Offshore Gambling Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is right. Such measures have been established in other parts of the European Union, and there is no problem with having point of consumption in principle. I have no problem with that, and if I remember rightly my hon. Friend quoted the conclusions of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on which I serve. She was absolutely right; it was a unanimous report in every regard. There was no minority report or any divisions on the recommendations, and the Committee agreed the report in full. I certainly stand by the recommendations highlighted by my hon. Friend.
This is not about the principle of point of consumption, but the Government may run into problems when considering the purpose for which such a measure is being introduced. If they can satisfy the European Union that they are introducing it to regulate better the gambling sector, they will be on strong ground, and I suspect that test was satisfied in other parts of the EU where such measures have been introduced. In those cases, however, people may have been starting from scratch and deciding to start their regulation of the gambling industry on that basis. That would not apply in the United Kingdom where we already operate on a different basis that we would need to change, thereby introducing a complication that might not have applied elsewhere.
The Government want this debate to focus on why a point of consumption tax, this Bill and the Government’s version of it are so necessary. This is not about increasing funding to the racing industry by increasing levy payments, because that would introduce a complication, and the Bill’s main purpose is not one of increasing revenues to the Treasury—the Government do not want to go down that route because they will run into different legal problems. The Government want to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is necessary only to regulate the gambling industry better. That it may also increase revenues to the Treasury, or that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton may use it to increase revenues for the racing industry, is merely a useful coincidence, and, as I understand, certainly not what the Government would like us to believe the Bill is about.
As the Minister knows, I have an awful lot of respect for him—he is a great man and we are very lucky that he holds that position. I suspect, however, that he has been passed what might in rugby terms be described as a hospital pass with this Bill, and it will take all his considerable abilities, charm and finesse to extract himself and the Government from this situation. His position was not helped—he will certainly not want to agree with me on this, although he is entitled to feel it—by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who signposted the proposed legislation in his Budget speech.
Perhaps I may remind hon. Members of what the Chancellor said:
“One area where I am today making substantial changes is gambling duties…The current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last Government was levied on a ‘place of supply’ basis. This allowed overseas operators largely to avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. Ninety per cent of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the UK, and the remaining UK operations are under pressure to leave. This is clearly not fair—and not a sensible way to support jobs in Britain. So we intend to introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption—where the customer is based, not the company—and, from this April, we will also introduce double taxation relief for remote gambling. These changes will create a more level playing field, and protect jobs here.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 803.]
The genesis of the legislation is therefore clear—the Chancellor’s Budget. It will be no great surprise that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, whom all hon. Members regard highly, was and remains a close friend and ally of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect it will not be difficult for people to put two and two together and think, “Well, hold on a minute. The Chancellor said what he said in the Budget, and we have the Offshore Gambling Bill. Hey presto! That is how the Government will introduce the legislation.”
The problem is that the Chancellor made no reference in his Budget to the need to introduce the measure to improve player protection or better regulate the gambling industry. He made no reference to that being a problem that needed solving. We are beginning to understand what motivated the Government to introduce the Bill. I do not criticise the Chancellor: what he said was perfectly reasonable and fair, and many hon. Members on both sides of he House agree with his analysis, but I suspect that it has been unhelpful. He may not have been aware of the legal minefield he was in at the time, but people have become aware of it, and the Government have backtracked to change the nature of the debate. The debate must now be based, therefore, on player protection and the regulation of gambling rather than on—we can probably guess this is the real motive for the measure—getting money into the Treasury, which is no bad thing, and levelling the playing field for companies such as bet365 so that they do not go abroad, which no hon. Member wants.
I believe the Chancellor was also hinting that, if we get the measure right, we may even be able to reverse the trend. It would be fantastic if we were not just trying to stop bet365 leaving the country, but putting a regime in place that encouraged companies that have left the UK to come back. Not only would we retrieve lost revenue; we would also get jobs back. Lots of people in the UK would love the jobs that have been exported to places such as Gibraltar because of the current situation to come back to this country. With the best will in the world, neither the Offshore Gambling Bill nor the Government’s alternative Bill will make any difference in that respect.
There is no prospect whatever of any of those organisations relocating to the UK, whatever rate of tax the Government introduce. I think that would be a missed opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) mentioned a rate of 5%. If we had that rate and the Government asked the gambling industry whether it would agree to come back in return for that rate, there might well be scope for negotiation, but VAT will scupper such a plan, because gambling industries in the UK cannot reclaim their VAT. The money they spend on advertising is not reclaimable, but it is reclaimable overseas.
The House would support a regime that levelled the playing field, and that means companies paying more in taxation than they currently pay—no one would argue with that. The House would support a regime that gave companies an incentive to bring their operations back to the UK and the jobs that would come back with them. Surely that is a great prize to aim for, and I urge the Minister to lobby the Chancellor. All that is required is for the Chancellor to help with taxation—not just point of consumption taxation for the online industry, but VAT relief. Those two things combined could get those jobs and companies back. That is what we should be aiming to do. It is a strange state of affairs when we are spending lots of time trying to stop one company leaving—it is a negative thing to try to achieve—when much bigger prizes are at stake.
In many respects, the main thrust of what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said concerned the levy. I should thank my hon. Friend, because from what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) were saying, it seems that, in essence, the Bill is designed to help me. As we discussed earlier, I am a very modest owner of racehorses. I am an owner of very modest race horses, too, to be perfectly honest. Contributing to the odd shares and legs and other parts of the anatomy—I am sure that it does not make a great impact on the considerable wealth of Mr Michael Easterby, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—provides me with a great deal of pleasure. I seem to be the kind of owner that my hon. Friend says she wants to help. I regret to inform the House that I am also a very small-scale breeder of racehorses, too. The saying goes in racing circles that the only thing worse than having one broodmare is having two. There is no better way of leaking money as quickly as possible than breeding horses. The only thing that can compete is owning horses. Whichever one chooses, the only possible outcome is that one will be considerably poorer at the end of it than at the start. I think that somebody once said that the best way to gain a small fortune out of owning and breeding racehorses is to start with a large fortune—there is a considerable amount of truth in that. I should therefore be grateful to my hon. Friend for having me in mind to try to boost the modest returns I get from my horses. It is a rare pleasure when any of them trouble the scorers.
In passing, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk encouraged us all—I think I am right in saying this; we can all check Hansard later—to back a horse called Wind for Power in the 1 pm at Lingfield today. I am sure that that was partly directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who was waiting to debate her Bill. I am sure she would have been encouraged to back a horse with that particular name, and I am delighted to announce that the horse won. If anybody took my hon. Friend’s advice, they are now considerably richer than they were when this debate started.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I loved the hon. Gentleman’s description of his horses, whether he has a leg and which horse is going to win. I am sure that it is very relevant to offshore gambling, but we seem to have lost that for a little while—I think we got lost in the leg somewhere. I am sure he is going to bring it back into line for me.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are, as ever, absolutely right. I was getting carried away with my hon. Friend’s tipping prowess and I promise not to return to it. I will take your chastisement as an indication that you are keen to acquire a leg or two of your own, and I will certainly be happy to negotiate a deal for you.
Even though the horse racing levy is supposed to benefit people like me, I am not entirely convinced by the argument given by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. Clause 4 is well meaning and I do not want to decry that, but I do not think that it will have the impact she thinks it would. I spoke about this briefly in an intervention. The levy is determined, hopefully, by agreement—it has been recently, which is to be welcomed—between the betting industry and racing industry through the auspices of the levy board, and we should all thank it for its work. When they come to an agreement about how much money should be handed over from the betting industry to the horse racing industry, rather than concentrating on the mechanism of how that money is raised, people are really thinking about how much it will raise. People think, “Well, what we need is a certain amount of money from the betting industry to make the racing industry viable which is reasonable to ask the gambling industry to provide based on the money it makes from the horse racing product.” A figure is therefore arrived at that seems reasonable.
I cannot remember, but I have a feeling—the Minister will be able to help out on this—that the last time the Secretary of State determined what the Government thought was a reasonable price for the betting industry to pay the racing industry, the figure arrived at was somewhere around £75 million. The Government then introduced a mechanism in the levy, making slight amendments to try to deliver £75 million—or whatever figure they thought was a fair amount for the gambling industry to pay—and that was that. The mechanism was arrived at to deliver the figure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton seems to presume that everyone will continue with the same mechanism, which will simply deliver more money to the racing industry, but I suspect it would not really work like that. I suspect that the levy board would still go through the same deliberations and work out what was reasonable to expect the gambling industry to provide, and that a mechanism would be worked out to deliver around £75 million. Therefore, the 10.75% of gross horse racing profits that go to the levy would probably be reduced to hit that target. As a consequence, the Bill —clause 4 in particular—would generate no more money for the racing industry. Rather, it would simply mean that the money came from a different mechanism.
Industrial Policy and Manufacturing
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Four speakers are left, and the Front Benchers have to begin at 4.35 pm. So to share the time out I am going to give each speaker five minutes. If there are interventions, the time will come off the last speaker and they will end up with no time at all.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 25—The UK Green Investment Bank: prohibition on investment in nuclear power or the nuclear industry—
‘The UK Green Investment Bank may not engage in activities that involve facilitating or encouraging investment in nuclear power or the nuclear industry.’.
Amendment 77, page 1, line 11, clause 1, at end add—
‘(3) In undertaking investments in accordance with the green purposes outlined in subsection (1), the UK Green Investment Bank will identify opportunities in which small and medium-sized enterprises can be awarded contracts.’.
Government amendments 1 to 3.
Amendment 76, page 3, line 24, clause 4, at end add—
‘(7) Subject to the approval by the European Commission of the State aid notification concerning the establishment of the UK Green Investment Bank, the Secretary of State shall provide the European Commission with State aid notification concerning the intention to allow the Bank to borrow, including borrowing from the capital markets.
(8) The duty in subsection (7) must be fulfilled no later than 31 December 2013.
(9) It is the duty of HM Treasury and the Secretary of State to either—
(a) permit the UK Green Investment Bank to begin borrowing from the capital markets by April 2015, or
(b) to present to Parliament a report within one month of the passage of this Act giving a clear, certain, alternative date for the UK Green Investment Bank to begin borrowing, based on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for the public finances and advice from the Green Investment Bank on its need for borrowing powers,
both subject to the European Commission approving the State aid notification concerning borrowing.’.
Amendment 89, page 3, line 24, clause 4, at end add—
‘( ) Subject to approval by the European Commission of the State aid notification concerning the establishment of the UK Green Investment Bank, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to provide the European Commission with State aid notification concerning the intention to allow the Bank to borrow, including borrowing from the capital markets.
( ) The duty in the above subsection must be fulfilled no later than 31 December 2013.
( ) In the event the European Commission approves the State aid notification concerning borrowing, it is the duty of the Treasury and of the Secretary of State to permit the Green Investment Bank to begin borrowing from the capital markets no later than 30 June 2015, or, if State aid approval has not been received by that date, no later than one month from the date of approval.’.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 78, page 4, line 9, clause 6, at end add—
‘(5) The Secretary of State will be required to receive independent expert review of the performance of the UK Green Investment Bank.
(6) The Secretary of State will be required to receive such a review no less than every five years.
(7) An interim review no less frequently than every two and half years.
(8) The independent expert review in subsection (5) must, in particular, include or contain information relating to—
(a) an assessment of the UK Green Investment Bank’s environmental performance in fulfilling the green purposes as set out in section 1.
(b) an analysis of the main trends and factors likely to affect the future development, performance and investments of the UK Green Investment bank,
(c) macroeconomic analysis, including assessments of demand in the UK economy and international factors likely to affect green investment and skills within the relevant industries,
(d) assessment of the competitiveness of the UK Green Investment Bank in securing competitive advantage for the UK in green and low carbon economies relative to other countries, and
(e) recommendations to improve the UK Green Investment Bank’s impact in fulfilling its green purposes in section 1.
(9) Prior to the commencement of a review in relation to subsection (5), the Secretary of State must request the views of—
(a) The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
(b) The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
(c) The Committee on Climate Change,
(d) Ministers from the devolved administrations,
(e) investors and interested parties, and
(f) members of the public,
and provide a copy of the results of the consultations to the person or persons undertaking the independent review.
(10) The Secretary of State, in the capacity of shareholder, must provide such information as he considers reasonable to enable the person or body undertaking the review to fulfil the requirements of this subsection.
(11) A review made in relation to subsection (5) must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.’.
Mr Wright
Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that we spent a great deal of time considering whether the green purposes of the green investment bank, as set out in clause 1, were appropriate—namely, whether they were too restrictive or limiting to prevent long-term investment in innovative low-carbon technologies or too wide or broad as to mean that high-carbon investments could not be considered by the bank. As I said, we deliberated over this issue in Committee at length.
Of the five criteria, only one needs to be met to justify the appropriateness of investment by the bank. Was clause 1(1)(b), which refers to
“the advancement of efficiency in the use of natural resources”,
sufficiently tight and robust to deal with the need to ensure that the green economy and the transition to a low-carbon economy are put into effect? In Committee, I used the example of a gas-fired power station that might be marginally more efficient in its use of the earth’s natural resources given 2012 levels, but might well be seen as hopelessly dirty and inefficient by 2030.
That is the purpose of new clause 22—to deal with concerns that investments by the bank might not be in keeping with its green purposes, or at least the spirit behind those purposes. That is why we thought that making an explicit link with the Climate Change Act 2008 would be the best way for an appropriate balance to be struck between giving the bank the flexibility to consider its investment portfolio and ensuring that it cannot and does not decide to fund high-carbon investments. New clause 22 therefore proposes that the green investment bank assesses whether its investment portfolio helps the achievement of carbon budget and greenhouse reduction targets as set out under the 2008 legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the order on the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities. The Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 211, so the Ayes have it. I also have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to sulphur contents and marine fuels. The Ayes were 479 and the Noes were 33, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Clause 2
Designation of the UK Green Investment Bank
Amendments made: 1, page 2, line 8, leave out ‘in the United Kingdom’ and insert
‘(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)’.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 18, leave out from ‘section’ to end of line 19 and insert ‘—
(a) is to be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 3
Alteration of the objects of the UK Green Investment Bank
Amendment made: 3, page 2, line 37, leave out ‘in the United Kingdom’ and insert
‘(whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)’.—(Matthew Hancock.)
Clause 4
The UK Green Investment Bank: financial assistance
Amendment proposed: 76, page 3, line 24, at end add—
‘(7) Subject to the approval by the European Commission of the State aid notification concerning the establishment of the UK Green Investment Bank, the Secretary of State shall provide the European Commission with State aid notification concerning the intention to allow the Bank to borrow, including borrowing from the capital markets.
(8) The duty in subsection (7) must be fulfilled no later than 31 December 2013.
(9) It is the duty of HM Treasury and the Secretary of State to either—
(a) permit the UK Green Investment Bank to begin borrowing from the capital markets by April 2015, or
(b) to present to Parliament a report within one month of the passage of this Act giving a clear, certain, alternative date for the UK Green Investment Bank to begin borrowing, based on Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for the public finances and advice from the Green Investment Bank on its need for borrowing powers,
both subject to the European Commission approving the State aid notification concerning borrowing.’.—(Mr Iain Wright.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Iain Wright
I beg to move amendment 93, page 51, line 23, at end insert—
‘(1A) A representative of the company’s employees must be consulted in the preparation of any such revision.’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 95, page 52, line 5, leave out ‘ordinary’ and insert ‘special’.
Government amendment 25.
Amendment 86, page 52, line 11, leave out subsection (b) and insert ‘(b) and annually thereafter.’.
Amendment 96, page 52, line 17, leave out ‘ordinary’ and insert ‘special’.
Government amendments 26 to 30.
New clause 27—Information about payments to recruitment and remuneration consultants in respect of directors’ remuneration—
‘After section 413 of the Companies Act 2006 (Information about directors’ benefits: advances, credit and guarantees) insert—
“413A Information about payments to recruitment and remuneration consultants
The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring information to be given in notes to a company’s annual accounts about payments made in the relevant accounting period in respect of recruitment and remuneration advice relating to directors, including information specifying any fees that have been paid in proportion to the remuneration agreed for a director.”.’.
Mr Wright
Amendment 93 is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. This important part of the Bill deals with directors’ pay. We rightly spent time in Committee dealing with this, and I do not want unduly to inconvenience the House by repeating the same points, but at the heart of the debate is a disconnect between executive pay and average earnings, and between executive remuneration and the performance of the companies they lead.
As I mentioned in Committee, in 1980 the median pay of the highest-paid directors in FTSE 100 companies was £63,000, and median wages were £5,400. By 2010, the median pay of FTSE 100 directors was £2.99 million, while median wages had risen to £25,900. The ratio of directors’ and employees’ median pay had risen from 11:1 to 116:1. That trend is not confined to the UK, but has been seen throughout the developed world, most notably in the US, where, by 2008, executive pay was 200 times the median household income. Despite the difficult economic times and financial misery faced by millions, average compensation for an FTSE 100 chief executive rose by 12% in 2011, while average wages rose by only 1.4%.
In that environment of growing pay, there is no meaningful correlation between high pay and high corporate performance. Empirical evidence from research carried out in 2009 concluded that companies that pay their chief executive officer in the top 10% of remuneration earn negative results of -13% in terms of both profits and share price in the next five years.
Opposition Members support some of the Government’s reforms—in the interests of cross-party agreement, I should say that they build on work done by the previous Labour Government. However, as we said in Committee, the Government could go further and be slightly bolder. That is the basis of amendment 93, which would ensure that
“a representative of the company’s employees must be consulted in the preparation of any such revision”
to a director’s remuneration package. We anticipate this ensuring that an employee representative could sit on a firm’s remuneration committee in an advisory capacity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I point out that at least six Members wish to speak in the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I ask for contributions to be short and sweet.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new schedule 2—‘Adjudicators: bankruptcy applications by debtors and bankruptcy orders.
Government new schedule 3—‘Adjudicators: minor and consequential amendments.
Government amendments 37, 41 and 44
Jo Swinson
As well as moving the new clause, I shall speak to new schedules 2 and 3, along with Government amendments 37, 41 and 44, the latter of which are consequential amendments on territorial extent and commencement.
These amendments will reform the process by which an individual may apply for his or her own bankruptcy. They will remove the existing requirement for the indebted individual to present a bankruptcy petition to court and replace it with a new administrative process. Currently, a person with unmanageable levels of debt who wishes to make him or herself bankrupt must petition the court—the local court—for a bankruptcy order. There is no dispute that requires a court to make a judgment on competing interests in these scenarios. The vast majority of such applications—last year there were more than 30,000—are accepted by the courts with very little scrutiny.
The amending provisions mean that instead of petitioning the court, applicants would submit their bankruptcy application to a new adjudicator. This proposal was consulted on by the previous Administration and was broadly supported by interested parties. I should say that the Government consulted on removing the court from a wider range of cases, but as significant concerns were raised, this amendment concerns only debtors’ own petitions.
The adjudicator will hold a new statutory office, which we intend to be located in the Insolvency Service. The adjudicator will consider each application, and will decide on an objective basis whether the criteria for the making of a bankruptcy order have been met. If they have been met, the adjudicator will make the order. The administrative process is similar to the way in which individuals enter bankruptcy in Scotland, and in some other jurisdictions throughout the globe.
Applicants for bankruptcy will no longer need to attend court. Applications will be electronic, which will deliver significant savings, and applicants will be able to pay the fees in instalments. Bankruptcy will none the less remain a serious step. It may be the right solution for some debtors, as it allows debts to be written off and a fresh start to be made; but, quite rightly, those advantages are tempered by the serious implications of a bankruptcy order. Bankrupts are subject to restrictions, their assets can be sold for the benefit of creditors, and a portion of their incomes can be used to help repay their debts. For many, other debt remedies will continue to be more appropriate. We will therefore encourage debtors to take independent debt advice before making their bankruptcy applications. We will work with the Money Advice Service and providers in the debt advice sector to ensure that all debtors have the information that they need in order to make an informed decision.
There will be no change in the process that takes place after the making of a bankruptcy order. When an order is made by an adjudicator, the present post-bankruptcy order procedures will continue to operate, and the serious consequences that apply to an individual who is made bankrupt will remain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 13—Equality Act 2010: obtaining information for proceedings.
Government new clause 17—Power to provide for equal pay audits.
Amendment 56, page 43, line 27, leave out clause 52.
Government amendments 35, 36, 45 and 47.
Jo Swinson
We come now to equality measures and various technical and consequential amendments relating to territorial nature and commencement. The new clauses relate to Great Britain’s legal framework on equality and human rights. New clauses 12 and 13 repeal provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that expressly place liability on employers for repeated harassment of their customers, and provisions related to obtaining information. New clause 17 enables Ministers to require employment tribunals to order equal pay audits where an employer is found to have broken equal pay and/or sex discrimination laws. Opposition amendment 56 seeks to remove from the Bill measures to improve the focus and effectiveness of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The Government’s amendments and clause 52 are necessary to clarify our legal framework on equality and human rights, and in doing so make it more effective. But they are also about laying the foundations for a sustainable economic recovery. In the current economic circumstances we simply cannot afford not to maximise the full potential of our work force. All hon. Members support making it easier for people to play an active role in our economy, and it is for that reason that I hope we can agree on the provisions. A vague legal framework, full of aspiration but lacking clarity, helps no one, and, worst of all, can hold people back.
The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has described these measures as a sign of the Government rowing back on equalities. They are anything but. Rather they are a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to making a real difference on the ground. This is reflected not only in the legislative measures that we are debating today, but in what the Government have achieved since taking office in 2010. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State asks what we have done for equalities. I will tell him.
We have established the first ever inter-ministerial group on equality and published the first ever cross-government strategy; legislated to allow civil partnerships on religious premises; published the first ever transgender action plan; introduced support for disabled people seeking elected office; launched “Think, Act, Report” to have gender equality reporting; established the Women’s Business Council, which is doing vital work to help identify the barriers holding women back in the work place; provided support for women to set up and grow their own businesses with more than 5,000 women mentors; and championed equality on company boards, with the number of FTSE 100 all-male boards halving and new appointments to boards rising from 13% women in the last year of the Labour Government to 34% under this Government. We have published the first ever sports charter aimed at combating homophobia and transphobia; all premiership and championship football teams are now signed up against homophobia and transphobia. We are of course consulting on equal civil marriage, something the previous Government did not do. We have also legislated to end age discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
Higher and Further Education
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Lady is speaking fluently from the Dispatch Box, but she is doing our young people a disservice. She is scaremongering and sending them the message that they cannot afford university when the monthly payments are lower than they were before, the threshold before they start paying is higher than it ever was before and anyone who suffers illness, who is pregnant and stops working or has—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye and make a speech later rather than waste time now.
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman had not decided to patronise me at the beginning of his intervention, he might have had enough time to complete his mini-speech. I will move on later to the record drops we have seen in the number of applications, including from mature students, and the increase in the withdrawal rate for students who have been offered university places but decided not to take them, which stands in direct contrast to the rather more rosy picture he is trying to paint.
As I was saying, the Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general election promising to scrap tuition fees altogether—we all remember that famous pledge—but they broke their promise, and the trust of those who voted for them, and betrayed the students whose votes they courted so assiduously ahead of the election. I wonder how many of them will rediscover their pre-election principles in the Lobbies tonight. Although the Conservatives are no doubt pleased that most of the anger surrounding the betrayal on tuition fees has focused on the Liberal Democrats, they too have form, having previously voted against a rise in tuition fees to £3,000.
Shabana Mahmood
No, I will not, because I must wrap up. Under our alternative package, the top 10% of earners—those with average incomes of £65,000 or more over their working lives—would pay more, but research from the House of Commons Library has shown that all other income groups would be better off under this package. Universities would receive funding to compensate them for the loss of income from lower fees and the package would be revenue-neutral. The important point is that the headline level of debt carried by students would be significantly lower and would avoid the harm to families and graduates that would be caused by the Government’s plans.
Tonight’s vote is the last opportunity before the new academic term begins for this House to force the Government to change course on their trebling of tuition fees and to give hope to future generations of students that we as a House are prepared to prioritise them and their future; that we will not abandon them; that we understand that we need to provide them with ladders of opportunity, not kick them away; and that we will do whatever we can to help them fulfil their aspirations. If they are allowed to succeed, we as a country will succeed, and I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I warn Members that I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit on speeches, and that that will have to go down later on, due to the amount of time that we have.
Financial Education
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not want to introduce a time limit, but I am very concerned about the amount of time being taken. At this rate, we are not going to get everybody in, so we need a little discipline, because the winding-up speeches will have to start at about quarter to 6. We should bear in mind that, if people are going to speak for 19 minutes each, other people will not get in, and I want to ensure that everybody gets in, so self-discipline will be very helpful if we are to look after each other.
Economic Growth and Employment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention, and he should please wait for the answer. We do not need comments from the side.
Mr Umunna
First, on borrowing, does the Business Secretary accept that the average of the independent forecast that his Government published last week shows that, for all his claims to be working to a strategy to reduce our debts, his Government could end up borrowing more in every single year remaining of this Parliament than under Labour’s more sensible deficit reduction plan? Secondly, does he accept that confidence indicators when he took office and took charge of his Department were not too bad and were improving until the comprehensive spending review was announced, after which it nosedived?
Vince Cable
On the level of borrowing, let us wait until next week and see what the independent forecast is in the Chancellor’s statement. Of course, the reason why borrowing rises when the economy slows down is the flexibility that is built in—the so-called counter-cyclical stabilisers that we employ as part of our fiscal policy. Unlike the United States and other countries, we allow slow-downs to be accommodated in that way, supporting the economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what our strategy is to deal with this problem. I will summarise it. There are three parts. First, we have to stick to fiscal discipline to maintain the confidence of the people who lend to us. That is a very simple proposition that is very difficult to realise and it is something we have done. He quoted various comments from business organisations around the country. I keep in touch with such organisations regularly and go around the country to the regions and nations of the UK. I have yet to meet a single representative of the business community who has asked us to slacken our process of deficit reduction—not a single one. They all make it absolutely clear, including the CBI, that they regard plan A, as it is called, which is deficit reduction, as an absolutely necessary pre-condition to stabilising the economy.
The second element relates to the first. Precisely because we have a large amount of debt in our economy, the priority for Government has to be to preserve an environment in which there are low interest rates. The stimulus we get in our economy—the source of demand—comes primarily through monetary policy. Through the Bank of England acting on short-term interest rates, through long-term interest rates related to bond yields, through quantitative easing at the Bank of England—now credit easing—and through a competitive exchange rate, we have a monetary policy that supports growth and demand. Given the massive debt we have inherited, it is only through monetary policy—relatively low interest rates—that we can possibly support the economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I remind everybody that there is a five-minute limit on speeches.
Careers Service (Young People)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate. I shall start with a confession: when I chaired the Education and Skills Committee—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just say that we have nine Members left to speak, and that if the hon. Gentleman limits his speech to eight minutes it will help everybody?
Mr Sheerman
I was going to confess that when I was Chair of the Education Committee I never did an inquiry into careers, but in 2008 I was co-chair of the Skills Commission and we undertook a major inquiry into careers. Lord Boswell, Baroness Sharp and I were on the commission and we produced an all-party report, “Inspiration and Aspiration: Realising our Potential in the 21st Century.” Dame Ruth Silver, whom the Minister and anyone who knows anything about careers will know, the former principal of Lewisham college, was a very important influence on our inquiry, and she now chairs the Government advisory organisation that fell out with the Government recently.
We found pretty simple things. We found that, yes, information technology is very useful and that it will increasingly be used by many young people and older people, but at that stage—three years ago—it was used by only about 17% or 18%, which is not a lot. We also found that it was not enough in itself—face-to-face experience and trusted professionals were vital. There was no doubt that all the research, all the evidence that we took, showed it could not be done by technology alone, and that we blanked out many people by relying only on the technology and the internet.
We also found that yes, the careers service was not as good as it should have been. Anyone who does a PhD in future about the Conservatives’ enthralment with localism will have a wonderful time with the Minister’s speech tonight, because what is this localism? I intervened and said, “The trouble is that Connexions was patchy.” It is true that in every local government service I know, much is good in some things, but less is good in others and things are pretty average too much of the time. So how does one, believing in localism, raise the bar for careers advice? It is a great challenge, as Conservative Members will find. Pushing the responsibility back entirely on to schools, they will find the service very patchy indeed, especially if there are very few resources to some schools and better resources at others.
The Skills Commission report was accepted by all three parties and influenced all three manifestos, so there was the start of a good cross-party agreement on the need for high-quality careers advice—absolutely everyone from whom we took evidence agreed on that. But how do we push that forward? When we found that all the manifestos had been influenced by the cross-party consensus, we were very hopeful. But how did we get to the Government advisory group on the all-age careers service? The Labour Government of 2008 did not want an all-age careers service. They were eventually persuaded—again, there was cross-party consensus. All three main parties agreed on an all-age careers service, and they reconstituted it under a different name—the national careers service advisory group. I understand that it is now in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, with the Education Department visiting, rather than its being in the Education Department. I have some concerns, and I think hon. Members will have some concerns, about careers being put very securely in BIS rather than in the Education Department.
Responsibility for providing face-to-face services is, however, being transferred to schools, without funding. I have the report from the advisory group on the all-age careers service and the comments by Dame Ruth Silver about the very real problems with it. It says:
“The new National Careers Service will include face-to-face services for adults, but not for young people. Instead, its service for young people will be confined to telephone- and web-based services. Responsibility for providing the face-to-face services is being transferred to schools, without any transfer of funding: the previous provision of around £200 million per annum for the service for young people has been allowed to disappear.”
That is the Government’s advisory group speaking. These are the leading people in the country advising on careers. The report continues:
“There are widespread concerns about the destruction of careers services across the country, with heavy staff redundancies. At a time when young people are facing massive changes in further and higher education, and new apprenticeships—as well as high youth unemployment—stripping out the professional help available to them is not only foolhardy; it is potentially damaging to young people’s lives and ultimately to the economy.”
What a damning report by the Government’s advisory committee! It cannot be right to go in this direction.
As a result of this kind of localism, schools with few resources will have very little careers advice. That is the truth. At the same time, local authorities up and down the land, under pressure of resources, are getting rid of their careers services or slimming them down to the very bone. We will not recreate a culture of high-quality careers service professionals in that way, even though the Government asked Ruth Silver to chair a committee to determine how to increase the professional quality of the careers service.
Everything was going in the right direction, with all-party consensus. Localism could have worked in this respect if the money had followed local responsibility and accountability. I worked closely with the Minister, who was a good member of the Education and Skills Committee for some years, when I chaired it. He is a reasonable man, and he will understand that this is not a party political issue. Good-quality careers advice is absolutely essential to everyone of whatever age. I am one of those people who believe that it is shame and a stain on our country to have a thing called NEETs. I believe that anyone who is not in education, employment or training of whatever age is a NEET, and we cannot have them.
Julie Hilling
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, because I have been sitting here getting increasingly frustrated at the notion that history, geography, modern foreign languages, maths and science are the only subjects that will give a student the breadth of knowledge with which to go forward in their lives. Is the issue not about academic rigour and young people learning to learn and learning to evaluate what they learn? That is the important thing, not the subject that they are doing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Interventions are getting a little bit too long.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Perhaps in due course she could tell me why Canada, France and Germany insist on those subjects being taken to age 16, and why all those countries are doing better than us in the OECD PISA—programme for international student assessment—tables.
The Government are taking absolutely the right approach of strengthening the core, getting rid of modules from exams, making rigorous assessments, and encouraging students to take the E-bac. It is so encouraging that this year the numbers of new entries to these subjects have gone up. We are also offering proper apprenticeships to get people the proper work experience that they need to build a successful career. We will not create careers with more hot air; we will create careers through real learning in real subjects and real jobs.
St George’s Day and St David’s Day Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I support the proposal and have supported such campaigns in the past. I am keen that we do everything we can to celebrate St George’s day and what it means to be English and British, as well as to celebrate the Union. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing casual about how we celebrate St George’s day already, despite the fact that there is no bank holiday. Just a couple of weeks ago, I proudly took part in the celebrations of St George’s day in Dudley—we have them every year—and there is a nothing casual about them, but the point about the date is an interesting one. There is already a series of bank holidays— Whit and Easter, and so on—at this time of the year. Of course, the Welsh celebrate St David’s day with an Eisteddfod festival. I am not an expert on the Welsh, but I think that that takes place during the summer—
Nadhim Zahawi
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I would just remind him that because of a quirk this year, we have had a number of bank holidays, and the nation found them positive. There were some economic benefits too. It may be preferable to have a bank holiday at a different time of the year, but for me the importance of St George’s day overrides that consideration.
Education Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 21—Charges at boarding Academies.
New clause 1—Tackling educational underachievement—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may, by order, in circumstances where an existing school has for the preceding two years or for three of the preceding five years failed to meet or exceed the “National Floor Standards”, disapply any provisions of the Academies Act 2010 to facilitate the making of an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010 (Academy orders).
(2) For the purposes of this clause the term “National Floor Standards” means standards of educational attainment and progress of pupils established from time to time by the Secretary of State and in place at the time of the order and which may be applied retrospectively for the purposes of this section.’.
New clause 13—Schools Causing Concern and disapplication of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006—
‘(1) The Academies Act 2010 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 4, at end insert— “The Secretary of State may by order disapply the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 when making an academy order under this section if the school is eligible for intervention (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006).”’.
New clause 19—Purchase by academies of places for pupils aged 14 at a private school—
‘(1) An Academy may apply its funds for the purpose of purchasing a place at a private school for a relevant pupil for the whole or part of the pupil’s remaining school career.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a relevant pupil—
(a) is a pupil on the school roll of the Academy; and
(b) is aged 14.’.
Government amendments 34, 35, 38 and 39.
Mr Gibb
The issues were raised in Committee, and these are technical amendments—they are about getting the wording of the provisions right. These things could have been done in a more cumbersome way, but we decided to deal with them in the Bill, so that the provisions are made simpler for people who read it. There is no policy difference between what we discussed in Committee and what is set out clearly in the White Paper.
Government amendment 39 is even more technical. It seeks to correct a missed consequential amendment in the Bill. It removes a reference in section 77(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to section 77(4) because, if the Bill is passed, paragraph 17(4) of schedule 14 to the Bill will remove subsection (4) from section 77, so we do not want any references to section 77(4) in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendments and new clauses.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Labour’s main objection to this Bill is with how it takes power off parents and pupils—[Interruption.] Have we moved on to the amendments about admissions, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Andy Burnham
Then I think that you should have called Kevin Brennan instead.
Kevin Brennan
Sorry about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course I would never interrupt my boss in mid-flow—we know the consequences of that sort of thing.
The Opposition do not have any fundamental objections to the Government amendments and new clauses. We merely seek to question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) has done, the late stage at which they have been introduced, because we are now on Report.
I have asked the Minister some questions about how each PRU’s budget share will be calculated, and he has given half an answer. I wonder whether that calculation will be done on the same basis as that for a special school, where the majority of funding goes on the basis of places and not on occupancy, unlike in mainstream schools. When Labour produced a White Paper on this very subject, we gave more examples of where that is already happening.
The Minister has confirmed that new clause 21, to which he has referred, will not give a blank cheque to independent boarding schools seeking to become academies that will enable them to charge excessive fees and that it will be up to local authorities to decide whether it is appropriate to support pupils in such a way. He is absolutely right that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for pupils to be supported in boarding provision by the state. In some cases, that is entirely appropriate, but it is important that we should have safeguards in place to ensure that there is no blank cheque for independent schools that are seeking to become academies, and the Minister sought to reassure me on that.
Mr Frank Field
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not pressing my new clause, even though the Minister could have had his speech written for him by old Labour, which I think will be noted. I wish for the proceedings to go forward as expeditiously as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As amusing as that may be, it is not a point of order.
New Clause 2
Admissions policy of independent schools opting for Academy status
‘(1) Section 6 of the Academies Act 2010 (effect of Academy order) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) (definition of “selective school”), after paragraph (b), insert—
“, or
(c) it is an independent school with a selective admissions policy converting to an Academy”.’.—(Mr Brady.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Fair access to education and training—
‘(1) EA 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (General duty of the Secretary of State), at the end insert “and ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training.”.’.
New clause 22—Guidance on draft Regulations on pupil registration and school attendance codes—
‘The Secretary of State shall provide guidance to local authorities for dealing with families who have chosen to home educate their children prior to the implementation of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations and the School Attendance and Absence codes.’.
Amendment 40, in clause 4, page 9, line 26, at end add
‘The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the numbers of students at all schools in England and Wales subject to these powers including—
(a) details as to whether these pupils have identified special educational needs or additional learning needs,
(b) the numbers of times these powers have been exercised,
(c) the previous and current status of their schooling provision,
(d) whether their exclusion was referred to a review panel, and
(e) where known the outcome of any review panel action including any financial adjustment of the schools budget share for a funding period incurred by schools as a direct consequence of the exclusion.’.
Amendment 9, in clause 34, page 33, line 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 84 (Code for school admissions) in subsection (2) after “other matters”, insert “which ensure fair access to opportunity for education”.’.
Amendment 10, page 33, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 13, page 33, line 14, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) For section 88J (changes to admission arrangements by schools adjudicator) substitute—
“88J Implementation of decisions by adjudicator
(1) This section applies where the adjudicator has made a decision (‘the primary decision’)—
(a) under section 88H(4) on whether to uphold an objection to admission arrangements, or
(b) under section 88I(4)(b) or (5)(b) on whether admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admissions.
(2) If the admission authority has not amended its admission arrangements within a period of 14 days of being notified of the primary decision, the local authority for the area in which the school is situated may direct appropriate changes to any aspect of the admission arrangements in consequence of the primary decision.
(3) Following the amendment of the admission arrangements by the admission authority following a primary decision, the local authority for the area, if it considers that the changes to the admission arrangements are not consistent with the primary decision, may direct appropriate changes to any aspect of the admission arrangements in consequence of the primary decision.
(4) An admission authority which is subject to a direction under subsections (2) or (3) may ask the adjudicator to set aside the direction on the grounds that the changes to the admission arrangements contained in the local authority’s direction are not consistent with the primary decision.”.’.
Amendment 11, in schedule 10, page 83, line 4, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3.
Mr Brady
It is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to participate in this important debate, which has so far been excellent, with colleagues on both sides of the House making points that are focused on the important task of raising standards and extending opportunity without too much ideology and dogma getting in the way.
My new clause 2 is supported by 38 colleagues from both sides of the House—a very broad spectrum of support that reflects the fact that it demonstrates basic common sense in moving forward the educational debate. It is modest, but it would do something quite important. It seeks to remove an anomaly that the Government have themselves created, arising from the fact that in the Academies Act 2010 they legislated to allow state grammar schools to become academies without changing their admissions status, thereby accepting the principle that it is possible to be an academy and a selective school.
The new clause would merely extend exactly the same arrangements to independent schools seeking to become academies and retain their existing admissions arrangements. It would address the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister earlier when he referred to the vital importance of our excellent independent schools and excellent state schools working more closely together, breaking down the artificial divides between them and ensuring that we open up for as many children as possible access to what he describes as some of the best schools in the world, according to the OECD.
New clause 2 makes an important amendment, even though all it would do is remove an anomaly, because it would send the clear message that what matters in education is providing quality and new opportunities, and opening access to the very best schools without dogma getting in the way. At a time when the Government and the Opposition are deeply concerned with raising our performance on social mobility and ensuring that people, regardless of background, can progress in life according to their talents and abilities, the new clause would remove one of the impediments that stand in the way.