Disabled Students Allowance

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady raises an absolutely reasonable concern, and I will, again, take that point out of my speech.

We should be able to help people, and there are so many advantages to attending university; as well as the human benefits, the economic benefits are clear. It boosts the national economy, and it boosts personal earnings by something in the order of £100,000 over a lifetime.

As the Minister said in a speech to the Higher Education Funding Council for England last year:

“Going to university increases the chances that you will vote and appears to make you more tolerant. It improves your life expectancy. You are less likely to be depressed, less likely to be obese and more likely to be healthy. These are benefits for individuals and for society.”

He went on to say that

“I said it would be a tragedy if anybody were put off from applying for university”

because of costs. That is what this modernisation could do; it could act against those excellent words from the Minister.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I will make some more progress.

Although the Minister will, I am sure, make it clear that the changes are not due to come in for another 18 months, and that current students will be protected for 2015-16, they are already having an effect. Paddy Turner, from the National Association of Disability Practitioners, said that his staff are already seeing prospective students who are rethinking 2015 entry applications because they are concerned about the changes. Open days are already under way. Many students are visiting universities to find out what will happen, and universities simply do not know what to say. The changes could mean that people are put off, or that they struggle when they get to university.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I will give way if there is time towards the end, but I know that many hon. Members want to speak.

Mental health problems are more common among students than the general population, and we must take action on that. Some 3,500 people applied for support last year citing mental health issues. It can help people to develop realistic study patterns and with organising their time and setting goals—things that are easy for some, but much harder for others. Students can require support from specialist autism mentors. It is unclear what band those would fall into and whether people would still be able to get support.

There are many concerns about how the new system will work. We know that people are likely to drop out if the cuts occur while they are at university. Randstad, an organisation that works with many institutions, surveyed students and found that more than one third would not have attended university without DSA and that about the same number would be more likely to drop out without it.

[Kate Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Education Funding for 18-year-olds

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady is right. The issue of the uneven playing field in relation to VAT charging was raised in this Chamber shortly before Christmas by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and many other hon. Members have repeatedly brought the matter to the Government’s attention.

Ministers have argued that the cut announced just before Christmas is justifiable because they want to focus spending on 16 and 17-year-olds, and because 18-year-old students would already have received two years of post-16 full-time study. Perhaps Ministers believe that the affected students are undertaking a repeat year of study in order to resit their A-levels and upgrade their results, but that is not the case at all. As has been pointed out by the Association of Colleges, the 157 Group and others, the students most affected are most likely to be those on vocational courses.

Those students may have achieved good GCSE results at school but may have had no opportunity to undertake vocational study at key stage 4. If they wish to pursue a technical route, they cannot begin level 2 vocational studies until they enter college post-16. Colleges report a reluctance among, and lack of incentive for, schools to co-operate with them to provide early vocational training to students aged 14 and 15, and it seems particularly unfair that such students should be penalised.

However, it is perhaps even more concerning that many of the students who will be affected are likely to be those whose school experience was the least successful. For such students, full-time study undertaken at college offers a vital second chance. These are the students who may have found the school environment difficult, but who flourish in a college setting. They may have had their education disrupted by health problems or difficult family circumstances. Some will have started out their studies in a school sixth form but will have left after the first year, having failed to attain good AS grades —often as a result of the poor information, advice and career guidance offered in the school.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this very important debate. Does she agree that there is also an issue with the number of schools not providing information about the existence of FE colleges and sixth-form colleges? There needs to be a much better link, with schools encouraging people to look at apprenticeships and other opportunities.

[Kate Green]

I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. This is a matter of the incentives and funding arrangements, and it is about having a level playing field for all educational institutions, something that I know other hon. Members will wish to allude to in the debate.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing the debate. Many Members will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) led a well-attended debate on legal aid reform in June, which focused on civil legal aid and was helpful in moving the debate forward. Those of us with an even better memory might remember that two years ago I held a debate in this place on legal aid reform, before the previous legislation was passed.

We will not have time to touch on some things, such as the residency test, which I still consider pernicious, but I wish to talk through a whole range of issues. We accept, as I think everyone must, the principle of making savings. It has been accepted, I think, across the board. The Labour party’s manifesto at the last election stated:

“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid”.

The question is how to do that.

As co-chair of the Liberal Democrat committee on home affairs, justice and equalities I wrote formally, with my colleagues, to the Lord Chancellor, and we received a detailed response to our suggestions. Sadly, I will not have time to go through all the suggestions or every aspect of the response, but I was pleased that he said:

“It is important to note that I have yet to make any final policy decisions.”

He is absolutely right not to have done so, and I am sure that he will listen carefully to the concerns we are all expressing. He also referred to a short period of further consultation, which I think we would all welcome.

The Lord Chancellor also talked about working closely with the Law Society. I was at the Law Society yesterday and had the opportunity to talk to it about some of the new proposals. I hope we will be able to come up with something that it will find not necessarily ideal but an acceptable way forward. As has already been said, the society’s suggestions for savings are definitely worth looking at; it has an improved model.

Our biggest concern as a committee was the lack of choice. When a scheme including that was tried in Scotland in 1998, under a different Government, there was substantial dissatisfaction with the representatives. It was clear that getting rid of choice did not work then, and I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has taken the right decision to abandon that approach.

We must also look at quality. We saw the problems with the bulk contract awarded to Applied Language Solutions—now Capita—for interpreting services. It did not provide the quality that was needed, and we must avoid anything like the same problems again. The Lord Chancellor said that quality was

“critical to any future model of procurement”,

and that must be absolutely explicit. We do not want cut-price justice; we must ensure good quality, and that includes the smaller firms that many colleagues have spoken about. An idea that I have suggested is to encourage firms to work together in consortia rather than to have large bidders. There will be a firm operating in one town that can work happily as part of the same contract with one in a town somewhere else, in Cornwall, Cambridgeshire or wherever it might be. It does not make any sense that such firms should have to bid against each other. I hope that the Lord Chancellor has considered that and will respond in detail, with some helpful ways forward.

Judicial review is an important remedy. It is essential to have ways in which the state can be held to account at local government and national level. The proposals will not save a huge amount of money. I look forward to detailed suggestions about how to deal with cases of suggested misuse of the system without affecting the vast majority of cases that are important and which form a clear safeguard.

A particular concern has been put to me by several lawyers doing judicial review cases: because of the requirements for payment only when permission has been given, in a really strong case—for example, when a local authority that is failing to provide the care it should, gives up and settles at the point that there is a claim for judicial review, because it knows that it will lose—there may be no opportunity for the lawyer ever to be paid. I did not know until recently that a local authority will quite often settle, subject to not having to pay the fees. If the Government and the local authority will not pay the fees, the people with the strongest cases will never get paid. That is clearly not right and must be addressed in some way, because I am sure that it is not what the Government want to happen.

It is important to have a system of legal aid for prisoners. There may well be some trivial cases, but there are some incredibly serious ones. By all means, let them go through a complaints system that has to be used first, but if that is unsatisfactory, there must be a proper legal route and support for prisoners. The change will not save much money, so it should not be done purely for ideological reasons.

We can do much in relation to savings, as has been touched on. The use of restrained funds, with appropriate judicial control and capping, would be a fantastic way forward. It seems odd to pay for legal aid for people who have money, but not allow them to spend it. That would be one way to save a substantial amount of money. That can be used in some cases—the Home Office has access—so let us make sure that it is available here.

I support the idea of dealing with high cost fraud cases by having a form of compulsory directors insurance or some other scheme—I do not mind about the exact details—so that we are not paying in cases where there is another substantial source of money. That would enable great savings.

Lastly, there could be more efficiency savings in how courts operate. The system too often does not work: the late arrival of prisoners due to transport failures has caused delays for a third of defence solicitors; half of solicitors have been delayed because the prosecution did not follow disclosure rules; and there are unnecessary adjournments and listing failures. The court system does not operate as efficiently as possible, which costs us money in legal aid. We could provide better justice for less money.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and the Lord Chancellor’s final decisions. Yes, we can save money, but it must not be at the cost of justice.

[Kate Green]

rose—

Family Migration Rules

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[Kate Green]

rose—

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I do not accept that. I do not wish for one second to impugn the messages received from officials. It is quite possible that there was some gulf in understanding between those who delivered the message and those who heard it. I was not present at the conversations myself, and the Secretary of State is, of course, right to put forward her description of what took place, but my understanding is that the way that they concluded led the British Humanist Association, which is advising me, to understand that a more tightly worded proposal, such as the one that I have put before the House this afternoon, would meet the concerns. Although that may not have been the intention intended to be conveyed, it was certainly the intention that it came away with.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely strong and compelling case, and I look forward to expressing my support for it in more detail later. I have here a letter from the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, saying:

“I note the changes that have been made to narrow the scope of the amendments to cover the humanist organisations only, as we discussed.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that that strongly suggests the Government supported this change?

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I appreciate the Attorney-General’s concern that there could be human rights challenges on those grounds. It would be useful to know how he assesses the chances of such a challenge being successful and to understand on what basis a challenge might be argued. It would also be useful to know what precedent there is of such challenges being successful elsewhere.

I am prepared to wait for the fully analysed opinion to be presented to the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to provide that in good time before the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords. I hope that she will take note of our interest in having a proactive opinion, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said, that identifies how any defects in the proposal could be cured, as the Attorney-General has mentioned. Given the commitment from the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

Conversion of civil partnership into marriage

[Dr Huppert]

I beg to move amendment 15, page 10, line 24, at end add—

‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—

(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and

(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Kate Green and Julian Huppert

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

We were grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for accepting our manuscript amendment (a) to new clause 16 this morning.

Let me start by repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made very clear in Committee: the Labour equalities team supports the principle of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. We recognise that it would provide equality before the law. It would also recognise the choice some opposite-sex couples want to make not to marry but none the less to formalise their relationship. As civil partnerships will rightly continue for gay and lesbian people under this legislation, it would ensure, too, that they are not perceived simply as some sort of residual arrangement pending everyone moving to same-sex marriage. We can expect that many existing civil partners will want their civil partnerships to continue; they will not want to regard the history of the past nine years as a history of second best.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Lady also agree that some people will still prefer to have a civil partnership now, even if marriage is available? This is not just about the history; there will be people who will still want a civil partnership in the future.

[Kate Green]

I entirely agree. There are many reasons why some couples may feel that the historical or religious connotations of marriage are not for them, but who none the less wish to make the public commitment to each other that gay and lesbian people already do through civil partnerships.

Sadly, Ministers have until now been reluctant to recognise that the position they have been taking—in effect, privileging marriage—has led to the situation we are in now. There are a number of concerns about moving forward to regularise opposite-sex civil partnerships, but there is a complete absence of analysis of, and evidence for, the concerns Ministers have raised. Yet we have been raising the issue of the genuine concerns about opposite-sex civil partnerships ever since the introduction of this Bill.

On the face of it, the anxieties highlighted by the Secretary of State today are not insignificant. On 14 May, her colleague the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), put a high potential price tag on the extension of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples: the sum was between £3 billion and £4 billion. The Secretary of State has also suggested there may be international and devolution implications. The predicted costs involve some big and untested assumptions, however. We do not know how many opposite-sex civil partnerships will be formed. There is uncertainty about the number of public sector pension schemes that do not already allow a cohabiting partner to be a named recipient for survivor benefits. There is also uncertainty about the assertion that extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples will reopen the whole question of widowers’ pension entitlements. Following the Cockburn case, we might feel somewhat sceptical about that.