17 Oct 2011 : Column 603
17 Oct 2011 : Column 603
House of Commons
Monday 17 October 2011
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Education
The Secretary of State was asked—
Academies (GCSE Results)
1. Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): What assessment he has made of the 2011 GCSE results for academies; and if he will make a statement. [74418]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): The 2011 GCSE self-reported figures from academies suggest an increase of 5.6 percentage points in the proportion of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. That increase is, once again, greater than the historical national improvement rates for all maintained schools. Individual 2011 GCSE school level results will be not be available until January 2012.
Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer, and I congratulate all those pupils who did so well this summer, but I seek assurances from him. In the event of less than 10% of an academy's pupils achieving five A to C grades at GCSE, or even of less than 5%, would he expect full involvement from the local authority, playing a key role? Also, will he be giving support from his Department?
Mr Gibb: Where the performance of an academy is unacceptably low, we will ensure that urgent action is taken to bring about sustained improvement. There is nothing to prevent local authorities from offering help to underperforming academies, but ultimately it is for the academy or the sponsor to decide whether to accept that help. The success of the academies programme has meant a changing role for local authorities and they will have an important role to play as the champions of pupils and parents in the area, ensuring both sufficiency and quality of places.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):
Many head teachers and governors in my constituency tell me that they feel pressurised into converting to academy status, not only because of the financial incentives but because it is the Government’s policy that as many
17 Oct 2011 : Column 604
schools as possible should become academies. Could the Minister say whether that is the case and explain the role of local authorities in state education in future?
Mr Gibb: There is no compulsion to convert to academy status, but all the evidence from around the world is that three factors give rise to higher performance: autonomy, high-quality teaching and external accountabilities—and it is autonomy that head teachers seek when they apply for academy status. There is no incentive, financially, to become an academy, as academies are funded on exactly the same basis as maintained schools.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Wootton Bassett comprehensive was, until Friday, an outstanding comprehensive, having achieved outstanding results in all five categories. Will the Minister join me in congratulating what from today will be called Royal Wootton Bassett academy on its achievement?
Mr Gibb: I congratulate both Royal Wootton Bassett and the school. It is a tremendous achievement for the town, and the academic results that my hon. Friend cites are a tribute to the teachers at that school.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): I am pleased to join the Minister in welcoming the GCSE results of academies in 2011; their progress in English and maths is especially welcome. Some of them have focused successfully on improving vocational education —progress which is not reflected in the Government’s E-bac. Will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to creating a technical baccalaureate as has been proposed by many, including the Minister’s noble friend Lord Baker?
Mr Gibb: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post? I know that he has a passion for education and I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.
The English baccalaureate is designed to increase the take-up in our schools of history, geography and modern foreign languages, which has declined significantly in recent years, particularly in modern languages since 2004. That is something we seek to reverse. However, the E-bac is sufficiently small to enable pupils to take a vocational subject in addition to the E-bac and to take music, art, economics—[Interruption.]—and religious education, indeed, and all the other subjects that pupils want to take.
Stephen Twigg: We will return to that in later questions.
The Government give the impression that they are interested only in the progress of academies and free schools. I welcome the great results that academies have achieved, but can the Minister tell me what proportion of the schools that he and the Secretary of State have visited are neither academies nor free schools?
Mr Gibb:
Certainly the vast majority of schools that I have visited are maintained schools, and that may well be the case for the Secretary of State—we can send the hon. Gentleman the figures. It is important that we raise standards right across the board, and that is why the Secretary of State has raised the floor standards for all schools to 35% this year and to 40% from next year.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 605
By the end of the Parliament, we expect all schools to have at least half of their pupils achieving five good GCSEs.
GCSE Mathematics
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): Question 2, Mr Speaker—no, Question 3.
Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is discussing mathematics.
3. Duncan Hames: What his policy is on the inclusion of financial education in the mathematics GCSE. [74420]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): I should have more than a normal spring in my step today, because my son, William, passed his 11-plus, and I heard about it this weekend.
The Government are currently reviewing the national curriculum, which will go out to public consultation in the new year. We will await the outcomes of that work before making any decisions on the content of GCSE mathematics, to ensure that it aligns with the new national curriculum and reflects the core mathematical knowledge and skills that young people need.
Duncan Hames: Only in this place could three follow one.
Having taken as many maths qualifications as I possibly could when at school, I certainly appreciate the eternal beauty of geometry, but does the Minister not accept that, for many school leavers in today’s world, it is more valuable to understand the true value of a compound annual growth rate on an investment or, more likely, the annual percentage rate on a loan?
Mr Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is right that finance education matters. Indeed, as a governor of the George Ward school in his constituency, he will take seriously the role that core mathematical education plays in providing people with those applied mathematical skills necessary for their well-being and our collective well-being. The Government take that seriously, and we will certainly work to ensure that maths does the job that it should.
Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School
4. Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): What progress has been made towards resolving the dispute at the Cardinal Vaughan memorial school. [74421]
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): In the past week, I have spoken to parents at the Vaughan and the diocesan authorities. I am confident that the appointment of a new headmaster will bring new harmony.
Mr Leigh:
I thank the Secretary of State most warmly for his personal efforts in trying to resolve this matter and in ensuring that, finally, the diocese caved in last week and a head teacher was appointed in line with parent wishes, but I wonder what lessons can be learned—in particular, to ensure that, in future, education authorities, whether or not diocesan, understand that the whole
17 Oct 2011 : Column 606
ethos of our policy is to enable parents, not education authorities, to have the dominant say in the governance of schools?
Michael Gove: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The Vaughan is an outstanding school, and the diocese and the Department are determined to do everything possible to ensure that it remains outstanding in the future. One of the changes that is being made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Hill is a change to the provision that relates to governors, to ensure that parent governors and foundation governors who are drawn from the ranks of parents accurately represent the parents’ wishes, because part of the Vaughan’s success has been the close relationship between the parents who love the school and the teachers who have made it so great.
GCSE Mathematics
5. Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): What consideration he has given to offering two GCSEs in mathematics. [74422]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): We are reviewing the national curriculum requirements for mathematics and will take decisions on the content and number of maths GCSEs in the light of the review. A pilot of a pair of mathematics GCSEs—applications of mathematics and methods in mathematics —began last September and continues to 2013. Evidence from the pilot will also inform our decisions.
Justin Tomlinson: As part of the review, may I urge the Minister to provide an opportunity to include financial education as part of the syllabus?
Mr Gibb: My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on financial education, and the all-party group on financial education for young people, which he chairs, is about to produce a report, following its inquiry into the issue. As he has said, financial education is important, and we will look carefully at his report when it is published and its conclusions will be taken into account as part of the national curriculum review and the review of personal, social and health education.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): On 19 June, an AQA GCSE maths examination paper contained an error, along with two other exam papers. How could that be, as a week earlier, we were told that every exam paper had been rechecked for mistakes? What has gone wrong, and what explanation has been given to the Minister?
Mr Gibb: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. The number of errors in exam papers this summer was unacceptable. A review is being conducted by Ofqual, which will report later in the year. As a consequence of the errors that took place this summer, we have reviewed Ofqual’s powers, and in another place, we are considering introducing into the Education Bill new powers for Ofqual to fine the awarding organisations when they are not delivering high-quality exams without error.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con):
Does the Minister agree that the distinction between methods and applications is spurious in a subject that is all about
17 Oct 2011 : Column 607
practice, and that instead we should have mathematics and additional mathematics at GCSE, or pure and applied? That would be more logical and more mathematical.
Mr Gibb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passion for the subject of maths education in this country. She is right to raise, and continue to raise, the issue. We will wait to see the outcome of the pilot of the twin maths GCSEs, and we will take into account its conclusions before considering what further reforms to maths GCSE we will make.
English Baccalaureate
6. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): What assessment he has made of the potential effect on student choices of the English baccalaureate. [74423]
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): A survey of nearly 700 schools indicates that the English baccalaureate is having an immediate impact on subject choices. The numbers of students electing to study modern foreign languages, geography, history, physics, chemistry and biology are all up.
Tony Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that secondary schools report a significant decline in the number of students opting to study religious studies? The reason given is that it is not included in the E-bac. This year, will he at least give thought to whether, in the humanities, there could be a choice of two out of three subjects—geography, history and religious studies? If religious studies is not included in the E-bac, it will be increasingly marginalised.
Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is a very effective spokesman for the Church of England, and indeed for the place of faith in the nation’s life. However, the data suggest that the number of people taking religious studies at GCSE is rising. It was up 17.6% to 222,000 in the last set of figures that we have, overtaking history and geography.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Secretary of State say whether he, his officials or his advisers are using private e-mail accounts in assessing the impact of the baccalaureate? Does he accept the Information Commissioner’s view that private e-mail accounts that are used to talk about Government policy could be the subject of freedom of information requests?
Michael Gove: I admire the elegance with which the hon. Gentleman manages to insinuate into his question a matter that is dramatically different from issues relating to the English baccalaureate. All Government business in the Department for Education is at all times conducted with extreme propriety.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): In consideration of the impact of the English baccalaureate, will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofsted how it should evaluate schools’ performance to ensure that work on vocational and other subjects is taken into account?
17 Oct 2011 : Column 608
Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The English baccalaureate is a powerful nudge to encourage take-up in the sorts of subjects that lead students to be able to progress to good universities and great jobs, but it is important that Ofsted applies a nuanced measurement when it judges how schools are performing, and schools that do superbly in vocational, technical, cultural and other areas should expect Ofsted to applaud them as well.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State will have seen that on Thursday the Skills Commission launched a report on the training of technicians. We desperately need more technicians, and there is great fear that the changes in the curriculum will squeeze out design and technology, which is, for many students, often the bridge to science, technology, engineering and maths subjects.
Michael Gove: That is a very fair point, and design and technology has many powerful champions, including the hon. Gentleman, but I would emphasise that the single most important thing that we can do if we are to ensure a generation of not just technicians but manufacturing leaders in future is make sure that we perform better in mathematics and that there are more students studying physics and chemistry. They are the key to success, and one of the reasons why the English baccalaureate has been so successful is that it has encouraged students to study those essential subjects.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that there have always been core subjects and option subjects, and that the value of the E-bac is in signalling the most widely valued core subjects without precluding option subjects? That advice is of most value to the most disadvantaged in our society.
Michael Gove: That is a typically acute point from my hon. Friend. The subjects in the E-bac bear a close resemblance to the sorts of subjects in an Arnoldian vision of liberal education but, more than that, they are the subjects that modern universities and 21st-century employers increasingly demand. One of the problems that we have had in the past is that too few students from poorer areas have been able to access and benefit from great subject-teaching in those disciplines.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): The first university technical college in the country, the JCB academy, achieved 0% this year in the Secretary of State’s misleadingly titled English baccalaureate. I presume from what he has just said that he regards that as a failure, or are the rumours true and is he just distancing himself now from his Schools Minister’s pet policy?
Michael Gove:
I was asked last week by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) about the JCB academy, and by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), about the JCB academy, so let me repeat once again for the slower learners at the back of the class: I applaud the amazing achievements of the JCB academy. The English baccalaureate is just one measure of excellence and there are many others. As I underlined last week, the success of the university technical college—a school whose success was made possible by a Conservative
17 Oct 2011 : Column 609
party donor and whose success is burnished by Conservative party policies—is a success that I am happy to trumpet from any platform.
PGCE Bursary
7. Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con): What assessment he has made of the effects of the withdrawal of bursary funding on PGCE students who commenced their courses in September. [74424]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): All PGCE students can apply for the same student support as undergraduate students, including maintenance loans and means-tested grants. As an additional recruitment incentive, the Department pays bursaries. These are adjusted regularly according to the size of the pool of potential teachers and the demand from schools for new teachers. For certain subjects we have therefore removed the bursaries for 2011-12. Other subjects, including maths, foreign languages and sciences, attract bursaries of up to £9,000.
Caroline Nokes: Can the Minister tell the House how the changes to the bursaries have affected recruitment to initial teacher training courses this year?
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is right. We will have recruitment numbers to courses in November, when the Training and Development Agency for Schools has completed its census of training providers. That will include the figures for initial teacher training, but it looks as though we will have high numbers of quality applicants in all subjects. The latest evidence suggests that this will be another strong year for recruitment, and that we are on course for the best year ever in the recruitment of physics and chemistry trainees in particular.
SEN Support
8. Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): What progress he has made on extending support for children with special educational needs. [74425]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): We have finished consultation on our Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability”. Twenty pathfinders, covering 31 local authority areas, are under way and will be testing proposals set out in the Green Paper. We will publish details of how we will respond to the consultation and take forward the development of special educational needs and disability provision by the end of the year.
Richard Graham: Some of the experiences of my constituents suggest that adopted children are especially vulnerable to developing special educational needs as a result of trauma. Would the Minister consider extending support to adoptive parents, especially information and advice, so that any latent special educational needs of adopted children can be identified as early as possible?
Sarah Teather:
The critical issue is that children in care have particularly high levels of special educational needs. We need to get better at picking up those needs at an early stage and putting in place the right kind of care
17 Oct 2011 : Column 610
and support package for those children so that their needs are not latent and not picked up by the time the children are being put up for adoption. I announced in September which areas would begin the pathfinders. Some of those local authorities will be looking specifically at how they can improve that process of assessment for children in care. I hope that will make significant differences as we begin to learn the results of that for families who adopt a child.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): The Minister touched on the issue of children in care with special needs. Many children with special needs are those living in situations of domestic violence. The Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), recently sent a foreword to support Operation Encompass, which is based in Plymouth. Will the Minister agree to meet those involved, such as Police Sergeant Carney Howarth, and teachers to hear first hand how they are supporting vulnerable young people and how they quickly identify those whose education could be adversely affected by domestic violence, leading to special needs?
Sarah Teather: I am sure that I or my colleague, depending who is most appropriate, will be happy to meet people to discuss that matter.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab): I am pleased that the Minister seems to be aware that looked-after children are nine times more likely than their peers to have special educational needs, yet while the number of children in care is increasing, support for special educational needs is decreasing. A recent report from Action for Children suggests that the impact of Government cuts on children and families will mean even more children being at risk of neglect and taken into care. There is no time to waste. What action will the Minister take now to reverse these worrying trends?
Sarah Teather: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench and look forward to working with her on these issues. I know that she has taken a particular interest in looked-after children and children in care. We have made it clear to local authorities that the early intervention grant should be spent on early intervention. We know that it is difficult for local authorities at the moment, just as it is difficult for the Government. We are all having to make difficult decisions, but I think that local authorities are the right people to make those decisions. In areas that are beginning pathfinder work, we will be able to test exactly how we can ensure that we support children with special educational needs better in a range of settings.
University Technical Colleges
9. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): How many university technical colleges he expects to open in 2012. [74426]
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We now have 16 new university technical colleges approved, up to half of which may open in September 2012.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 611
Philip Davies: May I tell the Secretary of State how much I support the introduction of UTCs, but will he guarantee that they will not be delayed by any unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape and that he will ensure that the process is not frustrated and slowed down by officials in his Department?
Michael Gove: When it comes to dealing with bureaucracy and red tape, the officials in my Department are allies. They are terrible, swift swords cutting through the bureaucracy that has so far held this country back.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): This country is desperately short of skills in science, engineering and technology and far too few girls and women study those subjects. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that at least 50% of the pupils who will go to UTCs are female?
Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and know that she has recently completed a report on some of the barriers to young women taking advantage of the opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. A new UTC is opening in Sheffield and I hope to be able to work with her to ensure that it generates enthusiasm among boys and girls in Sheffield and across South Yorkshire for the superb education it will offer.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con): The Secretary of State will perhaps be aware of recent correspondence I sent to his ministerial team about the possibility of opening a UTC in Newton Abbot. Has he had an opportunity to consider the proposal, which would transform our local economy, and would one of his team be prepared to meet me to discuss it?
Michael Gove: One of my team will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend—I imagine my colleagues will be fighting to see her. Plymouth is already benefitting from a new UTC, but there is no reason why other equally beautiful parts of Devon should not also benefit.
Sure Start (Finance)
10. Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of reductions in the budgets for Sure Start children’s centres in the financial year (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12. [74427]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): There was no reduction in revenue funding for Sure Start children’s centres in 2010-11. From April 2011, funding for children’s centres is included within the early intervention grant. It is for local authorities to decide how to use that funding, taking account of their statutory duties and local needs.
Mr Bailey: I thank the Minister for her reply. The changes to the funding streams for Sure Start amount to a slashing of expenditure of around 22% nationally and 25% in my local authority of Sandwell, and the removal of the ring-fencing condition gives local authorities the opportunity to plug their gaps in other services with Sure Start funding. Will the Minister undertake to conduct a full assessment and monitor the impact of those cuts on Sure Start centres in future?
17 Oct 2011 : Column 612
Sarah Teather: The Government continue to monitor what is happening on the ground. We have made sure that enough money is available in the early intervention grant for a network of children’s centres. Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide sufficient children’s centres and to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing those services. We want to ensure that those are not just empty buildings and that they are providing high-quality services that are focused on outcomes that really matter, which is why I have recently announced the start of payment-by-results trials, which will focus much better on outcomes, and why we are consulting on a new core purpose, which will also focus on outcomes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is the outcomes that matter.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): I support Sure Start centres, and I know that Her Majesty’s Government do and always have done. Will the Minister confirm that, despite the Opposition’s apocalyptic warnings, there are broadly the same number of Sure Start centres now as there were when the coalition came into power?
Sarah Teather: There is information available on directgov, and it links to what information we have about the children’s centres that are available in local authority areas. From speaking to local authorities, I certainly know, as I said in my answer just a few minutes ago, that on the whole good local authorities, which do have to make difficult decisions, are merging back-office functions and management functions to make sure that they can focus on outcomes—the point that I just made, and which I think every Member would want.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): As the Minister does not have a clue about the actual impact on the ground of her decision to cut Sure Start funding—cutting it by more than a fifth and removing the ring fence—I decided to find out for myself, and I will let her know what I have found: 83% of councils are cutting their funding this year; 89% of councils are cutting it next year; they are being forced to lay off qualified teachers; and in some areas children’s centres are actually closing. Given those findings, is she prepared to rethink her decisions and act to ensure that families are given the support that they need in the foundation years?
Sarah Teather: I believe I read in the press that the hon. Lady said that 47 children’s centres would close, and it would be helpful if she sent me that information. I suspect that not all local authorities replied to her, in just the same way as not all local authorities replied to us. She could do much to chivvy her local authorities to reply, because we could then make absolutely sure that the information on directgov was completely accurate. I am not sure that I have an awful lot more to add to the point that I have already made clear: the money is available in the early intervention grant, and we are making it clear to local authorities that Sure Start children’s centres are a priority. Indeed, some of her colleagues complained that I had placed a moral ring fence—
Mr Speaker: Order. Can I just point out that we have a lot to get through? We must press on.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 613
Faith Schools
11. Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the funding of faith schools; and if he will make a statement. [74428]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): No separate assessment has been made of faith school funding. The only distinction in funding between faith schools and other maintained schools and academies is in the contribution to capital-funded projects made by voluntary-aided schools.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating the al-Karam Muslim school in Eaton in my constituency on its extraordinary achievement. Will he be kind enough to give me an idea of what we might do further to help not just that school, but the Everyday Champions school in Newark?
Tim Loughton: I am delighted to pass on my good wishes to those schools that have done well in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It contains no fewer than 17 schools with a religious character which have done well. I am aware that the Everyday Champions organisation applied for a free school but was unsuccessful, and I think that he has been copied in on the reasons why, but we will continue to encourage those faith schools that offer a particularly excellent education for the many children whom they now look after.
Music
12. Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): What plans he has for the future of music education in schools. [74429]
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We will shortly publish a national plan for music education, which will reform the delivery and funding of music education. It will ensure that pupils have opportunities to learn an instrument, to sing and to play in ensembles.
Valerie Vaz: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will be aware of Plato’s theory of education, which says that musical training is one of the most important instruments in education. Is he aware also of the Institute of Education research which found that one in nine primary schools does not have a piano? Will he take steps to ensure that all primary schools have a musical co-ordinator and, more importantly, a piano?
Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points. She is absolutely right that the wider provision not just of trained music teachers, but of musical instruments will ensure not just that more children have access to the greatest of all art forms, but that more children as a result do better in every other subject.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con):
I am sure the Secretary of State is aware of the excellent Blackpool Music Service, which has won national awards for bringing music provision to children who would otherwise not be able to afford it. As we debate the role of local education authorities alongside the new aims of
17 Oct 2011 : Column 614
academies, does he not agree that such co-ordination is a role that local authorities can still play, adding value to the work of all schools in their local area?
Michael Gove: That is a typically acute point by my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. In many cases, though not all, county music services do a superb job. One of the reforms that will be central to our national music plan is a way of making sure that the best county music services can do more while those that are weaker can have the service they provide supplanted by someone who is in a better position to raise standards for all children.
British Sign Language
13. Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): What his policy is on the inclusion of British sign language as a modern foreign language option at GCSE. [74430]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): I understand that an awarding organisation is considering whether to develop and pilot a GCSE in British sign language. It will be for the independent regulator, Ofqual, to consider whether any such qualification meets the appropriate criteria for being recognised as a foreign language GCSE.
Tessa Munt: I thank the Minister for that answer. As he knows, I have very strong feelings about British sign language, which offers an opportunity for people of all ages to develop their vocabulary and to expand their communication skills, and particularly for young people to develop speech and language skills, including their comprehension. It breaks down barriers for everybody, including those with significant learning disabilities. Action on Hearing Loss runs a campaign called “Read my lips”, which seeks recognition for lip-reading as an essential skill, not a leisure skill, as it is classified at the moment, and proposes that classes should be free for those with hearing loss and those who have family members—
Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Lady ask the question?
Tessa Munt: I will indeed, Sir. Will the Minister please update me on progress on reclassifying lip-reading as an essential skill?
Mr Hayes: The hon. Lady has a long-standing interest in this subject, as I do, given my own hearing loss and my long-standing similar interest in disability issues more generally. I see British sign language as a bridge to learning and a key aid to communication, and I entirely agree that we need to look at ways to support it and to ensure that people old and young can learn to sign. There is an issue about whether we treat it in the way that the hon. Lady suggests, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss this and see whether we can take it further.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab):
Some deaf children have been successful in learning foreign languages, but while deaf children are behind all children as an average, they do particularly poorly in languages. Given that,
17 Oct 2011 : Column 615
and with the Government wanting foreign languages to play a greater part, what plans do they have to ensure that deaf children do not fall further behind?
Mr Hayes: I have already had meetings with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People on the subject of signing, and, as I said, I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on the subject. However, I am not absolutely sure that treating BSL as a foreign language, as the original question suggested, is the best way forward. BSL is a preferred language of many deaf people in the UK, rather than a language of a different nation or culture. Some good qualifications are already in place, but I take the point that we need to examine whether they are effective in achieving the kind of results for deaf children that they deserve so that they can fulfil their potential.
Schools and Employers
14. Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): What steps he is taking to encourage links between schools and employers; and if he will make a statement. [74432]
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): Increasing schools’ autonomy is central to our mission. Of course the Government take business very seriously and understand the importance of the relationship between business and education. It is therefore absolutely right that local businesses cement links with schools. It is not for me to dictate what those links should be; that will depend on local circumstances. Organisations such as the chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, in which my hon. Friend plays a distinguished part, are best placed to make those judgments.
Mr Jones: I thank the Minister for his response. Over the past seven years, we have seen a trend of rising youth unemployment, and we are now also starting to see a real skills gap in engineering and manufacturing. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are truly to rebalance our economy and reduce youth unemployment, we must, in partnership with our world-class manufacturing companies, put in place a strategy to energise and promote the future of engineering and manufacturing within our schools?
Mr Hayes: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a point that is both salient and persuasive. The Government need no persuading, however, that STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—matters. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke earlier of our work with university technical colleges, which were originally devised by Rab Butler, a great Education Secretary, and driven by the noble Lord Baker, who was another. We have delivering that policy a third great Education Secretary in the making, who is sitting next to me.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): Was any assessment undertaken of the approach taken by business education partnerships? In my area, the Humber, we had an excellent business education partnership, and most of the business leaders who sat on it are distraught that its funding was withdrawn without any notice at all.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 616
Mr Hayes: As I said, such things are best dealt with locally, but make no mistake: this Government regard skills as at the top of the political agenda. If we are to equip businesses with what they need and allow people to fulfil their potential, we must, once and for all, give those with practical, technical tastes and talents their place in the sun, their chance of glittering prizes.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I confirm for my hon. Friend that university technical colleges are providing a fantastic platform for bringing employers and schools together. Reading’s new UTC is supported by Microsoft, BT and many other leading companies. Considering that so many important companies are stepping up to these important responsibilities, is he not disappointed by the reaction of the teaching unions and some Labour Members?
Mr Hayes: I should declare an interest as an associate member of a teaching union.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Which one?
Mr Hayes: The Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It is absolutely essential that teachers, businesses and learners combine to best effect to ensure that we equip our young people, and our country, with the skills that they need to prosper.
Mr Speaker: We are all greatly enlightened by the Minister of State’s observations.
IT (Primary Schoolchildren)
15. Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): What steps he plans to take to promote the involvement of primary schoolchildren in IT and internet-related activities. [74433]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): Information and communications technology in the national curriculum will be considered as part of the national curriculum review. The effective use of technology can support good teaching and raise educational standards, but primary schools are best placed to make decisions on how to use technology to meet the needs of their pupils.
Alun Michael: But enthusiasm and encouragement are also important. With your support and encouragement, Mr Speaker, MPs across all parties have encouraged their local primary schools to engage with the “Make IT happy” competition, organised by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, which I have the honour to chair. Will the Minister join me in urging schools to enter that competition, because it is good for pupils, good for Parliament and good for the early engagement of children with issues that are important to our economy?
Mr Gibb: I am happy to do so, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the initiative. Already, about 90% of primary school pupils say that teachers help them understand how to use technology. That is a great success story, and I wish his project every success.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 617
Teaching Standards
16. Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): What plans he has to improve the quality of teaching. [74434]
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): Nothing has more impact on a child’s achievement than the quality of the teaching that they receive. We are raising the bar for new teachers, supporting existing teachers to improve and making it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance among teachers who cannot meet the required standards.
Mark Menzies: I thank the Minister for his answer, but exactly how will he raise the bar to ensure that we get the best possible new entrants into the teaching profession?
Mr Gibb: We are offering strong financial incentives to the best trainees, and are consulting on issuing bursaries of up to £20,000 to the best trainees in priority subjects. We are also expanding and doubling the successful Teach First programme and introducing trips for teachers to bring the skills of service leavers into schools. We will ensure that all trainees have a good understanding of maths and English, by requiring them to take tests prior to entering initial teacher training. We are reviewing the qualified teacher status standards under the excellent chairmanship of Sally Coates, the principal of Burlington Danes academy. I could go on, Mr Speaker, but I will stop there.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Does the Minister think that lessening teachers’ employment protection and worsening their terms and conditions will improve or diminish teachers’ morale?
Mr Gibb: That is not our policy. Teachers in academies are generally paid more. What we are doing is reviewing the performance management regulations to make it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance in our schools and to bring the employment regulations in schools in line with employment practices in other professions and industries.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Does the Minister feel, as I do, that the quality of teaching is adversely affected by the recently reported high number of false complaints made by children against teachers? If so, what sort of protection can the Government give innocent teachers who are put in that situation?
Mr Gibb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. For a teacher to have an accusation made against them by a pupil, which ultimately turns out to be false, can have a devastating impact on not only their career but their private life. We are therefore determined to do all we can to protect teachers, to enable them to maintain discipline and improve behaviour in our schools. That is why the Education Bill, which is currently going through another place, has a provision giving school teachers anonymity in the reporting of such accusations in the press.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 618
In-service Training
17. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con): Whether academies are able to move in-service training days to dates outside term time. [74435]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): Academies are able to allocate time for teachers’ learning and development, including training days, at the most suitable time for the academy and its staff, including outside an academy’s published term time.
Michael Fallon: Given the inconvenience to some parents when in-service training days are simply tacked on to the half-term holiday, does my hon. Friend agree that the evolution of academies and free schools provides an opportunity to see how we can better match the training needs of teachers to the school year?
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Of course, one advantage of academies is the flexibility that they can offer in training their teaching staff. Of course, that is also an advantage for the pupils and their parents, who may have to make arrangements for child care when training days are taken during term time. That flexibility is available to academies, and I hope that it will benefit everybody.
Topical Questions
T1. [74444] Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): I was delighted that last Friday, Her Majesty’s new chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was appointed. I am confident that under his leadership, Ofsted will continue to do its fantastic work in driving up standards in state education. May I take this opportunity to pay an appropriate debt of gratitude to his two predecessors, his acting predecessor Miriam Rosen and, of course, Christine Gilbert, who did such a distinguished job as Her Majesty’s chief inspector?
Mr Carswell: Many mums and dads in my part of Essex would like to see local free schools, but for all their enthusiasm there are still too many obstacles and obstructions. What will the Government do to make it easier to establish free schools? Will they perhaps allow specialist charities and businesses to do so? May I bring a delegation of mums and dads to discuss with officials how it can be done?
Michael Gove: We will do everything possible to support the establishment of free schools, but there is one barrier that I can do nothing about—the confusion on the Labour party Benches. Just last Friday, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said that he would back the setting up of free schools, but yesterday he said on Sky television that the Labour party opposed the free schools policy. That U-turn within 72 hours leaves parents and teachers in a quandary, which is why so many of them are saying, “Thank heavens it’s a coalition Government in power rather than Labour!”
17 Oct 2011 : Column 619
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): May I first join the Secretary of State in welcoming the appointment of Sir Michael Wilshaw, who has a fine track record, and in thanking Miriam Rosen and Christine Gilbert for their service?
May I take the Secretary of State back to my earlier exchange with the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)? I welcome the increase in the number of young people taking history, geography and modern foreign languages, but schools are getting very mixed messages about the E-bac. Will he answer the question that I put to his colleague? Will he look to create a technical baccalaureate, as proposed by many including his noble Friend Lord Baker? If he does not, the UTCs and others will simply be frozen out of the improvements to education that he says he wants to deliver.
Michael Gove: It is a curious type of freezing out that has seen the number of UTCs increase by 800% as a result of the changes that we have made. If we are going to talk about freezing out and frostiness, what about the cold shoulder that the hon. Gentleman is turning to the parents and teachers who want to set up free schools everywhere? If we are talking about a chilling effect, what about the chilling effect on all those who believe in education reform, who will have seen his brave efforts to drag the Labour party into the 21st century, only to see him dragged back within 72 hours? We detect the cold and pulsate hand of his leader dragging him back from a posture of reform to one of reaction.
T2. [74445] Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): Recently, at the WorldSkills competition in London, Britain came fifth out of 49 countries that were entered, above Germany, France and the USA. However, we still face a skills gap, and in some areas of the country, such as the area just north of Wolverhampton where there are new developments involving, for example, Jaguar and Land Rover, worries are high that jobs will not go to local graduates. What measures are in place to ensure that school leavers are in a position to fulfil the needs of business and manufacturing in the 21st century?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): My hon. Friend is absolutely right that WorldSkills was a triumph. In an event involving 1,000 competitors from 52 countries and more than 40 skills, Britain achieved its best ever result. It is our commitment to excellence and our belief in rigour that combines our approach to academic learning and vocational learning. Whether it is Pliny or plumbing, or Plutarch or plastering, we believe in excellence, excellence, excellence.
T6. [74449] Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Labour Members believe that the E-bac might be for some, but certainly not for all. Some people are better suited to more vocational courses rather than purely academic routes. Why does the Secretary of State not believe in parity of esteem?
Michael Gove:
I certainly do believe in parity of esteem. In particular, I think that we should esteem working-class students in the same way that we esteem those from other backgrounds. The fact that under the previous Government working-class students were too
17 Oct 2011 : Column 620
often denied the opportunity to study the academic subjects that would lead them to university is a contributory factor in the freezing of social mobility over the course of the past 15 years. A fatal flaw in this country’s approach to education is that we automatically assume that just because children come from poorer backgrounds, they cannot succeed academically. At last, under this coalition Government, that unhappy prejudice is being uprooted from the education system.
T4. [74447] Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend send a message to Enfield council—two days ago, such a message would have been endorsed by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—which has a policy of opposing free schools despite a shortage of primary school places, and which decided last week to sell off the old town hall rather than offer it up for a free school?
Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Just last Thursday, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby visited an outstanding free school in Enfield. I would have hoped that that would have been a powerful signal to the reactionary elements within the Enfield Labour party that they should support education reform in the interests of the poorest rather than stand against it. However, I am afraid that his words on Sky television will have given heart to those reactionary elements rather than put them in their place. He has a direct responsibility to reassure reformers that he is on their side.
Mr Speaker: Order. That is quite enough. Could I just remind the Secretary of State—I know that he tends to make this mistake—that he is not today at the Oxford Union making a speech, but answering questions in the Chamber of the House of Commons? He does so brilliantly, but from now on he will do so more briefly. That is the end of it.
T9. [74452] Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): Charities play an increasingly important role in education—indeed, the Secretary of State has been involved in a variety of charities. Can he assure the House that he took all appropriate steps to ensure that Atlantic Bridge did not abuse its charitable status?
Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was proud to play my part in ensuring that the relationship between this country and the United States of America was strengthened, and I will always stand in favour of the Atlantic alliance. As a member of the advisory board of Atlantic Bridge, I took the opportunity, as I will on all platforms, to say that I believe—
Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. He will answer questions on matters for which he is responsible, not on other matters. I have made the position clear, and no dilation from the Secretary of State is required.
T5. [74448]
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that so far two secondary schools in my constituency have become academies, and that a further two are applying to do so.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 621
However, one of those schools has run into problems because it runs a nursery. Rawlins college tells me that it has received unclear advice from his Department on the best way for the nursery to be constituted, which must be sorted before the college can become an academy. Will he agree to assist me in finding the most effective solution to this problem, so that Rawlins can hit its preferred conversion date of 1 November?
Michael Gove: I shall do everything in my power.
Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the Secretary of State.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab): I have been contacted by parents and teachers about the difficulties of online registration for school milk. There have been reductions in the past year of between a quarter and a third in some schools in Ashfield. Are Ministers aware of that situation, is it a national trend, and what can they do about it?
Michael Gove: I am now aware of that situation. I do not know whether it is a national trend. Of course, every child deserves the opportunity to have school milk.
T7. [74450] Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con): In light of the recent UK adoption rate figures, will my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to continue to encourage prospective adopting parents to come forward to be assessed? Those in Erewash and throughout the UK could provide much-needed homes for looked-after children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and she knows that the Government are absolutely committed to improving the lot of looked-after children in this country and getting more of those for whom it is appropriate into adoption. We need to get the message across loud and clear that people who want to do the noble deed of coming forward and showing an interest in adoption should be welcomed with open arms at the town hall door and given every encouragement, rather than the “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” attitude that has prevailed in too many places up to now. We will make that change.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Further to that question, will the Minister update the House on plans to introduce savings accounts for looked-after children?
Tim Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman and I had a conversation on this matter recently when I was on my way from Leeds airport, and I hope to be able to update the House on it shortly, because we are committed to the scheme. Sorting out the practical details has been a complete nightmare, but we are now close to doing so and I hope that he will welcome the good news that will be coming soon.
T8. [74451]
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con):
I am sure that the Education team will be delighted to hear that the highly acclaimed Manor Church of England school in my constituency has experienced a smooth transition to academy status. Now, however, it is moving into its second year as an academy, and it has
17 Oct 2011 : Column 622
raised concerns about the delayed allocation of its annual budget. Is the Secretary of State aware of these issues, and will he be addressing them before the next round of budget allocations?
Michael Gove: I am very aware of these issues, and that is one of the reasons we are consulting on replacing the system of funding that we inherited from the previous Government.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): Many 16 to 18-year-olds choose to study at a college rather than in a school sixth form, and they are therefore not eligible for free school meals. How and when are the Government going to address that anomaly?
Michael Gove: I am familiar with that anomaly; it is a situation we inherited from the previous Government. We are seeking to ensure that funding is equalised between colleges and school sixth forms.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Following the very popular announcement that there is to be a university technical college on the Southwark college site in Bermondsey, may I encourage the Secretary of State to complete the set by allowing a college, a UTC and a secondary school all to be on the same campus, given the breadth of experience that many youngsters in an inner-city seat such as mine are really looking forward to?
Michael Gove: I will do everything I can. How lucky Southwark is to have such an outstanding MP, and what a pity it is that the local authority has taken a grudging response to new school provision.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): Ministers will have been horrified to see that the UK Border Agency is still routinely detaining children, and that it does not know where, for how long or how many there are. Will the Minister responsible for safeguarding call on her colleagues urgently to investigate this matter, not only to meet the coalition’s pledge but to ensure that the Government whom she represents are not actively putting children at risk?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): The hon. Lady will be aware that we have a commitment to abolish detention—[Hon. Members: “By last Christmas.”] We have already set up the panel, and that is now beginning. I am aware of the article that the hon. Lady mentioned, and the reports that have appeared in the press. This is a matter of concern to me as well.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): In Calderdale, 15% of all schools have now converted to academy status, but that is unique in our region, particularly because of the disinformation that is being peddled on the subject. Will the Secretary of State consider increasing the amount of communication to schools on conversion to academy status to help to dispel many of the myths that are being peddled?
Michael Gove:
I will certainly do everything in my power. We could of course be helped by the Labour party, and not least by the hon. Member for Liverpool,
17 Oct 2011 : Column 623
West Derby, who says that he is “relaxed” about an enormous expansion of academies. Let us hope that the next time he has an opportunity to share his views with us, he will be enthused about this.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): I was very pleased that the Government continued the capital funding for myplace, and the Fuse has now opened in my constituency, but we are very concerned about revenue funding to ensure that we are not simply left with a beautiful empty building. Can the Government offer any advice or assistance that would help to make a difference to some of the most disadvantaged young people in my community?
Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady is right to highlight myplace, and I was delighted that we were able to find £124 million for the building of some 63 myplace centres. I want them to be the hub of communities up and down the country. If there are particular problems with her myplace, she should speak to the Big Lottery Fund, which manages the scheme on our behalf. We will be putting forward our policy in “Positive for Youth” later in the autumn, which will set out how we can bring in new, mixed sources of revenue that I hope will help myplace centres and other youth provision.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): My right hon. Friend will be aware that his Department has received a bid from Patchway community college in my constituency for investment under the Government’s priority schools building programme. Given that the school was overlooked by the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, will he look seriously at Patchway’s deserving bid? I must tell the House that one of my children still goes to that school.
Michael Gove: A beautifully tailored bid from my hon. Friend! We will look as favourably as we can on all schools that were overlooked by the previous Government’s BSF programme.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): The Association of Colleges has surveyed its members and found a fall in recruitment to colleges this autumn. What steps is the Secretary of State putting in place to monitor and evaluate the effect on student recruitment, retention and achievement of his decision to scrap the education maintenance allowance?
Michael Gove:
I was interested to look at the Association of Colleges survey, which showed that an equal number of colleges were, in fact, attracting more students. The truth is that there is increased competition among colleges to attract students, with strong colleges, like the one of which the hon. Gentleman used to be the principal,
17 Oct 2011 : Column 624
doing a fantastic job, but with weaker colleges—of which, sadly, there are still one or two—having to up their game.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): Last week, the governing body of the historic Prince Henry grammar school, which is a comprehensive school in Otley, voted by 10 to nine to become an academy, although one governor, who had made it clear that she was going to vote against it, was away. Regardless of that decision, does the Secretary of State understand the concern that such an important decision has been taken on such a close vote?
Michael Gove: When schools become academies, it is important that governors are clear about the advantages and the issues. It is always difficult, when the vote is narrow, to discern what any individual who was not there, having heard all the arguments, might have done when the decision was taken. I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of this case with my hon. Friend. If the school does become an academy, I am sure it will flourish as one, but if it chooses to keep its current status, I am sure it will benefit as well.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): How many children do not have access to a breakfast club or an after-school club place because of the removal of extended school funding?
Tim Loughton: I was delighted to attend in Leeds recently the Magic Breakfast charity, which has done fantastic work. It is a social enterprise that has worked its brilliant magic on schools up and down the country to make sure that kids get a healthy breakfast. We want to see more of that through organisations such as Magic Breakfast. I would hope that the hon. Lady supported such organisations.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con): There is a strong feeling in Bromley, which is in the vanguard of the academies movement, that the proposed formula for the top-slicing of LACSEG—local authority central spend equivalent grant—unfairly penalises very efficient local authorities. Will the Secretary of State agree to a meeting to discuss this concern?
Michael Gove: Strong feelings in Bromley always weigh with me. It is the case that the approach to LACSEG needs reform, and we are consulting on it. I expect that, as ever, voices from Bromley will be among the most persuasive.
Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for those brilliant and brief replies over the last few minutes, which meant that I was able to accommodate more colleagues than would otherwise have been possible.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 625
Speaker’s Statement
3.32 pm
Mr Speaker: I have a statement to make. Following it, I will not take questions or points of order.
In July, I instituted an independent review of security arrangements, following the attack on Rupert Murdoch while he was a witness before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have now received a report on the matter and have had an opportunity to consider its findings.
The review found that at the time of the attack none of the security staff in the room was in a position to be able to reach the assailant before he got to Mr Murdoch. Those present commented upon the chaotic nature of scenes inside and outside the Committee Room following the incident. The inadequate security in the room was the result of a serious failure of planning for this event, based upon the wrong assessment of risk. These and other deficiencies should have been recognised and rectified in advance. They were not.
Public access to Committee sessions is of fundamental importance and must be protected. Not only is it a precious freedom, but it provides a valuable opportunity for engagement between this House and the people it serves. Equally important is our duty to protect the personal safety of witnesses appearing before our Committees and to ensure the effective operation of these Committees. Clearly, the personal safety of all involved—witnesses, Members, staff and the public—must be the guiding principle for those charged with security.
The review makes a number of practical recommendations. All of those relating only to this House I have accepted in full, and all of them either have been, or are in the process of being, implemented. In future, risk assessments for the most high-risk events will be reviewed, robustly scrutinised and formally approved by the most senior security official in the House. There will be enhanced physical security arrangements in Committee Rooms for high-risk events, and a regime has already begun to prevent visitors from bringing bags into a meeting room for such an event.
There is a recommendation that the establishment of a post of director of security be reconsidered. I will begin discussions—including with my counterpart in the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker—about whether that merits further attention, and could complement existing roles.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 626
I have placed copies of the recommendations, and of an update on progress in giving effect to them, in the Library, the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
The safety of those participating in, or visiting, public Committee hearings must not be compromised, and I will do everything I can to ensure that it is not.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: As I have just explained, I am not taking points of order on this matter.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is on a different subject.
Mr Speaker: I have another statement to make. If Members will hold their horses, they will have their opportunity.
I wish to tell the House about implementation of the resolutions agreed on Thursday 13 October on electronic devices and e-tabling of questions for written answer.
The House agreed to allow the use of hand-held electronic devices, but not laptops, in the Chamber,
“provided that they are silent and used in a way that does not impair decorum”,
and to allow Members to refer to such devices in making speeches
“in place of paper speaking notes”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 555.]
The occupants of the Chair will seek to enforce the resolution as from today, but in practice it is up to individual Members to give effect to the will of the House by complying with the resolution. I therefore ask colleagues for their co-operation in this matter. Implementation of the resolution in Committees is a matter for the Liaison Committee and the Panel of Chairs.
The House agreed to an experimental regime for a daily ration of five e-tabled questions for written answer and a 6.30 pm deadline for tabling such questions. This will have effect from the rise of the House on Friday 21 October, for an experimental period of three months. A detailed memorandum on its operation is available in the Table Office, it will be printed in the Order Paper, and it will be accessible on the intranet. A message will also be sent to all Members who are signed up for e-tabling. The Table Office will of course be happy to give further advice on the new experimental regime.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 627
Points of Order
3.37 pm
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Things have certainly moved on since last Monday, when the then Defence Secretary made a statement to the House. There has been a great deal of comment, and reports in the press, about various individuals and United States-based companies that were apparently involved with the individual who described himself at the time as the adviser to the Defence Secretary.
In view of the undoubtedly serious matters and allegations involving the Ministry of Defence, will the House have an opportunity to hear a statement? We heard a statement last Monday, but we have not heard one since, and these are very serious allegations.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: I will take it, and then respond to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).
Paul Flynn: During business questions last week, the House was reminded of the promise the present Prime Minister made shortly before the election that the most serious threat to the reputation of the House—after MPs’ expenses—was the possibility of abuse of our procedures by big corporate lobbyists. Sadly, the Government have taken no action to ensure that some control is exercised over the affairs of lobbyists, and there is now abundant evidence that that is an urgent priority.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Have Ministers informed you that they will come to the House to make a statement on that report before releasing it to the media?
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Lady’s point of order is on an unrelated matter.
Mr Speaker: I am correct in my surmise. We shall therefore come on to the hon. Lady’s point of order shortly—we will save her up. First, I shall respond to the earlier point of order and the subsequent comments on it.
The short answer to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, is
17 Oct 2011 : Column 628
no: I have not received any such notification. My response to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is that I have, of course, noted what he has told me and the House this afternoon, but, as he will know, responsibility for deciding to make statements, and then for making them, lies with Ministers. It is a matter of calculation or good fortune that as the hon. Gentleman was raising his point of order with me he was in the presence of the Leader of the House, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. The comments that have been made will therefore have been heard, and I feel sure that if as a result of the publication of documents, or because decisions have been reached, a Minister wishes to make a statement, he or she will do so. Finally, I note what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has said, and others will also have done so.
Lisa Nandy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following last week’s Westminster Hall debate on disabled access to public transport, I seek your advice on the treatment of visitors in wheelchairs to this place. This weekend, I received a number of complaints from people who missed the start of the debate because, despite stating their destination very clearly on arrival, they were directed to another Committee Room where a lobby meeting held by employees of Remploy was taking place. They, and others, were unable to fit into Westminster Hall. The majority of the chairs had not been removed because if they had been left in the corridor it might have disrupted a later debate. Our office gave notice that some visitors in wheelchairs were expected, but it does not seem right that people with disabilities should be required to give notice to come to this place when others are not. I have the greatest respect for the staff in this House and I do not attribute responsibility to any individual, but it seems that we have, collectively on this occasion, fallen far short of the standards that the 12 million people in this country with disabilities should be able to expect from their elected representatives. I therefore ask that you urgently investigate this matter, Mr Speaker, and ensure that such situations never arise again.
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for providing me with notice of her intended point of order, I am grateful to her for what she said and I am grateful for the manner in which she said it. I attach the greatest importance to all our proceedings being accessible to everyone, without discrimination. The hon. Lady relates to me a sequence of events with which until a short while ago I was entirely unfamiliar. The best I can say to her and the House is that I will inquire into the matters she raises, reporting back as necessary to her and the House. I hope that is helpful.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 629
Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund
3.43 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
That this House reasserts its view that the salaries, pensions and expenses scheme for hon. Members ought to be determined independently of this House; accordingly invites the Leader of the House to make an order commencing those provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which transfer responsibility for the pensions of hon. Members to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the Final Report of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness; believes that IPSA should introduce, by 2015, a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service pension schemes; recognises the case for an increase in pension contributions made in Lord Hutton’s interim report; and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.
Mr Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).
Sir George Young: Should the House agree to this motion, we will have completed the transition to a wholly independent system for setting and administering MPs’ remuneration. The first and most pressing task was to establish a transparent new expenses scheme in time for the beginning of this Parliament. That was achieved, albeit not without some issues about the operation of the scheme, which have been aired on other occasions. Since May this year, responsibility for setting MPs’ pay has also rested with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority; under the relevant legislation, MPs will not vote on their own pay again. Today’s debate on MPs’ pensions represents the final piece of the jigsaw. Once the powers in relation to pensions have been transferred to IPSA, it will have responsibility for looking in the round at the whole remuneration package for Members of Parliament.
The motion before us should not come as a surprise to the House.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): The right hon. Gentleman says this is the last piece of the IPSA jigsaw. Is he satisfied that all the other pieces of the jigsaw are perfectly placed?
Sir George Young: I know that my hon. Friend is not so satisfied. He will know that a Committee of the House is looking into the legislation and that there is a committee that liaises between this House and IPSA. I think that the latter is aware of his views on the improvements that need to be made to the scheme. This motion relates not to the allowances that, I believe, are his preoccupation but to pensions.
Before we rose for the summer recess, I set out the Government’s approach to hon. Members’ pensions in a written ministerial statement, and I also published the motion we are debating. Should the House agree to support the motion, we will have protected the principle that MPs’ remuneration should be independently assessed and determined and demonstrated to our constituents
17 Oct 2011 : Column 630
that we understand that Parliament must not be insulated from the fiscal circumstances affecting the rest of the country.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The Leader of the House said that we will never vote again on these matters. Does that mean that the House will not vote the money needed to pay these salaries? What will be done about the overall budget for the costs of government and Parliament, which I thought was of interest to the Government?
Sir George Young: The position is exactly as I said: under legislation passed by the House we will not vote on our own pay, which IPSA will determine independently. It will have the authority to do that and, without primary legislation, which the House would have to agree, its determination will be the last word.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): May we get this clear? Some of us will be rather surprised to hear that we will never again vote on our salaries, because Ministers have told us that before but we have always been persuaded to vote again on them.
Sir George Young: Primary legislation precludes that. Were the Government to be minded to change that, they would have to persuade the House to reintroduce primary legislation overturning the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which deals with IPSA, and the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which have taken the matter out of our control, so there is no longer a parallel with the previous position.
Mr Redwood: I understand the narrow point about rates of pay, but my question is rather different: are the coalition Government still interested in the overall costs of Parliament and of MPs? Will we vote through the money, or will somebody else do that?
Sir George Young: It would be quite wrong to say that, in principle, our pay should be determined by IPSA but to try, by the back door, to circumscribe that decision by voting down the money it had determined should be paid as our salaries. That would not be an independent determination of our salaries.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab) rose—
Sir George Young: I will give way to the chairman of the trustees.
Mr Donohoe: May I ask why the motion does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
Sir George Young: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman. The motion transfers responsibility for determining MPs’ pensions to IPSA and delivers a commitment made in the Parliamentary Standards Act and the CRAG Act, which I believe were passed without dissent in the previous Parliament.
Mr Donohoe:
The second part of the motion does the exact opposite. The Leader of the House is trying to suggest that the independent IPSA should take on board what he proposes in the motion, which is that
17 Oct 2011 : Column 631
the contributions made by Members of Parliament should increase in line with those of people in the public sector.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his point. If he looks at the legislation, he will see that he and the House are statutory consultees for IPSA: if it wishes to make any changes to the scheme, it is obliged to consult the trustees, the Senior Salaries Review Body and anyone who might be affected, which includes all of us in this Chamber. We therefore have some locus in the consultation. The second part of the motion expresses a view on behalf of the House, which we are entitled to do under the legislation. It is right that Members make it clear to their constituents that they expect to be treated no differently from others in the public sector in the determination of their pension contributions.
Sir George Young: I would like to make a bit of progress before I give way.
It is accepted by Members on both sides of the House that the UK faces an unsustainable structural deficit that must be brought down. The Government have been forced, as any Government would be, to take difficult decisions across the public sector that have consequences for hon. Members. In March, the House agreed that Members’ salaries should be frozen this year in line with the two-year pay freeze on public sector workers earning more than £21,000. After that debate, I commenced the relevant parts of the CRAG Act, formally transferring power to IPSA. I am sure that the chairman of the trustees and the House will recognise the comparison of that procedure and the one we are debating this afternoon—we are transferring responsibility while at the same time expressing a view.
Before the election, all parties publicly agreed that the current final salary terms of the parliamentary pension scheme should be brought to an end. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes will not be made retrospectively, nor will they have an impact on past benefits—an assurance that is as important to Members of the House as it is to those in other public sector schemes.
Looking ahead to a future scheme, the coalition agreement committed us to consult IPSA on moving from the final salary arrangements. In June last year, the Government established the independent public service pensions commission, chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness, to make recommendations on how to put public service pensions on a sustainable footing. Although the Hutton report did not include hon. Members within its scope of inquiry, it was immediately apparent that reform of the parliamentary pension scheme must be tackled in the light of the commission’s findings and their subsequent application to other public service schemes. I do not believe that there is any case for our scheme being treated differently from other public service schemes. Indeed, there would be justifiable disbelief if it were.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con):
I accept that there is much to be said about our needing to set the public an example, particularly given the reforms we are trying to make to public sector
17 Oct 2011 : Column 632
schemes, but unlike many public sector schemes the parliamentary scheme is—or is near to being—fully funded and the contributions are rather larger. Will the Leader of the House go into more detail on the nature of the parliamentary scheme, which is slightly misunderstood in much of the press coverage?
Sir George Young: The contributions for those subscribing at one fortieth are indeed higher than those for many elsewhere in the public sector, but so are the benefits. The Exchequer contribution, at some 28%, is also substantially higher than for other public sector schemes. One needs to consider it in the round when one comes to a judgment about the appropriate treatment of the scheme.
Today’s motion supports the approach to public service pension reform set out in the final report of the independent public service pensions commission.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Some of us strongly support the principle behind my right hon. Friend’s motion, but our dilemma is that once again IPSA is acting as administrator and as the body that sets the rates—an arrangement that one does not often find anywhere else. If the committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) finds that there should be some division between the administration of our pay, pensions, allowances and so on and the setting of their rates, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the motion, if passed, will not be the final word on the matter?
Sir George Young: The administration will be performed by the trustees; there is no change in that. The contribution rates and ultimately the shape of the scheme will be determined by IPSA, which will set the rules. The trustees will continue to administer the scheme, with some slight change in their membership to reflect IPSA’s new involvement.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Leader of the House give way?
Sir George Young: If I may, I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggests that the parts of the motion relating to the Hutton review should be removed. Its implication is that our scheme should not be treated the same as other public sector schemes, and I do not think our constituents would welcome such an interpretation.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): On what basis does my right hon. Friend think that is a fair assessment of my amendment, which seeks to put in the motion the fact that IPSA is independent and should reach its own judgment? That is the effect of my amendment and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend seeks to misrepresent its purpose.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend’s amendment would delete the following words:
“and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”
17 Oct 2011 : Column 633
It is perfectly legitimate to say that one can deduce that he does not want Members’ pension schemes to reflect other public service schemes.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.
“IPSA should introduce…a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings”
by 2015. That is a similar timetable to that for the rest of the public service. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes should neither be retrospectively made nor have an impact on past benefits.
Mr Love: In his final report, Lord Hutton spoke warmly about the continuation of defined benefit schemes in the public sector. Is the Leader of the House fully aware of that, and does he support that recommendation?
Sir George Young: Indeed; the Government welcomed Lord Hutton’s report, including the interim report, the final report and the budget. He made it clear that he wanted to retain a defined benefit scheme, and on that basis negotiations are continuing. IPSA will be mindful of that recommendation by Hutton—and, indeed, of the hon. Gentleman’s views.
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act already provides full protection for pension benefits already earned, including a link to the salary on leaving the scheme, so any new scheme would apply only to future service. Furthermore, the legislation includes comprehensive provisions requiring IPSA to consult widely before making any changes to parliamentary pensions.
Sir George Young: I think I had better give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).
Mr Anderson: I was pleased to sign amendment (a), but I want to make it clear that my case is very different from what the Leader of the House described. I believe that we are in exactly the same boat as every other public sector worker in the country and that we should be treated the same. We should be allowed, with our trustees, to negotiate with IPSA as local government pension schemes are being negotiated with their trustees and their employers. It should not be the Government who set the standard for the pensions—it should be the pension schemes.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that paragraph 15 of schedule 6 to the CRAG Act states:
“Before making a scheme under paragraph 12 the IPSA must consult…the trustees of the Fund,”
so there is that opportunity for dialogue.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab):
I should make it clear that I will support the motion, but something is causing alarm bells to ring. The Leader of the House
17 Oct 2011 : Column 634
rightly says that the motion means that the parliamentary scheme will not be better than those for other public sector workers, but will he make it quite clear that nothing in the motion has any implications for the negotiations that are taking place with other public sector schemes?
Sir George Young: The motion is purely declaratory, so the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The second half of it expresses a view, on behalf of the House, that we believe we should be treated no better or worse than those in other public sector schemes. It is important that our constituents know that that is our view and that we do not expect to be treated any differently from others in the public sector.
A further development is the increase in pension contribution rates for public service schemes, as already announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The case for public service employees to pay more into their pensions and therefore reduce the burden on the taxpayer was made clearly in Lord Hutton’s interim report, which was published last autumn. The report states:
“In the short term, however, I consider there is also a strong case for looking at some increase in pension contributions for public service employees, to better meet the real costs of providing these pensions, the value of which has risen in recent years with most of these extra costs falling to taxpayers”.
The subsequent statement made by the Chief Secretary made it clear that each scheme would be required to find savings equivalent to a 3.2 percentage point increase, phased in over three years, with scheme-specific discussions to make proposals on how the savings were to be achieved.
If the House accepts the principle that hon. Members should not be out of step with changes that affect other public service schemes, we should also accept that our contributions should rise at the same time. I can therefore confirm that the Government propose to increase contributions to the ministerial scheme, with increases being applied from 1 April next year on a staged basis, and we will consult on that proposal as required by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.
Finally, I shall end where I began: the most important development of which account needs to be taken is the acceptance that MPs’ remuneration should be assessed, determined and administered independently.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there might be concerns over IPSA’s role, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good and that this debate is long overdue? We must all look our public sector constituents in the face every day and justify changing their pensions schemes.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support and for the views she expresses.
There were constraints on IPSA taking over absolutely everything right at the beginning of this Parliament. The priority was allowances, so that was its first commitment, followed by pay. As I have said, this is the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle. We will have then passed over responsibility for the total package by 1 April next year.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 635
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): Let me make it clear that I support the motion and the thinking that lies behind it, but what will be the role of the trustees between now and 2015, and what will it be after 2015? Will they have any fiduciary responsibility for the new scheme, or will their responsibility be limited to the current scheme?
Sir George Young: The trustees will continue to administer the scheme. The chairman of the trustees might want to catch your eye, Mr Speaker. Under our changes, the rules that govern the scheme will no longer be made by the Government or the House; they will be made independently by IPSA. After the process of transfer on 1 April next year, the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees until such time as IPSA makes any change. If it wants to make changes, it must consult the trustees. The motion indicates that the first change should be an increase in the contribution rate. It then suggests that, along with other public sector schemes, a new scheme, perhaps moving from final salary, should be introduced by 2015, but the scheme will continue to be administered by the trustees, and I pay tribute to the work they do.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my understanding that the arrangements being put in place for the trustees, some of which come from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, are in line with best practice for other pension schemes?
Sir George Young: Yes; I believe that to be so. There has been no representation on the issue the hon. Lady raises. There are some changes in the composition of the trustees to reflect IPSA’s responsibility, as part of the 2010 Act.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I propose to conclude.
Independence is a crucial part of the process of restoring trust in Parliament. Any decision to defer the transfer to independence would result in MPs continuing to determine their own remuneration, which the House has firmly rejected. It is not incompatible—this goes back to some of our discussions during the debate—to argue that responsibility for our pensions should be made independent and, by agreeing to the motion today, to send a strong signal about the direction we feel the scheme should take in the light of the application of the Hutton recommendations to other public service schemes.
Subject to today’s debate, I will move as quickly as possible to commence the relevant sections of the CRAG Act, transferring all responsibility for MPs’ pensions to IPSA. Once responsibility for MPs’ pensions has been handed to IPSA, the House will have finally relinquished the power to set the terms of its own remuneration. I hope that that will represent a significant further step in drawing a line under the problems of the past and in helping to rebuild public confidence. I commend the motion to the House.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 636
4.4 pm
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): As the Leader of the House says, the motion seeks to deal with some unfinished business from the previous Parliament. The order that we are debating is necessary to commence the provisions of section 40 and schedule 6 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Those parts of the Act transfer responsibility for hon. Members’ pensions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. That legislation was passed, with all-party agreement, by the previous Government. It gained Royal Assent in April last year, just before the general election, and there was a general feeling that it was wrong for existing arrangements to be left unchanged, and that the independent determination of salaries should extend to cover pay and pensions. Having voted for the primary legislation that brings about that switch of responsibilities, we Labour Members will not oppose the motion today.
The order will change the current arrangements, under which the Leader of the House—in effect, the Government —determines MPs’ pension arrangements through regulations. Following the 2009 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the previous Government accepted in principle that the independent regulator should be given statutory responsibility for MPs’ pay and pensions. While that change was being legislated for, there was, quite properly, input from the trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, which ensured that Members’ accrued rights had protection consistent with that provided to members of other occupational pension schemes. There was also agreement to amendments that ensured that the parliamentary contributory pension fund would continue to be a trustee-based scheme with appropriate member representation, and that required IPSA to obtain trustees’ consent before making changes in the administration of the scheme.
Bob Russell: The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the history that has led to our discussing the motion today, and to what happened in the previous Parliament. After 18 months’ experience of IPSA, does she have total confidence in that organisation’s ability to deliver our pensions?
Ms Eagle: We all have our IPSA stories, and we could probably dine out on them—with each other, and we would not claim it back. We all have stories about some of the absurdities of the scheme, especially at the beginning, when it was bedding in. There has been considerable progress, and I would like further progress to be made. There are ongoing ways in which we in this House can bring to light any remaining absurdities, and I hope that we can continue to iron them out. The principle of independent determination is right. IPSA seems as good a body as any—not withstanding the chaos at its beginning—to undertake all that responsibility. Clearly, we will have to wait and see whether my confidence will be rewarded, but I am willing to give IPSA a try. I know that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat more sceptical about the authority than I am.
Mr Winnick:
When the Leader of the House spoke, he was justifying, on behalf of the Government, what is happening to public servants across the country, including many of our constituents who are on relatively low pay, and justifying the attack on their pensions. I certainly
17 Oct 2011 : Column 637
do not agree with what is happening, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) does not.
Ms Eagle: I will come on to make a few short, in-order remarks about that aspect of our debate, but I think that most Members of the House would agree that we cannot expect to be treated differently from other public sector workers; that is a principle that most of us would share.
I was talking about appropriate Member representation on the trustee board, and the fact that IPSA, under the primary legislation and the order, will have to obtain the trustees’ consent before making changes to the administration of the scheme or the management of the scheme’s assets. Again—this is an important principle—it is entirely in keeping with the usual practice of other funded schemes. It is important that we maintain that parallel.
The order will change the legal structure of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. It will become an IPSA scheme and the power to amend it will be vested in IPSA rather than in the Government via regulations tabled by the Leader of the House, so the Leader of the House is giving away powers in the order. He seems to be quite happy about that. IPSA will acquire the duty to do all this, rather than the current Leader of the House.
The primary legislation ensures that there is a requirement, though, for IPSA to consult interested parties prior to determining benefits or contributions in future. In the primary legislation interested parties include the Speaker, the trustees of the scheme, the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Government, and in many ways the most important organisation in all pension deliberations—the Government Actuary’s Department. This is all entirely sensible, and I look forward to IPSA undertaking this work in due course.
Ms Eagle: Time will tell. If IPSA proves incapable, which I doubt, I suspect we will be back here quite quickly, dealing with the consequences. I do not anticipate that we will be in that position.
Mr Redwood: The hon. Lady is making an important contribution. May I see if I have understood what she is saying? She is saying that the order does not suspend normal trustee law, so are the trustees under a duty to give their consent or to seek to modify the scheme that IPSA brings forward? I do not know whether this is a normal scheme or not.
Ms Eagle: This will be an IPSA scheme. My understanding of it, in my reading of the primary legislation which we all supported prior to the last election, is that the trustees would have the normal legal requirements and fiduciary duties in the new scheme that trustees of other schemes have. That is my understanding. I am looking at the Leader of the House, who does not seem to be shaking his head. I assume that if the Government had a different interpretation, we would have heard about it by now.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 638
Ms Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is rising, so there may be a different interpretation. I am happy to give way.
Sir George Young: The hon. Lady is right. Paragraph 12 of schedule 6, which deals with the MPs’ pension scheme, makes it absolutely clear that it is up to IPSA to devise the scheme. There are rights of consultation, but it is an independent scheme set out by IPSA.
Ms Eagle: The question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that I was answering was about the duties of the trustees. My understanding, from reading the primary legislation, is that it does not impact in any differential way on the legal duties of trustees.
Bob Russell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. If those on the two Front Benches cannot agree on a matter of such fundamental importance as this, how on earth can we proceed?
Mr Speaker: That is definitively not a point of order. It is a point of obvious and intense frustration.
Ms Eagle: I do not want to use the word “frustrated” in the Chamber because it is rather a difficult one to use. I did not think we were disagreeing. I thought I was answering slightly more accurately the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham had made about trustees’ duties in law. The Leader of the House was answering a slightly different question about the fact that IPSA would be in charge of the scheme. Again, that does not undermine our existing understanding of trustee law and the fiduciary duties of pension trustees.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) rose—
Ms Eagle: I suspect that a lawyer is going to help us with this point of debate.
Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not know the answer, but can she, and in due course the Leader of the House, confirm the position as I expect it to be, which is that the trustees will continue to administer the scheme for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and the terms of the scheme for existing entrants but not for their accrued contributions will be set by IPSA, as indeed will the terms of the scheme for new entrants in due course? The trustees will retain the duties that I understand them to have under the relevant legislation.
Ms Eagle: That is also my understanding, although I am not a trained lawyer, unlike the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, I did a stint as Pensions Minister so have some understanding of these matters.
Other aspects of the motion have proved more controversial, if the presence of the amendment, which proposes deleting everything from line 6, is anything to go by. The wording of the motion was not decided by cross-party agreement, unlike the decision in principle to transfer responsibility for pension arrangements to
17 Oct 2011 : Column 639
IPSA. It is the Government’s wording and appears to reflect their position on public sector pensions more generally.
When Lord Hutton produced his final report on public sector pensions, it fell to me, as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, to respond to it on behalf of the Opposition. We certainly welcomed Lord Hutton’s commitment to the ongoing provision of pay-as-you-go pensions in the public sector—our own included—as a matter of principle. We also noted his view that the pensions currently provided were not—to use the phrase that is bandied about—gold-plated. It is easy to forget in the welter of propaganda about the generosity of public sector pension provision that the majority of public sector pensioners receive less than £5,600 a year. Indeed, many beneficiaries are part-time women workers who take home considerably less than that after a lifetime of service. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been guilty of using that alarmist phrase. We may have a far better and more measured debate about these important matters if they would accept what Lord Hutton has said and stop using that highly misleading and derogatory phrase about public sector pension provision.
Although Lord Hutton made the case for an increase in contributions, which is mentioned in the motion, he did not specify what it should be. He stated on page 119 of his interim report that the Government
“should have regard to protecting the low paid and to the possibility of significant increases in the number of employees opting out of schemes and should consider staging increases in contributions where appropriate, to minimise this risk.”
After the Hutton report was published, the Opposition recognised the merit of considering a move to career average benefits, rather than final salary schemes. We also recognised the pressure generated in all pension schemes—again, ours is no different—by increasing life expectancy. We had acknowledged this in government by negotiating changes to existing schemes involving increases in contributions, later retirement ages and “cap and share” arrangements. These agreements will save £1 billion a year.
Clearly, MPs’ pensions cannot be immune from such changes, and I am sure that IPSA will consider that in due course when it looks at what our future contributions and benefits should be. I am also sure that it will take into account the 1.9% increase in contributions that was agreed in 2009 as a cost-saving measure in our scheme, which takes Members’ contributions to 11.9%, 7.9% or 5.9% of salary depending on the chosen accrual rate. Likewise, I expect IPSA to take into account the fact that the average time a Member serves in the House is 15 years.
I know that some right hon. and hon. Members have suspicions about the timing of today’s motion, which is ahead of any outcome of the so-called negotiations on the pension provision for millions of public sector workers. The motion might be read in a certain way, as if it is pre-empting those negotiations, because it states that IPSA should increase Members’ pension contributions
“in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public services schemes.”
The fact is that the talks are ongoing. If they are to have any meaning whatsoever, rather than being exposed as a charade, we cannot know in advance what their results will be.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 640
Mr Mark Field: I understand some of the hon. Lady’s concerns about pre-emption, but does she not also think that at this juncture we need to take a lead on this, despite all the concerns I have—I hope that she will be able to say a little more on the relatively generous rates for parliamentary contributions, compared with others—given the difficulties we will face throughout the public pensions sphere?
Ms Eagle: It is certainly important that we are not seen to exempt ourselves from the required changes, and in this debate so far that sense has been put across by speakers on both sides of the House.
The Government have to show understanding and good will if they are to make progress on public sector pensions.
Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as ever, and the point that she makes is the real one: nothing in today’s vote in the House should be seen to pre-empt the legitimate negotiating process that is taking place with millions of public sector workers. If something should not be pre-empted in particular, it is the opportunity for the Government to say that, somehow, the motion before us gives them legitimacy in refusing to negotiate in good faith with public sector unions.
Ms Eagle: I agree. I certainly hope that the Government want to negotiate in good faith with public sector unions, and I understand that sector-specific talks have been going on. In education there were meetings last Wednesday, in health there are meetings tomorrow, and the civil service has had a few meetings, because on public sector pensions it is hard to generalise. The schemes are quite different, and the local government scheme is funded completely differently.
I understand also that a meeting is due a week today between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Cabinet Office Minister with responsibility for the central talks, and I certainly hope that all sides show flexibility so that there can be a negotiated settlement.
Mr Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that, after a lifetime working in public service, and with the expectation of a pension somewhere in the region of £5,000, many of our constituents will not accept a reduction because the House has today decided that its pension scheme is going to be different? They would be daft to be so persuaded, and they will not be.
Ms Eagle: I do not think that I was making that argument, and I hope that the negotiations will be meaningful and successful.
Mr Anderson: It is quite clear from my discussions with people in the negotiations that the Government are not negotiating seriously: they have made the point that they want a 3% reduction no matter what. All they are talking about is how they should do it, not whether they should do it, and no evidence has come forward—there are no actuarial reports and there is no cognisance—of the impact that the number of people dropping out, which could be in the hundreds of thousands, will have not just on those schemes, but on the investment potential of those schemes.
17 Oct 2011 : Column 641
Ms Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point, and I hope that the Government are listening. They have to show understanding and good will if they are to make appropriate progress on public sector pensions, especially at a time of pay freezes and the most ferocious squeeze on living standards since the great depression.
The Government should not play politics with this issue, and they cannot take our support for the motion as any endorsement of the way in which they have so far chosen to pre-empt meaningful negotiations with public sector trade unions to resolve the outstanding issues on pensions caused by the announcement of an across-the-board 3.2% increase in contributions, a shift from RPI to CPI for indexation—
Mr Bone: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr Bone: The shadow Leader of the House is making quite a powerful argument. I think that she is arguing for the amendment, because it would remove all the talk that she is particularly concerned about. Is she arguing for the amendment?
Ms Eagle: The trouble with the amendment, as the hon. Gentleman would probably admit if he sat down and thought about it, is that, the amended motion would look like we wanted our public sector pension to be treated differently from the generality of public sector pensions, and that would be an unfortunate impression. I hope that he reflects on that meaning of the amendment, to which he has put his name, and thinks better of it when it comes to the debate.
I was in the middle of saying that the outstanding issues caused by the announcement of an across-the-board 3.2% increase in contributions, a shift from RPI to CPI for indexation and speeding up the increase of retirement ages, the latter of which hits women particularly hard, are real issues that I hope the Government will address with good will in the negotiations, rather than regard as a complete fait accompli.
Mr Mark Field: Does not the hon. Lady recognise that one reason for what she would regard as this breakneck speed of reform of the age of retirement and pension arrangements is that so little was done, and not just in the past 13 years, since one could argue, given the actuarial evidence about life expectancy, that the inaction goes back well before 1997? The force of necessity has meant that the Government have had to act relatively quickly to make up for very slothful action from past Governments.
Ms Eagle: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation at all. We sometimes agree on things; we do not happen to agree on this. We made some good reforms and we saved considerable amounts of money through the negotiations that we had on public sector pensions, which came to an agreement. I am arguing that MPs’ pensions should not be exempt from changes, regardless of whether they are independently provided for and decided on.
I hope that the Government show determination and good will in having meaningful negotiations with the representatives of millions of public sector workers
17 Oct 2011 : Column 642
whom they are meeting, and that they recognise the real challenges and dangers, as Lord Hutton pointed out, of going too far and too fast on contribution rates and driving people to leave schemes at a time when there is a ferocious squeeze on living standards. There is a balance to be negotiated, and I am not at all certain that the Government are getting that balance right. If they get it wrong, many hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people will leave schemes and will then look forward to a life on means-tested benefits when they retire, which, paradoxically, will cost the country more than if we can keep them paying into schemes. There is a delicate balance that has not often been reflected in the rhetoric—the bellicose rhetoric, in some cases—from Government Members as these negotiations proceed.
I hope that there will be a new and constructive approach from the Government in the ongoing negotiations on public sector pensions. In the meantime, we will support the motion.
4.27 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): My amendment effectively separates the two distinct issues in the motion and says that the first of those—whether the issue of pensions should be referred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—is something that we should support today. Indeed, it might not have been necessary to have a debate, because the Government could have dealt with it, and done so earlier, by laying an order under subordinate legislation.
The second part of the motion was described by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House as declaratory, in that we do not expect to be treated any better or any worse than other public sector employees. If that is what it actually said, I am sure that there would not be any dispute. Certainly, I would not have tabled an amendment, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) would have been as troubled as he, too, is about this issue.
My right hon. Friend said that the essence is that we are handing over to IPSA the responsibility for looking at our whole remuneration package, including salary, allowances and pensions, and ensuring that it should be able to do that independently. As he and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, once IPSA has that responsibility, it will make proposals or issue a consultation paper and invite comments from you, Mr Speaker, from the Government, from Members of Parliament, from members of the public, and from other so-called stakeholders. The Government seem to be pre-empting that consultation process by saying, “Irrespective of whether IPSA asks us any questions, we’re going to volunteer some answers before we’ve been asked the questions.”
The hon. Member for Wallasey raised a number of key issues that she thinks IPSA should take into account when it considers parliamentary pensions. It was not an exhaustive list, but it contained a number of points that are not included in the second part of the motion. The second part of the motion therefore invites colleagues to sign up to a selective list of propositions, including that there should be an increase in contribution rates from 1 April next year
“in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”
17 Oct 2011 : Column 643
However, no standard formula affects all other public service schemes, which vary from one to another. The Government have said that any increases in contributions should be made in progressively and in stages. That is not included in the motion.
The motion states that the House