18 Jun 2012 : Column 587
18 Jun 2012 : Column 587
House of Commons
Monday 18 June 2012
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
The Secretary of State was asked—
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): Raising aspiration and closing the attainment gaps between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds lie at the heart of all our education reforms, including the academies programme, reform of the teaching of reading, and reform of the curriculum and qualifications. Only last week, many top-performing year 9 pupils visited Russell group universities as part of the new Dux awards scheme. We are also introducing in the performance tables two destination measures that show the destinations of young people after they leave school or college.
Dr Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Suffolk county council on its initiative to increase aspiration and attainment called Raising the Bar, which it launched last week. Does he think that we could go further by encouraging well-endowed universities to reach out to students, from where they gained their wealth, and encourage them to apply more—for example, in the case of Trinity college, Cambridge and Felixstowe?
Mr Gibb: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Raising the Bar conference, which took place in Ipswich last week, is a good example of a local authority asking difficult questions about why some of our young people are leaving school without the skills they need to be successful in higher education or employment. As she says, it is right that universities are proactive in dispelling the myths around higher education and attracting students from all backgrounds into universities. Many universities are doing just that, including Cambridge with its summer schools for year 12 students. However, we also need more students from state schools to apply to Oxford and Cambridge—something that I have always promoted.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 588
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): I wish the Minister would give up his obsession with the Russell group and with Oxford and Cambridge. We have over 130 fantastic universities in this country, some with many good Departments that are better than anything in Oxford and Cambridge and the Russell group. Also, could he not have mentioned, generously, the effort that the Labour Government made in raising the number of people who went to university and who before that Labour Administration had no hope at all?
Mr Gibb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have some of the best universities in the world in this country. However, what we have to do—this was not necessarily successful under the previous Labour Government—is to raise aspiration right across the board so that we do not end up in the position where too few students from state schools are going to our best universities, particularly children who are eligible for free school meals. I am sorry to mention Oxford and Cambridge again, but it is a disgrace that under his party’s Government, only 40 out of 80,000 children who were eligible for free school meals achieved Oxbridge places.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): The Minister, like all Ministers, will be very pleased that last year the number of people applying from underprivileged and poorer backgrounds was much better than the Opposition and others predicted, and in the end kept up the numbers from the year before. Can he assure me that mentoring and peer group support, with youngsters going back to the schools they attended a year or two ago, are absolutely part of the Government’s policy and that they will encourage every school to do that, so that every youngster has a mentor and every school has successful graduands going back?
Mr Gibb: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that proposal. We need more of these schemes so that more young people are encouraged to enter universities. I am concerned that too few schools are entering our young people for the best universities and persuading them to apply to those universities—that must be an objective of all us.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Black and ethnic minority students are attending higher education institutions in increasing numbers, and that is obviously very welcome, but too often they attend the less prestigious institutions and achieve less good degrees. What specific steps is the Minister taking to improve the opportunities for BME students to do well at university?
Mr Gibb: It is about raising aspiration right across the board. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: too few young people from ethnic minorities are applying to our top universities, and that is an unacceptable state of affairs. We need to raise standards, particularly in the inner-city schools that BME students disproportionately attend. Getting better standards of education, aspiration and higher expectations in those schools is a key part of our education reform programme.
Education for Deaf Children
18 Jun 2012 : Column 589
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): Our reform of the special educational needs system will make it easier for deaf children and their families to get the full range of support they need across education, health and social care. Through the national scholarship programme, we are supporting teachers and teaching assistants to gain specialist qualifications to support deaf children. We are also working with expert voluntary organisations to improve the quality of information and advice available to schools and families.
Stephen Phillips: My local authorities in Lincolnshire are continuing to invest in services for deaf children. However, the National Deaf Children’s Society reports that as many as one in four local authorities is cutting the vital services that deaf children rely on to achieve and succeed. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that too many local authorities are failing to protect funding in this area for some of our most vulnerable children, and what will she do about it?
Sarah Teather: I am aware of the NDCS report. I understand that the financial difficulties are making it hard for everybody across local and national government, and that all of us are having to make difficult decisions. However, the Government chose deliberately to protect the money for schools from the dedicated schools grant, so there is no excuse for wholesale cuts in this area. We are also supporting the national sensory impairment partnership—or NatSIP, as it is known—to work with local authorities to benchmark services and improve quality on the ground.
School Funding (Northumberland)
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We plan to introduce a new national funding formula in the next spending period. It is, however, important that we introduce reform at a pace that schools can manage. As a first step towards a new formula, we are simplifying local funding arrangements from 2013-14, ensuring that more funding is passed to schools.
Guy Opperman: The decision on 24 May to grant Prudhoe community high school a rebuild was wonderful news and formed a great birthday present for its head teacher, Dr Iain Shaw. It was also a huge boost to a community that had been long neglected in terms of funding. May I invite the Secretary of State to visit this fantastic school when the rebuild is complete to see for himself the positive difference that it makes, both to the school and to the wider community?
Michael Gove: It is always a pleasure to visit Northumberland. I hope that I will have a chance, even before the school is rebuilt, to visit Prudhoe to congratulate it on the fantastic teaching that goes on there, and perhaps I shall take in Alnwick while I am there.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 590
might be called a national answer, slightly opening up Question 3, for which I do not in any way excoriate him, the field is now open.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): I thank you, Mr Speaker, and through you the Secretary of State for his generosity. Areas such as Northumberland have sometimes lost out, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, through funding formulae that do not recognise deprivation that is more dispersed. I urge him to ensure that the review takes full account of that, so that areas such as Northumberland get their fair share of national funding and to ensure that the pupil premium continues its progress in tackling deprivation across the country.
Michael Gove: Since the days of the Venerable Bede, where Northumberland has led, the rest of the country has followed. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Northumberland and Cornwall have similar challenges that will be taken into account in our review of funding.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for clearing the matter up. Is it the intention of the Secretary of State through the school funding reform proposals to threaten the future of 19 primary schools in my constituency that have fewer than 100 pupils on their rolls? If, as I hope, it is not, I would appreciate his proposals to avoid that disastrous consequence.
Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a concern that many Members have, which is that the funding reforms will call into question the position of smaller primary schools. It is not our intention to do that. We hope to ensure that there is a floor to provide a guaranteed sum for every school, which will ensure that good, local, small primary schools can continue to flourish.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): What about funding in the secondary schools sector? The Secretary of State has said a lot about free schools and competition in places where there are failing schools. What will happen to schools with good Ofsted reports in areas where there is no demand for a new school if a free school emerges that goes right through to secondary level?
Michael Gove: Under the funding reforms that we will introduce, more money will go directly to schools, including fantastic schools such as Woodside high school in the London borough of Haringey, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well and which is doing a fantastic job under its brilliant governors.
4. Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What estimate he has made of changes in the number of pupils taking science, language, history and geography courses following the introduction of the English baccalaureate. 
13. Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con): What estimate he has made of changes in the number of pupils taking science, language, history and geography courses following the introduction of the English baccalaureate. 
18 Jun 2012 : Column 591
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): Independent research commissioned by the Department for Education and published in August 2011 suggests that the English baccalaureate is having an immediate impact, with the number of pupils taking core academic subjects rising from 22% last year to 47% this year. That includes increases of 8 percentage points in pupils taking history, 7 percentage points in pupils taking geography, 9 percentage points in pupils taking languages and 12 percentage points in those taking triple science.
Mr Amess: What reassurance can my hon. Friend give the House that this Government are committed to religious education in our schools, given the disappointment in certain quarters that that subject was not included in the English baccalaureate?
Mr Gibb: RE entries continue to rise, with 32% of students being entered for a GCSE in religious studies last year, up from 28% the year before. RE is already a compulsory subject, and one intention behind the E-bac is to encourage wider take-up of geography and history in addition to, rather than instead of, compulsory RE. The E-bac will not prevent any school from offering the RS GCSE, but we will keep the issue under review.
Eric Ollerenshaw: Does the Minister agree that the baccalaureate policy will be critical for future social mobility, because it will provide, for once, a common platform for pupils of whatever background for access to university and higher skills?
Mr Gibb: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The academic subjects in the baccalaureate reflect the knowledge and skills that young people need to progress to further study or employment. In fact, the E-bac subjects are what the Russell group calls the “facilitating subjects” at A-level, the ones that are most likely to be required or preferred for entry to degree courses and keep more options open.
On social mobility, it cannot be right that children from the poorest backgrounds are significantly less likely to have the opportunity to take the baccalaureate subject GCSEs. Just 8% of children eligible for free school meals took that combination of subjects last year, compared with 24% of pupils overall.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab): I welcome increases in the number of pupils studying science, but they need to be at all levels and across all abilities. Does the Minister not agree with the president of the Institution of Engineering and Technology that by downgrading the engineering diploma in the face of almost universal industry opposition, he is failing our young people by not providing a non-academic route into engineering and science?
I am afraid that the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is wrong. We have not downgraded engineering. The principal learning unit of the engineering diploma is still very important in the performance tables. We asked Alison Wolf to examine all the vocational qualifications, and she has streamlined them, driven out the weaker ones that do not lead to progress and employment and left us those of much higher quality.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 592
We have 150 very high-quality vocational qualifications, including the principal learning element of the engineering diploma, which we value very highly indeed.
“this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back…will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonour to this country.”
Mr Bone: The Minister and the Prime Minister have shown their commitment to fighting human trafficking, but the dreadful case that was recently reported of internal trafficking within the United Kingdom shows the necessity of our schools highlighting this evil crime. Will the Minister meet me, other members of the all-party group on human trafficking and Anthony Steen to discuss how we can take the matter forward?
Mr Hayes: Yes, of course I will. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that schools have a vital role to play, which was why we issued new guidelines to that end. He will also know that since he last asked me about this matter—he is a doughty champion of the victims of this dreadful trade—I have, as he asked, written to charities to engage them in the process.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): In line with the recommendations in today’s report on children who go missing from care, will the Minister please discuss with his colleagues in the Home Office the importance of keeping on the police national database the details of all trafficked children who go missing, so that they are not forgotten and so that if, for example, they turn up in a cannabis factory, they can be treated immediately as victims rather than criminals?
Mr Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that excellent report, which I was able to read this morning. He is right that co-ordinated action by local authorities, the Home Office and the Department for Education is vital, and we will indeed go about that business in the fashion and spirit that he describes.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con): On the subject of raising awareness of crime in schools, some primary-age girls are at particular risk of being taken abroad in the long summer holidays to suffer female genital mutilation. Will the Minister take this opportunity to emphasise the safeguarding responsibilities of schools in that regard?
Yes, indeed. I had a meeting with my officials and discussed just that matter. It is, as my hon. Friend will know—because she has also been a champion of these matters—something that happens across the year in different volumes. There are peak periods for this, and we need to take action to take account of that
18 Jun 2012 : Column 593
and to use all agencies to offer the right kind of advice in those areas that are most vulnerable and to those young people who are most vulnerable.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): In the response to today’s report on children in care, Ministers made no mention of the 60% of trafficked children who routinely go missing. Will he respond to widespread concerns surrounding the move of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre into the National Crime Agency, described by CEOP’s former head as about saving face, not saving children, and ensure that child safeguarding is made an explicit strategic priority for the NCA so that the focus on these children is not lost?
Mr Hayes: The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children, are having a meeting this afternoon on just those matters, to ensure that our response is co-ordinated in the way the hon. Lady describes. It is fair to say that there is an issue about the different claims about the number of children who go missing and the need for a more consistent approach to how those records are maintained. I hear what she says and it will no doubt help to inform the discussions that will take place this afternoon—because we do not hesitate on these matters—between the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): We are reforming teacher training to get more outstanding people into teaching, paying good teachers more and extending opportunities to teachers to start and to run their own schools.
Luciana Berger: Improving the quality of current teachers is vital to increasing the attainment of all children. It is equally important that those entering the profession are equipped with the necessary skills. Will the Government take forward the recommendations of the Education Committee and give a firm commitment to introduce teaching observation as a key part of assessment before the offer of a teacher training placement is made?
Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and the report by the Select Committee made a number of good points. Last Thursday, we outlined new proposals to ensure that schools have more of a role in deciding which trainees are thought suitable for placements, and observation is a critical part of that. I would not wish to centrally prescribe how schools should operate, but the points made by the hon. Lady and the Committee are well made.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 594
the world? What steps are being taken to make sure that primary school teachers are trained up to be able to teach the new curriculum and that we get new teachers with the specialist maths skills that are needed to do so?
Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a similarly acute point. One of the initiatives that we announced last Thursday was making sure that those with good degrees in mathematics and science subjects who choose to go into teaching receive an additional bursary in order to entice them into the profession. It is also the case that we will prepare new routes for specialist maths teachers in primary schools, and we will also incentivise the recruitment of high-performing graduates to go into schools in the toughest areas, to make sure that the children who need help most receive it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): May I, on behalf of my colleagues, offer our best wishes to all the young people—including my daughter, Siobhàn—who are sitting their A-levels today? Investing in teacher training is a very welcome measure, but recent reports suggest a drop of 15% in the number of people applying for teacher training, and teachers are reporting a sharp fall in staff room morale. Why is the Secretary of State having such a “chilling effect” on teacher morale?
“facts are chiels that winna ding”—
[Hon. Members: “Translate.”] The collapse of understanding of modern foreign languages under the Labour Government is something to behold, as is the Opposition’s disdain for an important part of the United Kingdom. But those of us who are Unionists, as well as lovers of poetry, know that recent statistics from the Teaching Agency showed that, among graduates who are contemplating entering the teaching profession, the estimation of the prestige and status of teaching has risen. Those are facts—statistics—that do not lie, unlike some of the press releases that have suggested that teacher morale has fallen.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): The public perception of any profession is normally based on the two extremes—the best and the worst practitioners—so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to retain excellent teachers and to ensure that the incompetent ones are removed from the profession?
Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have changed the capability procedures—basically the rules that govern whether underperforming teachers can be dealt with quickly—to ensure that a process that used to take a year now takes only a term. At the same time, we are liberating head teachers to pay good teachers more, because we want to send a clear and consistent signal that teachers, like lawyers and doctors, are professionals who deserve appropriate salaries for doing a great job.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 595
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): Governing bodies will decide what food and drink are available at academies and free schools; we trust them to make the right choices for their pupils. Many academies use the school food standards as a benchmark and some are going beyond them, but, as in all schools, further improvement is still needed.
“I fear that they may be, but I do not have any evidence that they have been. I am not denying that it is a possibility, but…until I know, I cannot see.”
The School Food Trust has now provided evidence showing that some academies do not provide the healthy food our children deserve, with vast numbers selling food and drink banned from other state schools. Now that there is evidence, will he apply the same rules to all state schools?
Michael Gove: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me what an open mind I showed in the face of his rigorous questioning. It is an open mind that is influenced by the facts, and, yes, the School Food Trust showed that some academies were not performing as well as they should, but many maintained schools are also not performing as well as they should, and there is no evidence that academies are performing worse at lunch time than other maintained schools.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): I welcome the fact that 16 to 18-year-olds can still qualify for free school meals in academies and free schools, but they cannot in sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, which are the main provision in my area. When will the Secretary of State deal with this anomaly?
Michael Gove: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. It is an anomaly with which we wish to deal, and we are talking to the Association of Colleges about it. Resources are tight, but he is absolutely right to carry on campaigning.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab): On the disgraceful scrapping of nutritional standards for free schools and academies, health and education experts are calling for a U-turn; 98 Members, including Government Members, are calling for a U-turn; and even Jamie Oliver is calling for a U-turn. How many more calls for a U-turn and reams of evidence do the Government need to hear before they do the right thing, put evidence ahead of dogma and ensure that all children get the benefit of healthy school food?
Michael Gove: The hon. Lady has been a consistent campaigner for the vital importance of health education in her schools, so I applaud her passion, as I do that of Jamie Oliver, but the facts show that there has been no deterioration in the quality of food offered in academies, and academies are not offering worse food at lunch time than other schools. All schools need to improve the quality of their food, and we will make an announcement shortly, not of a U-turn, but to build on the platform that Jamie Oliver has created.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 596
Special Educational Needs
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): In a written ministerial statement issued on 15 May, I published our plans to reform the current system for identifying, assessing and supporting children and young people who are disabled or have special educational needs from birth into adulthood, independent living and the world of work. We are testing our plans with 20 pathfinders across 31 local authorities and their primary care trust partners in readiness for introducing changes from 2014.
Mr Buckland: Uplands special school in Swindon, which has an excellent track record of providing education for young people from 11 upwards, is actively considering how to extend its provision in line with the Government’s policy of allowing extensions to 25. What measures will the Government take to encourage such excellent initiatives?
Sarah Teather: This is a very interesting idea. There are several practical matters to work through, but in principle the Government support this type of innovative thinking. Of course, the key is that any provision is not only about children staying on in school but about preparing them for independent living and ensuring that it is appropriate as young people move into adulthood. Our changes to funding for high-needs pupils should enable this kind of innovative thinking to take place.
Sarah Teather: All our plans are about trying to ensure that we can identify special educational needs much earlier. The Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has spoken passionately about systematic synthetic phonics—a policy that has been shown to be particularly effective in teaching dyslexic pupils—and he is working hard to ensure that all primary schools are confident to do this. Some 3,200 teachers have also completed specialist dyslexia courses approved by the British Dyslexia Association, and last week an advanced online module on dyslexia was launched by the Teaching Agency and the Institute of Education, so there is much activity in this area.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op): Around 60% of young offenders have speech and language issues, with an average speaking ability of an eight-to-10-year-old. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that schools address and assess the word gap for children at a young age—particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds—and to ensure effective English language support through schooling for those who do not have English as a first language?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 597
Sarah Teather: That is an excellent question, and I agree that this is an issue. However, we have to start much earlier. This is not just about beginning at school. The changes that we have introduced in the new early years foundation stage, which begins this September, are partly about ensuring that we can look at early years language, right from the beginning, and pick up some of those gaps, because they arise long before children enter school. The check for two-and-a-half-year-olds, which we are beginning to integrate with the health visitor check, is key to trying to ensure that we can do that.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): May I draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent experience of the pupils at Ysgol Bryn Castell in my constituency who attended a woodcraft course at EcoDysgu? While they were there, they used tools that they would not normally use and had the experience of building equipment, thereby learning communication and co-operation skills, and building up confidence. Will she look at whether we could use this innovative new idea of using sources outside schools?
Sarah Teather: It is important that we allow schools the freedom to look at the individual needs of the child and put in place the kind of support they need to address whatever is holding them back. Part of the point behind the achievement for all programme is to encourage schools to look at individual children and get behind whatever may be holding them back, which may be special educational needs or an issue to do with confidence, or even the interaction of the two, as the hon. Lady has indicated.
16.  Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con): To ensure that vulnerable children do not fall through the gaps, will my hon. Friend reassure me that if statements are removed, they will be replaced by something as legally effective?
Sarah Teather: The planned education, health and care plans are not at all about downgrading legal protections, but about strengthening them. For example, we are extending protections from 16 right up to 25, giving young people protections in a way that they did not have previously. Similarly, there will be a new duty on the health service to work jointly in the commissioning and planning of services, not just for children with education, health and care plans, but for all children with special educational needs and disabilities.
22.  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con): The voluntary sector contains a great deal of expertise in supporting young disabled people, particularly post 16, but it appears that no new independent specialist colleges have been approved in the last two years, despite dozens of applications. Does the Minister agree that we must free up the third sector to register new services for young disabled people, and what steps will she take to ensure that this happens?
The voluntary sector has an enormous role to play, as do independent specialist providers. It is right and proper that we should have high thresholds, particularly in safeguarding, because a lot of the young people who need such provision will have complex needs, perhaps involving both medical and high personal
18 Jun 2012 : Column 598
care needs. However, I also recognise that the application process is complex. I would like to see whether we can do anything to make it simpler, because I am keen to encourage the voluntary sector to be more involved.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): In 2010, Ofsted reported that the overall effectiveness of personal, social, health and economic education was good or outstanding in three quarters of the schools it visited. Sex education is usually provided through PSHE, and we want to make that good practice the norm. Our review of PSHE has also looked at the evidence, enabling us to consider how we can improve the quality and effectiveness of sex education.
Philip Davies: Has the Minister seen the public opinion survey, conducted by Angus Reid, which shows that 67% of people in this country believe that parents should be primarily responsible for their children’s sex education, and that only 17% believe that sex education should be taught in schools to children below the age of 10? Given that the evidence from around the world shows that the benefits system has a bigger impact on levels of teenage and unwanted pregnancy than does sex education in schools, will the Minister ensure that inappropriate and explicit material is not used for teaching in our schools, particularly our primary schools?
Mr Gibb: It is important that the sex and relationship education materials used in schools should be age-appropriate, and that schools should consult parents about the materials and the approach that they take to SRE. It is also important for parents to know that they have the right to withdraw their children from those lessons. I recently met representatives from Channel 4 and the BBC to discuss concerns raised by hon. Members about particular DVD materials. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is also considering whether sex education DVDs should be subject to British Board of Film Classification age-rating.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): In view of your earlier ruling, Mr Speaker, I shall limit my answer so that it focuses narrowly on Nuneaton’s truancy problems. The Government agreed with Charlie Taylor’s recent recommendation to focus on improving the attendance of vulnerable pupils in primary schools, to prevent patterns of poor attendance from developing. In response, we are reforming absence data collection to publish information on the attendance of four-year-olds. We are also tightening regulations on term-time holidays, so that they are authorised only in exceptional circumstances, and we have uprated the penalty fine levels for parents who shirk their responsibility to ensure that their children attend school.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 599
Mr Jones: I thank the Minister for his response. Given the positive impact that parents’ involvement can have on their child’s education and attendance at school, what steps is he taking in addition to those that he has just mentioned to ensure that parents are encouraged and supported to become involved in that way?
Tim Loughton: This needs to involve a combination of rewards and penalties. New guidance will come into force next year, which will give head teachers the power to issue penalties, including penalty notices. In 2010, local authorities were responsible for bringing 11,757 attendance prosecutions when parents failed to ensure that their children attended school. Surely, however, the best incentive for parents is the knowledge that the very best start in life they can give their children is to ensure that they go to school on a regular basis.
Special Educational Needs (Warrington)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather): I refer the hon. Lady to the written reply that I gave to her on 12 June about our plans to reform the system for identifying, assessing and supporting children and young people who are disabled or have special educational needs from birth into adulthood, independent living and the world of work. We are funding organisations to improve local support, and introducing measures to improve the knowledge and expertise of teachers and support staff.
Helen Jones: In the light of those fine words, why is the Minister’s Department jeopardising Warrington’s plans for a special needs campus—including much-needed post-16 provision—by threatening to use the buildings for a free school unless a planning application is allowed elsewhere? Is it legal to interfere in planning matters in that way? It is certainly immoral to jeopardise the education of some of the most disabled children in the borough.
Sarah Teather: We have sought, and are continuing to seek, a solution with Warrington council that will allow it to proceed with improving the provision for special needs pupils at Foxwood and Green Lane schools, which I understand are the two schools that the hon. Lady is referring to, while meeting the strong demand from parents for the establishment of the King’s school Woolston, a free school. I understand that the council’s executive board is meeting this evening to discuss the free school’s use of two sites, and I am hoping for a positive outcome that will allow the free school to open as planned this September while also enabling the council to take forward its special school plans.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 600
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): The Government have published an action plan for adoption, which aims to reduce delays in adoption by legislating to prevent local authorities from spending too long seeking a perfect adoptive match, by accelerating the assessment process for prospective adopters, and by making it easier for children to be fostered by their likely eventual adopters in certain circumstances. We have also introduced an adoption scorecard to focus attention on the issue of timeliness, linked to a tougher intervention regime.
Nicky Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. I have written to him twice about two constituents who have been trying desperately to be considered as adopters—not by Leicestershire county council, but by another midlands authority. This authority has consistently thrown up hurdle after hurdle—such as asking for health tests, and raising the issue of lack of child care experience. The latest hurdle involved the lady’s ex-husband and this meant disclosing her address to him because he was apparently needed to give a reference. These sorts of hurdles are only going to slow down the process, so will the Minister assure us all that those hurdles can be got rid of?
Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend raises some points that are all too common. I have been deluged with similar stories from other prospective adopters up and down the country. We need to make it absolutely clear that we absolutely welcome people who come forward because they are interested in offering a safe, loving and stable home for a child in care who needs to be adopted. The adoption scorecards have contextualised data on them so that we can see how well local authorities are welcoming, retaining and converting prospective adopters into actual adopters. That provides important evidence to make sure that every local authority welcomes adopters with open arms.
National Curriculum (English)
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb): On 11 June, we published draft national curriculum programmes of study for primary English, science and mathematics. The draft curriculum for English demonstrates our commitment to improving standards of literacy. Pupils will be taught to read fluently and develop a strong command of the written and spoken word. There will be a greater focus on the fundamentals of phonics, grammar and spelling, and a much stronger emphasis on reading widely for pleasure.
Mr Ruffley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Two years ago, the Secretary of State struck a blow against cultural relativism when he rightly said that the teaching of Dryden and Pope, Byron, Shelley and Keats, Austen, Dickens and Hardy should lie at the heart of school life. Will the Minister assure me that when the curriculum is published and enforced, the promise set out by the Secretary of State is indeed met?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 601
Mr Gibb: As part of the consultation, we are asking people to consider how we can set out those poems, books and literature that we think students should be reading at given stages of their education. I do not think it would necessarily be right for a Government Department to prescribe the detail, but there may be a way that we can do so through other organisations or by asking the public what they think.
Mr Gibb: I think that a focus on grammar, punctuation and spelling is important. The evidence from around the world shows that the education jurisdictions that perform best have three things in common: autonomy for teachers, trusting the professionals and regular external assessment in their schools.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes): The Government have established a national careers service, placed a new duty on schools to secure independent advice, established a new National Council for Careers, created a new destination measure to hold schools to account and we have asked Ofsted to conduct a thematic review of careers guidance next year. In short, we have done more in two years than the last Government did in 13 years.
Jonathan Reynolds: Quality face-to-face careers advice is essential not just to ensure that young people have access to opportunities and services, but to inspire them so that social mobility actually happens. Is it not therefore a mistake for the Government to be moving away from face-to-face advice? Surely, no one has ever been inspired by a telephone hotline.
Mr Hayes: We have invested in the biggest and best website we have ever had for careers guidance. We will have more than 3,000 places available across the country where people can access the national careers service. Yes, face-to-face guidance matters, but each school will make its own judgment in line with its own needs to do the best by its own pupils. We trust schools; the last Government simply did not.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Good quality careers advice is affected by the image that different career choices have among young people. Will my hon. Friend give his backing to campaigns such as See Inside Manufacturing, which was designed to inspire young people to think about career choices in manufacturing?
Indeed. When visiting Jaguar Land Rover in Liverpool, I was fortunate enough to see that working in practice. St Margaret’s primary school was visiting that great British company as part of that programme, gaining the sort of insight into learning, manufacturing
18 Jun 2012 : Column 602
and employment that my hon. Friend rightly highlights. Of course we will continue to support that kind of initiative.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Last week’s CBI education survey found that 68% of employers were dissatisfied with the quality of careers guidance, but in just three months’ time the statutory duty for schools to provide a careers service will become effectively meaningless as the amount of money is reduced and schools have to define for themselves and pay for themselves from within their already squeezed resources. Given that the number of young people not in education or training and youth unemployment is at crisis levels, how will the Minister act from day one to ensure the consistency, accessibility and quality of careers advice?
Mr Hayes: The Connexions service was roundly criticised for doing none of that. Connexions, over which the last Government presided, failed according to Ofsted, the Skills Commission inquiry into information, the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, and the Edge survey. We will do better, because we understand that good-quality advice and guidance help people to change their lives by changing their life chances. Of course this is a challenge; it is a catharsis leading from failure to success.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): Given the number of young people who are still not in education, employment or training, does the Minister agree that it is vital for young people to be made aware, throughout the education process, of the apprenticeships and the vocational and other opportunities that are available to them?
Mr Hayes: As I have said in the House before, for too long we convinced ourselves that the only means of gaining prowess came through academic accomplishment. Like William Morris and John Ruskin, I believe that technical tastes and talents deserve their place in the sun, and the careers service will highlight that so that people with such aspirations can achieve their full potential.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): Today is the 80th birthday of the Oxford Professor of Poetry, Professor Sir Geoffrey Hill, our greatest living poet. I am sure that the whole House would like to join me in wishing him a very happy birthday, and thanking him for the fantastic work that he has done.
Sir Geoffrey was knighted in the new year honours. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) was knighted in the recent Queen’s birthday honours, and I am sure that the whole House will also want to join me in congratulating him on his well-deserved elevation.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 603
unit to give full support to Church of England primary schools that wish to become academies, and does he share my hope that other diocesan boards of education will do likewise?
Michael Gove: The Oxford diocese is doing a fantastic job. The Bishop of Oxford, the Right Reverend John Pritchard, has been a very effective voice for the role of the Church in education. I know that there is a new diocesan director of education in Oxford, and we look forward to working with him.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): Opposition Members support a national curriculum that combines high expectations for all students with freedom for teachers to innovate. Does the Secretary of State agree that curriculum reform should be based on evidence, not dogma? If so, why is his own expert panel so unhappy with his latest proposals?
Stephen Twigg: The Secretary of State appointed four advisers, three of whom are deeply unhappy with his proposals. Professor Andrew Pollard described them as “overly prescriptive”, Professor Mary James said that they
“fly in the face of evidence from the UK and internationally and… cannot be justified educationally”,
“"If you don't have a set of principles for a curriculum it just becomes people's pet topics”.
Is this not yet another example of an out-of-touch Government not listening to expert advice, concentrating on their pet projects, and preferring their own dogma to the evidence of what actually works, here and in the rest of the world?
Michael Gove: That was beautifully read. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have learned it by rote: had he done so, we might all have had the benefit of his being able to look the House in the eye rather than reading out those quotations.
The truth is that the international evidence from Hong Kong, Singapore, Massachusetts and every high-performing jurisdiction specifies that we need to do better in maths, English and science. The quality of grammar, spelling and punctuation fell as a result of the curriculum over which the hon. Gentleman presided. We have brought back rigour in primary schools and aspiration in secondary schools. A few professors and some individuals seeking to curry favour in Ed Miliband’s Labour party may disagree, but parents and teachers who believe in excellence are united in supporting these changes.
T2.  Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): If Britain is to be competitive, apprenticeships need to be a route to higher skills and to a much more highly skilled work force. How many young people are now taking advanced A-level equivalent apprenticeships?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 604
really exciting thing is that, by the end of this Parliament, we will have more than 20,000 people beginning level 4 —degree-level—apprenticeships. When I became the Minister, there were just 200. From 200 to more than 20,000 is our record and I am proud of it.
T3.  Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op): Why has Moorside school in Halifax not been included in the latest round of funding for new schools, despite the fact that it did everything it could to meet the criteria for that funding for its much-needed new build? Will the Secretary of State reconsider that decision?
Michael Gove: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this case. More than 500 schools applied for refurbishment under the priority schools building programme. We were able to guarantee refurbishment and rebuilding for more than 200 schools, many of which had never been included in the old Building Schools for the Future programme, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that that does not begin to meet the need for repairs and refurbishment across the school estate. One of the problems is that, under the previous Government, a comprehensive survey of the state of our schools was abandoned and the amount of money available for new school places for primary children was cut.
T4.  Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con): What further steps will the Minister of State take to induce small and medium-sized businesses to create apprenticeships? In that context, I draw his attention to the excellent work of West Suffolk college, which is at the centre of my constituency and is now very much on board with his brilliant initiative for making vocational education “front of house” when it comes to improving the chances of our young people.
Mr Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for working with his local further education establishment and for highlighting the opportunities available to young people. He is right that we need more SMEs to be involved. That is why I commissioned Jason Holt to conduct a review of how we can be more helpful on bureaucracy and on allowing people to navigate the system more straightforwardly. It is also why we introduced cash incentives of £1,500 for every young apprentice that an SME takes on. My goodness, the previous Government could not have dreamed of that kind of record.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect): New Labour in Bradford has achieved the seemingly impossible by presiding over secondary schools in the city that are even worse than they were when the Conservatives ran them. In the youngest city in England, we are the eighth worst in the country—eighth out of 150. What special measures can the Government take these schools into to save the youngest city in England from the perdition of ignorance?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that case. I know that during the by-election, which he won, the state of education in Bradford was one of the issues on which he campaigned. I offer him
18 Jun 2012 : Column 605
the chance to meet me at the Department for Education, where we can discuss some of the initiatives that we have in mind.
T5.  Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What action are the Government taking to ensure that our vigorous vocational education at our university technical colleges leads to apprenticeships?
Mr Hayes: I share the view of my noble friend Lord Baker, who has been such an inspiration in respect of university technical colleges, that a key part of the offer should be apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds. Aston UTC, which opens this September, will offer those kinds of products for its students, and I expect many other UTCs to follow suit. We are doing what Rab Butler in 1944 asked us to do—delivering a vocational route as rigorous, as navigable and as seductive as the academic route.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): On behalf of my parliamentary colleagues and the very brave young people who came to our inquiry and talked about their personal experience in care, I thank the Minister with responsibility for children for his positive response to our report on children missing from care. Does he agree that we need to take urgent action to improve a care system that is failing to protect and keep safe vulnerable children who run away and go missing?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, and I congratulate her on the first-class report, which was published today. I will speak about it more fully in about an hour and a half’s time, when it is officially launched. That report, together with the special expedited report from Sue Berelowitz, the deputy children’s commissioner, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked her to produce, will inform our progress report on the child sexual exploitation action plan, which we intend to publish in the next few weeks. That will contain urgent recommendations and details of action already under way to ensure that those vulnerable children are kept much safer than they are now.
T6.  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): There have been recent complaints about the rigour and discipline of beauty therapy skills academies. Although the Minister may have had less time for a pedicure or manicure recently, will he confirm that he will bring rigour and discipline to beauty therapy skills academies, wherever possible?
Mr Hayes: Yes, the national skills academies were an invention of the previous Government, but none the less we believe they do an important job of focusing on those parts of the economy where investment in skills can facilitate growth. The academies are an important part of what we intend, but it is vital that they are led by employers, so that the system is responsive to need and sensitive to changing demand. I accept my hon. Gentleman’s support for them. He can be assured that that support is endorsed by the Government, who will continue to invest in them.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 606
written pieces on child brides and on human trafficking. Does he agree that teachers have a key role in both challenging and inspiring pupils to take up such causes?
Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. He has rightly made that into something of a cause, because those offences against children are going on too much and under the radar. First, we need to ensure that they come out into the daylight of transparency so that we can see exactly what is going on. We need to inform children better, within and outwith schools, on what they should be sensitive to. We need to work with local safeguarding children boards and with others whose job is to ensure that all the agencies work together to ensure that children are kept safe from those unhappy practices that are going on too often.
T7.  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con): The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will recall visiting Warwickshire college’s Rugby site. This week, in support of vocational qualification day and together with Rugby borough council, the college has established the Rugby apprentice of the year award. I know how important he considers it to be to recognise the achievements of apprentices, so will he join me in congratulating the first recipient of the award—brickwork apprentice Lee Bradley?
Mr Hayes: I am delighted to do that; I look back on my visit to Rugby with great fondness. My hon. Friend told me then that every day spent away from Rugby is a day wasted. He is absolutely right that that college is doing exceptional work, and that award signifies it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): I do not wish to distract the House in celebration of today’s birthday of one of our greatest living poets, Sir Paul McCartney. However, may I say that the Secretary of State is no stranger to the Twyford Church of England high school in Acton, which is well known for its inspirational head teacher? An insanitary cordon of fast food outlets rings that school, selling congealed, deep-fried lumps of mechanically extruded neo-chicken sludge, thus fatally undermining any attempt at a healthy eating regime. Will he speak to his colleague in the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider whether any linkage can be brought to prevent those foul premises from springing up around some of our better schools?
T8.  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the past 10 months, I have had the pleasure of employing an apprentice caseworker in my own office, and I am about to recruit a new apprentice caseworker from Northampton school for boys in my constituency. What action is the Minister taking to encourage other colleagues to do likewise?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 607
Mr Hayes: I have news for the whole House, Mr Speaker. I have asked the National Apprenticeship Service to organise a workshop for colleagues who want to find out more about how they can take on an apprentice. I have an apprentice in my office, my hon. Friend has one in hers and I would like every Member of Parliament to have an apprentice to show just how strongly we support opportunities for young people.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): Joseph Leckie school in my constituency has now for the third time been refused funds for repairs under the priority school building programme. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the head, Keith Whittlestone, to see for himself and to say what can be done to access funds to repair that vital building?
T9.  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the head teacher of Wilnecote high school, Stuart Tonks, who is not only entering into a foundation school arrangement with five local primaries but pursuing academy status for his own school? May I meet Ministers as quickly as possible to work out how those two laudable objectives can be conflated?
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): Of the 25 local authorities facing the highest demand for extra primary places, 12 are in London. Given that London has lost out in the most recent funding settlements, what assurance can Ministers give me that future funding allocations will reflect the need in the capital?
Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but London has not lost out. London received more than 50% of the additional money made available for primary school places in the last two rounds of additional funding. I should emphasise that we have increased the amount of money spent on primary school places, whereas the previous Government cut it.
T10.  Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): The number of apprenticeship places in Sherwood has risen from 640 to 990. That is excellent news, but what can the Minister do to ensure that the quality of those apprenticeships rises at the same time?
Mr Hayes: There are those, including many Opposition Members, who think that I have gone too far on quality. They want to return to the days when we did not have statutory standards, when we did not insist on a minimum length for apprenticeships and when we were not as demanding in terms of rigour. No, I say—we must focus on quality just as much as quantity, so I have done all those things. The previous Government could have done them and should have done them, but they did not.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab):
Month after month, I ask the Secretary of State for Education about the need for a new school at Tibshelf, and month after month, he gives the impression that “It is a good case,
18 Jun 2012 : Column 608
but…” Whatever has happened to the plans for Tibshelf school? He has not left them in a pub somewhere, has he?
Michael Gove: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the interview he gave in The Guardian today? In it, he pointed out that the quality of education that he received was a tribute to the grammar schools of the past. What a pity it is that a past Labour Government did such damage to the education system that allowed him to become such an effective advocate for the people of Bolsover. It is thanks to the election of a Conservative county council in Derbyshire that Tibshelf school will be rebuilt. Something that the Labour councillors of Derbyshire were never able to achieve, the Tories of Derbyshire are at last achieving. I hope that as the hon. Gentleman mellows with age, he will realise, like me, that true blue Derbyshire is achieving far more than it ever did when it was as red as Ed.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): An earlier question linked aspiration and universities. Does the Minister agree that we need to avoid the situation in which those who do not go to university are regarded as failures and that the key thing is creating and supporting high aspirations in all young people and then giving them the opportunity to achieve what they aspire to?
Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and although we should always insist that young people’s aspirations should be raised so that they can consider university when they come from communities where that has not been an option in the past, we should also emphasise that there are high quality vocational and technical options that are every bit as demanding, impressive and likely to lead to the individual concerned fulfilling themselves. My hon. Friend’s words are absolutely correct.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab): May I ask the Minister whether it is the case that the further education sector is being asked to find a cut in funding of up to 5% in the next year, or to give an idea of its possible impact? If that is the case, what has been the response and will he resist any cuts to the further education sector, which will impact disproportionately on my constituency?
“Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion.”
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): What advice would the Secretary of State give to parents of summer-born four-year-olds who, for very good reasons, wish to defer their child’s entry to school to next year, but feel coerced by the local authority to let them start this September?
Our changes to the admissions code have been intended to ensure that schools have a greater degree of flexibility in this area. I am disappointed to hear that the council has not perhaps been as sympathetic as it might be. I look forward to hearing more from
18 Jun 2012 : Column 609
the hon. Lady and talking to Dorset or, as it may be, Bournemouth or Poole council in order to try to ensure that this situation is addressed.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the chief inspector of Ofsted that young people from challenging homes would benefit from a boarding school education?
“Let me not to the marriage of true minds
18 Jun 2012 : Column 610
Mr Sheerman: If the Secretary of State believes in trusting professionals and autonomy in schools, why is a centrally directed Department for Education forcing teachers to teach reading through synthetic phonics alone? What is wrong with all the other methods, which we know and the evidence suggests are just as good?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 611
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): Before I answer, I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Ashworth of 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday, and Corporal Alex Guy of 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, who was killed in Afghanistan on Friday. Our thoughts are with their families and friends at this difficult time.
The UK currently operates two fleets of nuclear-powered submarines: the Trafalgar class of attack submarines, which will be replaced over the next 10 years by the Astute class, and the Vanguard class strategic missile submarines. The Government’s policy is that the Vanguard class will be replaced at the end of its life in the late 2020s by a successor strategic missile submarine carrying the Trident missile, subject to a main gate investment approval for the project in 2016. In the meantime, long-lead items and design work for the successor submarine have been commissioned.
I have today announced by written ministerial statement that we are investing £1.1 billion over the next 11 years in a programme of work which includes redeveloping the Rolls-Royce factory in Derby where all our submarines’ nuclear power plants are designed and built, and in maintaining the skills necessary to do so. This investment will secure the jobs of 300 highly skilled workers and will ensure that we retain the capability to build submarine nuclear power plants in the UK. I am sure the House will join me in welcoming this announcement as good news for the people of Derby, good news for the Royal Navy and good news for the country as a whole.
I am grateful for the statement, which the Government wanted to give only in written form and not directly to the Chamber. It is striking that they were prepared to announce spending £1.1 billion in just 22 lines of text, and doing it in such a way that MPs could not ask follow-up questions. It is shameful.
This announcement paves the way for Trident renewal and it does so in the face of opposition in Scotland. The majority of MPs from Scotland and the majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament have voted against Trident renewal. The Scottish Government are opposed to Trident, the Scottish Trades Union Congress is opposed to Trident, the Church of Scotland is opposed, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland is opposed, the Episcopal Church of Scotland is opposed, the Muslim Council of Scotland is opposed, and, most important, the public of Scotland are overwhelmingly opposed to the renewal of Trident. A YouGov poll in 2010 showed 67% opposed, as against only 13%. There was majority opposition among the voters of all four mainstream parties in Scotland, including Conservative voters and Liberal Democrat voters. The Westminster Government
18 Jun 2012 : Column 612
are aware of the objections but are ploughing on regardless. Then, at the end, they plan to dump this next generation of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. It is an affront to democracy and an obscene waste of money.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is prepared to spend £1 billion on weapons of mass destruction, which can never be used, while at the same time he is planning to cut regiments, battalions and thousands of jobs of brave service personnel whose irreplaceable services are regularly used? Does he acknowledge that, with Treasury assumptions and standard economic modelling, a capital expenditure of £1.1 billion on infrastructure projects would support 10,000 jobs directly and an additional 4,900 jobs through indirect purchases: 14,900 jobs, compared with only the 300 he lauded today? This morning on the radio the Minister for the Armed Forces said
“if we decide in 2016 not to go ahead with some of these engines the government of the day would have to negotiate its way out of that.”
Mr Hammond: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman resorts, not for the first time, to hyperbole. He talks about weapons of mass destruction, but the announcement has nothing to do with weapons; it is about reactor power plants for powering submarines, both the strategic successor submarine and the Astute class attack submarine, which will form the core of the Navy’s attack submarine force in future. He talks about the position of the Scottish National party and the Scottish TUC. Perhaps he has taken the trouble to consult the 6,000 people whose jobs depend on Her Majesty’s naval base Clyde and Coulport.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the review in 2016. We decided to proceed with long-lead items to enable the currently planned programme for the replacement of the Vanguard class submarine to proceed. A decision will be taken in 2016. It will take into account the review of alternatives to the successor, which is currently under way and being chaired by the Minister for the Armed Forces. We understand from speculation in the media that the SNP is about to reverse its policy on membership of NATO, which is a nuclear alliance, so perhaps he could enlighten us on whether his party will endorse the nuclear NATO alliance, because he did not tell the House in his earlier comments.
Mr Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the Secretary of State was making a kind of rhetorical point, but I should say for the benefit of the House that there will be no further dollop of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), at any rate in respect of this matter, this afternoon. We await further particulars at a later stage.
“The replacement of Trident is going ahead… I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, a continuous at-sea deterrent… it will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party”—[Official Report, 9 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 296.],
18 Jun 2012 : Column 613
is there any reason for surprise that this step should have been taken, and is there any reason for the undue delay in the study of alternatives, which can only come to the conclusion that replacing Trident is the only sensible option?
Mr Hammond: Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. The written statement I made today was made in written form precisely because it does not convey any terribly new information. We have always made it clear that we would progress with the replacement for the Vanguard class submarines, subject to the main gate decision in 2016. He speculates on the conclusion of the review currently being conducted under the leadership of the Minister for the Armed Forces, and he may choose to do so. I can tell him that it is expected that the review will be completed by the end of this year and then presented to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): May I offer the condolences of the Opposition to the families and friends of the two brave servicemen who lost their lives last week? For the record, the shadow Secretary of State is out of the country on official defence-related business.
In a security landscape of few guarantees, our independent nuclear deterrent provides us with the ultimate insurance policy, strengthens our national security and increases our ability to achieve long-term global security aims. As the Secretary of State made clear, the initial gate decision announced in May last year set in train £3 billion of expenditure on the design, development, assessment and ordering of long-lead items to make the 2016 main gate decision feasible.
If the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) had re-read the May statement, he would have known that half the money is for renewing the infrastructure of the Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, which is essential for the next generation of nuclear submarines. That is not new but necessary investment.
This is a vital programme that a separate Scotland would not be able to afford or benefit from—[Hon. Members: “We don’t want it!”]—in terms of security or jobs if it did not go ahead. Indeed, the development of the new reactor needs to go ahead whether or not there is a final decision on Trident, because it relates to the UK’s defence capability and to our submarine programme —with huge implications for places such as Barrow, a point completely missed by the hon. Member for Moray.
It is very easy to become blinkered by the concerns held in some quarters about the successor programme and to lose sight of the wider need for the research and development and investment required to keep our nation safe. If the Lib-Dem alternative review, which is ongoing, is to be evidence-based, it must stand up to scrutiny when published, and the Opposition will certainly look at any new evidence brought forward.
Some issues rise above party politics, and the nation’s security is one of them. The country would therefore be deeply disappointed if defence of the Government ever took precedence over defence of the national interest. The previous Government were strong advocates of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and although multilateral
18 Jun 2012 : Column 614
disarmament is not the only route to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, it is one that we must accelerate if we are to achieve that collective goal.
Will the Secretary of State say how the Government are strengthening each of the three pillars of the NPT? What dialogue is he having with some of the key Governments about their position in that regard?
Mr Speaker: Order. May I very gently say to the Secretary of State that any remarks about the non-proliferation treaty should be pretty brief? I know that he will want other colleagues to be accommodated.
Mr Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right. We have long shared a consensus that the crucial strategic defence of the United Kingdom is a matter that should be above party politics, and in an increasingly uncertain world it looks increasingly certain to me that maintaining our nuclear deterrent is the right posture for ensuring the future security of this country and of our allies. She is absolutely right also to point out that a significant part of this investment is about maintaining a UK sovereign capability, not just through the strategic submarine deterrent but through our attack submarines and future generations of them. That is a skill set, which, if we lose it, we will never, ever be able to regain.
As for the non-proliferation treaty, the Government of course remain committed to non-proliferation and have already taken steps in relation to our strategic submarine programme to reduce the missile and weapons payload to the minimum required for strategic deterrence, hoping to set an example to others.
I just wonder, Mr Speaker, whether I could air this thought. While the hon. Lady was speaking, nationalist Members were saying, “We don’t want it!” May we have an assurance that, if they do not want it, they will not reverse their policy on NATO and seek to shelter under NATO’s nuclear umbrella while refusing to share the burden?
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is support for the nuclear-powered Astute class of submarines from all parties in the House, including apparently the Scottish Nationalist party, which, it is understood, might be quite happy for the nuclear-powered Astute submarines to operate from the Faslane base. What kind of exercise of responsibility would it be to allow the core reactor, necessary, for example, for the seventh Astute submarine, to be built on 50-year-old premises that no longer meet current safety standards?
Mr Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and it is worse than that, I am afraid. It is not about building the core reactor in substandard premises—it would not be built at all if the investment in the Raynesway plant were not made. It would not be safe for it to be built there.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 615
people in Scotland as it will bring jobs and prosperity, is not capable of subdivision. One cannot pick and choose; they cannot have the Astute class and not the successor class.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab): Why in straitened economic circumstances is it cost-effective for the coalition Government to duplicate a strategic weapons system that NATO already has in its arsenal? In what circumstances would the coalition deploy a strategic deterrent outwith our membership of NATO?
Mr Hammond: Our strategic missile submarines serve two functions. They provide a national strategic deterrence and they are committed to NATO as part of the NATO strategic deterrence. Part of NATO’s strategic posture involves having more than one nuclear-capable platform.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend explain, particularly to the Scottish nationalists, how many jobs would be lost in Scotland if the investment were to be cancelled or if Scotland were to vote for separation from the rest of the United Kingdom? In that case, all the UK defence jobs in Scotland would be withdrawn.
Mr Hammond: Ultimately at stake are the 6,000 jobs —civilians, military and contractors directly employed in Her Majesty’s naval dockyard of the Clyde and at Coulport. Those jobs would be lost if the submarines were not built and deployed at Faslane.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I am trying to find out how much of this expenditure is in the £3 billion mentioned last year by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), the Minister with responsibility for procurement, and how much is new expenditure. How much will be spent on Trident development and how much on the Astute submarine fleet?
Mr Hammond: The answer is about a quarter. Of the £1.1 billion, £500 million is investment in the capital infrastructure at the Rolls-Royce plant. The remaining £600 million represents the purchase of long-lead items for the production of the core for the reactor for the seventh Astute-class boat and the first successor-class boat.[Official Report, 26 June 2012, Vol. 547, c. 5MC.]
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): As a former Army officer, I point out to the House that no matter how many battalions we have, we may not be able to deter a determined enemy with a nuclear capability. Therefore we should have decent battalions in numbers and the nuclear capability to deter any potential enemy.
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ensuring this nation’s security involves two things—having a strategic deterrent capability and having highly capable, flexible, deployable and well equipped forces at the conventional level. The coalition Government will ensure that we have both.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab):
A week ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), told the House that the total cost of long-lead items was £3 billion,
18 Jun 2012 : Column 616
but that has risen by a third in the Secretary of State’s statement today. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all he is doing is building up huge expenditure in advance of a main gate decision in 2016, which will lead this country towards wasting £100 billion on a weapon of mass destruction of dubious legality and total immorality? Do we not need to think again?
Mr Hammond: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with any of that; I do not think he listened to the answer to the previous question but one. This is not an increase in the £3 billion previously announced; the part of it that relates to the successor programme was included within that £3 billion.[Official Report, 26 June 2012, Vol. 547, c. 6MC.]
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): May I thank the Secretary of State for also announcing this afternoon that he is saving RAF Scampton? We are very grateful. Does that not show the commitment of our party to defence? The issue is all about commitment. Once we commit the money, is it going to be realistically possible for anybody to cancel our Trident nuclear deterrent in the future? The answer is surely no.
Mr Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows, a review is being conducted, and we will look at its conclusions. The main gate decision, which will also have the benefit of the ongoing engineering and design work, on how many boats are needed—for example, to provide a credible nuclear deterrent—will be taken in 2016. As for RAF Scampton, I am sure you would encourage me not to go into that, Mr Speaker.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the contracts negotiated can be renegotiated in 2016 without unreasonable cost by a future Government who may be more enlightened and take the view that Trident is little more than an impractical vanity and virility symbol?
Mr Hammond: Of course I completely reject the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The investment at the Rolls-Royce plant is an 11-year programme, so the money will be spent over 11 years. In being prepared to undertake this major programme, Rolls-Royce will require a commitment from the Government—its customer—and we will make that commitment at the level at which we have to do so to protect the UK’s sovereign capability.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): Now that we know how much money is going to be spent at Rolls-Royce Derby, and given the paucity of maritime air power and, similarly, the surface fleet, is the Secretary of State convinced that the Royal Navy is properly balanced?
Mr Hammond: We treat the maintenance and replacement of the nuclear deterrent as a separate item. I am confident that the Royal Navy’s programme, with the building of the Astute class submarines, the highly capable Type 45s that are already being deployed, and the Type 26 frigate programme, will leave us with a Navy that is smaller than we have had, certainly, but highly capable with the very latest technology and the very latest capabilities.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 617
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): This welcome announcement underlines just how many skilled jobs are sustained across the UK by the submarine programme, not only in Barrow. May I press the Secretary of State on what he said about the review of alternatives informing the main gate vote in 2016? Is he really saying that Ministers will form no conclusion about the review until then?
Mr Hammond: I happily agree with my hon. Friend in those terms. This is not just about the 300 jobs at Rolls-Royce but about many highly skilled jobs throughout the supply chain across the United Kingdom, including among suppliers in Scotland.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Will the Secretary of State give us a figure for how much it will cost to negotiate our way out of these contracts if the Commons votes against replacing Trident? Will he explain why the taxpayer is paying for the upgrading of the Rolls-Royce plant given that it is a private company that saw its profits soar by 21% last year? Surely that shows that this is not a commercial project.
Mr Hammond: Let me answer the second part of the hon. Lady’s question. The reason is that where we are sustaining single-sourced sovereign capabilities—in this case, the ability to build submarine reactor cores, a product that Rolls-Royce cannot sell to anyone else but can supply only to the UK Government—we have to enter into agreements with it to meet the cost of the capital facilities needed to maintain that capability, and that is what we are doing.
Mr Hammond: These are commercial negotiations and commercial contracts. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) also made. In negotiating contracts, we will always seek to give the Government, as the contracting party, the maximum flexibility, but flexibility in a contract comes at a cost, and we have to ensure that we get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): Is the Secretary of State aware of the highly skilled work force at the Vulcan training establishment in my constituency and the welcome news that those 300 jobs will, in principle, be maintained by Rolls-Royce after Vulcan is decommissioned? Will this announcement be a boost for those employees?
Mr Hammond: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has looked into these things, tells me that he believes the answer is yes. I will check the detail when I have completed this urgent question and write to the hon. Gentleman.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 618
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State explain to my constituents in Tottenham what will make them safer: cutting Trident to fund extra police officers or cutting police officers to fund Trident?
Mr Hammond: The investment in Trident and the successor class submarine is a long-term programme to provide for Britain’s strategic security over the next 40 to 50 years. I believe that it is one of the most important functions of government to protect the population against the strategic threats in the world, which, if anything, are growing, not diminishing.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con): Many of us remember the pivotal role of strong nuclear deterrents in our victory in the cold war and retain a passionate commitment to the United Kingdom’s having an independent nuclear deterrent. The Secretary of State has been pressed a couple of times about the review. The review notwithstanding, will he confirm that the decisions that he has announced today will make it easier logistically for the Government in 2016 if they decide to commission a replacement for Trident?
Mr Hammond: I can go further than that. Without the measures that I have announced today, it would not be possible for the Government to make the decision to proceed in 2016, because the long-lead items would not have been ordered and purchased, and we would get to the end of life of the existing Vanguard submarines without a successor replacement being available.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): As a Member of Parliament for an area where shipbuilding is vital and having been a manager up in Faslane dealing with communication cables in a previous life, it is difficult to trust a Government who will build aircraft carriers without planes to understand where we are going on this matter. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the jobs of my constituents and people further up the Clyde are safe, that these submarines will still go to Faslane, and that we will still build British ships in British yards, albeit unless we get independence, in which case all bets are off?
Mr Hammond: Given the tone of the questions today, the hon. Gentleman is right that the only threat to that capability seems to come from the Scottish National party. However, I must take issue with him on the carriers. The Government who ordered the carriers without the ability to pay for planes to go on them were his Government.
“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats…we currently…face”,
“the case is much stronger for funding our armed forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them”?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 619
anyone can stand up in this House after 65 years of nuclear-armed peace and say that a strategic deterrent does not make people safer. The possession of a strategic nuclear deterrent has ensured this country’s safety. It ensured that we saw off the threat in the cold war and it will ensure our security in the future.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): The French Government release figures showing every aspect of their deterrent budget, from infrastructure studies, research and development, tests and operations to procurement and equipment, by both year and multi-year spend. As we move towards the final decision in 2016, can we have a guarantee that the same figures will be released by our Government so that the British public can see the total that is spent on deterrents?
Mr Hammond: The hon. Lady has a touching confidence in the figures released by another Government. We will release as much information as we can, bearing in mind two things: the overriding need for security and the overriding need to maintain sufficient commercial space to get the best possible deal for the taxpayer when we negotiate these contracts.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we faced a larger conventional military threat in the second half of the 20th century than in the first half, and that the single factor that ensured that tens of millions of people did not die defending our freedoms in the second half of the century was that we had the nuclear deterrent?
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): The Secretary of State talks blithely about long lead-in items, but they are leading inexorably to one thing—he has already made a decision to renew Trident. Is his fiction not just a fig leaf to cover the Liberal Democrats’ embarrassment about yet another sell-out?
Mr Hammond: Yes, the strategic defence and security review makes it clear that we are proceeding with the plans for the replacement Vanguard submarines, subject to a main gate review in 2016. That is the Government’s position, and today’s announcement is simply another step in that process. It is not a new or different announcement but simply proceeds in the direction that we have already set out.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that what he has announced today is a vital strategic investment in Britain’s nuclear-powered submarine capability, which is vital for maintaining the United Kingdom’s national interest?
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Today’s announcement ensures that the capability to build submarine reactor cores, which has been at the heart of our programme since the early 1950s, will continue for the next 40 or 50 years at Raynesway in Derby.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Maybe the Secretary of State could communicate his new-found enthusiasm for the public sector boosting the private sector to some of his colleagues in other fields of endeavour.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 620
Mr Hammond: No, not at all, and I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady that the Ministry of Defence now operates a rigorous business case analysis and investment approvals process. When the project gets to main gate, its affordability and the reliability of the estimates will have to be demonstrated for it to pass that hurdle.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement. Is he willing to confirm that this decision takes us one step further on the road towards ensuring that jobs at Devonport dockyard, the only part of the United Kingdom that still has a nuclear licence, will be safeguarded?
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is well aware of the plans for Devonport dockyard, and nothing that I have said today changes the previously announced policy of relocating our submarine capability to the naval base at the Clyde.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): Has the Secretary of State given any thought to where Trident will be located following Scottish independence in 2014? May I assure him that there will not be a welcome in the hillside if he is thinking about a Welsh port?
Mr Hammond: The Government do not expect that the people of Scotland will opt for independence in a referendum in 2014. We are quite confident that, on mature consideration, they will see the advantages of remaining within a United Kingdom and enjoying the benefit of the security afforded by the United Kingdom’s nuclear umbrella.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an uncertain world, a replacement for Trident is a vital insurance policy for the security of the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland?
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): To better inform the main gate decision due in 2016, will my right hon. Friend undertake to put before the House the main conclusions of the Trident alternative study?
Mr Hammond: The Trident alternative study is a review that has been agreed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister and will report to them. I cannot give any undertaking at the moment that its conclusions will be published in any detail, because obviously there are significant security considerations involved. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister will make a statement in due course, once they have received the report.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 621
and the surrounding area? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the expertise at Rolls-Royce and the commitment and dedication of the local work force that will ensure that this project is a success?
Mr Hammond: As my hon. Friend knows better than most people, Derby has an extraordinary concentration of highly skilled engineering jobs and it is that that has sustained the city so well. Of course, Rolls-Royce has a range of world-beating capabilities, and the investment we are making today will ensure the future of just one of those capabilities.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Can the Secretary of State ever foresee a situation post-2016 in which a Conservative or Conservative-led Government would not proceed with the renewal of Trident?
Mr Hammond: As the Prime Minister has made clear, the Conservative party’s position is that we support not the renewal of Trident, but the replacement of the Vanguard submarines so that the Trident missile can continue to form the basis of our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. That is our preferred policy.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I think the majority of Members will welcome the written statement from our excellent Secretary of State for Defence, but they will be unhappy that this was announced not to the House this morning, but in the BBC studios yesterday and in the Sunday papers. In hindsight, does the Secretary of State think that that was a mistake?
Mr Hammond: As I hope I said at the beginning, I do not consider that the statement in question has taken the debate a whole lot further forward. This was an investment decision that was always envisaged in the clear policy that we set out in the strategic defence and security review, and I hope that by coming to the House and answering questions today I will have satisfied my hon. Friend’s desire to have an opportunity to ask me questions.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): To what other purposes could that manufacturing capability at the redeveloped Rolls-Royce plant in Derby be put with an investment of £367,000 per job, should that decision not be made in 2016?
Mr Hammond: I think I just need to explain to the hon. Lady that the decision in 2016 will be about the replacement of the Vanguard class submarines to carry strategic nuclear missiles. We have a second class of submarines, the Astute class of nuclear powered attack submarines. The Royal Navy will always need nuclear powered attack submarines whatever we do with the successor to the Vanguard class. So this sovereign capability is required if the Royal Navy wishes to remain in the business of having nuclear powered submarines, and we certainly do. [Interruption.]
18 Jun 2012 : Column 622
his hands to imply the wings of an aeroplane. He may have flown here, but I am afraid that he did not fly here quickly enough. It is always a delight to hear the product of the hon. Gentleman’s lucubrations, but I am afraid that that will have to wait for another day, as he was not here at the start. We will hear the hon. Gentleman another time. We will save him up. It will be worth hearing, I feel sure.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con): As a Member of Parliament lucky enough to have HMS Inskip on the edge of my constituency, may I welcome today’s announcement? As someone who went to school on Clydeside, just a few miles down the road from Faslane, may I ask the Secretary of State, when he looks at job numbers, to look also at the wider supply chain and the taxi firms and hotels that would benefit from this decision?
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 6,000 direct jobs related to Faslane and Coulport are only the tip of an iceberg, as the local supply chain and the wider economy are extensively supported by the operations there. I would have thought that anyone who had the best interests of that region of Scotland at heart would seek to sustain that level of high-skill employment, not destroy it.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Can the Secretary of State confirm that should an enlightened Government cancel Trident in 2016 the reactors announced today could nevertheless power both Astute and Vanguard’s successor submarines, whether or not they carried nuclear warheads?
Mr Hammond: That is a technical question, and I will have to take notice of it and write to the hon. Gentleman. Essentially he is asking whether the core for a Vanguard submarine nuclear power plant could be used in an Astute submarine nuclear power plant.
Mr Speaker: It is always fascinating to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman, but his point of order will have to wait. We are in the middle of a statement, which is more important than his point of order—[Interruption.] —difficult though it may be to persuade him of that important fact.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): Is the Secretary of State as surprised as me that any Member would debate whether this nation should secure its borders? And what better than to procure those tools from a high-quality British company using a highly skilled work force in the east midlands?
18 Jun 2012 : Column 623
Mr Hammond: I agree with my hon. Friend; this is a classic example of a coincidence of interest between the strong and resolute defence of the United Kingdom and the support of a high-technology manufacturing base.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): I welcome the announcement, which is clearly great news for world-class British engineers, skills and jobs. However, does the Secretary of State agree that this is also an economically sensible decision to avoid the costly skills gap we saw in the run-up to the Astute-class boat programme?
Mr Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two ways of sustaining these skills. We either provide orders to the companies that employ them so that they do something useful and make things, or we simply pay them to stand idle and allow their skills to decline. We have chosen the former, which is the right way to go.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I welcome the Government’s announcement. Our independent nuclear defence has not only protected democracy in this country and around the world but expanded it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential in an even less certain world that we continue our independent nuclear deterrent?
Mr Hammond: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the context of this debate: a world getting not safer but more dangerous; a world that, in spite of our ardent wish that the non-proliferation treaty succeed, is threatened by significant proliferation and the ever-present risk of state-sponsored nuclear terrorism.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Rolls-Royce is an excellent east-midlands company employing many people from my constituency. Today’s announcement underlines the Government’s commitment not only to high-tech manufacturing but to the east midlands. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the House, particularly our Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat colleagues, of one of the salutary lessons of history, which is that the only people ever to have nuclear weapons used against them did not in fact have any?
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): With high-tech businesses in my constituency forming part of the supply chain to our nuclear powered submarines, I welcome this announcement. Did my right hon. Friend note the encouraging welcome given to this announcement by the Rolls-Royce unions?
Mr Hammond: I am delighted that the unions at Rolls- Royce have welcomed the announcement. They will clearly recognise the value of supporting these high-tech jobs, which are vital to the UK skills base.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD):
I welcome today’s announcement. The investment is necessary for the construction of the last of the Astute-class submarines, all of which will be based at Faslane. I hope the Secretary
18 Jun 2012 : Column 624
of State can assure the House that investment in Faslane, which is necessary for all the British submarines to be based there, will not be held up by the long delay before the SNP’s referendum in October 2014.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I am still smiling, Mr Speaker. Is the Secretary of State’s understanding, based on the SNP’s opposition to this investment, that an independent Scotland would leave its citizens fairly defenceless against nuclear attack, or would it rely on another nation to protect it?
Mr Hammond: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), let me say that my hon. Friend takes me back to a point that I have made before. The SNP needs to be clear whether it will seek to reverse its policy on NATO membership, and thus to shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by others while shirking any responsibility for delivering that strategic security.
Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not be nodding his head in that fashion: he is not helping his own cause. I am going to work on the charitable assumption that my informant was misinformed, because the hon. Gentleman was busily offering me protestations of innocence only a few moments ago. I think that the mantras of MacNeil had better be heard, for what it is worth.
Mr MacNeil: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. According to Professor Steven Pinker, since 1945 it has been the major nuclear powers that have been involved in conflicts, yet the non-nuclear neutral states have not. Why is their deterrent so much better?
Mr Hammond: It really was not worth it, Mr Speaker. You might think that during such a long, delayed flight, the hon. Gentleman would have been able to come up with a rather more interesting question. He missed the initial answer to the question. This announcement is about the production of cores for submarine nuclear reactors for both strategic missile submarines and conventional attack submarines. It is about maintaining a vital, sovereign UK capability. He will have to draw his own conclusions about the politics of nuclear deterrence.
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues. Before we proceed to the main business, I feel sure that the House will want to hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), of which he was very seized fewer than five minutes ago.
18 Jun 2012 : Column 625
Point of Order
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply wanted to explain that my question did not relate to whether or not the reactor cores could be adapted for use in Vanguard class successor subs; rather, the reactors announced today are indeed for use in the Vanguard class successors, and therefore could be used even if they did not carry nuclear warheads.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Now I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course this is about a propulsion system, and the reactors are independent of what type of missiles the submarine might carry.
Mr Speaker: I am sure that the House is greatly enlightened by that clarification. I would simply say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that if his essential complaint—that the answer did not relate to his question—were to form the basis for subsequent points of order, our proceedings would become very heavily extended indeed. We will leave it there for now.