Peter Aldous calls on the Department for Education to back a campaign for more significant investment in SEN and to look at how we can reduce the reliance on education, health and care plans, which are a barrier to so many young people getting the education they need.
SEND Provision
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
10. What steps her Department is taking to improve provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. (906631)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
In March, we published our improvement plan to transform support for children with special educational needs, and last month we launched nine regional change programme partnerships to drive reform. By 2024-25, we will have increased high needs funding by 60% since 2019-20, and we have approved the opening of 78 special free schools.
Peter Aldous
I was one of 31 MPs from across the Chamber who signed the f40 letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor urging significant investment in SEN. Will my hon. Friend, behind the scenes at least, endorse that campaign and also look at how we can reduce the reliance on education, health and care plans, which are a barrier to so many young people getting the education they need?
David Johnston
It is probably worth saying that I am an f40 MP myself, and I met the group just last week to hear its concerns. On my hon. Friend’s point about EHCPs, through the reform plan we are working to get parents the support they need for their child at an earlier stage so that they do not always need an EHCP to get that support.
Peter Aldous attended an event calling on the Government to implement the long-promised legislation that would ban live animal exports and end puppy and kitten smuggling.
Peter Aldous highlights the success of contracts for difference (CfDs) in supporting the UK's offshore wind industry, but following the failure of auction round 5 he calls on the Government to learn from the mistakes made so that the scheme can be adapted to changing market conditions and rounds 6 and 7 are successful so the industry continues to thrive.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. His case was very much location-specific, and I thought he made it well. I will not dwell on it any longer, and I will wait with interest to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Minister. The debate is timely, because it comes in the wake of a disappointing and unsuccessful auction round 5, and ahead of the publication next month of the draft allocation framework for auction round 6.
Contracts for difference have been around for a very long time. They were originally developed in the UK in 1974 as a way to leverage gold. The context in which we are considering them today is their use as a means of supporting new low-carbon electricity generation, as introduced by the Energy Act 2013. Over the past decade, they have been remarkably successful. They have enabled the UK to become a global leader in the offshore wind sector, which will be the focus of my attention over the course of the next few minutes.
CfDs have been the foundation stone for securing significant inward investment into coastal communities all around the UK, including Lowestoft in my constituency, and the first four allocation rounds were remarkably successful. Unfortunately, this undefeated run came to an end with round 5, when no offshore wind bids were submitted, as the core parameters did not take into account the changed geopolitical situation in the light of covid and the war in Ukraine, and the uncertain and inflationary global economic outlook that has ensued.
It is vital that lessons are learned and that we get back on track ahead of allocation round 6. The work to do this should be set in the context of the UK providing a response to the US’s Inflation Reduction Act, and I suggest that that should come in the Chancellor’s autumn statement next month. I shall say a few words about that later, as the energy industry is globally footloose. Although the UK has been very attractive to investors—in many respects, it has been the come-to place—we cannot rest on our laurels, and we are now in danger of being overtaken. As Keith Anderson, the chief executive of Scottish Power, has said of the US:
“We can’t possibly hope to outspend them. What we can do is outsmart and outpace them.”
After the failure of auction round 5, it is vital that auction rounds 6 and 7 are successes. One failure is a blip, but two risk setting a trend that will send a negative signal to developers and investors, and the situation could then become very difficult to retrieve. This is particularly important for the continued development of the offshore wind industry off the East Anglian coast, with ScottishPower Renewables and Vattenfall’s forthcoming projects in mind. The parameters that the Government should take into account are as follows. First, there is a need to provide more clarity, consistency and certainty with regard to the longer-term pipeline of projects. That will give developers, supply chain businesses and infrastructure providers the confidence to invest, often way ahead of demand. A clear pipeline will help to deliver long-term apprenticeship initiatives, optimise the cost profile of development and better facilitate strategic investment in the national grid.
We also need to improve the way we incentivise developers to commit to invest in UK infrastructure and supply chains. This can be achieved through non-price factors in the CfDs, provisions in seabed auctions and improved collaboration in supply chain plan delivery. Dusting off and reviewing the offshore wind sector deal, which was originally signed in Lowestoft in 2019, would be very welcome.
The feedback I am receiving, which is welcome, is that ahead of the draft allocation framework for allocation round 6 being published next month, there is positive and ongoing engagement between the Department, trade associations and developers. I would suggest that the key points that need to be addressed are as follows. First, the administrative strike price must be set at a level that takes account of market pressures, so that this time, developers do actually bid. Secondly, so as to give certainty to the market, there should be a ringfenced pot for offshore wind. That is vital, taking into account the targets that Government have set for offshore wind delivery. Thirdly, taking into account the missed opportunity with allocation round 5, the pot budget and parameters should be set so as to reflect the pipeline that is now available in order to secure maximum capacity through allocation round 6.
Work along those lines is necessary so as to correct the mistakes that were made in allocation round 5. However, at the same time, we cannot ignore the new world order. As I have mentioned, we cannot and should not get into a subsidy race to the bottom with the likes of the US, but what we can do is work faster and smarter, building on the foundations that have been laid over the past decade.
In the upcoming autumn statement, our energy policy framework should be adjusted to include the following initiatives: first, expanding reforms to capital allowances and introducing new tax incentives and grants; secondly, supporting the UK supply chain through multi-year co-funding for the industrial growth plan; and finally, as we discussed yesterday in the Westminster Hall debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), we need policies that unlock private investment in port infrastructure.
We invariably herald offshore wind as a great British success story, and indeed, the way that the industry has developed over the last decade has been remarkable. Contracts for difference have been the cornerstone on which this success has been built. They have the advantage that they are flexible and can be adapted. Unfortunately, that did not happen for allocation round 5. It is important that this mistake is not repeated in round 6, and I hope that the Minister will provide the assurances that the industry is seeking. It is vital that he does, as offshore wind is bringing significant benefits to coastal communities such as Lowestoft, and it is imperative that it continues to do so.
Peter Aldous
I was listening with interest to what my right hon. Friend was saying. To a degree, I hear what he says, but does he not agree that with offshore wind not being successful in AR5, the costs go up in future allocation rounds? It was ready to go, and there were economies of scale that it was ready to take full advantage of, but it was not able to go. The feedback that I am getting from industry is that these things cannot take place in a vacuum, ignoring what is going on throughout the world. Does my right hon. Friend not agree with me that it would have been much better if offshore wind had been successful in AR5?
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Having been chided, my hon. Friend is of course—quite rightly, and characteristically—straining to justify his position, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. I have said that we would ideally have got the window in a way that better matched that reality. But there are reasons for having the annual auction. We always come up with a window that industry says is not enough. We have managed to bring down the costs by 70%. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this. This country, the CfD mechanism and, I have to say, this Government have transformed the economics of offshore wind—not just to the betterment of UK consumers, but to the benefit of the whole world. It is only because of what has happened here with this approach, which every year is in a state of tension with industry, that we have been able to show and reveal these prices. We are now able to export our expertise to the north-east of the United States, to the Gulf, to Taiwan—all over the world—as a result of this process.
At their #LoveOurColleges Parliamentary event, Peter Aldous met with David Hughes, Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges, to discuss his long-term campaigning for better funding for the country’s FE colleges.
Speaking in a debate on ports and green energy, Peter Aldous highlights Lowestoft’s success as a hub for low carbon energy and calls on the Government to address the challenges in attracting investment, in to port infrastructure.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on securing this debate. He is right to highlight the opportunities in the Celtic sea. I shall briefly provide some geographical balance and complete our tour of coastal Britain by showcasing the work that is taking place in the southern North sea, off the East Anglia coast. With the right investment in ports such as Lowestoft, so much more could be achieved that would not only enhance our energy security and propel us down the road to net zero, but help to deliver long-term economic growth.
Lowestoft port, which is likewise part of the ABP fleet, has a good story to tell. SSE has run its operations and maintenance base in the outer harbour since 2012, and ScottishPower Renewables has done likewise since 2019. ABP is progressing plans for the Lowestoft eastern energy facility. There will also be a direct air carbon capture demonstrator site in the inner harbour, which is being progressed by ABP in conjunction with Sizewell C. Lowestoft and Ipswich ports will also play important roles in delivering materials to the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
A good start has been made, but there are challenges immediately ahead that need to be addressed if we are to make the most of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. There is a global race for green investment. The UK should not and cannot get into a subsidy race to the bottom with the likes of the United States. Instead, we should work faster and smarter, building flexibly on what we have already achieved.
In his April report, UK offshore wind champion Tim Pick highlighted a variety of risks that have limited UK port investment. Some of those relate to the contracts for difference mechanism. I will not go into those in detail, as many of us will be back here tomorrow to take part in the debate on the subject led by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The report highlighted a variety of obstacles that need to be addressed. There are some interesting recommendations, which I will briefly highlight: an industrial growth plan; a support framework for offshore wind ports targeted at the risks that they face; and a recommendation that the Government should give offshore wind ports priority, just as they do to offshore wind farms, in the national policy statements. I would be most grateful if, in summing up, my right hon. Friend the Minister advised us how he and the Government will respond to Tim Pick’s report, with specific regard to promoting investment in port infrastructure.
In conclusion, over the past decade offshore wind has been a great British success story. We put in place a mechanism that has worked very well. However, due to geopolitical and inflationary pressures, it needs recalibrating. As part of that process, leading up to the autumn statement, we need to review the way we promote investment in port infrastructure. Ports such as Lowestoft are honeypots not only for decarbonisation but for job creation and regeneration. They are the link between offshore electricity regeneration and onshore supply chains. Nurture them properly and the dividends will be significant.
Peter Aldous
Offshore wind champion Tim Pick has highlighted some of the obstacles that need to be overcome for the industry to realise its full potential. Some of that focuses on ports. Will the Minister provide a bit more detail on the Government’s response to his proposals and recommendations?
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
We are working with industry through the Offshore Wind Industry Council, of which I am a co-chair, to consider Tim Pick’s wide-ranging recommendations, including developing an industry growth plan. Again, this is to do with supporting the development of the UK supply chain and, as we do this massive deployment, trying to ensure that as much as possible of the industrial heft of that can be delivered through the UK and UK jobs. That work is ongoing, and we will keep going.
Speaking in a debate on Lords Amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, Peter Aldous calls for a common-sense approach in respect of allowing local authorities to hold virtual meetings, asks the Government to fast-track their reviews of the decent homes standard and future homes standard and urges the Government should remove the inconsistencies of net zero obligations in the planning process as quickly as possible.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will speak to three amendments, to highlight some concerns about why the Government are opposing changes made in the other place that, at face value, appear to have some merit, and to seek further clarification as to what they are doing to address those concerns.
A number of my hon. and right hon. Friends have mentioned Lords amendment 22, which relates to local authorities holding virtual meetings. I am a vice-president of the Suffolk Association of Local Councils, and the feedback I have received from all tiers of local government in Suffolk is that they support the Lords amendment, which the Government oppose. I acknowledge the Government’s view that a core principle of local democracy is that citizens should be able to attend local council meetings to interact in person with their local representatives. However, instead of an absolute bar on virtual attendance, I would suggest that allowing local discretion, pursuing a common-sense approach, is more appropriate for the following reasons.
First, 90% to 95% of councils at all levels, based on their own individual experiences, support such an approach, which is endorsed by the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks.
Secondly, many town and parish councils have difficulties in retaining a full slate of councillors. They regularly have to co-opt new members, and contested elections are invariably the exception rather than the rule. Allowing some local discretion with regard to the holding of council meetings would remove barriers to becoming a councillor for such groups as the disabled, parents, carers and full-time workers. These groups all have a great deal to contribute to their local communities, but many of them are put off by the straitjacket of being expected to attend all council meetings in person.
4.15pm
Thirdly, some local councils, such as Suffolk County Council and the Broads Authority, which straddles Suffolk and Norfolk, cover large geographical areas, and one has to ask whether it is appropriate to require councillors to drive up to an hour and a half for a meeting. I am thinking, for example, of a journey from Bungay in north Suffolk, in my constituency, to Ipswich, which is a three-hour round trip. We are seeking to encourage less use of our cars, as we strive towards net zero. Attending these meetings on that basis is expensive, time-consuming and inappropriate when we should be looking to lessen our carbon footprint.
Dr Fox
Does my hon. Friend think there is an inconsistency here: company board meetings can be conducted virtually and during covid Parliament was attended virtually, yet parish council meetings cannot be?
Peter Aldous
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend on that point. Coming out of covid, a lot of parish councils have raised that issue with me. From their perspective, they have made well-reasoned cases. They are not going to go daft. There is perhaps a nightmare scenario of local councillors never leaving their homes and, as a result, being abstract from the communities they represent. But they will not do that. They will be very mindful of their responsibilities and they would use this provision sensibly. At a time when we are talking about cascading down responsibilities to local authorities, it appears slightly perverse to be saying, “No, you’ve got to do it this way.”
My next point relates to Lords amendments 46 and 327, which would require the Secretary of State to promote healthy homes and neighbourhoods through a regulatory framework for planning and the built environment. As we have heard, the Government are seeking to strike out those amendments, on the basis that they will cut across the actions the Government are already taking to improve the quality of new homes, will create uncertainty and risk legal challenge and delay. I would readily accept that argument if the existing policy was working well, but it is not; it is complex and focused only on risk reduction. We should bear it in mind that from a high-quality home a host of benefits ensue and cascade down: better health and less pressure on the NHS; and an enhanced environment for learning, doing homework and passing the exams and getting the qualifications that enable people to realise their life ambitions, thereby ensuring social mobility. That in turn leads to improvement in national economic productivity. If the Government are to strike out those amendments, they need to fast-track their reviews of the decent homes standard and future homes standard and to put them in a coherent, positive and ambitious framework.
Finally, Lords amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in preparing national policy, planning policy and advice relating to the development or use of land. As we have heard, the Government oppose the amendment on the basis that it could trigger a slew of litigation, which would hinder action needed to safeguard the environment, and that it repeats existing policy and statutory requirements. They also say that the importance of the environment is already restated in the Bill. I take that on board, although I would highlight three concerns.
First, to achieve our net zero obligations, there is a need for an enormous amount of private sector investment. As the UK Green Building Council points out, pension funds, corporate investors and construction companies require clarity, consistency and certainty in the policy framework. At present, that is missing and the business and investment community is confused.
Secondly, the existing system has created an inconsistency whereby local authorities must take net zero into account in developing their local plans, but the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State, as we heard on a number of occasions, do not have to give net zero the same level of consideration. If this Lords amendment does not stand, at the very least the Government need to remove that ambiguity as quickly as possible.
Finally, I am mindful that in Waveney, my own backyard, in Suffolk and across East Anglia, we are at the forefront of the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change. We have an exposed and vulnerable coast, we are low lying and prone to flooding, and we are the driest region in the UK. That said, we have great economic opportunities arising from the low-carbon economy, in the form of offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen.
Local authorities and local business in the eastern region have innovative plans to best address these threats and to maximise the benefits arising from these opportunities. However, as matters stand, they are constrained by the inconsistencies I have outlined. A greater emphasis on climate change mitigation would provide some certainty and would help to attract the private sector investment I mentioned that, as we are seeing, is globally footloose.
These are the concerns I have. I acknowledge that the Bill should not be seen as the panacea for all our ills and I have listened to the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has provided. I hope that she might be able to allay some of the concerns I have outlined in her summing up.
Peter Aldous welcomes the Government’s confirmation of funding to progress the upgrades at Ely and Haughley rail junctions. Peter, who is co-chair of the East of England All-Party Parliamentary Group, said:
“This investment is not only fantastic news for East Anglia, but is good for UK plc as a whole. The improvements at Ely and Haughley are long overdue and will have significant levelling-up benefits, improving services for both freight and passengers, and will help achieve the Government’s Net Zero commitments.”
Peter Aldous writes for Fishing News and makes the case for a framework to rebuild the infrastructure needed to regenerate Lowestoft’s fishing industry so that more fish can be landed and processed locally.
Peter Aldous speaks in a debate on the impact of increases in the cost of living on further and higher education students and calls on the Chancellor to allocate £400 million additional revenue funding to the further education sector to both address the problems facing the sector and also alleviate the particular challenges facing FE students.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and opening it in such a comprehensive and diligent way. As he said, I chair the APPG for further education and lifelong learning, and I would like to thank the Association of Colleges, which provides our secretariat, for all the work it did in supporting the second stage of the inquiry, focusing on the challenges faced by further education students.
An online evidence session was held, during which we heard harrowing feedback from FE students about the experiences they are facing. Many of those in further education come from less well-off backgrounds and are already making enormous sacrifices to go to college. They are working long hours in part-time jobs, and many are supporting members of their wider family. The cost of living crisis has piled further pressure on them; for some, the burden has become intolerable and they have had no choice but to give up their studies.
Colleges are provided with funding to support students, but this is inadequate, and in many respects the crisis is deepening. East Coast College, with campuses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, has been providing bursaries and free school meals. Two years ago, it was supporting 1,400 16 to 18-year-olds. Last year the number rose to 1,842, and this year the college has already received 2,200 applications, which represents two thirds of its student cohort. The situation is intolerable, and the negative knock-on effects are far-reaching. Many people are being placed under intolerable pressure and are making enormous sacrifices. Colleges themselves find their budgets stretched to breaking point, and that in turn leads to the ever-widening skills gap that affects our economic performance so dramatically.
As we have heard, the July report put forward six recommendations. I would like to highlight one that we speak about a great deal in FE debates: the need for additional core revenue funding for the sector. I acknowledge that in recent years, particularly with regard to capital funding, the situation has improved, but FE gets a raw deal. I urge the Chancellor to address that at the forthcoming autumn statement by providing £400 million additional revenue funding that can address the problems that the sector faces and also alleviate the particular challenge that FE students face.
Peter Aldous welcomes the launch of the Great British Insulation Scheme and calls on the Government to introduce measures such as energy-saving stamp duty and an employee benefits scheme to kickstart a mass retrofitting revolution.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
T2. The launch last week of the Great British Insulation Scheme was very welcome. So as to build on this and to kickstart a mass retrofitting revolution, will my hon. Friend liaise with the Treasury to obtain its support for the introduction of such fiscal measures as an energy-saving stamp duty and an employee benefits scheme similar to the cycle to work scheme? (906474)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The Government set the aspiration in the clean growth strategy of upgrading as many homes as possible to energy performance certificate band C by 2035, where practical, cost-effective and affordable. We remain committed to that aspiration. Although tax policy sits with the Treasury, we are considering how to improve energy efficiency for owner-occupied homes and plan to consult by the end of 2023.