation (Holiday Lettings)
(12 years, 11 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
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on the effect of property regulation on holiday lettings. This debate will be of interest to colleagues representing constituencies with beautiful countryside, coastline or other features that lend themselves to tourism. I am glad to say that Pendle is one such constituency, with rolling countryside and picturesque villages. Only last week, plans for a new 76-berth marina were approved.
Properties that are made available to let for holidaymakers are a vital part of tourism in the UK. Typically, these are attractive, domestic properties, owned by a couple or a family, and some are managed by an agency. They are the smallest of small businesses and in great need of protection from fruitless and costly regulation.
I have called this debate because I am concerned that holiday lettings are not getting the protection that they need. I wish to start with a quote from a “Dear colleague” letter that I received only last week from the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). The letter mentions the “one in, one out” system of regulatory control introduced by the Government. Apparently, planned regulations have been cut from 157 to just 46, with only 11 of those adding to the regulatory cost on businesses. I welcome that, and emphasise that it is my intention to help the Government by identifying where they can clearly go further. I believe that we all want small companies to be relieved of pointless, costly and dubious regulations, and I applaud the Government’s record on that so far.
The letter finishes by saying:
“We are continuing to work hard to cap the cost of new regulations. In addition, we are tackling the stock of existing regulations, ending the ‘gold plating’ of EU regulations and have scrapped measures that would have cost SMEs £350 million each.”
However, holiday lettings face two costly challenges in upcoming regulations, one of which is being defended as a European Union requirement when it is not being adopted by any other European country. I refer to the change due to happen at the end of this month, whereby holiday lettings will be required to provide an energy performance certificate, and to the review of the controlled waste regulations that are due to be introduced later this year. Both will force an unnecessary, costly, pointless and, I believe, legally questionable burden on holiday lettings, doing damage to British tourism in my constituency and many others. I hope to present a case that the Government can and should reconsider both regulations.
Let me start by addressing the controlled waste regulations. On 14 January, the consultation closed on proposals to replace or amend the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992. It was a joint consultation carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Welsh Assembly Government. Will the Government look again at these proposals, which would place an unfair cost on the shoulders of small business owners?
Hoseasons, an agency representing those wanting to let their properties for self-catering holidays, which employs about 500 people in my constituency, produced a submission highlighting its concerns about the proposed changes, stating that they could damage the viability of letting self-catering holiday cottages. Having first been scheduled to come into effect on 6 April, the document has been postponed by DEFRA and will come into force sometime in the near future.
The publication tells us that waste from domestic properties used in the course of a business for the provision of self-catering accommodation will now be classed as commercial waste. This causes a discrepancy between properties that are let for long-term domestic residence and properties that are let for self-catering holidays. The person letting their property for the full calendar year has their tenants’ waste classed as domestic waste, whereas the person letting their property as a holiday cottage for more than 140 days of the year will be charged commercial rates, even though the property may be empty for the majority of the year.
That seems wrong, because the use of both properties is fundamentally the same: both are used for living in as a place of residence, and the owner of the property makes a profit in both cases. The injustice is that the owner of a holiday cottage incurs extra expense without necessarily receiving more income. That may lead owners to decide to let their property full time, to lessen their outgoings and increase their income. This in turn could impact the strength of the rural tourism industry, because the properties may no longer be viable as holiday lets. More than 67 million domestic holiday trips were made in 2009. I am sure that everyone will agree that the regulations are impacting the future not only of agencies such as Hoseasons in my constituency, but of every individual who lets their property to holidaymakers for more than 140 days of the year.
If we look at the proposals of the controlled waste regulations, we will see that the amount and type of waste in question is the same. Do we really need to charge different rates for the same collection, based on whether a property is being rented for a week or a year? Section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 defines household waste as from a domestic property that is solely for the purposes of living accommodation. Defining this waste as commercial would presumably require a separate collection service. Would this mean heavy-duty refuse trucks pounding down rural roads just to get to what are often small cottages, or are holiday lettings being asked to pay more for the same service, in which case, why increase the cost of waste collection?
My final point in relation to the regulations is on recycling, an issue important to us all. Most local authorities offer a free collection service of recyclable materials from all domestic properties. Classing waste from holiday properties as commercial would make them ineligible for this free service, thus providing a disincentive to recycle. The last time I stayed in a holiday let was a few years ago, when I decided to spend the new year with a group of friends. Needless to say, while, naturally, we are all very responsible drinkers, our stay resulted in several empty wine and beer bottles, which were dutifully placed in a recycling box for disposal when we left. I fail to see how making such properties ineligible for domestic recycling services—meaning that I would have had to put those bottles in a commercial waste bin—will do anything to help the environment. Will the Government look at the regulations, so that owners and guests alike are encouraged to recycle and can assist local authorities in meeting recycling targets?
I now turn to energy performance certificates, which were first introduced in England and Wales on 1 August 2007. They are required only for newly purchased or rented accommodation. The question is whether a holiday letting should fall into that category. I would like to run through a few of the reasons given for why they should, and why those reasons are not persuasive.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for calling this debate, because holiday lettings are key to our local tourism industries. I am glad that he has raised that point. Does he agree that the EPC certificate will, effectively, become a tax on tourism? It will also be extremely hard to enforce, because a lot of the lettings are not done through agencies. That, combined with the Finance Bill changes, which change the categorisation for relief, will give holiday lettings, which are small businesses, a real problem.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I know that this is an issue close to her heart. The certificate will be hard to enforce, because it applies only to holiday cottages that are being let for more than 140 days a year. How an owner of a holiday let will decide whether it will be let for more than 140 days over the coming year is up in the air. How can anyone predict how good, bad or indifferent the coming season will be? My hon. Friend has made a good point about how the provision will be enforced. I was not going to address that issue, but it is critical.
EPCs would not serve holidaymakers, because those who stay in a holiday letting do not pay the energy bills. They have no need to see an EPC, unlike a prospective buyer or tenant, who needs to see one when looking at the energy performance of a property. When someone rents a property long term, they become liable for the energy bills, which is something that a holidaymaker in a holiday let never becomes.
The argument could be made that a holidaymaker would prefer to stay in an energy-efficient property, purely for environmental reasons. If so, we already have ways for customers to identify not just environmentally friendly holiday lettings, but those that have gone the extra mile through schemes such as the green tourism awards. Malkin Tower farm in Blacko in my constituency is an example of an excellent holiday letting that has been awarded a green tourism award and was the 2008 winner of the Pendle environmental business award.
One could argue that all properties ought to have an EPC, since all properties consume energy and we need to tackle climate change. Therefore, according to that argument, holiday lettings should have an EPC. I think that the fact that that is not Government policy—as I found out when I asked my hon. Friend the Minister, in a written question, what the policy was—means that it cannot be the reason why the Government want to push ahead with introducing EPCs for holiday lettings. The only reason that can be given for this additional cost and red tape on small business is the idea that this change will bring us in line with Europe, specifically the energy performance of buildings directive. That is the justification the Minister gave me on 7 June in response to a written question on the subject asking how the new rules could be brought in, given the moratorium on new regulations from April 2011 for businesses with fewer than 10 people.
It will therefore surprise hon. Members to learn that England and Wales are the only EU countries currently choosing to force EPCs on holiday lets. We should remember that that change is due to come into force on 30 June this year, which is a matter of days’ time. To be fair, France previously required EPCs for holiday lets but, after consideration and consultation, it revoked the law requiring them. I believe that, since 12 July 2010, no other EU country has forced EPCs on to holiday lettings and that England and Wales will be the only countries doing so.
I know that because I have, again, consulted Hoseasons, which has sister companies operating in the holiday letting market in more than 20 countries around Europe. It tells me that none of those companies reports any requirement for EPCs for holiday lets and it is therefore confused that the Government believe we are being brought into line with Europe. This is a classic case of the UK gold-plating an EU regulation—something that Ministers had promised to stop.
For the avoidance of any confusion, I understand that the EPBD states that all buildings are subject to the regulations unless specifically excluded. As holiday lets are not specifically excluded, it has been construed that the regulations must apply to them. However, the regulations also state that EPCs should apply only where a building is to be sold or rented. The question comes back to whether, when a customer makes a booking for a holiday let, that creates a tenancy, with the legal ramifications that go with it. I have received a copy of a document from Local Government Regulation that clearly suggests that it does not. I know that it has been in contact with the Department for Communities and Local Government to express its views on the matter and to make similar points to those I am raising today; for example, the fact that the holidaymaker simply has no benefit from having access to an EPC for the property where they are staying. It is fair to say that I agree with Local Government Regulation in its considered and sensible opinion:
“To apply ‘rent’ in the usual sense to holiday accommodation is absurd and inconsistent with the generally accepted understanding of the term ‘to rent’”.
Given that no country in Europe takes such a view, why does the DCLG, even when it has received advice to the contrary from Local Government Regulation? I hope that the DCLG will reconsider its position as a result of today’s debate.
I come back to what I said at the beginning: it is my intention today to help the Government here. There is a real need to cut regulation, to free up small business and to kick-start growth. Overall, the Government have done exceptionally well so far on that score. The Government’s red tape challenge aims to reduce the amount of unnecessary regulation on business, but introducing unnecessary EPCs and waste regulations on holiday lettings is surely going in the wrong direction.
With an estimated 62,500 holiday lettings in Britain, the introduction of EPCs will create a bill of around £10.4 million. That is a serious burden to impose on genuinely small businesses. By abandoning these proposals, the Government would be acting in support of domestic tourism and helping to keep the cost of a holiday in the UK within the reach of those on lower incomes. The Government would be acting in support of small businesses and in support of reducing red tape and pointless regulations. The Government have done a lot right, but they are in danger of getting it wrong on holiday lettings. By introducing EPCs and treating the waste from a holiday let as commercial, the Government would be upping the costs on an important but vulnerable sector of the British tourism industry.
I would like to leave hon. Members thinking about a holiday let in my constituency—Bobbin cottage in Earby. Bobbin cottage is a small, beautiful cottage with only two bedrooms which is ideally situated for the nearby walking trails. What will the impact of these changes be on Bobbin cottage? What benefit will there be from additional refuse trucks pounding their way through the rural roads of Earby to dispose of the latest holidaymakers’ week’s worth of banana skins and used teabags? Will the holidaymakers read the EPC for Bobbin cottage and think, “Well, it would be a nice place to stay, but will the landlord be paying too much for the steamy hot bath that I’ll need to take after walking across Kelbrook moor?”
The reality is that these changes will not have a positive impact. They will make Bobbin cottage more expensive to run, which will be reflected in the cost of staying there and will make it harder for Britons to experience one of the most scenic parts of my constituency. For Bobbin cottage, domestic tourism and the tens of thousands of small business owners out there affected by these new regulations, I urge the Minister to reconsider.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) for bringing this issue to the House and the measured way in which he has made his case. As he rightly says, the matter covers two completely separate issues. Indeed, just to complicate my response, it covers two completely different Departments. I am speaking as a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government, so I will certainly ensure that his words about the controlled waste consultation reach the ears of DEFRA Ministers. However, I am sure he will understand that I am not in a position to give him too much of a glimmer of light in respect of that, although I would be very happy to ensure that he gets a response from my colleagues in DEFRA on the matter.
What I can do—and hope I will do—is set out the position on energy performance certificates. I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend has reported confusion and concern. I have to tell him that that has been followed up by a lot of correspondence. So I have confusion, concern and correspondence to sort out in my role as Minister. The first thing to say is that the matter is not a pretty picture as far as the Department’s previous performance is concerned. As he said, the EU directive came into force in 2007 and it clearly applies to all buildings. Just for reference, about 6.4 million energy performance certificates have been issued to homes in this country, so we are not dealing with a trivial number of homes.
When the directive was first published and approved at a European level by the United Kingdom among others, it provided that countries could if they chose to do so put in place a derogation for holiday lets of less than 4 months. The first mistake is that that opportunity to take a derogation was not pursued by the United Kingdom. If it had been taken, the derogation would be there now and today’s debate would not be needed. However, as I say, that derogation was not taken.
To compound matters, unfortunately I have to tell my hon. Friend that, a year after that—in 2008—the Department issued guidance that, contrary to the position outlined in legal parlance, claimed all holiday lets were exempt. That was the exact opposite of the legal position then in force. During 2009, it came to light in reviewing the application of the regulations that that double mistake had been made. That led to a consultation last year and, in February 2011, the Government announced their intention to apply the EU directive—if I may put it this way—in an underogated state, starting in June this year. There has been a very unsatisfactory record of missed opportunities and mistaken advice on the matter and, understandably, a large number of hon. Members have been approached by constituents who are confused but, more to the point, concerned by what has happened.
Let me first set out some of the facts of the situation and the reason why the Government are now saying what they are saying. EPCs are required on the sale, rent or construction of a building, including any property that is rented out as a holiday let for a combined period of more than four months in any 12-month period. My hon. Friend challenged the interpretation that a holiday let was a tenancy. It is important to make clear to the Chamber that there is a definition that covers this in the Housing Act 1988. Perhaps that is unfortunate, from the point of view of my hon. Friend. It states:
“A tenancy the purpose of which is to confer on the tenant the right to occupy the dwelling-house for a holiday.”
In terms of interpretation, that is a crucial point. There is no doubt at all that, from the UK legal point of view, such a holiday let is a tenancy and is therefore caught by the EU directive.
My hon. Friend asked how landlords and owners would know whether their property was to be let for four months, or six weeks if it was a bad season. The directive is clear. The point is whether the owner intends to rent out for more than four months—the intention is the question that has to be decided. I bring that to the Chamber simply to report the facts of the case. I do not seek to rebut every point made by my hon. Friend.
Andrew Stephenson
On the difficulty of enforcing the regulations, will the Minister clarify how intention can be proved? If every owner in the country decided that it was their intention to let their properties for only 130 days a year and they happened to let for longer, would they fall foul of the regulations? Their intention would have been to let the property for less than 140 days.
Andrew Stunell
My hon. Friend asks a worthwhile question. I imagine that it would be quite difficult to achieve a burden of proof to prosecute somebody for underestimating their intentions. I understand that the Department is not aware of any prosecutions under the regulations. Compliance is self-driven, rather than driven by prosecutions.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of cost. Undeniably, there is a cost to having an EPC—probably in the range of £50 to £80, depending on the provider. My hon. Friend quoted the figure of £10 million. That figure is for the total cost over a 30-year period, so we need to keep the scale of the problem in perspective. If the EPCs led to owners improving the energy performance of the cottages and homes that they let, they would receive a payback of £15 million in that 30-year period. There is, therefore, a net benefit in the provision of EPCs and the implementation of the energy-saving results that they will reveal—as there is for EPCs for the 6 million-plus that have been issued to ordinary homes. I want to ensure that we have it clearly on the record that there is a first cost, but that there is a potential for saving, too. As my hon. Friend recognised, that also makes a contribution to reducing the United Kingdom’s carbon output.
I would like to correct one of my hon. Friend’s facts, and to explore one of the propositions that he brought forward. He said that England and Wales would be the only countries enforcing this. They are already required in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so, depending on what we define as a nation, other places in the UK require EPCs. I asked my officials whether there was evidence of non-conformity by other European countries. I have been told that, having made inquiries to the European Commission, they are not aware of any country that is not implementing the EU directive in the manner that we now propose should be the case in England.
My hon. Friend produced some information about what France had done, and referred to the fact that a provider of holiday lets in his constituency had evidence from a much wider field around Europe. I hope that he will accept, as a glimmer of light, that the very first thing I shall do after the debate is seek whatever validation we can for those two pieces of evidence. We do not want providers in England to be at a disadvantage to other European countries simply because we have taken too robust a view of how the directive should be interpreted.
My hon. Friend referred to the Local Government Regulation document. I think that he has slightly over-egged his case. It has produced advice that says that an EPC is not required. The Department has attempted to get in touch with Local Government Regulation, which is a subset of the Local Government Association, to challenge or examine how it came to that view. Unfortunately, the member of its staff who prepared that advice is no longer with the organisation and we are having difficulty establishing how its view was arrived at. It may, quite reasonably, have been based on the advice, issued by the Department in 2008, to the effect that all holiday homes were exempt, but that was clearly not correct and clearly contradicted by the reality that no derogation was entered into by the UK in 2007.
My hon. Friend has raised these matters at the highest levels in government, and has made it clear that he believes that there are unnecessary burdens that could be lifted by the Government. As he acknowledged, the Government have a very good record on this. Indeed, an important part of what my Department attempts to do is to bust barriers. Barrier busting is something on which we wax eloquent. If my hon. Friend has, as he believes, found two barriers that we can bust, I give him an assurance that we will see what we can do to achieve that. However, the UK Government must correctly interpret and comply with EU legislation. It is also extremely important to reduce the carbon output of the UK. Half the carbon output in the UK comes from buildings, and a quarter comes from homes. Tackling this sector is important. EPCs are an important part of what we need to do to set the climate, atmosphere and culture that will lead owners and occupiers to use their buildings in an energy-efficient way. I hope that he will accept my assurance that we are listening to the points that he has made. However, we have a duty to ensure that we not only comply with European legislation, but live up to our target to be the greenest Government ever and ensure that all kinds of householders play a full and active part in helping us to do so.
Motoring Fuel Costs
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing this debate, and I want to congratulate FairFuelUK on its campaign for British motorists and for all the British businesses that have to buy petrol or diesel.
Let us get one thing straight: cars, vans and lorries are the lifeblood of British industry. More than 34 million vehicles are licensed in this country, which is one for every two people. That is why the current cost of petrol and diesel is one of the biggest brakes on economic growth and is crucifying many families who are struggling to keep their heads above water. That is especially true in my constituency of Harlow, where high costs are hurting many small businesses. I want to look at the current situation, the record profits of energy companies and what is to be done. As The Sun newspaper said in its editorial last Saturday:
“It’s welcome news that Parliament is to investigate why petrol prices remain sky-high even as the cost of oil plummets.
While they’re at it, they can look at why gas customers face 19 per cent rises from a firm with annual profits of more than £1 billion.
Consumers are being fleeced from all sides when buying essentials.
It's time our MPs stood up for us.”
I am here, with my colleagues, to stand up for motorists.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is huge frustration throughout the country about how, when the price of oil falls, the prices at the pumps seem to reduce very slowly and perhaps not to the same level, but when the price of oil increases, the petrol and diesel prices at the fuel filling stations seem to go up within minutes?
Robert Halfon
As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. I will set out in my remarks what is happening and what we should do about it.
Let us look at the numbers. In my constituency of Harlow, there are 33,000 households and 37,000 cars and vans. According to the Royal Automobile Club, which has done excellent work on the fair fuel campaign, we drive 9,000 miles a year. At 32 miles per gallon, an ordinary Harlow motorist is using 281 gallons or 1,277 litres every year. The cheapest unleaded petrol in Harlow that someone can buy is £1.33 a litre but in most cases Harlow motorists are spending £1,700 a year just to fill their tank. For most people, £2,200 of income before tax goes on that. That is a tenth of the average Harlow salary.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has quoted some interesting statistics, such as the average driver in Harlow travelling 9,000 miles a year, but in rural constituencies such as Romsey and Southampton North the statistics are more frightening, because the average motorist is travelling 10,000 miles a year simply to access essential services. Does he agree that the problem is particularly distinct and severe in rural areas?
Robert Halfon
I very much agree that rural people are also being crushed by the price of fuel. I am glad that my hon. Friend is here today to represent her constituency and the many rural residents who are suffering so much.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Coming from an area where fuel is more than £1.50 a litre at all our fuel stations in the Hebrides, and regularly so, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. Does he agree that the Office of Fair Trading has to show more teeth in looking at the distribution of fuel? As noted, when the oil price goes up, the price at the pump increases quickly, but when falling, it does not happen at the pump at all. The OFT must start investigating the trade for fairness.
Robert Halfon
I agree that that should happen. I also have another proposal, which I will set out later. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on fuel prices in a debate in the main Chamber some months ago.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.
Although the focus has very much been on the individual motorist, we have spoken a little about small business. If we combine the issues of rural businesses and micro-businesses, they are the ones that are badly hit. That is where we need the economy to grow. As for the range of prices, my hon. Friend talked about an average of £1.36 a litre, but in fact it is between £1.30 and £1.51, mostly in rural areas.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is right. I will set out in a minute what the Federation of Small Businesses says about how the fuel price is crushing business and economic growth.
In total, my town is spending at least £63 million a year on petrol, of which about £40 million is tax. That does not even include gas and electricity bills, which are spiralling out of control. The budget of my local council is only £13.5 million a year. Imagine if people could keep even a fraction of that money in their pockets, to spend on the local economy, rather than giving it away to big oil companies, foreign countries and, dare I say it, the Treasury. However, I welcome what the Chancellor has done so far. When he refused to implement Labour’s petrol tax of 4p in April, and cut duty by 1p, he saved Harlow motorists at least £2.5 million every year, putting fuel into the tank of the British economy when we need it most.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate.
On the subject of the Chancellor’s initiatives, does my hon. Friend also support the decision to have rural fuel pilots, and acknowledge that constituencies such as my own of Penrith and The Border, where we have nearly twice the distance to travel to GPs, post offices and job centres, need to be recognised in a different way? The Chancellor is to be congratulated on the steps he has already taken on rural fuel, and he should extend them.
Robert Halfon
I very much welcome that initiative. I will say later that I believe a commission ought to be set up to look at all kinds of ways of reducing the price of petrol for motorists—that is one of them.
David Simpson
The position in Northern Ireland is somewhat different from that in Harlow, because we have a land border. Currently, the Government are losing £280 million to £300 million a year on fuel smuggling and laundering of fuel. We are currently looking at the whole issue of corporation tax in Northern Ireland but, if duty on fuel were reduced or even if the suggested pilot scheme were in Northern Ireland, it would save the Government an absolute fortune, and would help the motorist and commercial enterprises in the long term.
Robert Halfon
As so often in Westminster Hall, as I said last week, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. That might form part of the commission’s inquiry. At the end of July, I plan to go in a truck to Europe, to see how truckers there manage to get all their fuel cheaply, while English truckers are paying far more. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
Returning to my constituency, we are a town held to ransom by petrol prices. Motorists are robbed of a tenth of their salary just to fill their petrol tank. Fuel poverty is defined as spending more than a tenth of income to stay warm. That is all about domestic homes, but what about spending a tenth of income just to drive to work, which is what motorists are doing? The issue is also one for welfare reform. I welcome the Government making great strides with universal credit, lower taxes for lower earners and the Work programme. Yet all those benefits could be wiped out by the rising cost of fuel. Every 1p increase in the pump price will cost the average Harlow motorist £13 a year. For someone on a low income, perhaps commuting from Harlow to Basildon, the actual cost would be much higher. Inflation soon adds up, and we must not let petrol prices become part of the poverty trap and deter people from getting off benefits and into work.
Nor should we forget rural constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who cannot be here because of his recent operation, has campaigned for many years against the fuel poverty suffered by his constituents. He wrote to me yesterday:
“fuel is a necessity in a constituency of 1,000 square miles, not a luxury.”
Throughout the country we see the same tragedy.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He mentioned specifically job creation and its importance in welfare reform. In a survey earlier this year, one of the issues the FSB picked up was that companies faced with rising fuel bills would stop creating jobs and might also look at laying people off. That has huge implications, in particular in Northern Ireland, where we have a higher proportion of small to medium-sized enterprises, as well as heavier reliance on fuel because all our freight, for example, is road-based.
Robert Halfon
I welcome the remarks of the hon. Lady. I am about to come on to the FSB, but she is so right in what she says. I am glad that there is so much consensus in the Chamber among all parties.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is being very generous. The hon. Lady’s point about the Federation of Small Businesses is important, but we must not underestimate—my hon. Friend is not doing so—the impact of fuel prices on workers. My constituency has a low-wage economy in a large rural area, and an announcement was made today that the Humber bridge tolls will rise to £3 for each crossing. That will conspire to put people off looking for work, because they cannot afford to get to work.
Robert Halfon
That is my whole point. High fuel prices have become part of the poverty trap, and are a disincentive for people to get back into work, despite the Government’s excellent programmes, including the Work programme. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
Long-term stats from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that in 1970 we used 25 million tonnes of petroleum in the transport sector. That has risen year on year, and doubled to 50 million tonnes today. But despite the UK being a net exporter of petroleum products, and despite the fall in the international oil price, our petrol prices are still sky high. In January this year, members of the Federation of Small Businesses said that if petrol prices continue to rise, 62% will be forced to increase their prices, risking inflation; one in 10 may have to lay off staff; 26% will be forced to freeze wages; 36% will have to reduce investment in new products and services; and 78% will see
“their overall profitability in jeopardy”.
Taxation is only part of the problem, and another major concern is transparency. As the AA, RAC, and FairFuelUK have said, if the 2p drop in the market cost of petrol had been passed on to motorists earlier this year by energy companies, it would have wiped out most of the impact of the 2.5p VAT rise. In May, I wrote to the chief executives of Shell, BP, Total, and ExxonMobil asking for price transparency so that we can see why prices are not falling. So far, only Total and BP have replied, but their replies essentially said, “Nothing to see here.”
In 2009, before the disaster in the gulf of Mexico, BP boasted profits of £8.7 billion. This year, Shell has reported first quarter profits up 40%, making its global profits nearly £2 million every hour.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and for securing this debate. I particularly support the points made about rural constituencies. Does he favour statutory obligations on those companies to be transparent and to pass on their profits to consumers?
Robert Halfon
I do not want to unveil all my secrets at once, and if the hon. Lady waits a bit, I will give her my proposal.
Total’s profit rose 34% year on year, and ExxonMobil saw a 69% profit jump to $10.5 billion. We must acknowledge that some companies make a good return for pension funds, but a balance must be struck. I remember the fuel protests in 2000, when we were seriously concerned about the threat of petrol at 80p a litre. According to PetrolPrices.com, the excellent price comparison website, the most expensive unleaded fuel in the UK is now £1.51 a litre.
I accept that 64% of the petrol price is taxation, and I welcome the Chancellor’s steps to slash some of the planned taxes, but the big oil companies must play their part. Why are prices so different at petrol stations, and why are they raking in such astronomical profits when small businesses are being forced into bankruptcy by fuel costs?
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the oil companies. Did he witness the same thing as I did in my constituency eight or 10 weeks ago when some of the major supermarkets embarked on a price reduction of 5p a litre if customers spent a specific amount on goods, and at the same time raised the price of fuel by 4p or 5p a litre, which in turn forced the independents to put up their prices? The situation was contrived by some supermarkets.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is why I am arguing for transparency. If supermarkets reduce prices, they must do so properly. We cannot have situations such as the one he describes. We often bash bankers, but oil barons are far worse, because they enjoy a semi-monopoly in the UK market, and most motorists have no alternative but to buy their products. We need transparency above all. Oil prices are falling, and we must ensure that the big companies cut their prices at the pump.
The green movement makes a case for expensive petrol, but modern vehicles have lower carbon emissions. Cars account for only 13% of our man-made carbon emissions. My argument—some hon. Members may say that it is controversial—is that environmentalism sometimes becomes a luxury for the rich, with no substantive answers, other than regressive taxes on energy. It is all too easy, in the cause of saving the planet, for the wealthy to insist that the poorest families should pay more in petrol taxes, and gas and electricity bills.
The impact of high fuel prices is particularly severe on road freight companies, and they are a major employer in Harlow. Road freight carries nearly 97% of everything we eat, wear or build with. High and rising fuel costs force the road freight companies to try to pass on the extra cost, and that stokes inflation. If they fail to pass on the increased costs, they go bust.
The road freight companies face a further cruel impact that the UK green lobby must consider. Fuel duty levels on the continent are about 24p a litre lower than in the UK, so hundreds of thousands of foreign lorries pour into the south-east of the UK and undercut UK hauliers. Foreign trucks pay no road tax here, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a £9 a day charge, although I believe that it should be a lot higher. Those trucks pay no fuel tax in the UK as their tanks are big enough to last all week and all their fuel is bought abroad. They pay no employment taxes. They simply come into the UK, drive our UK freight companies out of business, and pay nothing to the Exchequer.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Robert Halfon
I must make progress, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) as he has not spoken.
Jonathan Edwards
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making some important points about green taxation. I agree with such taxation, but does he agree that it should be linked to clear environmental criteria, and that if it is not it will lose public confidence, which would be a crisis for the Exchequer and for environmental policy?
Robert Halfon
Of course there should be environmental criteria, but people too often have their heads in the clouds and do not realise that low petrol prices would make a huge difference to ordinary people who must use their vans to drive to work, drive their trucks to do their job, drive their minicabs, or drive their kids to school.
What is to be done? I believe in competition and choice. First, when a market is cornered by vested interests and semi-cartels, such as big oil companies, it is right for the Government to establish conditions for a fairer market. We need a fuel rebate so that when the oil price falls, big companies face a choice: either they cut prices, or the Government will impose a windfall tax on profits, and use the money to cut petrol prices anyway. That would be the solution to the great British petrol rip-off. Instead of the oil companies having us over an oil barrel, it would make them honest, and stop them profiteering at the expense of small businesses and families on the breadline.
Secondly, we must commit to no more petrol tax rises in this Parliament. The Government are pro-business and pro-growth, and have already given a commitment to scrap the fuel duty escalator, which was pushing up prices above inflation. The Chancellor has delayed inflationary rises by a year for the next two years, but will the Government go further, and consider abolishing even the inflationary rises?
Thirdly, we must establish a commission to look at radical ideas, and other ways for the Government to raise revenue, and to address the unfairness of UK fuel duty being so out of line with the rest of Europe. We must consider more toll roads in exchange for significant cuts in fuel duty, and how a fuel price stabiliser could work.
In conclusion, we need fair fuel reform with a fair fuel rebate to push prices down, no new taxes during this Parliament, and a commission to look at radical ideas to get petrol taxes down to the European average in the longer term. The 37,000 motorists in Harlow and the 34 million vehicle owners in the UK are being fleeced. For the sake of future growth and jobs in our economy, we urgently need reform.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate—Harlow is a place I know well as I used to work there many years ago. He is one of a number of MPs who represent their constituents well by talking to the Government and Ministers about the concerning cost of fuel, and about how that is impacting on the ability of businesses across Britain to employ people, and on families and household finances.
In the short amount of time available, I would like to say why the Government agree that the cost of fuel is a concern, and mention some of the actions that we have taken to try to address that. I will then say a little about some of the things that we think need to happen during the rest of this Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
Does the Minister, or her Department, have any suspicion that high oil prices are the revenge of oil companies for the £2 billion that the Chancellor raised in the Budget through the North sea tax, which also threatens perhaps 15,000 jobs? Oil companies are losing money to the Government in one way, and are penalising consumers and people up and down the country.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the price of oil is a spot price driven by commodity markets. We are talking about a part of the industry that is different from the area in which we chose to raise tax. We are working with industry to ensure that we mitigate any risk of a lessening of investment in the North sea as a result of that tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, we needed to strike a balance to take into account the overall effect of high oil prices as they fed through into the broader economy in petrol prices and energy prices more generally.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. It showed clearly that, although the Exchequer has some growing tax receipts, the dampening effect of the rest of the economy is also significant. We felt that although there was an overall impact on the economy, one sector—the oil companies—was doing much better from a high oil price. It seemed fair and sensible to look at how we could balance some of the value that was being generated by the high oil price, and to create a fairer split between oil companies and those motorists and businesses that bear the brunt of the prices at the pump. We are working hard with industry to mitigate the impact of our policy on investment—the impact was analysed as being small by industry observers such as Wood Mackenzie. This is an important debate, and the Government recognise that motoring is an essential part of life for households and businesses. Fuel costs affect us all, and as the price of petrol continues to rise, those costs have become an evermore significant part of everyday life for people and companies. We were keen to look at what could be done.
The previous Government left us facing the introduction of a fuel escalator from the 2009 Budget that would have involved seven fuel duty increases. I realise that in this half-hour debate, only a Government Minister gets the chance to respond to the Member who secured it, but I am disappointed that a shadow Minister is not present to listen to some of the concerns raised. One of our biggest challenges concerned how to deal with the proposed above-inflation increase in fuel duty. That increase could have resulted in average prices at the pump being 6p per litre higher than they are currently. We would have seen above-inflation rises in 2012, 2013 and 2014. When we took office, no plan was in place to support motorists, and within the huge financial constraints in which we found ourselves, and with little room for manoeuvre, we had to see what we could do to address such an important issue.
Mr Russell Brown
I am sure that my colleagues will read Hansard tomorrow to see exactly what has been said. The Government inherited potential increases in fuel duty and the Chancellor has done the right thing by removing the fuel duty escalator, just as the previous Labour Government did. We also froze proposed increases in fuel duty on 11 occasions because of the increase in the price of crude oil.
Justine Greening
What was missing, however, was any kind of long-term plan for how to deal with changes in the price of oil feeding through to the pump. We wanted to look at how a stabiliser mechanism would work, which we felt would be in the interests of households, companies and the overall economy.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to the Minister and, like other hon. Members, I am grateful for the actions that the Government have already taken. One issue that has been raised by Back Benchers from all parties concerns differential pricing around the country. There are sharp differentials—a difference of about 5p between petrol prices in Worcester and those 20 miles away in Cheltenham. Will the Minister comment on how the Government could address that issue and increase transparency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has urged?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. In a sense, the most extreme examples of that problem are the reason why we are bringing in a pilot scheme for the rural fuel rebate. We are making progress on that.
Mr MacNeil
When might we see that welcome rural fuel rebate and rural fuel derogation? We have been calling for such a measure for years, and although we welcome the progress made, we would like to have a date fairly soon.
Justine Greening
I say, “Me too” to that. We are working with the European Commission, and once we have clearance, we will get on with the pilots as soon as possible. We are keen to make progress on the issue, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working and making our case in Europe. We must get agreement from the Commission, and unanimous agreement from European Finance Ministers. Once we have that agreement, we will be pushing on with the pilot schemes.
Andrew Percy
If we left the European Union, we would not need that permission—that is a debate for another day. I have some concerns about the rural fuel derogation applying in some areas but not in others. Rural areas such as my constituency have a low-wage economy. We have poor bus services and high toll-bridge costs—I know the Minister is committed to doing something about that, which is pleasing. A rebate should not apply to one rural area but not to others; we should be careful about doing that.
Justine Greening
We need to help families across the board. That is one reason why raising the personal tax allowance was critical—in any other Budget that measure would have got a huge amount of attention, but perhaps because of the other things we did, it got less consideration. The provision will benefit the lowest paid workers, and this year’s rise in allowance, together with that of next year as announced in the Budget, will take 1.1 million people out of paying income tax altogether. We are right to have a targeted package to help motorists, and we know how important that is. We are also right to make progress on our commitment to increase the personal allowance. Such a measure will help many of those who feel the pinch most when the cost of living goes up.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am meeting hauliers next week and I speak on behalf of many people. Does the Minister have a message of hope for all motorists and hauliers in particular?
Justine Greening
We scrapped the fuel tax escalator and we understand how motoring impacts on the broader economy. Prior to the Budget, I was keen to meet groups such as FairFuelUK and motoring stakeholders. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to do what I can to stay close to the industry, and I will work with my hon. Friends in the Department for Transport to look at an overall approach that will support our economy as well as supporting hauliers, motorists and businesses.
Queen Victoria School, Dunblane (Military Covenant)
(12 years, 11 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
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. I am delighted that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) is present to take part in it, not least because he grew up in the town in which Queen Victoria school is situated. I am also delighted to have been offered the opportunity to introduce this short debate on Queen Victoria school, Dunblane, and its contribution to the military covenant.
As far as I have been able to trace, this is the first time that there has been a specific debate on Queen Victoria school, even though it has been in existence since it opened in 1908. It is therefore worth highlighting for the record the reasons for its foundation, the original aims of the school, why it was an early manifestation of what we now call the military covenant and why it deserves to continue making its unique contribution.
Built through subscriptions from serving personnel and other interested parties, Queen Victoria school was created in memory of those who had died in the South African wars of the late 19th century. At that time, it was for boys only. It was opened on 28 September 1908 by King Edward VII. At that time, he also laid the foundation stone for the school chapel, which was completed in 1910 and is Scotland’s memorial to Queen Victoria. Various buildings have been added over the years, including the Macmillan sports hall to mark 50 years of the school’s existence. Other changes included the admission of girls in 1996 and the move to a staff comprised almost entirely of civilians.
The school has always been under the control of the Ministry of Defence in its various manifestations; in fact, the school was administered originally under the auspices of the Department of War. The school was established under royal warrant. The situation was unique. The warrant was initiated by Queen Victoria but enacted by her son, King Edward VII, who signed it in 1908.
The warrant is interestingly worded. It says that the Department of War shall take over the said buildings—those that had been built by subscription—
“to uphold the same in proper condition and repair, and to efficiently maintain therein a School as aforesaid…under the name and title of the Queen Victoria School for the Sons of Scottish Sailors and Soldiers; As also out of funds to be voted in Parliament to meet and defray the whole cost of such maintenance, and all rates, taxes, feu-duties…and other annual and other outgoings in respect thereof”.
The warrant also states that the then Secretary of State—in continuum, I suppose, through to the current one—
“further undertakes for himself… that the Said School and Chapel shall be maintained in perpetuity as a Scottish School in Scotland for the Sons of Scottish Sailors and Soldiers, that it shall be so maintained, managed, and administered on the lines indicated in a Royal Warrant which His Majesty is to be asked graciously to grant”.
I am sure that the Minister has looked over the royal warrant. It is an impressive piece of drafting, which is designed to make the warrant watertight against the exigencies of future pressures, whether financial or otherwise. I can imagine that at more than one point in the school’s history, the warrant has been pored over with great precision by MOD lawyers to try to discover whether there is a get-out clause.
The school was established to educate children of “other ranks”—in other words, not the children of officers. For most of its history, that has essentially been the pool of children from which pupils have been drawn. There are pupils whose parents are or may be officers, but for the most part, those parents have come through the ranks. From the outside, with its large campus, playing fields and, dare I say it, the somewhat Victorian if not slightly gothic look of some of the older buildings—I am sure that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire recognises that description—it looks like any other private boarding school, yet it is unique.
When the school was established, and through the greater part of its history, it would have offered pupils a very different experience from what is gained there now. From my observations of that history, there is no doubt that there was an emphasis on training the boys—only boys at that time—of soldiers and sailors to follow in their fathers’ footsteps. For reasons that were prevalent at the time, and perhaps things that we do not quite understand now, it was not considered particularly important to open out options, particularly academic options, for those boys. The education would undoubtedly have been based on the model of the day: a strong emphasis on discipline—probably a harsh discipline—and on training and drill; and strong encouragement to follow dad into the Army or Navy.
The governance of the school is undertaken by Her Majesty’s commissioners, with the current and long-standing patron being the Duke of Edinburgh. A comparison between the list of commissioners of only 30-odd years ago and those of today is informative. It gives an immediate impression of how the school has developed and now takes more account of modern educational and pastoral practice. A glance at the list of commissioners in 1974, for example, would, I think, cause us some concern in today’s world. There is General Sir Philip, Admiral Sir Angus, General Sir Gordon, Air Marshal Sir Brian, Air Vice-Marshal A.—whoever A. is—a Major-General, a Lieutenant-General and a Vice-Admiral Sir. There is not a woman in sight until we get to the name of the residential school nurse. The ultimate authority at that time was not a head teacher, but a commandant, who was a retired brigadier. I am sure that they were all good men—I certainly do not wish to impugn the character of any of those who were commissioners at the time—but I suspect that they were drawn from a very elite pool and had very little if any educational experience apart from that of their own school days.
That contrasts with today’s commissioners. The chairman, Bart McGettrick, is an eminent educationist with a national and international reputation. The commissioners, although still with their quota of military personnel as dictated by the original warrant, are drawn from a wider pool, including a Scottish woman sheriff who has extensive expertise in child care matters, and a local chartered accountant who lives in Dunblane, Mr Alan Plumtree.
The school also has links to the Stirling state network and the wider Scottish independent school network. Those links have been developed during the past 14 years or so and bring to the school a wider ambit of educational experience. Although no Stirling head teacher is currently serving as a commissioner, there was one until recently. I trust that that important connection with both the mainstream state sector and the local educational sector will not be lost in future commissioner appointments.
However, I wish to highlight the contribution of Queen Victoria school to the modern military covenant. I want to test the Minister on one or two points to ensure not only that he currently values its contribution, but that the MOD takes seriously the commitment made in 1908 of support “in perpetuity”.
Although QVS has changed over its 103 years, it still provides stability and continuity of education within the Scottish system for the children of armed forces personnel who are Scottish, have served in Scotland or are part of a Scottish regiment. That means that the pupils’ parents can be in the Scottish regiments. Indeed, I know from my own experience that there are young Fijian children at the school, as well as children whose parents have volunteered for the Scottish regiments.
Sadly, the school is still needed in the same way it ever was. Although there are fewer orphans at the school nowadays, about 50% of the children were orphans at one point, because they had priority in the admissions process. Improved medical techniques mean that there are far more survivors of military conflicts, but some parents who return will be seriously disabled, and children of such battlefield survivors are coming before the QVS admissions board. In August, there will be at least one new pupil whose father is an amputee from a current conflict.
Unquestionably, many QVS families—probably the majority—could not afford boarding education for their children, even if they were in receipt of the continuity of education allowance. The MOD is tightening the CEA eligibility criteria, but even those who are still eligible will have to pay about 10% of their fees, as well as the extras levied by fee-paying schools. Such things would be beyond the means of most families with children at QVS. Even under the rumoured plans for more static Army, Air Force and Royal Navy units, there will still be some need for mobility, and that will not be limited to those—mainly officers—who can afford boarding with the help of the CEA.
There is also a sound educational justification for the MOD to maintain its commitment to QVS. A recent Ofsted report on the education of children of military families clearly identified the fact that there were significant issues with the quality of the educational experience of children whose parents were mobile or on active deployment. It noted:
“A key feature of life in the Armed Forces is that families are likely to move home, to different parts of the UK and abroad, on a regular basis. The number of moves will be dependent on the length of service of the serving parent and their role within the Armed Forces… However…parents invariably identified the disruption, caused by their geographical mobility, as beingj the biggest challenge faced by themselves and their children. Disruption is further exacerbated for children in these families as they had to change schools generally outside of normal school term dates”,
which adds to their difficulties.
Those are the very children QVS caters for, and the constantly improving educational achievement at the school is testimony to what it does. The exam results at QVS are above the Scottish average at O-grade and higher levels. The increasing ambitions of the children and their parents are being realised. On visits to the school over the past few years, I have seen that the young people leaving the school are going to university and college in greater numbers than ever before—something that I did not see when I became the MP for the area some years ago.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the excellence of the debate. I lived in Dunblane all my formative years and saw the superb education provided at Queen Victoria school. I entirely take her point about children of military families moving around. Does she agree that it is extremely disappointing that we have a Queen Victoria school in Scotland but no equivalent in England? Is it not time that we had one down here, too?
Mrs McGuire
The Minister might be venturing a step too far if he answers that at this point, but the MOD should perhaps take the QVS model slightly more seriously, particularly in some of the discussions it is having about the continuity of education allowance, because there are perhaps some options there.
I have some brief questions for the Minister. Given the importance of the military covenant, will he make it clear that his Department recognises the contribution of QVS and does not see it as some anachronism from a bygone age? I use the word “anachronism” because it was used in a report by the Select Committee on Defence four or five years ago, although the Committee also recognised the importance of maintaining the school.
Does the Minister recognise that mobile service personnel who cannot afford to access the continuity of education allowance should have their children’s needs supported and that QVS offers a valuable resource to meet those needs? I am sure the Minister has heard the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on the issue.
Will the Minister encourage his officials to work with the commissioners to look at options to expand the facilities at QVS and to use them and the school’s expertise to the benefit of a greater number of the children of mobile service personnel, giving them the opportunity to benefit from the stability and pastoral care offered by the school?
Next week, we will have armed forces day. On 24 June, QVS will have its grand day—a mixture of school prize-giving and end-of-term celebration. I hope that the Minister, before he perhaps moves on to higher offices in another Department—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Or gets sacked.
Mrs McGuire
I would never use that word to a Minister. However, I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to come to the school to see its grand day. It is a fantastic celebration of the school, and I have been privileged to be present at it for the past 14 years. In front of their parents and families, the students parade in their Victorian scarlet uniforms and kilts to the beat of their own superb, internationally recognised pipe band. It is a day of high celebration and some emotion, as the sixth-year pupils leave the school for the last time. Grand day is a public statement of this country’s support for these children, who allow us—the civilian population—to borrow their parents to protect our freedoms. Thankfully, most of the families will be reunited in safety. Sadly, some parents will not return, while others will be disabled for life.
I do not wish to see the school preserved in aspic. There are still ways in which it can develop its educational and pastoral potential, and I am obviously happy to discuss my views with the Minister on a future occasion. However, I want to leave him with some words from one of the pupils, which perhaps sum up why a facility such as QVS is so important to the children who attend it:
“Here are some numbers. The first is nine. Nine is the number of times my life has been loaded onto a lorry and taken miles away, sometimes across one border, sometimes across several. The next number is seven. Seven is the number of times I’ve had said to me, ‘So how was your first day?’”
That is why there is a continuing role for QVS and an opportunity to see it expand as part of the Government’s valuable commitment to the military covenant.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) on securing this short debate to highlight the work of Queen Victoria school in Dunblane. She takes a close interest in the school and has presented prizes there—perhaps she will do so on grand day on 24 June. I congratulate her on her obvious passion and support for the school.
The school has a long and proud history, which the right hon. Lady detailed. Its work chimes well with the Government’s commitment to our armed forces and their families, which is part of the armed forces covenant. The right hon. Lady’s first question was whether the Government recognise the value of QVS and, anachronistic or not—the school is rather unusual—we certainly value its work. I will discuss that further later in my speech.
The history of QVS is unique, although there are similar, but different schools in England. As the right hon. Lady said, the school was founded in 1905 by royal warrant. I was not going to mention the “in perpetuity” bit, but, unfortunately, she has already mentioned it. The school was originally founded by public subscription, but the Secretary of State for War undertook to maintain it for the sons of Scottish sailors and soldiers. Those responsibilities are now vested in my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence. Responsibility for its day-to-day governance rests with the board of commissioners, and the right hon. Lady has told us who they are. I was glad that she did not want to attack the senior and distinguished commissioners from 1974. The commissioners report to the Adjutant-General on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Since 1908, the opportunity has been taken to widen and modernise the remit of the school, while staying in the spirit of its founding constitution. In 1919, just after the Royal Air Force was formed, the school was opened to children of RAF personnel. It became co-educational in 1996, when entry was extended to daughters of service personnel, and, as the right hon. Lady said, it accepted the children of officers in 1999. Its basic purpose remains consistent with the aims of those who contributed so generously to its establishment: to provide secondary boarding education for the children of Scottish personnel and personnel who have served in Scotland or are part of a Scottish regiment. Although parents are not charged fees, they make a modest contribution to ancillary costs, which is slightly more than £1,000 a year.
The two elements of the school—the fact that it is Scottish and for the services—have combined to give it the very special ethos and nature that makes it unique in the UK. As well as providing a sound academic education, the school offers its pupils the opportunity to participate in various Scottish activities, including Scottish dance and performing in a pipe band. I was in an English regiment in the Army, but the one thing that would have persuaded me to join a Scottish regiment was not so much the kilts—my legs notwithstanding—but the fact that I love marching to a pipe band. I am glad to know that that activity continues in Dunblane.
It is in understanding and meeting the specific needs of service children that QVS is most special. The recent Ofsted report on children in service families, which covered England and Wales but contains lessons equally applicable to all our service families, found that some service children’s learning slowed or receded with the frequent moves that service life requires. It should be pointed out though that that does not feed through to attainment and there is no evidence of underachievement. Indeed, in the paper, “The Armed Forces Covenant, Today and Tomorrow”, the Department for Education states that in England attainment in exams for service children is not below average. It also demonstrates that at some stages of their education, service children have better attainment than their non-service counterparts.
QVS offers full continuity of secondary education for the children who attend and most importantly it offers it in a secure and safe environment that recognises and understands the special pressures on children that their parents’ life in the services can bring. The disruption caused by service life can be worsened when parents are deployed on active service, and the operational tempo has remained high for over a decade. The Ofsted report to which I referred found that some service children were susceptible to social and emotional disturbance when a parent or family member was on active deployment. Those pressures are especially well understood and catered for in a school where the staff are alert for their signs and where pupils can understand and share one another’s concerns.
Over the years, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of education and the Care Commission, which inspect Scottish schools, have commented favourably on the supportive environment that QVS offers to service children. The school plays a valuable part in supporting elements of the armed forces covenant in Scotland, which provides an answer to another of the right hon. Lady’s questions. Against that background, the Ministry of Defence has continued to provide for the needs of the school. As well as financing its running directly, much support is provided by the local military. Headquarters 2 division, based in Edinburgh, offers practical help in a number of ways, such as security and transport.
The school has concerns about the state of its buildings, and it is not unique in that. The pressure on the estate, which has to support the wide range of activities for which the MOD is responsible, is unrelenting, and when distributing limited resources, the needs of the school, however worthy, must be balanced against other operational and welfare priorities for our people and the wider needs of defence. The fact that some of its rather beautiful buildings are listed adds to the attractiveness of the school, but also to the costs of maintaining it. Within that difficult environment, I am pleased to say that QVS has seen some £2 million-worth of refurbishment, improvement and maintenance works over the past couple of years, including the replacement of a significant number of windows within the grade II listed main school building.
I am aware however that not all the perceived needs and aspirations of the school have necessarily been addressed. Therefore MOD officials, some of whom serve as commissioners, are working closely with the school and the whole board of commissioners to develop a strategic plan, not just to preserve the achievements of the school, but to improve on them. That will include identifying the investment required in the infrastructure, but it is by no means confined to that. For example, with Her Majesty’s commissioners we are exploring closer integration with Service Children’s Education, which provides education for service children overseas. I am not suggesting that Scotland is overseas, because I know that doing so would get the right hon. Lady going, but there is a certain synergy in the provision of education. The school is unique, and it might be better dealt with by the SCE because it deals specifically with the education of service children.
Mrs McGuire
Does that mean that some of the criteria I highlighted would be lost? I appreciate that the Minister is looking at administrative ease, but the mobile service personnel element and the particular and unique support that QVS gives could be lost if it is absorbed into something that does not quite fit. He has just revealed this idea, and I am interested in the option.
Mr Robathan
The right hon. Lady asks a very good question. We are examining the possibility, but it is not the intention to slot the school into a neat package. It is about where it would be best administrated and this is an administrative matter. I can already see that if we were to undermine the school, she would be back like a shot to ensure that did not happen.
Closer integration with the SCE could help to provide greater specialist support to QVS and greater integration with other service schools overseas, which some of the children will have been to already. Against the severe financial constraints we inherited, within which the MOD and the rest of Government are working, it is extremely challenging to increase the resources devoted to the school, notwithstanding the benefits it brings—and it does bring benefits—and the underpinning it provides in Scotland to our commitments under the armed forces covenant. Like everything else in our budget, it must compete with other extremely high priorities, but we are committed to working with the school and its commissioners to identify the most beneficial and cost-effective way forward through the development of a medium-term strategic plan.
The right hon. Lady particularly asked whether it was possible to expand the school, which is one of the things at which we will certainly look. It is not cost-free and we are strapped for cash, but if children go there rather than to other independent schools, where the continuity of education allowance has to be paid, it could be cheaper. I understand the value of QVS to those who are not in receipt of CEA, because it provides a different way forward for schooling.
Finally, we have delivered a scheme to provide scholarships to bereaved service children and a new fund announced by the Secretary of State on 20 May provides £3 million a year for state schools with service children. The new fund will assist schools and academies that have children with parents in the services or the reserves, to help mitigate the impact of mobility and deployment within the armed forces.
Before I close, I want to say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic. I was interested in what the right hon. Lady had to say. I have not been to Dunblane, but QVS is obviously very good. I will correct one thing that she said: approximately 50% of CEA is paid to officers’ families and 50% is paid to others—I think that is right. If I am wrong, I shall write to her to apologise. I think that 50% is within 5% of the right figure, but of course it changes each year.
It is always nice to hear a Labour politician praising an independent school. It cheers me up no end, because we do not always hear it. I assure the House that the education of service children, wherever they learn—in state schools in this country, in service schools abroad, in independent schools supported by CEA and certainly at QVS—is one of our highest priorities. I went to Welbeck defence sixth-form college only two weeks ago and have been to the Duke of York’s royal military school in Dover, which are of course different from QVS, but I take an interest in this subject. I have been delighted to respond to the right hon. Lady today.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN (20 June 2011)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Luxembourg on 20 June 2011. The following items are on the agenda:
Legislative proposals on economic governance
Given the Hungarian presidency’s aim of reaching agreement on the economic governance legislative package before the end of June, they have scheduled an informal ECOFIN dinner for 14 June in Brussels, which the Financial Secretary will attend. Trialogues with the European Parliament (EP) are ongoing on an almost daily basis, and the presidency is keen to get Finance Ministers’ support for an updated general approach on the six legislative proposals. Negotiations with the Parliament will then continue, with the aim of agreeing the final compromise package at the 20 June ECOFIN.
Greater economic stability within the euro area is firmly in the UK’s interests, and the Government broadly support this legislation; it should be noted that the UK’s partial opt-out from the fiscal frameworks directive remains protected. The EP is attempting to secure: a greater role in economic surveillance including through public debates and hearings with member states; a stronger role in setting the scoreboard of indicators for macro-economic imbalances; and to introduce reverse qualified majority voting more widely. It will be important to ensure that the presidency maintains a firm line in negotiations with the Parliament given that, under the treaty, the EP has a limited formal role in fiscal and macro-economic surveillance.
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank (EIB) against losses under loans and guarantees for projects outside the EU
The presidency will report back on trialogues with the European Parliament, and seek Council agreement to adopt a new EIB external lending mandate as part of the mandate’s mid-term review. The Government will work to ensure that the EIB’s external lending is allocated appropriately.
Directive on Deposit Guarantee Schemes
This directive is a revision of the 1994 EU rules on deposit guarantee schemes, in order to improve depositors’ confidence and promote financial stability. The new rules are designed to ensure sound, effective deposit guarantee schemes across the EU and EEA. The Government broadly support the directive, and will seek to ensure that it meets its aims of improving depositor confidence and providing a level playing field for depositors without imposing unreasonable costs on the industry.
Regulation on over-the-counter derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR)
The Commission issued legislative proposals in September to implement G20 commitments on the regulation of derivatives markets, and the presidency will aim to agree a general approach at this ECOFIN. The Government welcome these measures to increase transparency and reduce systemic risk in derivatives markets, and believe that this must be done in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way, in line with the G20 commitments and with the agreement on the establishment of the European supervisory authorities last year.
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros
The UK supports the proposed regulation, which will facilitate the creation of a single market for electronic payments in euros.
European Banking Authority stress testing
This item will be an orientation debate on how to communicate the results of the European Banking Authority (EBA) stress tests, which are due to be published in the first half of July. Finance Ministers are also likely to discuss how to link the results to the backstops measures put in place by member states to address potential vulnerabilities in their banking systems. The Government believe that it is important to increase confidence in the European banking system through the implementation of coherent and transparent measures to address any vulnerabilities. It is also important to demonstrate the EU’s commitment to medium-term reforms, as agreed internationally, by implementing Basel III in full.
European Semester
ECOFIN will agree country-specific opinions and recommendations (CSRs) on member states’ fiscal and structural reform policy, under the EU’s stability and growth pact (SGP) and Europe 2020 strategy. Member states are expected to take these CSRs into account when preparing their budgets and structural reform plans for the year ahead. The European Commission’s proposed recommendations to the UK are supportive of the Government’s fiscal plans, and the Commission urges the Government to proceed as planned with implementing fiscal consolidation. Other recommendations focus on the housing market, tackling youth unemployment, addressing the proportion of people in jobless households, and improving access to finance for SMEs. The Government will negotiate the precise drafting of these recommendations in the lead-up to ECOFIN. The recommendations will then be formally adopted by the European Council on 24 June as Council recommendations.
Quality management for European statistics
Finance Ministers will agree conclusions on ensuring the quality of public finance statistics in the EU. The Government support the principles of this proposal, and will work to ensure that the approach to implementation allows proper usage of the relevant statutory bodies’ existing responsibilities.
Code of Conduct (business taxation)
ECOFIN will agree conclusions on the work of the code of conduct group over the last six months. The code of conduct is an EU-level political agreement between member states to work co-operatively to identify and eliminate harmful business tax measures in the EU and prevent the introduction of new ones. The code group’s report is a standing ECOFIN agenda item at the end of each presidency, and the conclusions follow standard wording.
IMF (Increase in Subscription)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Yesterday, the Government laid the International Monetary Fund (Increase in Subscription) Order 2011 before the House of Commons in draft. Copies of resolution 66-2 of the board of governors of the fund, which relate to this order, have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Business Rates (Ports)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
From day one, the coalition Government have been committed to finding a solution to the “ports tax”—the unfair backdated rates bills incurred by some businesses (including many located within ports) across England following alterations proposed in 2008.
This coalition Government recognised that the backdated “port taxes” threatened the viability of Britain’s export industry, with many firms facing hefty retrospective bills that they could not reasonably have planned for, or expected, and which threatened the solvency of some businesses.
That is why, despite the financial situation that we inherited, we have honoured our commitment to find a permanent solution to the problem and are proud that our actions will protect jobs and support economic growth.
We have already taken the first sensible step of introducing a moratorium on the repayment of certain backdated liabilities, and, subject to parliamentary approval of the Localism Bill, and once the necessary legislation is in place, eligible businesses will finally be able to have this debt dealt with appropriately—by having it cancelled.
The regulations to be made under the Localism Bill will cancel the backdated business rates liabilities of those businesses that were hit with unexpected and significant backdated rates after their property was split from another property for rating purposes. The regulations will apply to all eligible businesses across England faced with a similar backdated rates liability and not just businesses within ports.
Today I am placing a copy of the draft guidance and regulations in the Library of the House before it is released to interested parties. The publication of this guidance note in draft form is intended to give authorities and interested parties the opportunity to make any comments or ask questions on the process, the draft regulations and the examples, to ensure that the final versions will enable local authorities to fully implement the cancellation policy.
Leasehold Value Limits
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I have today published a consultation paper containing proposals for updating the property value limits which are used to determine whether certain rights are available to residential long leaseholders. These are rights for such leaseholders to remain in their properties as assured tenants when their lease comes to an end, to extend the lease of their leasehold house or to purchase the freehold of a leasehold house (enfranchise) on particular terms.
One qualifying condition for these rights is that the property should fall within a certain value limit. These limits were last updated in April 1990. We are now proposing that they should be updated again so that these rights are not taken away from residential long leaseholders through the effects of property price inflation.
This is part of our wider desire to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between the rights of freeholders and leaseholders.
The online consultation seeks views on the proposals and will run for 12 weeks until 12 September 2011. The Government would welcome responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals.
A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.
Waste Review
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I am today publishing the findings of the Government’s review of waste policies in England 2011.
The review has looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England to ensure that we are taking the necessary steps towards creating a “zero-waste” economy, where resources are fully valued, and nothing of value gets thrown away. I am grateful to all those who took their time to respond to our call for evidence, or with whom we have discussed ideas.
Ensuring that we manage our material resources and waste as sustainably as possible is central to protection of our natural environment and a range of related priorities including material security, energy policy, climate change, and creation of a green economy.
The waste review includes a range of commitments designed to move waste more quickly up the waste hierarchy, away from disposal in landfill, with waste prevention a priority, followed by reuse, recycling and recovery.
The review concludes that preventing waste wherever possible can deliver the best environmental and economic outcomes. The Government will work with business sectors and the waste and material resources industry to develop voluntary approaches to cutting waste and increase recycling. We will also consult on banning wood waste from landfill and assess whether further bans may be appropriate in the future.
In order to improve the service to householders and businesses we will:
Encourage councils to sign a new recycling and waste services commitment, setting out the principles they will follow in delivering local waste services;
Protect civil liberties by decriminalising trivial household bin offences, while ensuring that stronger powers exist to tackle those responsible for fly-tipping and serious waste crime;
Support initiatives which reward and recognise people who do the right thing to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste;
Support councils and the waste industry in improving the collection of waste from smaller businesses;
Reduce the burden of regulation and enforcement on legitimate business, but target those who persistently break the law.
Alongside the waste review, I am also publishing an anaerobic digestion strategy. The coalition Government are committed to being the “Greenest Government ever” and achieving that will in part mean substantially increasing energy from waste through anaerobic digestion (AD).
This offers a local, environmentally sound option for waste management which helps us divert waste from landfill, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and produce renewable energy which could be used to power our homes and vehicles. Farmers and gardeners can also benefit from the fertiliser produced, returning valuable nutrients to the land.
There are many different technologies available that can process waste and each may have a role to play, given the variety of waste arising and local situations. AD is the technology on which we are focusing in the strategy and action plan but we are also looking at how other technologies can also contribute to providing renewable gas. We do recognise that there are significant barriers that must first be overcome. During the past six months, we have been working closely with industry to identify the key barriers to uptake and to agree an ambitious programme of work to help overcome them.
This strategy and action plan are the result of this work. Each action has a named lead organisation and all have committed to drive the work forward. Changes cannot be delivered overnight, and the action plan may well need to be modified by experience, but this plan is the first and key step to enabling a thriving AD industry to grow in England over the next few years, delivering new green jobs as well as new green energy.
The waste review and anaerobic digestion strategy are both available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/ and in the Libraries of both Houses.
NHS Future Forum
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
As I informed the House on 7 June, the listening and engagement in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill and related issues has been very successful. The NHS Future Forum has now reported to the Government.
I am today publishing a list of the key changes the Government intend to make as a result of the NHS Future Forum’s report. Some, but not all, of these changes require amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill.
These changes follow the Government’s decision on 6 April to take advantage of a natural break in the legislative process to pause, listen and reflect on the national health service modernisation plans and to make any necessary improvements to the Health and Social Care Bill. The NHS Future Forum, a group of 45 senior professionals from across health and social care, was established to help drive an intensive eight-week period of engagement, beginning on 6 April and ending on 31 May.
Members of the NHS Future Forum attended around 250 events and heard opinions on the Government’s plans for modernisation from over 8,000 people, including some 250 stakeholder organisations. Following a period of reflection, the Future Forum yesterday published their report; a copy of this has already been placed in the Library.
The Future Forum confirmed that the principles underpinning our plans for modernisation are the right ones, but also set out where we could make improvements, for patients and the NHS.
The Government have accepted the core recommendations of the report from the NHS Future Forum and will now make improvements to their modernisation plans. A document listing these improvements has been placed in the Library and we will provide more detail on exactly how we plan to implement these changes, including amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, shortly.
The fundamental principles of our plans remain the same as those we set out in our White Paper, “Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS”. The Government are committed to creating a modernised NHS that achieves among the best health care outcomes in the world. Our proposals are rooted in the principles of empowering, focusing on health care outcomes and quality, and giving front-line professionals more capacity to design and deliver services around the needs and expectations of patients.
The Government remain firmly committed to the ideals of the NHS—a comprehensive health service, funded from general taxation, based on need and not ability to pay.
I would like to give my thanks to all of the Future Forum’s members and to its chair, Professor Steve Field, for their work, as well as those who contributed to the engagement exercise. I have asked the Future Forum to continue to advise on the way that our proposals are developed and put into practice.
In order to ensure that Parliament is given sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s proposed changes, I can confirm that our intention is to recommit the relevant parts of the Health and Social Care Bill to a Public Bill Committee. Exact details will be announced in due course.
Sexual Offences Act 2003
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
The Home Office is today introducing a proposal for a draft remedial order, The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2011, to rectify the legislative incompatibility identified by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of F and Angus Aubrey Thompson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17. In this case, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of notification requirements for an indefinite period under section 82(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We are also launching today a targeted eight-week consultation on four key proposals to strengthen the existing notification requirements for sex offenders and further enhance our ability to manage registered sex offenders in the community: “Reforming the Notification Requirements of Registered Sex Offenders (Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003): A Targeted Consultation”.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2011 will give offenders a right to seek a review of their indefinite notification requirements once they have completed a fixed period of time subject to those requirements (15 years from the point of first notification following release from custody for adults and 8 years for juveniles). The review will be carried out by the police and will take into account a range of factors, including any information provided from agencies which operate within the multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) framework. It is our view that these measures provide a proportionate response to the Supreme Court ruling, ensuring that there is a robust and individual assessment of risk before an offender is considered for removal from the notification requirements. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life, if necessary.
Protecting the public is a priority and to this end, the Home Office continues to engage with public protection agencies to ensure that the risk posed to the public by sexual offenders is managed effectively. The consultation launched today by the Home Office seeks views on four key proposals for widening the type of notification requirements which can be imposed on sex offenders. These proposals include requiring an offender, subject to the notification requirements under section 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to: notify the police of all foreign travel (including travel outside of the UK of less than three days); notify weekly where they are registered as having “no fixed abode” (i.e. where a registered sex offender has no sole or main residence and instead must notify the police of the place where he can regularly be found); notify where they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18; notify passport, bank account and credit card details and to provide identification at each notification to tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer seek to avoid being on the register when they change their name (including by deed poll). Following the outcome of the consultation, the Home Office will seek to implement these amendments by December 2011.
The final impact assessment for these proposals can be found on the Home Office website.
Coroner Reform
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Further to the ministerial statements on 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 37WS and 19 May 2011, Official Report, column 38WS, I am today announcing the detail of our plans for coroner reform without proceeding with the Office of the Chief Coroner. This statement sets out the functions which the Government propose to transfer from the Office of Chief Coroner to the Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice. It also sets out proposals for a ministerial board to oversee the non-judicial aspects of the service provided in England and Wales.
It is my intention that the Office of Chief Coroner be listed in schedule 5—Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices of the Public Bodies Bill which will allow for the transfer of certain of the chief coroner’s statutory functions without the abolition of the Office of Chief Coroner. This takes into account concerns expressed by stakeholders and Members of another place about the abolition of the office. The transfer of functions is, of course, subject to the outcome of the progress of the Bill through Parliament and a subsequent order to transfer functions made under the Act.
Reallocation of the Statutory Functions of the Chief Coroner
The table below details those statutory functions of the chief coroner, as set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which the Government propose to transfer to either the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor. Where a function is not to be transferred from the chief coroner, this is because it is not possible to implement them in a cost-neutral manner as required in the current economic climate.
Section | Description of Statutory Function of Chief Coroner | Transfer of Function |
|---|---|---|
1,2,3 | Chief coroner to direct a coroner to conduct an investigation. | Lord Chief Justice |
12 & 13 | Chief coroner to notify Lord Advocate that an investigation should take place under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Act 1976. Chief coroner to direct a coroner to conduct an investigation in England or Wales where the body is brought into Scotland. | Lord Chief Justice |
14 | Chief coroner to designate medical practitioners for the purpose of performing post mortems. | Lord Chancellor |
16 | Senior coroner conducting an investigation which is not completed within one year to notify the chief coroner of that fact and notify the chief coroner of the date on which the investigation is completed. Chief coroner to keep a register of notifications given under this section. | Lord Chancellor: function limited to collation of reports and keeping of the register. |
17 | The chief coroner must— Monitor investigations into service deaths. Secure that coroners conducting such investigations are suitably trained to do so. | Provision not to be implemented: training to be dealt with under section 37 (see below) |
18 | Lord Chancellor to consult the chief coroner before making regulations relating to medical practitioner notifications | Lord Chief Justice to be consulted in lieu of the chief coroner |
36 | Chief coroner to report to the Lord Chancellor each year. Coroners to report action to prevent other deaths to the chief coroner. | Requirement for an annual report to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor not to be implemented. Reports from coroners on action to prevent other deaths to be submitted to the Lord Chancellor in lieu of the chief coroner. |
37 | Chief coroner to make regulations on training. | Lord Chief Justice |
40 | Chief coroner to be responsible for a new appeals system. | Not to be implemented |
41 | Investigation to be conducted by the chief coroner, Coroner for Treasure, judge, former judge or former coroner. Chief coroner to request that the Lord Chief Justice appoint a judge or former judge so to act. | Lord Chancellor to request the Lord Chief Justice to appoint a judge. |
42 | Lord Chancellor to issue guidance on the way in which the coroner’s system is to operate in respect of interested persons following consultation with the chief coroner. | Lord Chief Justice to be consulted in lieu of the chief coroner. |
The proposed reallocation of functions has been agreed with the Lord Chief Justice. In practice it is likely that the Lord Chief Justice will delegate the exercise of these functions to another judge. As the functions to be transferred are limited, and the Office of Chief Coroner not filled, neither the judge nor any other individual will be responsible for the leadership, culture or behaviour of coroners. As now, complaints about a coroner’s personal conduct should be made to the Office for Judicial Complaints; all complaints about the administration of the coroner service or the conduct of coroners’ officers should be raised with the relevant coroner or the local authority (if it relates to the service provided).
Proposals for oversight of the non-judicial aspects of the service provided by coroners and how we achieve, maintain and monitor changes to those services in the absence of a chief coroner are set out below.
Non-statutory Reform
Since the parliamentary debate on abolition of the chief coroner during Lords Committee stage of the Public Bodies Bill on 14 December 2010, colleagues and I have had positive discussions with MPs, peers and civil society groups about how best to ensure oversight of the non-judicial services provided by coroners in the absence of a chief coroner. This is necessary because it is not possible to transfer these non-statutory functions formally through the Public Bodies Bill.
These discussions have resulted in a proposal for a ministerial board which would be focused on matters of policy, the standards of service and other administrative aspects of the delivery of the coroner service which are non-judicial in nature. The board would be responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor on his statutory duties and on the setting of priorities for action with regards to policy on coroners at a national level, where these do not impact on judicial independence or judicial matters. It would be advised and supported by a Bereaved Organisations Committee, which would be independently chaired, and represented on the ministerial board. The committee would have a particular remit in monitoring the non-judicial “National Charter for the Coroner Service” which we published for consultation on 19 May 2011.
The ministerial board would be able to look at specific issues that may exist and consider whether there may be appropriate action to address these. In addition, the board would consider national statistics gathered from the coroner service in England and Wales to support the action plan for reform. The routine quarterly publication of progress on inquests of service personnel killed in operations and exercises overseas provides a model for transparency.
This proposal enables representatives of those who use and are affected by the coroner service to give direct feedback to Ministers on the overall administrative standards of service that coroners provide. The terms of reference for the ministerial board will reflect the judicial independence of coroners; the board will have no remit to look at those judicial services delivered by coroners.
Copies of the “Reallocation of Statutory Functions of the chief coroner” table have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the consultation on the national charter were placed there on 19 May.
EU Transport Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I will attend the second Transport Council of the Hungarian presidency which will take place in Luxembourg on 16 June.
The Council will be asked to reach a general approach on a directive which recasts the 2001 first rail package. The 2001 legislation set the initial framework for a single European rail market. The proposal aims to address the fact that the first railway package has not achieved its declared objective of market opening through a number of proposals to improve the transparency of rail market access conditions and access to rail-related services.
Although we support the Commission’s overall aim of clarifying and strengthening the regulatory framework for rail access and recognise the need for some further liberalisation in continental Europe, we have concerns about the investment disincentives and the cost impacts of some of the proposals on the UK. We have negotiated changes which align the text more closely with the arrangements which prevail in the UK, while preserving the proposals for liberalisation in continental Europe. However, there is little in the package which gives the UK any added value over the existing first railway package directive.
The Council will also be asked to reach a general approach on the draft amending regulation 1406/2002, which established the European Maritime Safety Agency. The proposed amendment, while maintaining the agency’s present objectives, gives it several new, largely technical, tasks. While we recognise the importance of the additional tasks, we are opposed to any increase in the budget, unless it is financed through reprioritisation of funds from other areas of the EU budget.
There will be a policy debate on the European Commission’s recent White Paper, “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system”. The broad thrust of the White Paper is in line with the UK’s goal of a transport system that supports economic growth while delivering CO2 reductions. The Council debate will centre on a number of questions put by the presidency. Our position includes a clear request to the Commission that detailed initiatives arising from this general policy framework are feasible and realistic, avoid excessive regulatory burdens on business, and respect the principle of subsidiarity.
The Council will be asked to adopt conclusions on a recent Commission communication, “The way ahead towards integrated and competitive EU inland waterway transport”. The conclusions are acceptable to the UK.
The Council will be asked to adopt a decision on the signing and conclusion of an agreement with the intergovernmental organisation for international carriage by rail on the EU accession to the convention concerning international carriage by rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius protocol of 3 June 1999. The UK can support adoption of the decision.
The Council will be asked to adopt two decisions in the area of aviation external relations.
The first is a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations with Moldova on a comprehensive air transport agreement. A comprehensive air transport agreement will result in the integration of the Moldovan aviation market into the single European market through the convergence of EU aviation regulations, technical assistance and market opening. I will support the decision authorising the opening of negotiations.
The second decision is on the signature of an air transport agreement which has been negotiated with Brazil. This agreement will significantly liberalise the market in air services between the EU and Brazil, providing new opportunities for the aviation industry. I will support the decision and sign the agreement.
Among AOB items, the Commission will be reporting on progress in work on air cargo security. As I did at the March Council, I will reiterate the importance of moving forward quickly with this work.
Also under AOB, the Commission will report on the follow-up to the volcanic ash crisis of 2010, looking at the wider scope of crisis management and EU methodology and on recent developments in implementing the Single European Sky.
House of Lords
Courts: Magistrates’ Courts
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Borrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received about proposals to close a number of magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, public consultation took place last summer on proposals to reform the court estate in England and Wales. More than 2,500 responses were received. The decisions to close 93 magistrates’ courts and 49 county courts were announced last December.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I wonder whether she fully appreciates the value over 600 years of the unpaid magistracy in England and Wales. The closure of many courts is bound to lead to increased costs to parties and to witnesses and to make access to justice more difficult. Might it not be better to enhance magistrates’ courts rather than reduce their significance by, for example, adding other items in the Government's programme, where there should be adequate facilities for pursuing arbitration, consumer complaints, and so on? The policy is leading to increased costs, not reduced costs.
Baroness Northover
I thank the noble Lord for that question, but I think that he is not right. Where courts are located has depended very much on historic chance. As things have changed, as demography has changed, as people have become more mobile, it makes sense to look at where those courts are. Where courts are too close to each other, it makes no sense to have an underutilised facility. Far better, as is planned under this programme, to make sure that we have newer courts which build in the kind of facilities that the noble Lord has just talked about, so that we can improve the estate rather than diminish it. Overall, there are major savings to be had by that, some of which can then be ploughed back into those improved courts.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, has the justice department undertaken an impact assessment on summary justice, particularly when courts are closed or moved to a different location? I declare an interest. I chair a public inquiry on behalf of the Magistrates’ Association on the delivery of local justice. Will the justice department give evidence to that inquiry, with particular reference to closure and its impact on the local justice process?
Baroness Northover
Yes, indeed, economic impact assessments were made in every instance and they were taken very seriously. It is extremely important that we secure access to justice. As for the inquiry to which the noble Lord refers, I will take that back to the Ministry of Justice, but I think it is extremely likely that the ministry will be happy to give evidence. It is extremely important that this is got right and the analysis undertaken of how justice is to be delivered is very reassuring that the programme should improve facilities.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, will the noble Baroness deal with one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that what we ought to be doing is enhancing the work of the magistrates’ courts so far as we can and diverting work from the Crown Court?
Baroness Northover
I have asked whether, if cases were diverted from the Crown Court, this would make any difference to the level of work in the magistrates’ courts and was reassured that that could be accommodated under the new plans. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the utilisation of the courts is not as high as it should be. In many cases the use of the magistrates’ courts is around 64 per cent. This programme brings it up to 75 per cent. It is much easier to focus better facilities in those circumstances.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, will the Minister please inform the House about the extent of the work of the rural proofing team in the Ministry of Justice? Is this team calculating in detail the extra cost to the customer—witnesses, defendants and victims—of accessing justice in centres which are now sometimes 30 or 40 miles away and to which there is usually no public transport? In other words, how do you access justice in rural England when you do not have a car?
Baroness Northover
That very important question was fully looked at in the assessment. At the moment, 90 per cent of people could reach the courts within an hour using public transport. This figure diminishes slightly to 85 per cent. Every case, especially the case of the rural courts, was looked at very closely to see what the impact was, what the demography of the relevant area was, who was likely to, and did, use the courts, and what the impact would be on those people. One survey indicated that only 18 per cent of people using the courts came by public transport. However, that does not mean to say that we should neglect the needs of that 18 per cent.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
We have time for a Member of the Labour Benches and then we had better hear a view from this side.
Lord Clinton-Davis
These proposals coupled with the ferocious attack on legal aid are in my view a false economy. Is it not clear that those who are most vulnerable will indeed pay a very heavy price for this absurd policy?
Baroness Northover
Not surprisingly, I very much disagree. The provision in the courts is woefully inadequate in many cases. The estate needs to be improved in many instances to make adequate provision for victims and witnesses to ensure that they are secure in terms of defendants in custody and to be made accessible to people with disabilities. In many cases—this follows on from the policy of the previous Government—the courts are not in that state. This assists in trying to improve things.
Lord Vinson
My Lords, fortunately, the gist of my question has already been raised. I would like only to reinforce the point that for those living in rural areas the savings gained from any court transfer would throw an extra cost on to those who do not have cars. The time taken to get to the new courts for many people who live in the countryside and do not have cars will impose an enormous burden. I urge the Minister to look at this again very carefully before closing down many of the courts in rural areas.
Baroness Northover
As I mentioned in an earlier answer, that has been given very careful consideration. Each grouping has been looked at individually to see what the impact will be.
Energy: Wind Turbines
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of wind turbines in the United Kingdom currently operational or being built are expected to produce electricity at any one time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, at any one time, most wind turbines in the UK will be producing electricity. There are a number of reasons why a wind turbine might not be generating electricity at a specific time. This, of course, includes maintenance and repairs to the turbines. The generation of electricity from wind farms varies according to the speed of the wind. Average wind speed varies by location and from day to day—and, for that matter, from year to year. The proportion of maximum output that UK wind farms have generated on average is known as the load factor. In 2009, the load factor for onshore wind was 26.9 per cent, and 33.7 per cent for offshore wind. Provisional figures indicate that for 2010 the load factor for onshore wind was just over 20 per cent, and for offshore wind it was around 30 per cent, due to lower wind speeds.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, is my noble friend confident that building wind farms is a good way of spending taxpayers’ money, not only because wind farms’ costs and subsidies are proving to be so enormous, but because claims for their efficiency have proved to be wildly exaggerated? Given that turbine operators now have to be paid £2.6 million a month to turn turbines off, because often their product is neither needed nor useable, how many more millions of pounds has he set aside to pay this bill in the future?
Lord Marland
I must say that it is jolly good fun being in government, particularly with the support of your own Benches. I think I also heard some cry from the other Benches. The noble Baroness asks an extremely valuable question. I suppose the answer is incumbent upon most noble Lords in this room. For 25 years, we have had no investment in the infrastructure of the energy system in this country. We are going to have to grab energy from every source we can, and that is what this Government are committed to doing. And it will cost. If you have been doing nothing for 25 years and not invested in infrastructure, of course it is going to cost. We regret that, but it is a fact of life.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government are not going to meet their green targets unless they can enrol the support of the public sector? Is he aware that his department under the previous Administration set up a working party to see how this could be done? Will he reinvestigate that? In particular, will he encourage the Forestry Commission to use its land outside the national parks and other beautiful areas for wind power, and especially for micro hydropower?
Lord Marland
That was an extremely good observation and of course, as I said earlier, we need all hands to the pump. We certainly need the support of the public sector.
Lord Marland
Your Lordships are a little bit slow today, if I may say so, but you’ll warm up. It can be very hard to deal with questions seriously, and I apologise to the noble Lord. It is fundamental that we use the public sector and we need the noble Lord’s support, given his great expertise in the forestry sector. We need every bit of support we can get to generate enough electricity to sustain twice the demand for it in 2050 than there is now.
Lord Geddes
To what extent will offshore wind farms have the facility to harness the tidal currents beneath them?
Lord Marland
The noble Lord makes a very good observation, and we have identified a number of marine parks that will capture not only the wind supply but the tide, which is a fundamental use of our own resources in this country, and our considerable wave power. These designated marine parks will be utilising all types of sources for electricity supply.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, far be it for me to help the Minister out of the hole that he is digging for himself, but does he agree—and he obviously does—that wind farms are an essential part of our future energy policy, and that those who deny that, sometimes on aesthetic grounds, are like those who argue that farming should be left the way that nature intended, which would mean that there would be no farming at all?
Lord Marland
My Lords, there is not much I can say to that, except that I did not really think I was digging a hole for myself. However, the noble Lord is completely right in everything he says.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, we now have some 5 gigawatts of wind capacity in the United Kingdom. Can my noble friend reassure us that with this benign and elegant form of power generation we will be able to meet our 15 per cent target on renewables by 2020? Are the Government still confident that we can meet that target?
Lord Marland
I am confident that we can meet our target. It is a very interesting point: the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, comes from Cornwall, as we all know, where they have embraced onshore wind turbines. Of course in other parts of the country they are not going to embrace them. Scotland has embraced wind power very substantially but in other parts of the country it has not been embraced. It is very important that the local communities decide whether they want to embrace this form of electricity, and if they do we will of course achieve our target and we will be able to supply electricity for years to come.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has drawn attention to the intermittency of wind power. Will he tell the House what arrangements are in place to ensure that emergency supplies of conventional power are available to ensure that when wind is intermittent the lights stay on?
Lord Marland
That is a very valuable point. The reality is that we have back-up supply but we must not forget—as the noble Baroness knows, because she was in the energy world herself—that a lot of the back-up supplies that she is referring to work only intermittently. Nuclear is operating on a 60 per cent load factor; gas is on roughly the same figure. We need all forms of supply to sustain twice the electricity demand that we will have by 2050.
Gibraltar
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bilston
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Spain regarding the action of the Spanish navy corvette “Atalaya” in British Gibraltar territorial waters on 3 May.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, our embassy in Madrid made representations to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defence while the “Atalaya” incident on 3 May was ongoing, which we believe contributed to the speedy and peaceful resolution of the incident, along with the local Royal Navy response. Our ambassador in Madrid then followed up in person with the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 6 May 2011. The embassy in Madrid dispatched an official written complaint to the ministry on 9 May. The Minister for Europe, my right honourable friend Mr Lidington, also raised it with the Spanish Foreign Minister in the margins of the Council of Europe meeting on 10 and 11 May.
Lord Bilston
How long will the people of Gibraltar have to tolerate the harassment and intimidation of the Spanish authorities? We should bear in mind that the Government of Gibraltar do not consider that physical confrontation or gunboat diplomacy is the proper or sensible way forward. Can the Minister explain to the House why it took almost an hour for the gunboat HMS “Scimitar” to be deployed to deal with this incident that really was unlawful, provocative and unnecessary by the Spanish navy?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those are very understandable questions. I will answer the second one first. The response was fairly swift. We have to balance our diplomatic and our military response and we have to live with the reality that while in many fields Spain is our close ally around the world and helping us, on this issue we have our differences. It is a question of balance. As to the longer-term situation, our hope and our intention are rooted in the Cordoba Agreement, the trilateral forum of dialogue, which was set up very successfully under the previous Government. I emphasise that it involves not just Britain and Spain, but Britain, Gibraltar and Spain—it is trilateral. If we can keep that process going, it must be the way forward to end these incursions which, I agree, do create a sense of irritation and seem unnecessary.
Lord Chidgey
Does my noble friend the Minister agree with the statement made by Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, that there are absolutely no circumstances in which his Government will permit local waters to be treated,
“other than as waters of exclusive British sovereignty”,
under their exclusive jurisdiction? Will the Government join the Government of Gibraltar in appealing the ruling that their cases against the decision that these waters should become one of Spain’s protected sites under EU law are inadmissible?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We agree with Peter Caruana completely. We also take the view that, as these are British Government sovereign waters, any redesignation is for us and not for Spain.
Lord Luce
I declare an interest as a former Governor of Gibraltar. Does the Minister not agree that the trilateral forum, to which he referred, has made a great deal of progress in recent years in bringing, through economic co-operation, benefits to the people of Spain in the region, as well as to Gibraltarians? Does he also agree that, so long as the Spanish Government—a fellow member of NATO and the European Union—behave in this unacceptable fashion, it will not be possible to make further progress?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I would not for a moment dare to disagree with such a distinguished former Governor of Gibraltar. We seek from the Spanish authorities, who are our friends and allies in many parts of the world, an understanding that these matters can be handled by the trilateral forum of dialogue process and that these incursions—this one has a higher profile because it involved the Spanish navy, whereas normally it is the Spanish Guardia Civil which causes these incursions—add nothing to the hopes for resolution. Every time this occurs, we respond with the utmost urgency and the strongest protest that this is not the way forward.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I was commander-in-chief when the Royal Marines inadvertently invaded Spain, so I am aware of how complex the waters are around Gibraltar. The Gibraltar Squadron has been reduced to the absolute minimum to do the task that is asked of it. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further reductions in the size and capability of that squadron?
Lord Howell of Guildford
First, I note, along with your Lordships, that once again your Lordships’ House proves that it has massive expertise in every subject. We keep the naval response constantly under review. We will ensure that we have the means for an appropriate response, balanced with a diplomatic assessment of the situation, and we will make sure that that continues. There will be no question but that these incursions—if they have to continue, and I hope that they do not—will be responded to with the utmost speed both by the Royal Navy and by diplomatic means.
Lord Hoyle
Did we receive an apology, and what assurances did we get from Spain that this would not occur again? The noble Lord says that the Royal Navy will be ready but will it be ready immediately? The last time it was launched, the vessel in question had departed.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not quite sure that that last point is correct. I think that the vessel was seen off. It was warned and departed as the warning came—it all happened simultaneously. As to a response from Madrid, I do not think that there has been an apology or a reassurance that it will not happen again. However, there has certainly been a recognition that this was an unfortunate incident which they do not want to see recur. I would not put it higher than that. We have not got there yet.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I can only declare that I have visited Gibraltar. Does the Minister agree that, however provocative this incident, it is within the context of a much improved relationship with Spain on the Rock? However, does he also agree that there is now perhaps a danger that, if there were a change of government, there would be a rather more populist and nationalist attitude to the Rock on the part of Spain, and that it is very important to improve the hotlines and ensure that there are protocols for better co-operation and understanding if such an unfortunate incident arises in future?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That is very wise. One move that we have been anxious to make is to get back into regular meetings of the trilateral forum, which were interrupted before by concerns in Gibraltar. On his recent visit, my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe certainly succeeded in establishing that we should go forward with these ministerial meetings in a sensible way. The hope, although it has not yet been satisfied on the Spanish side, is that there will be a ministerial meeting of the Cordoba agreement group—the trilateral group—before the summer is out.
Environment: Drought
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the current drought conditions.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government held a drought summit on 16 May at which a number of actions were agreed. The Environment Agency is now providing weekly updates on the situation and the impact of dry weather. It will report back shortly on the likely impacts of a prolonged drought and the plans in hand to manage it. On 10 June, the Government, with the Environment Agency, met abstractors from a wide range of sectors to look at ways of making water go further. We will keep the situation closely under review and reconvene the drought summit later this month.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it was indeed inevitable that it would pour with rain since tabling this Question, but the situation, particularly in central and eastern England, remains severe. May I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to ensure that due priority is given now and in the future to food production and its security in the wise use of our nation’s water resources?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I think that noble Lords will all remember Denis Howell. The vital link between water resources and food production has been a feature of government thinking from the Chatham House paper of the Government Chief Scientist, Sir John Beddington, through to the Royal Society’s report Reaping the Benefits, to the recent report of the Foresight group. These global views are equally applicable in this country, which is why water management will be a feature of the forthcoming water White Paper.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comments made by the Lord Mayor of London yesterday that the shortages of water in London might be answered by providing more reservoirs in Wales, fed by a network of canals through to London? Can he give an assurance that in view of the controversial nature of any such proposal in Wales, there would be discussion with the Government of Wales before any action was taken?
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, my farm, like others, has received less than three-quarters of an inch of rain since 23 February, and most of it over the last few days. The grass cut for winter feed for cattle has yielded just 40 per cent of what it would normally have done. Will the Government give a one-off permission to cut and bale the six-metre margins to try to make up some of the difference?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I live not very far away from my noble friend and can vouch for the fact that it is still very dry even after the weekend’s rain. I thank him for his suggestion. Grass and forage are a problem for livestock producers. However, on 2 June, Natural England issued advice to farmers who are in environmental schemes and have been hit by the spring drought about how they might manage their agreements. Natural England wants to ensure that the appropriate derogations are available to help farmers deal with the consequences of a prolonged period of dry weather. If any farmer needs further information or advice about the dry weather and their environmental stewardship agreements they should contact Natural England.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, with 20 per cent of cereal crops already ruined by the dry weather this is a serious problem for farmers, as we have heard. It is also a worry for consumers as food prices continue to rise. Clearly Governments cannot order the weather, but they are responsible for policy on water management and abstraction. The Government were due to publish a water White Paper this month. Why is this urgent piece of work now delayed until December?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that the Government would want to get any White Paper which they brought forward on this issue right. I do not deny at all the premise of the noble Lord’s question: it is a very serious situation for cereal producers and farmers in general, and it has a knock-on effect on feedstuffs, foodstuffs and consumers as a whole. That is why the Government are working with the industry and other abstractors to make sure that the water that is available is being properly used without hazarding the biodiversity agenda, which is also important.
Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the possibility of a national water grid? As we heard from the noble Lord opposite, Wales has had more than its fair share of rain, and certainly parts of north-west Scotland have had more than their fair share. There is a grid for gas across most of Europe. Has any work been done to try to work out a way of transmitting water to enliven those parts of the world such as that of my noble friend Lord Cathcart which is so drought-stricken?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that noble Lords will find that more will be said on this in the White Paper. A good deal of water is already transferred within the United Kingdom. There are some longer links; Welsh water goes all over the place already—for which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will no doubt vouch—and there are links between the fenland waterways and those of Essex. Ofwat is looking at its regulatory regimes to see if there are ways in which they inhibit the trading of water between companies. The water companies themselves are key agents of the distribution of water in this country.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
At one time there were plans for a salination plant to be built in the Thames—
Localism Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Localism Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 11, Schedule 2, Clause 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 4, Clauses 16 to 59, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 60 to 66, Schedule 7, Clauses 67 to 94, Schedule 8, Clauses 95 to 101, Schedules 9 to 11, Clauses 102 to 106, Schedule 12, Clauses 107 to 112, Schedule 13, Clauses 113 to 138, Schedule 14, Clauses 139 to 145, Schedule 15, Clauses 146 to 156, Schedule 16, Clause 157, Schedule 17, Clauses 158 to 161, Schedule 18, Clauses 162 to 171, Schedules 19 and 20, Clauses 172 to 174, Schedule 21, Clauses 175 to 198, Schedule 22, Clauses 199 to 201, Schedule 23, Clauses 202 to 207, Schedule 24, Clauses 208 to 211, Schedule 25, Clauses 212 to 215.
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, there are 51 speakers signed up for the Education Bill Second Reading today. If Back-Bench contributions are kept to six minutes, the House should be able to rise this evening at around the target time of 10 pm. This advisory time excludes the Minister's and Opposition's opening and winding-up speeches.
Education Bill
(12 years, 11 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, the main purpose of the Bill is to give legislative effect to proposals set out in our White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, published last November. To that extent, it has been well trailed and contains few surprises. In a number of respects, it builds on reforms introduced by the previous Government. In all respects, I hope that it will enable us to strengthen the autonomy of schools and colleges, to back heads and teachers as they go about their jobs, to move away from top-down prescription, to strengthen the ways in which we hold schools and Ministers to account, and to build on our efforts to tackle disadvantage and extend opportunity more widely. While I am sure that there will be proposals on which we will hold different views, I hope and expect that there will be broad agreement to the principles on which the Bill is built.
Why are we so keen to strengthen autonomy and accountability and to put our trust in schools and colleges? It is because the evidence from the best-performing educational systems around the world suggests that this combination is most effective at driving improvement. Greater autonomy, backing teachers and increased accountability are the threads that run through the Bill. I will say a little more about each.
“Autonomy” is a rather lifeless word to describe something that I believe that we are all keen to encourage: a situation where inspiring heads and outstanding teachers are free to use their judgment and experience for the good of children. There can sometimes be a temptation for legislators to prescribe everything that we think is desirable in order to guard against things going wrong. The difficulty with that impulse, which I understand, is that the effect over time can be to silt up the system and make professionals feel constrained in exercising their judgment on the ground.
In 2009, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee produced a report on the cumulative impact of statutory instruments on schools. It recommended that the former Department for Children, Schools and Families should shift its primary focus from the regulation of processes through statutory instruments towards establishing accountability for the delivery of the most important outcomes. In line with that, the Bill removes some unnecessary legislative duties from schools, such as: to produce a school profile; to co-operate through children’s trusts; to have regard to the area’s children and young people’s plan; and to take part in a behaviour and attendance partnership. We want schools to be able to co-operate in ways that are right for them, not to be asked to conform to a one-size-fits-all approach determined in Whitehall.
We are fortunate to have a strong and vibrant sixth-form college and further education sector. Again, we feel we should be able to trust that sector’s leadership and staff to meet the needs of young people and employers in their local community, yet they tell us that they too often feel weighed down by a complex statutory framework that holds them back from doing what they do best. That is why we are removing those duties and stripping away some of the powers that legislate for best practice or inhibit the sector’s ability to enhance the choice and experience of learners and employers.
The Association of Colleges has said that:
“AoC is pleased that Ministers have placed on a statutory footing the clear commitment they have already shown to freeing Further Education and Sixth Form Colleges from many regulatory burdens … Colleges don’t need a statutory duty to tell them they should take account of the views of students and local employers on the courses they offer or that they should have regard to promoting the well-being of the local economy and community”.
We know that governors play a critical role in the strategic leadership of schools. Current regulations prescribe proportions and categories of governors in minute detail. Therefore, we are keen that governing bodies should have more freedom, if they want it, to recruit governors primarily on the basis of skills and experience. During the passage of the Bill through the other place, there were strong representations, particularly from Liberal Democrat colleagues, that, in addition to the head teacher and parent governors, it is important for maintained school governing bodies to have a governor appointed by the local authority who has the skills required by the governing body, and a governor elected by staff. We listened to those views and will bring forward amendments to the Bill in Committee to reflect that position. There will also be amendments to correct defects in and omissions from legislation.
As noble Lords know, a key part of our drive to increase school autonomy is the academies and free school programme. The academies programme, pioneered by the party opposite, has been shown to raise standards for all children and for the disadvantaged most of all. Building on that, there are now over 700 academies open, and a third of secondary schools are already academies or are in the process of converting to academy status. The traditional emphasis on underperforming schools continues and is, indeed, accelerating. This Bill extends that programme further with new categories of academies for 16 to 19 year-olds and to provide alternative provision for the most vulnerable.
We also want local authorities to have a critical role in the education system as local champions of social justice. As the challenges and circumstances in each area are different, we want to avoid statutory duties which require a one-size-fits-all approach from authorities, such as: requiring every pupil to be able to access every diploma; requiring every school to be provided with a school improvement partner; and requiring the same type of admissions forum. It is our belief that it should be for local areas to determine these matters, reflecting what works best in their community, and the Bill provides this freedom to local authorities.
In talking about concepts such as autonomy and the structural reform needed to help deliver it, we must not lose sight of the need to attract and retain the best graduates into teaching. Outside the Bill, we will shortly be announcing further proposals on teacher training, but I would like to mention two measures in the Bill which relate directly to teacher retention and which reflect concerns put directly to us by head teachers and teachers: behaviour and discipline, and anonymity from false allegations. We know that poor behaviour, or fear of it, puts many of our best graduates off teaching. A 2009 survey showed that in primary schools an average of 30 minutes of available teaching time per teacher per day was lost due to pupil indiscipline. In secondary schools, the figure for lost teaching time increased to 50 minutes per teacher per day.
This House is rightly concerned about children’s rights. But I believe that it will also accept the need to balance the right of individual children against the rights of all children to learn in an orderly environment. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were more than 360,000 fixed-term exclusions—almost 18,000 for physical violence against an adult and almost 80,000 for threatening or verbally abusing an adult.
To get more talented people into the classroom and give disadvantaged children the inspiration that they need to succeed, I believe that we have to support teachers and head teachers in maintaining high standards of behaviour in schools. That is why the Bill builds on the powers introduced in the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act on searching pupils and students. Teachers need the authority to search for items that have been brought into school with the intention of causing an offence, harm or injury. We also propose to give teachers the power to search for and to confiscate items banned under the school rules.
We also know, through evidence from children, that cyberbullying is a real problem, with nearly one in five 12 to 17 year-olds saying that they have been victims of it. Schools should be able to prevent mobile phones being brought into schools for cyberbullying and the Bill provides teachers with the power to confiscate them and, where there is good reason to do so, delete inappropriate material before they hand them back. I recognise that concerns have been expressed about the use of some of these powers, including the power in exceptional circumstances for opposite-sex searches where an item may cause serious harm if the search is not carried out urgently. These are permissive powers and we believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation, as well as these powers only being available to staff whom the head teacher has specifically designated to conduct searches. The Bill also provides schools with the power to issue same-day detentions to children who misbehave.
Overall, these changes have been welcomed by the main head-teacher unions. The Association of School and College Leaders says that the discipline measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate, and that head teachers and teachers can and should be trusted to use these permissive powers sensibly and in the interests of all pupils and staff in their schools. We also want to give schools the final say on whether a pupil is excluded in order to avoid those cases, which I acknowledge are rare, where a school is directed to reinstate a pupil who it believes, after proper consideration, should not be.
Finally, we want to give teachers better protection from false allegations made by pupils, which could be used to undermine their authority and have a devastating affect on their lives. The Bill therefore provides for reporting restrictions where a pupil, or someone on their behalf, alleges a teacher has committed an offence. These restrictions would be lifted once the teacher is charged. Alongside the work that the department is doing to strengthen guidance on dealing with allegations so that unnecessary delays are removed and that suspending staff is not seen as the default option, these measures will, we hope, provide better support teachers.
Hand in hand with increased freedoms for schools, we want stronger accountability directly to pupils and parents. The Bill therefore makes it easier for parents to see how well their school is doing by reducing the criteria for Ofsted inspections to four areas; namely, teaching, leadership, achievement, and behaviour and safety. We want also to free outstanding schools and colleges from inspection so that more time and resources can be devoted to those who need help most.
Alongside the Bill, we are reforming the performance information made available to parents, including measures on the progress children make at school and not just their raw attainment. That should remove some of the perverse incentives on schools, which led to a focus on a narrow group of children who might boost rankings in performance tables. New destination measures for schools and colleges will allow parents and young people to see for themselves how well institutions do at academic and vocational courses and how well they equip their students for life afterwards.
We must also be outward-looking, comparing our education system with the best in the world. That is why we are strengthening the role of the independent regulator, Ofqual, and requiring it to look not just backwards in time to make sure our qualifications maintain standards, but outwards to ensure that they compare well with qualifications overseas. The Bill will also require schools that are sampled to take part in international surveys of educational standards to participate.
However, it is not only school-level accountability that we are keen to strengthen in the education system. Local and central government needs to be more accountable. We have a shared goal with local authorities to tackle underperformance and in most cases we are able to work together to achieve that. But in some instances local authorities have not gripped underperformance, so we propose to take a new power in the Bill to increase the focus on tackling weak schools.
The Bill also restores ministerial accountability to Parliament by abolishing four major statutory arm’s-length bodies—the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, the General Teaching Council for England, the Training and Development Agency for Schools and the Young People’s Learning Agency. Many of their activities will cease, as teachers and school and college leaders decide for themselves how best to meet the needs of their pupils and students, rather than receiving pages and pages of guidance. Where roles continue, they will be brought back within the department and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, which is where accountability should sit.
The final theme that I want to cover is fairness. For far too long, children from disadvantaged backgrounds have not fulfilled their potential. That is why this Government, in difficult economic circumstances, have managed to find additional resources and target them on those most in need. Starting in the early years, the Bill provides for the extension of the entitlement for free childcare to all two year-olds from the most disadvantaged families. The previous Government did much work in this area and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, who oversaw a significant growth in early-years education, which this Bill continues. We will move from 20,000 to 130,000 two year-olds benefitting each year over this Parliament.
Outside the Bill, noble Lords will know that we are introducing the pupil premium—£2.5 billion a year by the end of the Parliament—to support children on free school meals, looked-after children and children from service families.
We are committed to continuing the last Government’s drive to raise the participation age. Overall, we can fund more than 360,000 apprenticeships across all ages in the coming academic year, while making changes to the underlying legislation in this Bill so that they are deliverable in practice. In particular, there will be sufficient funding for 135,500 apprenticeship starts in the academic year 2011-12 for 16 to 18 year-olds.
We are taking a new approach in the Bill by requiring schools to secure careers advice—which must be impartial and independent—for their pupils. That is supported by a range of measures, working with the careers sector, to improve the quality and professionalism of services in this area.
So far as higher education is concerned, the Bill takes forward two elements of the new student finance arrangements. They will be more progressive, with the lowest-earning 25 per cent of graduates paying less over their lifetime than they do at present. It will also mean that fees for part-time courses are capped so that new loans can meet them.
We are extremely fortunate in our country to have so many great schools and colleges, led by a superb generation of heads and supported by an extremely talented and committed cohort of teachers. Despite the dedication of these professionals and the fact that our children seem to work harder than ever at exams, other nations still appear to be overtaking us. Our 15 year-olds are a full two years behind their Shanghai-Chinese peers in maths and a year behind teenagers in Korea or Finland in reading. Evidence from these best-performing countries shows that giving greater freedom to professionals and schools, with stronger accountability, provides the best route to improving our education system. That, in essence, is what lies at the heart of the Education Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. He has done the best that he can to enthuse us but the Bill is heavy with structural change and light on what really matters—the delivery of high standards in every school for every child. At least the Minister did not fall into the trap of his boss, Michael Gove, who took his reputation for exaggeration to new heights in the Commons debate when he said:
“This Bill provides an historic opportunity for this country. It will help to guarantee every child a high quality education, which will equip them for the technological, economic, social and cultural challenges of the next century”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/2011; col. 180.]
Regrettably the Bill does not meet any of those lofty aspirations. At a time when the debate going on in the country is about how to drive up academic standards, how to ensure that every child has a chance to excel and how to distribute resources fairly to compensate for deprivation, the Bill fails to meet the challenge. Instead, it seeks to redefine the relationship between schools, parents and local communities, diminishing accountability and dismantling the procedures that ensure fairness and equity. As such, there is plenty in the Bill to give us cause for concern.
This does not mean that we are opposed to all the clauses in the Bill. We can support a number of them and others we hope to clarify by amendment in Committee. I will say a little more on that shortly. I hope your Lordships and perhaps even the Minister will recognise that there is something slightly obsessive about a Secretary of State who produces a Bill that gives him more than 50 additional powers. It is an irony that, at the same time as we are debating the Localism Bill, this Bill is moving in the opposite direction, taking decisions away from parents, communities and elected local authorities and centralising them in a department ill-prepared for the raft of new responsibilities coming its way.
On this issue, as perhaps on many others in the Bill, I hope that we might have a common cause with noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches as I see in their election manifesto that they were committed to,
“introduce an Education Freedom Act banning politicians from getting involved in the day-to-day running of schools”.
Not surprisingly, that did not make it into the coalition agreement. Am I the only person to suspect that when something goes wrong, as things inevitably do, and his department is held responsible for a bad decision or a failure to act on the new responsibilities, the Secretary of State will be noticeably absent? Either by then he will have been conveniently reshuffled into another department or he will just expect the Minister opposite to take to the airwaves to explain away the error once again. We are not happy about the centralisation of power. We will scrutinise these clauses with particular care and measure them against a simple yardstick of whether they are in the interests of pupils, parents, professionals and local communities.
As I mentioned earlier, there are some clauses in the Bill that deserve our support. We welcome the extension of free early years provision for disadvantaged two year-olds. We will in due course seek firmer guarantees that the provisions in the Bill cannot subsequently be watered down, but you would expect the party that introduced the universal entitlement for three and four year-olds to approve its extension.
We also welcome the clauses that give teachers anonymity when accusations are made against them. We all know examples of good teachers whose lives have been blighted and their careers damaged when false allegations are made against them. It has on occasions been used as a cynical tool of revenge by some pupils and it is absolutely right that teachers have the right to anonymity until allegations have been investigated and formal charges brought. However, we fail to understand why the Government have so far failed to follow the logic of their own arguments in this regard in extending the provisions to all school staff and those working in further education and the youth sector, who are equally vulnerable.
We will also support practical measures to give teachers more power to intervene in bad behaviour in the classroom. However, we remain concerned that the specific additional search powers in this Bill are not matched by the appropriate safeguards. Moreover, there is a danger that the new measures could be simply symbolic. I read with interest the oral evidence given by head teachers to the Education Bill Committee in the other place. They struggled to find examples of where these additional powers would be useful and the teachers’ unions reported that their members would be very reluctant to use them. Nevertheless, we will welcome alternative proposals that send a clear message to pupils that bad behaviour will not be tolerated.
The Bill is guilty of sending mixed messages to the teaching profession. On the one hand, it wants to strengthen their authority in the classroom while, on the other hand, it waters down their professional status through the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England. So far, the Government have failed to produce a credible position on this. We believe that there is still a need for a regulator with a degree of independence in this sector. Surely, the sensible approach would be to learn the best practice from other professional bodies and work with the teachers’ associations to find a better method of setting standards, regulating entry to the profession, maintaining a comprehensive register and managing teacher discipline.
What message does it send to parents and teachers about the importance of professional standards when the Government make it clear that free schools will not be required to employ qualified teachers? Surely, parents should be able to choose the best school for their child, safe in the knowledge that all publicly funded schools will employ teachers with relevant training and qualifications?
Equally, if we are committed to driving up standards in schools, what justification can there be for the abolition of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body? This organisation was halfway through producing job profiles for support staff which would have recognised their important contribution to children's learning experience in schools. It was a welcome development that school leaders and teachers alike have supported, so I hope that in Committee we will be able to persuade the Minister to reconsider that decision.
I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments around the clauses today, but I would like to highlight some areas of particular concern. First, the Bill dilutes parents' rights over school admissions. This is a massively sensitive subject and will continue to be so as long as parents detect that there are schools of varying quality in their area. The Bill abolishes local admissions forums and waters down the capacity of the schools adjudicator to intervene to ensure fair play. The new draft admissions code, published after the Bill had received its Third Reading in the other place, would allow grammar schools to expand beyond their current physical capacity, leading to a potential expansion of selection in the state school system. A weakened admissions system means less power for parents to ensure their child can go to the school they choose. A weaker system also risks unfairness going unchallenged.
Secondly, we support the Government’s aim to establish an all-age careers service by April 2012. However, the lack of a transition plan from the existing careers service providers, compounded by the impact of local authority cuts, means that most of the staffing and expertise will be lost before the new service has had a chance to establish itself. As the ASCL has said,
“More than 2 million young people aged 16 to 19 could lose out on valuable careers advice while the government overhauls the national careers advice service, at a time when young people’s unemployment is reaching record highs”.
There is a real danger that, in this vacuum, careers advice will end up being provided online or collectively, whereas we believe that young people need personalised, ongoing, face-to-face advice that is tailored to their individual skills and interests. They also need real choice between academic and vocational training, including access to good-quality apprenticeships.
Finally, this Bill rewrites the Academies Act passed last summer at breakneck speed and without adequate scrutiny in the other place. As a result, only one of its original 14 sections has escaped being replaced or amended. The model created by the previous Government to use academies to turn around failing schools in deprived areas has now been turned on its head. The resemblance between the old and the new is in name only; now, every school will be encouraged to become an academy.
The Bill could mean that by 2015 we would have an all-academy world: 20,000 schools, each with its own admissions policy, all being judged on the prescriptive English baccalaureate that is geared towards the top 30 per cent of children. Schools will have a clear incentive to admit the most able students and, with a weakened adjudicator and greater competition between schools, back-door selection becomes more likely. Such a world could be a dangerous place for less academic children or those with special needs.
In this new world, the role of elected local authorities in planning schools and services is marginalised. The strategic role envisaged for them in the education White Paper is abandoned. They will have no significant role and scarce resources to co-ordinate provision, whereas we believe that local people and local communities should be in the driving seat in determining what is best for their children’s education.
I said at the outset that this Bill ducked many of the key arguments about education today. While it is true that those do not appear in the Bill, it is also true that there are potentially profound consequences arising from the restructuring of education services being pursued by the Secretary of State. The expansion of academies, each with its own budget, will create a vast new marketplace for schools to buy services that have previously been provided without charge by local authorities. New private providers of education services are already moving into that void. No doubt some services will be able to be procured more cheaply, but schools will also be under pressure to save on the cost of expensive services for those who have special needs or require learning support.
No doubt the Government will argue that the pupil premium will help offset some of those additional costs. However, can we be sure that the money involved will compensate for the complexities of trying to provide an education service in a deprived area? What will be the consequence of the private sector supplying those support services? Can we be sure that they will be properly regulated and that schools will be protected from market failure?
What of the management of these academies? It is hard to imagine how the Secretary of State thinks he is going individually to manage thousands of academies, so it is rather convenient for him that they are already forming themselves into chains and federations. Instead of managing individual schools, he could ultimately manage contracts of large private providers—some no doubt bigger than the democratic local authorities they seek to replace. Those providers currently make a virtue of their charitable status being not-for-profit, but can we be confident that that protection will continue? Could we one day be facing the educational equivalent of Southern Cross, with all the challenges of maintaining continuity of education in the school system that could result?
When we scrutinise the Bill, we will be looking at the detail of the clauses as written, but we will also be mindful of the potential consequences of a market-dominated education system and what it means for the school system as a whole. We will put forward measures to ensure that the right checks and balances keep children’s interests paramount. We will aim to place the rights and priorities of pupils, parents, professionals and the public at the heart of the Bill, and reassert the right of communities to determine their children’s education. We hope very much that, in the course of the discussions, we can make common cause with noble Lords across the House, perhaps including the Minister, to strengthen the Bill on this basis. We look forward to the remainder of the debate today.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I welcome the emphasis in this Bill on improving the ability of teachers to teach. Given what she has just said, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will not be surprised to hear me agree with my noble friend the Minister about the importance of freeing up schools to get on with the job. Members on these Benches will emphasise the rights of every child, particularly the most vulnerable, and judge the Bill on whether it furthers the Government’s objective of encouraging social mobility and inclusion. There are a lot of issues in the Bill, so I shall focus my remarks on Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5, and leave the rest to my noble friends on these Benches.
I give an enthusiastic welcome to the extension of free early years provision to disadvantaged two year-olds, but I am a little concerned about charging for provision beyond the statutory three hours, and I worry that those families who most need high-quality early years education might be deterred from taking up the free hours by their lack of ability to pay for the additional hours they actually need. Will the Government please review this to ensure that disadvantaged families do not lose out?
Wide concern has been expressed about the proposals in Clause 2 on searching pupils. We on these Benches of course agree with the coalition agreement, which says that teachers will be given the tools they need to maintain discipline. I echo the Minister’s statement that every child has a right to learn, so schools must ensure that the behaviour of one child does not impinge on the rights of other pupils to an education. However, there are two questions. First, are these the measures that will support teachers to maintain discipline? Secondly, are these the measures that teachers and heads want? In answer to the first, I think they are much less relevant than a fair code of school rules and a strong leadership team supporting the authority of all teachers. In answer to the second, some heads want these measures but most teachers do not, so the profession is divided.
I think that searching affects the fundamental relationship between teachers and pupils, which changes from one of trust, about preparing the child for its future life at work and in the family, to one of policing. I have concerns about training and teachers searching children alone, and I will raise these as the Bill progresses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also has concerns about the impact of this very widely drawn power on the rights of the child and recommends three amendments to restrict it. Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to introduce these amendments in Committee? Most FE colleges have a security officer trained to search safely. However, if a 20 year-old male security officer wishes to search a 14 year-old female student, we have a human rights problem.
On exclusions, Clause 4 removes the exclusion appeals panel and replaces it with a review panel, which cannot insist that a child should be reinstated if it feels that the decision has been unfair. I accept that this happens in only a very few cases, but we need to have an eye to natural justice. The fact that appealing parents can have the support of an SEN expert is welcome, but I would like them to be able to choose the expert for themselves. The threat of a fine might not be enough to deter a school from excluding a child unfairly, but I would ask whether there will be a sliding scale, since £4,000 seems an awful lot for a small primary school. We must of course balance the right of a child to a placement that best suits his needs with the rights of the other pupils in the school.
We welcome the proposal in the White Paper for schools that exclude a child to retain responsibility for both his funding and his future achievement. However, that does not appear in the Bill. We are told that there are to be pilots. Will the Minister commit the Government to legislating for this if the pilots prove a successful disincentive to unfair exclusions?
Clause 5 removes the duty to give 24 hours’ notice of an after-school detention, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, for the good reason that it would avoid a child’s journey home being unsafe. I am very concerned about the removal of this duty. We do not want another Milly Dowler case. A child can disappear in the blink of an eye. However, schools tell me that there are problems with 24 hours’ notice, so I will table an amendment to ensure that parents are contacted on the day and that the school satisfies itself that the child can get home safely. We need to be very specific about that.
Many schools have found behaviour and attendance partnerships to be of great value in arranging managed exclusions. With the removal of the duty to take part in such partnerships, how will the Government ensure that schools work together to manage children who are not settling down, or those with special needs for whom the school is not properly catering? The Minister will know that children with SEN are disproportionately excluded. This has gone on for years. Can he explain how it will be avoided?
The abolition of the QCDA passes control of the curriculum to the Secretary of State. The QCDA was established only recently to advise the Secretary of State on the curriculum, but now he feels that he does not need its advice. Perhaps we shall see established an external review of the national curriculum and an internal review of PSHE. It seems a great deal of trouble and expense at a time when the Government are urging all schools to become academies, which do not have to follow the national curriculum anyway. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State feels that there will not be enough work for the QCDA in the future. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on this.
I am particularly concerned about the abolition of the duty to co-operate with local authorities. It is very important that professionals work together around the child. We need to make sure that that continues to happen.
Clause 36 means that you cannot have a new community school unless no one wants to set up an academy or a foundation school. This does not sit well with the Government’s intentions on localism, fairness and parental choice. I have no doubt that we will have considerable discussions about this in Committee.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I strongly support this Government’s policies on teaching in schools and academies. They are right to do more to improve the nation’s academic standards across the board. In particular, it is important to give more opportunities to our ablest children. However, the Government hope to achieve more than that. They hope to achieve greater equality, better outcomes for children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and more social mobility. These are all important objectives, which the Government have a good chance of achieving if, and only if, they successfully address the problems of disruption by pupils and disaffection in our schools. They will achieve this only if they pay more attention to the role and the problems of parents in the education of their children.
I fear the Government may be making the mistake of thinking that a child’s education takes place only in school. The truth is that every waking hour, from birth onwards, the child is learning. A child in full-time education spends around 28.5 per cent, I believe, of his waking hours in school. In the first three years of its life, a child’s experiences are wholly mediated by its parents and family. Parents get the first innings, but school readiness is crucial to their child’s success in school later.
In his introduction to last year’s White Paper The Importance of Teaching, Michael Gove says this:
“At the heart of our plan is a vision of the teacher as our society’s most valuable asset”.
In the same year a major report from Demos says:
“Parents are the … architects of a fairer society”.
The truth is that children need both teachers and parents working together. What parents do, or fail to do, is a powerful influence on their child’s development and life chances. Some speakers have already referred to Chinese children in this regard. Working with parents matters, yet the Bill makes no mention of the role of parents in preparing their child for school or in supporting them in school. Is this an intentional omission?
In reply to an Oral Question that I asked the Minister the other day, he said that the vast majority of the nation’s parents,
“are doing a good job”.—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1483.]
Of course, he is absolutely right, but that does not mean that we should not pay attention to that minority who still have problems. To say that a significant minority of this nation’s children are not getting in their family the start in life they need is not necessarily to criticise or stigmatise those parents. In our society today quite a lot of parents need more help, education and support. In their recent reports to Government, Frank Field, Graham Allen and Clare Tickell have all addressed these issues and have made excellent proposals. However, as I read the signs—I hope I am wrong—it seems to me that many of their proposals are already beginning to be swept under the carpet by this Government because they are politically inconvenient. If that were to happen, it would be a tragedy. It would in my opinion greatly reduce the chances of achieving success in the Government’s objective of reducing social inequality and increasing social mobility. It could also prejudice the Government’s chances of achieving success in their objective of educating all children better because disruption in class damages the learning environment of all pupils and diverts resources from teaching to behaviour management. When they came into power, this Government undertook to help struggling families. Do they stick to that commitment?
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, last Friday, rather curiously, I found myself at Blenheim Palace twice in the day. In the evening I was at a ball celebrating 100 years of a diocesan social work agency called PACT, which specialises in working with adoption, fostering and children’s support, but in the morning I was with 200 head teachers of church schools in the diocese of Oxford, celebrating, among other things, 200 years of church schools throughout the country. They were a very impressive group of head teachers, skilled, dedicated and looking forward to the challenges of this new era and the new things that are to be done.
As we all know, the Church of England has a huge commitment to education, going back not just 200 years to the foundation of the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor, but way beyond that to the first schools in the country in the monasteries and religious foundations of our land. We are proud to have been deeply committed to this most essential of tasks for a very long time. Our nearly 5,000 schools, with nearly a million children in them, have high standards, are popular, and have values, disciplines and habits of the heart that parents recognise as deeply worth while. The future, seen through the eyes of those head teachers at Blenheim, is indeed full of opportunity as we continue to provide schools of both distinctive and inclusive quality, serving the communities in which they are set.
The Bill before us seems by and large to be a tidying -up exercise, but I find myself wondering whether we have had a sufficiently broad, conceptual debate into which it fits. I wonder whether we have seen the coherence of the overall educational strategy, or if we are simply letting a thousand flowers bloom and trusting that, with a bit of luck, the eventual outcome will be a garden that is both beautiful and productive. Those of us involved in education are scrambling to keep up with the pace of change and are hoping that there are not too many unintended consequences. Is the overall educational vision clear, beyond, of course, promoting localism?
The question that exercises me is whether we are promoting, and whether this Bill supports, a vision of education for the whole person or for just part of a person. Are we concerned with the full human flourishing of every child, or just developing the skills that will serve the economy? William Temple told the story of a father who sent a note to his son’s school that said: “Don't teach my son poetry; he’s going to be a grocer”. That is a very impoverished view of education. This is the debate that I wish we could be having today, and which, in a sense, lies unexamined behind our Bill. There is a risk, for example, that the review of the national curriculum could skew the learning outcomes in a more instrumentalist direction, when what we want is the full, rich development of children’s incredibly diverse potential.
In this context, I do have some concerns, as noble Lords can imagine, about the English baccalaureate. We need our children to be more factually informed—absolutely—but not at the expense of the grocer’s son learning poetry. The humanities matter, and I could make a particular case for the high value of RE as a rigorous tool for learning about human society, local harmony and global peace making, as well as exploring personal values, ethics and belief systems. If we are to have the English baccalaureate and RE is not included in it, society will be very much the poorer in the next generation.
These are general comments on the context of the Bill, and I regret that we are not first discussing and exploring an overall educational vision. However, there are three markers that I should like to put down at this Second Reading. These are to do with the way in which the Bill and the White Paper on which it is based impact on the work of churches in their schools and colleges.
First, we will want to follow up in Committee—and, I trust, in further discussions with officials—a number of technical issues concerned with land and trusts for schools converting to academy status, and staffing arrangements at academies with a religious character.
Secondly, I want to express some concerns about teacher training in the future. It will be essential to ensure a denominational balance in initial teacher training. This is currently a duty, but I am not convinced, from what I know so far, that it will remain so. It is vital that the denominational balance be retained in order to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained teachers for our church schools. This is not just about RE teachers but all teachers. I am concerned about that.
I was at Whitelands College at Roehampton University last month, where the principal said it was the most rewarding job that he had ever done in his life. There are 11 other Anglican and four Catholic universities and university colleges, but because they have teacher training as a major part of their foundation, the proposal to base training in schools is posing a very real and destabilising challenge to them, I have yet to be convinced that it will improve the quality of training. Between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of training time is already spent in schools.
Thirdly, and in conclusion, the Church of England is committed to working with this Government and Governments of every hue to further the goal of offering the best educational experience possible to every child in the country, including the grocer’s son. Education unlocks virtually everything else in a young person’s life. In the church, we want children to think for themselves and to act for others. To that end, through the national society and the diocesan boards of education, we are, in a thoroughly open-minded and energetic way, pursuing how to make all these new systems work, and are looking forward to making those changes to the system that are ahead of us. We are committed to all of this.
Lord Baker of Dorking
Could I ask the right reverend Prelate a question, as he speaks in this House for the Church of England? This Bill promotes the establishment of more faith schools and more Church of England schools; I went to one myself. What is the current admissions procedure of Church of England schools? I believe he made a speech during Holy Week that seemed to be slightly at variance with the Statement made in this House three years ago, when there were long debates on this subject, on amendments that I moved, to ensure that any new faith schools would recruit at least 25 per cent from outside the faith. That was something the previous Government supported for a time but then abandoned. Following that, the archbishop said that the admissions procedure of all new Church of England schools would be 25 per cent from outside the faith, or from no faith. I thought that was very sensible and appropriate, and I hope that it would be an example for other faiths. Is that still the admissions procedure of the Church of England?
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
The admissions procedure for the Church of England always rests in the hands of the local governors. They are advised by the diocesan boards of education, which in turn are advised by the National Society, which I chair, so in our admissions advice we give no particular figures. That 25 per cent is on the books but it is not in the current advice. That is for individual decisions to be made. I could expand on what I was trying to say, but I think this is probably not the time.
We are committed to co-operation with Government, but if we are going to back these head teachers, like the ones I was with at Blenheim last week, I hope that there are some changes yet to be made to the Bill.
NHS: Future Forum
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, and further to the Written Ministerial Statement I laid in the House earlier today, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s response to the NHS Future Forum.
We established the independent Future Forum on 6 April, under the chairmanship of Professor Steve Field, to look again at our proposals on the modernisation of the NHS. Yesterday it published its report and recommendations. I would like to thank Professor Field and his 44 senior colleagues from across health and social care who have worked so hard these past eight weeks. I would also like to thank the more than 8,000 members of the public, health professionals, and representatives from over 250 stakeholder organisations who attended some 250 events across the country; also the tens of thousands who wrote to us with their views. I want also to thank the many officials in my department who supported this unprecedented engagement across the country.
I said two months ago that we would pause, listen, reflect and improve our plans. Our commitment to engage and improve the Bill has been genuine and has been rewarded with an independent, expert and immensely valuable report and recommendations from the NHS Future Forum. I can tell the House that we will ask the forum to continue its work, including looking at the implementation of proposals in areas including education and training and public health.
In his report, Professor Field set out clearly that the NHS must change if it is to respond to challenges and realise the opportunities of more preventative, personalised, integrated and effective care. It said that the principles of NHS modernisation were supported: to put patients at the heart of care; to focus on quality and outcomes for patients; and to give clinicians a central role in commissioning health services.
In the forum’s work, it set out to make proposals for improving the Bill, and its implementation; to provide reassurance and safeguards; and to recommend changes where needed. As Professor Field put it, the forum did this not to resist change, but to embrace it, guided by the values of the NHS and a relentless focus on the provision of high quality care and improved outcomes for patients.
We accept the NHS Future Forum’s core recommendations. We will make significant changes to implement those recommendations and, in some cases, offer further specific assurances which we know have been sought. There are many proposed changes and we will publish our more detailed response shortly. But I would now like to tell the House some of the main changes we will make.
The Bill will make clear that the Secretary of State will have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, as in the 1946 Act, and be accountable for securing its provision and for the oversight of the national bodies charged with doing so. We will also place duties on the Secretary of State to maintain a system for professional education and training within the health service, and a duty to promote research.
One of the most vital areas of modernisation to get right is the commissioning of local services. For commissioning to be effective, it must draw upon a wide range of people when designing local services, including clinicians, patients and patient groups, carers and charities. We will amend the Bill so that the governing body of every clinical commissioning group will have at least two lay members—one focusing on public and patient involvement, the other overseeing key elements of governance, such as audit, remuneration and managing conflicts of interest.
While we should not centrally prescribe the make-up of the governing body, it will also need to include at least one registered nurse and one secondary care specialist doctor. To avoid any potential conflict of interest, neither should be employed by a local health provider. These governing bodies will meet in public and publish their minutes. The clinical commissioning groups will also need to publish details of all contracts they have with health service providers.
To support commissioning, the independent NHS commissioning board will host ‘clinical senates’, providing expert advice on the shape and fit of healthcare across a wider area of the country, and it will develop existing clinical networks, which will advise on how specific services, such as cancer, stroke or mental health, can be better designed to provide integrated, effective care. Building on this multi-professional involvement, clinical commissioning groups will have a duty to promote integrated health and social care around the needs of their users.
To encourage greater integration with social care and public health, the boundaries of clinical commissioning groups should not normally cross those of local authorities. If they do, clinical commissioning groups will need to demonstrate to the NHS commissioning board a clear rationale for doing so in terms of benefit to patients.
I have always said that I want there to be ‘no decision about me, without me’ for patients when it comes to their own care. The same goes for the design of local services, so we will further clarify the duties on the NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups to involve patients, carers and the public. Commissioning groups will have to consult the public on their annual commissioning plans and involve them in any changes that would affect patient services.
One of the main ways that patients will influence the NHS will be through the exercise of informed choice. We will amend the Bill to strengthen and emphasise commissioners’ duty to promote patient choice. Choice of any qualified provider will be limited to those areas where there is a national or local tariff, ensuring that competition is based solely on quality. This tariff development, alongside a best-value approach to tendered services, will safeguard against cherry-picking.
Monitor’s core duty will be to protect and promote the interests of patients. We will remove its duty to promote competition as though that were an end in itself. Instead, it will be under a duty to support services integrated around the needs of patients and the continuous improvement of quality. It will have a power to tackle specific abuses and restrictions of competition that act against patients’ interests. Competition will be a means by which NHS commissioners are able to improve the quality of services for patients.
We will keep the existing competition rules introduced by the last Government—the Principles and Rules for Co-operation and Competition—and give them a firmer statutory underpinning. The Co-operation and Competition Panel, which oversees the rules, will transfer to Monitor and retain its distinct identity. And we will amend the Bill to make it illegal for the Secretary of State or regulator to encourage the growth of one type of provider over another. There must be a level playing field.
We will strengthen the role of health and well-being boards in local councils, making sure that they are involved throughout the commissioning process and that local health service plans are aligned with local health and well-being strategies.
In a number of areas, we will make the timetable for change more flexible to ensure that no one is forced to take on new responsibilities before they are ready, while enabling those who are ready to make faster progress.
If any of the remaining NHS trusts cannot meet foundation trust criteria by 2014, we will support them to achieve it subsequently. But all NHS trusts will be required to become foundation trusts as soon as clinically feasible, with an agreed deadline for each trust.
We will ensure a safe and robust transition for the education and training system. It is vital that change is introduced carefully and without creating instability, and we will take the time to get it right, as the Future Forum has recommended. During the transition, we will retain postgraduate deaneries and give them a clear home within the NHS family. On any qualified provider, its extension will be phased carefully to reflect and support the availability of choice for patients.
Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts will cease to exist in April 2013. By April 2013, all GP practices will be members of either a fully or partly authorised clinical commissioning group or one in shadow form. There will be no two-tier NHS. However, individual clinical commissioning groups will not be authorised to take over any part of the commissioning budget until they are ready to do so. GPs need not take managerial responsibility in a commissioning group if they do not want to. April 2013 will not be a ‘drop dead’ date for the new commissioners. Where a clinical commissioning group is not able to take on some or all aspects of commissioning, the local arms of the NHS commissioning board will commission on its behalf. Those groups keen to press on will not in any way be prevented from becoming fully authorised as soon as they are ready.
I also told the House on 4 April that we would secure proper scrutiny for any changes we made to the Bill. In order to do this, without trespassing on the House’s time to review the Bill as a whole at Report, we will ask the House to recommit the relevant parts of the Bill to a Public Bill Committee shortly.
Through the recommendations of the NHS Future Forum and our response we have demonstrated our willingness to listen and to improve our plans, to make big changes—not to abandon the principles of reform, which the Future Forum itself said were supported across the service, but to be clear that the NHS is too important and modernisation too vital for us not to be sure of getting the legislation right.
The service can adapt and improve as we modernise and change. But the legislation cannot be continuously changed. On the contrary, it must be an enduring structure and statement. So it must reflect our commitment to the NHS constitution and values. It must incorporate the safeguards and accountabilities which we require. It must protect and enhance patients’ rights and services, and it must be crystal clear about the duties and priorities which we will expect of all NHS bodies and in local government for the future.
Professor Field’s report says that it is time for the pause to end. Strengthened by the forum’s report and recommendations, we will now ask the House to re-engage with delivering the changes and the modernisation that the NHS needs. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I start by paying tribute to him for the way in which he has facilitated the debate about the future of the NHS thus far across the House. The all-Peer seminars benefited hugely from the fact that his office ensured the input from senior department officials. I have to add that his noble friend Lady Northover attended every one of those seminars. They have continued and, I believe, have ensured a greater understanding of the Bill from which it can only benefit. Notwithstanding Nick Clegg waving about his list of changes and claiming all, I think we might find out as we move on how influential the Minister has been in bringing about changes to the Bill. However,
“there is more joy in heaven when one sinner repents”.
About a year ago the Minister gently chided me, when he launched the health White Paper, by saying:
“I hope that when the noble Baroness digests this White Paper, she will come to view it rather more favourably than she has indicated”.—[Official Report, 12/7/10; col. 535.]
On this occasion, lest the noble Earl misunderstands me, I will say that I welcome the findings of the Future Forum, although I think that we would both agree that it cannot possibly have covered all the important issues in the NHS in eight weeks. In the detailed response that accompanies the Statement, the Government have gone further than the Future Forum in their proposed changes to the Bill; they are very significant. I particularly welcome issues such as the commitment to the NHS constitution. However, it begs the question of whether we might need a whole new Bill, or no Bill at all, if we all now agree that evolution is better than revolution.
I will mention the process. In this House we are more familiar with the parliamentary process whereby you consult, legislate and implement—not the other way around, which is what seems to have happened here. However, the Future Forum was a device that I think everyone understood. There was a pressing political need to get the coalition Government—Nick Clegg, David Cameron and in particular Andrew Lansley—off the hook. I will say this only once, despite severe temptation; the uniformly fulsome and enthusiastic welcome from Nick Clegg and David Cameron for the White Paper and the Bill ring rather hollow today. However unworthy the motivation, the end of the pause means one very good outcome for which we should all be grateful—probably none more so than patients and staff—namely, that the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State will cease their endless visits to hospitals to prove how much they love the NHS.
The chairman of the Future Forum said that opposition to the Bill stemmed from “genuine fear and anxiety”. He went on to say that NHS staff feared for their jobs, and feared that their NHS was about to be broken up and—their word—“privatised”. Thank goodness the Future Forum had the wisdom to listen to what so many people have been saying for a year to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State: during the consultation period, after the Bill was published, with increasing volume during its passage in the Commons, and despite two very sensible Health Select Committee reports. Does the Minister think that the terrible mess that the Government have found themselves in could have been avoided, and have they learnt their lessons?
Since we are now promised significant changes, will the Minister confirm that there will be a new and proper impact assessment and a new set of Explanatory Notes, and that there will be consultation on the changes proposed through amendments before recommittal? Will there be a formal response to the well argued report of the Health Select Committee and its recommendations, not all of which agree with the Future Forum report? Most importantly in many ways, if there is to be a long period of enactment when the Bill is passed—and, as the Minister explained, no drop -dead moments—a very strong recommendation of the Future Forum report must be acted on; namely, the production of a timetabling and transition plan. This must be in place as soon as possible and must be robust. When does the Minister envisage that it will be published?
As the House would expect, since Part 3 is still in the Bill we will seek reassurances on competition, the composition of consortia, NICE, the minimum references to social care that are there, and, for example, the lack of references to mental health. We will pursue all these issues in due course. Will it be possible for the Minister to use his good offices to ask the Government to make time available for a longer debate in the House about these issues before we receive the Bill? When does the noble Earl think that we might start consideration of the Bill?
While the uncertainty continues, the NHS is going backwards. The Future Forum suggested—and we all know—that there is widespread demoralisation and even fear in the NHS. Good managers are being denigrated and made redundant, front-line staff are facing the sack and major projects and initiatives have been put on hold, as nobody knows what structures will be in place in the next few weeks, let alone the coming months. That is the result of the earlier rush, which can now be remedied by a robust transition plan.
It is to the credit of all the organisations—patient groups, carers, long-term conditions, medical and others—that have persisted in making their views known and whose views the Future Forum heard. During this period, my colleagues and I concentrated on asking people to look at and understand the Bill because we were confident that the more people understood this legislation, the less happy they would be about the threat to our NHS and to patients. We will be doing the same with the new Bill. We will look at it carefully in detail, and I will again be asking whether it meets the concerns that they and their organisations have raised. I say that because almost every single suggestion in the Future Forum report was put down as an amendment by my colleagues in the Commons in Standing Committee. I suggest to the Government that they might save a lot of time and trouble if they adopted all the other amendments that we put down that were not in the Future Forum. Honestly, what a way to conduct the reform of our most precious national asset. The lesson I take from the past year is this: it is very important not to suspend our critical faculties, even in the face of what seems a huge and, at the moment, welcome change. I am sure that this House will not do that. We have a very important job to do in making sense of this Bill and in ensuring that whatever the Government say today, their rhetoric is matched by the reality. We need to consider these suggested changes in this light. We have much work to do, and the sooner we start, the better.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and positive tone that the noble Baroness adopted in her response. I am grateful to her for her welcome of the Future Forum report, and I thank her for expressing appreciation for the seminars which my department is continuing to run. I can return the compliment in expressing my gratitude for the seminars that she has organised to inform Peers.
There is no disguising the fact that this is an extremely wide and detailed programme of modernisation. There is a great deal to absorb. It is important for noble Lords to understand as fully as possible what the proposals amount to before the Bill reaches your Lordships' House. She is right: they are significant changes. However, I would disagree with her about there being no need for a Bill. Since these changes are so extensive, it is appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity of approving what is proposed for the National Health Service which, as the Statement said, is designed to be an enduring structure that successive Governments can back. Certainly, lessons have been learnt. I think that when we consulted on the White Paper last year, it was clear that there was general acceptance of the key principles that we set out in it, but when the Bill, which set out how we proposed to implement those principles, was published, the concerns bubbled to the surface, which was why we thought it right, and I still think it right, to have the listening exercise.
The noble Baroness asked me whether we would publish a new impact assessment and Explanatory Notes. We will be updating the impact assessment and Explanatory Notes to reflect the changes to the Bill. They will be published when the Bill is introduced in this House in accordance with normal protocol. She also asked me about timetabling. We want to ensure that the Bill is given sufficient scrutiny in both Houses. We hope that the stronger consensus for change that has been built as a result of the listening exercise will be reflected when both Houses consider timing issues and that the Bill will come to this House at the earliest appropriate moment. Currently, I cannot tell the noble Baroness when that will be. It is, of course, not for us to dictate to another place how it should manage its business. She also asked about the possibility of time being available for a health-related debate. The Leader of the House is sitting beside me, and I am sure he heard that request and that it will be discussed in the usual channels.
The noble Baroness rightly insisted on a robust transition plan, which I believe we have. She will have noticed from the Statement that we have adjusted quite significantly the pace at which these changes will be rolled out. I believe that those working in the health service will be reassured by that because in some quarters there was anxiety that we were going too fast for some to be sure that they would be ready in time.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, many of which will be the subject of a paper we plan to publish during the next week or so. The paper will set out more precisely how we plan to implement the changes proposed by the NHS Future Forum. I am not in a position to provide all the answers today but it is clear that, above all, the NHS needs certainty, which we can now give to those who work in it. However, I can say today that there is hardly anything in our proposals that does not represent a natural evolution from the policies and programmes pursued by the previous Government: that is, the development of the quality agenda initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi; extending patient choice; developing the tariff; clinically led commissioning at primary care level, which is a natural extension of practice-based commissioning; completing the foundation trust programme; the continuation of the co-operation and competition panel established by the previous Government but now within the framework of a bespoke healthcare regulator; strengthening the patient voice by the evolution of links to HealthWatch; and augmenting the role of the CQC. None of that is wholly new: the difference is that for the first time we are setting all these things out in one coherent programme and not, as did the previous Government, in a piecemeal fashion.
I believe, and I hope, that we have the basis for broad consensus. We will see when the Bill reaches this House whether that belief is borne out. Not for a minute would I wish the noble Baroness to suspend her critical faculties, or for any other noble Lord to do that. I look forward to those debates in due course.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating this important and welcome Statement. It reaffirms the coalition’s commitment to a reformed NHS, which is patient-centred, clinician-led and outcome-focused. Does he accept that the concerns, which are fully addressed in this Statement, were shared not alone on these Benches but by many Conservative colleagues, as well as patients, professionals and other stakeholders, and others in your Lordships’ House, as exemplified in the national debate instituted by the Government? Will he now confirm that, despite the anxieties that there have been, the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State will be reaffirmed in the Bill in the language used when our beloved NHS was established? Will he confirm that there will now be a level playing field and that private providers will not be advantaged against public providers, as was the case under the previous Labour Government? Will he further confirm that Monitor will be redesigned to be more than a mere economic utility regulator but will facilitate co-operation and integration, as well as competition on quality rather than on price?
Earl Howe
I am most grateful to my noble friend. He is right that the concerns that arose in relation to the Bill stemmed from many quarters—certainly from my own Benches and his but also from the wider public. I think we took on board those concerns almost as soon as the Bill was published. They were reflected in a large volume of correspondence, a high proportion of which I dealt with. I was keenly aware of the issues occupying people’s minds. I believe and hope that in the Future Forum’s report, and in our acceptance of that report, we have the basis for allaying most of those concerns.
My noble friend asked three questions. The first was around the duties of the Secretary of State. The Statement made clear that, as now, the Secretary of State will remain responsible for promoting a comprehensive health service. It has never been our intention to do anything else. Indeed, the Bill did not specify anything else. That will be underpinned by the new duties that the Bill already places on the Secretary of State around promoting quality improvement and reducing inequalities. We shall be setting out other duties on the Secretary of State to strengthen his accountability.
On private providers, the noble Lord is right. We are clear that private providers should not be advantaged over the NHS. Indeed, the amendments that we will make to the Bill will put that concern to rest, I hope, once and for all.
Monitor will have its duties rephrased. As the Statement also made clear, the duty to promote competition, which is now in the Bill, will be replaced by a different set of duties around patients, integration and the promotion of quality. There will be quite a different flavour to Monitor's duties.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, who is so widely respected on all sides the House, on the statesmanlike way in which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have led discussions on the Bill in the past few weeks. I pay tribute also to the contribution of the Opposition. In all, we have had something like 25 seminars looking at the detail of the Bill. The developments that have been discussed and which Steve Field and his colleagues have put forward look as though they will produce major amendments to the Bill, which will be welcome on all sides of the House.
I have three specific questions. The one of greatest importance relates not only to the local clinical commissioning groups, but the clinical senates. We need to know a good deal more about them. Will they take on board some of the people who were previously employed by regional strategic authorities who are involved in the specialist commissioning of highly specialised services? That needs to be looked at carefully because of the unevenness in standards of specialised care throughout the country.
In relation to those clinical senates, will the role of universities be taken on board; not only those with medical schools but the ones that have responsibility for training other healthcare professionals? They should be thought of as having some kind of formal role in relation to those senates. I also suggest to the noble Earl in relation to clinical networks that, with the development of genomic medicine, rare diseases are becoming so important that we may need to have a clinical network for them because of the very expensive and rare orphan drugs that are being rapidly introduced for the treatment of these conditions.
Finally, the Bill as originally constructed did not deal in any depth with research or clinical education and training. The developments in this particular report on those two fields are very welcome. We look forward to having further details.
Earl Howe
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as I always am, particularly for his welcome for the idea of clinical senates. They will provide the kind of multiprofessional advice on local commissioning plans that everybody has been calling for. The senates will be hosted by the NHS Commissioning Board. The detail is still to be worked out, but it is likely that they will be located regionally. They will be in prime position to do the very thing that the noble Lord seeks: to provide expert advice on good commissioning, not just for the treatment of everyday conditions, but for specialised services, which I know is of particular concern to noble Lords.
The noble Lord suggested that there should be a role for the universities, and that is a constructive idea that I will take away. As regards clinical networks, we are certainly of the view that they have proved their worth over the past few years and we are keen to see more of them created. I hope that that will be facilitated by the structures we are putting in place.
Lord Darzi of Denham
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the noble Earl and also congratulate him on his leadership in getting us back on track. One of the commonest sayings about a good clinician, whether a doctor or nurse, is that they listen to a patient but also seek the opinion of others if dealing with a complicated case. In this instance, the noble Earl has done both.
I am very reassured that the language has changed. As the noble Earl said, quality will remain the organising principle of the NHS. I know and he knows that quality is what unites those who deliver healthcare. Quality is what the public and patients expect. I am also reassured by the concept of using competition when necessary. I strongly support competition, have always done so and work in an organisation that competes not only in the NHS in England but also globally. I acknowledge, too, that integration should also be used as a tool where possible. The listening exercise is not at the end. It should start from now. Where will the engagement exercise lead?
Finally, and more importantly, there is the management and leadership now required to drive these important sets of reforms at a time of austerity. We have heard a lot about management. It is an easy political target but the NHS needs better management rather than less. I am pleased to see that the Government are committing to retaining the best managers and to develop managerial skills. However, this commitment is distinctly lacking in specifics. More detail and action are required before I could confidently say that the importance of management has been grasped. I say this within the context of the age of austerity. We need leadership and management to drive this set of reforms. I strongly agree that we need reforms and they need to be continual reforms rather than destructive ones. On that note, I look forward to Second Reading.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and would reassure him—I am sure that I do not need to—that our ambition is to carry through the agenda that he began when he was Minister of raising the quality of care throughout the NHS. He will see that we have defined quality in the Bill. It is the one part of the Bill that I do not think anybody has quibbled with. We have used his definition and I hope that no amendments will be tabled to change that.
The noble Lord said “competition when necessary” and I thoroughly agree with that. What we do not want to see is competition as an end in itself. It is never that. It can be there only to support better care of patients and buttress patient choice. If we believe in patient choice then we must inevitably believe in an element of competition. The key is making that competition work for patients properly, as we all would wish. Over the past few years we have seen how it can do that.
The listening exercise will not come to an end. We have asked the Future Forum to remain in being and to continue its work in a number of other areas. I am pleased to say that it has agreed to do so. Education and training will be one such area, public health another.
Finally, the noble Lord is absolutely right to direct our attention to the importance of good management. I think I read the other day in an article that he published that, if anything, the NHS has been over-administered and under-managed. I would agree with that analysis. We need good quality managers. I have never been one to denigrate managers. They are of the highest importance if we are to have a first-rate NHS. I hope to have further news on that front before long.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend on his Statement which has certainly reassured me that the principles in the White Paper have been maintained. Can he elaborate a little more on the development of competition and choice to which he referred? The Statement says that Monitor’s core duty will be to protect and promote the interests of patients, not to promote competition as if it were an end in itself. Can I take it from what my noble friend has said that the Government continue to believe that competition and choice are key drivers of improving the interests of patients and quality in the health service?
Following on from that, on the Government’s commitment to extending patients’ choice of any qualified provider, which is reasserted in the Statement, how will the phasing of the introduction or further expansion of alternative providers evolve in a way that will give those alternative providers the confidence to make the investments necessary so that they can play their full part in providing quality services under the NHS?
Earl Howe
I thank my noble friend for raising this important topic. I cannot provide him with the kind of detailed replies that he seeks. Those should emerge over the next few days as we work through our response fully. But I can tell him that we will amend the Bill to strengthen and emphasise the commissioner’s duty to promote choice in line with the right in the NHS constitution for patients to make choices about their NHS care and to receive information to support those choices. We believe in patients’ choice and in competition, as I have already indicated, where that is appropriate. As recommended by the Future Forum, the Secretary of State’s mandate to the board will set clear expectations about offering patients choice.
We will maintain our commitment to extending patients’ choice of any qualified provider, but we will do this in a much more phased way. We will delay starting until April 2012, and the choice of any qualified provider will be limited to services covered by national or local tariff pricing to ensure that competition, where it occurs, is based on quality. We will focus on the services where patients say they want more choice—for example, starting with selected community services—rather than seeking blanket coverage. Of course, with some services such as A&E and critical care, any qualified provider will never be practicable or in patients’ interests.
I have already referred to the changes in the duties of Monitor, in its competition functions. The NHS Commissioning Board, in consultation with Monitor, will set out guidance on how choice and competition should be applied to particular services, guided by the mandate set by Ministers. That includes guidance on how services should be bundled or integrated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Heart of England NHS foundation trust and as a consultant trainer in the NHS. Like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his stewardship of this matter in your Lordships' House. It is noticeable that the Government are continuing with their policy of placing £60 billion in the hands of commissioning consortia, which would be largely led by general practitioners. What I thought was missing from both the listening exercise and the Government’s general approach was any indication of how the standards in general practice are to be improved. A huge amount of power is to be given to general practice, yet we know that the general quality of GPs is very variable. In some parts of the country, it is very difficult to get access to GPs out of nine to five hours; in some parts, GPs have shown themselves completely unable to engage in demand management. Will these commissioning consortia be able to get to grips with poor quality GP performance?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raises an important issue. I agree with him that the quality of general practice has been extremely variable. We saw a report the other day, published by one of the think tanks, which said exactly that. We have some very good GPs, but we have some who, frankly, are less than the standard that we would want and expect in primary care.
We are doing a lot of work to roll out leadership programmes for general practitioners. The National Leadership Council is working with GPs to agree the skills required for commissioning and will assist GPs in developing these skills as appropriate. The NHS institute is also doing some good work in this area and we will shortly be able to provide a bit more detail on how we can develop leadership, regionally and nationwide.
The noble Lord’s question runs rather wider than that, being about the quality of care delivered by GPs. In rolling out the outcomes framework and the commissioning outcomes framework, and the transparency that goes with that, it will become rapidly apparent which GPs require more support. I have no doubt that the consortia or, as we are now calling them, clinical commissioning groups will see it as being in their interests to ensure that the poorer performers are brought up to the standard of the best.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I commend the Government on the depth and breadth of the consultation that has taken place. I particularly welcome the new focus for Monitor on integration and the proposed coterminosity of the clinical commissioning groups with local authorities, which is particularly important in the case of commissioning integrated mental health and learning disability services. Does the Minister agree that the changes now proposed can be expected to meet better the needs of people with serious mental illness, learning disabilities and other complex needs than the Bill as originally published, and that the focus on health inequalities will allow the Secretary of State to monitor reductions in them for those vulnerable groups?
Earl Howe
I am very glad that the noble Baroness, with her considerable expertise, raised the important subject of serious mental illness and the needs of those who are particularly disadvantaged. She is right: we now have a much better way forward in commissioning services for those particularly difficult-to-care-for groups, if I may put it that way. How services will be commissioned for those with special needs and serious mental illness will, I think, emerge as we go forward. However, in my own mind I can see that local authorities and consortia may well decide to commission services jointly. There will be the means to do that through pooled budgets and shared arrangements. We will ensure that the quality premium, the details of which are still being worked through, genuinely rewards the ironing-out of health inequalities. We are absolutely clear that one of our goals is to address health inequalities at every level, and that includes in mental health.
Education Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, back to education, as I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted. I declare two interests in that I am the chairman of the Edge foundation and the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, two educational charities which promote technical, practical and vocational hands-on learning. I draw no remuneration from either charity and I have no interest in any educational company.
I support this Bill because it builds upon the Bill that was introduced in the last Session and really encapsulates Michael Gove’s major, radical reform. He is doing many other things but his really radical reform is to increase substantially the number of academies in the educational system. That goes back to the city technology colleges which I started back in the 1980s and which were the first colleges independent of local education authorities. When I announced them, they were totally opposed by the Labour Party, by the Liberal Party and by many Conservatives but the first 16 proved so successful that, when Labour came into power in 1997, it decided to expand and develop them. Indeed, when you listen to Tony Blair speak about his educational record it is all about academies and special schools.
The change that Michael Gove has made is that in effect—and this Bill says it—the assumption will be that all new schools will be academies. That is a very radical change which really turns the whole education system upside down, because in future the expansion of that system will be by demand pull and not by supply push. That means that huge responsibility is thrown to the local areas, to local communities and to the groups of people gathering together to create new schools. The Minister spoke of autonomy, which is a very important change.
I think that the Government will come to realise that, when academies expand, there will be a need for immediate bodies between them and the department. There will probably be several thousand academies, made up of some of the existing academy trusts and charities such as the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, which provides advice, guidance and help and ensures that standards are high in the colleges that it supports.
One of the reasons for my being particularly keen on this policy is that the technical colleges which I have promoted for the past four years and with Ron Dearing before he died count as academies. They are proving very successful. Together with the department, the Baker Dearing trust is examining more than 40 applications from all over the country, many from very deprived areas in the inner cities, to establish such colleges. I think that Members of the House who have heard me speak on these colleges previously will realise what they are: they are distinct from ordinary schools; they are 14 to 18, not 11 to 18; each is sponsored by a university, not just for prestige but to involve universities in pupil mentoring and pupil teaching at the ages of 14, 15, 16 and 17; and local industry gets involved, not just for day release, not even for apprentices, but in shaping the curriculum. That is because they will be the bodies that want to employ those youngsters when they leave the UTCs.
The colleges’ importance is recognised in lots of ways. First, the working day is 8.30 to 5.30, which is two hours more than for a normal school. They do 40 weeks instead of 38 weeks, which means that, over a five-year period, they gain a whole teaching year. Below 16, the teaching is 40 per cent technical and 60 per cent academic. Apart from engineering or the building trades, they offer English, maths and science and the bridging subjects of employability skills, entrepreneurial skills and financial skills. By way of foreign languages, they teach German for engineering, not Goethe, and French for business, not Molière. When it comes to humanities, we have commissioned courses in the histories and lives of great engineers, scientists and inventors.
The really distinguishing feature of the colleges is that the transfer age is 14. I have become quite convinced that the right age of transfer in our education system is 14 and not 11. By 14, many youngsters know what their interests are; they can make a decision as to which course they want to follow, as long as they have a chance of changing if it does not work out for them. This is very clear from the applications that we are examining. Many of the colleges have done popularity surveys in their areas which show very strong support from parents and students—50, 60 and 70 per cent—for more practical, vocational and technical education at the age of 14. That is what the colleges provide. Indeed, it is how Europe organises secondary education, having upper secondary and lower secondary at the age of 14. Fourteen is the dividing of the ways.
We could have had 14 in 1945, because the Board of Education meeting in 1941 chose the pattern of education after the war: selective grammar schools, selective technical schools and secondary modern. It also reckoned, which is often forgotten, that the transfer age should be 14. That was never changed by a Minister; it was changed simply by the Permanent Secretary of the day saying that transfer could not be at 14 because grammar schools started at 11. It was a missed opportunity. I hope that by establishing colleges that start at 14 we will provide game-changing ability in the education system. That is the way forward. I think that they will be very popular—the first one is already heavily oversubscribed for the second year—and spread across the country like wildfire.
Lord Layard
My Lords, I should like to follow that up by talking about apprenticeships. Where the Bill proposes a major backward step is in its repealing of the so-called apprenticeship entitlement, whereby any 17 or 18 year-old with five GCSE passes who wants an apprenticeship must be offered a place. What I have described is a crucial provision of the 2009 Act, which will come into force in 2015, but if the Bill as it stands is passed, it will be dropped.
The importance of this is obvious. It would make clear that there is a route to skills for all our young people. Of course, for the academically minded there is already a clear route through A-levels. If they want a place, they are legally entitled to one, and they know it. From the age of 14 or earlier, they can see a way forward. But for the other half of our young people, there is no clear way forward. They are entitled to stay on in full-time vocational education, but that does not lead to the ticket to a trade, and many employers are not interested in young people who go this way. What I would say most of these young people want is not full-time education, but to learn while earning. Many employers also find that type of learning the most effective. We have to establish the apprenticeship route, that of learning while earning, as the standard route to skills for those not taking the academic route.
Until recently, far too few people have taken the apprenticeship route, and the result has been frightening numbers of disaffected youth, reflected in the problem of the NEETs, and among those in work are too many with low skills, low productivity and low pay. Indeed, the main reason for lower productivity in Britain than in Germany or France is our shocking neglect of this particular group of young people.
However, we are now in a good place to remedy this failure. In 2007, the previous Government’s White Paper proposed the entitlement I have described. It was endorsed in 2008 by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and there followed the 2009 Act which established the entitlement. As a result of all that, there has been the large increase in the number of apprenticeship places for 16 to 19 year-olds which has been talked about, and I stress that they have been available for this group, not just for adult apprentices. So, starts for 16 to 19 year-olds increased by 18 per cent in 2009-10 and by some 14 per cent in 2010-11. Even more important is that in the recent spending review, enough money has been provided to ensure that by 2015, the entitlement set out in the 2009 Act can be met. We are poised to deliver a revolution for this group of young people.
So why repeal the entitlement? Money is not the issue, as I have just explained. The issue is simply one of will. The Government are worried that they cannot find places, that employers will not step up to the plate. I should like to make three encouraging points about the situation so far as employers are concerned.
First, there has been the extraordinary response over the past two years that I have just referred to. Secondly, there is a very good provision in the Bill, which I welcome, whereby an employer will be entitled automatically to take the money provided for an apprenticeship if they find a young person they would like to take on. What is being introduced is a good decentralising feature, and I am sure that it will lead many more employers to become interested in providing apprenticeship places. Thirdly, there is a huge opportunity for more places. It is an extraordinary fact that only one-third of large enterprises with over 500 workers employ any apprentices at all. So there is a good opportunity to find places and thus provide opportunities for our young people.
The National Apprenticeship Service was created precisely for the purpose of finding places for young people, but it needs a clear remit. It was given that remit in the provisions of the 2009 Act, which was that the service had to ensure that every young person could find an apprenticeship place. This Bill has got to have something like that. Perhaps that is too strong a legal obligation; it may be something that the Government feel is too risky, and I understand that. However, why can we not have in the Bill something like a provision that gives a clear instruction to the National Apprenticeship Service to make all reasonable efforts to find a place for every young person aged under 19 with five GCSEs who wants such a place? That could be subject to guidance from the Secretary of State. There would be no legal challenge that any young person could make to the situation that they found themselves in, but it would lay down a clear mission for the National Apprenticeship Service and a clear obligation to ensure that each young person had a chance that they could look forward to.
We must have in the Bill a statement of the clear strategic purpose of the NAS for 16 to 19 year-olds. It would be wonderful if the Minister could think of such an amendment to bring forward in Committee. If he cannot, there is a group of us who would be interested in doing so. Unless we can make this a solid system that provides for this group of young people, we will simply perpetuate the shocking discrimination that is embedded in our present provision for different types of young people.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill. It has also been welcomed by many in the education service. It is significant that the Association of School and College Leaders, which leads our educational institutions, has also given it a warm welcome. I shall concentrate on two major areas that underpin the philosophy of the coalition and its approach to public services. First, the Bill tackles underperformance. Secondly, it offers teachers more autonomy and freedom from bureaucracy and regulation, which have done so much to undermine their professionalism and morale.
Underperformance has been one of the major concerns of recent years. It is simply not acceptable that there are schools at which less than 20 per cent of pupils achieve the basic standard of five good GCSE passes, while in other schools more than 90 per cent of pupils achieve this standard. Nor is it acceptable that the gap between the lowest and the highest achievers in an age group has grown steadily wider over the past decade. It is therefore with pleasure that I see the coalition proposing in the Bill to offer free early years education to the most deprived small children. Early intervention can, we know, make a huge difference to underperformance later in life.
We also know that the absence of effective discipline is one of the barriers to pupil achievement; indeed, it comes first in any school or classroom. The first requirement of a good teacher is to command the attention and respect of her or his class. If pupils are fooling around, playing up and occupied with anything but their work, they are simply not learning. In the best of worlds, teachers can achieve good discipline without needing extra powers, but sadly the world in many schools is now tough and even violent. Where a teacher has every reason to believe, for example, that an aggressive teenager is carrying a knife, the right to search is a basic protection for other, more vulnerable children in the school. The Bill’s provisions for giving back to teachers the power to exercise good discipline in various ways, even in extreme cases, are therefore much to be welcomed.
A further measure to tackle underperformance is the new power for the Secretary of State to close schools at which pupils are manifestly underperforming, regardless of whether there is an Ofsted judgment. Ofsted’s own performance has not always been reliable. It is good to see that its judgments are not to be the sole arbiter of a school’s success or failure. I ask my noble friend to consider new mechanisms for rewarding schools whose performance is outstanding, whether or not Ofsted has so judged them.
Another major contribution to tackling underperformance is the requirement to maintain international comparisons. As has been said, in the past decade the UK has fallen behind many other advanced countries in performance in key subjects. We need our young people to emerge from the education system with skills as good as, and better than, those of our competitors. It is therefore essential that we keep a sharp eye on how we match up.
Trusting teachers is the theme most dear to me. Teachers, as we have frequently urged from all sides of the House, are the heart of the education enterprise. Their contribution is the one essential determining factor in success at school and individual pupil level. Teachers have particularly welcomed the Bill’s provision of anonymity for those accused of improper behaviour. As has been said, it is an appalling thing for a teacher to be falsely accused. It can destroy their career, even their marriage and family relationships, yet it is such an easy thing for a pupil to do. Those who need persuading that this measure of protection is needed might consider that in the past 10 years, 1,785 teachers have been so accused, of whom only 158—less than 1 in 10—were taken to court, and of these fewer than half, 64, were finally convicted. Yet the lives of those other 1,721 had in many cases been turned upside down.
I am pleased indeed to see that teachers are to have more freedom not only in discipline but in the content of what they teach—that is, in the curriculum. These provisions go some way to reducing the burden of regulation, but we will have to hope for a real change both of heart and of the prevailing culture among the staff to be transferred from the QCDA, as well as Ofsted and Ofqual, if real professional freedom is to be achieved.
That brings me to the subject of inspection. I warmly welcome the new slimmed-down list of what the chief inspector's report should cover, including the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of children, which should give comfort to the right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place. However, early reports of what is happening in this regard give me cause for concern. I hope above all else to see a professional and dignified process of school and college inspection that works to improve schools, not condemn them, and that looks for good work and green shoots of improvement, not faults. Such inspection could bear down on standards and give Ministers the accurate and comprehensive understanding of what is happening in the system that sound policy-making requires.
I am pleased to see four more quangos disappearing. Few will mourn the end of the YPLA, which in its short life has become unbelievably bloated in both numbers of staff and cost. I regret that the GTC never succeeded in meeting the aspirations that many of us had for it. I pay warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for the excellent work he did in its early days. When the functions of the GTC and the TDA are transferred, it will be important to ensure that the training offered to teachers as their careers develop is appropriate to their needs, to the needs of the school in which they are teaching, and to the needs of the education service as a whole. I ask my noble friend what devices are in place to ensure that those three levels of need are appropriately assessed and good quality provision for their fulfilment is assured.
I also ask my noble friend what arrangements are in place to ensure that during the induction year there will be some outside judgment to provide an independent addition to the school's assessment? Can we not consider the induction year as a necessary step before being granted a licence to practise?
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate, but, before doing so, I draw attention to my interests in terms of my employment at the University of York and at Northern Education.
This is a disparate Bill, a rather bitty Bill. It covers a lot of different parts of education. I welcome some parts—I will do so throughout Committee as well—particularly the extension of early years provision, which other noble Lords have mentioned. I am particularly interested in the innovation that is invited in pupil referral units; that is a good move. I also welcome the sharper focus that Ofsted will give to the inspection of schools; I readily admit that a fresh pair of eyes cutting down data collection is probably a good thing after a Government have been in power for a number of years.
There are some things that I do not like that I will want to oppose in Committee, in particular: not inspecting some schools, no matter what their status; the changes to the school admissions rules and regulations; the abolition of school support staff; and the abolition of the General Teaching Council without any attempt to reform or improve it.
Parts of the Bill, when considered with other government announcements, provide a framework for what the Government hope to achieve in education over the next few years, and I will concentrate my comments there. What bothers me is that there is an inconsistency in the words that we have heard from the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House and in the contents of the Bill. I believe the Minister when he says that he understands the value of teaching, and I believe him when he says that he wants to improve standards in the classroom, but the test has to be whether the legislation that he puts before the House is likely to bring that about.
What I get from the Bill is that three things are beginning to emerge as the core of how the Government intend to drive up education standards. One is structural change throughout the system; the second is curriculum change at the wish of the Secretary of State; and the third, and most interesting, is the increasing importance of international comparisons rather than national comparisons as a means of assessment.
Structural change is always the first call for politicians, and that runs like a thread through the Bill. There is a relentless pressure for schools to be academies. It is not that I mind schools being academies, but I do mind the time the process takes. When I go to conferences now, I find that teachers talk not about teaching and learning but about whether they should apply for academy status. If you add to that the change in the size and composition of governing bodies, the reclassification of national organisations such as the NCSL and the shifting powers from the arm’s-length bodies to the Secretary of State, it is all about structural change—all the pieces are moving. This takes the time, energy, resources and effort not only of the department and Ministers but of schools and school leaders. While they are doing that, they cannot be concentrating on improving standards of teaching and learning.
The two other drivers that I identify in the Bill are very much connected. They concern the curriculum and what we teach and a move to benchmark assessment internationally rather than within the country. We will want to say more about this Secretary of State being the first to assume control of the curriculum. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has spoken imagined back in 1989 that in future years legislation would be passed that would give control of the curriculum to one of his successors. I welcome the more formal approach to international assessments, but it is in this area of the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s announcements on the curriculum that I have the most concern. I share the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the lack of understanding of a broad curriculum. Frankly, I do not trust the Secretary of State’s ability to read the OECD evidence. Given that he has picked that evidence as the most important evidence to look at, I am worried. We should introduce legislation that attributes increasing importance to that evidence only if we know how to read the evidence.
As we know, the Secretary of State favours a traditional academic curriculum with the English baccalaureate’s emphasis on knowledge. He put it very well when he spoke to the Royal Society of Arts. He said:
“What specifically concerns me is an approach that denies children access to knowledge because time, and effort, is spent on cultivating abstract thinking skills rather than deepening the knowledge base which is the best foundation for reasoning”.
However, Andreas Schleicher, who the Secretary of State has described as the most important person in English education, said:
“For most of the last century, the widespread belief among policymakers was that you had to get the basics right in education before you could turn to broader skills. It’s as though schools needed to be boring and dominated by rote learning before deeper, more invigorating learning could flourish. Those that hold on to this view should not be surprised if students lose interest or drop out of schools because they cannot relate what is going on in school to their real lives”.
Of those two I back the OECD and will want to explore in the Bill how we ensure that the Secretary of State, with his new powers over the curriculum, cannot ignore the evidence of the OECD, to which he is giving more influence in the English education system.
At the end of the day, I ask myself what there is in the Bill to support teachers. What is in the Bill that will ensure that our teachers in classrooms with their pupils have the chance to teach more effectively? Trusting teachers—I choose my words carefully—respecting their professionalism and believing in their ability to shape the country’s future does not for me mean leaving them to get on with things; I think those were the words that the Minister used today. They need access to high-quality research, access to and money for professional development, and time to update their skills. Like all other professional bodies, they need a professional body to speak for them. Leaving them to get on with it is not respecting their professionalism, and the evidence shows that it will not lead to higher standards; giving them the structures they need to improve the job they do in the classroom will. Sadly, the Bill does not contain that. I will want to explore those and other issues in Committee.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I join others in welcoming many things in the Bill. In particular, I welcome the broad intention to give much greater autonomy to schools and colleges, and discretion to teachers and school and college leaders to take decisions and be accountable for them. All of us for too long have railed against the micromanagement of education, which has been exacerbated by a regime of constant changes to structures and standards. My noble friend the Minister mentioned the report published not so long ago by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of this House on the accumulation of guidance and directions that were headed towards schools, and the very fact that each year some 4,000 pages of guidance and directions were sent to school leaders, which absorbed a disproportionate amount of the time that they should have devoted to running their schools and improving performance in them.
That said, I also worry that in the Bill and in the process of simplification and doing away with quangos—the name of the game—we are giving too many powers to the Secretary of State. Has the Department for Education really got the capacity to absorb all the functions of the GTCE, the QCDA and the other two quangos that we are in the process of abolishing? In Clauses 23 to 25, is it really sensible not to have an arm’s-length body to set up and advise on the national curriculum? The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke of a curriculum changing at the whim of the Secretary of State. There are dangers in the Secretary of State being too close in terms of setting the national curriculum. There are those who are writing about the nationalisation of education in what is happening. Although I know that this is certainly not the intention of this coalition Government, there are dangers that we may be moving in that direction in one or two of the moves that we are taking.
I declare an interest in that I am chairing a commission for the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education, the AOC, and the 157 Group on the role of colleges in their communities. I have been busy visiting a lot of colleges around the country and I shall be visiting more. One thing that has impressed me is what some of the colleges are achieving in terms of forging partnerships with local organisations, such as employers, PCTs, community groups, churches, football clubs, schools, universities, and Sure Start centres. You name it, and partnerships are being formed. An important element has been partnerships with local authorities. Many of these colleges are now central to the creation of new local enterprise partnerships. I am, in some ways, rather sorry to see in Schedule 12, which is enacted by Clause 48, that the duty on colleges to co-operate and promote the well-being of their local economies and communities is being dropped. I recognise that the AOC has argued that colleges do not need to be told to do this, but it is no bad thing to be reminded that it should be one of their duties.
Similarly, I am sorry to see in Clauses 30 and 31 that the duty on schools and colleges to co-operate is being dropped. Schools and colleges have a prime duty to serve their local communities with co-operation and partnership in the local areas. It is a key aspect. I would argue that local authorities play an important strategic role in this, and that that role should not be ignored.
I should like to say a word about vocational education and pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard. There is a real issue, because in Clause 28 we are dropping the duty on local authorities to ensure that they have diploma courses available. I weep no tears at the departure of some of the hybrid diplomas, but I worry about the curriculum we are putting forward for those young people who are not totally academic in nature. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, knows that I very much welcome the development of the university technical colleges. I, too, endorse this notion that the move should be at 14.
As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, there has been a shocking neglect in our schools of that group of young people for whom the academic curriculum does not necessarily provide what one is looking for. This really links up with the question of apprenticeships. I do not regret so much that there is no longer a duty on the National Apprenticeship Service to find apprenticeships, but there is a very real problem, as the noble Lord mentioned, in finding apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. I ask the Minister whether any thought is being given to providing a one-year pre-apprenticeship training in colleges. One of the problems that employers raise is the lack of work readiness on the part of these young people, and they are rather loath to take on 16 year-olds into apprenticeship places.
Finally, I would like to say a word about the Careers Service. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, mentioned, there is a real problem about young people learning about the range of opportunities open to them. In particular, I regret the dropping of the obligation on schools to provide knowledge for young people about the apprenticeship opportunities open to them. This is very much a retrograde step.
I am also very worried about what has happened to our Careers Service. Just the other day in his evidence before the Select Committee of the other place, Mr Tony Watts, one of our experts on the Careers Service, said:
“We are seeing the collapse of all the help that is available to young people in terms of their career planning”.
I hope the Minister can assure us that with the one-year gap before the new all-age careers service is developed, and the danger of losing all the knowledge there in the Connexions service and the Careers Service, with the laying off of these people by local authorities, that something will be done to make sure that we do not lose that expertise.
Lord Quirk
My Lords, my main concern is with Part 3 of the Bill, which I had hoped would address more fully and robustly the issues presented in last November’s White Paper, The Importance of Teaching. Of course our education system needs attention in many other respects as well and the Bill tackles several of these, but the role of teachers is surely paramount. For too long their profession has failed to attract the best of our school leavers or university graduates. We are told that:
“Top-performing countries consistently recruit their teachers from the top third of graduates”,
but our own target, and that only from September 2012, is to be a Lower Second, an astonishingly modest goal these days when few graduates get lower.
The White Paper rightly contrasts us with the highest performing economies where,
“teachers and teaching are held in the highest esteem”,
as of course they were in this country within living memory. You do not have to go back to Goldsmith’s “Deserted Village”, where the teacher was held in awe,
“and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew”.
How do we make teachers respected and admired once again? It will not be done while entrants to the profession have only two A-levels at E grade. Teachers will hardly become role models by cravenly adopting the styles of their most disadvantaged students—sloppy in dress, behaviour and speech. Nor can it be done when teachers are bullied, terrorised and physically abused with near impunity by disruptive minorities of 13 year-olds. No wonder so many flee the job they would love to do. I therefore welcome the measures in Part 2 of the Bill to strengthen the hand of teachers and enable them to get on with their teaching. This is what the bulk of pupils want and it is certainly what their parents want. Nor, finally, will we get happy, respectful learning while half the classroom has no interest in, or aptitude for, the subject being taught. So, the flexibility and variety of schools now envisaged must surely command support, not least the UTCs of the noble Lord, Lord Baker.
Fifteen years ago, I was among those who believed that a vital way to raise the status of teachers, and hence their self-respect and the public’s respect, was to make the profession self-regulating with its own general council analogous to the councils for medicine and other major professions. After all, who better than teachers to know the requisite aptitude and training for new recruits and to recognise the failings in those who subsequently do not come up to scratch? Sadly, as we know, little of that happened when the 1998 Act duly delivered the GTC. Better-qualified candidates still did not queue up to be teachers, as they do to be doctors, vets or lawyers. Nor has the GTC been anything like as muscular as, say, the GMC in asserting its authority to set the standards for recruitment and training or to weed out incompetence. Last year, I asked the Government a number of detailed questions about the qualifications of teachers currently in post. I was told bleakly by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin:
“The information requested is not held centrally”.—[Official Report, 3/3/10; col. WA 355.]
Why was the GTC not assembling just such data?
So I can understand why the GTC became a sitting target in the quango cull, but I am puzzled by the quiescence and apparent complicity on all sides. Are teachers not proud of their status-conferring council? Some say that the annual fee made it unpopular. However, it is only £36. Junior doctors on comparable pay have to stump up £200. Can noble Lords imagine doctors sitting quietly on their hands if what we had before us was a health Bill proposing to abolish the GMC and transfer all its powers and duties to Mr Andrew Lansley? How does abolishing the GTC square with repeated mantras about trusting teachers and giving them more autonomy—a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Hill, several times this afternoon? Not least, I am puzzled why, with the GTC mentioned in the 1997 Labour manifesto and duly delivered a year later, so many MPs are ready to discard it, as shown by the six-hour Commons debate in February, when the GTC was barely mentioned, let alone defended.
Even if this House were content to see the GTC’s powers and duties vested in the hands of the able but already pretty busy Michael Gove, we would need to scrutinise very carefully what these powers and duties are. Clause 8, in particular, requires detailed elucidation. It gives the Secretary of State power to deal with a teacher’s improper conduct. I wonder whether that applies also to a teacher’s incompetence. It surely cannot be the case that, after getting a thumbs up on completing an initial three-term induction period, a teacher is deemed to be fit for the job throughout the next 60 terms.
I wish to make one final brief point. Mr Gove posed a rhetorical question on 8 February:
“Do we want to keep ... the General Teaching Council”,
and other education bodies,
“in their current forms?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/11; col. 173.]
Will the Minister say whether this last phrase implies that the Government might consider retaining the GTC in a substantially changed form—for example, with more employer representation?
Baroness Ritchie of Brompton
My Lords, I must declare an interest, first as chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board and, since the Children Act 2004, as lead member for family and children’s services in Kensington and Chelsea. I have seen first hand how local government can make a positive difference to the lives of people locally. As advocates of diversity in school provision and champions of parental choice, councils and councillors really are at the heart of their neighbourhoods. Councils do not run schools, but they make sure that there are enough places for children who need them and that the admission process operates fairly so that every child gets the chance to go to a good local school. Perhaps more importantly, we oversee the distribution of funding in a cost-effective way. Councils also provide the crucial support for children with special educational needs and are the guardians of children in our care.
As the Secretary of State told the Local Government Association conference last year,
“promoting greater parental choice helps to improve standards for all children”,
and the role of councils in the education system should continue to be one in which we are able to ensure that the local school system is flexible and adaptable to local needs. I agree with the Government’s concern that there is too much bureaucracy within the education system. I have met councillors who have been told, “You don’t have the power to do that”, or, “You can’t stray outside the Whitehall guidelines”. This has the perverse effect of stifling innovative thinking from councillors and officers.
We know that this also occurs in schools. Too many forms, too much red tape and too many rules have sometimes stopped the system from focusing on educating children. The LGA is supportive of moves in the Bill to give teachers greater freedoms and flexibilities. I welcome Part 7, which abolishes the Young People’s Learning Agency—a move that will eliminate an agency which currently acts as an unnecessary middle man in the funding process. This provision will, no doubt, come as a relief to many within the 16 to 19 education and training sector who have felt that yet another burdensome central government agency may have added to the bureaucracy of an already complex funding system.
Councils also support the introduction of a national funding formula for fair and transparent funding for schools pre-16 and the reform of post-16 funding to produce a fairer funding system between different types of providers. The LGA is arguing strongly to retain local flexibility so that councils and schools can work together to adapt to local circumstances—for instance, the needs in rural areas or split-site arrangements. One potential model may be to reconsider the need to introduce an education funding agency to replace the abolished YPLA, as proposed in last year’s White Paper on schools. The current approach to funding pre-16 education through the DSG should be maintained and could easily be extended to cover 16 to 19 funding. This would be cost-effective and would eliminate the associated costs and bureaucracy of a national agency, but such a move would have the benefit of the DSG already in effect being a national formula which distributes money on a formula basis.
I also welcome the focus on the apprenticeships offer, particularly for children in care, but I ask the Government to look at other vulnerable groups of young people such as young carers, who often find it hard to access training and employment. Local government has welcomed such moves elsewhere to hand responsibility from central government agencies to local councils as part of the Government’s localism drive. It is natural then for councils to have some worries about some of the proposals in the Bill which appear to centralise matters where councils currently have discretion to make choices and react to local circumstances. For example, in Part 5, Clause 43 allows the Secretary of State to direct a council to issue a performance standards and safety warning notice to a school. Research commissioned by the LGA shows that councils, head teachers and school improvement partners prefer a collaborative partnership approach to school improvement. The study found no evidence that the increased use of warning notices would greatly assist processes of school improvement. There was some concern that such notices could be counterproductive where a school is in a gradual or fragile process of improvement. Equally, I recognise that where these partnerships are not working, then more control may be needed. While the intention may be that this new ability for central government to overrule a local decision is used only sparingly, I urge the Government, in the spirit of localism, to consider carefully the introduction of this power.
Similarly, Schedule 11 introduces new rules requiring councils that are looking to establish a new school to first seek to establish an academy, and introduces a requirement for a council to seek the Secretary of State’s approval before proceeding with exploring alternative proposals should an academy not be considered appropriate for the needs of local children and parents. Councils’ primary concern when encouraging new provision in their areas should be the needs of parents and children. That will include balancing diversity of provision to expand choice. It is imperative that this new process does not reduce the ability of local parents, education providers and councils to respond quickly and effectively to new demand and that local choice and diversity of provision is maintained. Unfortunately, there is a risk that a potentially burdensome process requiring approval and scrutiny by the DfE could restrict the ability of local communities to decide what type of school is established in their area. Councils support the many excellent academies that already exist in their areas and there is nothing wrong with a presumption that in the future, when a new school is to be established, the option of an academy is actively explored. However, I again urge the Government to apply the spirit of localism to the Bill and consider removing the requirement for councils to go cap in hand to the department for permission to explore alternative models of schools.
The final area I wish to touch on very briefly is the role of local authority school governors, to which my noble friend has already referred. I am pleased that the Minister of State for Schools made it clear that the Government did not intend to diminish the contribution made by local authority governors, and will ensure that governing bodies that reconstitute will be required to have one local authority-appointed governor. I look forward to supporting the Government in amending the Bill in this regard as we move through further scrutiny.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, children with a special educational need often fail to receive the support they require in school. Sometimes it is because their disability is not identified and at other times the school is simply not aware of how best to support children with special educational needs. Currently there are 88,000 school-aged children with autism in England and the vast majority of them are educated in mainstream schools. Yet parents still have to contend with a system that cannot or, sadly, more often, will not meet the needs of their child. It is not, therefore, surprising that there is a close link between disability and permanent exclusion from school.
The evidence is especially stark for children with autism. The National Autistic Society’s report Make school make sense found that 27 per cent of children with autism have been excluded from school compared with 4 per cent of other children. Of those excluded, more than a third—34 per cent—had missed a term or more of school. One in 10 children with autism missed more than a whole school year in the past two years, and a great number have been excluded many times. We have to ask the question: why is this happening in our schools today? For a child with autism, a lack of social awareness, an inability to express themselves verbally, form friendships, or being socially naïve, which are all key features of autism, can lead to isolation in the classroom, poor behaviour in the playground, and often, because a child with autism can be easily led, getting into great problems and trouble.
A school’s response can be variable. The very best schools take appropriate action to support the children, whether that is in the classroom, the playground or the dining hall. A poor school will simply escalate a child through the disciplinary route without considering why they are misbehaving or whether there is a need for alternative interventions.
Earlier this year, the Education Select Committee in the other place published a report on behaviour and exclusions. It recommended a trigger that would be set off by permanent exclusion, which would lead schools to look for the unmet needs of the child. This kind of intervention is crucial for a child with special educational needs. If the child has an undiagnosed SEN, this will be picked up at school. If it has already been identified, the school will have to look again at the support provided.
The Bill contains many provisions that impact on children with autism, not least around the issue of exclusions. It is clear that children with complex and lifelong disabilities such as autism will need a complete package of multidisciplinary support to meet their needs. The recognition of such complex needs in the SEN Green Paper was welcome. However, I remain concerned about one aspect of the Bill: the removal of the duty to co-operate. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who is no longer in her place.
In 2010, the duty in the Children's Act to co-operate was extended to include schools and to ensure that local agencies worked together. The Green Paper makes a sound case for the introduction of a single assessment of needs, and an education, health and care plan to replace the statement will be central to the Government's reform of the SEN system. I welcome these proposals. However, it is not clear how, in the absence of pooled budgets between health, education and social care, and of a legal entitlement to any part of the education, health or care plan, save for the element replacing the statement that retains statutory weight, the system will work without the duty to co-operate that the Bill will now remove. Perhaps the Minister will argue that local agencies will work together. While that will be the fervent wish of all of us, I am sure that in our experience over the years we have all seen situations where local agencies have failed to co-operate, to the huge disadvantage of a child or other individual.
It is also not unreasonable to assume that in the current financial landscape, education, the health service and local authorities will look to preserve their budgets and perhaps therefore will not be so willing to work together as closely as we would hope. The Minister for Children has stated that she believes that personal budgets will play a significant role in developing services and fostering multiagency working. This may be true in some respects. However, the paucity of specialist support services for children with autism is so severe that I doubt that we will ever be able to meet the needs of 88,000 school-age children effectively. That is why the duty to co-operate is so important.
I pose a simple question to the Minister. What evidence do the Government have that the duty to co-operate, which has been in existence for such a short time, does not work effectively? It has not been given enough time for us to assess its effectiveness. The duty to co-operate makes sense. I urge the Minister and the Government to show sense and to leave this in the legislation.
Lord Edmiston
My Lords, I entered your Lordships’ House with some trepidation, knowing that it was full of experts on every subject. For someone who had spent their entire career outside politics, it was a daunting prospect. I thank noble Lords for allaying my fears and for making me so welcome. I thank in particular those who introduced me to this House: the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Howard of Lympne. I also thank the staff who have made it very easy for me to adjust. They have helped to resolve my IT issues, facilitated my introduction and directed me around a maze of corridors.
I am the sponsor of three city academies in the Midlands, with around 3,000 pupils. The schools are each called Grace Academy, and all of them have passed the benchmark of the national challenge since they were opened. They include one that passed the benchmark within nine months of our taking it over, despite the fact that it was in special measures prior to that. Some may point to new buildings and facilities as a reason for their success, but these improvements were made before the school had a new building—in fact it is still waiting to go into its new building. I have found that when you have the right people and they are empowered and motivated, you get the right result. I have a great and dedicated team who have made this happen, and I am extremely grateful to them.
The academies are based on a Christian ethos and have a business and enterprise specialism. It is ironic that I should be an academy sponsor as I played truant from school for six months and was held down for a year. Therefore, I have some understanding of the mind of youngsters who are mischievous and disengaged from education. I left school with a few O-levels and had to study until I was 27 at night school and day release to qualify as an accountant, which made me realise the value of education and wish I had been a little more diligent at school.
The business and enterprise specialism stems from my own experience as a businessman over the past 35 years. I believe that young people need to be prepared for the workplace. I started my first business at the age of 11 when I cut flowers from the roundabouts in Kenya, where I lived for five years, and sold them door to door in aid of the non-existent Kenya Hospital Bedding Fund. This business had the benefit of a 100 per cent gross margin, but came to a sudden and painful end when I knocked on the door of a doctor who knew that no such fund existed. This reinforces the need to train our young people in ethical business practices.
I learnt also from this that closing a business is a very hard and unpleasant affair, and is to be avoided if at all possible. The foundation of my existing business came from the bankruptcy of the Jensen Motors Ltd and my £6,000 redundancy pay. This happened during the oil crisis of 1974. Those were very difficult days, in some ways not dissimilar to those of recent years. It is said that it is not the length of experience that counts but the intensity, and for me that was a huge learning experience. Jensen had a great product but at the wrong time. Building cars with seven-litre engines during an oil crisis was not sustainable. I learnt that timing, strategy and the right product were fundamental to success, and I was able to put that experience to good use in my subsequent business career. Today my businesses include being the sole importer of various Japanese brands—and later this year, some Chinese brands—to the UK and certain northern European countries. I acquired a publicly quoted property company in 1993 that has interests in the UK, USA and mainland Europe. I also have a small finance company.
There is no substitute for the school of life and working alongside very bright people who know their subject. I have been privileged to do that in my business career, and I know that I will similarly learn much in this House, and perhaps have a little to contribute. The reason my academies are based on a Christian ethos is because I believe in Christian values and that young people need a sound moral compass in their lives. I should add they are not faith schools, although I myself have a Christian faith; they are open to pupils of all faiths or none.
I do not restrict our aspirations for these young people to merely academic achievement. Our mission statement is:
“Developing well educated, considerate and caring citizens, with a strong sense of values, who will succeed in and contribute to modern society”.
We have five core values: grace, respect, integrity, potential and excellence. I take a personal pride in their achievements, as if they were my own children. They are, in the main, wonderful young people and I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity of being a small part of their lives.
Through donations from my business, I have been able to support a charity that my wife and I founded in 1988. We consider ourselves blessed to be in a position to help some of those less fortunate than ourselves. The charity is involved in a number of schools and Christian projects overseas and we still spend a great deal of time visiting these projects as often as we can. Also, each year we send groups of young people from the academies overseas to visit some of these projects, primarily in Africa—probably to repay my previous transgressions. It has had a transformational effect on the lives of these young people, who think they are deprived until they see others who are in much worse condition. They then start to appreciate the opportunities they have.
While I am in your Lordships' House, I will wish to speak from time to time on business-related issues, but my real passion is based around charitable activities. I thank your Lordships again for the welcome you have extended to me and hope, in time, to get to know some of your Lordships better.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Edmiston and to congratulate him most warmly on his excellent maiden speech. Not only was it sympathetic, inspiring and humorous, but my noble friend’s passion for education and for helping others shone through his words. My noble friend is an extraordinary entrepreneur and a hugely successful businessman, having built up major motoring and property companies from the £6,000 redundancy payout he received from Jensen Motors. It is what he has done with his wealth that is truly amazing.
One of the meanings of “philanthropist” is “a good-hearted person” and my noble friend has a very good heart. His charitable works are extensive and range from helping children in Africa and sending full-time youth workers into some of the most deprived areas of the UK to, as we have heard, the opening of his three Grace academies, which are built on the Christian ethos. It is this country's good fortune that the well-being, nurturing and educating of children and young people is at the heart of my noble friend’s philanthropy. He has demonstrated today that he is down to earth and not in the least pretentious and that despite his great and deserved success he understands what drives ordinary people. He will be a great asset to your Lordships' House, and we look forward to many more speeches from him on these topics, which are of such profound importance.
It is with some satisfaction that I support this Bill today. When I had the privilege of sitting on the opposition Front Bench as a shadow Minister for Education, I spoke frequently on the issues covered by this legislation. Indeed, speaking was all I could do, as anyone in opposition knows only too well. However, much cross-party consensus was achieved, and however many times our scrutiny helped improve a Bill, there was never any getting away from the fact that, as Tony Blair once put it, we could only say, we could not do. So it is a real pleasure to rise in support of a Bill that seeks to put the fine words of opposition into action in government. As I do so, I declare my interests as a governor of Bolton school, a trustee of the Transformation Trust, which supports extracurricular activities in schools, and as chancellor of the University of Bolton.
This Bill deals with a wide range of vital issues—discipline in the classroom, investment in early years education and cutting back the forest of bureaucracy that has grown up in the sector—but at its heart is a commitment to the scale of reform necessary to improve standards and give our young people the best possible start in life that we can provide for them. That objective is by no means limited to this side of the House, and the desire to raise attainment is strong on all sides. It is simply a question of the means towards that end, but it should be clear by now that a new approach is needed. As my noble friends the Minister and Lady Perry of Southwark reminded us, in the last years of the previous Government, stark evidence emerged that our children were falling behind their peers in other countries. The international PISA study, which compares the achievement of pupils around the world, showed a profoundly worrying trend. By 2007, we had moved from fourth to 14th in world rankings for science, seventh to 17th in literacy and eighth to 24th in mathematics. By last year, we had slipped still further to 16th in science, 25th in literacy and 28th in mathematics—I see a shaking of heads, but that is how I read the statistics. Those are frightening statistics not just for the students but for the country. For our future competitiveness as a nation, we have to do better.
It is not just the global comparison that matters. Increasingly, it is the comparison and, more importantly, the gap in attainment between pupils here at home that should concern us. Our schools should be engines of social mobility, but despite all the worthy intentions of the previous Government that mobility has stalled and may even have gone into reverse. We cannot allow that to remain unchallenged. Every life unfulfilled is a waste of potential and a personal tragedy. Spreading opportunity and raising aspirations for all are essential matters of social justice.
Education, as the Prime Minister has said many times, should be the ladder up which all can climb, and I am pleased to see this Bill strengthening the bottom rung, with the proposed entitlement to free early years provision for disadvantaged two year-olds. I think that is a move that will be widely welcomed. Can the Minister reassure me that this initiative comes after wide consultation with early years providers? I ask this because when the previous Government introduced free nursery provision and then, at a later date, increased the hours, the effect was to drive many excellent providers in the private, independent and voluntary sectors out of business and to cause others to drop, very reluctantly, their provision to those on free places. I had much correspondence and many meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, who was then the Children's Minister, and I know that that was never her or the Government’s intention, but it was, unfortunately, one of the consequences. I hope my noble friend agrees that it is vital that we retain mixed provision and real choice for parents in the nursery and childcare sector.
The measures to extend teachers' powers to deal with violence and intimidation are also important and go a long way towards rebalancing a relationship that had tilted too far in favour of disruptive pupils. In that regard, the replacement of exclusion appeals panels is an even more significant reform that will have a profound impact by putting head teachers back in charge of their schools, as they should be. It has been a Conservative pledge for many years, and I am delighted that its day has come. It is also right that there should be better mechanisms for overseeing standards, more effective inspections and fewer quangos diverting money away from the classroom.
All those things alone are worthwhile and will make a big difference, but the backbone of the Bill is the vital opening up of choice and innovation in schools. With the Secretary of State and his team having accelerated the academies programme, we are already seeing the seeds of a revolution in the provision of new high-quality schools. Some critics suggested that there would be no demand for free schools, but with several hundred applications having been made already, that is clearly not the case. Parents across the country have embraced the idea that a lack of good school places is not something they have to put up with; it is something that they can change.
This is an exciting agenda, and it is not without its supporters on the Benches opposite, as we know. Tony Blair, whose modest attempts at introducing choice through the academies programme were heavily obstructed by opponents in his party, once famously said that every time he introduced a public service reform he wished in retrospect that he had gone further. I think the Bill before us today does indeed go further; it goes further towards creating more good schools for children from our poorest estates, further towards helping them up that ladder of opportunity and further towards helping them realise the better life that too many of them are denied today. That is why this Bill is so important, and why it has my enthusiastic support.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his maiden speech. He brings much experience to this House, and we look forward to hearing much more from him.
While I have some concerns about various aspects of the Bill, there are some worthwhile proposals within it. For instance, I welcome the restrictions on the reporting of allegations made against teachers until they are charged with a criminal offence. Other aspects of this Bill cause me deep concern. Under the Education Act 1973, all young people up to the age of 19—whether they are in school, college or employment—have a right to receive impartial careers advice and guidance from appropriately qualified practitioners provided by local authorities. Under this Bill, it is the Government’s intention to create an all-age national careers service for people over the age of 18. However, it is not possible to judge whether it will be appropriate to the needs of today until we have further information about what form the proposed service will take.
All research shows that adults and young people place a high value on the face-to-face careers guidance interview. Will the new service provide only for a call centre helpline and a website, as many people fear, or will those seeking advice receive proper support for a face-to-face interview with a trained careers adviser giving impartial advice on the basis now provided by the Connexions service, which will be closed next March? Sadly, the national all-age careers service will not be available to young people under the age of 18, and we must ask why.
As I understand it, schools will be encouraged to provide careers guidance, but the Bill leaves to the discretion of the school the quantity and quality of what is to be provided. Many of us fear that most schools with a sixth form will simply channel young people into courses, irrespective of whether they are appropriate to their needs, their ability or to their career aims. That is no way to achieve social mobility. The only way to ensure that young people are able to raise and to attain their aspirations is through a first-rate education alongside access to independent and impartial careers advice and guidance that supports them to make the best decisions and helps them to apply for appropriate post-16 learning opportunities.
My second point of concern is in regard to the proposals that deny basic rights and justice in the context of the proposed exclusion process. I recognise that schools must have the means and the support to exercise discipline, but I am disappointed that some schools deal with their problems in a disproportionate manner by excluding pupils, sometimes permanently. Such exclusion can affect the life chances of pupils for the rest of their lives. Many will have special educational needs, and for some those needs are not being met.
Today, I have grave concerns that under this Bill there will be no fair or just remedy for excluded pupils. The current independent panels will be replaced by a review panel with no power to order reinstatement. At best, the review panel can ask governing bodies only to reconsider their decision. I fully accept that governing bodies and heads need to be supported, but they cannot be put above the law and above the rights of the child. With experience to guide me, I cannot accept that the child is always wrong and the governing body is always right, which is the conclusion of the proposals in this Bill.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights—I declare an interest as a member—has considered the many options for the appeals process. The committee is not persuaded that the evidence provided by the Government shows the necessity for abolishing independent appeals panels. The committee is against the Government on the lack of access to some form of tribunal to consider the merits of permanent exclusion. It has concluded that the Government’s proposal is contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unsurprisingly, the committee is not alone in its conclusion on this issue; the governing body should be subject to some test and the Government have got it wrong. The Joint Committee is supported in its conclusion by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, which recommended that all exclusions should be referred to a first-tier independent tribunal with powers to provide effective remedies. I strongly urge the Government to heed that advice.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I join in the congratulations which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his powerful and impressive maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate him on the wonderful example that he sets as a successful entrepreneur to others to engage in charitable works, something which I think is less common here than it is in the United States. I share an interest with the noble Lord in wanting to improve the lot of children in Africa, a subject which I look forward to discussing with him in detail, and to hearing him on on many future occasions.
I declare two interests: as chair of the Department for Education’s Gypsy, Roma and Traveller stakeholder group and as president of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and Other Travellers. I am concerned by what this Bill does and what it does not do for Travellers, who are the most deprived educationally of all communities in England, as the DfE statistics demonstrate. Nine per cent of GRT children achieve good GCSE grades compared with 50 per cent for white British. Less than half of GRT children remain in school beyond primary education. Absence rates are 20 per cent compared with 5 per cent for white British. One in four boys is excluded for fixed periods. These figures help to explain why two out of three Irish Travellers in prison, where they are the second largest ethnic minority, cannot read or write, as a report by the Irish Chaplaincy in Britain demonstrates. The education system has simply let them down.
In spite of these facts, the White Paper’s emphasis on local authorities’ role as champions of vulnerable pupils is not reflected in the Bill. This is critical for children in families that have become disengaged from the education system through exclusion, racist bullying, high mobility or inability to navigate the admissions process; but there is no definition of vulnerable children in the Bill or, indeed, in the White Paper. It is said to include the disabled, those with special educational needs, looked-after children and those outside mainstream education—categories which include many, although not all, GRT children. Is there to be a new clause defining vulnerable pupils and the relevant duties of local authorities towards them, as the Minister, Nick Gibb, implied at the meeting last Wednesday with colleagues?
I was unable to attend that meeting because I was asking a Question about the eviction of 50 Traveller families from the Dale Farm site at Basildon in Essex. The 100 children in those families will be dispersed all over Essex and beyond on to unauthorised sites where there is no access to water or electricity. The first priority of their parents will not be to find the children places in the local schools but how to avoid further eviction from their emergency stopping place. The children will drop out of mainstream education, becoming the responsibility of a champion local authority that has just kicked them off the site where they had been living peacefully for years. Should not the duty to vulnerable children take priority over the enforcement of planning laws?
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned the reductions of the right of appeal against exclusion, which has been criticised by the JCHR as contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, mentioned that exclusions apply primarily, but not entirely, to SEN children. It applies also to GRT pupils, who have the highest rates of exclusion of any ethnic group. But the Improving Outcomes research conducted for the DfE last year found that in the respondent schools, the great majority had no exclusions at all. Those and other results of the survey were in marked contrast to the national data, and the authors suggested that the respondent head teachers were those most likely to have an inclusive ethos. Without further research, cutting appeal rights could make a bad situation even worse. Will my noble friend undertake that regulations will not be made under Clause 4 until there has been further research to identify the reasons for the low rates of exclusion in the respondent schools and to let other head teachers know how those results were achieved?
Vocational education is valued highly by GRT parents and its availability has encouraged many young people from these communities to remain in education beyond school. But many local authorities had abolished the Connexions service and privatised careers advice, and that process continues to the point of extinction. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that young people need personalised face-to-face advice, and with the reference by my noble friend Lady Sharp to the collapse of all the help given to young people in career planning.
The offer of an apprenticeship to any suitably qualified young person who applied for one has been replaced, as remarked, by what Ministers claim is a more robust deal—a duty placed on the chief executive of Skills Funding to,
“prioritise funding for apprenticeship training for the same people who were covered by the apprenticeship offer and who have secured an apprenticeship”.—[Official Report, 21/12/10; col. WS171.]
That means that applicants have to thread their own way through the choices available, get through the process of applying, and then go through the hoops of being funded, without the help and encouragement that would formerly have been available from Connexions and the Traveller Education Service. The Government say that they will ensure that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people have equal access to the redefined offer, but that again is not in the Bill but in regulations. Will my noble friend at least say in general terms how this is to be realised?
Clause 28 repeals the entitlement of key stage 4 pupils to follow a course of study in an area specified by the Secretary of State, which would have led to the proposed 14 to 19 diplomas. These pupils are now merely to be entitled to study the subjects listed in an obscure reference but not in the Explanatory Memorandum. It would be useful if my noble friend would publish consolidated versions of the earlier legislation referred to in the Bill so that we could understand what it means.
All these changes, exacerbated by the withdrawal of the EMA, are likely to undermine the commitment to proper vocational education by the Secretary of State that must have found a response in the homes of many GRT families.
Finally, as my noble friend Lady Sharp said, Part 5 abolishes various duties that schools currently have to co-operate with local authorities. The aim is to reduce the bureaucratic burden on schools, but there could be a loss of joined-up working that would affect vulnerable children. How can these provisions square with the Every Child Matters approach and with local authority oversight of school improvement?
My fear is that over this and the whole range of issues dealt with in the Bill, and in the face also of cuts having to be made in the voluntary sector, the axe will fall most heavily on the most vulnerable children, particularly those who are mobile and disengaged from the education system. Good intentions have done little for GRT children in the 50 years that I have been concerned with these problems, and the coalition, like all its predecessors, has yet to match its deeds to its words.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his excellent maiden speech. As a newcomer myself, I know how stressful that can be.
I and many of my noble friends have concerns about provisions contained within the Bill and the impact that they may have on the future life chances of children in this country. However, I begin by commending the Government for their stated focus on ensuring discipline in our schools. Ministers have made it clear that they see provisions in the Bill as vital to tackling school bullying. It is right to recognise that the attainment levels of pupils can never be detached from providing all students with a safe and secure space in which to learn. Consequently, I warmly welcome the commitment represented in the Schools White Paper to address the serious issue of homophobic bullying in schools.
It is clear that this type of bullying affects young people regardless of sexual orientation in all schools, including faith schools, academies and free schools. Stonewall recently published disturbing polling evidence revealing that nine in 10 secondary school teachers say that pupils, regardless of their sexual orientation, currently experience physical homophobic bullying, name-calling or harassment in their schools. One in four teachers says that this happens often or very often. The White Paper stated that tackling bullying is an essential part of raising attainment. However, while debating provisions within the Bill giving teachers the power to tackle bullying when it happens, we should not forget that schools must be in no doubt that they have a fundamental responsibility to prevent such bullying from happening in the first place. They actually need to be environments in which young people feel comfortable in reporting homophobic bullying.
I will also address proposed changes to the inspection framework to schools. The Bill intends to focus inspections to schools on four core areas: achievement, teaching, leadership and management. The White Paper stated that Ofsted should be tasked to,
“look for evidence of how much bullying there is in school and how well it is dealt with”.
In order to inspect schools in this respect, it is essential that all Ofsted inspectors in future have an understanding of all types of bullying within schools and what schools can do to prevent and tackle it. That will assist them in asking schools the appropriate questions about homophobic bullying and in identifying the processes that need to be put in place to measure, prevent and respond to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that this important function will not be diluted in any way by the changes to the inspection framework the Government are proposing.
Furthermore, the Bill sets out how certain categories of school—those rated outstanding, for example—may be exempt from routine inspection. It is not clear how these schools will remain accountable for their academic performance and for their efforts to tackle and prevent all forms of bullying once they are exempt from the scrutiny.
I also comment briefly on provisions within the Bill for the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England and the Training and Development Agency for Schools. Raising standards within our schools and tackling bullying is clearly reliant on ensuring that Britain's schools have the highest standards of teachers in the world. However, the Stonewall research that I cited also showed that nine in 10 teachers and non-teaching staff in schools report having never received training on how to prevent and respond to homophobic bullying. I have real concerns that the Government have not adequately outlined how they intend to train teachers to the highest standards and with the required skills to tackle all forms of bullying, which underpins the very aims of this legislation.
Finally, I express my concern that the provisions in the Bill should apply to all educational establishments across the country. I hope that the Minister will make it crystal clear that no school, whether academy or state, faith or free, will be exempt from the responsibilities outlined in the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I apologise for intervening but, with no reflection on the noble Lord who has just spoken, we are drifting quite a bit beyond the original recommended time of six minutes and shall rise late. It is simply for your Lordships to decide whether to curtail the six minutes or rise rather later than 10 o’clock.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his maiden speech.
Tucked away at the back of the Bill are two clauses that deal with higher education—namely, the regulations that deal with interest on student loans and the fee regime for part-time students. Given that we are shortly due a White Paper on higher education, this seems rather odd. Clause 72 amends the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 to make regulations setting interest rates. At present, the 1998 Act provides for interest rates to be no higher than needed to maintain the value of the loan in real terms. The Bill repeals that provision and the new regulations will permit interest rates to rise to several percentage points above base. This will surely act as a major disincentive to students from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter higher education. It may also impact on diversity and equality issues.
It is clear that the Government have got the fee levels likely to be charged in higher education courses plain wrong. They had assumed an average fee of perhaps £7,500 but some 80 per cent of institutions that have already announced their fee levels have plumped for £9,000 per annum. The combination of the higher than predicted fees and the introduction of a penal rate of interest will cause a massive problem to our public finances as well as being a disincentive to students.
The cost to public funds is the face value of the loans in any one year less the present value of future repayments. I know that that is a bit technical and I might have to repeat it if noble Lords did not get it. It basically means that if fees are higher, the loans will be higher. If the interest rates are 3 per cent or more above base, the likelihood that graduates will repay the debt in full is reduced. The present value of future payments goes down. According to figures from the Houses of Commons Library, if the assumed fee loan averages £8,500, there will be an additional cost to public finances of about £870 million per annum. To keep public spending constant, you would have to apply a real interest rate of 4.1 per cent. If the loan is £9,000, as it is turning out to be, real interest rates would need to rise to 5.2 per cent.
Your Lordships will recall that the recent Browne report recommended a real interest rate of 2.2 per cent—a lot less than is now being contemplated by the Government—for those earning above the threshold and a safeguard to ensure that those making relatively small repayments did not see the balance of their loan increase. It is striking that no such protection is offered in the Bill. Allowing tuition fees to rise to £9,000 a year at the same time as cutting teaching budgets is bad enough but designing a system of loans and repayments that increases the cost to the Treasury while justifying it as an austerity measure is a scheme surely worthy of an episode of “Yes, Minister”.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. According to a report in the Guardian this week, almost a quarter of a million fewer overseas student visas are to be issued in the next five years as the result of changes to the student visa system. The Home Office estimates that this will cut overseas student numbers by 25 per cent, putting a clear message out to the world that foreign students are not welcome here and putting at jeopardy a quarter of the estimated £40 billion of student fee income which currently flows into our universities.
Clause 73 introduces capping of part-time fees payable by higher education students. I have two points on this. Traditionally, fees from the part-time sector were always set rather late in the year. This will have to change. Part-time students often already work and many have family commitments, so they surely need to know what the fee arrangements are going to be at an early point in order to decide whether they can afford to go ahead with their studies. Also, the prospect of loans being available in this sector—which we welcome—means that the Student Loans Company will need the new regulations to be provided early enough for it to process applications alongside full-time loans. With loans comes the problem of repayment. Many part-time students may face the prospect of repaying their loans before they finish their courses. At present, they have to start repaying after three years if their income is above the required level. This seems very unfair as no full-time student needs to start repaying until their course has finished.
Many of the points on higher education that I have made today will need to be discussed again when we see the imminent White Paper. These clauses are but one aspect of future policy. We seem to get this in chunks. We now know, because of statements made during the discussions on the Bill in another place, that the White Paper will,
“explore and give rise to the implementation of broader changes to the character and nature of higher education”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/4/2011; col. 974.]
What does that mean? It is a trailer. It is interesting because it raises issues such as the length of courses, contact time, remit of institutions and the possibility of private providers entering into higher education. I hope that the Government will make available a serious amount of time to discuss the White Paper when it comes along. We certainly need it.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a characteristically humane and civilised introduction to the debate today. That is always appreciated. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his maiden speech. It prompted me to recall my own days playing truant from schools. Mine were nothing as prodigious and ambitious as his six months, just the odd day to see the Australian cricket team play at Mannofield cricket ground, Aberdeen.
I have another relevant moment of nostalgia. Some 49 years ago, at more or less exactly this moment, I would have been on the top of a number 17 bus in Aberdeen, returning home from what was a very hard day’s work as a supply teacher of mathematics. The school in question was what we then called a junior secondary—there was nothing as ambitious as comprehensives in those days. It had certain characteristics such as a high turnover of teachers. I was the fifth supply teacher that term. There were difficulties in classroom behaviour and doubtless that was the reason for the one-and-a-half-day tenure of my predecessor before he went back to driving buses. There was some violence, orchestrated as well as random. On the last day of school the previous year, at least 100 pupils who were leaving school paraded out in front of it, took out stones and broke at least 100 windows. This was a school with some real interest.
There were of course low aspirations on the part of many parents. There were low expectations on the part of many teachers. When I arrived to take up my post, I was given one instruction: to keep them quiet for the rest of term. That was a good six weeks away. There was low academic attainment. One pupil in the whole school took an exam at the equivalent of GCSE level—one pupil. Some of this has been dealt with since and there are ways in which things have improved. There was a need to revisit the curriculum. The same textbook that I used for these pupils was one from which I had to study at school in a class that produced two teachers of mathematics who became professors and two atomic physicists. It was a crazy piece of curriculum design. I have two footnotes to that. First, I survived all six weeks, three days, five hours, and 18 minutes. Secondly, by coincidence, the school was in the home city of our Secretary of State—Aberdeen. I have reason to believe he did not attend it.
So what is new five decades later? Are we any better? We are in a number of respects but there are the same residual problems. There are the expectations and aspirations, that dual downward weight on school attainment. There are still problems of attainment, most disgracefully in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy. There are difficulties in providing properly for special education needs, as we have already heard about so eloquently in the debate. The curriculum is once again to be revised—I think reasonably so.
Will the Bill help in dealing with these residual problems? Yes, in certain important respects but—this is the most important thing—as we have been reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, the changes are essentially structural. We have had structural changes decade after decade. They have brought some improvements—I am not a total cynic—but unless there are some measures against which we can check on progress, we will not know whether these structures have made much difference. I challenge the Government, although I doubt they will respond positively, to tell us now what the signs will be in three, five or 10 years’ time that these structural changes have borne fruit and dealt with some of the endemic problems that we still find in education.
None the less, all that seems rather negative. I agree with and support the extension of academy status. It is the right direction to go. There were many siren calls against it when the previous Bill was debated, but good progress has been made. I warmly support the idea of pupil premiums as a first step in a positive direction. In relation to teachers, I support the right to anonymity in the context of accusation of improper behaviour. I support the classification of context for search powers—and I know that many teachers will support the clarification of where their responsibilities and powers lie. I would wish for further progress in teacher education, but I support in principle the provisions on exclusions. However, I would like to know more about what plan B is for those pupils who are not allowed to return to the school from which they have been removed—perhaps justifiably.
I warmly support the clarifications given about the structures of Ofqual. But one final point to which I give notice that I shall return in Committee is to give further examination to the provision for schools with a religious character. This relates to previous legislation that we had here about five years ago. In particular, there is the role of Ofsted in reporting on these schools, especially on the quality of staff—not least those admitted according to criteria that are not the same for reserved members of staff as those that apply to non-reserved members of staff. There is a real issue there in ensuring that quality is maintained across all categories of staff. I see Ofsted as the way to give us the relevant reassurances.
I look forward with great interest to forthcoming reports on SATs—and I see my noble friend Lord Bew sitting in front of me—and the curriculum. They will bear significantly on the intentions of the Bill, and I wish good luck to those writing the report.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his excellent maiden speech today. If I may, I shall touch on points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, about the rights to education of those children who have been excluded from school. The vast majority of children and schools for the vast majority of the time actually behave rather well. But, of course, we have excluded every year some 5 per cent, usually for abusive behaviour or violence. It is well to remind ourselves that every year a considerable number of teachers are hospitalised after attacks by pupils. Last year it was 44.
The Minister told us that 360,000 young people last year were excluded from school. The majority of them are boys of 13 or 14 years old. But we have to remember that 97 per cent of those exclusions are in fact for only one week or less. For permanent exclusions, the figures are very different, with some 6,500 young people permanently excluded last year; 650 of them appealed and of those who appealed 150 won their appeals, but only 70 or so were returned to their schools. As the Minister says, that is a tiny number—and presumably it was against the wishes of the schools concerned.
If this is a very small percentage, nevertheless those pupils cause mayhem out of all proportion to their tiny numbers. The teachers’ unions and associations tell us that not only do these young people endanger their own rights to education but, of course, they very seriously destabilise the right to education of all those children with whom they share their classrooms. Additionally, of course, they cause stress to teachers and lead to teacher absenteeism and, eventually, resignation.
If we are talking about very small numbers, we are actually sending out a very big message to teachers and others who work in schools that they will be backed if they are dealing with violent and difficult behaviour in the classroom. This particular reform—that is, replacing tribunals with those panels that may ask a school, once again, to reconsider its decision, but not insist on it—agrees with the general thrust of our education reforms, which are to return decisions on education, on who is finally on the register of the school, how a school funds itself, what it does in shaping the curriculum and what its priorities should be, not to Mr Michael Gove, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, implies, but to the professionals on the spot. In other words, it gives them once again the authority to match their countless responsibilities. I believe that many parts of this Bill will help those people enormously. The new aspects dealing with discipline, detention, search and anonymity give a sound message to teachers out there.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord Touhig, and others are right in that the rights of that tiny number of children who are finally excluded from school must be respected. It is very important that we have a plan B, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said. If we have that plan B, all the advice that I have from human rights lawyers is that the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, identified will be avoided. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us that the vast majority who are excluded almost by definition have special needs. Indeed, you are eight times more likely to be excluded if you have special needs. It is hugely important therefore that we have alternative provision for them.
In this country, we have some very fine pupil referral units, but we also have some extraordinarily mediocre ones. Some pupil referral units are run by well experienced and trained teachers, while others are seriously not. The other problem is that in initial teacher training courses special needs are usually given one afternoon in the year. As for professional development courses, they sadly hardly exist. We have to improve in that regard. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reassure us that he will encourage the growth of more good PRUs and that training for teachers, both initial teacher training and in-service training, for special education needs, will improve.
I shall return to these points in Committee.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, what a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, to this House. I look forward to many more such contributions. I am probably the only person in this Chamber who had a 100 per cent attendance record at school from the age of three and a half to 18 and a half—so that puts us on different sides of the House for a start. In 1974, when my wife and I came back from a period of service overseas and wanted to cash in our savings, which had been invested for us during our absence, what I hoped would be £6,000 because of the stock market at that time turned out to be about £1,000, which bought a three-piece suite, two beds and a roll of linoleum. Even if our business careers also started off on different trajectories, it is so nice to welcome the noble Lord to the House and to speak after him in this way.
The Minister, in the short time that he has been at his post, has won the affection and respect of noble Lords on all sides of the House. He is a good listener, which makes it all the more difficult to direct the kind of fire and brimstone that this legislation evokes against his person. He is an honourable man but behind him lurks a lean and hungry man who thinks too much. Such men are dangerous. We are on the verge of implementing measures that will change the educational landscape of our country for generations, and in a radical way. It is deeply ironic that this debate has been interrupted by the Statement on the NHS. Would that we could take two months out for consultation on these educational measures too. I am reasonably certain that, after appropriate consideration, we might well come back with as big a U-turn on this front as we have witnessed on the other. While we are not going to have that, it is a fond hope.
The money to pay for the various provisions described in this Bill, as I understand it, has been snatched from a number of pockets and there are serious consequences to expect from all of them. First, there was the abandonment of the Building Schools for the Future programme which, I remind your Lordships, was intended to renew or rebuild every secondary school in the land. I remember the long period of Conservative government in the 1980s and 1990s when a previous round of budget cuts and financial stringencies—all at a time when the North Sea was bringing us huge revenues that were largely squandered—led to the near-dereliction of school properties as well as a dereliction of duty on the part of many people in power. Now the BSF programme, intended to reverse these depredations, has been brought to an abrupt end and the money wrung from the wreckage has been poured into the measures before us.
Secondly, local authorities are being asset-stripped to finance the freedoms of the new academies. I fear that we will one day rue this emasculation of local and accountable government and I was delighted to hear a real exhortation of the role of local authorities in our contemporary world from the Benches over there by the noble Baroness, who is no longer in her place. I have witnessed too much inefficient and inappropriate activity on the part of local authorities during my years in public life for me to become a bland advocate for them. They need constant revitalisation to respond to local needs in effective ways but emptying their coffers is not a way to achieve it. Babies, or at least our schoolchildren, are as likely to be thrown out with the bathwater as anything else. For school governors, charged with ever-mounting responsibilities, the loss of this source of knowledge, wisdom and experience will weigh heavily on us. I am delighted to hear that we may have a government amendment that will perhaps correct some of my thinking on this area, but I became aware of it only at the beginning of this debate.
Thirdly, the drive to train teachers on the job is replete with danger. We already have a mixed economy in the area of training—why change it? There is plenty of research to show that teachers who are given a formation which combines theoretical and practical elements turn out to be the most rounded and suitable for the classroom. After all, a PGCE itself involves 18 weeks’ classroom experience. If the measures before us are implemented it will be to the detriment of universities and other institutions which have accumulated long experience in this area, constantly shaping the curriculum to the changing needs of our society and forging links with thousands of schools where they send their students and evaluate their work. Mention was made by the right reverend Prelate of the University of Roehampton, which I had a big part in helping to shape in its early years. I can bear witness to that story too. Money taken from this sector will of course be channelled towards those schools identified as training schools.
For the past 30 years, I have been a governor of schools of all kinds. Governors have not been mentioned enough in this debate so far but they are Britain’s “unsung heroes”, says the White Paper. So they are; but there is a real cause of concern. As schools take charge of their own activities and head teachers become chief executive officers—buying in services currently provided through local authorities, shaping the learning experience of their pupils and selling their product in the marketplace—so we governors will have to be a check and a balance on the way a quite considerable financial responsibility is exercised. We are all volunteers who have to go to courses and night school to refresh our ability to keep up to date with things. These are multi-million pound businesses but all of us come from various walks of life. In schools in poorer areas, such as the ones I help to look after, we are going to find it more and more difficult to gather the competences and skills necessary for managing these complex and increasingly autonomous enterprises. There are going to be casualties in this area.
As I prepared these remarks, I resolved that even if I were drawn 51st out of 51 speakers and even if the points that I wanted to make had already been made 51 times, I was going to repeat them anyway. This Bill marks a turning point in our national system of education and will have consequences that we will have to live with for a long time. I hope there will be scope in the remaining stages of the passage of this Bill to improve it and that the Government, like their Minister, will have a listening ear and a competence for change.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am afraid that I missed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, which was obviously a big loss for me. On the other hand, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, albeit with a form of fire and brimstone which is likely to be rather more anaemic.
While the previous Government tended to measure the success of their education policy by reference to inputs, the present Government prefer to focus attention on outcomes. Thus they make great play of the fact that the UK is declining by reference to international comparisons of performance, but the Government's use of the OECD's so-called PISA rankings has been criticised. The number of countries included in that survey doubled between 2000 and 2009, with an obvious impact on rankings. You can get the UK up as high as 8th or as low as 36th if you try, depending on how you manipulate the statistics. While the emphasis on outcomes and international comparisons in relation to schools’ participation in surveys and Ofqual’s objectives is welcome, we will need to watch the Government's presentation of them like a hawk if we are to have a true accounting of the success of their education policies.
This Bill does not contain any big idea but rather seeks to put the coalition's stamp on our education system. That can perhaps be seen most prominently in the extension of the academies and free schools programme and the provisions on discipline and professional autonomy, with their emphasis on decentralisation and cutting bureaucracy. However, the latter possibly sit rather uncomfortably alongside the abolition of five arm’s-length bodies, with over 50 new powers being acquired by the Secretary of State, so we are told, including that to determine the curriculum by order—French Minister of Education-style.
Great concern has been expressed, by a wide range of organisations representing children's interests, on the proposed extension of powers to search children in schools without their consent that are contained in Clauses 2 and 3—at their breadth, at the relaxation of safeguards and at their possible conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Act. That is despite the lack of evidence to show that the measures are necessary and proportionate and in the absence of any review of the use of existing powers, which were extended only as recently as 2009. I hope that we will hear more from the Minister on this point when he responds to the debate and as we go through the Bill in Committee. On the other hand, the decision to maintain the previous Government’s policy of seeking to combat the inequality of opportunity, which we know takes root almost from birth, by extending free early-years provision to children from disadvantaged backgrounds aged two is welcome.
In the remainder of my time, I want to flag up a few concerns which have been expressed about the potentially adverse impact of some of the Bill’s provisions on provision for children with special educational needs. We will want to explore these more fully in Committee, but I know that the Minister will be concerned to take these issues on board from the positive way in which he responded to the concerns of those representing the interests of children with special educational needs when we discussed the Academies Bill in this House last year.
Perhaps most surprising are the provisions in Clauses 30 and 31, which remove the duty on schools to co-operate with children’s trust arrangements, the requirement on local authorities to promote schools’ involvement in local co-ordination of services, and the requirement for schools forums and the governing bodies of maintained schools to have regard to the children and young people’s plan prepared by their local children’s trust board.
The duty to co-operate has its origin in the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié carried out by my noble friend Lord Laming when he was chief inspector of social services. It found that there had been a complete breakdown in multi-agency child protection arrangements and that vulnerable children needed local services to work together to meet their needs and to communicate and co-operate in doing so. He had wanted to be here tonight to express his misgivings about the proposal to remove these duties, but unfortunately he is not able to be present. However, he asked me to place his reservations on the record and he will no doubt wish to expand on them when we get to Committee.
A key priority for the Government’s SEN and disability Green Paper is the improvement of partnership working. It proposes the development of a single assessment process and an integrated education, health and care plan. This is clearly right, but the removal of the co-operation and allied duties by Clauses 30 and 31 would seem to run completely counter to this whole policy thrust. The organisation Sense, which speaks on behalf of deafblind people, argues that the duty provides an important framework for agencies to work together in the interests of vulnerable children, particularly children with conditions that require the involvement of health, social care and specialist education services. It is particularly concerned that the removal of the duty on schools will undermine efforts proposed elsewhere, in the Health and Social Care Bill—I think that we still have a Health and Social Care Bill—to bring agencies together in an integrated planning process.
The Secretary of State, when he addressed Cross-Bench Peers last week, deployed a subtle and sinuous argument to justify removal of the duty; namely, that agencies could co-operate if they wished but that being prescriptive would not make them if they did not want to. However, I am inclined to think—and this is the lesson of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—that partnership in the interests of the single assessment and integrated planning will require the duty to co-operate if it is to be optimally effective.
There are also concerns that changes in the procedure for excluding pupils will impact disproportionately on children with special educational needs and disability. The Government have expressed their intention of addressing this in guidance, but I am inclined to think that some modification of the Bill would inspire greater confidence in parents, as would provisions to guarantee the independence of SEN experts appointed to advise review panels.
Finally, there are concerns about the ability of parents and carers to hold schools to account if local authorities no longer have to establish admissions forums; about removal of the power of the Local Government Ombudsman to hear complaints, only just introduced, leaving parents to the much less robust remedy of complaining to the Secretary of State; and about changes to the provision of careers guidance. So there will be plenty for us to get our teeth into in Committee.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I support the Bill thoroughly. I am delighted that we are showing the wisdom to trust teachers, and to believe that they have wisdom and have things to teach us as legislators and not just their pupils. So I suspect that I shall not give my noble friend too much trouble in Committee, though I did find myself listening perhaps rather too closely for his taste to my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lord Lingfield. Are we really saying that removing people’s right to appeal is based on 6,000 cases a year, of which 600 are appealed and 60 are granted? Are we saying that this system is so perfect that a 1 per cent error rate is unlikely and that it is unlikely that 60 pupils deserve readmission to their school? I hope we will hear some serious evidence on that from the Front Bench if we are to proceed with the relevant clause.
Otherwise, this Bill having been likened to a Christmas tree, I intend to try to hang a few baubles on it. The Localism Bill is going through this House at the same time as this Bill; I certainly want some more localism when it comes to the selection of governors. I want us to revisit the question of how teachers who are not up to teaching get moved—we will clearly revisit that when it comes to bad nurses and bad doctors. I am not saying that I have any conclusions, but I certainly want us to discuss it.
We should look at cyberschools. Thirty-eight states in America now have state cyberschools where pupils can study all or some of the time somewhere other than the school. We should make sure that the legislation allows us to consider such developments.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, in her saying that Ofsted did not inspect good schools. An Ofsted report is an essential part of a parent knowing what a school is like. You cannot judge a school on what it says about itself and on a few independent statistics. How will all that bit of what a school does that is not measured by statistics be reported to parents? How will we know whether a once-good school is starting to go off the boil? It happens all the time. Little schools can go off the boil in a matter of a term. I can think of schools that I once thought were great that took only a year or two to die. That is an area where I might give my noble friend some serious trouble in Committee.
Turning to the less serious side of things, I shall try to persuade the Minister that we should exempt schools from the requirements on music licensing and trust them to put on live music without having to refer to local authorities. I shall try to persuade him that we should encourage Ofqual to assign point scores to qualifications commonly used by UK schools, particularly independent schools, so that they can be properly included in the performance tables without any assumption that the qualifications then go on to be available to state schools. I shall try to persuade him that we should disclose to pupils and more generally actual marks in public examinations. My noble friend was complaining about grade boundaries. These are totally artificial creations. In Switzerland, there are no grade boundaries; people get marks out of 100, or whatever it is there. One thing just grades seamlessly into another. Forty-nine is not different from 50 because there is a grade boundary in between; it is just a point’s difference. That would have great advantages in what the Minister is trying to achieve.
We will revisit admissions to faith schools. I was much inspired by what my noble friend Lord Edmiston said in his superb maiden speech on what he has done with his academies. The point of having faith schools in the state system is to let people go to them; it is so that our parents and people like me—I am not a believer myself—can say, “I want a Christian education, or indeed a Muslim education, for my child because I like what is going on in a certain school”. It is not to create little ghettos for people who happen to share the same faith. If they want to do that, they can be independent schools.
I want to make it easier for schools to allow their teachers to hug children, to put plasters on them, to teach them in physical ways when that is required, such as in learning the violin or how to use a saw properly on a piece of wood, and to make sure that those cases do not end up in teachers being suspended while they are investigated.
Much to the pleasure of very few people, I turn to private universities. My right honourable friend David Willetts got into considerable trouble over them. I think I am less vulnerable than him to the tabloids and to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, so we shall visit that subject. We are getting private universities. It is clear that Anthony Grayling will not be the first since others are seeking to do the same thing, albeit in different ways. Why are we going to such lengths to ensure that we disadvantage our own people while we advantage pupils from overseas?
Last of all, perhaps I should confess that a hashtag—#educationbill—is available on this debate, and there certainly will be for Committee. Noble Lords who are equipped with iPads or similar will find, I hope, that people outside this Chamber are interested in and willing to comment on our deliberations.
Baroness Howells of St Davids
My Lords, in recognition of the number of speakers, I think it would be helpful if I just list the concerns of the black community about the Education Bill and home in on my particular concerns. There is a lack of explicit reference to race inequality issues in the Bill and in the White Papers published so far by the coalition Government since May 2010, and well as a lack of reference in speeches made by Ministers. The emphasis is on sanctions rather than prevention, including the withdrawal of guidance for countering racist bullying in schools. This withdrawal of detailed guidance, combined with an emphasis on reducing prejudice-related bullying through sanctions and exclusions rather than through prevention and education will have a negative impact on equality issues in teachers’ education and development.
On academy status, granting academy status primarily to schools that happen to have low numbers of students from minority ethnic backgrounds troubles us.
On the powers to search pupils, judging from experience over many years in the criminal justice system, those powers are likely to have an adverse impact on young black people and on relationships between students and teachers. Let us remember that those students are British subjects, although they may come from different roots.
On curriculum changes and equality, we regret the non-publication of an equality impact assessment of the proposal to introduce the English baccalaureate and the lack of information about how the curriculum content will provide for diverse communities and prepare pupils to live in a diverse society. The equality assessments of the Education Bill and The Importance of Teaching White Paper are inadequate. There is a lack of clear proposals for monitoring the outcomes of new procedures, combined with the possibility that the drive to reduce bureaucratic burdens on schools may result in vital and valuable sources of information for monitoring, evaluation and planning being lost.
I intend to raise these issues individually as we go through the Bill, but the most important point on this list for me is the new exclusion procedure, which has already been identified by two or three noble Lords. It is likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on black pupils; we know that. The aspiration of Caribbean immigrants to Britain in the late 1950s was to get what they saw as a good education for their children, an education that would open their minds as well as their hearts. It was expected that the children would learn how to think and fully to feel, as described by Dr Anthony Seldon in his lecture to Sir John Cass’s Foundation in 2010. That was the intention of those immigrants when they submitted their children to the schools system. Alas, it soon became evident that schools were not equipped or, worse, were unwilling to meet those children’s needs.
Schools became extremely good at excluding black pupils or sending them to ESN schools. Bright children went to those schools from the age of five. Sometimes they were put into the ESN category because they had a brother or even a cousin in the school, so it would make it easier for the parents if both were there. It was not based on the child’s ability to acquire knowledge. Expulsions were used and the reasons given could not be justified. The exclusion of black boys became headline news in this country. This Bill seems to negate all the work that has been done to change that.
It was up to the black community to examine what was actually happening in schools. It was found that the destruction of self-image was perhaps an unintended consequence that made young men feel frustrated and, worse still, dislike themselves. I am sure that we can all point fingers at what we are reaping from that generation of young people. Research pointed to the fact that institutional racism in society was the main cause, a conclusion strongly denied by professionals. However, perseverance by the black community led to a deeper understanding that the reasons given for exclusions and suspensions revealed the possibility that decisions to suspend children were based on factors other than behaviour. Due process has generally been denied to suspended pupils. They are not allowed to present their side of the story. They are not allowed to face their accusers or to bring witnesses of their own to corroborate their testimony. They are never able to question the person bringing the charges.
The Bill will take away the right of any child even to have so much as an inch of power in the classroom just to say, “This did not happen in a vacuum”. I am sure the House will agree that this is a perversion of the right to due process. Patience and guidance through racism awareness training has made some difference, but we all recognise that there is still a long way to go. By removing the right to appeal, this clause in the Bill has the potential to reverse all the gains made. The Government’s Bill appears to be more concerned about the risk of undermining the authority of head teachers than that of pupils. That cannot be right. Can the Minister say what real power the review panel will have if undermining the head teacher is foremost? Can he also tell me how the points I listed at the beginning of my remarks will be dealt with in the schools curriculum?
I hate to suggest that with possible malice aforethought this Bill is aimed at further disenfranchising the black community, although many of my peers feel strongly that that is what is about to happen. I should like some assurance from the Minister that ways will be found to show the community that it is wrong. Many of my generation have been engaged in the battle to bring about changes in the system and to see their children get equity. The Bill has many good points, but it also has the capacity to make black people lose out. I well remember the “rivers of blood” speech. Each time the education system is tweaked or tinkered with, a greater sub-class is created. I ask the House to consider British children whose skin colour is different and who have suffered immeasurably from the system.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his maiden speech. He and his schools demonstrate the importance of ensuring that education really prepares pupils for the world of work—a matter very close to my own heart. I warmly support the comments made by my colleagues on these Benches on the Bill’s focus on decentralisation, which will give schools and colleges more autonomy. I also echo my colleagues’ concerns today. I shall focus particularly on the further and higher education issues covered in the Bill, and the Careers Service proposals, with which I shall start.
We on our Benches welcome the Bill’s intention to move to an all-age careers service, but we have some concerns that the Bill in its current form will not provide that, especially for the under-19s. I confess that I was cynical in the mid-1990s when we moved to an independent Careers Service outside county council and metropolitan council control. However, it heralded the professionalisation of staff and removed the temptation from schools to encourage students to stay on at school whether it was appropriate for them or not. The Labour Government’s creation of Connexions certainly had its strengths, but it also had some weaknesses. While it is right that we move on from Connexions, I am concerned that we shall lose the strength of the inverted pyramid, which provides for children who are at risk of becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training.
The problem with Connexions was that it was sometimes at the expense of brighter children, who still needed advice about the right course for them when they went on to sixth-form and further education college so that they could then make the right choices for their higher education. The real strength of both Connexions and the previous Careers Service was their independence from schools and the statutory right of careers advisers to go into schools. Will the Minister consider why the Bill proposes the removal of the duty on a local authority to provide careers guidance, while also giving local authorities the duty to look after NEETs and vulnerable students and to address the apparent contradiction therein? We also have considerable concerns about the lack of quality assurance in the new Careers Service proposals. I ask the Minister to consider a statutory professional qualification for careers advisers as well as QA arrangements to protect this.
Others have mentioned worries about the loss of a face-to-face service. This seems to be a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, especially for the 14-to-19 age group, many of whom need proper conversations to explore and draw out their interests. With the best will in the world, that cannot be done either by a call centre or online unless the young people know what they are looking for. I suspect they face a Donald Rumsfeld moment: “They don’t know what they don’t know”. Professional advisers can guide them through this maze. We on these Benches echo concerns about the loss of expertise as current careers advisers lose their jobs. Will the Minister please provide a transition plan, with funding to bridge the imminent loss of the old service, prior to arrangements for the new one coming in next year? The future choices of our young people currently considering their prospects are too important to be lost by this mistake.
On Clause 15, I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about ensuring the widest possible arrangements for teacher training, especially the involvement of higher education institutions. Their record, as has already been noted, is better than those of teaching schools. We need a wide range of training, including traditional pedagogic courses.
In Clauses 28 and 29, I regret the loss of the diploma if it means the vocational offer to our 14 to 16 year-olds is either reduced or lost. I sat on the east of England diploma gateway. We began to see some very effective and popular vocational courses, which pupils and employers valued. Our educational system must be able to offer both a vocational and an academic curriculum to meet the needs of all our pupils and students.
As a founding chair of the Cambridgeshire Learning and Skills Council and deputy chair of the East of England Development Agency, I have learnt that public bodies come and go. However, it is important not to lose appropriate and effective functions. Therefore, following the abolition of the YPLA, will the Minister confirm that the very effective stakeholder board—an exemplary body within the YPLA—will continue once the YPLA’s successor emerges within the Department for Education?
We on these Benches also have concerns about the further education level 3 fees for those aged over 19, with the shift to loans. Will the Minister please examine whether certain courses can be exempt—for example, access courses that help non-traditional mature students to get the right qualifications to go on to university?
On Clause 73, we welcome the proposals that should ease the way for part-time students. However, the proposals that—inadvertently, I hope—force part-time students to start repaying their loans after three and a half years, often before they have finished studying, are short-sighted and, frankly, against the principles of the higher education offer in the agreement. Those principles stated that all study—fees and living costs—should be free at the point of study. Will the Minister please discuss this with BIS as a matter of urgency?
There are many items in the Bill. I shall return to these issues and others in Committee.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, despite criticism, there is much in the aims of the Bill to be applauded, particularly the desire to see children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with SEN have a far greater chance of reaching their educational potential than has been the case in the past. The two reports by Frank Field and Graham Allen, emphasising the need for early intervention, have set a clear background against which the success of these aims will be judged. The Government’s problem in these difficult times will be to guarantee that the necessary money and expertise are made available in these difficult times to ensure that Allen’s estimated saving of £24 billion a year is achieved.
The continuation of nursery provision for every three and four year-old also benefits disadvantaged children. However, it is the Bill’s further extension of the entitlement to nursery education to two year-olds that will be particularly important for their later progress at school and beyond. It is an assurance of the quality of this early years education that Save the Children and others want—not unreasonably, because provision is generally of poorer quality in deprived areas. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will spell out how this will be achieved.
Other proposals in the Bill are equally worth supporting, particularly the emphasis on quality teaching. Raising the status and qualifications of teachers is a clear priority. That, combined with the proposed Teach First and Teach Next programmes, will have the advantage of bringing into teaching the experience and leadership gained in other careers. Improved careers guidance is much needed, particularly for girls. It is vital for encouraging qualifications in science and engineering, for example, which will be needed for the UK’s continued world competitiveness.
The Government’s belief in the importance of good discipline in schools to deliver successful academic outcomes is clearly right. Here we have Church of England schools as excellent examples. It is right, too, that teachers should have protection against malicious charges. However, the proposals in the Bill for forcibly searching pupils when it is suspected that they might be carrying weapons or other disruptive items have, as we have already heard, produced quite a hostile reaction from children’s charities, including the Children’s Society. I hope the Government will think very carefully about these proposals, especially when considering the likely impact on children who have previously been subjected to physical and/or sexual abuse, or indeed on children with SEN.
On the tougher rules proposed for exclusions, the same concerns are even more important. We have to remember that 40 per cent of children with autism have been bullied at school, and those with SEN are nine times more likely than their peers to be permanently excluded. I hope we shall have some news of the proposed pilots, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, under which a school that excluded a pupil would be required to pay for the alternative forms of education needed. There is a temptation for schools to rid themselves of difficult pupils without persevering to meet their needs within those establishments. If they fail at that, surely it is only just that they should bear the continuing cost of that child's education.
Academies are clearly a key part of the Government’s education policy. We need to hear rather more about how academies are to play a decisive role in giving opportunities to children from the poorest areas. The UTC academies of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and, indeed, the excellent business-centred academies of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, will clearly be helpful here. I, too, applaud the noble Lord’s maiden speech, which was both excellent and amusing, which is always a great help during debate.
Should not the Government be planning a requirement that all academies—the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, suspected, as I do, that every school will be an academy—all state schools, take a proportion of children from the most deprived backgrounds? It would be helpful to learn from the Minister how the Government see that vital aim being achieved.
I end on the subject of governing bodies and declare an interest as president of the National Governors’ Association. It was certainly reassuring to see the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, recognise the invaluable voluntary work that school governors undertake, describing them, as it does, as unsung heroes. Here, I pay a particular personal tribute to the Minister, because I am pretty certain that it was he who managed to achieve that recognition in the White Paper.
I am sure noble Lords will remember the battles with the previous Government, which centred on the importance of parent governors for academies, with the eventual agreement that a minimum of two should be the requirement. With this Bill, it is the size of governing bodies and the range of skills required that has been the subject of discussion in the White Paper and elsewhere, with a smaller rather than larger governing body more generally favoured. Equally, with the size and grouping that some academies plan, it is clearly important that governing bodies reflect the work and responsibilities involved, so I hope we will not end up with too rigid a number being prescribed. With the emphasis now rightly being laid on the UN and European legislation on the rights of the child, I hope we may even see pupil governors emerging in some academies.
It is very good news that the White Paper proposes that the National College for School Leadership should run a training course for all chairman of governing bodies, a crucial role. Indeed, it is because of the increased responsibility and accountability of head teachers and chairmen of governors that more thought needs to be given to the role that head teachers should play on the school governing body. What should the head teacher’s role be in future: that of attending meetings and reporting to governors, or of remaining as full members of the governing body? The most important issue is that the head teacher and the chairmen have a good working relationship and respect each other's roles, but it will be important to hear from the Government how they envisage the relationship developing. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I would like to speak about Part 7. This part deals with post-16 education and training, and apprenticeships.
I start by saying that the Government are absolutely right to feature the training and employment of young people in an Education Bill. I am not sure how many NEETs, or young people not in education, employment or training, there are. Experts have estimated 750,000. We cannot afford to lose any of this generation. That is why in the Bill there has to be a strong focus on helping all young people succeed in skills and training.
My first problem with the Bill is that the guaranteed entitlement to skills and training by 2015 provided by the previous Government has been watered down. As my noble friend Lord Layard explained, instead of guaranteeing access for every young person, the chief executive of Skills Funding will be obliged only to fund an apprenticeship for anyone who secures one. I put it to the Minister that by watering down the offer, the Bill will not only exclude those on the fringe, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but reduce the need for the chief executive of Skills Funding to find and encourage training and apprenticeships. It reduces the need to raise the profile of apprenticeships. It reduces the need for advocacy and engagement. All this at the very time when the need is most urgent for both the economy and society. I am sure that the Minister can expect amendments along those lines—and why not? As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, it does not seem to be a matter of money. The Treasury has agreed the funds to make it happen.
I have other concerns about Part 7. The Bill abolishes the Young People's Learning Agency and transfers its duty to the Secretary of State. I agree that the system could do with some tidying up, and many arrangements have been tried over the years, but why transfer the duties to the Secretary of State? The Minister spoke of political accountability, but when the Secretary of State takes over powers, he or she becomes the customer. The training providers need to satisfy the Secretary of State, not the young person. We all know that if the scheme is to be successful, the customer must be the person, the young apprentice. They are the ones who must be satisfied. If the Minister is the customer, there is less need for the training organisations to do that.
The corollary is that the Government will have to supply good quality careers guidance. The Minister promised that, but I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Jones that during the overhaul, staff, expertise and continuity will be lost. Without that guidance, the chances of failure increase. By guidance, I do not just mean online frequently asked questions. Like my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I mean proper, face-to-face professional examination of possibilities and professional advice. There will probably have to be an amendment about that, too.
All of that depends on employers and jobs. There are plenty of young people anxious to work. The struggle for the National Apprenticeship Service is to find the jobs. As somebody—perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston—said, Whitehall does not create apprenticeships and jobs, employers do.
Can the Minister tell us precisely what the Bill will do to encourage more training and apprenticeship opportunities? Of course, the real way to increase them is to get more growth into the economy and encourage more employers to provide training. Those who do are still in a minority.
Clause 68 deals with apprenticeship certificates and who can issue them. The clause states that the chief executive of Skills Funding will no longer be the certifying authority; it will be the Secretary of State. In its follow-up report on apprenticeships in 2008, HL 137, your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee was concerned that the removal of technical certification from the sector skills council would be perceived as dumbing down. Presumably, that is because the sector skills councils know the standards required by employers, whereas the Secretary of State’s concern is just to achieve the numbers. I share the concerns of your Lordships’ Select Committee. Can the Minister explain how this clause takes into account these concerns?
I also share the concerns of my noble friend Lady Jones and other noble Lords, and right reverend Prelates writing in left-wing magazines, that this Bill, like many other recent government Bills, takes powers back to the Secretary of State—all this despite the Government’s fine words about decentralisation. These kinds of changes create political turmoil for absolutely no good reason. We will certainly improve the Bill in Committee if we can reverse that direction of travel.
Quite rightly this Government have put a lot of emphasis on rebalancing the economy and getting young people into training and skills. These two elements, social and economic, come together in Part 7 of the Bill. They are central to our future. That is why Part 7 needs very careful scrutiny by your Lordships.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, in his splendid maiden speech my noble friend Lord Edmiston referred to the expertise of this House. Of course, we are all educational experts because we have all been to school, but I go back to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford when he looked for an overall educational vision. I am not very good at visions; they always seem to appear rather mistily in the distance and then to fade away.
Where do we begin with education? There are three providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, parents come into the picture first—the concept of parents needs to be expanded to include family or whoever the child lives with when very young—then the teachers and the children join in. Teachers and parents look at each other and, one hopes, have a dialogue. They ask themselves the question, “What have we got here?”. The child, who comes in somewhat later but has a very real presence pretty early on, tends to respond, “Never mind that, who am I?”. These are complicated questions involving many variables. There are no statistical ways of measuring these variables. Indeed, the mathematical and statistical answers tend to become almost insulting to the individuals concerned because education is not something that is put into people—the Latin word for education means to draw out. What the providers and the child who becomes a young person and then a young adult are trying to do is to find out somebody’s talents, interests and shortcomings—that is, the mixture which makes up an individual. Each person is on an individual journey; some take very much longer than others to complete that journey. Indeed, it is a commonplace that education never ceases.
I give two examples to illustrate some of the complexities. I have told the House before that for some time I was allegedly in charge of a steel foundry. A crane driver came down for his break. I happened to be there and asked him, “How are you going on, Charlie?”. He replied, “Not too badly, but I’ve had some rather strange news. The headmaster of my son’s school has rung me up and told me that he’s been offered a place at a university”. I said, “You must be very pleased”. He said, “I’m not so sure. It couldn’t be me, you see, but I suppose it might have been the milkman”. He was, of course, delighted.
My next example is a sort of parent-child illustration. I wrote to my father who twice held the post of Secretary of State for Education. I think that on the first occasion he had a slightly different title, but that was what he was doing. It was at the time of Suez and I said that I thought we would probably find that that did not work. He wrote back in a letter which started, “The trouble with you is that you read the Guardian; you should read the Times”. That is an example of a journey during which a dialogue about education was going on between the parent and the child.
Governments are not comfortable with these messy, complicated individual journeys; they cannot cope with them. The Bill is very welcome because, in part at least, it recognises that. It is saying that this is a matter for parents, family, teachers, children and pupils; that is where the outcomes will be determined. It is true that the outcome will be determined in every case by the players in the front line and not by the Government or local government. Indeed, Government, local government and all the other agencies are only enabling mechanisms. The game is played and won or lost or comes out as a draw by the parents/family and the teachers. I would prefer us to talk about teachers rather than schools—if your Lordships think back, they will remember individual teachers as well as schools—and about the children or young persons themselves. As we go into the detail of the Bill, I hope that we do not forget that fundamental fact.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I want to focus on the importance of a balanced school curriculum and on the rights—the entitlement—of the child to that curriculum. A balanced curriculum is one which enables a child to thrive academically, spiritually, emotionally and socially, and which fits her or him with the skills to find productive work and enjoy leisure. It encourages self-respect and respect for others. I like what the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, said about grace and integrity in that regard. Such a curriculum involves the arts, IT, economics, sport, culture and life skills as well as academic learning.
I am concerned about how the rights of the child are reflected in the Bill. I do not mean any legalistic definitions of rights or permission for a free-for-all; I mean fairness, respect and justice for children while also teaching them about responsibilities. My experience as a parent and teacher convinces me that when children are treated with fairness and respect they thrive and that when they are not they may become stultified and problematic. These problems may translate themselves into problems for future generations. I do not think that the Bill addresses these concerns.
As regards early years provision, good experience of play and socialisation are vital to a child’s future success—academic and otherwise. I agree with Frank Field’s report that poverty is not the only thing that defines a child’s future, but that if poverty and lack of opportunity to develop in the early years coincide, a child has a poor chance of social integration and mobility. Such children may go on to be punished by systems into which they do not fit and over which they have no control, so the Bill’s recommendation for free early years provision for two year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds is welcome. I wonder how it will be funded. The Bill allows maintained nursery schools and classes to charge for provision over the 15 hours for three year-olds and four year-olds. This will widen gaps in provision between areas. Is the future of Sure Start yet clear?
I now turn to the Bill as it relates to discipline in schools. Of course none of us condones bad behaviour. Bad behaviour in schools has to be tackled for the benefit of pupils and teachers. However, there are better and less intrusive ways of combating bad behaviour than those suggested in the Bill. Taking away the appeal possibilities of permanent exclusions is also fraught with child and human rights issues for parents and pupils. I hope that the repeal of the duty on schools to give 24 hours’ notice of detentions will be looked at again.
The issue of young carers has been raised in another place and assurances have been given. I hope that they will be enshrined in the Bill. Every pupil is different and does not necessarily fit into a one-size-for-all curriculum. Like others, I have concerns about the proposed English baccalaureate. Survey after survey of industry has recommended that students need far more than simply academic qualifications or knowledge to perform well in the workplace; they need social skills and the ability to be creative thinkers. I am not going to go on again, except for a minute, about the importance of personal, social and health education, but it is important and I will return to it at later stages.
The inspection criteria report reflects neither the importance of schools supporting and promoting well-being nor the importance of community cohesion. Evaluation of the UNICEF Rights Respecting Schools programme found that it had,
“a significant and positive influence on the school ethos, relationships, inclusivity, understanding of the wider world and the well-being of the school community”.
Two-thirds of schools saw improvements in attainment over the period 2007-10. I should declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF.
Other issues in the Bill that affect the child’s rights have been talked about. They include the diploma entitlement, careers education, admission arrangements, vocational qualifications, apprenticeship schemes, the powers of parents and so on. The new centralising power of the Secretary of State could permit religious discrimination in employment in academies that convert from being voluntary controlled schools. Prospective pupils can be discriminated against on the basis of their parents’ religion. Staff can be discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief. In 2008, the schools adjudicator found that 3,500 faith schools were in breach of the admissions code. There will be no repeal of the duty on schools to participate in a daily act of worship which is “broadly Christian” in character, despite the new freedoms proposed for schools.
We now know the nature of some of the applications to run free schools, which include a high proportion from faith groups in the broadest sense. Among the approved applications are, apparently, a school that teaches “consciousness-based education”, an Islamic boys’ school, and a school run by a group set up by an “ordained minister of the free church”. I know that free schools have been labelled by some as a side-show; however, they still have children in them—or they will. The Secretary of State will have the ability to make land available for free schools. They are not obliged to have qualified teachers. How does this sit with a child’s right to a broad and productive education? Evaluations of free schools have shown them to have many problems. Why are we bothering with this experiment?
I return to my concerns that this Bill does not favour or encourage a child’s right to a broad and well balanced school experience. There are dangers in the Bill that will resound over many years and will have a negative and dysfunctional effect on many of our children. Children have rights, too. I hope that the Government will take notice of this debate.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am not going to talk about offender education, although I have to say to the Minister that I was extremely disappointed that at the heart of the recent paper on offender learning was the suggestion that the Government would change the arrangements for the delivery of learning by bringing together into clusters prisons that regularly transfer prisoners between them. That is a practical impossibility. The clustering of prisons was laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, when he was Home Secretary in 1991. It has never happened, and prisoners are sent round nationally. For example, a boy was sent from Feltham on the eve of taking A-levels 18 months after he had started work on them.
Instead, I want to concentrate on something that echoes very much what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was saying. I have always believed that the only raw material that every nation has in common is its people. Woe betide it if it does not do everything it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of its people—all its people—as individuals. Unless it does, it has only itself to blame if it fails. Individuals are individuals.
I am glad that the Bill starts at the beginning of the learning process with early-years provision. Clause 1(2) states:
“An English local authority must secure that early years provision of such description as may be prescribed is available free of charge … for each young child in their area who … is under compulsory school age, and … is of such description as may be prescribed”.
I am interested that paragraph 57 of the Explanatory Notes mentions a section being added to the Education Act 2002 to enable the Secretary of State to set by regulation the nature of early education. That contrasts starkly with the Minister’s statement at the start of the debate that the Government were intending to move away from prescription, and from top-down prescription in particular. Early-years provision is too important to be left unprescribed, not least because prescription is a vital ingredient in financial resource planning and allocation. I am very concerned that one should start on such an important journey without making absolutely certain that all the necessary resources are in place.
I am also very concerned, and have been for a long time, that at the heart of any provision should be assessment. I should like to concentrate for the remainder of my time on some elements of assessment. I have mentioned many times on the Floor of this House that at the heart of everything in the educational process is the initial assessment of whether or not a child can engage with the teacher, because if not there is no connection with the educational process. That is why we have recommended the appointment of speech and language therapists to carry out compulsory assessments of every child before they begin school—something that has already been picked up and is being run with in Northern Ireland for every child at the age of two.
I realise, because my noble friend Lady Howe, spoke at length about it, that there is a planned pathway for those with special educational needs, but it is not only those with special educational needs who need this assessment. Every child needs it to start along the way. Furthermore, the lack of communication is the scourge of the 21st century. In the past two years I have visited Walsall, where there is regular assessment of children during the secondary school phase, because it has been found there that some children who can cope with primary school cannot cope with secondary school. That suggests that following on from the initial assessment there needs to be regular assessment throughout the school career.
While I am on that subject, I should like to draw attention to two other subjects that are not mentioned in the Bill but deserve assessment. One is attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, which on balance, I am told, is detected only after the second exclusion for bad behaviour. This is an extraordinary phenomenon. I once discovered in a young offender institution a young boy who had been excluded from his playgroup at age four, and was thereafter never allowed to attend education. It strikes me that the sooner we get ADHD looked at, the better. Four per cent of boys and 1 per cent of girls in school suffer from ADHD, while 48 per cent of all those in young offender institutions suffer from it. Because it is treatable, it is avoidable.
The second subject to which I wish to draw attention for assessment is gifted children. I declare an interest as patron of an organisation called Tomorrow’s Achievers, which funds master classes for gifted deprived children. I am sorry that the Government have ended the gifted and talented budget and schools are cutting back on their enrichment programmes, because extra provision for gifted children seems to be needed more than ever. I do not want a catalogue of things that I am unhappy about because there is a great deal in this Bill that is positive and admirable and that I support strongly. However, again taking note of individuals as individuals, we must give them this early provision, and the assessment of what they need—and what they may be failing in—needs to be carried out throughout the learning journey, otherwise we will not be identifying, nurturing and developing their talent.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I want to address Clause 13, which introduces reporting restrictions on alleged teacher misconduct and has serious repercussions for freedom of expression and the rights of children. In view of some of the contributions this evening, I fear I may be a lone voice but I will have a go. As this matter involves the media, I declare an interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Bill creates a new offence of publishing anything which might lead a member of the public to identify a teacher alleged to have committed a criminal offence against a pupil until he or she is charged with an offence, and unless a charge is made the ban on publication lasts indefinitely. The effect of that will be to give teachers accused of crimes against pupils unique rights of anonymity that no other group enjoys and it will remove from vulnerable children the right of every other citizen to publicise a grievance or a complaint.
It will be argued that there are exemptions in this Bill—if the teacher gives consent to identification or if a successful application is made to a court to lift the restrictions. Given that this legislation impacts on free speech, remarkably there is no public interest defence. Let us dispatch these exemptions. The prospect of a teacher who has done wrong voluntarily consenting to identification must be next to zero, and the chances of a court lifting restrictions will be low, especially in the absence of a public interest defence. Furthermore, applications to the court are likely to be rare: they are expensive and local newspapers facing serious commercial pressure may not be able to go down that route. Those exemptions are worthless.
Let me deal with the substance of the issue. The truth is that Clause 13 is unprecedented, unnecessary and unworkable. First, it is unprecedented because it gives to a particular group of professionals a right that no one else enjoys. Yes, it is appalling if a teacher is falsely accused of a crime—and I take to heart the comments of my noble friend Lady Perry—but that happens in other careers involving children too. If this reaches the statute book, who really believes that the move towards greater secrecy in the justice system will stop there? We had a glimpse of that in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The GMC has already started a campaign arguing that doctors called before its disciplinary committee to answer charges of abusing a patient should not be identified. Interfering with the media’s ability to report in this way is therefore profoundly dangerous—the thin end of a wedge that will lead inexorably to much wider reporting restrictions that will undermine the long-held principle that, for justice to be effective, it must be open and transparent.
Those principles exist for good reason because not all criminal misconduct is prosecuted. Teachers accused rightly of assaults might never be charged by the police due to lack of evidence or because of failure to take a whistleblower seriously. A teacher might be dismissed from a school and, for whatever reason, the school and those involved want no publicity. Allowing him or her indefinite anonymity has frightening implications for the welfare of children. As I understand it, it would also be an offence to name a teacher accused of a crime even if he or she were identified at an inquest or in a civil court action. The media or a parent would have to apply to another court to lift the reporting restrictions, as would anyone who wanted to publish the findings of an official inquiry. In an open society, that cannot be right.
We are legislating to introduce an era of silence where children are concerned, when all the evidence of the last few years has underlined the pivotal role of a free press in uncovering scandal and abuse, a point the NSPCC has consistently championed. Publicity often helps others to come forward with evidence. Instead, we are saying to children: “Unlike any other group in society, your complaints are treated as false until a charge is made”.
My second point is that this ban is unnecessary and disproportionate. Where is the evidence that media reports generate false accusations? Newspapers have consistently pressed the Government for evidence of such a link but none has been forthcoming. Perhaps that is because it was only in 2009 that the Department for Children, Schools and Families said there was no case for teacher anonymity, when giving evidence to the Select Committee inquiry into allegations against school staff. In the same inquiry the NASUWT confirmed that the biggest issue is not anonymity but the management of complaints and CRB practice—something the Government are rightly taking action on.
A vital principle in a parliamentary democracy is that Governments should only interfere with rights to free speech as a last resort. Here we are embarking on an insidious course, without evidence of the need for it and without any attempt to see if there are other ways to deal with this problem short of draconian legislation.
The evidence the NASUWT gave to the Select Committee also highlighted that this legislation would do nothing to stop the problem of innuendo at the school gates, which leads me on to my final point. This legislation is unworkable because in 2011 chatter among parents and gossip among pupils does not stay as that but is retailed on the internet and in social media. In dealing with this issue, Facebook and Twitter are extensions of the school gate, and this legislation will be powerless to stop that. Have the Government not learned from the fiasco of the super-injunctions that it will be impossible to stop internet rumours that are likely to be far more damaging than a responsible media report? Indeed, if the name of a school appears on an internet site, but without the teacher being identified, totally innocent individuals could be maligned.
For that reason this ban might actually make matters worse. Newspapers and broadcasters are strongly constrained by what they report about allegations by the laws of libel, contempt and malicious communication. Schools and the police are bound by rules of confidentiality. If newspapers cannot report these matters, parents may take them online where few effective constraints exist. The Government will be replacing responsible journalism that takes care before reporting allegations with the potential anarchy of the internet. Is that what teachers really want?
Everything about this clause is wrong. It will not work. It could actually make matters worse for teachers. It undermines the rights of a vulnerable group, and it has profound implications for open justice. I cannot put it better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Justice Steyn, who said in his High Court ruling in the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers:
“Freedom of expression is the rule and regulation of the speech is the exception requiring justification ... if it is underpinned by pressing social need”.
No such evidence or justification exists here and I urge the Government to think again. If the Government intend to press ahead, key amendments need to be made, including the provision of a public interest defence and the exemption of courts and other statutory bodies from the automatic restrictions. I hope we can deal with these points in Committee.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Ofsted. In that context, I would like briefly to talk about the proposals in the Bill to reform the school inspection system and to explain a little of the new inspection framework that accompanies them.
Of course, inspection will never be an uncontroversial process. Few schools actively welcome an inspection, though most understand the accountability that inspection brings. Around nine in 10 heads responding to post-inspection surveys are satisfied with how their inspection was carried out and, crucially, that the inspection had identified clear recommendations for improvement. In the weeks I have been at Ofsted, I have been struck by the HMI mantra of “doing good as you go”. Inspectors should leave schools after inspection better placed to improve—something I have discussed at length with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
Moreover, changes to school inspections since 2009 that have been welcomed include more classroom observation and better discussion with school leaders at the end of the inspection. However, I readily acknowledge continuing concerns about the balance between data, dialogue and observation, and the extent to which schools are judged on their core responsibilities. The changes in the Education Bill respond to this criticism and should strike a better balance.
Clause 40 details that future school inspections will report on four key areas: achievement of pupils, quality of teaching and learning, leadership and management, and behaviour and safety. They must also consider spiritual, moral, social and cultural issues within these areas, and the extent to which education enables pupils with disabilities or special educational needs to achieve.
Ofsted is consulting on a new inspection framework at the moment, with time in the autumn to ensure that by the time it is fully introduced in January 2012 we will have listened and learnt as much as possible from schools and school leaders. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has characterised the new framework as aiming to deliver inspection reports that tell more of the story of a school, give parents a stronger feel of a school’s strengths and weaknesses, and describe more clearly the path to improvement. More accessible reports are needed too and we are working on this.
The new inspections will also place greater emphasis on individual subjects, how they are taught and how pupils are learning. Even in the Google age, there is a strong correlation between poor subject knowledge in teachers and poor teaching. Inspectors will also want to see pupils with the skills that are vital to individual subjects—the tools of historical assessment, scientific experimentation or mathematical manipulation, which are so crucial to a deeper subject knowledge and inquiry for the future.
The new framework will use value-added data, rather than contextualised value-added data, or CVA. I know that some schools fear the removal of CVA, but value added will show actual progress between the end of primary school and GCSE results.
It is marked that there is a wide gap in attainment between schools with similar social characteristics. Value-added data should illustrate genuine progress without assuming that poorer pupils will underachieve, focusing schools on narrowing the gap for pupils from poorer backgrounds. This measure is a key part of the new inspections and I passionately support it.
I believe that the combination of legislative change and the new framework will help to bring a clearer focus to inspections and will be more valuable to school leaders and parents as a result. However, Ofsted is still listening to outside views, as we want to get this right.
I also caution the Minister to be vigilant about keeping the focus he is striving to deliver in this Bill. Let us take the recent announcement that inspectors will be trained in spotting putative extremism in schools. Of course, it is right that inspectors understand these issues and can report what they find. Inspectors have a part to play, along with parents and pupils, teachers and the school’s management. There are always perfectly good reasons to add to an inspector’s remit but personally I make this plea. We are about to train inspectors to hear individual children read using synthetic phonics. Do not let us collectively agree to focus on the absolute priorities, such as literacy, and then gradually allow extras to be added in the future without the most rigorous appraisal.
Clauses 39 and 41 propose that outstanding schools and colleges will in future be inspected only where there is cause for concern. This might, for example, be as a result of a significant change in results, a request from a local authority or the Secretary of State, or a series of parental complaints. The trigger mechanism is being developed now but will always present more of a risk than inspecting itself and we should collectively understand that.
In the new Labour Government’s first education White Paper in 1997, the phrase “intervention in inverse proportion to success” was used to describe the extent to which local authorities should engage with schools. It was a good principle then and it remains a good principle now.
The Secretary of State has maintained floor targets or standards, with the recent White Paper stating that secondary schools will be below the floor if fewer than 35 per cent of pupils gain five good GCSEs, including in English and Maths, and fewer pupils make good progress between key stage 2 and key stage 4 than the national average. This builds on earlier targets that since 2000 have seen the number of schools below the 30 per cent level fall from 1,600 in 1997 to fewer than 100 today. Schools not achieving those targets are rightly the subject of intervention with additional powers in Clause 43, and they may be replaced by academies.
Therefore, I welcome the continued challenge that underpins this principle in the Bill and its focus on schools that most need attention and intervention. My personal concern is whether the department has yet demonstrated fully how the removal of school improvement partners and local authority support—both of which I readily acknowledge were variable—as well as challenge leaders will be replaced in the near future in a comprehensive way. I recognise that in time teaching schools and peer support will play a big role.
Of course, change is not without its dangers. In the new regime, inspectors may not see excellence often enough and, at the same time, a few outstanding schools may rest too much on their laurels. There is a measure of reassurance in that Ofsted produces regular reports on individual subjects and important educational themes, but I still have questions—clearly shared by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—about how we maintain a sufficient level of scrutiny of outstanding schools. I notice the time and think that we will have to return to that matter in Committee.
There is one other issue on which I should touch very briefly before I conclude. The Education Select Committee recently recommended a break-up of Ofsted into its separate education and children’s services functions. This is obviously a decision for government. I have thought about this very carefully and I believe that this would be a mistake. The reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for merging education and children’s social services at a local level remain strong. A child’s life is holistic and what happens in their home or care affects their educational achievement as much as their personal development. Ofsted inspections should reflect local and national structures.
Ofsted now has strong leaders from both education and social work backgrounds and there is more confidence at local authority level about the consistency and quality of inspections. However, Ofsted recognises that it may need more of a public face for each of these sectors in the future, and that is something to which we will return.
At its core, Ofsted remains very much our national guardian of standards. I hope that these legislative changes, and the new frameworks now being developed, will reconfirm that in the future.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, some 30 years or more ago I, too, was a maths teacher. I guess that, using the marking conventions of that time, I would give the Bill B+ for effort and C+ for achievement. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said that she thought the intention behind the White Paper was very good but that not all of it had transferred itself to the Bill.
I shall concentrate on some issues in the Bill that fall within Parts 3, 5 and 6. There are some areas that confuse and contradict. With the localism agenda there is a distinct move to push decision-making to the lowest appropriate level. We see that through the desire to involve parents but not allow local authorities to make strategic decisions. As a Government, we are committed to reducing quangos but maintaining their functionality elsewhere. In the Bill, the first aim is achieved but not always the second.
The abolition of the General Teaching Council for England and the absorption of its functions into the department get rid of the quango but do not retain its full functionality. The decision to retain a register only of those who are prohibited for misconduct or for failing their induction period may serve as a quick check for a head teacher but it is of no use when looking at demographics of the teacher population for strategic and workforce planning, which the present extensive database allows. It does not satisfy the public that teachers are registered. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. Would the Government consider moving the GMC into the Department of Health and then only recording doctors who had been struck off or had otherwise failed?
We welcome the move to restrict the reporting of alleged offences against teachers. It is foolhardy to assume that teachers do not offend, although it is rare. I taught for 15 years and, although not all teachers with whom I worked were good teachers, I was not aware of any who committed any criminal offence against a child. There were such instances of false accusations and their impact cannot be underestimated. I should be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give an assurance that all forms of published media are covered, including the use of mobile phones, the internet, e-mail, websites and social networking sites, such as bebo and Facebook. I should be grateful, too, if he would consider extending this provision to teaching assistants and other employees, and indeed to staff in colleges. Perhaps in the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Black, a pause on this clause will be needed.
In the Bill four categories are flagged up for inspection by Ofsted. It strikes me that they seem quite restricted, and there could be some variability in their interpretation. We need clarity on Ofsted’s duty to examine the progress of children with special needs, as well as those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Will Ofsted have the duty to inspect schools according to the well-being of their pupils? We all know that a stressed child is not a good learner. Schools need to play their part in ensuring that their pupils are in the right mindset to learn, and that means paying attention to their well-being.
Are we to make the assumption that exempt schools are those with an outstanding report and that they will be inspected in future only as a paper-based desk exercise or if an inspection is triggered by the local authority or parents? Here, two issues arise. First, inspectors’ benchmarking becomes skewed if they do not see the proportionate number of outstanding schools and, secondly, Ofsted inspectors would be unable to pass on current examples of really good practice in outstanding schools to other schools that are in need of development.
Moving on to academies, the Bill introduces a requirement that when a council identifies the need for a new school, it must first seek to establish it as an academy and must then seek the Secretary of State’s approval for its establishment. Then there is a requirement for the Secretary of State’s approval before a local authority publishes proposals for a competition for the establishment. But the Secretary of State is allowed to terminate the process of seeking to establish a new school before the final date specified for receiving bids for the proposals. There is a presumption that in the future any new schools will be established as academies. We must ensure that this process does not reduce the ability of local parents, education providers and councils to respond quickly and effectively to new demand, and that local choice and diversity of provision is maintained. This, I fear, is another case where the centralisation of decision-making is flying in the face of local preferences, which is contrary to the localism agenda currently being debated in your Lordships’ House.
Looking briefly at finance, with the growth in the number of academies, I would like the Minister to look again at the funding of central costs, and honour the pledge to councils that they will not be out of pocket as a result of the academies programme. The Bill has some points that will improve the quality of education for our children but I hope that the Government will listen to the areas of concern and consider amendments to allay them.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I want to focus on two aspects of the Bill which are generally not addressed in education debates. They do not figure in current proposals for education reform very much, and I think that will cause problems.
The first is the educational significance of the design of school buildings. We have heard of the Secretary of State’s remark that:
“We won’t be getting any award-winning architects to design new schools”.
I prefer his earlier remark, in 2006, that,
“architecture has the most profound effect on how we live … The consequences of poor building design are borne by us all”.
Of almost no building is this last point more true than schools, so I hope he will return to his former view. There is plenty of evidence about the powerful effect of school building and design on attainment, behaviour, including bullying, security, ease of supervision, efficiency and economy of use, and even crime reduction in the neighbouring area. But these are the product of award-winning architecture. Standardisation of an oversimplified kind is not the answer, any more than it was in the discredited SCOLA system-building of schools in the 1970s. I think that Mr Gove is interested in history, so I recommend to him Schools of Thought, by Richard Weston, on this subject.
The lack of requirement for new schools to be well designed is particularly disturbing in conjunction with the department’s consultation document on lifting planning permission for change of use to school buildings. I am not saying that a new school could not be set up in a sandwich bar or a hairdresser’s or a funeral parlour—some of the document’s examples—but those engaged in the education of our children should have to ensure that the design of their school is conducive to education in all its aspects. They are likely to need advice. So I ask the Minister how it is to happen that new schools have this advice, and what is the department’s capacity, after the capital review, to provide it? I wonder if we should not also think of an Ofsted duty to report on the effect on education of the schools’ buildings.
The second aspect of the Bill is those neglected children from the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. In education we look now at aggregates, percentages and averages of attainment. But in our society we still pride ourselves on valuing the individual. We should not ignore small numbers where the injustice to individuals is very great but does not show up in the wider picture.
The Minister is, I know, familiar with and concerned by the distressing facts so poignantly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the educational fate of these children and the consequent devastating impact on their capacity to earn a living. But is he aware of the recent research by the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain on the huge extent of bullying which is almost certainly part of the cause? Will he add that to the fact that, in his department’s study last year, a large proportion of these children opted not to identify themselves as Gypsy, Roma or Travellers, obliged, you might think, to deny their heritage to escape stigma and victimisation? These completely unacceptable findings point exactly towards the 1967 Plowden recommendations of special attention and planned action, now falling into abeyance.
In the Bill we have some provisions which reverse such targeting as there was, and others which make matters worse. The abolition in Clause 30 of the duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities to improve children’s well-being—which means, of course, also with all the local agencies which deal with health, social problems and justice, so relevant to truancy—is one such; the abolition of an appeal against exclusion, the removal of the right to reinstatement and the replacement of independent review panels are others. Between a fifth and a quarter of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children, usually boys, are excluded from school, an astonishing and far higher proportion than any other minority ethnic group. It has not been paid much attention hitherto because it was not identified. There is no disaggregation to reveal it, for instance, in the Academies Bill equality impact statement. One cause is likely to be response to bullying. There is little home teaching arranged either. So any blanket diminution of appeal rights without a thorough examination of the justice of it is very risky. The Bill’s equality impact statement rightly commented on the low attainment of these children. But it does not seem to make any connections—it does not mention any impact of exclusions. I echo the concern already expressed on all sides of the House and ask the Minister what account was taken of the duty to provide education for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children when considering the exclusion provisions.
We do have, finally, one good targeted service to help these children through the transition so many fear to secondary school, and to support them once they are there: the local authority-run Traveller education service. It is credited with securing a small but steady improvement in attendance last year. It is also a pan-European exemplar, recommended by the newly adopted EU framework for national Roma integration. But its lack of statutory backing has made it an easy target for cuts and it is rapidly declining. I think that we should look at some form of obligation to identify and support children who have become disengaged. It would take some of the burden off schools if it remained with the local authority, just as it has done with looked-after children—local champions of social justice, as the Minister put it. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I will raise briefly two or three issues connected with modern languages in relation to some of the Bill's objectives. I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages.
The case for languages is key to the underlying drive to improve the overall quality of school education. There are cognitive, educational, social and economic benefits; but the UK is failing badly, with fewer pupils in the state sector taking language GCSEs every year. The English baccalaureate has provided a modest boost for languages, but only about 15 per cent of pupils are covered, and take-up of languages in state comprehensives is less than half that in independent and selective schools. Modern languages degree courses at university are vulnerable, partly because the Government have not heeded the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that languages should be a strategic priority for public investment, and instead have changed the funding system in a way that threatens the survival of modern languages degrees. The UK will be put at an even greater disadvantage—not to mention embarrassment—by our failure to produce sufficient graduates interested in careers as linguists.
Last month I visited the director-general for translation at the European Commission and met Commissioner Vassiliou, who is responsible for multilingualism in the EU. The UK is, if not quite a laughing-stock, then certainly the object of some disbelief at how and why we are content to be so bad at languages when patently it would be in our own self-interest to produce more people qualified to move into the enormous variety of jobs and careers available for native English speakers who can also work in other languages.
The Bill includes a requirement for schools to take part in international education surveys. I applaud the Government for placing importance on this type of measurement, which could point us in the right direction of how to do things better. We should be acting already on the OECD survey finding that put England joint bottom of the league table of 39 developed countries for the amount of classroom time spent on languages by 12 to 14 year-olds. However, I am encouraged that England—although for some reason not the rest of the UK—is one of the participating member states in the new EU survey that will produce a new European indicator of language competence. This aims to measure the general level of foreign language knowledge of pupils in member states. The first findings are due to be presented in 2012. Will the Minister tell the House, or at least write to tell me, how many English schools have participated in this survey, and how many more he expects will participate as a result of the measure proposed in the Bill? Will he also say what criteria will be attached to participation in other international education surveys?
The Bill also aims to achieve more focused Ofsted inspections, as we have heard from a number of speakers. I hope that this will be an opportunity for Ofsted to reclaim some of its influence on the teaching and learning of foreign languages. In the past few years, Ofsted inspections have paid less and less attention to languages. By contrast, its three-year thematic report on modern languages highlighted weaknesses in secondary schools, with far too much teaching to exams and not nearly enough opportunity for pupils to practise speaking the language. The same Ofsted report noted good progress in primary schools, yet because of the U-turn on the primary languages curriculum many schools are now winding down their language teaching, and LEAs are laying off primary language specialists. Can we have an assurance that if Ofsted is to produce more focused inspections and reports, as the Bill wants, the Government will not negate that focus by adopting policies that go in exactly the opposite direction, as we have seen in relation to languages? We might also be about to compound our poor national performance with a serious shortfall of language teachers. The TDA estimates that we will need an extra 660 MFL teachers by 2015, rising to an extra 1,550 by 2017. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to address this shortfall?
The final issue I want to touch on is careers advice, which the Government seek to strengthen through this Bill. Having one or more languages in addition to English is a huge benefit when it comes to getting a job. The CBI education and skills survey, published about three weeks ago, revealed that only a quarter of UK businesses say they have no need for foreign language skills among their employees, so it is very important that careers advice dovetails with advice that children are given in school about option choices at GCSE, AS-level and A-level. Research undertaken by the charity Education and Employers Taskforce has highlighted the information gap that exists in schools, with young people simply not understanding the labour-market value of languages.
This is an area that would also help the Government achieve what they have said they wish to achieve in terms of closing the gap between pupils in the state sector and those in private education. The task force’s research notes how access to language learning has become socially determined, with young people in schools with high proportions of free school meals having significantly less access to language learning than their peers in wealthier areas.
I appreciate that this Bill is not directly about any subject in particular but about the structures and context in which better teaching and learning can take place. I simply ask the Government to ensure that where a new measure is introduced, be it independent careers advice, providing data for surveys or more focused inspections, schools are always and explicitly encouraged to take account of the potential of any new measure for making a positive impact on modern languages. They will be short-changing their pupils and their life chances if they do not.
Lord True
My Lords, this is an excellent Bill. I declare an interest as a trustee of a grant-giving charity that supports catholic education, although unlike my noble friend Lord Edmiston, I have to regret that I did not make the money that we so enthusiastically give away. I am also leader of a London borough that welcomes academies and free schools. Indeed, I believe that the freedoms that come with academy status would be best for all our local schools, but local partnership and involvement remain important. A successful school must carry the confidence of local people. It should be at a community's heart, so I ask my noble friend to guard against the emergence of large chains of schools that are remote-managed to standard formulae. I would like to see local boards to guide, or even, eventually, to manage academies, particularly if school chains reach a certain size; otherwise, we may have in time to return to break up the largest of those chains.
I also support the reduction in the number of quangos. Indeed, if there were a True's law of education, it would probably be that general quality declines in inverse proportion to the growth in the size of education bureaucracy, but I dare not add in inverse proportion to the size of my noble friend’s department as well. In my No. 10 days, if I was not a creator of Ofsted, I was certainly a rather fumbling assistant midwife. At that time, we envisaged, naively, that Ofsted would shrink itself: after a Domesday Book survey, it would focus on the weakest, rather than remorselessly grinding down every staff room across the land. It did not turn out to be quite like that, so I welcome the direction of travel in this Bill and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton.
The point I want to make is about Part 1, not for what is in it—an extension of nursery provision to disadvantaged two year-olds is hugely welcome—but for what is not in it. Here I declare another interest as my wife is a qualified Montessori teacher, a nursery school principal and a tireless advocate of Montessori education. Through her, I have come to know many people in private and voluntary nursery schools, notably in the Montessori sector. It is sad how disillusioned many of these outstanding, dedicated women—and they are mostly women—have become at growing state interference and what they perceive as lack of sympathy.
Many problems flow from the good intentions of Section 7 of the Childcare Act 2006, which is amended, providentially, but not enough, by Part 1 of this Bill. The issue revolves around the tension between a well intended, populist political slogan—free nursery education for all—and the realities of economic life. If I have learnt anything from a life in the wings of the political theatre, it is that usually a populist slogan will eventually jump up and bite someone. Sadly, it is now biting many early years providers. It is therefore biting parents who want to exercise diverse choices and, worst of all, it is biting children who are disadvantaged by the closure of private and voluntary settings.
In the 1990s, I worked on John Major’s original vision to bring nursery education to all. That was intended to be done bottom-up by empowering parents to choose the best support for their children, but local councils and others cavilled about loss of control. Under the previous Government, it was changed to a grant paid out by government via local councils to schools and then indirectly to parents to offset costs, with hosts of people along the way to administer this top-down system.
Under the slogan, “free education for all”, that state transfer system evolved into what are, under all the euphemisms, old-fashioned price controls on private and voluntary nursery schools. Nursery schools in receipt of nursery education grant are not allowed to charge above arbitrary price caps for the 15 so-called free hours a week, even if the costs of providing quality education exceed the price limit. There is too little income and too much cost—Mr Micawber knew the effect of that. Private and voluntary settings therefore close or go entirely private, thus closing their doors to parents needing financial help to access them, and so creating a two-tier structure in nursery education that no one wants. The paradox is that in the name of equality and wider access the reverse is happening. Something really is going wrong.
A third way is offered around closure or going private to those schools but this third way is rather an illusion as well. To sustain the claim of free education in the 15 hours, there has emerged a climate of deliberate deceit where a blind eye is turned to settings charging disproportionate amounts for services or time outside the theoretically free 15 hours a week to cover their costs and simply survive. I consider that to be dishonest. I consider dishonesty not to be a sound basis in policy or ethics for educating the young, particularly the youngest of all. I question for how long it can evade the attention of the courts. My hope is that, as we can consider Part 1 in the coming stages and amend Section 7 of the 2006 Act, the Government will seriously reconsider the imposition of price controls as a condition of parents at a school having access to nursery grant and bring realism to a worthy policy ideal which we all share; namely, access to nursery education for all.
To conclude, I also think that justice is needed on qualifications, on which the Children’s Workforce Development Council, another very costly quango, has standardising aims that threaten Montessori education. In Committee, I should like to return to that issue and Part 3. Like my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, I hope that my noble friend will show an open mind to ideas to address these problems. Part 1 is an opportunity to do so. If we do not use it wisely, I must tell the noble Lord that people will notice, and life and diversity may continue to drain from a private and voluntary nursery sector that young children perhaps need more now than ever before.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I declare an interest. As I have said before, I am a school governor at my local Three Bridges Primary School, which recently got an “outstanding” assessment from Ofsted, of which we are immensely proud. It took something like 10 years to move from “satisfactory” to “outstanding”, which was a long and interesting journey. I maintain my interest as a school governor because it gives me an insight into what is happening in primary school education, rather than just theorising about it.
This has been a fascinating debate with, probably, the House of Lords at its best. It brings a huge range of experience and expertise into this debate. I am sure that, had the Minister been here, he would have been listening, but someone is listening on his behalf. Whether he has the freedom to compromise and accept necessary improvements will be revealed in Committee. A lot of people have said that they are enthusiasts for the whole of this Bill but it is a bit like the curate’s egg and will need significant amendment. I would not want to be derogatory about it because a number of good parts of this Bill have been referred to in this debate.
The record of the previous Government bears mentioning. In the past decade, the Labour Government put a huge investment into schools—into the fabric and structure of them and into support for teachers. We attracted record numbers into teaching and made teaching a top destination for Oxbridge graduates. The numbers entering the profession are already starting to fall because of this Government’s cuts to teacher training. Ofsted’s assessment was that we had the best generation of teachers ever thanks to Labour's reforms. We set up the Teach First scheme to encourage high-performing graduates to take up a career in teaching and recent studies have shown that schools with Teach First teachers saw pupils boost their grades by an average of a third of a GCSE in every subject that they studied. Important progress was made during those 10 years.
An area that we have not heard referred to much in this debate is the role of head teachers. In my experience, they are crucial in the ability of a school to succeed in achieving its objectives of improving the educational experience. We should not lose sight of that. It was good to hear my noble friend Lady Morgan talk about the strategy for improving the role of Ofsted. That is now an important area. Just because a school has achieved an outstanding assessment, you cannot leave it to its own devices. That is a little too complacent, and I hope that we will give further thought to it.
In the short period of time that I have I will cover only a couple of areas. I have been involved with the Alliance for Inclusive Education, which has expressed concern about admissions policy and dealing with children with SEN. The alliance wants,
“the schools’ adjudicator role in admissions policies complaints to be maintained”.
The Government, as we know,
“wants to remove the role that admissions forums have in increasing the accountability of school admissions protocols within a local authority area”.
The alliance believes, and I think it is right, that:
“These forums allowed parents to raise issues of concern which may help to identify particular problems and challenges local schools face in taking their share of children with special educational needs”.
The alliance is looking for,
“some kind of local coordination of the schools admissions role which is accountable to both parents and local communities”.
That is what we are looking for in admissions policies. We want to see transparency and fairness. That is not guaranteed.
The next area interests me especially, and I declare another personal interest. My noble friend Lord Touhig, who is unfortunately not in the Chamber, gave us some interesting statistics on autism. I have a personal interest because I have a granddaughter with Asperger's. It was interesting when I looked at her experience of state education. It was good in primary school where it was a reasonably safe and secure environment, and teachers seemed to know how to deal with a child with those particular difficulties. But in secondary school it has been dire, quite frankly. Teachers seem not to be trained in what they need to do. There is a lot of room for improvement.
That leads me to the question of exclusion and the real concerns about the policies contained within the Bill. Again, I quote from a briefing document from the Alliance for Inclusive Education. It states that:
“The Department for Education’s own statistics confirm that the primary reasons for most children with SEN being excluded are of an emotional, social and behavioural nature”.
It,
“welcomes the Government’s Targeted Mental Health in Schools fund to improve their pupils’ emotional well-being, which should help to reduce the rate of school exclusions”.
The alliance wants,
“the Government to consider strengthening schools’ duties to arrange special education needs provision, which will prevent a high percentage of these children being excluded from school”.
It is right: prevention certainly is better than cure. It wants all schools to be under a duty not to exclude but required to arrange support provision as soon as possible to prevent the child from being excluded. Clearly, this is an area that we will return to in Committee.
Lastly, on apprenticeships, while I welcome the Government’s commitment on funding—we heard the Minister talk about 135,000 places for 16 to 18 year-olds and 300,000 others—this is really about ensuring that those places actually emerge as real apprenticeships. Withdrawing the 2013 commitment to guarantee an apprenticeship to all 16 to 19 year-olds who qualify for one is the wrong decision. If this country was at war and we decided that we needed all young people to be skilled and employed, then we would find the means. We ought to wage war against youth unemployment. We ought to guarantee that opportunity to every young person who wants an apprenticeship and qualifies for it. As I have said before, the Government have the means to show that they lead by example in government contracts and departments, and can also look at the large number of employers who still do not employ apprenticeships or encourage things such as group training associations.
I have run out of time and do not want to abuse the situation—I can see that I am being looked at. I thank you for this opportunity.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the other day, I heard the opera singer Alfie Boe say on “Desert Island Discs” something that we do not often hear successful people say: that he had not liked school. Usually, if people want to confess something bad about their school experience, they say that they were not very good at it. I think that is untrue. All children are clever but not all are academic. Alfie Boe said he did not like school because he was not able to study music without being able to play the violin or flute. Apparently, his voice did not count as an instrument. He lived for 3.30 pm every day, when he could escape to his singing and music classes.
I did not like school either and could not wait to be 16 so that I could get a job and start work. Notwithstanding the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the son of a grocer, for someone like me—a hands-on, get-the-job-done kind of girl—sitting around in a classroom all day reading poetry felt a bit pointless. It was not until I was 14 and attended the local college for half a day every week to do typing at secretarial studies that things started to become clearer. I became enthusiastic for learning. I decided then that, after leaving school at 16, I would try for a place on a two-year secretarial course that included A-levels. To get on that course, I needed to achieve five O-levels. Finally, learning had some purpose and I knuckled down. I succeeded in getting where I wanted to go. My horizons were not that high back then.
I share this with noble Lords because I support the Government’s education policies, only some of which are included in the Bill. I applaud the emphasis on standards in behaviour, performance and testing of teachers as well as children. More than anything, I am thrilled that, as part of the academy programme, the Government support university technical colleges—which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, described so powerfully—and studio schools, although the latter do not have the same profile as the UTCs. These schools and colleges are important because they combine academic learning with technical and vocational skills. In doing so, they provide a serious and alternative route to success for those children who are not best inspired by academic subjects alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, highlighted what they felt was too much focus on structural change in the Bill. To me, these UTCs send a powerful and important message. They say that we as a country are finally starting to recognise that all children are clever, even the ones who are not academic. In my mind, the purpose of school is to help us be the best that we can be at whatever it is that we are good at. Michelle Obama’s visit to Oxford University with a group of girls from a London school was magical in its inspiration. They will not forget that experience and neither should the rest of us who want young people from all backgrounds to aspire to that level of academic achievement. Listening to her that day and watching her with those girls in Oxford really gave me goosebumps.
We must not allow our ambition for more working-class children to attend Oxbridge to distract us from helping all young people to be ambitious at whatever it is they are good at. Some of our best and brightest are not motivated by Oxbridge—and, in any case we need brilliant doers as much as we need brilliant thinkers. Moreover, we need to start showing our brilliant doers that we think they are just as special as everyone else.
The noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Young of Norwood Green, mentioned the apprenticeship scheme. I agree that it is of vital importance that such opportunities are available. I am a bit surprised and confused by the remarks they made, because as I understand it the Government have increased the funding for apprenticeships by £180 million in this year alone, which means a further 50,000 places for young people. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that in his summing up.
One thing I believe very profoundly is that if someone is clever at one thing they are probably clever and capable of doing much more. Sometimes we need to help children to discover what that is, but if we recognise the importance of whatever it is they are good at—whether it is singing or typing—show respect for that skill and help them to succeed, we might just give them the confidence to aspire to achieve more.
There is much detail in this Bill, which will be debated in Committee, but as a vehicle to improve our education system and through that the opportunities for all our children it certainly has my support.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I owe your Lordships' House my sincere apologies for not being present here when the opening speeches were made. Due to a fatality, the train journey from Hull to London took five and a half hours, as opposed to two and a half, as it normally does. So I ended up spending about three hours more on the train than I would normally do, along with the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, who has just walked into the Chamber. I am most grateful to your Lordships' House for your understanding.
If I had had more time, I would have loved to concentrate on a number of issues, such as the institutional bonfire that the Bill intends to make, as well as the enormous amount of centralisation in which it engages. But I want to use the six minutes at my disposal to concentrate on just one aspect—the anxiety that the Bill is provoking among ethnic minorities and the impact that it is likely to have on them, if one is not careful.
I want to articulate that anxiety at five levels. First, there is almost complete silence on race equality issues in the Bill, the White Paper and ministerial speeches. Ofsted has normally reported on the ethos of the schools and what they do to encourage better relations between different ethnic groups. Apart from a passing reference to that, there is very little about it in the Bill. Ofsted reports have also graded schools, which is normally done on the basis of what is called “contextual value added”. That has been entirely dropped in the Bill. I know that the concept of contextual value-added is complicated; it needs to be refined and can lead to difficulties. But the answer is not to dispense with it altogether as the Bill does, but rather to refine, revise it and make it more applicable.
That is my worry number one. My worry number two has to do with the enormous amount of power given to teachers to search students, confiscate electronic equipment, to delete data on those electronic appliances and so on. This is a disproportionate amount of power. We are dealing with students and not criminals. As Ofsted has said, the amount of indiscipline, which can be a source of worry, is limited to no more than 2 per cent of our schools. More importantly, if we are not careful we might have a situation where the obvious targets and objects of surveillance would be either Afro-Caribbeans or Muslims. One small incident or mistake could easily give a school a bad name or create a scene of nationwide significance. So we need to be extremely careful about how we use those powers.
My third worry has to do with teacher training. It is now going to be in-school training, which has a role but also an obvious difficulty. Think of people coming from shire schools who have never been exposed to ethnic minorities. Where are they to be placed for teacher training? If they are placed in the same sorts of schools—the only schools that might be recognised by the Government—they will never acquire any kind of competence in how to deal with a multi-ethnic society like ours. If, on the other hand, they are placed in inner-city multi-ethnic schools, those schools are under so much pressure that they simply will not have the time or energy to deal with training those teachers. Multiverse played an important role in providing a great many resources for initial teacher training and subsequent professional development but its funding has been withdrawn, which has left a large institutional gap.
My fourth worry has to do with the academies. The academies that the Government are planning are quite different from those that the Labour Government introduced. We now have half a dozen different kinds of academies. It is a mixed bag and it is therefore difficult to generalise, but I suspect what might happen is as follows. Their admissions criteria could be highly discriminatory and if parents have any objection they will have to go all the way to the Secretary of State, which is never going to be easy. There is no local accountability. It is also the case that the exclusion rate in academies is generally twice that in local authority maintained schools, which breeds considerable resentment.
It is also the case that academies, so far at least, have few black students but more money. By contrast, the opposite happens in local authority schools, which have more black students and less money, with the overall result that black children and others tend to receive unequal treatment. Hitherto, the black students used to benefit from local authority support services and the help of voluntary organisations, but their budgets have been cut and they therefore have nowhere to turn to.
I am also a little worried about voluntary-controlled and voluntary-aided schools, if they become academies. The Bill says that, so far as voluntary-controlled schools are concerned, one-fifth of their teachers can come from within the same religious group. Where voluntary-aided schools are concerned, religion can be taken into account in determining their salary, promotion and appointment. I feel deeply concerned about this. If we are not careful, we might have a large number of Muslim or other denominational schools taking full advantage of those provisions and leading to the kinds of trouble that we might not want. We might then complain that they are teaching the wrong kind of Islam or the wrong kind of Christianity.
My fifth and last worry has to do with the fact that the education maintenance allowance is being reduced. That will particularly affect the ethnic minorities, especially Afro-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children. The same thing is likely to happen where English language teaching is concerned; those for whom English is a second language will suffer because the funding is being drastically cut. I very much hope that the Minister will take many of these points into account, because if we are not careful the cumulative effect of this Bill could be pretty dangerous so far as race relations and the educational achievement of our ethnic minority children are concerned.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I am particularly interested in children with special educational needs so will concentrate my comments on those areas where they may be affected by this Bill. In Clause 15, on school workforce training, the current proposal of allowing teaching schools to oversee teacher training could result in a lack of consistency in how SEN is delivered. If teacher training schools will be required to be graded as “outstanding” by Ofsted, we must ensure that this requirement includes the teaching of children with SEN so that best practice continues.
I would also like to see it as a requirement for all trainee teachers to learn how to work inclusively with all children, in mainstream school settings, so as to ensure a sound understanding of disability equality principles. I also believe that this should be across all areas. I am sure that noble Lords will expect me to be an advocate for the teaching of PE. However, many teachers are inadequately trained in how to work with SEN children in that area, either through their initial teacher training or in their continual professional development. This is particularly the case at primary level.
When we talk about exclusions we think in terms of permanent exclusion, but more needs to be done to ensure that SEN children are not excluded from strands of their education due to lack of training or health and safety fears. If more young disabled people are exposed to good physical education in schools in an inclusive environment then they are fitter, healthier, and more able to contribute to society in myriad different ways, including in the workforce—perhaps even going back into teaching themselves.
I believe that it is positive to encourage international comparison for our education system, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said about statistics. However, we must recognise that the treatment of children with SEN varies considerably around the world and strive to deliver the best for our children. SEN provision should be included in any comparison.
I strongly welcome independent careers guidance and advice in Clauses 26 and 27. Advisers need to be well informed about what mainstream education opportunities are available for young disabled people, as well as understanding the full range of opportunities in the workforce, apprenticeships and higher education. I would welcome more information on how this will be achieved.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Staying On report has highlighted how careers advisers tailor their advice to what people with a particular impairment should do, rather than basing it on an individual's aspirations. It notes that disabled young people are not receiving information about opportunities in work-based learning and apprenticeships, and that the information received on further education options is often negative. The EHRC report attributed this lack of information and inadequate guidance to professionals not believing that young disabled people could cope with certain choices as a result of viewing disability through a medical model. This resulted in a “damage limitation exercise”. It is an important time to challenge the stereotyped and limited learning opportunities that are on offer to disabled young people.
If discrimination starts at an early age, it is with that person for life and they grow up believing that this is the norm. I clearly remember my early careers advice. I was told not to bother with university as I would never get a proper job—that is a probably a matter of further debate among my family right now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already covered the issue of fines relating to outcomes of independent review panels, and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Lingfield, covered some of the points that I should like to have made on exclusions. What I am concerned about is that the Bill makes it no easier for schools to avoid working with SEN children and our reverting to special schools by a different route. Exclusions should surely be the last resort. While they may be appropriate as an end point for a tiny percentage, more must be done to avoid them.
I am particularly pleased to see that parents have a right to request an SEN expert to attend exclusion panels. To make this work, parents need to understand the system, which is incredibly complicated. It is therefore essential that the experts are independent and have experience of working with children with SEN in mainstream settings. I should like to explore whether all parents could have the right to ask for an SEN expert, regardless of whether their child has been previously identified with SEN, to help guide them through to the best outcome for their child.
On school inspection standards in Clause 40, I welcome the intention for school inspections to focus on what is genuinely important in schools, but I would like them to be inspected on how well they comply with the disability equality duty provision as set out in the Equality Act 2010. This sets not only a tone for staff but a level of expectation and understanding for all children.
I have no great difficulty with children being searched in certain circumstances, but it has to be a safe environment for all. I would have concerns if a child with SEN had their communication devices removed and was searched without appropriate support being in place. I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill, especially the focus on helping with discipline, the greater freedoms for academies and the emphasis on measuring ourselves against international standards. However, I want to focus on one area which is ignored in the Bill and has been neglected in government legislation so far, and I should like to explore whether it could be added to the Bill as it passes through the House.
My concern is around the provision of high-quality education tailored to the needs of the most able pupils. It is of course important to raise standards across the board and to focus attention on raising standards in those schools covering disadvantaged areas where high standards are most difficult to achieve, and I fully agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell that we need brilliant doers as well as brilliant thinkers. But the most able children also deserve special attention. We should not forget that it is the most able children from whom the leaders of the future will often be drawn—the scientists, engineers, artists, business leaders and politicians who make the breakthroughs and create the wealth and social advance that the nation as a whole benefits from. Not only that, we need to ensure that very able children from less advantaged backgrounds are able to get top-quality education and rise to the top of their chosen field as a crucial aspect of encouraging social mobility—providing role models to raise aspirations in their local communities as well as delivering on our shared ideal of a fair and meritocratic society.
I fear that over time we have moved to a situation where the highest quality education is no longer open to all children based on merit, but is increasingly the preserve of wealthier families who can pay for private education or a house in an affluent area. That is neither fair nor a good development for society as a whole, so I would like to explore a number of possible amendments to this Bill to support the aims of fairness and access to high-quality education for all, regardless of their background.
First, I would like to explore whether it is possible to apply admission arrangements collectively to a group of schools, a group of academies or others in a federation. The group of schools would continue to admit all abilities in their locality, but one school in the group could be designated to offer specialised, top-stream educational learning in selected subjects that would be open to all pupils from all the schools within the group who were considered to have the ability to benefit from a faster and deeper pace of learning. This is no different in principle from the current arrangements whereby one school may offer specialist subject teaching—for example, Russian at A-level—which is then open to pupils from other schools on a shared basis.
Under this arrangement, there would be no admissions criteria based on ability to get into the school or schools, and the decision to refer a pupil to the fast-track classes could be taken at any age rather than at one fixed point. As well as making it economically possible to provide specialist teaching for a group of high-ability children by aggregating them together across a number of schools, this arrangement would recognise the well established benefits that high achievers gain from being taught in a class with other high-ability children. In one study at York University, for example, the achievement of children in the top 5 per cent ability range was shown to be significantly higher when they were in a year group with 20 or more other high-ability children than when they were in a year group with fewer than 10 other very able students. There may already be more flexibility to move in this direction under existing legislation, but I would like to explore whether amendments to the Bill could help achieve this aim.
Secondly, and with the same objective, I wonder whether we might not have a general requirement on all schools, particularly academies, to make adequate provision to enable pupils of high ability to achieve their potential, whether through setting, streaming or other tailored teaching methods. We put other general requirements on schools, so why not a general requirement to provide a fair opportunity for high-ability pupils? We could then perhaps also amend Clause 52 regarding Ofsted inspections, to require the Ofsted inspector also to consider whether the education provided by the school meets the special needs of high-ability pupils.
Thirdly, we do have some very high-quality academic schools that in past years were open to all as direct grant schools, but which chose to convert to private status when the direct grant status was abolished. I myself was a free-school-meals pupil at one such direct grant school, and I have no doubt that I owe a lot to the opportunities opened up by that completely free, state-funded education. What those schools provided was not only academic excellence but—just as important —the social constants that children from less advantaged backgrounds need to believe that they can aim for the top. We now have, through the Academies Act, the framework to welcome such schools back into the state-funded sector. However, to make that possible, I believe we would need to amend the restrictions on admissions policy so that these schools, like existing grammar schools that switch to academy status, can retain their existing admissions policy based on merit. I cannot see why, given that these excellent schools exist and continue to deliver some of the best academic results in the country, we would not want to open their doors to all children of ability, regardless of their social background or parental income, rather than leaving poor children locked out at the gates.
Finally, the most wide-ranging change would be to allow academies to opt for a specialism as a selective academic school. That may be a step too far for many, but again I think it is something we should consider. So I welcome this Bill and I look forward to my noble friend’s response to the debate. I will then reflect on how some of these points may be advanced as the Bill proceeds through this House.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, this Bill is not wholly bad but it is flawed, and in my judgment may be fatally flawed. At its heart it lacks authenticity in that it claims to embrace the concept of greater professionalism, but in willing the ends it effectively destroys the means.
I declare two interests. The first is as the inaugural chair of the General Teaching Council for England. The second is as someone who over the past 14 years has spent a vast amount of time in schools talking to pupils and teachers. That has been a privilege, not a burden. I have always tried to bring back what I have learnt to the department, to your Lordships’ House and to anyone prepared to listen to what I have seen and heard. I have also tried to be strictly non-ideological. What has come back has not always been either comfortable or welcome, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley will confirm. My overwhelming message, then and now, is that none of the improvements that we may wish for will happen without total buy-in from the whole profession. The Bill in its present form will not achieve that.
My appointment as the first chair of the General Teaching Council was, as someone put it the other day, the ultimate hospital pass. The 1998 Act that created it was, I say somewhat cynically, inadequate. Some of the unions that claimed to want a GTC backed off the moment they realised it might involve power-sharing, and the Government of the day were extremely ambivalent about how much power they were prepared to give away. It, too, in essence, was an inauthentic piece of legislation.
After 40 years of working in public bodies, I would say that every single public body that I have worked in could at some point have been a candidate for being abandoned. Every one of them had a flaw; every one of them needed improvement—sometimes significant improvement. However, making something that is essentially worth while into something that is truly excellent is very hard work. The cheap and easy option is to scrap it and walk away. This is a point that I was eager to make but was not able to during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill. What could be more worth while than a teaching profession that sees itself as exactly that—a profession, with all the challenges that come with professional status? The embryonic GTC tried to be that. It was an opportunity for teachers to re-evaluate themselves and the vital role that they play in society, just as doctors, lawyers and nurses did before them. I will not go down that road; the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, have done a far better job than I could of making that argument.
I put it to noble Lords that the teachers of Scotland have their General Teaching Council. The teachers of Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, where I was last week, have all confirmed the status and need for a general teaching council. Indeed, Scotland has added to its General Teaching Council’s responsibilities. What is it about the teachers in England that makes them less deserving of professional status? I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the teachers of England are being treated in this way.
At present the Bill is misleading. Teachers will see through it and through the honeyed words of the Secretary of State in introducing it at the other end of the Corridor on 8 February. Make no mistake; the Bill diminishes teachers. It diminishes their role and removes some of their freedoms.
My second point, which I shall make quickly, is on something that is almost ignored in the Bill: the role of technology in teaching and learning. The Secretary of State has been fulsome in his admiration for successful comparator countries. However, the Bill, which sets out a vision for education a decade ahead, barely mentions the possible role of technology. Consider this; if you took a surgeon from 1911 and popped him into an operating theatre today, he might as well be in a spaceship. He would have no idea of what was going on and none of his competencies could add to the process of an operation.
If you took a teacher from 1911 and put her into a classroom today, she—and it probably would be a “she”—would make a real fist of teaching a lesson, for a very simple reason; none of the technological advances, and none of the knowledge we have gained of the way that the brain works, have, as yet, been fully applied to teaching and learning.
This is a grievous mistake. It is an omission from the Bill. I argue that this iPad is as vital to the education of a young person today as was the slate on which our forebears learned to scratch their names. To ignore that fact, not to take advantage of that possibility, is a major omission from the Bill.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest, first, as chair of the e-Learning Foundation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will be delighted, and, secondly, as having spent 20 years as head teacher of some of the north of England's largest, and I would say poorest and most demanding, comprehensive schools.
I begin my comments by saying that there is much to commend in the Bill, which, like most legislation in the education field, is brimming with good intentions. I also commend the way in which my noble friend introduced the Bill, leaving out the wild, implausible claims of the Secretary of State in another place
My starting point for the debate must be the 13 years of the Labour Government, which put education at the heart of their agenda, which spent more of our national resource than any other Government since the war and introduced more initiatives, targets and high-stakes testing, all of which were to drive up standards. However, standards plateaued at best, and for our most vulnerable children simply slipped behind. Worse still, we saw our position against our international competitors drop dangerously down the OECD league tables. I take no particular pride in saying that, because I believe that successive Labour Ministers genuinely believed that their policies would make the quantum change that our nation and our nation's children deserved.
Ironically, much of the policy succeeded. Our best schools compare with the best in the world. Our universities and college students compete and win against global competition, particularly in science and engineering. However, the Bill will be judged not against our high-fliers, against those with aspirant parents or against those in high performing schools but against what it does for the habitual underachievers.
Today, as we debated the Bill, 64,000 children voted with their feet and played truant. Today, 3 million children live in poverty—about 1.5 million, according to Action for Children, in severe poverty. The correlation between poverty and educational underachievement is well proven.
The influential 2009 IFS report, Drivers and Barriers to Education Success, could not have been clearer. Only 20 per cent of our poorest children attain five GCSEs, including English and maths at above grade C, compared with 74 per cent of the richest 20 per cent. Fifteen per cent of our poorest children become NEETs at the age of 17, compared with only 2 per cent of the richest. Twenty-four per cent of our poorest children play truant, compared with 8 per cent of the wealthiest. We know, too, that poverty breeds a lack of ambition, of self-belief, to get out of the poverty trap. Crucially, evidence from around the world tells us that access to education remains the golden key that can unlock the potential of our young people. It is the silver bullet.
We should not judge the Bill on how many irrelevant quangos are axed or how many new powers the Secretary of State can take unto himself. The Bill should be judged on how it gives our poorest children opportunity and hope. There are some good elements: early years places for two year-olds, the pupil premium, raising the participation age, access to more apprenticeships, comprehensive all-ages careers service, greater freedom and autonomy for heads and teachers. All those are really positive things in addressing that issue, but that is not enough.
Far too much of the Bill is about rewarding those who can take advantage of the new freedoms. The new baccalaureate is a case in point. If it is handled badly, it will become a stick with which to beat the poor and the less able and will challenge those with special needs. I want the Minister to recognise that reaching the hard to reach is about more than giving primary children an additional dose of synthetic phonics; it is about starting from where a child is and designing a curriculum that is relevant to that child and its parents. It is about building confidence in basic aspects of learning and rewarding success, not punishing failure. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, rightly said, it is also about recognising that the most potent 21st century medium for learning is information technology and that children, no matter where they are born or how poor or wealthy they may be, are hard wired for the technological age. Yet ICT is totally absent from the Bill, as it is from the language of coalition Ministers, though I am pleased that my noble friend has agreed to visit a school where the e-Learning Foundation is very active.
In today’s learning world, having access to a computer and broadband is not a luxury, it is an absolute necessity, yet 1 million children in England do not have access to broadband or the internet. It is no coincidence that the north-east has the lowest educational attainment of any region of England. It is the poorest region and has the lowest uptake of broadband and digital inclusion. According to the IFS, having a computer at home at the age of 14 strongly correlates to educational attainment at the age of 16. It means an increase of 14 GCSE points, whereas lack of access means a drop of 20 GCSE points. Access to the internet is a crucial factor in explaining the gap in educational attainment and combined with poverty is a double whammy for our poorest children. I appreciate that there is little spare cash to support digital inclusion. That is where charities such as the e-Learning Foundation can help. However, access to the pupil premium would do much to bridge that digital divide.
Michael Gove said in another place that the Bill will prepare children for the technological challenges of the 21st century. If that is so, some mention of ICT in the Bill before it completes its passage is absolutely crucial. After all, the iPad which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, can afford would give access not only to the works of Shakespeare, which the Secretary of State desires, but to half the world’s knowledge at the touch of a fingertip. That is what I call giving children a real opportunity.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I listened to the Secretary of State at the Cross-Bench meeting last Wednesday and was charmed by him. Perhaps my fellow Peers who were there would agree that he charmed us. He is charismatic, charming and intelligent. However, when you think about the Bill more clearly, you can see very divisive aspects hidden in it which will emerge as time goes on and lead to division rather than cohesion. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, put his finger on some of those factors.
How can you say that autonomy is not good? It is wonderful to run your own institution, appoint your own governors and choose your own teachers. However, if the autonomy has a religious basis, you could discriminate against people who are not of your faith in admissions, employment and the appointment of governors. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, asked the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford whether Church of England schools admitted 25 per cent of pupils from other faiths. The bishop replied that he did not know because it was a decision for the governors or the diocese. Autonomy is wonderful but somebody has to keep an eye on it as it cannot be total. That is what worries me. We are going to have religious-based academies which will have a lot of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has already mentioned some of the issues, particularly as regards discrimination in employment. I am extremely concerned about that, but I am also concerned about admissions.
If the academies start to make decisions on the basis of faith, where are we going? We are living in the 21st century, yet we are going backwards into an increasingly faith-based society. What do we want this country to be like in 20, 25 or 30 years? Do we want little groups of faith-based communities springing up here, there and everywhere? We already have faith schools, not just Church of England and Catholic schools. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, the Church of England was the only institution that began to educate the poor. We have to accept that historical fact. Every country has to live with its history, but why all the other schools? They do nothing but segregate children. Do we really want segregation in this country? The more faith schools we have, the more segregation we will have. It stands to reason. If a Muslim school is there, non-Muslims will not attend it. Even if the school said, “We will have 10 per cent or 20 per cent non-Muslims”, who will go there? Would you send your child or grandchild to a Muslim school? I doubt it. This is my worry; we are creating all this superstructure of faith schools. Will we one day have creationist schools? Why not? Creationists say they are a faith. Will we have some other slightly strange religion? It is a worry and we ought to think very carefully about where we want to be.
We already have segregation. The Cantle report on the riots in the Midlands said clearly that they occurred because of segregation. If we keep on segregating our children, at what stage will we have community cohesion? If children are not educated together, they will never know each other. They will never get together. Even if you are grown up and at university, you find that the Muslim girls and boys stick together. They do not mix with the others. When I went to university, there were very few Indians there, but we never even thought about it. We were at university. Everyone was the same. It was the first time in my life that I felt that I was just a person. I was not a woman. I was not Indian. I was not this or that. This is what we need to be feeling—not feeling Indian, Muslim or Hindu. This is what we should be working towards.
I see that my speaking time is coming to an end. You cannot really consider some parts of the Midlands as part of this country any more. They look more like the countries of origin from where the people have come. Nursery schools for two year-olds should really concentrate on the children from such areas, because they do not speak English when they go to school, and that automatically sets them back. They lose two or three years while they are learning English. You might ask why the third or fourth generations still do not know English. It is because they marry in the village and one parent is therefore always without English. All the time it is one step forward and one step back. I cannot understand why Ofsted’s power to look for community cohesion in schools has been taken away. It is the most important aspect of this issue. A school is not just for itself but is also about providing for the whole community, not only for the governors or the pupils. Ofsted’s power to look for community cohesion is fundamental and should never be removed. Amendments to the Bill will come.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am grateful at this late stage to be following two such good speeches, because I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, have said.
The Minister may recall from the debate on the Academies Act that I am somewhat opposed to the general direction of government educational policy—in particular the writing out of local authorities from their oversight of education. That is not to say that I believe that local authorities did a fantastic job, but I do believe that that is the point where there is democratic and community oversight of what is happening to our future generations. In particular, it is the failsafe and the default protection of the kind of kids to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was referring, and the protection from the kind of community segregation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was referring. Indeed, I have another example. In terms of educational attainment, the schools of Northern Ireland are actually pretty good; in terms of their contribution to community cohesion, they are absolutely a cause of many of the problems of the last 100 years. Some of the roads we are going down in terms of the autonomy of schools’ decisions on admission policy are moving in that direction. It may not be dramatic but it is the logical conclusion.
That does mean that I have severe hesitations about the principle of academies opting out of local authority oversight. I did with the last Government, I do with this Government. I have retreated to what is probably a more defensible line on that: I recognise academies are going to happen. However, I am still not clear whether the Government’s policy is for a significant number of academies with the resources and protection and so on that could lead to a two-tier structure—which is what I was worried about during the Academies Bill—or whether their aim is that every school should be an academy and therefore that every school should have opted out from local authority control. The consequences of that objective seem to be in the area of lack of community cohesion, serious segregation by catchment area and by admissions policy, and a downgrading of the support functions in relation to special needs and to other functions that are essential for the more disadvantaged pupils.
On academies, the Minister referred to a “critical role” for local authorities, but in practice he is writing out any significant role for local authorities from this whole approach, and that I still deplore. Instead we are getting a system in the name of devolution and of localism but which is actually about centralisation—centralisation of funding and to some extent centralisation of control of what goes into schools—by and large not to independent regulators or independent bodies but to the Secretary of State. That is extremely dangerous and probably ultimately unworkable. The Government should rethink and redress the balance in favour of a strong local authority participation.
I said I had retreated a bit. My main complaint tonight is actually about free schools. Free schools are taking even the Government’s philosophy one stage too far. An article in the Observer at the weekend indicated exactly those areas where free schools were going to be established. They were in areas of very high average income and very articulate parents and they are likely to take resources and intake away from primary and secondary schools in their area. I asked a Written Question of the Minister the other week about catchment areas. He referred me to a website—there used to be a time when you were not allowed to refer to websites but now you are. I fought my way through all the websites to the final guidance, which was pretty uninformative but said effectively that the school could decide on its catchment area. I am aware of some propositions for free schools that refer to primary school feeder schools and they have excluded the most deprived primary schools from that definition of their catchment area. That is a very dangerous proposition and one on which the local authority ought to be in a position to intervene, even if we allow the principle of free schools. I am very unhappy about the free schools provision.
I will not say more about that now but I will no doubt return to it and indeed to the consultation process on academies. Noble Lords who are veterans of these debates will know—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular—that it took us some time to get any recognition of consultation procedures in the Academies Act. I do not think that the changes in Clause 55 of this Bill take us much further down the line but we need to tighten that up as well and I will return to it.
I wish briefly to make two other points. My noble friend Lord Puttnam has said quite a lot about the GTC. I find it very odd that in this country the one profession that guarantees, or does not guarantee, the future generation does not have a professional register or inculcate professional standards and, for example, allows for free schools not to employ qualified teachers. That is a downgrading of the teaching profession, whereas the lesson of the past few years is that we must upgrade the whole status of the profession in terms of competence.
My final point relates not to teachers but to the rest of the staff. The abolition of the support staff negotiating body seems to be an unnecessary act of spite. The body had not got round to setting standards in this area but it recognised that there was a real problem regarding those who support, and provide increasingly important support for, the teaching staff. One danger of the autonomy of schools is that, with the abolition of that body and with the freedoms that we are giving academies, those schools will be able to cream off the best teachers, paying them the better salaries and offering them the better terms and conditions. At the same time, they will be able to pay the lowest salaries and offer the worst terms and conditions to the support staff. That is not a recipe for schools to operate well; nor is it a recipe for social cohesion. The Government, who speak a lot about localism, social cohesion, good society and the big society, need to consider the long-term implications of measures such as this, and I hope that at various points during the passage of the Bill I shall be able to point that out again to the Minister.
Lord Lexden
My Lords:
“Every effort should be made to help parents to send their children to schools of their own choice. The status of technical schools and colleges must be enhanced and their numbers increased. We wish to see that the rewards of the teaching profession are such as will continuously attract men and women of high quality”.
Those words appeared in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the general election of 1950. Parental choice, high-quality teaching and a diversity of provision underlined in the manifesto by the reference to technical schools surely all remain essential if an excellent education is to be available for every child in our country. Yet, 60 years on, those great objectives still await full and effective implementation. This important Bill is designed to hasten their accomplishment and I welcome it warmly. I give it a much higher rating than my noble friend Lady Jolly, who marked it so harshly, although as I was once a mere university lecturer she is likely to be singularly unimpressed by that.
Some malign social trends have made the Government’s task infinitely more difficult. The Tory manifesto of 1950 was written by a wise and humane man, David Clarke, in the Conservative Research Department, where I have worked more recently. It would never have occurred to him, or to others of his generation, that in some schools 60 years later classrooms would come to resemble battlefields. It was a different world then, when 100 windows might be broken in an outburst of high spirits, as we heard so amusingly from Michael Gove’s fellow Aberdonian, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. In 2011, a comparatively small number of children cause a great deal of trouble over and again. As we have heard, every school day, nearly 1,000 children are excluded for abuse or assault against staff and fellow pupils. Long gone are the days when, in Winston Churchill’s well known words, headmasters possessed powers with which Prime Ministers had yet to be invested.
At the moment, severe disruption cannot be readily curtailed. Heads and their colleagues must be put in a position where they can take swift and effective action to restore order and discipline in the classroom in the interests of their pupils as a whole. Part 2 of the Bill provides the measures that are needed and they deserve emphatic support.
At first sight, it seems strange that such changes designed to improve conditions for high-quality teachers should be accompanied in Part 3 by the abolition of a body established just 11 years ago to help to raise professional standards—namely, the General Teaching Council for England. At the time of its creation, I was general secretary of the Independent Schools Council. Its constituent bodies, representing some 1,300 independent schools which could have remained entirely outside the GTC, decided to support it. A fine, enduring partnership seemed in prospect, thanks to the effusive response we received from the GTC’s founding father, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who has explained his position and view so powerfully this evening, evoking an equally powerful response from my noble friend Lord Willis. It is sad that the GTC failed to fulfil its early promise and I mourn its passing.
In these circumstances it is the united view of independent schools—which do not always reach a united view—that the GTC’s register of qualified teachers should remain in being in a format that is readily accessible to employers and other interested parties. Participation in the GTC forms part of a larger ambition, shared both by the Labour Government at that time and by independent schools themselves. Together they sought ways of extending and strengthening the serious academic co-operation undertaken for mutual benefit that has always existed between the maintained and independent sectors. The then Government provided funding on a modest scale in this area—Gordon Brown was not disposed to be generous—for special joint schemes between specific schools. The Secretary of State at that time, now the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, wrote to me stressing the potential that such arrangements had,
“in contributing to raising standards for pupils, teachers and the wider community”.
That spirit of partnership should be developed further and this Bill could provide the means. Part 3 transfers the functions of the Training and Development Agency to the Secretary of State. The process could be usefully accompanied by a re-examination of all forms of provision for training and for professional development with the aim of ensuring that the independent sector enjoys equality of treatment wherever possible. That matter might be explored in Committee. So, too, might the contribution that independent schools can make to the academy movement—a point so well understood by my friends, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Mr Graham Brady in another place. We shall find some common ground with my noble friend Lord Blackwell.
Parents can look forward to higher standards and greater choice as a result of this Government’s legislation but, at the same time, vigilance is needed in protecting choice and rights which parents have long enjoyed. I have recently drawn one specific cause of concern to the attention of my noble friend the Minister in my role as a patron of a campaign organised by parents of the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School in London. Parents with children at the school are being denied their proper role on its governing body by the Roman Catholic diocesan authorities. This is a case which has implications for all 4,000 voluntary-aided schools in England. The law needs to be clarified. I hope that, either in Committee or through some other means, the Government will be able to set out their view.
The Bill touches briefly but very significantly on the education system in Northern Ireland, the part of our country which means most to me. Under Clauses 21 and 22, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation—Ofqual—will work with the Northern Ireland Assembly to equip the Province with the high-quality system of vocational education which it has lacked for so long. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stressed in his speech at Stormont last week, the Province must have,
“a dynamic, prosperous, enterprise-led economy for the 21st century”.
The partnership between Ofqual and the Assembly will make a vital contribution to its development. It symbolises the continuing importance of Britain in Ulster’s affairs in the new era of devolution. It also provides a fine example of brisk action to those politicians in Northern Ireland who have failed for years to resolve crucial issues, such as the transfer arrangements from primary to secondary school.
Churchill’s wartime coalition conferred on this country the inestimable boon of a free secondary education for every family that wanted it. Yet an excellent education has not yet become everyone’s birthright. This coalition Government have an historic opportunity to complete their predecessor’s achievement—which owed so much to one of the greatest modern Tories, Rab Butler, who was also one of the greatest administrators, with a healthy dislike of quangos, particularly in education.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, on his fine maiden speech. He should be as proud of it as he is of the Grace academies. When I was schools Minister, I was very pleased to visit the Grace academy in Coventry, which I remember well as a very fine school. I also refer noble Lords to my entry in the register, in particular in respect of the work that I do for TSL Education and Apple Europe, and my roles as a trustee of the e-Learning Foundation, with the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and as chair of the Institute for Education Business Excellence.
The Bill has some measures that are old, that turn back the clock and that go against the grain of educational change around the world. Other aspects are borrowed from the vision that we had in government of school autonomy and parental choice; and there are elements that are clearly blue, such as the biggest centralisation of power in the hands of central government anywhere in the western world, a watering down of fair admissions and a reckless dismantling of what works in teacher recruitment and retention.
A core feature of the Bill is the centralisation that goes with the abolition of half a dozen arm’s-length bodies. The Minister told us that this increases ministerial accountability, and of course it does. That is all very well if it is accompanied by ministerial responsibility; but when will this Secretary of State take responsibility for his mistakes? As the Chancellor has done on the economy, Mr Gove is going too far, too fast in his cuts, and has had to U-turn, often after legal action or the threat of it. We saw this over BSF, over school sport, over Book Start and now over schools funding. Like the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary makes a decision, announces it, then thinks about it, listens and has to back-track. It is no wonder that he has lost the confidence and support of the teaching profession—and yet he wants to grab all the power in the Bill. That might be fine if he were willing to take full responsibility for his mistakes. Perhaps the noble Minister can tell us if increased accountability means that the whole ministerial team knows that when serious mistakes are made—and I know that they are—they will be the ones who will take responsibility?
There is much in the Bill that I want to talk about. Most issues will have to wait until Committee, such as the abolition of the GTC and of the school support staff negotiating body, 14 to 19 education, free schools, apprenticeships, the role of technology and the future of careers education and work-related learning. There is much to talk about and much that needs amending. However, I will focus now on two issues: admissions and the teaching workforce. The abolition of the TDA and the GTC are stunningly retrograde steps. It has taken more than a decade to drive up improvements in teacher training and recruitment, so that our systems have become the envy of the world. McKinsey's studies, plagiarised in the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, rightly pay fulsome tribute to them: but the world is now staring in disbelief as the coalition dismantles them. I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that the number one destination for Oxbridge graduates at the moment is teaching, thanks to the work of Teach First.
Until the last election, teacher training in England was rising in status. Recruitment was buoyant even in the enduringly difficult subjects such as maths and science. The quality was at its highest ever in terms of both entry and product, and rising every year. The standards of the providers themselves had never been higher. Even Mr Gove, the Secretary of State, said on the radio—I almost choked on my muesli—that the new teachers being produced were the “best ever”. The recruitment crisis that had been inherited in the late 1990s was a distant memory.
Is the coalition's response to build on success? No, it is to use the Bill to sweep away the carefully constructed and proven systems that other advanced countries so admired and to replace them with centralising control, taking us back to the bad old days when the Whitehall machine tried to manage teacher recruitment and professional development from the centre, and did it so badly that the TDA had to be set up. If this Government have their way and the provisions of the Bill reach the statute book unamended, the TDA and the national college will become executive agencies. They will be creatures of the Government and constrained by an Administration who have proved themselves at least questionable in aspects of competent delivery.
How long will it be before they have to admit their mistake and recreate the freedoms needed to attract the very best into teaching? How many great teachers will be lost to the profession because the Government will not admit that successful recruitment requires a professional marketing approach, which the TDA has managed with distinction for the past decade? How many children will suffer in the mean time because there will not be enough good, well trained teachers in front of classes?
Then there are fair admissions. As a Minister, I significantly tightened up the admissions code, and now this Bill loosens it. Ed Balls and I decided to do this because it is an essential safeguard, alongside school autonomy, choice and accountability. We should be clear that if you ramp up competition, and funding follows the pupil, you have to ensure fair admissions. If, as this Government say, they are serious about tackling social mobility, they must give all children, regardless of background, an equal chance to get into the best schools. While the Government propose keeping some of the important requirements that we inserted, they have removed the most important element: the teeth to allow enforcement of the rules by the regulator, the schools adjudicator. I acted on this when in office following a survey that revealed that a significant number of schools were inadvertently or otherwise breaking the law on admissions. The repeal in the Bill of Section 88P of the 1998 Act removes the requirement for local authorities to report to the adjudicator on admissions to schools in their area, and the repeal of Section 88J removes the power of the adjudicator to then act to change the admission arrangements of schools. At a stroke, the Bill therefore means that if that illegality creeps back, if schools once again choose parents rather than parents choosing schools, we will not know and no one will have the power to do anything about it. No wonder the schools adjudicator left his post early; he probably could not see the point of staying.
I look forward to Committee. This is, I am afraid, a flawed Bill. We need to draw on all of the talents of your Lordships' House to scrutinise it, and I hope our noble Minister does a better job of listening than his colleagues did in another place.
Lord Bichard
My Lords, if you are the last of 50 speakers, you can at least be reasonably sure that some members of the audience have been looking forward to your contribution, which, as we all know, is not always the case. As a former Permanent Secretary in the Department for Education and Employment, as it was then, I know only too well how many different and strongly held views there are on how to improve our education system. It was my privilege to listen to them for six years, and it has been my privilege to sit in on this excellent debate this evening.
What that experience taught me is that there is probably only one thing on which everyone agrees: that the key to better education lies in the quality of teaching. All the available research confirms that, Ofsted inspections confirm that and anyone who has spent any real time in our schools knows that. Whatever the kind of school, whatever the structure, what counts is the quality of the teaching. So, when the Government entitled their education White Paper last year The Importance of Teaching, I was greatly encouraged, even more so because in their foreword to that White Paper, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister proclaimed that:
“The first, and most important, lesson is that no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers”.
That seemed to me to herald a move away from the previous emphasis on structure, which I believe had become excessive, and back towards the need to improve the capability and quality of classroom teachers. So I came to this Education Bill hoping to see further evidence that, taking the White Paper, the Bill and other ministerial statements together, we were really developing a comprehensive strategy that would take teaching in this country to new levels. After all, the Secretary of State himself said that:
“The importance of teaching cannot be over-stated. And that is why there is a fierce urgency to our plans for reform”.
As other noble Lords have said, there is much in this Bill to commend and to agree with, but I am disappointed that there is little to suggest that there is yet a real strategy to drive up teaching quality. It is true that there are a number of initiatives. The abolition of the Training and Development Agency for Schools might not seem to be sending out quite the positive message of hope on professional development that we would like, but doubling the numbers on Teach First and introducing Teach Next are a good step forward. But, looking more closely, an increase from 560 to 1,140 by the end of the Parliament is hardly mould-breaking.
The Government are also committed to developing a national network of teaching schools to lead the training and professional development of teachers and head teachers, which in itself is an interesting idea. But we urgently need more details to reassure ourselves that this can be implemented while avoiding the danger of recycling mediocrity and while achieving the necessary consistency that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed to earlier, without losing the generic understanding of how you adapt your teaching style to different situations, which on the face of it you are more likely to achieve through a national system.
The Government are also committed to reforming initial teacher training, not least to increase the proportion of time trainees spend in the classroom focusing on core teaching skills. Again, I can support that. But relying on initial teacher training to transform the quality of teaching will take several decades to achieve. Our focus needs to be on how we help to support existing teachers to improve their performance. Of course, reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools, and affording schools and teachers other freedoms as described in this Bill, will remove some of the constraints which can prevent good teachers realising their potential.
They do not of themselves create good teachers or turn average teachers into world beaters. That requires the very best possible continuing professional development and the effective use of the available research on best teaching practice here and abroad, taking account not least of the role of new technology. It also requires us to recruit and retain high calibre people in the profession. I for one would have liked to see a little more of that kind of content in the Bill and a little less about the structure. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that a convincing strategy on teacher professional development will be published shortly, that that strategy will be vigorously implemented and that its success will be independently assessed.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, it is a privilege and, I have to say, a somewhat daunting challenge to respond from the opposition Benches to such a comprehensive debate with so many outstanding contributions from all sides of your Lordships’ House. It has been testimony to the commitment of noble Lords to the well-being of children and young people, and to our collective belief in the central importance of education in shaping their futures. That was particularly exemplified in the entertaining and insightful maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston. His speech was strong on positive values, with an evident commitment to helping young people achieve their potential. He clearly has an enormous contribution to make to the work of this House.
We all feel a great responsibility to do all that we can to secure the best possible prospects for the generations coming behind us, including children of all abilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, reminded us, but especially to enable children with the least advantages to gain the most from the opportunities our education system can provide. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, from his wealth of experience maintains, this surely is the benchmark against which we should judge rigorously the measures in the Bill. Where we think that it is failing that test, we must seek to amend it.
There are some welcome provisions in the Bill. We are pleased to see the Government building on the entitlement for early-years education, for the under-fives, established by the Labour Government. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks in that regard. We progressively extended the entitlement to disadvantaged two year-olds and, of course, we support the principle of putting that on a statutory footing. However, we want to see the current entitlement for three and four year-olds in the Bill; a much more radical approach to ensuring maximum take-up, particularly from disadvantaged children; and assurances on the quality of provision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, rightly demands.
We welcome the restrictions on the reporting of alleged offences by teachers up to the point of being charged, but will the Minister explain why the same restrictions should not apply to college lecturers and other school staff? We welcome the measures in the White Paper to build on the outstanding progress in the quality of teaching achieved over the past decade, some of which was just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. However, noble Lords have raised a number of serious concerns that we share and I will focus on four of those tonight.
The first is the shift in the Bill towards school autonomy and away from accountability. A strong strand throughout the Bill is the aim of increasing freedom for schools to make decisions across a wide range of issues such as excluding pupils, admissions, how they carry out searches and how they will provide careers guidance. However, the Government have been much less clear about how those freedoms will be balanced by strong accountability, particularly to parents. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out that parents are noticeable only by their absence from the Bill.
We are not opposed to the principle of more freedom for schools. However, the international research that the Minister himself referred to suggests that giving individual schools more freedom can lead to improved results, but only in the context of a system that is strong on accountability, collaboration and fairness—a comprehensive intake. While the Bill strengthens schools’ independence, it significantly weakens accountability, the potential for partnership and fair admissions. This selected and untested application of the international evidence is dangerous. It is an experiment, as my noble friend Lady Massey termed it.
Moreover, the greater freedoms for schools come at the expense of the rights and entitlements of children and parents, because the necessary checks and balances that should accompany those freedoms—the processes of natural justice—are being stripped out of the system. A child permanently excluded will no longer have access to an independent appeals panel with the authority to reinstate. The noble Lords, Lord Lingfield and Lord Lucas, both queried that, given the very small number of reinstatements.
The schools adjudicator’s power to enforce fair admissions will be restricted and, while the White Paper sets out a strategic role for local authorities to ensure fair access for every child, the Bill dismantles the apparatus for doing so. Is the Minister not concerned about the consequences of removing those reasonable checks and balances that ought to be the counterweight to greater school autonomy? Does he not agree that the Secretary of State, maybe with the best of intentions, has aligned himself too much to the providers—the schools—and not sufficiently with children, parents and local accountability?
The second issue concerns the shift towards central control and away from local determination. As well as diminishing the rights of individual parents and children, the Bill also sweeps away the collective views of parents, communities and local authorities in shaping their local schools. If a new school is required in an area now, the Bill presumes that it will be an academy, whatever the views of local people. My noble friend Lord Griffiths cautioned against the severing of links between schools and local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, outlined the role of councils in protecting parental choice and urged the Government to apply the principles of localism. However, despite the Localism Bill, the Education Bill, as we have heard, is taking more than 50 powers away from local or independent bodies and transferring them to the Secretary of State.
This is the most centralising Bill that I have seen in all my time in government. It will give the Secretary of State the power to close schools and colleges without consultation, instruct local authorities to issue warning notices to schools and instruct schools to discipline and dismiss teachers. It transfers to the Secretary of State the functions of the TDA and the General Teaching Council for England, the wisdom of which has been questioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Knight, who pointed to the damage to the professional reputation, development and recruitment of teachers. That therefore jeopardises the quality of teaching that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, rightly pointed out is the most critical factor.
The Secretary of State will have the power to change the national curriculum, investigate complaints about individual teachers and keep an accurate register of teachers, although the Minister said in a letter to me today that the Government do not intend to keep such a register in the future, so I do not know how schools will undertake their recruitment. Has the Minister’s department got the capacity to fulfil these demands effectively? The evidence is not terribly good on that score. More fundamentally, does he really think that such centralisation is right in principle and feasible in practice?
This brings me to my third concern: the erosion of children’s rights and entitlements. The Bill’s proposals for both school autonomy and central control together significantly erode many of the reasonable rights and entitlements that children currently have and that many Lords have referred to tonight. Furthermore, the Bill directly abolishes the entitlement to diploma subjects—at the same time, let us remember, as advocating the English baccalaureate as the gold standard. There are no diploma or vocational subjects included in the English baccalaureate. The Bill will also abolish the apprenticeship guarantee. My noble friends Lord Layard, Lord Haskel and Lord Young have explained why that is such a retrograde step. Does the Minister agree that all these measures taken together and seen in the round send entirely the wrong message about the parity of esteem between academic and vocational subjects?
The proposals for career guidance are nothing short of a disaster at the moment. The careers service is crumbling as we speak because local authorities are cutting their service in anticipation of the Bill’s proposals. Schools are to be given the duty to provide independent advice to under-19s by whatever means they choose. There is no guidance from government, no common standard and no requirement for the face-to-face contact that we believe—I gather so did Mr Simon Hughes, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, in a speech this week—should be an entitlement for every pupil. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Morris of Handsworth and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also supported this. The children who will lose out if there is no face-to-face contact will of course be those who most need good careers advice: the youngsters without strong family support, children in care and those on free school meals.
The powers in the Bill relating to behaviour and discipline deserve particular scrutiny. They epitomise some aspects of the Secretary of State’s approach here, which is more concerned with headlines than substance. Ofsted reminds us that behaviour is outstanding or good in 89 per cent of primary and 70 per cent of secondary schools, but we on this side are in no doubt that schools should have the powers to deal effectively with bad behaviour when it occurs. The disruption caused by even a tiny minority can blight the school experience for the rest of the class. That is why the Labour Government brought in statutory powers to enforce discipline: the use of reasonable force, search, confiscation and so on, subject to reasonable safeguards.
The Bill removes those safeguards, which are no more than the reasonable requirements one would expect to accompany such strong powers. The Bill will enable a child to be searched by a teacher of the opposite sex, conducted without a second member of staff as a witness. A pupil can be detained after school without giving parents any prior notice at all, let alone 24 hours. Many noble Lords across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Parekh have expressed their concerns about the possible consequences of abolishing those safeguards.
Fourthly, many noble Lords across the House have expressed their concern about the regrettable absence in the Bill of any consideration of the accumulative effect of its proposals on the outcomes for vulnerable children. There are those with special educational needs or disability, looked-after children, those on free school meals and children whose life circumstances make it more difficult for them to make the best of their education without additional help and support— including Roma and Traveller children, referred to by my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, gave us a comprehensive analysis of the Bill as it will affect children with special educational needs or disability. Many of these proposals will adversely affect those children. Children with SEN are already over-represented in exclusions and those at school action plus are 20 times more likely to be permanently excluded. Surely the unchecked ability of schools to exclude will only increase that trend. Children in care and those with disabilities or from chaotic families already miss out in the admissions race. Disempowering the adjudicator will weaken their protection and the draft admission code fails to give them any priority in admissions.
It is the proposal to remove from schools the duty to co-operate with other children’s and health services that is the most worrying for the prospects of vulnerable children. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, that appears to contradict directly the Government’s Green Paper on SEN disability, which envisages bringing together,
“the support on which children and their families rely across education, health and social care”.
The level of concern across the House, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friends Lord Touhig and Lady Morgan—as well as from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who could not be here—mean that we will return in some detail to the matter in Committee.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the importance of assessments is relevant here because to be effective those assessments need to be interdisciplinary and based on agencies working together. Can the Minister explain how the repeal of that duty will help the most vulnerable children?
Finally, let me make it clear that we are not opposed to the extension of academies, albeit the Government’s model is fundamentally different from ours, as my noble friends Lord Parekh and Lord Whitty pointed out. Our vision embraces diversity of schools, provided that there is a level playing field and within a collaborative, inclusive and accountable framework. My noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland and Lord Low, prompted us to look beyond the detailed provisions of this Bill and to ask what the Government’s vision is. What do they think the system will be in five or 10 years? How can we have a valid and incontestable set of data that will tell us whether it has improved?
My noble friend Lady Jones sketched out vividly at the start of this debate the spectre of the education system that we believe could emerge from this Government’s measures, with thousands of atomised academies cut loose from local councils and communities and other children’s services, free to do pretty much as they like—left to get on with it, as the Minister said—directly managed, or not, by the Department for Education, tied into private companies managing them in chains, in a sink or swim culture that could leave schools floundering and the children in them to fail. The danger is a two-tier system that will eventually emerge with disabled and disadvantaged children predominantly in the poorest schools.
We want to avoid that spectre becoming a reality. Therefore, we will seek changes to the Bill. The debate here tonight has demonstrated the commitments of Members across this House to ensuring the Bill reflects the best interests of all children and families. We are confident, given his deserved reputation for reasonableness, that the Minister will be genuinely open to constructive suggestions for its improvement.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said, we have had an excellent debate. The number of speakers alone shows the great concern that this House has in improving education and extending opportunity. Expertise, knowledge and passion have been shown in equal measure this evening, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lord Edmiston on his excellent maiden speech and on all that he is doing as a sponsor of the Grace academies in the West Midlands. He reminded us all that academic education is not the be-all and end-all, as, rightly, did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and that routes to success come in all shapes and sizes. He is also living proof of the importance of people having second chances.
With more than 50 speakers, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if in the time available I do not respond to every point that has been raised. However, I undertake to write to noble Lords when their points require a more detailed reply.
I am glad to say that I think there was a broad consensus on a number of the principles underlying the Bill. First, I welcome the support that the Bill has received from a number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Baker, Lady Perry of Southwark, Lady Ritchie of Brompton, Lord Lucas, Lord Blackwell, Lord Lexden and Lord Willis of Knaresborough, about the importance of increasing school autonomy and trusting professionals. The evidence of the desire of school leaders to take greater control of the future development and success of their schools is clear, as we see thousands of schools seeking academy status.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and my noble friend Lord True for the academy programme, which shows that it is possible to have greater autonomy, which is widely accepted, without the isolation and fragmentation which I know some noble Lords feared when we debated the Academies Bill a year ago. Indeed for me, one of the most exciting developments of the academies programme is the way in which chains and clusters of schools are joining together to increase opportunities across their schools for school improvement and career development. On free schools, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may in time revise his views a little—as he has on academies, a little.
Many noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, spoke about the importance of teachers. I agreed with much of what she said, as I often find myself doing. It was no accident that we called the schools White Paper The Importance of Teaching. It reflects the evidence that teachers make a critical contribution to the achievement of pupils and that we must do more to recruit the best graduates into the profession and retain the best teachers. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about setting out our plans. I agree with him about the importance of professional development. We are taking measures to improve teacher quality that do not require legislation, and we will be setting out our plans in the way that he suggests.
Some of the debate, however, highlighted some of the tension that seems to exist between our ambition to treat teachers as professionals who know best how to meet the individual needs of their pupils and wanting to require all schools to act in particular ways. My own view is that most teachers and school and college leaders are far better placed than Ministers to know how best to inspire, educate, and indeed discipline pupils. That brings me to the proposals on behaviour and discipline, about which it is fair to say there was a range of views.
Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Perry, Lady Morris of Bolton and Lord Lingfield, supported the additional powers in the Bill on discipline, which build on those introduced by the previous Government through the ASCL Act 2009. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke about bullying, in particular homophobic bullying, while the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, spoke about racist bullying and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children in that context. We are working with external organisations, including those such as Stonewall, in helping schools to develop best practice on these issues, but it is important that the measures that we want to take to help entrench discipline will help to deal with the problems of bullying, in particular cyberbullying.
I recognise that other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, had reservations about our measures and wanted to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place. The Government believe that the extension of powers are proportionate and necessary, and that they strike the correct balance between the rights of pupils and students and the powers that those running schools and colleges want to secure a safe environment for all—including, perhaps above all, the most vulnerable—in which to learn.
I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny of the Bill. I see that its report welcomes the changes that we are making to extend free early years education and to improve behaviour and discipline in schools as they help children exercise their right to education. They are an important part of this Bill and our wider education reforms. I am confident in the rationale for the changes we are making and their compatibility with convention rights, but we are obviously considering the detail of the JCHR report and will clearly go on to debate the issues that it gives rise to as the Bill passes through Parliament. The department’s new expert adviser on behaviour, Mr Taylor, will be working with teaching schools to help ensure that best practice is shared both through initial teacher training and through school-to-school support, while working with existing initial teacher training providers to ensure best practice.
If I may, I shall say a few words on exclusions, concerns about which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. A number of concerns were raised about the changes to the exclusion process made by Clause 4. I agree with those who argued that avoiding problems escalating to the point where exclusion is necessary at all is in the best interests of all concerned—the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made that point particularly persuasively. That is why we are trialling a new approach to exclusions aimed at encouraging exactly that. A similar approach in Cambridgeshire has had excellent results, cutting the number of children in PRUs from 700 to some 150. The Government intend to take forward trials to help deal with exclusions and give schools the budgets in the way that was suggested. Moreover, by ensuring that behaviour and achievement are core elements of the more focused Ofsted inspection framework, we will hold schools to account for ensuring an orderly, safe environment in which all pupils achieve.
Unfortunately, we cannot avoid exclusion in every circumstance. Schools must be allowed to make these difficult decisions in the interest of all pupils and staff. The revised process will provide an independent review in every case of permanent exclusion where a parent requests it. The panel’s decision will give governing bodies a clear indication that the exclusion has been unreasonable and return the case to them for consideration.
I reassure noble Lords that the statutory framework in place for the education of permanently excluded pupils ensures that their right to full-time, suitable education is protected, and we are also determined to increase the quality of alternative provision available for excluded pupils, including by legislating to create alternative-provision academies through this Bill. That relates to important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and my noble friend Lord Lingfield about how we can improve the quality of provision for the children most at risk.
One theme running throughout many contributions was schools’ accountability and the impact of the changes on the role of local authorities. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and I am glad that I was able to meet at least one of his concerns about local authority governors. We are keen to have a system where schools look to parents and their locality for their accountability, with better information available to enable schools to be held to account, including international comparisons, as my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, argued. I was grateful for the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, about Ofsted and her reminder about the need to keep inspection focused. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Jolly that, in addition to risk assessments to trigger inspections of outstanding schools, we expect Ofsted to include outstanding schools in thematic inspections.
Local authority children’s services continue to play a critical role in the early years, special educational needs and child protection in particular. There are, however, two areas in which changes are necessary. The first is in relation to commissioning school places. The previous Government’s 2005 schools White Paper, Higher Standards, Better Schools For All, set out a vision of greater autonomy for schools with the local authority acting as a commissioner rather than as a provider. We share that vision.
We want to see swifter and more decisive action by local authorities to address underperformance, but, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Brompton argued, that is best achieved where local and central government work together. However, where authorities fail to act, Clause 43 gives us a reserve power to require action.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, characterised the Bill as centralising powers to the Secretary of State. I look forward to discussing that during detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. In the vast majority of cases these powers are simply existing powers transferred from a quango, which will lead to increased accountability —yes, through Ministers—to Parliament. There are few areas where the Secretary of State can reasonably be described as having taken substantive new powers rather than powers to give effect to the legislation. These new powers—they are new powers—include the reserve powers to direct sample schools to take part in international surveys, to require local authorities to address underperforming schools and to intervene in underperforming colleges, which has been welcomed by the Association of Colleges. One of the other areas is a power to cap fees for part-time higher education so that the new loans the Government are introducing will cover the course fees. I think that that measure commands broad support. I do not accept that these powers can be used to characterise the Bill as centralising, especially as it also removes a significant number of requirements currently imposed on schools, colleges and local authorities by central government.
Concerns have been expressed about the practicalities of major reform of the arm’s-length bodies, some of which were raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, and particular concerns were raised in connection with the General Teaching Council for England. I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, with great care, but I do not agree that the Bill diminishes the role of teachers. However, I was particularly struck by what he had to say about technology, as I was by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough. In response to a question put by my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lord Lexden, we are considering whether to make available to employers information on individuals who have qualified teacher status to make their recruitment checks easier. I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords during the passage of the Bill of how the changes being made to the arm’s-length bodies are being managed.
Specifically on the abolition of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, the Government of the day, not the QCDA or its predecessor bodies, have been responsible for the national curriculum since its inception. The QCDA’s current role is only advisory. Decisions about the national curriculum are already taken by the Secretary of State and it is of course the aim of the Secretary of State, with his national curriculum review, to slim it down.
On teacher anonymity, I welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, on the provisions for reporting restrictions about allegations made by pupils against teachers. A number of noble Lords asked us to consider extending these provisions further, although by contrast my noble friend Lord Black set out his concerns in that he felt the measure is an unwelcome interference with the freedoms of the press. The Government are proceeding cautiously in this area, reflecting the need to balance these competing rights. I look forward to more detailed consideration of this measure in Committee, and I want to make clear that we will consider carefully the arguments that are made.
I was pleased to see that Clause 1 has commanded so much support across the House. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who has done so much to champion early years development, along with my noble friend Lady Perry, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, spoke eloquently about the importance of greater support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they can have the best start in life. That links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about the importance of parenting. We have implemented the extension to the 15 hours of free early years education for all three and four year-olds last September, and through this Bill the most disadvantaged two year-olds will also have an entitlement to 15 hours by 2013.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising issues related to children with special educational needs and disabled children. I was pleased to meet representatives from the Special Educational Consortium last week to discuss how specific clauses in the Bill will work for this particular group of children and their families, whose needs the system, as we know, can sometimes struggle to meet. I look forward to continuing that dialogue as we go forward with the Bill.
There was much interest in vocational education, and I share the concern of noble Lords to strengthen what is on offer to young people. I agree with my noble friend Lady Brinton about the importance of vocational education, and with my noble friend Lady Stowell about university technical colleges and studio schools. The Government’s response to the excellent Wolf review and our investment in apprenticeships shows our commitment to improving the position, and I should like to reassure the noble Lords, Lord Layard, Lord Haskel and Lord Young of Norwood Green, that there is no diminution in this Bill of the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. It is just that we think that the entitlement is not one that the Government can deliver since only employers can offer apprenticeships. My noble friend Lady Sharp put a specific question about preparing young people for apprenticeships, and perhaps I can write to her about the access to apprenticeships scheme which the Government are taking forward.
Several comments were made about the reforms to careers guidance. I believe that we have made the right decision: schools, rather than local authorities and the Connexions service, should be responsible for securing independent and impartial guidance. Although there were some dissenting voices on that, I think it was broadly accepted. The destination measure is more important than being prescriptive about precisely how careers education should be provided. It is also the case that young people themselves often prefer to get information online. Schools will be able to secure face-to-face advice if they think it is right for the children in their care. However, I understand the concerns about how we will move to the new arrangements in practice. I have no doubt that we shall return to this in Committee.
The theme of admissions was raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, slightly overstated the extent of the changes that the Bill makes to admissions. We are making changes to the role of the adjudicator, making schools and local authorities responsible for implementing his decisions. However, his decisions remain binding and the Bill extends his remit to academies and free schools, a development that I would have expected noble Lords to welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised the issue of grammar school expansion. The Bill and the code do not allow for an increase in school selection. However, as has been the case since the Education Inspections Act 2006, a maintained school can increase the number of places that it offers, subject to consultation. We want and need good schools to be able to expand, and it would be wrong to exclude grammar schools from this.
I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, about the timing of the package of major reforms to higher education. On the fiscal context, our desire to let potential students know the financial arrangements that will apply next year as early as possible has required us to take the change forward in stages. The increases in tuition fees were settled at the end of last year. The Bill makes necessary changes to primary legislation to enable progressive interest rates to be charged.
Noble Lords asked about the forthcoming White Paper on higher education. I reassure them that it will be published shortly. My noble friend Lord Henley will seek opportunities to brief those noble Lords who are interested in the subject before we come to the relevant clauses.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I briefly offer the Minister a constructive suggestion from my noble friend Lord Phillips. He pointed out that the Bill contains amendments to 15 other statutes; indeed, there are 42 amendments to the Education Inspections Act 2006 alone. It may therefore be for the convenience of the House, and would aid noble Lords in scrutinising the Bill, if the Government place in the Library of the House all the statutes that are to be amended, with the amendments clearly marked. Noble Lords could then photocopy the relevant parts of those Acts so that we could more easily understand what the amendments would do.
Lord Hill of Oareford
That seems a sensible suggestion. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, assiduous as he is, has already written to me, having failed to intervene on me earlier. I shall see what I can do about that. Like all noble Lords, I find that the way that the Bill is drafted makes it difficult to navigate one’s way through it.
At the heart of the Government’s coalition programme are the principles of greater freedom and fairness. These principles underpin the Bill. In many areas it takes forward the reforms of the previous Government in early years, greater school autonomy and powers to improve behaviour and discipline. In others, it strips away top-down legislative controls, which can stifle the professionalism of those working in schools, colleges and local areas. It tries, as my noble friend Lord Eccles argued, to put decisions more in the hands of teachers, parents and pupils, and moves us towards an education system that the international evidence shows characterises the highest-performing education systems in the world.
I welcome the opportunity that the Committee stage will offer us to refine the legislation. In that spirit, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I very much regret the decision of the usual channels that this Bill should be committed to a Grand Committee. It is an important Bill with many crucial aspects. It has clearly commanded wide support in the House. Fitting 50 people into the Moses Room will be a considerable struggle. As I understand it, that arises from the failure of the Government to give us any major Bills to start with in the Lords so, as usual, they are all piling up at the end. We are therefore expected to leave the Chamber clear for whatever other business the Government have by making this a Grand Committee Bill, for which, to my mind, it is not suitable. I very much hope that this is a matter that we shall return to when we debate the procedures of this House.
Can my noble friend at least give me the assurance that we will not have Committee on this Bill on any day when, in this Chamber, there is Committee on the Localism Bill? Many of us take an interest in both matters, and it would seem to me quite unreasonable to try to run the two in parallel.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the business planning of the House will try to take into account, as far as we possibly can, that there are no major clashes between Bills and discussions in that way.