House of Commons
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Thursday 24 June.
Leeds City Council Bill
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the Leeds City Council Bill be now considered.
That the promoters of the Leeds City Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2008–09 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).––(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Nottingham City Council Bill
Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the Nottingham City Council Bill be now considered. ––(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Hon. Members
Object.
To be considered on Thursday 24 June.
Reading Borough Council Bill
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [10 June] as relates to the Reading Borough Council Bill be now considered.
That the promoters of the Reading Borough Council Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in Session 2008–09 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).––(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with business representatives on the expansion of Heathrow airport.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have not discussed the expansion of Heathrow with business representatives since my appointment, as we have made it clear that we will not support a third runway at Heathrow. This Government’s focus is on making Heathrow better not bigger.
Mr Hanson
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position. I do not always agree with the CBI, but it has joined the Trades Union Congress and unions across London to say that the expansion of Heathrow is good for business and for London. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be careful that, in taking his stance—I recognise that it is one of integrity—he does not end up exporting jobs and business from London to Munich, Frankfurt and Paris?
Mr Hammond
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, both parties in the coalition campaigned before the general election on a clear commitment to scrap the third runway at Heathrow. However, we are not anti-aviation and, earlier this week, I set up a working group to consider aviation in the south-east and to work with all the stakeholders, including representatives of business, the airlines and people who work at the airport to ascertain how we can make aviation in the south-east work better within the constraints of existing runway capacity.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
The people of Ealing Central and Acton were delighted by the decision to scrap the third runway. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the third runway had gone ahead, it would have imposed intolerable extra blight on those who live in west London?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When considering airport expansion, we must look at not only the economic benefits but the local environmental burdens and the impact on this Government’s and the previous Government’s commitments to CO2 reduction.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I also welcome his comments about undertaking a review of aviation policy in the south-east because that suggests that the economic case has not been forgotten. Does he agree that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, when there is spare capacity in Paris, Schiphol and Frankfurt, and Dubai has built six runways, we run the risk of being disadvantaged not only by the rest of Europe, but by being bypassed by planes flying straight to the Americas from Asia through Dubai?
Mr Hammond
Heathrow is Britain’s premier hub airport and we intend to ensure that it remains a major hub airport. We want to work with business and other stakeholders to ensure that Heathrow becomes better, not bigger, and that we protect its status.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
2. If he will take steps to reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
The Department and the Highways Agency are committed to improving the levels of service experienced by users of the Dartford crossing. The Highways Agency and I will consider a package of measures, including better information and traffic management to help reduce the congestion at the Dartford crossing.
Mr Whittingdale
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that, since the tolls increased, the delays when approaching the tolling booths are anything up to 45 minutes and more? That causes enormous frustration to those who use the crossing, which is increased by the fact that the original intention was to scrap the tolls once the bridge was paid for rather than to put them up.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend knows that I am personally aware of the problems at the Dartford crossing, having used it for many years. The £40 million net that we recover from the crossing is a significant income, but we need to consider technology that is being used in other parts of the world, particularly in Australia, so that we can remove the barriers and increase the speed at which traffic comes through while also picking up the revenue that the country desperately needs.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
3. What information his Department holds on the effect of industrial action involving airlines on the number of passengers on flights operated by those airlines.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Department does not routinely monitor or hold information on airline passenger loads. However, most publicly listed UK airlines, including British Airways, regularly publish traffic and capacity statistics.
Caroline Lucas
Is the right hon. Lady aware of testimony from British Airways staff that British Airways has run commercially unviable flights in periods of industrial action, with low to zero numbers of passengers, to give the impression that it is unaffected by industrial action? Will you condemn any carrier for such environmentally unsustainable behaviour and investigate any report from BA staff?
Mrs Villiers
It is clear that this Government are determined to provide encouragement to airlines to fly greener planes and to switch to flying fuller planes. That is what is behind the proposals we will make on reforming air passenger duty, and it will help to address the concerns around so-called ghost flights.
Turning to the hon. Lady’s specific example, that is primarily a matter for British Airways. I understand from the airline that some planes flew with low passenger loads, some were freight-only, and some had only crew on board, to ensure that the aeroplanes were in the right place to resume passenger operations once the dispute ended. That is a concern to us because of the environmental impact of empty flights. Unfortunately, that is another negative consequence of the industrial dispute and another reason why I urge the parties to get back round the table to ensure that it is resolved as soon as possible to prevent a recurrence.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
4. What plans he has for the future of the national concessionary bus fare scheme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
The Government’s commitment to protect free bus travel for older people is set out in the coalition agreement. The right to free bus travel for both older and disabled people is enshrined in primary legislation.
Clive Efford
Will the hon. Gentleman be the Government’s conscience on the freedom pass, because when one looks at all the people who have tried to undermine it in the past, one realises that they have all been Conservatives. They have described the pass as a stealth tax, or said that it goes to the wrong people. Would it be a resigning issue for him if the scheme were to be watered down in any way, and will he keep a weather eye out for those nasty colleagues of his who always try to undermine the freedom pass?
Norman Baker
It is something of a record to ask a Minister whether he might consider resigning when he is answering his first departmental question. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition—both parties—are committed to free bus travel for older people, as I set out. Indeed, that is enshrined in primary legislation, so I think that his fears are groundless.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Labour Government reduced the grant for the bus concessionary scheme in London by some £25 million quite late on in the process. Will the Minister confirm that the coalition will not do anything similar to the council tax payers of London?
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister and his colleagues to their appointments, and we wish them well in their responsibilities. It is hard not to notice that the Department is led by two former shadow Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, at least one of whom would rather like to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so the Opposition will be keeping a very careful eye on them to ensure that they are genuine advocates for modern transport infrastructure, and not holding office simply to wield the Chancellor’s axe.
Will the Minister give the House a clear guarantee on two points on the concessionary travel scheme? Can he reassure the 11 million people who were given free bus travel under Labour that this Government will not introduce any new restrictions on when and how their passes can be used, and can he guarantee that there will be no means-testing for new recipients of free bus travel during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Norman Baker
The Opposition spokesman perhaps did not hear my original answer, which was that the Government are committed to protecting free bus travel for older people. That is set out very clearly in the coalition agreement and will be our policy.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
5. What recent representations he has received on the system of reimbursement to local authorities for their expenditure on the national concessionary bus fare scheme; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Department for Transport Ministers have recently received general representations about concessionary travel, including from local authority and bus operator representatives. Some of those representations have included funding issues.
Mr Sanders
I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. He will be aware that many councils have found it difficult to meet the full costs of the scheme. I successfully lobbied for extra money for my authority, but it is still out of pocket. While lobbying, I uncovered a report that suggested that significant savings could be made if the scheme were administered nationally, with the Government rather than lots of local authorities negotiating with the bus companies. Will he look at that idea to see whether savings can be made?
Norman Baker
The previous Government consulted on that very option, and only 23% of respondents were in favour of it, compared with a majority in favour of administration at county council level—the scheme that has now been adopted. The concern is that if the scheme were administered centrally, it might have an impact on the discretionary concessions offered by district councils. We could end up with a national system and local negotiations, thereby increasing administration costs.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the decision to have a concessionary scheme in England had consequential effects on funding in Scotland through the Barnett formula. The scheme is already underfunded by the Scottish Government, so may I have an assurance that there will be no further cuts in funding in Scotland through the effect on the Barnett formula?
Norman Baker
I am happy to say that I am not an expert on the Barnett formula, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the spending review.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
6. What assessment has been made of the effects on front-line transport services of the announced expenditure reductions for his Department in 2010-11.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I can reassure my hon. Friend that this Government take protecting front-line services very seriously. However, we also take very seriously the need to deal with the unsustainable structural deficit we inherited. The Department for Transport is focusing on making its contribution to deficit reduction while supporting economic recovery and protecting priority areas.
Andrew George
Notwithstanding that answer, is the Secretary of State aware that the suspension of major schemes has meant that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency may not provide the Isles of Scilly ferry service with the necessary authority to continue? As the service has been 10 years in preparation, is 99% ready to go and is a lifeline for the Isles of Scilly, will he reconsider this issue?
Mr Hammond
Perhaps I can clarify what I have done. This scheme has conditional approval, and we have said that schemes with conditional approval or programme entry will have to await the outcome of the spending review before we can confirm them. My understanding is that Cornwall county council is still awaiting listed building consent, without which the scheme could not proceed anyway, but we are aware of the vital nature of the link to the Isles of Scilly and we will review the scheme as soon as the spending review has been completed.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment.
Two days ago in the other place, Lord Attlee stated that rail electrification could not be afforded. Does that mean that the Government reject the notion that investment in transport is essential to support economic recovery?
Mr Hammond
The Government are committed to rail electrification because of its carbon impact. However, as the hon. Lady will be aware, we have inherited a massive black hole in the public finances—[Interruption.] Labour Members can laugh, but the previous Government announced a halving of the public capital investment programme without giving any indication of where that cut would come. After the spending review, we will have to look at all these programmes in the light of their affordability and the urgent need to reduce the fiscal deficit.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend meet me and a delegation from Reading borough council to discuss the continued funding of proposed transport changes that his announcement last week suggested might be suspended?
Mr Hammond
The only announcement that I made last week that affects the Reading scheme was about a local authority scheme for highway improvements around Reading station. That scheme will be reviewed following the outcome of the spending review, and my hon. Friend will learn the outcome in due course.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I genuinely welcome and congratulate the Secretary of State and the ministerial team on their new jobs? Good transport can be a driver of economic growth and I ask the Secretary of State to be a champion for transport, rather than treat his position as an application for his next job.
The Secretary of State will be aware that the rail network is carrying more passengers and more freight than at any time since the 1940s, and projections predict further growth. That is why we promised an additional 1,300 carriages by 2014 and we were well ahead of schedule in providing those. In fact, at the last Transport questions, both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives asked us to provide more carriages even more quickly. Now that they are in government together, can the Secretary of State tell us how many more carriages than 1,300 they will provide and how much sooner than 2014?
Mr Hammond
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations.
The Department’s principal task is to support economic growth and the Government’s 2020 carbon reduction targets, and we have to demonstrate that we can deliver them in tandem. Approximately half the HLOS––high-level output specification––rolling stock has already been contracted and will proceed, but no further contracts will be signed during this financial year owing to the disastrous public finances. When the spending review is completed, we will review where we are with the programme and make a further announcement in due course.
Sadiq Khan
One would have thought that if the Secretary of State was serious about moving people from road to rail, he would encourage more carriages, so that people would be encouraged in turn to use the rail system. He will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is a passionate advocate of reform of rail fares; in fact, in his last question at a Prime Minister’s questions, he challenged the then Prime Minister to change the rail fares formula to 1% below inflation. I am sure that he remains a passionate advocate and is not simply window dressing, so now that they are hon. Friends, will the Secretary of State confirm how soon he will announce a change in the rail fare regime and how much below inflation it will be?
Mr Hammond
It is amazing that the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the last Government, appears to come to the Dispatch Box with no recognition of the deficit we are facing and the financial challenges that the Government have to deal with in order to clear up the mess that he and his hon. Friends left behind. We are committed to fair rail fares, but we have to do everything within the context of the fiscal inheritance that we have received.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend, when considering how best to expand rail, to consider branch lines off high-speed rail links to service some of the commuter towns disfranchised under the Beeching review.
Mr Hammond
Although we want to continue to increase passenger usage of the railways, we have to operate within a tightly constrained public spending environment. Our first priority must be to maintain and improve the trunk railway network that we have already. I will consider any proposals for reopening branch lines, but I have grave doubts about whether it is likely to be affordable in the foreseeable future.
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently point out that we need to make better progress, so short questions and short answers would be appreciated.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
7. What plans he has for the electrification of the mainline railway between Wales and London.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
We support rail electrification because it helps to reduce carbon emissions and cut running costs. However, we are in the early stages of the new Government and Ministers are considering the full range of transport policy to ascertain what is affordable.
Kevin Brennan
I welcome the Minister to her post and thank her for her answer. In considering those matters, does she understand the importance of electrification on the line between Wales and London? I am glad that she did not simply repeat the mantra of her right hon. Friend, which is becoming as boring as a vuvuzela at the World cup—the one-note symphony we are getting from the Government. However, does she understand the importance of this kind of infrastructure? It is not just about the budget deficit, but about the future growth of the economy.
Mrs Villiers
I understand the importance of this issue, including in Wales, but the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, had 13 years to do this and failed. Just a few short years ago, the 30-year strategy they published for the railways had virtually no place for electrification. Then we had a last-minute change of mind, made at a point in the cycle when, as Labour’s outgoing Chief Secretary made clear, there was very little money left. We support electrification—it was in our manifesto and the coalition agreement—and we will take forward those projects that are affordable in the light of the deficit left to us by the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
8. What priorities he has set for departmental expenditure on the road network.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He worked long and hard to win his seat and he thoroughly deserves the success that he has now enjoyed.
The first priority of this Government must be tackling the country’s unsustainable level of debt. Once the spending review is complete and the Department has settled its budget, we will review all existing schemes, whether road or otherwise, on the basis of the economic benefits that they deliver.
Robert Halfon
Is the Secretary of State aware that Harlow has just one entrance to a motorway, whereas similar towns, such as Welwyn Garden City, have two or three and Basildon has four? Is he aware that traffic in Harlow is gridlocked and that residents in my constituency are crying out for an extra junction on the M11? With the road review under way, and when finances allow, will he give strong consideration to providing the road infrastructure that Harlow so desperately needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do apologise, but the questions are still too long. We are getting mini-essays. I want short questions.
Mr Hammond
I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be happy to consider proposals from local authorities and the Highways Agency for improvements, but he will understand that they will be affordable only once the deficit has been eliminated.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State said that one of the key priorities was supporting economic growth. How does suspending the decision on the Mersey Gateway project help economic growth in Merseyside and Cheshire, particularly given the support from the Conservative councils in Cheshire? And he should not give us that nonsense about a black hole in the finances.
Mr Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the black hole in the finances is nonsense, he needs to go back and do a little more homework. It is the most serious problem facing our country today and the most urgent challenge for this Government. However, let us be clear about the Mersey Gateway project. All we have done is suspend the progress of the scheme until after the current spending review is completed. We believe that it would be wrong to encourage or allow local authorities to incur significant additional expenditure on a large number of projects when some of them clearly may not be able to proceed on the original timetable.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Is my right hon. Friend going to treat the A1 as a national strategic road, rather than a regional road, and develop plans for full dualling of it when resources allow?
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
9. Whether his Department’s value for money evaluation of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line extension has been completed.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
We recognise the importance of Heathrow as the country’s international hub airport—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think that the Minister has the wrong brief. I may be mistaken—if I am wrong, I apologise to her—but she is answering a question about the Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line. That is what is of interest to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
Mrs Villiers
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
A value for money assessment of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station was carried out by Transport for London and Lewisham council last year. The Department for Transport has some concerns regarding the business case. I have asked officials to provide full advice on the matter and expect to make a decision in the near future.
Joan Ruddock
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her position, and I am grateful for that reply. However, she needs to remember that Transport for London has found that the proposal more than meets the business case that was applicable to all other stations in London, and that it is pivotal to the development of 2,500 new homes and to the job prospects of the 2.9 million people expected to use the station. Will she meet with me to see how to get the station built now, alongside the construction of the railway?
Mrs Villiers
I am happy to meet the right hon. Lady as soon as possible to discuss this important issue. She has fought hard on the campaign, and I am looking into the proposal with great care. I am discussing it with officials and, as I have said, I have asked them for extra briefing. It is important to take into account local views, TfL’s views and the views of other stakeholders. However, I must also make it clear that we need to assess such programmes carefully for affordability, given the state of the public finances and the deficit that we have inherited from Labour.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that this issue has a cross-borough and cross-constituency resonance, and that there is widespread support for the proposal across the parties? Will she meet all of us who have an interest in it? I hope that we shall be able to persuade her of its merits, because we have a very good case.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
10. What guidance his Department issues to local authorities on the provision of subsidised bus services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
In 2005, the Department published a document on its website detailing best practice in the process of tendering for subsidised bus services, along with examples of specimen conditions for contracts, as part of its wider guidance to local authorities. The guidance remains available, and there are currently no plans to update it. The Department’s website also provides guidance on the de minimis rules for tendering.
Chi Onwurah
It was Baroness Thatcher who said that if a man finds himself on a bus at the age of 26, he is a failure. I assure the Minister that that is not the case in Newcastle, where the buses are an essential part of our economy. They are how we get to work. Will he assure us that, under the coalition Government, local authorities will have the powers to ensure that we have excellent bus services?
Norman Baker
We recognise that bus travel is the predominant form of public transport, and we want to encourage that. We also want to get better value for the taxpayer and the fare payer from the bus services that are provided. We also recognise the good work that many local authorities do in dealing with bus services, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the Tyne and Wear integrated transport authority, which is designing a comprehensive bus network to improve standards of accessibility for local residents.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new role; I am sure that he will do an excellent job. We heard earlier that he had been unsuccessful in persuading his colleagues to change their views on carriages and rail fares. Has he had any more luck in changing their views on quality bus contracts? He will be aware that local authorities outside London want the same powers as those in London to choose to enter into quality bus contracts with bus operators. Local authorities around the country, led by all parties, are in favour of that, and so was the Minister before the election. Is he still in favour of it, and, if so, has he persuaded his colleagues to change their minds?
Norman Baker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. He was always considerate and helpful to me when I was in opposition, and I shall try to be equally helpful to him, now that the position has changed.
The legislation on quality contracts is as it is; it was set out and passed under the previous Government, and it remains in place. The Competition Commission is undertaking an investigation into the bus market, and it would be premature for me to make any further comments until it is completed.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
11. What assessment he has made of the merits of the 3a and 3b extensions to the Manchester Metrolink; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Phases 3a and 3b of the Manchester Metrolink were approved for funding by the previous Government. Construction of phase 3a is under way. Phase 3b has been re-examined following the announcement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 May of a review of spending approval granted since 1 January this year.
Andrew Gwynne
With regard to the phase 3b contract for the Ashton-under-Lyne extension, it is important to note that substantial amounts of public funding have already been spent on the route, and significant advance works to provide dedicated strengthened central reserves and bridges have now been completed. Studies show that the East Manchester line will be commercially viable only if it goes all the way through to Ashton. Will the Minister confirm that all those issues will be factored into the review and that they will be carefully considered before a decision is made?
Norman Baker
The hon. Gentleman makes a number of pertinent points, and I understand the thrust of his argument and the strength of his case. I cannot give him a specific assurance at this precise moment, but I suggest that he will be interested to hear the statement that is shortly to be made from the Treasury Bench.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
12. What his plans are for the future funding of new fixed speed cameras; and if he will make a statement.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
15. What his Department’s plans are for the future funding of fixed speed cameras; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 12 and 15 together. The Government will not provide—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am happy to allow the questions to be taken together, but this is the first that I have heard of it. The normal courtesy is that the Government notify me of this in advance. I shall let the Minister off on this occasion, but I do not want to see a repeat performance.
Mike Penning
I had been informed that these questions had been grouped, and I apologise to you if I was impertinent, Mr Speaker.
The Government will not provide any more money to local authorities for new fixed speed cameras. If authorities want to put up new fixed cameras, they are free to do so using their own resources, but we strongly encourage them to use other methods and effective safety measures.
Gareth Johnson
I am grateful for that reassurance. Does the Minister agree that when speed cameras are used more as a money-raising mechanism than as a road-safety measure, confidence in them will continue to fall?
Mike Penning
There are now three times as many speed cameras in this country as there were in 2000, and the public must be confident that speed cameras are there for road safety, not as a cash cow. Under this Government, they will be.
Mr Speaker
I call Richard Harrington. It appears that not only was I unaware of the grouping of questions 12 and 15, but the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), whom the grouping directly affects, was also unaware of it, as he is not present.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that the very good progress made in recent years in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads is partly due to speed cameras, and that the income generated has been less than the money spent by the Government on speed cameras? Will he consider the introduction of more average-time distance speed cameras and making the existing speed cameras less conspicuous?
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman, a Minister in the previous Government and a former firefighter, is well aware of how speed cameras can protect the public. As a former firefighter myself, I know that speed has been part of the reason for many road traffic accidents, but not the sole reason for them. The growth of speed cameras has been so great that the public are concerned about whether they are there for safety or to raise money for the Treasury. The Government will not put any more money in; if local authorities want to do so, that is okay. Intermittent and average speed cameras are in use, particularly on motorways, and are an excellent way of easing congestion on our motorways.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government’s first priority is reducing the budget deficit left us by the previous Administration, and I am determined that the Department for Transport should play its full part in that process. Against that backdrop, my Department is focused on building a modern and sustainable transport system that will contribute both to future economic growth and to the achievement of the Government’s climate change targets.
Fiona Mactaggart
When does the Secretary of State expect to receive Lord Mawhinney’s report on Heathrow high-speed rail access? When he receives it, will he consult Slough, whose prosperity depends completely on its proximity to Heathrow?
Mr Hammond
I have asked Lord Mawhinney to let us have his preliminary conclusions by the end of July, and I will be happy to consult the hon. Lady’s local authority once I have received that report from him.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
T3. As Ministers work out how best to transfer travel from plane to train, where that is possible, will they prioritise talks with European colleagues to make sure that the European rail network works and with colleagues in this country to make sure that high-speed rail will allow people to go through the capital without having to change trains?
Mr Hammond
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. Now that we have made it clear that there will be no third runway at Heathrow airport, modal shift from air to rail becomes crucially important, including for journeys through to Europe. I have asked HS2 Ltd to look at the options and the costs of providing a direct link from the proposed HS2 to the existing high-speed rail network to the Channel tunnel.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
T2. I cannot stress enough the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro to the people of the north-east—in respect of the economy, the environment and the general quality of life. The previous Government pledged £350 million to upgrade the scheme, so will the Minister acknowledge the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro and tell us whether he is going to honour that pledge?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I do acknowledge the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro, just as I acknowledge the difficult financial position the Government are in. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait for the Treasury statement later this morning.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
My constituents do not want the pollution that additional runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick would entail, but they do want shorter queues, fewer delays and better service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are plenty of ways of achieving that through improving operations at those airports?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Secretary of State has established a taskforce to look into the ways we can make good on our promise to make Heathrow better. We have rejected a third runway because of the huge environmental damage it would cause, but there is more we can do to improve the regulatory structure and we are bringing forward legislation on that to incentivise the airports to focus on the quality of service for passengers. We need to keep security measures under review so that passengers are kept safe and we can mitigate the hassle that those measures cause. We need to work with the stakeholders and the airlines to get the right solution to integrate high-speed rail with Heathrow, to provide a viable alternative to having many short-haul flights and to relieve overcrowding problems at the airport.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
T5. What is happening about the sell-off of BAA, its monopoly—particularly north of the border—and the imposition on passengers, especially in Glasgow, of charges for being picked up after their holiday flights, and the requirement to walk for an exorbitant distance? It is an absolute disgrace, and it is time that such companies were brought to book and made to compete.
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a consumer issue which, I know, greatly concerns his constituents and many other users of that airport. It is just the type of issue that we hope our new airport regulation Bill will address. We intend to give airports stronger incentives to look after and respond to their customers.
The proceedings of the Competition Commission in relation to the ownership of various airports around the country are a matter for the commission, but we have often highlighted the benefits that diversity of ownership in the United Kingdom airport sector can yield to customers.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that Arriva buses recently introduced a completely new network and timetable in Milton Keynes? At a public meeting last Friday many of my constituents, especially pensioners, told me that they had been greatly inconvenienced by the changes, and that they had not been properly consulted. Will the Minister do all that he can to ensure that operators consult their passengers properly before introducing such radical changes?
Norman Baker
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We ought to ensure that bus companies work with the grain of local people’s interests. We are considering the period within which bus companies must give notification of new timetables.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will the Minister reassure us that in considering any spending review relating to funds for the Tyne and Wear metro, he will take account of the need to preserve an existing structure which—unlike many other capital projects—is more than 30 years old, desperately requires reinvigoration, and is vital to the community in Newcastle and throughout the north-east?
Norman Baker
As I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), we understand the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro to the area. I suggest that the hon. Lady wait for the statement that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will make later this morning.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
May I urge the Secretary of State to accept the recommendations of the North review and, as a matter of urgency, present proposals for a reduction in the drink-drive limit from 80 to 50 mg?
Mr Philip Hammond
Sir Peter North has delivered a comprehensive report, containing 51 recommendations, on issues relating to driving under the influence of drink or drugs. The Government will consult other Departments on the implications of the recommendations, and we will announce our position in due course.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
In April, when Jarvis was placed in administration, Network Rail cancelled millions of pounds of track renewal contracts on the east coast main line. We have recently been reminded of the Potters Bar rail accident. That track renewal work must go ahead. Will the Minister arrange for me to meet Iain Coucher—along with Members representing other constituencies where many workers have been made redundant as a result of the cuts—so that we can discuss with him the timetable for reinstating the track renewal contracts with other companies?
Mr Hammond
The Office of Rail Regulation is responsible for ensuring that the railway is managed safely, and that works that are required for its safety go ahead. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that shortly before Question Time, Network Rail announced that Iain Coucher would be stepping down from his role. For that reason it would not be practical for me to arrange a meeting with him, but I should be happy to try to facilitate a meeting with another appropriate representative of Network Rail.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will protect runway alternation at Heathrow?
Mrs Villiers
I can give that confirmation. We support the current protections of runway alternation. We defeated Labour’s proposals for mixed mode when we were in opposition, and we will not revive them now that we are in government.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Does the new, post-bureaucratic age of transparency extend to a commitment to publish bus and rail timetables in digital format for open public reuse?
Mrs Villiers
We are looking at that issue at the moment. I think there are considerable benefits to be gained from a more open approach to timetabling, and I would be delighted to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman if he wants to give me further indications of his ideas on this, so that we can ensure we get the maximum benefits for passengers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Vehicle excise duty remains unpaid on 2 million vehicles, 80% of which are uninsured and 70% of which are owned by people with criminal convictions. Given that these vehicles kill 160 people a year and injure 23,000, may we have a crackdown?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, but vehicle recognition technology is now moving forward. I have recently been in police vehicles where we have been able to pick up where other vehicles have not had MOTs and insurance, and I am asking the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on this, whom I met yesterday, to clamp down as hard as possible.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Brake, the road safety charity, has said that cutting Government funding for speed cameras will lead to blood on our roads. Why is the Minister cutting the funding for them, given that they would raise revenue during the forthcoming age of austerity, and how is Wakefield council supposed to put new ones in when it has just had a £1 million cut to its road safety grant?
Mike Penning
Local authorities have the powers to spend the money as they wish, and if they wish to spend it on more speed cameras that is entirely within their remit. There are other ways in which lives can be saved. I have looked at what Brake says, but I disagree. Such cameras should not be a cash cow. This should not be determined by issues to do with raising tax. It should be about safety; that is the important thing.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new position? Does he agree with me in principle that those people whose homes have been blighted by Labour’s preferred route for high-speed rail should be fully compensated, rather than at the 85% of value as proposed by Labour?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. One of the first decisions I took in my new post was to extend the consultation on the exceptional hardship scheme. That consultation closes today and we will publish our conclusions in due course.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
1. What discussions she has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on constitutional reforms to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities in Parliament.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to notify the House that, given the cross-cutting nature of the women and equalities agenda, I may be joined on the Front Bench for future questions not only by the Minister for Equalities, but also by the Minister with responsibility for race equality, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who is present in the Chamber today, and by the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and the Minister with responsibility for pensions, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in order to allow Members to receive answers from the Minister with responsibility for the issue under discussion so that we can look at the wider equalities agenda.
On the question, I welcome the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) to the House, and I am pleased to say that following the recent general election there are now more women and black and minority ethnic Members of Parliament in the House. I am particularly delighted that across the governing parties there are now 56 women MPs and 11 MPs from an ethnic minority background, but we do need to do more, and I will be talking to the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that this issue is a matter of concern when we look at our constitutional reform agenda.
Emma Reynolds
I am proud to be one of the 81 Labour women MPs in the House, and it is clear that my party has done more than any other to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities in this House, but progress is far too slow still. As part of the apparently far-reaching constitutional reform package, what will the Government do to make sure this House reflects the people we serve?
Mrs May
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his speech of 19 May, our agenda for constitutional and political reform will be a power revolution because it will be a fundamental resettlement of the relationship between the state and the citizen, but it would be a mistake for anybody to assume that constitutional reform in itself can bring about an increased diversity of representation in this House. The first responsibility for ensuring diversity of representation rests with political parties, and with political parties taking action to ensure we have a greater diversity of candidates, and I am very proud to have been involved in the action that the Conservative party took to ensure we have a much greater diversity of Members of Parliament on our Benches.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister is absolutely right to say that constitutional reform is not the only way to improve representation within this House. Many suggestions were put forward in the excellent Speaker’s Conference report, which this House considered in the last Parliament, such as a democracy diversity fund to help candidates to stand for election where there might otherwise be barriers, and reforms to this House. Will she be taking forward some of the recommendations in the Speaker’s Conference report?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and I pay tribute to her for the role that she played in the Speaker’s Conference and to the work that was done by the Speaker’s Conference. As she will be aware, the last Government responded to the report and we responded to it when we were in opposition. We will now consider how to take forward some of the proposals made by the Speaker’s Conference—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should have a little patience. They are shouting “What?” and I am just about to tell them, if they wait. We have made an early commitment as part of our coalition agreement to introduce extra support, particularly for disabled people who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected representatives.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right that there are now more Members from ethnic minorities in the House of Commons—26—than at any time in the history of this country. Sadly, the only party that does not have any ethnic minority MPs is, of course, the Liberal Democrats. The leader of the Liberal Democrats supported my private Member’s Bill to allow all-ethnic minority shortlists. Would the Home Secretary support that Bill if I was to introduce it to the House? She is right—it is up to the political parties to make the changes.
Mrs May
In a sense, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has slightly contradicted himself by suggesting that legislation is the way forward rather than the encouragement of political parties. I am pleased that as part of the 26, we have 11 Conservative Members of Parliament from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, which is a significant increase at the last election. It is right that all political parties need to do more on this issue and that all political parties need to consider the processes that they are using to select their candidates. There is a role for us all in trying to go out there to ensure that people in black and minority ethnic communities see this place as somewhere that is for them, so that they want to come and represent constituencies in this House. That is a job that we can all do.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
2. What recent discussions she has had on plans to reform arrangements for parental leave; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
I have had several discussions with Cabinet colleagues and these will continue. We are committed to encouraging the involvement of both parents from the earliest stages of pregnancy, including the promotion of a system of flexible parental leave. Indeed, as we speak my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is making a speech on families and family policy in which he will confirm this commitment.
Julian Smith
May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the needs of and challenges faced by small business employers as well as employees as she develops this legislation?
Mrs May
I can confirm that we will do that. I am conscious that it is important that we ensure that business is consulted when we are introducing such changes to ensure that we can introduce them in as bureaucratically and administratively light a way as possible so that the impact on small businesses is not too great. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce this morning that the childhood and families taskforce that he is setting up will consider this matter and consult on how to put it into place.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary had a chance to read the Prime Minister’s excellent article in the Financial Times in which he says that the priority for Europe must be full equality in the workplace? I welcome that. Is the Cabinet a workplace, and when will half of it consist of women?
Mrs May
That was a somewhat disappointing question from the right hon. Gentleman. As he will know, the proportion of women who are full members of the Cabinet under the coalition Government is exactly the same as the proportion of women who were full members of the Cabinet under the Labour Government.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
3. What steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
6. What steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
I welcome the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) to his place. Violence against women and girls remains prevalent in our society. This is unacceptable and a cross-Government strategy is the best way to address this. I look forward to discussing with colleagues across Government how we will take forward our approach in this area.
Mr Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer. During the previous football World cup in 2006, there was a 30% rise in domestic violence on the days that England played. What assurances can my hon. Friend provide the House that women will be protected, especially during the current tournament?
Lynne Featherstone
The Home Secretary recently stated that such violence is not acceptable under any circumstances, and even the World cup does not give perpetrators the slightest excuse to be violent. The Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all police forces in May to advise them that they should be aware of that and of the possibility of violence during the World cup. Forces were asked to consider what measures they could implement, and a range of recommendations were taken forward, including visiting the 10 most likely offenders from previous experience.
Andrew Stephenson
Does my hon. Friend recognise the advantages of taking a coherent, cross-departmental approach to tackling violence against women, particularly in relation to forced marriages?
Lynne Featherstone
Yes, we do recognise that. Violence against women cannot be dealt with by one Department alone, as it cuts across the whole of government. On forced marriage, we all supported the original Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which was brought forward by my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We will do all we can to work cross-departmentally to make sure that we attack forced marriage, which is unacceptable.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Rape is an act of violence against both women and men, and for both women and men who are victims of rape, it is often their lack of confidence in coming forward that prevents people from being brought to justice. What are the implications of the proposals to extend anonymity to defendants in rape trials on the confidence of male and female victims in coming forward?
Lynne Featherstone
Obviously, the conviction rate in this country is not good enough and needs to be improved, and the last thing that we want is for fewer victims to come forward, but we have not yet seen compelling evidence that offering anonymity to defendants would reduce those reporting rates. The attitude that the victim is somehow responsible is prevalent in this country, and that is something that we will be looking at. I assure the right hon. Lady that we will be looking at all the options in terms of addressing this issue and debating it in the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) on her appointment as the Minister for Equalities, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on hers as the Minister for Women and Equalities. The Opposition will be very keen to work with them on areas in which we can help to support women and to promote equalities.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not answer this question, as she will be aware of the extent of concern about the Government’s proposals on rape. Will she therefore write to me in reply, in addition to her hon. Friend’s response? I wrote to the Home Secretary on 27 May, in her capacity as the Minister for Women and Equalities, about the Government’s proposal to introduce anonymity for rape defendants. I received a reply from her officials making it clear that this was not seen as her responsibility and that it was being sent instead to the Ministry of Justice. I urge her to rethink that approach because she will know, as the Minister for Women and Equalities and as Home Secretary, that according to the British crime survey, 93% of rape victims are women. Singling out rape uniquely as a crime for which defendants need greater protection against false allegations sends strong and troubling signals about the way that women should be treated in the justice system. I urge her to reconsider this issue and to say whether she thinks it is right for defendants in rape trials to be treated uniquely differently from defendants in other serious crimes.
Lynne Featherstone
I assure the right hon. Lady that we definitely see this as an issue for women and equalities, albeit that it resides ultimately in the Ministry of Justice legislatively, and that the Home Secretary will contact her directly regarding her questions.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that a large number of victims of domestic violence are men? Given that she is a Minister in the Government Equalities Office, will she confirm that the Government treat domestic violence against men just as seriously as domestic violence against women?
Lynne Featherstone
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. I am, indeed, the Minister for Equalities, and both men and women are included in that. Some 4% of men are victims of domestic violence, and given that the figure for women is 6%, those figures are not so disparate.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
4. If she will take steps to increase the proportion of people entering careers in science and technology who are women.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
We are absolutely committed to working with teachers and careers advisers to encourage more young women to enter careers in science, engineering and technology, and to supporting British business to increase opportunities for professional women in this sector. The science and technology sector is critical to the UK economy, and women have an enormous contribution to make.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for her reply. When I entered Imperial college to study engineering, the proportion of women in engineering was about 12%. More than 25 years later, that proportion is almost exactly the same. Does the Minister agree that that represents a huge failure in the science and engineering establishment of this country and that now, when we need to rebalance our economy towards engineering and science, urgent measures are required?
Lynne Featherstone
Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady, who is an excellent role model in her field, and I should be happy to talk with her if she has ideas to share with me. It is important that we take this forward. Many companies have already taken action to increase the numbers of women in their work force, but we are clearly not moving fast enough. British Gas has been quite good. It has doubled its work force of women engineers by recruiting women and retraining them. We have to move further and we have to move faster.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
5. What recent assessment she has made of the effects of flexible working arrangements on gender equality in the workplace.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Flexible working is positive for businesses because it helps them keep valued members of staff. The evidence is clear that flexible working arrangements benefit women, by helping them to balance their caring responsibilities. The coalition Government are united on extending the right to request flexible working; indeed, we have a commitment to do so in the coalition agreement. We will launch a consultation with business at the earliest opportunity.
Karen Lumley
Will my right hon. Friend comment on what wider social benefits the Government believe will result from the extension of flexible working rights?
Mrs May
I am happy to do so, although we should make more of the fact that there are considerable benefits to businesses in providing flexible working, including keeping valued members of staff, attracting members of staff and being able to dip into the widest possible pool of talent. There are enormous social benefits for families when both women and men can better balance their home and work responsibilities through flexible working arrangements. We have seen that already. There are enormous benefits for children when parents are able to spend more time with them.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Will the Minister consider looking at the experience of countries such as Norway and Sweden where, as part of promoting greater flexibility and general equality, the Governments have introduced a whole month of parental leave that fathers have to take? This has increased the number of men taking parental leave and helped promote greater equality in the workplace. Will she consider that, as the Government look at their reform of parental leave?
Mrs May
I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. The proposals that we put forward in opposition on flexible parental leave—we are now looking at how we take those forward and improve the arrangements for parents and maternity leave—gave a better offer to men than the one month’s paternity leave that she cites from Norway. It enabled couples to decide who would take the leave that was available and stay at home with the baby after it was born. So I think we can offer fathers and mothers a better opportunity than the hon. Lady suggests.
Legal Aid Payments
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the consequences of the timing of legal aid payments to the charity Refugee and Migrant Justice.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Refugee and Migrant Justice entered into administration earlier this week. It wrote to me a month ago warning me of the risk, and has since made requests for substantial assistance from public funds. The organisation was one of many that provide legal advice and representation to individuals on asylum and immigration matters funded by legal aid. The Legal Services Commission is confident that there is widespread provision of legal advice in this area and that overall capacity will not be affected by the closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice. More than 250 offices nationally are currently providing this type of service.
It may help if I explain the background to this unfortunate situation. The Legal Services Commission has worked closely with Refugee and Migrant Justice for the last few years to help the organisation to make the change to a system of payment based on units of work, the graduated fees scheme. As a result, Refugee and Migrant Justice has received substantial support—over and above the support given to not-for-profit and other organisations—to help it transfer to the current payment system.
However, it is crucial that the Government achieve value for public money. The fixed fee system introduced three years ago by the last Government is already being successfully used by the vast majority of not-for-profit organisations in this area of law. As other organisations have successfully made the transition, it is only reasonable to expect Refugee and Migrant Justice to do the same.
It has been suggested, and is implied in the hon. Gentleman’s question, that under this system payments to Refugee and Migrant Justice have been delayed. It is not a question of any late payments. Refugee and Migrant Justice was paid what was due. However, it did not make the efficiency savings that other providers made.
There is significant long-term interest in the work from other providers, both not-for-profit organisations and private solicitor firms. The Legal Services Commission is currently running a tender round for new contracts for immigration and asylum services from October 2010. There has been an increase in the number of offices applying to do the work. Providers have also bid to handle more than double the amount of cases currently available. It would be wrong to divert legal aid funds to one of the bidders in the middle of the bidding process.
In my opinion, given this unfortunate situation, the highest priority must be the vulnerable clients of Refugee and Migrant Justice. Now that the organisation has left the market, the Legal Services Commission will work with it and other providers to seek to minimise disruption and ensure that clients continue to receive a service. I have checked this morning and I can assure the House that the LSC is working closely with the administrators to ensure that any disruption to clients is minimised. Even today, LSC staff have prioritised the approximately 20 clients of Refugee and Migrant Justice who have court appearances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will ensure that LSC staff continue to prioritise that area. He and I agree that the main task now is to ensure that the interests of that vulnerable group are properly protected and that no one is left without the legal assistance they require.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his full and careful response. On behalf of colleagues who have huge numbers of asylum and immigration cases involving people who use those services, may I say that I hope he appreciates the importance of the subject to them and to our constituents?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that currently—so I am advised—13,000 clients are being looked after by Refugee and Migrant Justice, including nearly 1,000 children, who are of course very vulnerable? Does he accept, too, that the reason for the financial problem is the change in the payment system? Although there has been a reduction in income because the payment system has changed, Refugee and Migrant Justice has also reduced its costs by the same amount—I am advised that it is by 40%—and is now being paid in arrears rather than up front, a system that the Law Society and immigration law practitioners have said is unsustainable. I should be grateful if, in time, the Secretary of State would discuss with those organisations how we might improve the system.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he or his hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State will make sure that all clients who have been the responsibility of the organisation are given the assurance that their cases will be fully looked after in the immediate days ahead? Are there any other charities in the field with the same sort of problem? If so, there needs to be some continuing and widened support. Will he or our hon. Friend be willing to meet those of us with a direct interest, and the organisations where appropriate, to make sure that there is a stable and secure footing in the years and months ahead for this most important legally aided work?
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to the hon. Member. Certainly the problem arose as a result of the change to the graduated fees scheme in 2007, but I do not accept that the failure was necessarily caused by that. Every other organisation, including the other not-for-profit organisations, has coped with this. I do not criticise the 2007 decision, but it was designed to improve the efficiency of the use of public funds in providing large amounts of money to give legal aid to those making asylum claims or facing threats of deportation, or whatever. As far as I am aware, this is the only organisation that proved in the end unable to manage its affairs and its finances to avoid the demise that has occurred.
I know that the system is not popular; I know that the Law Society does not like it, but in these difficult times I am not going to go back on it, because it does provide value for money. We have just invited tenders under the system, and the number of people who want to provide services in this area has actually gone up.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I ask the Secretary of State to turn to address the House? I want to hear his mellifluous tones.
Mr Clarke
Amongst many others, Mr. Speaker, so I will certainly address the House.
I agree with the hon. Member that the main problem now is the vulnerable clients up and down the country. We think that there is a wind-off process going on; Refugee and Migrant Justice is still, of course, entitled to be paid for the work going on, but I have asked the Legal Services Commission to pay very strong attention to that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be giving more attention to that today, to make sure that there is no problem occurring. Certainly one of us will meet the hon. Member and other interested Members, although we may have to take advice on whether we can properly meet them in the middle of the bidding process. This is complicated by the fact that we were in the middle of a bidding contest, which means that one cannot suddenly divert lots of money to one of the bidders.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May I first apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is out of London today but who takes an interest in these matters generally?
This is a major first: we have the deputy leader of one of the governing parties challenging his own Government on the Floor of the House. I look forward to more of that in the future from the Liberal Democrats.
The policy of returning people under 18 years old to safe places in countries such as Afghanistan was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) when he was Home Secretary, and we support it, but it was introduced on the basis of ensuring that there was fair legal representation, of quality, for those who were potentially being deported. Will the Lord Chancellor take steps today to assess, as I think he has already, the viability of Refugee and Migrant Justice, and ensure that this is not just a cash-flow problem? If it is a cash-flow problem, will he ensure that he examines it as a matter of urgency?
Will the Lord Chancellor also meet his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at the issues of joint tendering? I understand that there is tendering for this type of service involving both Departments, and I think there needs to be some consideration of that. Will he particularly look at the points made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in relation to the client group who are now potentially left without legal representation, so that we ensure that they receive proper representation of quality and are not forced to undertake representation with, potentially, providers who are not giving the level of service that we would expect?
Finally, in the longer term, will the Lord Chancellor look at the Legal Services Commission as a whole? One thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn wished to do was to look at providing for that organisation to become an executive agency as a matter of urgency. We noticed that that was not included in the Gracious Speech; had our party secured government, it would have been. I should be grateful if, in the longer term, the Lord Chancellor looked at those issues for the House.
Mr Clarke
First, I doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was asking a particularly aggressive question; he was rightly seeking some more information about a worrying situation, and I do not think the two of us actually disagreed. In any event, coalition government should give us—certainly those of us in the House not bound by collective responsibility—the opportunity to give up the fatuous media convention that every member of every party automatically agrees with every other member of the same party on each and every issue, which the public have never believed anyway.
To return to the more serious question, the organisation is now in administration, so whether it is even remotely possible to rescue its finances is properly a question for the administrators, not for us. It appears to have got into very serious trouble because, over the past month, it asked for large sums to be paid from the legal aid fund for things such as rent. I have already stressed—I accept that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was making the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—that we must look at the client group and ensure that there is no hiatus in the representation of children and others who were looking to the body, but I think that that can be done.
We rather supported the previous Government’s indications that the LSC should be examined and that consideration should be given to making it an agency, because we must be clear about where policy making is proceeding in the area. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is actively in hand, because we have to face difficult issues under the legal aid heading. The matter did not make the Queen’s Speech because important though it is to him, me and many others who look for proper representation in our courts, it was a bit too detailed.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal to Members for short questions and short answers? I remind the House that we have business questions to follow, as well as two further statements and a heavily subscribed debate.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I was extremely disappointed by the statement. Complacency seemed to be there; the good samaritan was certainly not. On behalf of those who worked out of the Ipswich office, and in the absence of any other east of England Member wishing to speak, may I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that Members of Parliament who represent predominantly urban seats will find that their work load increases as a consequence of the situation?
Mr Clarke
With the greatest respect, we face a lot of demands on legal aid. Public money should be used to provide individuals with the legal representation they require, but we cannot suddenly start diverting huge sums out of the legal aid budget to bail out a voluntary body that got itself into a financial mess because it did not make the adjustments for the 2007 system that everyone else succeeded in making. I underline the point that plenty of people—both not-for-profit bodies and professionals—want to provide such services and that an increasing number are trying to get into the market. We are ensuring that no one is left without the representation they require.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Some of us on the Labour Benches did not support the previous Government’s cuts to legal aid in this area because, as representatives of inner-city areas, we realised that there were few specialist immigration solicitors. Will the Lord Chancellor ask the LSC to consider an emergency franchising of those firms that have expertise so that the casework may be dealt with? The problem is the casework that is not being done by RMJ, so how do we help people now?
Mr Clarke
We will not go back on the graduated fees scheme. It might well be that the previous Government will not have been the only one who had to examine what could be done to improve the efficiency of the legal aid scheme and to address its costs, although I realise that that will not be altogether popular.
There are a lot of specialist firms, although there could no doubt be more. The number of firms bidding has gone up in the present contract round, with 330 organisations bidding for twice the amount of work available. However, I will ask the LSC to consider whether something like the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal might be required in particular cities or areas.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I think that part of the problem is that this is not an isolated situation. One of my constituents is owed £11,000 from the past financial year by the LSC. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the policy consultant of NAGALRO, the professional association for family court advisers and independent social work practitioners, to say that some of its workers are owed more than £15,000 from the previous year—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman—he is a new Member and these things take time—that an urgent question of this kind is narrowly focused on a particular organisation operating in a given area and that questions and answers must be confined to that? We have heard the hon. Gentleman, and I call the Secretary of State to make a brief reply.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing quantity with quality when it comes to legal advice on asylum and immigration. Just because there are lots of people coming forward to provide it, it does not mean to say that they are providing good services. Every day in my constituency work I see people who are not getting good advice. Does he agree that it is a false economy for people to go to firms that will not provide them with the service they need? It just means that they then go through the appeals process and make further representations, and that clogs up the system. We should focus on getting reputable organisations, such as the one in question, up and running and providing the services that people need.
Mr Clarke
The contract operation is based on both quality and quantity. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will certainly ensure that the Legal Services Commission follows through on the fact that there are meant to be quality standards; it is not just a matter of making bids for the work. However, we cannot intervene and take money out of the legal aid fund to rescue one voluntary body. That body is briefing everybody through very extensive public relations activity: archbishops are writing to me, and everybody seems to be informed that the body has gone broke, but someone is still producing a great deal of campaigning material on its behalf. It does very valuable work, but it is no good diverting money from the fund to it because it is the only one that has gone bust.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
What this high-quality body has done is highlight a problem that is not restricted to it. In my constituency, which has high immigration advice need, there is no LSC-funded adviser. Will the Secretary of State bring together those Members who have a large number of such cases to discuss with him whether there are better ways of funding immigration advice in our constituencies?
Mr Clarke
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be only too happy to meet the Members of Parliament particularly affected by the issue. We will have to take advice on whether we will be subject to any kind of legal review if we do that in the middle of the bidding process but, subject to that, we would welcome advice from Members who have particularly large numbers of such cases to deal with, because we will have to look at the whole provision of legal aid in this and other areas.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made much of the fact that this is the only voluntary body that has found itself in such difficulties. Does he recognise the volume of immigration and asylum work that has been done and that has to be done? He suggests that other comparable bodies have not found themselves in such a situation; can he name some of those that particularly relate to immigration and asylum?
Mr Clarke
The trust that folded had a 7% market share. It was, of course, part of the old advisory service, which was split up some time ago. The other half of the old advisory service is to get a much bigger market share—over 20%. We are talking about a policy of the last Government, and one with which I do not disagree. The graduated fee scheme was introduced in order to get better value for money out of the legal aid scheme, and everybody had to adjust to it. So far as I am aware, the body is the only one that is in great financial difficulties. In a way, it would have been very awkward for us if it folded after we had awarded the contracts. We would have been in a mess if we had discovered that we had awarded a contract to a financially insecure organisation that went down once we were relying on it to do the work. As far as I am aware, everyone else who is bidding is, I hope, in a sound financial state.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I accept the Secretary of State’s calm approach, and his objective of looking after customers, but I wonder about the accuracy of that. In Leeds, vulnerable people have great difficulty getting representation. We are talking about matters of life and death to those individuals. Will he spell out how he will assure them and this Chamber that no one will go forward without proper representation? In Leeds there is real difficulty, even with the organisation working, to meet the need in the market. How will pulling this firm out of the market help those people to get representation?
Mr Clarke
The LSC tells us that it has full cover for the work. It made a special intervention in 22 cases in which there were court appearances today to make sure that there was representation. I have no reason to doubt that the LSC is on top of the problem, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will spend the rest of the day reassuring us that the LSC and our Department are doing everything they reasonably can to make sure that there is no difficult transition for any of the vulnerable people concerned.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State provide me and other Members who have a real interest in this issue with regular updates on what is happening? I appreciate his offer to meet us, and the fact that he says he is working to make sure that people have the representation they need meanwhile, but we need that information, too, so that we can share it with our constituents and the organisations involved in providing help and support to asylum seekers and people with immigration cases.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State quantify the additional tax-funded resources that have been allocated to support asylum seekers who are affected by the problem?
Mr Clarke
I have to say that I do not yet have at my fingertips the precise increase in recent years in legal aid dependent on immigration cases, or the additional amounts that may have been provided in recent years, but initial amounts of funding were provided for a very large number of purposes by the last Government, and most of those cases are now having to be looked at again.
Business of the House
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week commencing 21 June will include:
Monday 21 June—General debate on the strategic defence and security review.
Tuesday 22 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
Wednesday 23 June and Thursday 24 June—Continuation of the Budget debate.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 June will include:
Monday 28 June—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 29 June— Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 30 June— General debate on the progress and prospects in energy efficiency.
Thursday 1 July—General debate on global poverty.
Hon. Members will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 22 June.
I should also like to inform the House of business in Westminster Hall:
Thursday 1 July—A debate entitled “Supporting carers to have a life outside caring”.
Ms Winterton
I thank the Leader of the House for setting out the forthcoming business.
If there are any statements to be made next week, can we make sure that we do not have a repeat of last week’s discourtesy to the House, when General Sir Jock Stirrup’s departure was announced in the Sunday papers, and by the Secretary of State for Defence on television, but was not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Monday? That is hardly the way to treat the Chief of the Defence Staff.
If there are not any planned statements, could the Leader of the House check with the Cabinet whether there ought to be, given that this week the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is becoming something of a serial offender in this respect, again had to be summoned to the House because once again he wanted to make a key announcement, but not to Members of Parliament? We understand that the Chancellor had suggested that the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury might have an airing, but thought better of it on account of the Chief Secretary being a bit nervy under fire. We are quite pleased that the Chief Secretary is to turn out today.
As it turned out, the Chancellor was announcing yet another commission. Just so that we know whether any decisions remain that are likely to be made by Ministers as opposed to being outsourced to a commission or review, will the right hon. Gentleman place details in the Library of all the commissions that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have set up, all the reviews that have been announced, the number of people who are involved in the reviews and commissions, their terms of reference and their cost? Will he give us a pointer as to whether the Government need so many Ministers to carry out the business of government, given that there might not be a lot left for them to do after all the commissions and reviews have been set up?
I see that the Leader of the House spoke at the Hansard Society last night about altering party conferences. Obviously, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat conferences could be merged and simply called the Conservative party conference.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Leader of the House. Doubtless the subject is genuinely scintillating, but it is not a matter of Government responsibility. I hope that the right hon. Lady might want to move on to something that is.
Ms Winterton
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I simply wanted to ensure that if the Leader of the House intends to refer us to the Procedure Committee, as his speech suggested, there will be discussions with all the parties before that is done. I certainly have not been consulted and, as far as I know, nor have other parties. Will he ensure that consultation happens?
On anonymity for defendants in rape cases, we are now getting increasingly confusing and contradictory comments from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister. Three weeks ago, the Government pledged to give defendants anonymity. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister appeared to change that position to one whereby the accused would be named only if prosecutors brought charges, and this week the Justice Secretary blamed the Liberal Democrats, saying that they had adopted the policy in opposition. There was further confusion at questions to the Minister for Women and Equalities today.
Ministers keep saying that they want a proper, considered discussion, but it is extremely difficult for hon. Members to contribute to any discussion when it is completely unclear which Minister is speaking for the Government. The policy seems to be the victim of hasty negotiations, but the real victims will be women who have been raped. The need for a proper debate on the subject has now become urgent, and I ask the Leader of the House to give us an assurance that he will allocate one of the Government’s general debates—we have a lot of them at the moment—to it.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. On the Ministry of Defence, Sir Bill Jeffrey and Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup have announced to their staff that they will retire in the autumn. Both stayed on longer than they originally intended to see things through over the election period and to get through the strategic defence and security review.
The Government have made many statements—nine since the Queen’s Speech. We have been very open with the House, and about five, perhaps even seven statements have been made this week. The Speaker has indicated that he wants more urgent questions, and that is a useful way to hold the Government to account and keep the House informed.
The Chief Secretary is robust under fire and can give as good as he can take.
I have answered a written question on reviews, referring to the coalition agreement, which sets out the Government’s key reviews and priorities. It is then up to individual Departments to provide information about their reviews.
In my compelling speech last night to the Hansard Society, I said that perhaps it was time for an open and serious debate, in which hon. Members of all parties should be engaged, about sitting hours and sittings in September, to ascertain whether we have the right configuration and whether we are making the best use of our time.
Anonymity for defendants in rape cases is a serious issue, about which there is a wide range of views. The Government are determined to drive up the conviction rate for rape and ensure that those who are convicted get serious sentences. I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is right for the House to debate the matter seriously and calmly, and I will do what I can to provide for such a debate.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on planning guidance for local councils now that the regional spatial strategies have been abolished? In my constituency and many surrounding rural constituencies, there are many proposals to erect vast numbers of wind turbines the size of the London Eye. I greatly hoped that we could have some guidance about extending what happens in Scotland and many other European countries so that we have an exclusion zone of 2 km from dwellings.
Sir George Young
I understand that my hon. Friend is not a fan of wind turbines. The Government’s view is that communities should be protected from the unacceptable impacts of development. Current planning policy in England is that the distance between a wind farm or turbine and a home should be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, I will bring my hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on competition among providers of liquefied petroleum gas to householders in rural areas? My constituents in the village of Llannon find themselves in an impossible situation because when one person has a contract with one company, no one else can go to another provider. That needs serious reconsideration.
Sir George Young
Like the hon. Lady, I have a rural constituency where many people are dependent on one supplier of LPG. Speaking from memory, I think that the Office of Fair Trading had been invited to conduct a review of the matter. I will draw her concern to the attention of the OFT and see whether the issue might be revisited.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know about the great success of the south of England show at Ardingly recently. Does he also know that I am president of the hounds show at Ardingly? Will he see what he can do to lay aside some Government time for a debate on the future of farming, particularly getting more young people into the industry, the security of the food supply in this country and essential research and development for the future of farming in Britain?
Sir George Young
I was not aware that my hon. Friend was president of the hounds show, but I am not surprised. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has attended several agricultural shows and I will draw her attention to the success of the one at Ardingly.
My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the future of farming and the need to increase young people’s interest in that career. I will do what I can to see whether we can provide a forum so that he can share with the House his important views on the subject.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Following my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House’s question, will the Leader of the House state when he took over responsibility for setting Labour party conference dates?
Sir George Young
That is a wilful misrepresentation of what I just said. I said that I think the House should have a serious debate about its sitting hours, when it sits in the summer and whether the 82-day summer recess that we have had in the past is the right way forward. I think all parties might consider whether party conferences are immoveable or whether there is a more intelligent way of reorganising the political year. I accept that it is not a matter for one party, but one for all parties and the House. I hope that the House will engage in that debate in the spirit in which I launched it.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the actions of bailiffs? The subject was mentioned in the coalition agreement and I am sure that many hon. Members have examples of constituents who have been targeted by bailiffs. As I understand it, that area of law is unclear and it would be helpful to have a debate.
Sir George Young
The coalition agreement is specific on the matter. We will provide more protection against aggressive bailiffs and unreasonable charging orders, ensuring that courts have the power to insist that repossession is always a last resort and to ban orders for sale on unsecured debts of less than £25,000. Better regulation of bailiffs will be one of the strands of that policy as we develop it.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Last week at business questions, the Leader of the House, in response to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), indicated that allowances issues are no longer a matter for the House. Of course the administration of allowances is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but is the question of who is entitled to allowances still a matter for the House? Will he therefore correct the record, and in addition confirm that the administration of Short money is still a matter for the House, and that it will remain so?
Sir George Young
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that last point—the administration of Short money is a matter for the House—and I answered questions on that last week. IPSA is responsible not only for the administration of the allowances but for the policy on allowances, as a number of hon. Members said in yesterday’s debate in Westminster Hall. IPSA has simply carried forward the regime that it inherited from the House on questions such as whether Members are entitled to pay or allowances. Under the current legislation, it remains a matter for IPSA to make any changes in the allowance regime.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
May I add to the calls for a debate on regional spatial strategies? The Government’s decision to scrap housing targets was most welcome, but it poses questions for the future of Milton Keynes Partnership—the unelected quango in my constituency—its role as a planning authority, the ownership of the land bank and the future of the local plan. A debate would help to clarify those points.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a forceful case for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that Communities and Local Government Ministers can address the issues he has outlined, and see whether responsibility can be passed down to the locally elected local authorities in his constituency.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
There is growing concern that further increasing student fees will deter students from poorer backgrounds. I am meeting Luke Young, the president of the Swansea students’ union, next week. When will the right hon. Gentleman timetable a debate on student fees, particularly when we should be tooling up all our young people, but particularly those from poorer backgrounds, for the recovery that we all hope is ahead?
Sir George Young
That is a devolved matter in Wales. So far as England is concerned, we are awaiting the outcome of the inquiry by Lord Browne of Madingley. One of the key things that the Government will be looking at is exactly what the hon. Gentleman mentioned— whether any changes would impede or promote access to higher education by students from low-income families.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on Members who refuse to take their seats and fail to give proper representation to their constituents?
Sir George Young
That is a candidate for debate, and a sensitive issue. I can give no guarantee that the Government will find time for such a debate, but it is a perfectly legitimate candidate for a debate in Westminster Hall.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday the North report, which recommends reductions in drink-driving limits, was published. An hour or so ago, the Secretary of State for Transport said that there would be consultation in Government Departments on the proposals, yet newspapers have been full of reports—inspired, it would appear, by ministerial briefings—that the proposals would be rejected. One headline states: “Motorists escape bid to lower drink-drive limit”. Will the Government agree to a debate in Government time to clarify their policy on drink-drive limits? The Leader of the House is a great supporter of road safety, so I hope he agrees to such a debate, and confirms that the Government will be positive about reducing drink-drive limits.
Sir George Young
This is an important issue and our priority is to tackle drink and drug driving in the most effective way. I listened to the Transport Secretary’s response a few moments ago, and I did not detect the equivocation that the hon. Gentleman alleges. The Transport Secretary said that the report covered a wide range of issues and made 51 detailed recommendations, which the Departments concerned need to consider carefully. He also said that the Government would respond to Sir Peter in due course. However, on top of that, I agree that it is an appropriate matter for the House to debate.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
One of my constituents recently turned up for duty in court as a witness and spent most of the day there, but was then sent home because no other witnesses turned up. He wasted most of his day but, more importantly, the court case had to be delayed again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to consider more measures to ensure that witnesses are made to turn up when they are required, so that cases are not postponed or even put off altogether?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the hon. Lady is seeking either a statement or debate.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important that we use the resources of the court system effectively, so that the sort of waste to which she refers does not occur. I will contact the Justice Secretary and share her concerns with him, and see whether the Government have proposals for making better use of the available resources.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
On 26 May, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury came to the House and said in answer to an urgent question on the future jobs fund that Government
“policy…has to be informed by the facts, and…advice…from the Department for Work and Pensions”.
He added that that advice was that the fund
“was…not effective and that the money was wasted.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2010; Vol. 510, c. 164.]
However, when I visited my constituency’s district Jobcentre Plus office on Monday, I was told that it was far too early to judge the effectiveness of the scheme, because no data are yet available. May I suggest that we have a debate on the scheme, so that we can work out whether what we are being told about the DWP’s view of the matter is a reflection of what is happening on the ground?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for a debate. The future jobs scheme cost about £6,500 per place, which is about five times the cost of other components of a similar programme. Many of the jobs were relatively low-paid and insecure, and many were in the public sector. The Government believe that we have better approaches to dealing with unemployment—namely, the Work programme—but I hope that it will be possible at some point to discuss the issues that he raises. That could happen in the context of the Budget debate, because I believe that the Work and Pensions Secretary will speak then.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Mr Speaker, as the defender of the rights of MPs, I am sure that you were aware of the debate on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that took place in Westminster Hall yesterday, which about 50 Members attended, and of the excellent speech made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The matter cannot be allowed to remain there; we need to take it forward. The Leader of the House will know that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the
“interface between parliamentary privilege and IPSA’s decisions”
and
“the privilege of freedom from obstruction in the performance of parliamentary duties.”
He quoted pages 75 and 143 of “Erskine May”, and referred to what it says under the heading, “Obstructing Members of either House in the discharge of their duty”.
With that in mind, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that we had a Minister at the Dispatch Box for a debate, because the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling concluded that IPSA
“is obstructing Members in the efficient and effective discharge of their parliamentary duties”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 144-145WH.]
Sir George Young
I attended that debate and heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) make that speech. The debate was, of course, replied to by a Minister from the Cabinet Office. If any Member believes that there has been a breach of privilege, a procedure can be followed, which involves an approach to Mr Speaker.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
During Transport questions, the Secretary of State made it clear that his priorities are encouraging economic growth and reducing carbon emissions, yet Transport for London is proposing massive job cuts and the closure of virtually every ticket office on the London underground. Those actions will impact directly against the Secretary of State’s hopes. May we have a debate on that, and not least on what seems to be a marked lack of communication between the coalition Government and the Conservative Mayor of London?
Sir George Young
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, but the staffing of individual underground stations is a matter for TfL, which may be having to do what Departments are having to do: coping with the economic legacy that we have inherited. Perhaps at some point Opposition Members will tell us where the £50 billion of cuts they identified before the election would have applied.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the big society? Many community organisations in Harlow are keen adopters of the big society reforms that will do so much to transform voluntary groups up and down our country.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Prime Minister’s speech on the big society has indeed whetted the appetite of voluntary organisations up and down the country for further development of that policy. I agree that the question of how we engage the resources of the third sector is important. I am not making a commitment, but I should like to find time for a debate if we can.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House if he would kindly urge the Home Secretary to update us on the review of dangerous dogs legislation initiated under the last Government. He said that the Home Secretary would do so during the Queen’s Speech debate, but unfortunately that did not happen. May I again urge him to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and update us on the review of that legislation?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and if there has been a discourtesy, I apologise. I will pursue the issue further, and Home Office questions will be held on 28 June, when she may have an opportunity to raise the matter again.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is my right hon. Friend’s thinking in changing the hours of Tuesday’s Budget day to those of a Wednesday sitting? Should we take that change as a pilot for changes to future Tuesdays?
Sir George Young
It would be wrong to read too much into the changing of the time for the Budget debate. After consultation, we took the view that it would be for the convenience of the House to begin the debate a little earlier. My hon. Friend makes the point that at some stage we will need to look at the sittings of the House. We have many new Members and we have to operate within a slightly different regime, so there is an appetite for intelligent debate about how the House uses its time.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Leader of the House raised the issue of the recess. Midsummer’s day is in four days’ time, but Parliament does not start its so-called summer recess until five weeks later. May we for once have a summer recess in the summer, a shorter recess and one that takes place during the Scottish school holidays, which are, of course, actually in the summer? That could help MPs to be more available to their constituents at summer events. May we have a debate on the timing of the recess?
Sir George Young
I do understand that for MPs with Scottish constituencies the summer recess does not coincide with the school holidays in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman reinforces the point made in earlier exchanges about the need to stand back and look at when the House sits and consider whether we make the best use of our time.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In opposition, the Leader of the House was always a supporter of enhanced post-legislative scrutiny and, in particular, of finding time for debates on Law Commission reports. Can he update the House on what plans he has in that respect, and does he think that there is too much legislation or too little?
Sir George Young
I think that there has been too much legislation. We are determined to have less legislation and better drafted Bills, with proper time allowed for the House to reflect on them. That will be a transformation compared with what happened in the last Parliament.
Good governance involves post-legislative scrutiny, as well as the production of draft Bills and a pre-legislative stage. Every Department should produce a summary, a few years after legislation has been enacted, stating whether it has met its objectives, and Select Committees have a role to play in post-legislative scrutiny, as well as their other tasks. In a word, the answer is yes.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
For several weeks, I have been attempting to obtain support from IPSA to offer jobs to people who want to work in my constituency office. The failure of IPSA to respond to me by phone or e-mail is putting tremendous pressure on my office’s ability to provide a service to the people of Chesterfield who sent me here. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on what support he can give to new Members who are attempting to staff their offices, but who are having to rely on voluntary contributions to provide a service to their constituents?
Sir George Young
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to provide the service that he wants because of difficulties with the allowance regime. The whole object of the allowance regime is to enable MPs to look after their constituents and hold Ministers to account. If it is not doing that, it is a serious matter. I will ensure that the interim chief executive is aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised and that he gets a prompt response.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Leader of the House said that he wants less legislation, but there could not be any less legislation than at present, because he has announced none. When will we have a Second Reading on one of the many plans for legislation that the Government have announced, so that we can scrutinise it, and when will he set up the European Scrutiny Committee, so that we can scrutinise their plans on Europe?
Sir George Young
In the Queen’s Speech, we outlined 22 Bills for an 18-month Session. We have already introduced three of them—one in the House and two in the other place—and I anticipate a finance Bill before too long. I also anticipate two more Second Readings before the summer recess.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Will the Government arrange, in Government time, a debate on the effects on employment of Government policies? I estimate that the recently announced cuts will cost at least 30 jobs in Slough—a town where unemployment has fallen month on month since the start of the year. Will the Government give us a chance to discuss the effects of what they are doing?
Sir George Young
May I return the compliment and suggest that the Opposition use one of their Opposition days to explain where they would have found the £50 billion cuts that were factored into their pre-election statements? They never told us where those cuts would come from, and they would have included some £18 billion of cuts to the capital programme. They said that they would tell us after the election where they would find those cuts, and the time is now ripe.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for someone from the Government to come here and tell us why they are afraid of scrutiny of their behaviour in Europe and why they have not set up the European Scrutiny Committee, which was the first Committee set up in the last Parliament by the previous Government? Are they afraid of the Euroscepticism generated on their Benches when they were in pre-election mode, or are they afraid of the ESC, which of course won an inquisitor of the year award when we had a Labour Government and it had a Labour Chair?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done on the ESC. I am aware that documents continue to arrive from Europe that need scrutiny and that, at the moment, there is no ESC. There is no conspiracy along the lines that he suggests. Urgent discussions are taking place along the usual channels, and I hope that it will not be too long before we can establish the ESC. I am sure that whoever chairs it will do a fantastic job.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
In the light of the Alston report to the United Nations, a debate on the conventions used in the deployment of advanced military technology would allow us to debate whether international law has to be reformulated as a result of that report. Do the Government believe that drone planes should be used for the targeted extra-judicial killings of suspected terrorists?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious question. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for him to make that point in the debate on the strategic defence review, but I will certainly pass his concerns on to the Ministry of Defence and ensure that he receives a reply.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you for the introduction, Mr Speaker.
Last night, Europe’s Conservative party leaders and Prime Ministers met for dinner, with the exception of our Prime Minister, because he is in alliance with—as the Deputy Prime Minister puts it—“nutters, anti-Semites...and homophobes”. May we have an early debate on rise of nationalist, populist extremism in eastern Europe, the worries of Jewish communities and the extent to which the Conservative party—not the Liberal Democrats—are giving cover by their alliance with these people?
Sir George Young
I am sorry that business questions are ending on that note. The right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing this issue for many months, but there is no substance in the accusations that he has made about our colleagues. I am sure that given more time he could have found a better question to ask on the business.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.
Public Spending
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the Treasury’s review of the public spending commitments made by the last Government between 1 January 2010 and the general election. In the review, we examined the £34 billion of spending that was approved in their final few months of office. The aim was to test in each and every case whether those commitments are affordable, whether they deliver value for money and whether they remain genuine priorities for this Government.
The review is now complete, and my decisions on those commitments fall into three categories—projects where spending will be approved, because they are a high priority or because the money has largely been spent; projects that will be cancelled; and projects whose long-term affordability will be considered as part of the wider spending review process over the coming weeks and months.
A detailed list of the projects that have been cancelled or suspended until the spending review has been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.
For those projects that offer value for money and meet the Government’s priorities of fairness and responsibility, or for those that it is simply too late to withdraw, we have acted quickly to confirm approval in order to avoid disruption. For example, we have approved the funding for essential medicines in the case of a flu pandemic, some hospital projects and support to post offices, as well as for spending on crucial equipment for military operations in Afghanistan. The House will be aware, however, that as a country today we have the biggest peacetime budget deficit in our history. We have a choice: we can act fairly, responsibly and decisively now, or we can follow the approach of the previous Government—deny and delay—which would only end in greater cuts being forced upon us. Given our priority to get the deficit under control, the Government collectively have looked at each project, and I am grateful for the support of Cabinet colleagues in this process.
Some commitments are simply unaffordable, do not meet Government priorities and will be cancelled. We have taken the decision to cancel immediately 12 projects that would have cost nearly £2 billion over their lifetime. They include the Department for Communities and Local Government’s regional leader boards; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ loan to Sheffield Forgemasters; the Department for Work and Pensions’ low-value employment programmes, including the extension of the young person’s guarantee to 2011-12 and the jobseeker’s two-year guarantee; the Department of Health’s active challenge routes, county sports partnerships and the North Tees and Hartlepool hospital project; the local authority business growth incentive; and the withdrawal of Government funding for the Stonehenge visitors’ centre. Many of those are difficult decisions and, I fully understand, painful ones for some of the communities affected—communities whose hopes were irresponsibly raised by the previous Government. However, they are decisions that a responsible Government must face up to in these difficult economic times.
Other decisions should be weighed up against all the other significant pressures on public spending within the context of the spending review—a spending review that the Labour Government delayed because they did not want to admit that painful decisions had to be made. For this reason, I can announce that there are a further 12 projects, with a total value of £8.5 billion, approved since 1 January that we will suspend and refer for consideration to the spending review process over the coming weeks and months. They include the health research support service, the Kent Thameside strategic transport programme, and the libraries modernisation programme. Any other new major hospital schemes will be assessed in the context of the spending review to ensure that they are affordable and represent the highest possible value for money. Only the highest priority schemes will be able to go forward. We will do this in the context of the approach set out in our spending review framework, which will include a fundamental review of all capital investment plans, to identify those areas that will achieve the greatest economic returns.
The Secretary of State for Education has already announced that he is looking at the whole Building Schools for the Future programme and will shortly set out the outcome of this work. That programme has been very heavily overcommitted, and we are in agreement that tough decisions need to be taken. Departments have also independently reviewed projects with budgets within delegated limits approved since 1 January, and they will report the results of those reviews in due course. Together, these decisions will significantly relieve burdens on departmental budgets that will be under major pressure in the spending review.
While conducting this review, I have discovered yet another black hole in the books that we inherited. I can tell the House that billions of pounds of spending commitments were made for this financial year that relied upon underspends or access to the reserve. There was no reason to suppose that underspends would have occurred on anything like that scale and there is insufficient contingency in the reserve to cover the remainder. I will therefore be cancelling at least £1 billion of commitments where there simply is not the money to pay for them. We will announce the action that we will take to tackle this further hole in the accounts in next week’s Budget. As far as the reserve is concerned, I am sure the House will agree that our priority is that we keep this for genuine emergencies and new pressures that may result from military operations in Afghanistan.
The last Government committed to spend money that they simply did not have. They made commitments that they knew the next Government could not fulfil and in doing so cynically played politics with the hopes of our communities. The actions that I have set out today show that this Government will take responsible spending decisions, which, although sometimes difficult, will be guided by fairness and the overriding need to tackle the deficit. We did not make this mess, but we will clean it up. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for early sight of his statement, which arrived a few moments ago. We were all impressed not to read his conclusions in the newspapers this morning. I congratulate him on his first statement to the House as Chief Secretary. I think that it was George Bernard Shaw who said that sometimes to succeed in politics one must rise above one’s principles—and few have risen so fast and, I now see, so far as the right hon. Gentleman.
I start with a word of thanks to the Chief Secretary for finally nailing the myth that Labour generated some kind of scorched-earth policy, of which we heard so much in the first days of the coalition. The projects that he has decided to outline this afternoon amount to just 0.05% of this year’s Government spending. At the beginning of the week, we heard from Sir Alan Budd, who told us that the outlook for public finances is £30 billion better than expected, but now the Chief Secretary, who cannot even claim the defence of independence, has smashed the coalition’s claim that Labour spent unwisely. The House is united in its ambition to see the deficit paid down quickly. The defence of our country from the global recession did not come cheap, and now the bill must be paid, which is why we set out with such clarity £19 billion of tax increases and £20 billion of detailed spending cuts over the next two years alone.
I, too, have reviewed the spending decisions taken since January, and my thanks go to the Treasury staff for facilitating this review. I am glad that the decisions that we took on green energy, university modernisation, Airbus, Nissan, Ford, the automotive assistance programme, royal research ships, phase III of the Diamond science programme, the Tyne and Wear metro, the Leeds next generation transport scheme, Manchester Metrolink, the regeneration of Blackpool, accelerated development zones, Olympic park restructuring, hundreds of millions of pounds for the Ministry of Defence, £30 million for children’s hospices and three new hospitals have been reaffirmed.
The country and the Liberal Democrats beyond, however, will be aghast this afternoon at the Chief Secretary’s attack on jobs, his attack on construction workers, his attack on industries of the future and the cancellation of a hospital. What could be more front line than that? In five minutes this afternoon, he has reversed three years of Liberal Democrat policy, of which he was the principal author. What a moment of abject humiliation! He will no doubt claim that the markets forced his hand. These were the markets in which interest rates were falling, not rising, throughout the winter and spring. He claims there is no reason why the Government can assume to carry forward underspends from previous years, despite the fact that, as he well knows, billions are underspent each year, including last year.
It is customary on these occasions to ask the Minister a wide range of questions, but I will give him the luxury of answering only one, although I expect a straight answer: how many people will lose their jobs this year as a consequence of what he has just told the House? Do not beat about the bush—tell us how many.
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to the shadow Chief Secretary for his response and for welcoming me to my post. He is right that a number of projects have been approved, and Departments will set out details of those projects, or where they are seeking further savings within those approvals, over the next period. They are also, of course, reassessing those approvals given within delegated limits, as I said in my statement, so there will be further announcements to make on that.
The right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report was surprising, given that the report showed that, in fact, growth was expected to be significantly lower than was forecast by his Government in the last Budget and that the structural deficit—that part of the deficit that can be paid down only by Government policy action—was considerably higher. He set out what he said were Labour’s plans. We look forward to hearing more detail about that. If he is committed to a shared deficit reduction plan, I look forward to his party finally setting out in detail what it would take to meet the £50 billion of cuts that it proposed to set out.
As for consistency with the approach of the Liberal Democrats, which the right hon. Gentleman asked me about, the position is entirely consistent with the approach that we took during the election campaign, in common with our coalition partners, on ensuring that firm action is taken to reduce the deficit. That must be the overriding priority. He said that end-year flexibility is used year by year to meet commitments, but the volume of commitments that were made under the previous Government is so large that it calls into question the Government’s ability to have a reserve at all. Therefore, we have to take action to reduce those claims in early course, and that is what we are going to do in the Budget.
The single biggest risk to jobs in this country is not taking action to reduce the deficit. If we fail to take action to reduce the deficit, we will see jobs lost across the country. We need to restore confidence to the economy.
What we have learned from today’s statement is that the shadow Chief Secretary went on a pre-election spending spree when in office, in the full knowledge that the Government had long since run out of money. The House will be familiar with the shadow Chief Secretary’s now infamous letter to his successor, but allow me to contrast that with the letter that I received on my desk from my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) wrote:
“I’m afraid there is no money…good luck!”
However, my right hon. Friend’s advice was rather more helpful. On leaving the Treasury, he left me a note saying:
“good luck, carry on cutting…with care.”
Contrast the previous Government’s approach with ours. They raised false hopes by promising the public that they would spend money on local projects that they could never afford to get off the ground, even under their own spending plans. We on the other hand have been candid about the scale of the task. We have made it impossible to fiddle the economic figures to suit our Budgets, and we are taking responsible and measured action on historically unprecedented levels of borrowing.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Many hon. Members wish to get in. We have another statement to follow and there is business after that. I will certainly try to call as many hon. Members as possible, but if we can have quick questions and succinct answers, that will be of benefit to all.
Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Is it not pretty clear that some of those projects were hastily scribbled cheques on a long overdrawn account? Would not today’s painful announcement have been completely unnecessary if Labour had carried out a proper comprehensive spending review last autumn, building into it a sustainable reserve?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If there had been a spending review, we would not be in this position now. As it is, out of the £34 billion of commitments that the previous Government made in that period, we have had to cancel £2 billion and put £9 billion into the spending review. The choice is obvious: profligacy on the one side, responsibility on the other.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
There will be fury in Wakefield and my constituency, where people are expecting schools to be rebuilt and where we absolutely must have the 70 additional hospital beds to make proper provision. Any cancelled patient operations as a result of today’s decisions will be laid entirely at the right hon. Gentleman’s door. His party have joined with the other coalition party in being the party of mass unemployment. Some 300,000 building workers are already out of work. What is his estimate of the increased unemployment that he will produce as a result of his statement today?
Danny Alexander
I understand that some of these decisions are difficult for communities and that there will be genuine anger, which the hon. Gentleman has expressed. However, that anger should be directed at those on his own Front Bench who took irresponsible decisions that could not be afforded. We are now putting that matter right.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary accept my thanks for finding the money for the private finance initiative for roads in my constituency?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The previous Labour Government agreed launch-aid investment for the Airbus A350, which will help to secure tens of thousands of jobs in the UK. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that that will be paid in full and that he will not revisit the matter?
Danny Alexander
As I said in my statement, spending Departments will make announcements themselves about the projects that have been approved.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I had hoped to hear the words “better health care closer to home” and “St Helier hospital” in the Chief Secretary’s statement. Can he update us on the position in relation to that hospital project?
Danny Alexander
We have considered a number of hospital projects against affordability and value for money criteria. It has been agreed that the Epsom and St Helier, Royal Liverpool, Royal National Orthopaedic and Pennine acute hospital schemes will go ahead.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
There is a curious part in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement on the successor deterrent extension to concept phase long-lead items on Trident. What is the value of that, and can he explain why he did not tell the House that he is reviewing Trident? Does he not know what he is doing, or is he embarrassed and ashamed?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, in the context of renewing the deterrent, the coalition has agreed a value-for-money review. In the context of that, spending £67 million on long-lead items in advance of the value-for-money review being completed would be utterly irresponsible.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary for outlining Labour’s cuts. Will he take this opportunity to remind the House just why we face such a difficult spending round?
Danny Alexander
We are facing a difficult spending round for two reasons: first, we have the largest peacetime budget deficit since the war—£155 billion—with an 8% structural deficit, which is larger than had previously been estimated; and secondly, the previous Government took irresponsible spending decisions at the end of their time in office and that has added to the pressure on Departments in the spending review. I am seeking to relieve that pressure in today’s statement.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
In the last Parliament, the then Secretary of State for Transport agreed to part-fund the A6 bypass—a road that is important in relieving congestion on the A6 in my constituency. Will the Chief Secretary agree to meet me and other Members of Parliament who have an interest in the scheme, so that we can discuss with him the merits of the project?
Danny Alexander
A meeting would be better held with Ministers from the Department for Transport, who, I am sure, would be willing to agree to such a meeting.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary enlighten us as to the number of projects that were approved by the previous Government in the month before the general election?
Danny Alexander
A significant number of projects—with a significant cash value—were agreed in the last month before the election, and I will happily give the hon. Gentleman more details later.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I note from the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that a commitment has been given on crucial equipment for military operations in Afghanistan. However, can he confirm to the House today that he will also give a full commitment to the announcement that I made before the election on the £30 million for the Army’s recovery capabilities, the costs of the armed forces compensation scheme and the extension of the veterans mental health pilots?
Danny Alexander
As I said in my statement, Departments will make clear the projects that have been approved, but protecting spending on front-line services in the armed services and support for our troops on the front line in Afghanistan is a priority for this Government.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Does not the shadow Chief Secretary’s delay in coming to the Chamber for today’s statement characterise the previous Government’s delay in taking the tough decisions that are needed, and did not his response characterise their refusal to say sorry for the mess that they left this country in?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although I would not wish to cast aspersions on the shadow Chief Secretary’s reasons for the timing of his arrival in the Chamber. That would be discourteous. However, it is fair to say that a spending review was delayed by the previous Government because they did not want to face up to the fact that some difficult decisions had to be made.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Sheffield Forgemasters loan would have helped place the UK at the forefront of global nuclear production and enabled Forgemasters to install the country’s first 15,000-tonne forging press, thus reducing our dependence on foreign imports. Is the Government’s decision not a political one, made out of spite because South Yorkshire voted Labour, rather than a decision based on the long-term interest of UK manufacturing?
Danny Alexander
No, none of the decisions was motivated in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. I have received representations from Members from a number of political parties on this matter. The key issues are affordability and value for money, and that project does not meet those tests. However, we continue to be supportive of it and officials will continue to work with the company to help it to try to secure private investment, which we think is perfectly justifiable for that worthwhile project.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
In the run-up to the general election, Labour Ministers trotted up the M1 to my constituency to make all sorts of promises on issues that they had done nothing about for 13 years. Does the Chief Secretary agree that, instead of coming here and feigning anger today, Labour Members should walk out of that door and go to constituencies such as mine to apologise for raising people’s hopes about projects that they never intended to fund?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is easy for people to write cheques when they know they are going to bounce. Labour raised hopes in communities that certain projects would go ahead, for which there simply is no money left. As the shadow Chief Secretary said, there is no money left, and that should have been the approach that guided those decisions, not the need of Members to save their own seats.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Questions must be addressed—and the Minister must respond—not to the former Government, but to this Government and to today’s statement.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
How much does this review bring into question private finance initiatives or public-private partnerships that, at their inception, had bogus public sector comparators and have cost the public purse a lot more over the period? Will the Chief Secretary also ensure that there is no threat to the service provided by search-and-rescue helicopters, despite the suspension of procurement for helicopters? That service is vital to island communities such as mine.
Danny Alexander
I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, his point about PFI is not within the scope of this statement. However, in the context of the spending review, we will have to look at every single way in which public money is spent—including the operation of PFI—to ensure that we are getting value for money and not spending taxpayers’ money unnecessarily when the spending settlement is going to be so tight.
The hon. Gentleman will see, when he reads the statement in the Library, that the search-and-rescue helicopter replacement is one of projects whose cost-effectiveness will be reviewed by the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Transport. Obviously, they will produce their report as and when that process has been completed.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
In the light of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s statement and of the fact that this will be a fixed-term Parliament, will he introduce constraints to prevent a similar spending spree in the run-up to the next general election?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I understand the motivation behind it. Given the scale of the challenge that we face in the form of the enormous structural deficit and the need to bring down that deficit further and faster than the previous Government proposed, I suspect that that task will consume all our time in the Treasury over the next five years, without having to worry about the question that he has raised.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the run-up to the election, we could hardly move for Labour Ministers making all sorts of spending commitments. Will the Chief Secretary tell us how many of them were subjected to value-for-money tests?
Danny Alexander
Having found the piece of paper that I was looking for earlier, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a substantial number of those projects were agreed to very close to the election. In the week before the election was called, the Kent Thameside strategic transport programme was agreed, as were the Birmingham magistrates court programme, the Outukumpu project, Building Schools for the Future in Cumbria and the Sheffield retail quarter. That was all done in that one week before the election.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary has made a serious accusation in saying that Labour Ministers deliberately agreed expenditure or programmes of action that were not properly funded. If that were the case, the permanent secretary would have asked for a ministerial letter of direction. Will he place before the House the ministerial letters of direction for all the projects that he has referred to?
Danny Alexander
Having looked at the state of the books and seen the plans that the previous Government set out—at least in headline terms—to cut £50 billion from public spending over the course of this Parliament, I do not see how any Minister could responsibly have made those spending commitments and expected them all to be met after the election.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that, under the previous Government, the Department for Communities and Local Government spent £134,000 on luxury sofas? Is not that an example of the obscene waste that has led to the tough decisions that we have to make today?
Danny Alexander
I was not aware of that Department’s spending on luxury sofas—perhaps I should have been. It is precisely that kind of expenditure on which we need to bear down heavily in the context of the spending review and through the efficiency and reform group that we have established, to ensure the maximum amount of space in Departments’ budgets to spend on the front-line services that Members on both sides of the House care about.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Can I try to get a straight answer to a straight question? What assessment has been made of the impact of this announcement on jobs and growth, and will the Chief Secretary publish that assessment and put it in the Library?
Danny Alexander
The position on that is as I set out to the shadow Chief Secretary: the biggest risk to jobs and growth in this country is failing to take appropriate action to deal with the deficit. That is the context of this Government’s policy. If we continued with the irresponsible habits of the previous Government, we would soon be in a great deal worse a position than the one in which we now find ourselves.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that job losses are the tragic consequence of 13 years of misgovernment and massive overspending?
Danny Alexander
That is at least partly the case. The challenge that we now face is how to tackle the fundamental economic problems that this country faces. The most serious economic challenge that we face is the scale of the deficit. We have seen in countries elsewhere in Europe and further afield the consequences of failing to act on fiscal consolidation. If we fail to act, the problems for jobs and growth and the prospects for our economy will be a great deal worse than they are today.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
In 1979, the then Government started destroying South Yorkshire’s industry, and the right hon. Gentleman is truly an heir of that Government. Does he realise that the name of liberal democracy must hang its head in shame in Sheffield, now that Sheffield Forgemasters has no future? His right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister can now send back his Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority travel allowances, because he will never be welcome in Sheffield or South Yorkshire again.
Danny Alexander
I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the programmes in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, he will see that a number of grants to industry have been approved, having been judged on the tests of value for money and affordability. Also, as the Government make progress over the next few months and years, he will see that protecting areas that are particularly dependent on the public sector and that have been disproportionately affected will be a key priority for us.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Which individual project was my right hon. Friend most surprised to see had been given the go-ahead?
Danny Alexander
It would be invidious to choose between some of the projects on the list. I realise that each of the decisions has difficult consequences for the communities affected. My surprise is not at an individual project but at the general approach to spending that was taken in the run-up to the general election.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of the bizarre suspension of the successor deterrent programme, will the Chief Secretary tell us whether the Trident value-for-money review will consider the overall question of whether the successor to Trident remains the most effective form of deterrent?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman has no doubt studied carefully the coalition programme for government, and he will know that we have agreed to proceed with the successor deterrent to Trident. The value-for-money review will do precisely what it says on the tin: we want to get the best value for money from the project and not waste taxpayers’ money unnecessarily on the renewal.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I was surprised, but glad, to hear that Treasury staff have been able to help the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to review the projects mentioned in the statement. It is a shame that he did not do that while he was in office. Will the Chief Secretary consider seconding some of his staff—if he can spare them—to help to educate Labour Members and to get them on the same page as the rest of the country, given the state that they have left the economy in?
Danny Alexander
I agree with the hon. Lady that the people of this country are ahead of the Labour party in realising the seriousness of the economic problems that we face. That consensus is now a global one—people will have seen the statement from the G20 summit on the need for faster fiscal consolidation. That is right, and the Opposition are wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind Members to try to keep to the subject of the statement; the Minister is not responsible for previous Government policies.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
If the Chief Secretary thinks that the biggest risk to jobs is the deficit, why does Britain have a better employment rate among all other European countries than America?
Danny Alexander
The risk that we face is the fact that we have the largest budget deficit in the EU, with the exception of Ireland, that we have a very substantial structural deficit and that growth is lower than forecast. All those things argue for what we are going to do, which is implement a programme to reduce the deficit faster and further than the previous Government proposed. That is the only responsible course to take; profligate spending of the sort we saw in the final days of the previous Government is not responsible.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, after their cynical attempts to buy the last election, the crocodile tears of Labour Members do nothing to raise the standing of this House in the public’s eyes?
Danny Alexander
I share the hon. Gentleman’s hopes for higher standards in Parliament, but Ministers of the previous Government ought to have known in the context of the financial situation that the country faces and of their own plans to cut £50 billion from public spending that these additional spending commitments and claims on the reserve were simply unaffordable. That chicken is coming home to roost today.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
I note that £1.2 billion-worth of the cancelled projects, as they are called, are from the future jobs fund—for the young people of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. I wonder what the consequences will be for the Scottish budget. Can he tell us what impact there will be on my constituents in Scotland, or have his Conservative bosses—let us be quite frank—done a deal with the tartan Tories in the SNP in Scotland?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will know that benefit and Department for Work and Pensions spending is a reserved matter, so does not have a Barnett consequential. He will also know that the Government have set out plans to establish a Work programme, which will replace those programmes during next year. That will be a more targeted, quicker and effective programme, based on paying suppliers by results to ensure that people get back into work quickly. I welcome that programme and I hope that he will, too.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Can the Chief Secretary confirm the good news for Reading and for my constituents—that the Government are fully committed to the Reading station upgrade, because it offers excellent value for money?
Danny Alexander
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. It will be for the Department for Transport to announce the details of projects that have been approved.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I and the people whom I represent will be desperately disappointed that the new North Tees hospital is not going ahead. My understanding is that it was not promised in the last weeks before the election, but had been planned, committed to and expected for five years. The decision will have a massive impact on the Tees area, Cleveland and Durham. The hospital was to provide specialist services for the whole of that area. How does that sit with the promises made by Government Members not to cut health spending?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Lady will know that it is a foundation trust which is coming to the Government for additional funding. She may not be aware, however, that consent for the project was given on 10 March 2010, so it is within this period. Of course I accept that the decision will be very disappointing for people who have worked on the project for that time—I do not wish to belittle that at all—but in the context of the economic situation that we face and the decisions that we have to make, it is right and proper to judge such projects on the strict value-for-money and affordability grounds that we have applied.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Which factors convinced the Chief Secretary to cancel the local authority business growth incentives scheme?
Danny Alexander
It was the fact that there is no substantive evidence that it has had any effect on doing the job that it was supposed to do or set out to do—to encourage local authorities to work with business.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We have already heard from the new Prime Minister that the north-east of England can expect to suffer hardest from the cuts, so I want to know precisely why the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust hospital, which is in my constituency, is not going ahead, particularly as we have seen tremendous progress in reducing health inequalities in my area, and that hospital was going to complete the job.
Danny Alexander
In the context of tighter budgets, it is essential that all major hospital buildings must be affordable and provide value for money. On that basis, the Government decided not to proceed with that scheme. It was assessed against a number of other major build projects that were at the same stage of development; those schemes are more urgent. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the previous Government set out plans to halve capital spending over the next few years. We have to make judgments about capital spending in the context of budgets that are a great deal tighter. I appreciate that that is disappointing, and I do not wish in any way to belittle the point that the hon. Gentleman is making quite fairly on behalf of his constituents, but in judging these things we have to apply the value-for-money criteria as we have.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister said that any Minister who went to him to propose front-line cuts would be sent back to the drawing-board, so may I suggest that the Minister goes back to the drawing-board, because that is exactly what he is doing? The people of the north-east, in Teesside and south Durham, want the Hartlepool and North Tees hospital, which has been under development for five years and is clinically-led but has been cancelled. On 6 May, people might have voted for the Liberal Democrats because they thought they stood for something; today they know that they do not.
Danny Alexander
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on behalf of his constituents, but the anger should be directed at Labour Front Benchers, who irresponsibly agreed to spend money that, as the former Chief Secretary said in his letter, simply is not there.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at his decision on Sheffield Forgemasters. That £80 million, which is spread over some years, is in the form of a loan and has a huge multiplier effect for the nuclear industry, particularly in the north-west. Is he trying to make sure that if the expansion of the nuclear industry takes place, which I hope it does, the infrastructure for it will have to come from overseas? Will he look at this again, because he is doing what he has accused the banks of doing—not providing loans for investment?
Danny Alexander
I have looked very carefully at this and all the projects that we are cancelling or suspending. I believe that the decision that we have made is the right one on value-for-money and affordability grounds. I have discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. In the context of the pressures on budgets and the affordability and value-for-money criteria that we have applied, I am afraid I am not able to go back and reconsider. Officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with the company to try to ensure that it gets access to a private sector solution. As to the nuclear industry, the hon. Gentleman will know that the coalition agreement commits us to no public subsidy for nuclear power.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
This afternoon, the Chief Secretary has taken a further £1 billion out of the Department for Work and Pensions and the fact that one of the cuts is to the young person’s guarantee demonstrates how empty is the Government’s rhetoric about being concerned about the vulnerable. Moreover, both the Tories and the Liberals voted with the Government for the legislation in March that provided for the two-year jobseeker’s guarantee. How can the Chief Secretary defend saying one thing in March and another thing today?
Danny Alexander
Well, there is no money left. The more important point is that we are cancelling programmes that we believe are ineffective and replacing them with the Work programme, which will start during next year and will be more effective at helping people who need help to get back into work quickly. That is an objective that we share; I believe our programme will be more effective in doing that. The hon. Lady will know that in the £6.2 billion announcement that we made a few weeks ago, one of the areas to which money was recycled was additional funding for 50,000 more apprenticeships. That is valuable additional support to help young people find jobs now.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary remind us once again why we face such a difficult spending review? It is clearly something that the Labour party has failed to understand.
Danny Alexander
As I said earlier, the reason we face such a tough spending round is the overriding need to bring our deficit down further and faster than was planned by the previous Government. That is necessary to restore confidence in our economy and restore balance to our public finances. It is the overriding priority, and it will restore jobs and growth in this country faster than the last Government would have managed.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I wonder whether I can help the Chief Secretary by providing the answer that he failed to provide in response to an earlier question about value for money. Will he acknowledge that over the three years for which the Sheffield Forgemasters loan was under consideration, the Treasury conducted an extremely robust value-for-money exercise? This Government talk a great deal about consultation, but before the statement I spoke to the chairman of Sheffield Forgemasters, who confirmed that over the period of the Government’s review there has been no contact whatever with the company. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that fact?
Danny Alexander
What I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman is that we have applied value-for-money grounds to this as to all the other projects. With a restricted budget, however, we must make choices about where we can spend money, and unfortunately we simply cannot afford to provide funds for this project any longer. As I have said, officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will continue to work with the company in helping to find a private sector solution to the challenge.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary remind the House of the size of the structural deficit, and perhaps remind Opposition Members that these are Labour cuts caused by the state in which the last Government left the country’s finances?
Danny Alexander
That is not a matter for my judgment; it is a matter for the judgment of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which we established to restore independence to the statistics on which budget judgments are based. According to the OBR, the structural deficit has risen to 8%, while the overall deficit is £155 billion. That is a vast sum. If we are to restore health to our economy we must narrow that gap, and do so quickly.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
When the cuts that the Chief Secretary has announced today—which his boss will no doubt announce again on Tuesday—lead to lower growth, higher unemployment and the collapse of the construction industry, with consequential reductions in the Government’s revenue and increases in their benefit bills and, as a result, an increase in the deficit, what will he cut next?
Danny Alexander
I think that what the hon. Gentleman and, if I may say so, many Opposition Members fail to recognise is that the country faces a choice: a choice between taking the robust action which is needed and which we will take to bring responsibility to the public finances and reduce the deficit, and failing to take that action. The risk posed by the latter course is clear from what has happened in other countries. I believe that the action that we are taking today, and will no doubt take in future weeks and months, is necessary to ensure that in future we have the jobs and growth that we need.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Before his right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) wrote the Chief Secretary his “Carry On Cutting Regardless” letter, he came to the House and told Members that he had been advised that the future jobs fund element of the young person’s guarantee did not provide value for money. The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that that conflicted with what she had been told when in office. Will the Chief Secretary now publish both sets of advice and place them in the Library of the House so that Members can make up their own minds about who is telling the truth?
Danny Alexander
What I know is that according to the Department for Work and Pensions the programme provides poor value for money, and that the Work programme with which we will replace it next year will give better, more targeted, quicker and more effective support to the people who are most in need. It will do what I hope every Member wants, and help those people to return to work.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In the days when the Liberal Democrats were in a separate party from the Conservatives, did they not say in their campaign that they would not make cuts this year and pull the rug from under the feet of the economic recovery? Did the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) make any representations to the Chief Secretary about Sheffield Forgemasters, and when he stood for election did he make his constituents in Sheffield aware that a vote for the Liberal Democrats would lead to hundreds more people in Sheffield losing their jobs?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman has asked about four questions in one. I will answer the first. As he knows, the risks facing the country have changed over the past few months. Any survey of the evidence across the world suggests that the risks of sovereign debt crises are huge in other countries. That is reflected in the G20 communiqué, which agreed that faster fiscal consolidation was what was needed in major economies. I think that that is right. Only the Labour party is out of step with that international consensus.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Again and again, the Chief Secretary, his predecessor and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions come to the House and assert that the future jobs fund is an ineffective scheme. How can the Chief Secretary say that when the Department for Work and Pensions has not collected the data concerned? The first cohort of young people to take part in the scheme have only just finished, and the data are not yet available.
Danny Alexander
According to my information, the programme represents poor value for money and is not delivering on the objectives set out for it, and our Work programme—which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be announcing—will give people a more effective, quicker and more direct route back into work by paying providers by results, and ensuring that people receive the support that they need.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend received one piece of slightly useful advice from Labour Members about how to sort out the mess that they created?
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
This morning, when I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for clarification of the Government’s commitment to funding for the reinvigoration of the Tyne and Wear metro, I was told to wait for the statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Unfortunately, his statement has made it no clearer to the people of Tyne and Wear whether that vital transport infrastructure will be given the investment that it needs in order to survive—investment that has not been made for 30 years—or whether it will be left to die on its feet.
Danny Alexander
The Department for Transport will be in a position to provide clarity on the approvals that it has. I suggest that the hon. Lady redirect her inquiries to that Department.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On 11 March, the Deputy Prime Minister came to Newcastle and announced an investment of half a billion pounds in wind power in the north-east. Does the fact that that project is not included in the list of cuts in industry, jobs and front-line hospitals mean that it is going ahead, or was it never intended to proceed in the first place?
Danny Alexander
The last Government announced a project for a competition in the area. It is still undergoing a process with the European Union involving state aid, approval and so forth. I shall not be in a position to offer approval or otherwise until that process has been completed, but once it has been completed, we shall be able to make an announcement.
Banking Reform
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s plans to reform the institutional framework for financial regulation.
The tripartite system of financial regulation failed spectacularly in its mission to ensure financial stability, and that failure cost the economy billions. The British people rightly ask how this Government will stop it happening again. That is why our coalition agreement committed us to reforming the regulatory system for financial services in order to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis. Let me now set out in detail the changes to the regulatory architecture that will make that possible.
At the heart of the banking crisis was a rapid and unsustainable increase in debt. Our macro-economic and regulatory system utterly failed to identify correctly the risk that that posed, let alone prevent it. No one was controlling levels of debt, and when the crunch came, no one knew who was in charge. For that reason, we need a macro-prudential regulator with a more systematic and detailed knowledge of what is happening not only in individual firms, but across the financial system as a whole.
Only central banks have the broad macro-economic understanding and understanding of markets, the authority and the knowledge required to make macro-prudential judgments. We will therefore place the Bank of England in charge of macro-prudential regulation by establishing within the Bank a Financial Policy Committee. We will also create two new, focused regulators: a new prudential regulator under the Bank of England, headed by a new deputy governor, and a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority. All the new bodies will be accountable to Parliament, and their remit will be clear so that never again can someone ask who is in charge and get no answer.
First, we will legislate to create the Financial Policy Committee in the Bank of England. It will have the responsibility to look across the economy at the macro-economic and financial issues that may threaten stability, and it will be given the tools to address the risks it identifies. It will have the power to require the new Prudential Regulation Authority to implement its directions by taking regulatory action with respect to all firms.
The FPC will be accountable to Parliament in two ways: directly, as is the case with the Monetary Policy Committee; and indirectly, through its accountability to the Bank’s court of directors. The Governor will chair the new committee. Its membership will include the deputy governors for monetary policy and financial stability, the new deputy governor for prudential regulation and the chair of the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority, as well as external representatives and a Treasury representative. An interim FPC will be set up by the autumn, in advance of this legislation.
Secondly, we will create a Prudential Regulation Authority as a subsidiary of the Bank of England. It will conduct prudential regulation of sectors such as deposit-takers, insurers and investment banks. The PRA will be chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England, and the new deputy governor for prudential regulation will be the chief executive. The deputy governor for financial stability will also sit on the PRA board.
Thirdly, a new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority will take on the Financial Services Authority’s responsibility for consumer protection and conduct regulation. The CPMA will regulate the conduct of all firms, both retail and wholesale, including those prudentially regulated by the PRA, and will take a strong proactive role as a consumer champion. It will have a strong mandate for ensuring that financial services and markets are transparent in their operation, so that everyone—from someone buying car insurance to a trader at a large bank—can have confidence in their dealings and know that they will get the protection they need if something goes wrong.
The CPMA will regulate the conduct of every financial services business, whether they trade on the high street or trade in high finance. We need to ensure that this body has a tougher, more proactive approach to regulating conduct, and its primary objective will be promoting confidence in financial services and markets. The CPMA will maintain the FSA’s existing responsibility for the Financial Ombudsman Service and oversee the newly created Consumer Financial Education Body, which will play a key role in improving financial capability. The CPMA will also have responsibility for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but given the important role the scheme plays in crises, it will work closely with the FPC and PRA. We will also fulfil the commitment in the coalition agreement to create a single agency to take on the work of tackling serious economic crime, which is currently dispersed across a number of Government Departments and agencies. Before we set up these new bodies in their permanent form, we will conduct a full and comprehensive consultation, and we will publish a detailed policy document for public consultation before the summer recess.
Our goal is radically to improve financial regulation in the UK, strengthening the prudential regime by placing it in the Bank of England and delivering the best possible protection for consumers. During the period of transition to the new regime, the Government will also be guided by the following four principles: minimising uncertainty and transitional costs for firms; maintaining high-quality, focused regulation during the transition; balancing swift implementation with proper scrutiny and consultation; and providing as much clarity and certainty as possible for the FSA, Bank and other staff affected during the transition. In order to do that, we will ensure the passage of the necessary primary legislation within two years.
I am delighted that Hector Sants, the current chief executive officer of the FSA, has agreed to stay on to lead transition and become the chief executive of the PRA. He will be supported in his work by Andrew Bailey from the Bank of England, who will become the deputy in the new PRA. This is a strong team to ensure a smooth transition.
We all know that the financial crisis has cost taxpayers dearly. The regulatory system needs radical reform to make the sector more stable and stronger. The last Government could not do that because they were caught up in a structure designed by the former Chancellor and Prime Minister. The fundamental flaws in that architecture contributed to the failure in the banking sector and ultimately undermined economic stability. The continuing financial and economic uncertainty across the eurozone strengthens the urgency with which we must equip ourselves with better tools and arrangements to tackle any future financial instability.
We have already paid a high price for the previous Government’s failings. We must do all we can to prevent this from happening again, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I thank the Financial Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and as this is, I think, his first outing in his new role, may I congratulate him and welcome him to his post—and, indeed, wish him well?
While no one can dispute that a failure to regulate effectively was at the heart of the global financial crisis, the key failure by regulators in monitoring agencies and central banks across the globe was in understanding the growing systemic risks in financial services. We also should not overlook the failure in bank boardrooms to understand what was going on. This was not just an issue in the UK. Does the Financial Secretary accept that in some countries the central bank had prime responsibility for regulation, whereas in others, including ours, responsibility has been shared, and in our case between the Bank, the FSA and the Treasury, and that the Bank has always had responsibilities for financial stability?
Specifically, who will appoint the new Financial Policy Committee? Will individual members have their own vote, or will that be merely advisory to the Governor? Will FPC minutes be published, and will the Governor or the chief executive of the PRA ultimately be responsible for the decision on whether to act? Does the Financial Secretary also accept that there will be concern—not least among those who were victims of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has consistently reminded the House—about the record of the Bank of England in financial services supervision, and will he now consider publishing part two of the Bingham Report?
Will the Financial Secretary not acknowledge too that the Financial Services Authority today is a vastly different regulator from the FSA of 2007—as, indeed, the Treasury Committee has acknowledged? Will he acknowledge that a significant level of better trained new staff and the new activism of the FSA in its supervisory role has led to a bolder, more vigorous approach to financial services regulation in recent times?
How, in practice, will the Financial Secretary avoid the very real risk of a loss of energy as regulators now focus on their own future, given that there continues to be considerable uncertainty and instability in global financial markets? Specifically, can he clarify who will be responsible for supervision and regulation before 2012, and will he acknowledge the profound risk, given the proliferation of new bodies he has announced, of ongoing regulatory confusion—of issues falling between the cracks? Indeed, is it not right that there will now be effectively two different regulators for many financial firms?
I was surprised by the absence of any reference to the Banking Commission in the statement. Does the Financial Secretary not accept that proposals to break up banks would not have made any difference to Northern Rock, a retail bank, or Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, and that what is needed is increased capital held by banks and living wills to manage the possibility of future banking problems? Will he explain how the deliberations of this commission on a possible break-up of British banks, such as Barclays or HSBC, can be conducted in a way that reassures the markets and does not exacerbate financial instability?
Does the Financial Secretary recognise that the financial services industry employs over 1 million people and remains crucial to our economic future? Will he ensure that, whatever proposals he accepts—if, indeed, he does accept any from the commission—we do not put ourselves at a commercial disadvantage compared with other countries? Specifically, how will the proposals announced today impact on remuneration, and what ongoing effort is there to secure international agreement on banking levies again, so that Britain is not at a competitive disadvantage?
Is it not the case that while the work of each of the new bodies and the commission will be worthy of serious scrutiny on their own merits, as the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said yesterday, the Government risk creating a system that injects more, not less, uncertainty into the City? While the architecture of the regulatory system is clearly important, is it not the skills and judgment of individual regulators that matter most at the moment? Surely, it is not where they sit; it is what they do.
Mr Hoban
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role and I am grateful to him for his welcome to me. Although I listened very carefully to his remarks, I am not quite sure whether the Opposition accept our proposals or whether they are stuck in the past defending to the last the former Government’s regulatory architecture, which they put in place in 1997. It is time that the Opposition faced up to this problem: do they accept that the system put in place by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was flawed and needs reform, or are they the last people to defend the status quo in this country?
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailed questions. Let me address them. He recognised the build-up of systemic risk in the economy over the course of the past 13 years, but he must acknowledge that the reforms introduced by his right hon. Friend in 1997 took away from the Bank of England the power to monitor and respond to those risks.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the appointments to the Financial Policy Committee, and they will be consistent with the approach currently adopted towards the Monetary Policy Committee. He referred to the Bingham report and the collapse of BCCI and, as he will remember from the exchange between the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday, the Chancellor is going to look into that matter.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the FSA has made progress, and that is one reason why we are delighted that Hector Sants has agreed to lead the FSA through the transition period and then to become the chief executive of the PRA. No matter how far the FSA improves in the execution of its role, the reality is that the flawed architecture that the hon. Gentleman’s Government put in place undermines all that it does. This package of reforms ensures that we have the right regulatory architecture in place to identify and tackle the systemic risks to which he referred and ensures proper protection for consumers so that they will never again be let down.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Is it not clear that if public money is to be put at risk during a financial crisis, the only person with the moral authority to take a decision will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should therefore have the power to assume the chairmanship of the Financial Policy Committee during a crisis. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that will be possible under the legislation that will be brought before the House?
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
Since the direct causes of the financial crash were colossal bonuses that drove recklessness, the use of fancy structured investment vehicles including sub-prime mortgages, the conflict of interest whereby credit rating agencies and auditing companies are paid by the company that they are supposed to be assessing and, above all, the overly lax culture of light-touch regulation, what precise, specific mechanisms is the Financial Secretary putting in place to deal with each of those underlying problems as opposed to merely shifting around the institutional infrastructure, which is all he appears to be doing?
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He takes a close interest in these matters. Of course, he will remember that in 2006 the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) praised the system of “increasingly light-touch” regulation and claimed that he had
“resisted pressures from commentators for a regulatory crackdown.”
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) ought to take up some of these historical issues with his own Front Benchers.
As regards a change to the regulatory approach, we need to see a move away from the prescriptive, box-ticking approach that we have seen in a recent years to a system in which the PRA and the CPMA can make more judgmental decisions about what is happening in the markets they supervise and with the prudential decisions that individual institutions are taking. If we put judgment at the heart of the system, we are more likely to avoid some of the issues that we have seen arise in recent years.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I warmly welcome the Minister to his role? Will he tell the House about conversations that he has had with international colleagues about the need for radical reform of the regulatory system and the failure of the last Government’s tripartite system?
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There have been a number of conversations with other colleagues globally about the lessons to be learned from the financial crisis and from the regulatory structures. It is interesting to talk to people in other jurisdictions about their views. Christian Noyer, the governor of the Banque de France, said in July last year:
“Indeed, one of the main lessons of the crisis may be that those countries where central banks assume banking supervision took advantage of their ability to react quickly and flexibly to emergency situations.”
Others have expressed a similar view and that is why I think that the reforms we are announcing today are in the mainstream of reforms in financial regulation—a mainstream that the Opposition seem quite happy to stay outside, yet again.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I welcome the evolution of financial regulation. I think that the present system was tested and found wanting, so the movement has to be welcomed. I want to press the Minister on the subject of the Banking Commission. It was interesting that he left it out of his statement and that worries me, because I note that it will take 18 months before it reports. If that is so, it will probably miss the Queen’s Speech for the following year, which suggests that it will be three or four years before we see legislation and the much-needed changes that will deal with the banks that caused the crisis. They continue to flaunt their behaviour on bonuses and have continued to hurt small business by not lending in the last two years. Urgent action is needed, so why is there this long timetable and why was this subject missing from his statement?
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He has been a distinguished member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and has taken part in many discussions in that Committee and in Public Bill Committees when we have explored some of these issues. I sense that he is much more engaged in the need for reform than his colleagues on the Front Bench.
The Banking Commission is important and it is vital that we ensure that we learn some of the lessons that arise from the structure of the UK banking system. We have a very concentrated banking structure and three out of the four principal banks in the UK are universal banks. We need to understand what risks flow from that and how best to tackle those risks, as well as considering the impact of competition in the banking sector. The appointment yesterday of Sir John Vickers as chairman of the commission has been greeted with warm applause across the business and consumer community. There are four other commissioners— Martin Wolf, Martin Taylor, Clare Spottiswoode and Bill Winters—who are equally distinguished in their own fields. The commission will provide the opportunity for a proper debate about the structure of banking in this county—a debate in which the former Prime Minister and former Chancellor did not want to participate. We think that it is time to have that debate and when we have had it, that will help remove the uncertainty about the structure of banking in the UK.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I take the next question, may I ask for short questions and succinct answers? That will help everybody to get in.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on these much-needed reforms. Will he tell the House how the reforms set out today will affect the insurance sector, which shares the same regulatory regime as the banks but clearly operates very differently?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the role of insurance. In this crisis, we must ensure that we distinguish between what has happened to the banking sector and the relative success of the insurance sector in withstanding the storms of this crisis. It is an important sector to the UK economy and a huge wealth generator. We need to ensure that the insurance sector, when it comes within the remit of the PRA, has the right sort of prudential regulation that recognises its strengths and challenges. It will of course be regulated as regards its relationship with consumers by the CPMA.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The people of this country want to see a bit of humility and payback on the part of the banks. One opportunity to do that would be through the so-called Robin Hood tax on banking transactions, with the money going to alleviate poverty here and to tackle climate change across the globe. Will the Financial Secretary urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to introduce such a tax and to influence colleagues worldwide to do likewise?
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his new role. Does he agree that these banking reforms will help to boost confidence in the British economy once they are enacted? That will help to keep interest rates lower for longer, boost investment and create jobs.
Mr Hoban
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. It is important to ensure that businesses have confidence that where macro-prudential threats arise in future, action will be taken to resolve them. They did not have that confidence in the previous regime and I hope that they will have that confidence following the reforms that we have put forward today.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Economic growth in the past decade was driven largely by consumption. As a consequence, £1.4 trillion-worth of personal debt is circulating in the UK economy, which means that the human cost of the current recession will be particularly severe. Will the new Consumer Protection and Markets Authority make sure that lenders have to undertake affordability audits so that individuals and families incur only debts that they can service?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman is right to pick up on this issue. One of the big challenges is ensuring that consumers are properly equipped to understand their borrowing and saving needs, and the Consumer Financial Education Body has a key role to play in improving financial capability in order to help people to make the right decisions. Also, there is an obligation on industry to make sure that it provides consumers with the best advice possible to help them to make the right decisions.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I very much welcome that direction of travel, just as I welcomed the decision of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in 1997, to set the Bank of England free to make decisions on interest rates. Will the Minister clarify whether the Financial Policy Committee will publish its minutes openly and on a regular basis, and how it will deal with a situation in which it is concerned about a specific institution?
Mr Hoban
It is important that the Financial Policy Committee is transparent in its dealings. It is a great strength of the Monetary Policy Committee that it is transparent and that it can be held to account by the public for its decisions. We need to ensure that similar arrangements are put in place for the FPC—while respecting, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, the confidentiality of individual firms.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will one of the new organisations under the Bank of England, the Office for Budget Responsibility or someone else alert the Treasury if the housing market starts to get overheated again?
Mr Hoban
One of the roles of the Financial Policy Committee is to identify threats to financial stability as they emerge. I would expect the FPC, in its work of looking at overall trends in the economy, to identify that sort of risk and to make it known not just to the Treasury, but to the wider public through its regular reports.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman say how many people at the FSA and at the Bank of England currently earn more than the Prime Minister? Does he intend to apply the policy in the coalition document? If he decides to pay above the rate of the Prime Minister’s salary, should that element of the pay be performance-related, given the gravity of the decisions that such people will be taking?
Mr Hoban
There is an issue about pay levels, which we will need to look at. I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there should be a greater variable element in relation to performance, given that a critique of many is that an excessive bonus culture in the City contributed to the financial crisis.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will the Minister please explain how today’s announcements will end the confusion in the markets and make sure that there is proper focus on regulation to end that confusion?
Mr Hoban
The package that we have set out today, which was greeted with a great deal of support last night when the Chancellor outlined it to the City, ends any uncertainty. The transition process that we have outlined today in relation to legislation, and the team led by Hector Sants, the current chief executive officer of the FSA, will reassure the City about the direction of travel on regulatory reform. The new settlement, which takes into account macro-prudential supervision, micro-prudential supervision and effective consumer supervision, will ensure that we have the right package of regulatory structures in future to safeguard the economy and to give confidence to consumers and others in the markets.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new position. I know that County Durham will be proud as he is a son of Country Durham. Has he given any advice to the regulator on the position of non-executive directors on banks’ boards, particularly regarding their role, remuneration and qualifications? He will know that one problem with Northern Rock was the fact that the non-executive chair’s only qualification appears to have been that he was a member of the Ridley family—he inherited it from his father.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the qualifications of non-executive directors. That is why the FSA has already instituted a process of interviewing senior members of staff and directors, before their appointment to boards or positions of responsibility, to ensure that the qualifications and experience that they bring to those important roles is checked.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister seriously contending that had these arrangements already been in place, the financial crisis would not have occurred? If he is not making that absurd suggestion, will he accept that he cannot promise that such a financial crisis will not occur again with these arrangements in place?
Mr Hoban
It is clear that if the Bank of England had not lost its power to monitor and act upon the level of debt in the economy, it might have been in a position to consider what was happening in the housing market, to consider the role that Northern Rock played in fuelling the asset-price bubble and to take action to cool that down. The only person who tried to rule out boom and bust in the past was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the Governor of the Bank of England’s assessment that there was little real reform of banking regulation under the last Government, and that the Opposition should therefore welcome the measures that we are setting out today?
Mr Hoban
I hope that the Opposition will welcome the measures, but their views were not very clear from what the shadow Treasury spokesman said. In the past three or four years, when we have debated the reform of parts of the banking regulation sector, the problem has been that the then Government were unable to engage in the fundamental debate about whether the architecture was right. They failed to address that question, and that led to a new Government addressing that question and putting things right for the first time.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Will the Minister invite hon. and right hon. Members who are interested in the future of Liverpool football club to a meeting with RBS officials fully to scrutinise the deal that props up its leveraged buy-out by two American business men?
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Given the global nature of banking, will the Minister advise us on how regulation will proceed on an international basis, bearing in mind the need to maintain as many jobs as possible in this country?
Mr Hoban
It is important to make sure that debates on regulation are co-ordinated at the global level, and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister take an active role in those debates in the G20. I have recently taken part in ECOFIN’s summit, at which we discussed new supervisory arrangements in Europe. I am absolutely certain that we will engage in the debate both in Europe and globally to ensure that the structure of regulation supervision going forward is right to make sure that the system is stable and to ensure that decisions that have a fiscal impact are taken here, by UK regulators, and not in Europe.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I will accept that the banking reforms will make it more likely that if exactly the same problems happened in exactly the same way in exactly the same countries, we might be able to spot them, if not to do anything about them. Does the Minister accept that by failing to address the institutional failures in the banking system that are outside regulation—such as pay incentives within banking, the role of the rating agencies, the failure of international information flows and the lack of transaction costs in international financial markets—our country is just as vulnerable as ever to banking failures?
Mr Hoban
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The package of reforms makes a significant improvement to the regulatory architecture in the UK, and there is further work that we can do at the European and the global level to make it more effective. She is right, in part, to say that institutions need to change their behaviour. We need to look at the structure of banking, which is why we will set up the Banking Commission that the Chancellor announced yesterday. Those reforms will help to improve structure, but let us look at what is important. Let us get the architecture right in this country, let us remedy the flawed system that her party’s Government introduced in 1997 and let us ensure that the Bank of England has the tools to do the job. That will make a significant contribution to improving financial stability.
Point of Order
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the Financial Secretary’s address to the House today, he made the accusation that Labour Ministers, possibly including myself, made spending commitments that were not funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made the point that, if that was the case, I and other Ministers would have had to send a letter to the accounting officer—that is to say, the permanent secretary in the Department. Could you use your offices to request that those letters be produced, to go against the accusation that has been made today?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Member well knows, but he has certainly got his point on the record and I am sure that everybody has taken on board his comments.
Building a High-Skilled Economy
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of building a high- skilled economy.
It is a delight, having spent so many years in the shadows, to come into the light and be able to speak in this House as the new Minister. Some hon. Members will have read today in the press of my endorsement for floristry and dance. I am wearing this perfectly coloured co-ordinated buttonhole to illustrate the first, but the House, and you in particular, Mr Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to know that I shall not be illustrating the second, at least not by example.
The performance in office of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), once the man who called the tune, was rather more of a conga than a quickstep. You know the conga, I have no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker. It comprises a group of hapless individuals linked by routine, hopelessly following one another on a journey to nowhere.
Adult learning is a subject that inspires in those hon. Members present—I know this is true of hon. Members across the Chamber—emotional attachment and personal commitment. At the same time, it is not a subject in which anyone or any party can claim a monopoly of wisdom, which is why I am interested to hear views from across the Chamber. However, a new Government offer a new chance of a fresh start, the opportunity to bring change and hope to adult learners. However, not everyone realises that there has been a change. Sitting in my office the other day in my new Department, I was surprised to receive an out-of-the-blue phone call from someone asking for Mandy. I had to break the news to him that Mandy had moved on. To paraphrase Barry Manilow, “Oh Mandy, well you came and you took without giving…but I sent you away.”
Lord Mandelson was right in at least one important respect. He made the economic case for skills. The economic case for skills was by far the strongest case made by the previous Government. It is significant, of course—indeed it is vital—but it is not the only case for skills. The economic case, which I shall deal with first, has been thrown into sharp relief by the economic turbulence, by the rising levels of unemployment and falling levels of hope, especially among young people, and by the growing numbers of employers finding it difficult to stay in business. It will continue to occupy a prominent place in public discourse as we move out of recession and towards the renewed growth about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke recently at the Cass business school.
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to invite him to join me in paying tribute to the Open university. The one thing that has not changed in recent times is the contribution that that institution has made to lifelong learning.
Mr Hayes
The fact that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s intervention merely gives it more force. He is right to say that the Open university plays a critical role in that regard. I will happily visit that place once again to cement the relationships that I have already formed there.
The economic case for skills will continue to be important because of the link between skills and competitiveness. It is well established, and it was made clear five years ago in the Leitch and Sainsbury reviews. Already their analysis has become orthodox in the debate about skills and the economy. The essence of their case was, and it remains salient, that driven by new technologies, the pace of economic and industrial change is growing, not just here in the west but in Asia and increasingly in Africa and South America. Once, those countries either did not compete in the same markets as this country or could offer only technologically inferior products. That is no longer the case. The unequal competition between high quality and low cost has been replaced by what Lord Sainsbury called a “race to the top”.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
In the context of international competition, how worried is the Minister by the letter in today’s The Daily Telegraph from senior executives of leading British companies, who warn against the dangers of cuts to university funding and the risk that we will be left behind in the international competitive league as a result?
Mr Hayes
There is no doubt that the relationship between research and development and the kind of dynamism that I have described is a profound one. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science will take that very seriously indeed in the process of framing our policy in respect of higher education.
I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) is sympathetic to the argument, so I may be pushing at at least a half-open door when I say that further education matters too. Building skills from the bottom up, re-engaging young people who are not in employment, education or training, up a ladder of skills to the levels that he is describing—levels 3, 4 and 5—is critical. The hon. Gentleman will understand why today I want to speak particularly about further education, as that is my responsibility.
We need to provide workers with the skills they want and businesses with the skills they need to compete in this increasingly challenging world. The Leitch analysis pointed towards an intensive effort to raise skills in this country, and indeed the House more than once debated these matters when the Labour party was in government. It is easier perhaps to say on the Opposition Benches, but I will repeat it from the Government Bench, that I do not accuse the hon. Member for Cardiff West of anything worse than a mistake. I do not think that Labour Members are malevolent; I think their intentions are broadly the same as ours. I just think they are misjudged. This is not about malice; it is about error. I know that they will want to acknowledge that when they speak in the debate. They are big men, and I want to give them this chance, because I am a generous Minister, to rush to the Dispatch Box to say that they got it wrong. Wouldn’t we welcome that? Wouldn’t the whole country welcome it, too?
Mr Hayes
Well, I said I was interested in dance. I am interested in sufficient drama to add to the theatricality of this place, without which it would be poorer.
During the years of the Labour Government, Labour Members often alleged that the largesse for further education would end if we came to power. If the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my opponent and friend, were to wish to repeat his unfortunate appearance on “Celebrity Mastermind”—I do not want to remind him of that too much—he could do worse than choose the Thatcher Government as his specialist subject. We came to realise during our time in opposition that the Labour party spent more time speaking about 1979 than about the present. They were preoccupied with that in their dark years, and perhaps that is not surprising for a party that usually looks backwards rather than forwards, whereas the Conservative party is committed to progress and taking our country to where it needs to be now.
As a consequence of that preoccupation with the past, we were left with another Labour Government who spent until they broke the bank. As a result, even before they lost office, they were already cutting adult skills. Last year’s pre-Budget report said—I have it here for those hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to go to the Library to collect it—that £300 million would be cut from the adult skills budget if Labour returned to Government. When Members hear complaints about the new Government’s performance, they should set them in that context. Mandy was first to the table to say he would cut his Department, and encouraged his colleagues to do the same. People are still making phone calls to my office to try to find him, to ask exactly where the cuts would have fallen.
While Labour Members were drifting further and further out of touch into a world populated by fictional numbers rather than real people, Conservatives were talking to adult educators and adult learners about their experiences. We were talking to employers about their skills needs and to union learning representatives about the obstacles they face in creating a learning culture among their members. So that it is unequivocal, so that there is no question and no doubt, let me say that I and the Government are committed to unionlearn; we celebrate all it does and all that it will continue to do with our support and encouragement.
As a result of the conversations we had and dialogues we enjoyed, we learned important lessons about the indispensability of further education as an engine of social and economic change. History teaches us that the better educated a nation’s people are, the more economically prosperous they are likely to be—their general levels of health will be better, too, their communities will be more united and their family and social bonds will be stronger—and the more they will appreciate the things that money cannot buy, but without which life is colourless. All deserve their chance to see, hear, taste and touch beauty.
The conviction that education is the key to so much more than a wage packet drove pioneers, such as the founders of the Workers Educational Association, who sought to take learning, until then the preserve of the privileged few, out to the many. The impulse that promoted better manual skills also created the penny classics that did so much to spread the love of English literature throughout society, and the growth of choral and instrumental societies that brought great music virtually to the factory floor. The fire that drove adult education’s pioneers still burns, and it drives the coalition Government’s programme for further education and skills. The challenge we face in rebuilding a system fit for purpose is scarcely less imposing than was theirs in building a system from scratch.
In recent years, the link between skills and craftsmanship—I am not afraid to call it craftsmanship—the ideal of self-betterment and the pleasures of learning as a means of gaining wider and richer perspectives on the world have been allowed to wither. But not any longer: we in this Government will make a bold case for that relationship—a firm case for the cohesive power of learning, how it changes lives by changing life chances and increases prospects both to gain and prosper in a job, and in all the other ways that I have described.
No one denies that one of the key functions of Government is to create, as far as possible, the right conditions for economic success, and none would deny, I hope, that adult skills policy is one of the most powerful economic levers at any Government’s disposal. But the time has come finally to acknowledge that a socialist model of centralised planning has failed, even in terms of its own narrow criteria for success. We really cannot continue the micro-managed, target-driven, bureaucratic regime that for years has dogged further education and damaged our prospects of raising skills levels.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the House will not underestimate the scale of the challenge. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reported in “Ambition 2020”, published last year, that on recent trends we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in the OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020. Shadow Ministers will be familiar with the report.
Mr Bailey
I thank the Minister for his kind words. I welcome him to his position and look forward to seeing him in our Committee in due course. I congratulate him on his bravura performance—indeed, it has been quite theatrical at times. He commented on the top-down approach. I note that his colleague the Minister for Universities and Science has written to higher and further education organisations inviting them to publish employability statements. Today the hon. Gentleman placed a statement in the Library saying that the Government would be introducing measures to give
“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information.”
If that is not an example of a top-down and potentially bureaucratic approach, what is it? Could he enlighten us?
Mr Hayes
I want to be generous; as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is in my character. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to the task, but he has been an assiduous member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and a frequent contributor to debates in the Chamber. As such, I hoped he would have known that the key plank of my party’s perspective on this subject—indeed, the coalition’s perspective—is the need to inform and empower learners. It is critically important that people get the right advice and guidance, and part of that process is explaining to them the likely employment outcomes of pursuing courses of study and training. We are encouraging universities and colleges, and the reformed careers service that we will bring in, to give people a very clear understanding of what will happen if they embark on particular routes. What are their chances of getting a job? What sort of job will it be? What are the wage implications? How might they progress thereafter?
Robert Halfon
I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing so much to push forward our policy for 100,000 apprenticeships. Why do only just 28% of British workers qualify to become apprentices or gain technical skills compared to France, where the figure is 51%, or Germany where it is 65%—the percentage we should reach in this country? What has gone so badly wrong in the UK that our skills level is so low?
Mr Hayes
That requires not so much an answer as a seminar, but I shall try to summarise in a sentence or two what I might say at such a seminar. The problem in Britain has been threefold. First, we have not promoted apprenticeships as effectively as we should. Although the brand is strong among potential learners, employers and the public, it is clear that the previous Government did not believe in apprenticeships as much as we do. [Interruption.] Opposition Members complain but many people thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham’s ministerial predecessor—a valued colleague and a good Minister—did FA for FE and was sent to the FO. I do not know whether Fanny Adams is unparliamentary language, but it is certainly true that in debates with that Minister I made it absolutely clear that we wanted to grow the number of apprenticeships, yet the Labour Government insisted on retaining a strong emphasis on what they regarded as their flagship training and skills product—Train to Gain, about which I shall speak a little more in a moment.
The second point in answer to my hon. Friend’s intervention is that although part of the problem is about marketing, part of it is about resource. We have decided to transfer a significant portion of the Train to Gain budget to apprenticeships, because we know the skills apprenticeships can confer. We know how long they take to learn and we know that people want them. We know employers like them. We know what they cost. That cannot be said of the Train to Gain programme, in which the previous Government placed so much faith.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I am sure we are all enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s theatrics this afternoon, but will he look at some evidence? In 2008-09, 240,000 people started apprenticeships, compared to 75,000 in 1997-98, so I do not think it is for Labour to take lectures from the Conservatives about the importance of apprenticeships.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady must not deceive new Members—[Interruption.] I know she would not do so—except inadvertently, of course; I take that as read—because newer Members might come to believe her suggestion—I put it no more strongly than that.
What the previous Government actually did was to reclassify what counted as an apprenticeship. In France and Germany, about which we heard a moment ago, all apprenticeships are at level 3, and they once were in Britain. When the Labour Government came to power, they reclassified level 2 qualifications as apprenticeships and then trumpeted the fact that there were more of them. As both the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen know, the level 3 numbers remained stubbornly rather less than was required, than the Government wanted and than employers knew they needed. So we should focus on level 3 apprenticeships if we wish to get a true comparison both of our previous performance and of international data.
Kevin Brennan
How many of the 50,000 new places that the hon. Gentleman is announcing can he guarantee to the House will be level 3 apprenticeships?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is far too experienced a Member to expect me to give on-the-hoof guarantees of that kind, but what I will say is that I have asked my officials—my officials—to look closely at the definition and, indeed, the stratification of apprenticeships. I want to build the ladder of qualifications that takes people from re-engagement right up to level 4 and 5.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the House about three things that we will do on apprenticeships. As well as putting the extra resource in, we will grow the number of frameworks at level 3 and 4 and we will explore frameworks at level 5, where there is a demand, I am told, in meetings with the high-tech industries such as advanced engineering. The hon. Gentleman will know some of the sectors to which I refer. We will look closely at those level 2 apprenticeships which, with redefinition, can be built to level 3—in other words, some of the high-end level 2 qualifications that with further work may become level 3—and we will think again about those level 2 qualifications that cannot. It is entirely appropriate that they might be regarded as a foundation to an apprenticeship, but I am not sure that it is right that they should be called full apprenticeships. This makes comparisons with our international competitors difficult, and I am not sure that it does not short-change employers and learners. Yes, of course, there is a place for level 2, but the emphasis will be on level 3, and that is what the hon. Gentleman needs to know.
Kevin Brennan
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that some of the new apprenticeships that he is announcing that he will create may not be classified as apprenticeships in future?
Mr Hayes
I want to make progress; I will give way later. The hon. Gentleman has had one turn, and although I am generous, my generosity is not without limit.
I want now to focus on the highly centralised and bureaucratic system that developed under the previous Government, whereby funds that could have been used for teaching and training were actually used detailing plans, complying with targets and formulating schemes. Instead of enabling colleges and other providers to respond to the needs of businesses and learners, Ministers thought they knew what was best. Excessive bureaucracy sapped precious energy from our education system. If I might, as a primer, offer advice again, particularly to newer Members, that if proof were needed of that assertion, it is to be found in the report commissioned as early as 2005 by the last Government under the auspices of Sir Andrew Foster. That report concluded that there was a “galaxy” of oversight, inspection and administration in the FE sector, and called for precisely the kind of streamlined and more responsive structure that we in this Government will now put in place.
Even worse, though, that centralised, target-driven micro-management led to a systemic failure in the form of an FE capital funding crisis from which the sector is still reeling. Members will know that the Learning and Skills Council encouraged bids that would have cost 10 times more than the available funds. Across the country, 144 capital bids were frozen. Members across the Chamber came to the House to complain about the circumstances in their localities and the effects on their local colleges, and rightly so. Seventy-nine of those projects had already received agreement in principle. Many colleges incurred considerable cost.
Andrew Foster was once again brought out of mothballs by the Government to produce another report, and he made it very clear that a top-heavy, bureaucratic system had failed. He concluded that the LSC was too slow to respond—
“there were straws in the wind, early storm warnings, but the problem was not crystallised fast enough.”
So we will look closely at FE capital. Next week, I shall make it clear how we will spend on a bid basis with colleges the extra £50 million that the Chancellor has agreed to devote to FE capital projects.
Kevin Brennan
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the extra £50 million that he describes as capital has been taken from the Department’s revenue spending for skills, and that it will only be for this year, and that therefore in the long term, in perpetuity, it is a £50 million cut?
Mr Hayes
I have already celebrated the hon. Gentleman’s assiduity, and his numeracy skills are obvious, too. He is right: the money is being taken from the Train to Gain budget, and it is being allocated to capital. The justification for that is the urgency of the problem. Had the Labour party organised the capital funding in FE in anything like a reasonable way, we would not have to take these emergency measures. That will bring some light to those colleges who were for so long, as I was, in the shadows—in the darkness.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that this is therefore a one-off programme, but we will now look at a longer-term set of proposals for FE capital, and in my estimation even this short-term measure will deliver benefit to 150 colleges across the country. There will be more details next week. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot wait—the whole House is excited—but he must, because I cannot give all the presents out on the same day; some have to be saved for Boxing day.
There has to be a better way to take advantage of the immense human capital in the college system, to build a high-skilled, high-tech economy. We really must offer a new beginning. That is why I want to move to the four points that lay at the heart of the letter that I wrote today, and then to my exciting conclusion.
The letter that I have written today to the principals of all colleges sets out ways in which we will set FE free. First, I am removing the requirement to complete summary statements of activity, with a resulting reduction in performance monitoring of employer responsiveness. Secondly, the Government have already announced the removal of Ofsted inspections for schools with outstanding performance. I will work with ministerial colleagues to introduce the same way of working in the FE sector, removing inspections for colleges with outstanding performance.
Thirdly, I will remove the regulatory requirement for college principals to undertake the principals qualifying programme, not because I do not want appropriately qualified principals—I know that there are a range of development opportunities and qualifications that can enhance managers’, leaders’ and principals’ skills to run colleges in the 21st century—but because individuals in our institutions should be free to decide what package of development is appropriate to support their individual circumstances.
Fourthly and most importantly, I will enable all colleges except those that are performing poorly to move money between adult learner and employer budgets, because they, rather than Ministers, know how best to meet the needs of local learners and employers. All those measures are intended to increase the power of colleges to determine how best to manage their affairs in the light of local training needs. I want not just to encourage them to listen to what local people and local businesses have to say, but to be free to act, to respond and to use that information with a minimum of fuss, delay and administrative cost.
This is only the beginning—a first indication of the Government’s determination to deliver on the promises we made to providers when we were in opposition. We are drawing a line under the mistakes of the past and reaching for a better future.
It is true that our debate takes place in difficult circumstances and that the public sector will be obliged to make efficiency savings. It is also true, as I said earlier—I want to be honest about this—that no guarantees can be offered about future funding. With freedom comes a fresh challenge, so as unnecessary compliance costs are reduced, I will be looking to colleges to find efficiencies. They would expect that, as would the House. That will include encouraging colleges to find more cost-efficient ways of conducting their affairs, such as by merging back-office functions and streamlining their procurement processes. If the Government had done that earlier—when Labour Members controlled the purse strings—we could have made more progress to match and beat the performance of the competitor countries to which I referred that have outpaced us on apprenticeships and driven up the skills of their work forces to an extent that we have not. The Train to Gain programme was part of the problem. I know that former Ministers are obliged to defend it, but they know what the National Audit Office said about its dead-weight cost. They know that assessment was too often dressed up as training and that the brokerage service at the programme’s heart was, at best, only a partial success.
Before my appointment as Minister, I was fortunate enough to enjoy a long apprenticeship as shadow Minister. Over those years, I held countless meetings with college principals and visited innumerable colleges throughout the country. Everything that I said in opposition, and everything that I say now in government, has been informed by the views and opinions of the sector. We will continue that dialogue about shaping further education in this country—alongside the needs of business and industry, and combined with the Government’s priorities—in a way that delivers opportunities to a new generation of learners.
The stakes are high. The ability of our economy to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances depends in no small measure on the capacity of workers to adapt. They need to be sure of the promise that new skills and knowledge will lead inexorably to new and better chances in life. My aim—and my commitment—is to make good on that promise for the next generation.
Today, a start has been made, but there is much more to do to build a country with the skills that we need to compete, a country ready to elevate the practical, and a country where learning is valued for its own sake and for its economic, social and cultural benefits: proud, confident learners, colleges free to respond and a dynamic, highly skilled economy—Britain being the best that it can be.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I start by apologising to the House for the fact that I will not be able to be present for the wind-ups? I have already informed the Minister and you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I genuinely welcome the Minister to his post as skills Minister on his first outing since the formation of the new Government. Given his flowery rhetoric, it was kind of him to provide a visual aid in his lapel, which we all appreciated. He was somewhat ungenerous in his opening remarks, but that was slightly uncharacteristic. I know that he is a lover of poetry, and I hope that the speech that we have just heard will not be typical of his ministerial speeches, given that it contained no poetry. I am also a lover of poetry, so perhaps I may cite a line from Yeats:
“Those that I fight I do not hate”.
That is certainly true of the hon. Gentleman, but as he might know the rest of the poem, I should emphasise that I do love my own side.
When we were in government, we said that the manufacturing of items constructed out of composite materials probably represented part of the future for Britain, but few of us anticipated that it would be possible to meld the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to manufacture a composite Government. We can only begin to speculate about how quickly the already visible fissures in that composite construction will form into cracks, and then progressively and inevitably lead to critical failure.
The Minister is extremely fortunate to inherit his portfolio, because he has the opportunity to build on the Labour Government’s tremendous record of achieving so much when we were in power, provided that his Department does not continue to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s whipping boy in the frenzied search for cuts far beyond those necessary to bring down the deficit at a sustainable rate.
Let me briefly outline why the Minister is fortunate to inherit our record on skills. The performance of further education colleges and other providers has improved dramatically over the past decade. The satisfaction rates of employers and learners have risen. Since 2001, about 3 million adults have improved their basic skills and achieved a national qualification. Since 1997, more than 2 million people have started apprenticeships, which represents a massive increase in apprenticeship starts since the Conservative party was previously in power. Completion rates for apprenticeships have also more than doubled.
Despite the Minister’s trashing of the Train to Gain programme—although I note that he has not completely axed it—employers and workers report strong satisfaction with the scheme. More than 1 million people have been able to start learning programmes at work that lead to a qualification. That has reduced staff turnover, improved productivity and engaged more than 140,000 employers in training. Earlier this year, I was proud to be able to meet Chris Scott, a process operator at William Blythe Ltd, a chemical manufacturer in Accrington, who, by completing his level 2 NVQ—yes, level 2—in business improvement techniques, became the one millionth learner from the Train to Gain programme to gain a qualification. I should also mention the record number of students in higher education, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) will say more about that later.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of Train to Gain, so why did the previous Government cut £1.3 million from the Train to Gain budget for Harlow college?
Kevin Brennan
It would be remiss of me if I did not welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. I also pay tribute to his predecessor—a former skills Minister. I shall talk about the priorities for skills spending later. However, I note that although the current Minister has tried to cut the Train to Gain budget and to trash the programme comprehensively, he has not yet completely abolished it.
I am especially proud of the work that we did in government with the trade unions. Despite Conservative hostility, as even the Minister might admit, we introduced the union learning fund, which is now worth £21.5 million a year. As a result, there are now more than 23,000 union learning reps. They get to the parts of the workplace that other trainers and providers sometimes do not reach, and they helped nearly 250,000 workers into learning last year. Latterly—I give this Minister and the Minister for Universities and Science credit for this—that even won praise from the Minister for Universities and Science for its effectiveness and efficiency. One day, the skills Minister might be able to mention the union learning fund and the trade unions in a speech and get the odd “Hear, hear!” from the Back Benchers behind him, rather than the blank looks that he got when he talked about them today.
The highly successful transformation fund for informal adult learning has also brought about a sea change in people’s perceptions of themselves, and has helped to generate a marked increase in participation, particularly among those in the lower D and E socio-economic groups, and that is a legacy of the previous Government’s of which I am proud.
There was huge investment of over £2 billion in building the colleges of the future, although the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the problems with the programme. That programme transformed the places in which people learn. He will have the pleasure, as Minister, of visiting many of those colleges and seeing the transformational impact of the capital investment in our further education colleges that took place under the Labour Government. He may also remind himself that not a single penny was spent on further education capital for colleges in the final year of his party’s last term in office. So there is a substantial platform on which to build, and a clear strategy for the future was set out in the skills White Paper last November.
Mr Hayes
Given the spirit that has permeated our exchanges thus far, and indeed today, I know that the shadow Minister will want to welcome the extra £50 million. He was slightly critical when he said that it was to be taken from revenue and was a one-off, but he knows that that was needed and will be welcomed across the sector. Will he just say a word of welcome for that?
Kevin Brennan
I am always happy to argue for more investment and capital for our FE colleges, but later I may return to the issue of the £50 million and whether, overall, the Department should be welcoming the way in which it has been pick-pocketed by the Treasury over that measure.
As I say, there is a substantial platform on which to build. The skills White Paper, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was published last November, set out pretty clearly the skills challenges for the next decade and a clear set of proposals to meet that challenge, including an ambition to ensure that three quarters of people participate in higher education or complete an advanced apprenticeship by the age of 30. Included in those proposals were: the expansion of the apprenticeship system to build a new technical class by doubling apprenticeship places for young adults; apprenticeship scholarships; and the focus of the skills budget on the areas from which future jobs will come. I make no apology for that, although I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about skills being wider than simply an economic matter. I make no apology for focusing on the areas from which future jobs will come.
The proposals also include: a joint investment scheme with sector skills councils; more national skills academies; skills accounts, to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred; user-friendly public ratings for colleges and providers, to which I think he referred in his written statement today; better skills provision for those on out-of-work benefits; promotion of apprenticeships as a priority in public procurement; reducing the number of publicly funded skills agencies by over 30; and focusing resources on key economic strategic priorities. A strong record of achievement and a clear and widely welcomed strategy for the future—that is the strong legacy bequeathed to the hon. Gentleman as Minister with responsibility for skills in the new Government.
Mr Hayes
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman too often, and I will give him some poetry, if I get a chance, in a later intervention, but he talks about the legacy that his party left. I just want him to be clear with the House about where the £300 million reductions in
“funding not directly supporting learner participation and lower priority adult skills budgets”
would actually have fallen; that is in the pre-Budget report that his Government published.
Kevin Brennan
I am slightly surprised by that comment, because the hon. Gentleman seemed at first in his speech to be criticising us for making those necessary savings, but later to be saying that we should have made them earlier. I am not quite sure why that suddenly became the point on which he wanted to intervene. However, he can intervene as often as he likes; I am happy to give way to him on any number of occasions, as he knows.
What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do with the strong, powerful and compelling legacy that I have just outlined to the House? First, his Department is cutting by 10,000 the number of university places that would have been on offer this autumn. That is despite him and his colleagues persistently claiming—and actually bringing my colleagues and me to the House, when we were the Ministers, to boast about the fact—that they were committed to, creating an extra 10,000 university places over and above what the Government were committed to through a sort of “buy now, pay later” student loan early payback scheme, which we argued was entirely bogus, and which appears to have been wiped from the collective memories of Government Front Benchers during their coalition reprogramming course.
Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) winds up, he can tell us what happened to the pet scheme to conjure up more student places for free. The Minister for Universities and Science explained in the House on many occasions how it would work, despite our scepticism. Has the Treasury finally explained to him and his colleagues what we told him all along—that it was Mickey Mouse maths and would not work? I think that the Under-Secretary agrees that it is Mickey Mouse maths; he did when he was in opposition.
What else have the Administration done on skills apart from announcing cuts to university places and budgets? They have tried to soften the Department’s pain of being the Chancellor’s whipping boy so far in the £6 billion in-year cuts package by recycling £200 million from the skills budget—from the Train to Gain programme—into additional apprenticeship places costing £150 million, and, as the Minister outlined, into capital for further education colleges of £50 million. The Secretary of State bragged about that yesterday in the Chamber. He tried to give the impression that it was year zero and that he was the first Minister ever to come to the Dispatch Box to announce anything about spending on further education capital and apprenticeships.
On capital, the Secretary of State has been done over by the oldest Treasury trick in the book—converting revenue into capital. He claimed that he kept back £200 million from the package when he is doing no such thing. The £50 million on capital, as the Minister generously admitted in his remarks, is for this year only. The Chancellor has picked the Secretary of State’s skills budget pocket for future years to the tune of £50 million per annum and that should be acknowledged.
The Secretary of State should have made the case for capital separately, if he wanted to make such a case to the Treasury in the spending review. Instead, he has allowed the Treasury to deny the skills budget £50 million a year from next year onwards—in perpetuity—even before the Budget and the spending review. That is a little naive. He has been had and he ought to have known better.
Let us consider the apprenticeships proposal. There are no stronger supporters of apprenticeships than me, Labour Members and the previous Labour Government. No Government did more than the previous Government to rescue apprenticeships from the almost criminal indifference of the previous Tory Government, who allowed apprenticeships to fall to only 65,000, with a completion rate of only a third.
The Secretary of State should be more candid about the proposals. He is not trying to do the difficult, but most important, things on apprenticeships. He is after the low-hanging fruit—and I hope he will think carefully about that—because he hopes to claim a quick victory on apprenticeship numbers. For the benefit of the House and all concerned, let us be clear about what he is doing. Although he tried to give an impression to the contrary yesterday, he is not creating new training opportunities apprenticeships for the youngest and most difficult to place. He is not—as we pledged to do and he must still deliver, unless he wants to tell us that he will abandon the policy; I do not think that he will—trying to create more advanced apprenticeships for young adults. He is not aiming to support a particular number of new jobs. He is transferring funding in the training and skills budget from one form of funding for those who are in work into another—good, but more expensive—form of training, which he knows is overwhelmingly likely to be taken up not by employers looking to take on new young workers who are currently out of work, but by those who will train a smaller number of older workers currently in work than they would have done under Train to Gain.
Now that is fine—it is a legitimate decision for the Government to make—but the Secretary of State should not try to give the impression that the announcement and the programme is likely to result in 50,000 new job opportunities for young people, or even new jobs for older workers.
Mr Hayes
We cannot allow this to stand, can we? I hope that I wear the weight
“Of learning lightly like a flower”,
in the words of Tennyson. I also hope that that learning might inform the thinking of the House on apprenticeships. Of course some of the new apprenticeships will be adult apprenticeships and some will be for young people, and of course some will be about upskilling and some about reskilling, but to suggest that the people involved will simply be those currently taught under Train to Gain is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman knows what the National Audit Office said about that scheme: 25% dead-weight cost.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to the Minister that the erudition of his intervention was equalled only by its length? Although it is a joy to listen to his mellifluous tones, I hope that not all such interventions will be of equal length.
Kevin Brennan
It is a joy to listen to the Minister, and I am glad that he at last came up with some poetry and quoted Tennyson’s words that one should wear learning lightly. Perhaps I could come back with some Alexander Pope:
“A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.
The vast number of people who will take up the Minister’s proposals will already be in work, and they will be in the older, not the younger, age bracket. He may prove my prediction wrong in future, but he does not have a rule to ensure that the apprenticeships are for younger workers—under-25s—or one to ensure that apprenticeships are for new starts only. If he wants to talk about dead weight, he should calculate the dead weight of his proposal in respect of the training that would have happened anyway.
The Minister also needs to tell us how he will drive up apprenticeships elsewhere—in the public sector, for example. How will he use procurement to help that? Unless he shows leadership—I say this to him candidly and sincerely—and knocks heads together in the Government, that will not happen. All he will get from his colleagues will be that one-note symphony that we have heard so far from the Government, like the vuvuzelas in the World cup, saying that nothing can be done on public sector apprenticeships because of cuts. That is what he will be told. My advice to him is this: he needs to fight, fight and fight again against Treasury orthodoxy on behalf of apprenticeships if he wants to make an impact as a Minister.
It is clear that the Minister’s enjoyable and occasionally flowery rhetoric—if he will forgive me for saying so—hides a prosaic reality in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Secretary of State really wants to be in charge of the banks but has been walked all over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that ambition and, in an age-old Treasury way, has had his pocket picked over FE, skills, capital and revenue; and the Universities and Science Minister, who really wants to be the Secretary of State and deeply resents the Liberal Democrat succubus who now has his job, has, in his absent-minded, dual-brained, batty, professorial way, carelessly mislaid 10,000 university places since the election. It is no wonder that in the confusion, the Treasury has been able to bamboozle a Department that has two heads and three brains. Now we have proposals for capital and apprenticeships that are not all that they seem.
If we are going to build Britain’s skills for the future, we need strong, united leadership from the Department, not weak, divided leadership hidden by the Minister’s baroque oratory. His words are fine for now, but unless he starts standing up for skills, his flowery rhetoric will wilt under the heat of political reality.
Mr Speaker
Order. As I think the House will be aware, the debate is heavily subscribed, and I therefore impose a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, to apply with immediate effect.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech as the first Member for the new Milton Keynes South constituency. I regret that I do not have any poetry to share with the House this afternoon, but I am pleased to contribute to this debate on building a high-skilled economy. The motto of Milton Keynes is “By Knowledge, Design and Understanding”, and my constituency has always been at the heart of learning and technological innovation.
Before I turn to those themes, let me first pay tribute to my predecessors. I use the plural deliberately because, thanks to the work of the Boundary Commission, I have two. The bulk of my constituency was in the former Milton Keynes, South-West seat, represented for the last 13 years by Dr Phyllis Starkey. I got to know her quite well, having been her opponent in the 2001 and 2005 elections, as well as in the poll last month. Over the 10 years in which we were political sparring partners, it is fair to say that there were few policies on which we agreed. However, I pay tribute to her for her service to Milton Keynes. To represent such a diverse and dynamic constituency for more than a decade is no small achievement. I also know that she had a strong reputation in this House for pursuing her causes with tenacity and determination.
My other immediate predecessor is, I am delighted to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). He was a diligent and well-regarded representative for the two wards that I have inherited from him—Danesborough and Walton Park—and I look forward to continuing his good work. Indeed, we are planning to work very closely together to provide a seamless service to the whole of Milton Keynes. In these financially challenged times, we are endeavouring to save on the public purse by sharing a constituency office.
Hon. Members may think that they know about Milton Keynes, but I would like to use this speech to challenge a number of misconceptions. In an economic debate, it would have been neat to follow the widely held view that Milton Keynes is named after the two distinguished economists, Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes, but that is not the case. The city takes its names from the historic village of Milton Keynes, which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
It is true that Milton Keynes is a new city that is just over 40 years in age, with plenty of modern housing estates, and the roundabouts and grid road system with which hon. Members may be all too well acquainted if they have not followed the logic of the layout. However, that modernity belies a rich history stretching over many centuries. Stony Stratford, for example, is an ancient coaching town on the Watling street roman road. The House may not know that the origin of the phrase “cock and bull story” lies in Stony Stratford. On the high street, there are two hotels—the Bull and the Cock. Legend has it that, as travellers stopped to break their journeys between London and cities in the midlands and north, the ale flowed freely and stories became more and more embellished before being relayed, in their exaggerated state, to their destination. I pledge that my contributions in this House will have a sounder factual base.
Bletchley, which forms about one third of my constituency, is of course the home of Bletchley Park and the code breakers, whose brilliant work certainly shortened the second world war and saved many hundreds of thousands of lives. Indeed, it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that their work changed the outcome of the war and, had they not succeeded, we might not today enjoy the freedom of speech that we do. I am delighted to report that, after many years of neglect, important restoration work is being carried out at Bletchley Park, under the expert guidance of its director, Simon Greenish, and I shall do what I can to ensure that the restoration project is completed.
I also wish to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), for what he did to right the wrong against the brilliant code breaker and mathematician, Alan Turing, a national hero who was so persecuted for being gay that he ultimately took his own life. While the right hon. Gentleman and I share little political agreement—although, in the interests of full disclosure, I should declare that I was christened by his father—I pay tribute to him for making that national apology for the wrong done to Alan Turing.
Bletchley Park is also the home of the modern computer, which is just one of my constituency’s major contributions to the UK’s high-skilled economy. That tradition has continued with the Open university, which is also located in my constituency. Many hundreds of thousands of lives have been transformed by the Open university, and it has long-embodied the vital principle of lifelong learning, reskilling people as their careers evolve and giving a second chance to those who have, for whatever reason, missed out on a more traditional form of higher education. The new vice-chancellor of the Open university, Martin Bean, is making an excellent start in preparing and updating the university to meet the ever-evolving challenges that lie ahead. His appointment is significant, because as a former senior director of Microsoft, his move from a high-end private company to the world of education illustrates the vital links that must exist between the two if the UK is to sustain a high-knowledge economy.
Milton Keynes is home to another pioneering model of higher-level learning that I believe will play a major part in the skilling of our economy—University Centre Milton Keynes, under the wise leadership of Professor Keith Straughan. When fully established, this exciting new concept will enable young people to access top-quality learning close to home and integrated with their learning at work. It is a model of partnership working and came about as a result of demand from the local community, local employers, civic partners and the voluntary and community sector. Will the Minister, as well as visiting the Open university, visit UCMK? I am sure that he will find a lot there that fits with the Government’s agenda.
I have long believed that to unlock the full potential of people in the UK, we need to break down some of the barriers that sometimes exist between higher and further education, and the needs of skilled employers. To ensure that the UK can beat both our traditional economic competitors and the fast-rising challenge from emerging economies, we need much greater flexibility in our education system, and in that Milton Keynes is leading the way.
Milton Keynes has a high-skilled economy, with many exciting new projects, such as the electric car scheme being piloted there. However, our success does not rest alone on its dynamic economy. For a relatively young new city, we have a fantastic, positive, can-do attitude and enjoy a rich tapestry of civic society, with more than 1,200 voluntary and charitable organisations. That spirit is embodied by Milton Keynes’ successful bid to be a host venue should England be successful in staging the 2018 World cup. And let this Scotsman put it on the record that I want England to triumph in South Africa and to go on to host the tournament in eight years.
After my electoral disappointment in 2001 and 2005, I could easily have moved on and sought a securer passage to this place, but I did not want to. Having made Milton Keynes my home, I wanted to be the Member for that area, and I feel honoured to be given a chance to represent it in the House. I began my speech by paying tribute to my immediate predecessors, but I would like to conclude with a reference to another former Member—Bill Benyon, who is the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and was Member for the Milton Keynes area for 22 years until 1992. Nearly two decades after he retired from this House, he is still remembered with great warmth and affection by many of my constituents as a kind, compassionate and hard-working man who believed in Milton Keynes and did whatever he could to champion this exciting new city on a wider stage. I hope that, in my time in the House, I can achieve a similar record of service.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his maiden speech—a Scotsman supporting England, hey?
“Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I stumble over the proprieties peculiar to the House”.—[Official Report, 24 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1202.]
Those are not my words, but the opening salvo in the maiden speech by my predecessor, whom I shall cite more later, on 24 July 1991. Such observations are as true today as they were 19 years ago. Although I have only been in this place for a few short weeks, I have already started to take notice of the vagaries of the House. For example, I have noted that when a Member begins a speech with the words “I will be brief”, an extensive and loquacious contribution is guaranteed. Similarly, when the words “This doesn’t really need saying” are uttered, it is odds-on that an explanation of what it was that did not need saying will be given, in some detail, to those to whom it did not need explaining in the first place.
Mr Speaker, you may well have been able to discern from my accent—if not my haircut—that I am from the home of John, Paul, George and Ringo. However, it is also the home of Gerry Marsden, The Farm and China Crisis—to unashamedly mention just a few of my personal friends. Liverpool boasts too many politicians, musicians, comedians, poets, broadcasters, artists and so on to mention individually. Otherwise, my maiden speech might well have been one of the longest ever recorded.
It is also possible to find a Scouser at every level of our armed forces. One of my constituents, Craig Lundberg, who was blinded in an attack by insurgents in Iraq, is an inspiration to others. Like many Members from all parts of the House, I would like to pay tribute to all those in our armed forces who carry out such dangerous and commendable work on behalf of us all.
I represent a constituency that, uniquely, boasts two premiership football clubs within its boundaries. In our football-mad city, the achievements of Everton and Liverpool have a direct effect on the fortunes of our city. Historically, we have been no strangers to on-field success. However, for one of our clubs it is now fortunes of the financial kind that threaten its very existence. I urge hon. Members to sign early-day motion 197 on the issue, as the Minister concerned previously refused my request for a meeting with the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I should perhaps declare at this point that I am a dyed-in-the-wool Liverpool fan and a season ticket holder at Anfield. However, I would honestly say the same things if Everton FC had been the victim of a leveraged buy-out that had endangered its future survival and caused so many problems for my constituents living in close proximity to its football stadium. England’s most successful football club is slowly being drained by the greed of two American asset strippers, and this is having a negative impact on regeneration projects for the whole area. Unfortunately, the beautiful game does not always attract those with beautiful intentions.
One of the great socialist philosophers of the last century—the great Bill Shankly—may have been mistaken when he said that football was more important than life and death. However, supporters of both of our sporting institutions at least understood his passion, and they will not stand idly by without being engaged in the future of their respective football clubs.
The reason Mr Shankly was, uncharacteristically, wrong is that our city unfortunately recognises more than most the life-and-death results of poor stadium safety and ineffective policing—primary causes of the tragedies at Heysel and Hillsborough. I can assure my constituents that I will campaign on their behalf against any plans to water down ground safety standards, and that I will fight tooth and nail to protect the inquiry set up to examine the Hillsborough disaster. I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), on behalf of all the Hillsborough families, for pushing so hard to get the process started.
My predecessor may have been from the blue half of Merseyside, but he was certainly from the politically red half of this Chamber. It is traditional for Members making their maiden speeches to highlight the contributions of their predecessors. Some are faced with the unenviable task of waxing lyrical about a political opponent whom they may recently have put to the electoral sword. Others may have replaced a colleague in controversial circumstances, while some may have been complicit in their predecessor’s downfall. I am pleased to say that none of those scenarios applies in my case. Put quite simply, I would not be in this place without the support, encouragement and friendship of Peter Kilfoyle.
Peter will go down as one of the great parliamentarians. He was widely respected in all parts of the Chamber, despite—or perhaps because of—the fact that he was independent of mind and voted with his conscience, sometimes controversially, as on the issue of Iraq, but also in his spirited opposition to the scrapping of the 10p tax rate. Peter’s opposition to the Iraq war was not met with universal support on the Labour Benches at the time, but it appears that some of my right hon. Friends who are in the race for the Labour leadership are also now expressing reservations about that policy. As coalition Members will find out, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
In a world of political self-aggrandisement, Peter Kilfoyle sacrificed career advancement for ideological principle. It is refreshing that there are still men and women whose moral judgment and values override the dangled carrot of elevated office. I can only aspire to follow in Peter’s footsteps. He dedicated 19 years to the service of this House and to his constituents in Liverpool, Walton. He also achieved his aim of doing justice to his predecessor, the late Eric Heffer, who gave 27 years to the same cause. I certainly have my work cut out if I am to follow two such political giants. I wish Peter’s lovely wife Berni all the very best in coming to terms with having him under her feet 24/7.
It is an unbelievable privilege to have been elected by the people of the area in which I have lived all my married life, and I am delighted to represent them in this place. I do not intend to let them down. I am proud to be a Scouser and to represent Walton, where my mum was born. One of the best things about making my maiden speech is that my mum’s name, Dorothy Rotheram, will now be recorded in Hansard in perpetuity.
I actually thought I had something in common with the Prime Minister when someone mentioned that he, too, had been brought up on an estate. On further examination, however, I discovered that his estate was not that similar to ours after all. I make no apology for stating on the record that I intend to be a strong voice for the people who elected me to the safest seat in the country, and for the city I love. I plan to be a constant thorn in the side of the present Government, and to ensure that Liverpool is not disproportionately affected by funding cuts, as it was the last time Tories sat on the Government Benches.
Both of my predecessors had connections with the construction sector, and I am delighted to keep up that tradition. I am guessing that I am among only a tiny minority of people in the Chamber who have completed an apprenticeship. I started my working life as an apprentice bricklayer, and my son Steven is an apprentice electrician. I am passionate about the building industry and about apprenticeships. The Labour Government breathed new life into apprenticeships, which had been all but killed off by the previous Conservative Government. A high-skilled economy is not just about graduates, and I therefore welcome the Government’s road-to-Damascus conversion on that matter. I will campaign for parity of esteem between vocational and academic training routes.
As a serving Liverpool councillor, I would like to put on record my congratulations to Councillor Joe Anderson and my colleagues, and I wish them all the very best in the months ahead. My predecessor concluded his maiden speech by highlighting to the then Conservative Government that unless they took steps to tackle the social issues of the day, they would not be forgiven. Coalition Members should heed such lessons from history.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my maiden speech today and, in so doing, to contribute to this debate on building a high-skilled economy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who is fortunate to be able to boast of two premiership football clubs in his home city. Sadly, in Southampton we can no longer do the same. I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who made an excellent contribution, enlightening us on the motto for Milton Keynes and challenging some of the misconceptions that even those who are relatively close to his constituency might have held.
A debate on a high-skilled economy is particularly pertinent to Romsey and Southampton North. In Chilworth, we have the excellent university of Southampton science park, where 14% of the employees are graduates of the university. It contributes more than £370 million annually to the regional economy. I was fortunate to visit one of the companies on the park just this week, and I can certainly attest to the importance of a high-skilled work force, given that they were testing high explosives.
My next comments are far removed from the high-tech world of Chilworth, as I turn to the heart of the constituency, Romsey town, several hundred years ago. On the edge of the town, being renovated this year, is Broadlands—the stately home where the 19th-century Prime Minister Lord Palmerston was born. Broadlands has been described as having a grandness that personifies the swaggering confidence of Palmerston. I can assure fellow Members that there will be no swaggering from me today.
Although Palmerston was born in Romsey, he never served as its Member of Parliament, so I will not pay tribute to him as a predecessor—and anyway, going back to the 19th century would be somewhat stretching the point. He did, however, have an interesting political journey as a Tory, a Whig and, indeed, a Liberal. It is interesting to note that he has been described in some biographies as having too strong a character to be overwhelmed by liberalism.
I would like to pay tribute to two predecessors in the Romsey constituency. Michael Colvin served the constituency of Romsey and Waterside from 1983 to 1997, and the Romsey constituency from 1997 until his untimely death in 2000. Michael was a good man, a farmer who understood the rural areas of the constituency well. He was a former Grenadier Guard, and was passionate about championing defence issues. He well understood the military issues relevant to the school of Army aviation in Middle Wallop, and he was also a parish, district and, indeed, a county councillor in Hampshire. As a serving borough councillor in the same district that he served, I can attest to that being a good apprenticeship for Parliament.
Also committed to Romsey was my immediate predecessor, Sandra Gidley. She worked hard for the constituency and was well known for her commitment to the NHS and to women’s issues. She is, of course, also well known for having dragged Mr Speaker to his Chair last year.
The recent election saw significant boundary changes, and further parts of Southampton are now included in the new Romsey and Southampton North constituency. It now includes the Ford plant at Swaythling. Southampton is well known as the home of the transit, and Ford is committed to using innovation and technology to make Britain’s best-selling light commercial vehicle as green as possible. It has been successful, and its ECOnetic transit has the lowest CO2 emissions in its class.
Even in an area where we are fortunate to have good schools, an excellent university and companies like Ford committed to Britain’s manufacturing base, there is still a disconnect between what employers want and the skills of our school leavers. It is critical that the two are matched, and that our education system works with employers to make sure there is no skills gap.
Having a strong and productive work force is about many things, and one of the key strengths of the Romsey and Southampton North constituency is the quality of life and the quality of the natural environment. As a remedy for stress and tension, there really is nothing better than some of the countryside and open spaces in the constituency. If the restorative qualities of the River Test could be bottled, there would be a far reduced need for pharmaceutical products. We also have a small corner of the New Forest national park in the constituency. Although the park and its authority do not come without some level of challenge, it is at least an area where dog walkers and native ponies still prevail.
The River Test, one of the finest trout rivers in the world, runs north to south through the constituency, and it has been appreciated over the years by prime ministers and presidents from across the globe. It has a fine tradition of fly fishing, and a wonderful tranquillity and beauty, which can give amazing solace.
Even in the more urban parts of the constituency, there are pockets of open space that enormously enhance the quality of life. Residents in Swaythling have worked hard to preserve and maintain Monks Brook. One of our local wildlife photographers delights in sending me pictures of adders and slow worms from this tiny patch of countryside right next to the motorway. In Bassett there is the sports centre, Daisy dip and the golf course, and I appreciate how hard the city council works to maintain these areas and secure their future.
Romsey has a real gem with the Memorial park proudly flying a green flag for the second year running—and we have our fingers crossed for an announcement next month about its third. It is home to the community orchard, the bandstand and a team of volunteers from the friends of the Memorial park who make sure the park is one of the best in the region. There is also one of the pair of Japanese field guns that Lord Mountbatten of Burma brought back to Romsey at the end of the second world war.
Other parts of the constituency, however, are not as well protected as those public open spaces, and it is inevitably of concern that some areas are at risk of being swallowed up by development. I welcome the news from the Government that regional spatial strategies are to be consigned to the dustbin. We cannot allow the gaps between settlements to be eroded so that local character is diminished as neighbourhoods coalesce and individual identity is lost. The residents of Halterworth, those close to Hoe lane in North Baddesley, and the residents of Redbridge lane in Nursling have a commitment from me to ensure that local strategic planning really is put back in the hands of local people.
Of course, building a high-skilled economy is not just about the urban centres of the constituency. There are many beautiful rural villages in the north, where problems are inevitably caused by the lack of high-speed broadband—or indeed any broadband at all—but where there is also a good strong farming tradition. The fact that agriculture is traditional does not mean that it is not high-skilled; far from it. Those skills manage and maintain our countryside and, very importantly, keep us fed. While focusing on the high-skilled, we must ensure that we do not let Britain’s farming tradition wither.
Let me end on a lighter note. Romsey is claimed to be one of the most haunted parts of Hampshire. Florence Nightingale allegedly still walks the corridors of her old home at Embley Park, and both Romsey abbey and Wherwell priory are said to be haunted by nuns. One of the best known ghost tales is that of two Roundhead soldiers who were hanged from the iron bracket outside the former Swan Inn. The building now houses the local Conservative club. One managed to cut himself loose, and then ran to his death in an alleyway in the town. Apparently he can still be seen repeating his failed escape attempt. However, although the bracket remains to this day, I can assure Members that it has been some while since there has been a public hanging in Romsey.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on an entertaining and well-informed maiden speech. I am sure that she will make a great addition to the House and will serve her constituents well. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I must tell my hon. Friend that I am another Scot who hopes that the England side does well—but I look forward to hours of arguments about football in the years ahead.
I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), to his post and wish him well, although I see that he has just left the Chamber. I thought that his speech was a wonderful performance. I have concluded that if the pressures of government grow too great for him, as they inevitably will at some point, he will have a great future in amateur dramatics.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s plans, some of which I think deserve consideration. For instance, I was glad to learn that he plans to look at the careers service with a view to possibly revamping it. I was surprised and worried to read in a briefing that I received from Edge—the independent foundation that promotes vocational qualifications—that in response to a survey conducted last year, more than 50% of secondary schoolteachers admitted that their knowledge of apprenticeships was remarkably poor.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute and for the information that he has just provided. The same survey revealed that teachers knew less about apprenticeships than about any other qualification apart from the Welsh baccalaureate. I have nothing against the Welsh baccalaureate, but the hon. Gentleman will understand the point.
Steve McCabe
I am glad to learn that the Minister has taken that information on board. As I have said, it worried me to read it, and also to read that many apprentices who were surveyed said that very little information had been given to them about apprenticeships either by secondary schoolteachers or, more importantly, by careers specialists. It seems pretty obvious to me that, if we are interested in promoting apprenticeships, we shall have to convey some basic good information to young people. Both the careers service and the information available to secondary schoolteachers must therefore improve.
I am not quite sure what the Minister was attacking in his comments on level 2—I am not sure whether that was code for a cut in numbers down the line. It seems to me that £50 million could buy an awful lot of opportunities for young people, and if that sum is taken out of the budget in the years ahead, perhaps the Minister has to prepare the way by telling us that he will downgrade certain qualifications and opportunities.
I welcome, however, the Minister’s acknowledgement that level 2 can provide a very useful foundation. I was struck by the statistic in the CBI report, “Ready to grow” that 32% of employers found it remarkably difficult to recruit people with the necessary intermediate skills. It seems to me that those people will never be available unless we can provide them with a basic foundation to start with, and the general definition of level 2 is that it provides people with a solid grounding and a basic set of skills from which they can begin to build and develop their chosen careers.
I do not particularly want to quibble with the Minister about the definition of apprenticeships, but level 2 is very important in getting some young people on the path. Whatever the Minister’s comments today about level 3 were intended to mean, I hope he will bear in mind that it is essential that youngsters have a route in, and that the only way that we will be able to provide employers with people with the requisite skills is by giving young people that starting point.
I also welcome the Minister’s plans to set further education colleges free, although I am not sure how free they will be if they are starved of funding, as it strikes me that that can be a fairly empty form of freedom, and I noticed that there was very little detail about exactly what this freedom will amount to. I would like FE colleges to be encouraged to develop programme apprenticeships—they already have a great deal of skill in that respect—and those apprenticeships are a way of enabling young people in particular to begin their apprenticeship at a time when it may be quite difficult for them to find an employer to take them on. Employers, particularly small businesses, are struggling to develop apprenticeships at present because of their fears about the economic future.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a second time.
For the sake of clarity, let me repeat something that I have already said: I am writing to every Member to describe these freedoms to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and they are all things that have been specifically requested by further education representatives in numerous conversations that we have had with them over a period of years.
Steve McCabe
Well, the detail is obviously in the letter then, and I look forward to reading it.
I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not make any specific reference to small businesses. If we want to grow meaningful apprenticeships, small businesses are the obvious sector that we need to target, but we all know that they have difficulties in dealing with apprenticeships. I was glad to hear that the Minister is enthusiastic to cut through the red tape, but when I talk to small employers, they tell me that they need help in developing apprenticeships; they need help with the basic training and assessment. That is the other side of what needs to be done. One side is to encourage youngsters by ensuring they have the necessary information and by promoting apprenticeships, and the other side is to make it possible for small employers in particular to take on young people.
I wonder whether the Minister has considered the idea of group apprenticeship schemes, which I understand have been particularly successful in Australia. I believe that there are some pilot schemes in this country. The essential idea is that the apprentice is employed by a group and is sent out on placement to various employers. It then becomes possible for a group of small employers to get together and to save on the administrative costs and overheads. A number of youngsters can therefore be placed on an apprenticeship scheme and get real practical experience with employers.
Has the Minister any plans to consider university technical colleges? There is one in the Birmingham area, at Aston, and I think there are about four around the country. That model seems to bring universities together with employers. In the engineering and manufacturing sectors in particular, it encourages the development of a steady skill development path. It builds on vocational levels through to level 5, and the previous Government sought to encourage it. I would like to know whether the Minister has plans to pursue it.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of other initiatives coming out of universities that also help to build the high-skill economy? I cite, for example, Wendy Sadler’s scheme out of Cardiff university, of which my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), will be aware. They have used “Science made simple” to reach out to 250,000 youngsters, getting them to understand science and how they can have a career in science and find employment through science in high-tech and high-quality jobs. Universities have a unique role in reaching out to young people before they make their career choices, perhaps involving universities or apprenticeships.
Steve McCabe
If we are going to create jobs for the future and to have a generation in work rather than unemployed, all such initiatives should be encouraged and explored. I agree with the Minister—I do not think that any of us has ownership of these issues—but it is pretty important that we get it right, because we have one chance.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties with apprenticeships is finding an employer to take the apprentice on for the third year, or even in some cases for the second year? In the benign balmy days of a sophisticated Labour Government who had the economy moving forward, that was quite easy, but now, as the chill winter of Conservatism starts to freeze the economy from all corners, might it not be an idea for us to revert to what the Conservatives did the last time that they were in power and introduce schemes such as the Manpower Services Commission scheme, the youth opportunities programme and so on to provide some support and encouragement to employers? It is easy to take on an apprentice in the good times, but very hard in the bad times.
Steve McCabe
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Employers need help and encouragement, and the only people who can provide that are the Government. If we are going to get this to work, that is what has to happen.
The Minister struck a note of optimism today. As I said to him in an earlier intervention, I do not think that that is the view of the senior executives who wrote to The Daily Telegraph today; they struck a note of anxiety and pessimism about cuts in university funding and about being left behind in international competition. It was difficult to see the Minister’s optimism when it came just after the speech from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which he told us that he was axing the young person’s guarantee.
I wish the Minister well, but I warn him that this is going to take more than warm words. The last thing we need to see is a lost generation that does not even get the chance of work. That is the legacy that the Tory Government of the ’80s left us, so I hope that he will learn from the mistakes of the past.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I know that hon. Members will wish to respect the conventions associated with maiden speeches, as we are privileged to have a number of them this afternoon.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome you to your position, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for inviting me to make my maiden speech this afternoon. This is quite a nerve-racking occasion, but I feel a little more relaxed now that we have been talking about football, which I know a lot about. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who is a red through and through, I am a blue through and through: I am a fan of Huddersfield Town, who play in blue and white. There are some similarities between our clubs—for example, the great Bill Shankly began his managerial career at Huddersfield. I am not sure how many other similarities we will have over the years, but I look forward to talking to the hon. Gentleman about football for many years to come.
I should like to praise Conservative Members who made their maiden speeches earlier. Again, I will mention football, because my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is one of those Members, and I certainly enjoy travelling around Milton Keynes trying to find the football ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) also spoke, and I wish Southampton football club good luck in the forthcoming season without the deficit of 10 points that it had last season.
I want to pay tribute to two of my predecessors. Speaking of football, it was at Millwall football club, three weeks ago, that I ran into Graham Riddick, who was the Member of Parliament for Colne Valley between 1987 and 1997. While I was cheering on the Terriers in the play-offs down at the New Den, I looked along the terracing and, lo and behold, there was Graham Riddick cheering them on too. It was great to catch up with him and he gave me many words of advice and encouragement, so I thank him for that.
I should also like to say a few kind words about my direct predecessor, Kali Mountford, who spent a lot of time helping me and my office manager by talking us through all the casework that she so pleasingly handed over to us; she looked very relieved as she did so. I praise Kali for her work with the Anthony Nolan bone marrow trust, which she has promoted in recent years. As a result of her hard work there, I have signed up to the trust and I encourage all hon. Members and members of the public to do so. That campaign was motivated by the death of a campaigning journalist from The Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Adrian Sudbury, and I congratulate Kali on highlighting it. She has suffered from poor health in recent years and I wish her and her husband Ian the best of luck in the years to come.
Colne Valley is not the best name for a constituency, because those coming from south of Watford, for example, think that it is related to a town called Colne in Lancashire, but it is not. We are in West Yorkshire, and we are proud to be Yorkshire folk. The Colne valley itself is one of three main areas of the constituency. It has some lovely little mill towns on the River Colne, including Marsden, Slaithwaite, which we call “Slawit”, and Linthwaite. I also have some of Huddersfield’s suburbs, from leafy suburbs in Lindley to more densely populated areas such as that of my Kashmiri population at Thornton Lodge.
Then we get to the valley where I live—the Holme valley, which includes my village of Honley, as well as Brockholes and the big market town of Holmfirth. It really is a beautiful part of the world with lovely countryside, stone walls, lots of sheep and lots of traditional folk. That brings me to Cleggy, who has had a bad time in the past month. He has had an absolute nightmare—[Interruption.] No, not that Cleggy: I am talking about Cleggy from “Last of the Summer Wine”, who, along with his pals Compo, Foggy and Nora Batty, is no more because the BBC has ditched the long-running television series that graced our screens on Sunday evenings on BBC1. That gentle comedy about Yorkshire folk, usually going downhill in a bathtub, was very much a mainstay of our television and it helped to promote tourism in my constituency. In Holmfirth, which is just a mile up the road from where I live, we have a Compo’s caff and there is a Wrinkled Stocking café just two doors down from my new constituency office, so we will really miss that opportunity to promote tourism.
All that brings me to the subject of this debate: the high-skilled economy. Many people say to me—other Members of the House probably hear this too—that we do not make things any more, but I am proud to say that in my constituency we do. It is not on a large scale, but I have a number of enterprising, entrepreneurial and innovative businesses that have set up, sometimes in old mills, to create products that have a niche market and that are exporting around the world. I shall mention just a few. There are little engineering companies such as Dathan in Meltham, which produces specialist gear cutting equipment that is used in the Formula 1 motor racing industry. Allsops precision sheet metal work, which uses the latest laser-guided cutting tools, is taking on apprentices. It is not on a massive scale, but it has more than 100 employees and it is looking to expand.
I also have David Brown Gear Systems in Lockwood, which I visited with the then shadow Minister for Universities and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), before the election campaign. It has its own in-house training scheme called the Gear Academy and it is training some wonderful youngsters up to work on making gear equipment. Those gears are now being used not only in our submarines but in the wind turbine industry. I also have pharmaceuticals, with Thornton and Ross on the River Colne. I have an ice cream factory, Longleys Farm, which makes the most wonderful ice cream. It has just opened a new ice cream parlour in Holmfirth.
Talking of “Last of the Summer Wine”, we even have a vineyard now—a real live Yorkshire vineyard. A wonderful enterprising young couple called Ian and Becky Sheveling gave up high-flying careers, bought a lovely plot of land and planted their vines. They have just produced their first bottles of rosé and have obtained planning permission for a tasting centre and an eco-lodge. That will help promote tourism and we shall have real bottles of wine from the area of “Last of the Summer Wine”. That is fantastic.
It is these sorts of little enterprises that we, in a high-skilled economy, must try to promote. We have to cut the red tape; we should support them with lower taxes; we must give them the skills in the work force and the local infrastructure so that their workers can live and work locally. We have got to support local rural post offices. In my village of Honley, I have a most wonderful couple, Brenda and Duncan Bodenhem. The post office is not only their livelihood but their way of life. They organise the Christmas lights; they help all the old people come in and out; they do dry cleaning. They do not provide just the usual post office services.
Post offices, especially the rural ones, are struggling, and our post office network was decimated in the last decade. It is important that we support them, because once they are gone, they are gone. We also need to support things such as rural bus services, so that people can live in my rural communities and work there as well. We need to support the health centres and health services. I am trying to get full maternity services back in the area of Huddersfield. That is really important.
I am proud to have been elected the Member of Parliament for Colne Valley. It is a beautiful part of the world with some enterprising businesses and a fantastic football team in Huddersfield Town. We also have just down the road in Huddersfield the birthplace of rugby league, so I have to mention the Huddersfield Giants, who are striving hard this season. They are having a bit of a poor run at the moment, but I hope that they will turn the corner.
Before I sit down, I should like to say that many of us here in this House, especially the new Members, have been through a gruelling and hard-fought election campaign. I and all my family and friends went through a lot to get me here. I know that the Speaker himself had a bit of a tough election campaign. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) had a straightforward election campaign; his is the safest seat in the House. I would love to know what that feels like, having stood in a three-way marginal.
I was lucky to have my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visit my constituency—not so lucky to have the Deputy Prime Minister—during the election campaign. I finally pay tribute to my fantastic campaign team. John Travis was my campaign manager. I have a fantastic family. My parents live just up the valley from me. I pay tribute to them. My mum and dad have never walked so much in all their lives. It takes about an hour to deliver to just three cottages because they have such long walkways. It is a privilege to be here today, but I am itching to get back up to the constituency this evening. The office is up and running, and I am looking forward to being out in Holmfirth and through the valleys over the weekend, representing the people who sent me here. There is a lot to do and I hope that I can do it with vigour and vim—and cheer on Huddersfield Town to promotion next season.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for his maiden speech. He had no need to be nervous; it was an extremely entertaining and informative maiden speech. I thank him for his kind comments about his predecessor, Kali Mountford. On the Labour Benches, we think of Kali with great affection, so we thank him.
I am pleased that mention has been made of the “Skills for Growth” White Paper, which has been important in defining our skills needs for the next few decades. As the Minister knows, the White Paper put particular emphasis on vocational skills and argued for a dramatic expansion of advanced apprenticeships, particularly for young adults. It also argued for the skilling of adults who are already in employment and those seeking work, and for improving the quality of provision in our FE and other institutions.
At the same time, “Higher Ambitions” set out equally challenging demands for our university sector. It asked universities to work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England to devise new funding incentives so that we could deliver higher education programmes that were more acutely related to the needs of the economy, and to work with the UK Commission for Employment and Skills to identify where new programmes were needed to meet areas of low demand. It set out the need to improve the relationship between universities and businesses and, crucially, to build better relationships between universities and regional development agencies. I noticed that the Minister was very quiet on that subject today, but as the Government are about to destroy the whole RDA framework, I should be interested to hear what he has to say about how universities and FE colleges will work with whatever structure is set up to ensure that regional development continues.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will want to know that we are entirely committed to ensuring consistency—indeed synergy—between the economic development functions of local authorities and the work of colleges and other providers. If she is straightforward, I think she will acknowledge that according to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, RDAs were not terribly effective in some of the work they did.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I hear what the Minister says, but the new Government still have some way to go in setting out more generally how they propose to build on Labour’s progress in upskilling and reskilling our population, and particularly in outlining how some of the more strategic objectives on skills shortages will be met at regional level. That may not be easily deliverable at local authority level, so the Government have some more thinking to do about our regions.
The progress made under Labour was recognised by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in its national skills audit, published earlier this year:
“Significant progress has been made in raising the qualifications levels of the workforce and stimulating supply over the last ten years, so that compared to other OECD nations our supply of highly skilled people is likely to place us 10th in the OECD by 2020.”
When Labour left office we were on track to move up the OECD league table in terms of the advances we had made in skilling our population. There is thus a considerable challenge to the Government to maintain that progress.
Similarly, recent publications from Universities UK and the Russell group comment on the strength of the university sector, while arguing that if current standards and quality are to be maintained investment must continue. We may hear something about that in the Budget next week, but it remains to be seen whether protection will be given for education not only pre-19, but post-19, so that we continue to be internationally competitive.
Not only did the Labour Government invest heavily in education generally, including further and higher education, but that investment was accompanied by a strategy to widen participation, to raise aspirations and to ensure that all young people who felt they could benefit from a university or a level 4 education had the chance to do so. I have not yet heard from the new Government whether they will continue to have that high level of aspiration for our young people. The Leitch review very much led us in that strategy. The Minister mentioned the review in his opening speech, but he did not mention whether this Government would keep the very demanding Leitch targets, which stated that 90% or more of the working-age population should have a level 2 qualification, 68% should have a level 3 qualification and over 40% should have a qualification at level 4 or higher. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks those targets should stay in place.
Good progress was being made towards reaching those targets when Labour left office. The Liberal Democrats have often said—I often heard this during my election campaign—that although Labour had made advances in reskilling the population, those had been confined largely to the better-off. Interestingly, data from HEFCE show clearly that that is not the case. A HEFCE publication earlier this year, which looked at trends in young participation in higher education among different groups in England, stated that to overcome gaps in the data on disadvantage at an individual level, the study that it used looked at levels of disadvantage in local areas, taking figures from 8,000 census wards across England. The authors of the study also selected a range of indicators, and they said that, looking across the indicators, they had to conclude that since the mid-2000s young people from disadvantaged areas are substantially more likely to enter HE, that most measures of the gap in participation between most and least disadvantaged areas had fallen, and that the majority of additional entrants to HE have come from more disadvantaged areas. That means that Labour was not only upskilling the population, but it was extending access to higher education to those who had not previously been able to benefit from it. That is another substantial challenge for the new Government: they must—and we will be watching whether they continue to do so—extend opportunities and widen participation in the way that Labour did.
The audit that I mentioned earlier also talked about the importance of increasing skill levels further and identified key areas where there are skill shortages: in management and leadership, in professional skills, at the technician and equivalent level, at intermediate vocational levels and care services, and in customer service and general employability skills. It is important that we continue to make good those skill shortages.
The audit also identified key sectors where we need to be improving the skills levels of our young people and work force in the future if we are to remain internationally competitive. It was interesting to see the areas that had been outlined, which I think are familiar to all of us in the Chamber. They have been identified as low carbon; advanced manufacturing; engineering and construction; financial and professional services; the digital economy; life sciences and pharmaceuticals; the creative sector; care services; and retail, hospitality, leisure and tourism.
Our university and FE sectors are in a sense already embracing this brave new world, because they have already started to think of new ways of delivering courses that give much greater flexibility. I pay tribute to New College Durham for pioneering professional apprenticeships, for leading the drive for good-quality HE in FE, and for developing partnerships between HE and FE. I would welcome a visit to the college from the Minister, because he could meet the staff and see some of the fantastic work that is going on.
The Minister talked about international competitiveness in his opening speech. If we are to remain internationally competitive, we must keep our levels of reskilling high, which means that we will need to know how many young people and individuals in the work force are being skilled and reskilled. If we are not skilling sufficient people, we will need to put additional measures in place. That will mean that we will have to retain some targets, so I would like to hear the Government’s thoughts about that.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech and to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who set such a high standard. To pick up this afternoon’s running thread of football commentary, I am reminded by the presence in the Chamber of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that he, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and I fought a by-election in June 2000 against the backdrop of a major international football tournament. I will not put hon. Members through the pain of reminding them of the outcome; suffice it to say that I hope we last a great deal longer this time.
In common with many new Members, I am conscious of the enormous honour that the people of Battersea, Balham and Wandsworth paid me by electing me as their Member of Parliament. It is a particular pleasure to be making my maiden speech during a debate on skills because I spent my whole working life with the John Lewis Partnership, which takes its commitment to training extremely seriously.
Over the centuries, Battersea has evolved from a village on the Thames famed for its market gardens, and particularly for its asparagus and lavender—hence Lavender Hill—into a 19th century industrial hub criss-crossed by railway lines. The railway lines are still there, but the heavy industry is largely gone. The factories along the river have been replaced by residential blocks. The constituency now has a younger average population than most and it is bustling and diverse. Indeed, it provides a London base for many hon. Members.
Much of the change over the past four decades was witnessed at first hand by John Bowis, the previous Conservative MP for Battersea—a good friend who was a great support to me throughout my campaign—and by my predecessor, Martin Linton, who has lived in Battersea for many years and represented his area first on the council, and then for 13 years as its Member of Parliament. Martin worked hard on behalf of his constituents and was greatly assisted by his wife, Sara. He showed passionate commitment to the causes close to his heart. As a councillor, he was closely involved in setting up the justly renowned Battersea arts centre, and the arts repaid him amply at the recent election when a star-studded array of actors urged people not to vote for me.
As a Member of Parliament, Martin championed, among other things, the cause of the Palestinian people. He worked tirelessly in an effort to secure the release of the last former British resident in Guantanamo Bay, Shaker Aamer, whose wife and children live in Battersea. I hope that the new Government will make progress towards a successful conclusion for Mrs Aamer and her children, and I am sure that my predecessor would take satisfaction in such an outcome, given his sustained and energetic campaign.
Championing the unfashionable cause is very much in the Battersea tradition. The area has long nurtured radicals of all kinds, including many of the abolitionist evangelicals of the Clapham sect and John Burns, the firebrand union leader and MP. In the early 20th century, Battersea gave Britain its first black mayor and one of the first Asian Members of Parliament.
When I was selected to fight the constituency, someone who was not local to the seat asked me, “What’s there other than a dogs home and a power station?” Of course, there is much more to the constituency than that. We have some wonderful green spaces—Battersea park, Clapham common and Wandsworth common—more than 125 listed buildings, an energetic civic life and an even more energetic social life. Despite its name, Clapham Junction, which is one of the most famous stations in the world, has always been firmly in Battersea. We were graced for years by Young’s, one of London’s oldest breweries, and we are now home to one of its youngest: Sambrook’s. Battersea has also been the proud home of the London Regiment of the Territorial Army for many years.
Many of the radical social changes over the past 150 years in Battersea can be seen in the history of the Bolingbroke hospital in my constituency. The hospital was founded as a result of the energy and compassion of a great Victorian, Canon John Erskine Clarke, a notable Battersea vicar. He identified a need for a hospital for what were then described as the artisan classes of Battersea, who were prepared to pay, either wholly or in part, for their care. In 1880, the Bolingbroke Self-Supporting Hospital and House in Sickness opened, funded by a host of local beneficiaries and by public subscription. It was expanded and adapted over the years and was brought within the NHS, and it remains a much-loved local institution. Although it was earmarked for closure in 2006, a tenacious local campaign was conducted, led by the hospital’s League of Friends—a group, made up mostly of women, which, for over 100 years, has exemplified the very best of British volunteering. Its members have quietly and consistently given their time to fundraise, and to provide support and succour to patients and their families.
However, the Bolingbroke closed its doors as a hospital in December 2008 and now awaits its fate. Many of us in Battersea hope that the next chapter in its life story will be as a school. For the parents involved in the Neighbourhood School Campaign, supported by Wandsworth council, the free schools legislation offers the best chance of realising their dream of a new state secondary school for south Battersea. A new school would be enormously important, giving further choice to parents in my constituency, irrespective of their means—an important factor in an area that has a lot of families on low incomes. I therefore particularly welcome the coalition’s plans for a pupil premium and more apprenticeships, and its determination to boost the private sector. All those things will greatly assist the many young people in my constituency for whom life is a struggle against the odds from the start, and for whom a good education and a skilled job are an essential way of getting on in life.
I return briefly, if I may, to the Battersea Dogs Home and the Battersea power station. The world-famous dogs and cats home celebrates its 150th anniversary this year, having been founded by the redoubtable Mrs Mary Tealby at a time when life for the human poor of this city was very harsh, and for the unwanted animal even harsher. The home remains on the front line of animal welfare in London and beyond, and has a key role to play in policy development, particularly in contributing to the debate about dangerous dogs and their often even more dangerous owners.
Battersea power station first provided energy to London in 1933. Its opening was accompanied by protests about pollution and widespread derision of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott’s now iconic exterior design—perhaps a salutary reminder to us about not rushing to judgment on new buildings. The largest brick building in Europe, the power station was listed in 1980 and last generated electricity in 1983. It has lain dormant ever since, as plans for its future use came and went. Most recently it starred in “Ashes to Ashes” and, of course, the Conservative manifesto launch, but most people in my constituency want to see the power station star in the regeneration of the Nine Elms area of east Battersea.
With over 200 acres of development land, right here in the heart of this great city, and merely a mile from this place, Nine Elms hopes to welcome the new American embassy and the underground in the next 10 years. The scheme will also mean the redevelopment of the New Covent Garden market, the largest fresh-produce market in the UK. It is a thrilling, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Battersea and for London. I know that there are sceptics, but I hope that they will be confounded, that Nine Elms will become an exciting new riverside quarter, and that the power station will live again.
When completed, the redeveloped Nine Elms area will host thousands more homes and businesses. That will also make my constituency bigger, so no need for boundary changes in Battersea. The construction of the new east Battersea is itself a fantastic opportunity. If one glances inside the derelict turbine halls of the power station, or at the art deco fittings in the control room, one is reminded of the care that was taken in its construction. As the daughter of an engineer, I feel passionately that the renewal of the power station and the wider area is a chance for hundreds of apprentices to hone their skills. I want many young people from our area to get their chance for training and employment in the transformation of east Battersea, so that they can look with pride on their area and say, “I helped to build that.” This morning I visited the Astins institute, set up and run by a private sector company with a view to doing just that and equipping people with those skills. I hope that the Government will urge all employers to take their skills training responsibilities very seriously.
Battersea is also home to the South Thames college, an excellent higher education college passionate about equipping its students with the skills to take their opportunities in life. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) visited South Thames last year, and many of the measures mentioned today will be very much welcomed in that quarter, and in other further education colleges around the country.
A great parliamentarian, Benjamin Disraeli, vividly described the two nations of Britain in 1845. In some regards, they are still with us, but it is my hope and belief that the coalition Government’s programme will retain at its core the goal of creating one nation, in which all young people can discover and fulfil their potential.
I pledge to do my very best for my constituents and to be a good parliamentarian. I commend the motion to the House.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your elevation to such an important role. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on their maiden speeches. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who, I note, has managed to get his office up and running, a feat that has defeated me so far—well done on that. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). I note your reference to animal welfare, which is a passion I share, and I hope that, if and when the time comes, you will join Labour Members in voting against any attempt by your party to reintroduce fox hunting in our country.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Could the hon. Gentleman please direct comments through the Chair? If you say “you”, it refers to me.
Chris Williamson
I beg your pardon and thank you for that correction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to ensure that I do not make that mistake in future.
Building a high-skilled economy is vital to the future prosperity of our country. I represent a constituency that is founded on a high-skilled economy. In a previous speech in the Chamber, I referred to the occasion when Jeremy Paxman said, “Why can’t everywhere in Britain be like Derby?” That is because we have been successful in Derby in developing a high-skilled economy. We were fortunate in having Rolls-Royce and Bombardier, which have done so much to create a high-skilled economy, in the city. The country could learn a lot from Derby.
We have invested heavily in the city, thanks to support for training from the Labour Government. We have an excellent university and two new colleges, which undertake extremely important vocational training, preparing young people for the world of work. We built 13 new schools under the Labour Government and employed many new teachers and teaching assistants, who are essential to developing a high-skilled economy.
However, the Conservative party’s policies are taking the country in the wrong direction if we want to develop a high-skilled economy. The Conservatives are making the same mistakes that were made in the 1980s, when the previous Conservative Government systematically undermined and destroyed manufacturing—the bedrock of the greatness of our nation. They took away opportunities for young people to move into work and get the training that they needed.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
In a debate that took place yesterday, the Minister for Universities and Science pointed out that manufacturing had collapsed even further under the Labour Government than under 18 years of the Conservative Government. I quote from memory, but it went from some 22% to 18% of GDP between 1979 and 1997, and had decreased to some 11% by 2009.
Chris Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. He fails to recognise the huge expansion in the service sector. We can play with statistics, but in the 1980s, there seemed to be a clear policy of undermining manufacturing in this country. The car industry was destroyed and the steel industry was undermined.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Labour Members consistently harp on about how Conservative policies in the 1980s affected manufacturing, but will they say something about the damage done to industry by the aggressive trade unionism of the 1970s and 1980s, and might they take the plank out of their own eye before they look at the mote in ours?
Chris Williamson
Labour Members harp on about the 1980s because of what happened then. The policies of the previous Conservative Government damaged the car industry and shipbuilding, and manufacturing right across the piece in our country. It is completely wrong to blame trade unions for the systematic destruction of manufacturing in this country.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the actions of Red Robbo, who closed down the old Austin Rover plant in the 1970s?
Chris Williamson
Again, hon. Members on the Government side of the House are demonising trade union activists, but Derek Robinson, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred colloquially as Red Robbo, was simply arguing for more investment in the car industry. He was saying that if the car industry did not get the support that it needed, it would fail and be overtaken by our competitors in Japan and Germany. His predictions—dare I say?—actually came true, because the car industry in our country was completely destroyed as a result of Conservative policies.
The Conservatives are making the same mistakes not only in policy pronouncements, but in practical matters. Only this morning, the Transport Minister made it very clear that there will be no further orders for rail transport rolling stock. Many people in my constituency work for Bombardier, which is the last train manufacturer in the UK, and they were relying on the possibility of securing the Thameslink contract. However, it now seems, after what the Transport Minister said this morning, that there is no prospect whatever of Bombardier securing that contract this year. That will certainly lead to redundancies and make it much more difficult for young people in training colleges in my constituency—if they have been given that opportunity—to get the real jobs that are crucial to securing a high-skilled economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the British train industry and construction in this country, but does he think it was a good idea that the previous Labour Government placed so many orders for extra carriages in Japan?
Chris Williamson
Clearly, we live in a global economy, in which orders are placed with different companies around the world—Bombardier won some contracts, but some went abroad—but the fact is that the Transport Secretary said this morning that there is now no prospect of Bombardier getting the Thameslink contract.
Stephen Pound
Does my hon. Friend agree that one tragedy of current British manufacturing and skills is that contracts occasionally have to go to countries such as Japan, which has invested more in Bullet train technology and other high-speed train technology, and that that underlines precisely the point he is making?
Chris Williamson
Absolutely—my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. If we were to follow the lead of some of our competitor nations by investing appropriately in skills, we would put our country, our young people, and the people who work in those sectors, in a much better position to secure their long-term future.
The parties opposite have also made proposals for the regional development agencies. The RDAs have played an important role, and the East Midlands Development Agency has made an important contribution to supporting industry in the east midlands and in Derby. That has helped to create the job opportunities and the growth that are so desperately required.
We must not indulge in a race to the bottom. The Government seem to want us to move to a low-wage economy, but there is no future in that for this country. We simply cannot compete on that basis, because we will never match developing nations such as India, China and others and the wage rates paid to workers there. We must invest in those high skills that Derby excels in through companies such as Rolls-Royce and Bombardier. That is why I regret the announcement this morning about Bombardier, which will almost certainly lead to redundancies. If we do not support such companies, they could go elsewhere, because they are global, and they will simply bid for contracts from their European bases.
If there is a market failure, it is essential for the state to intervene and smooth out the difficulties, such as those afflicting the country as a result of the worldwide economic downturn. If we do not do that, it will cause significant problems for the economy—and for young and old alike. No jobs for people means lower tax revenues to support our public services, and we will end up in a downward spiral to disaster.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Like other hon. Members, I wish to congratulate the hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on their maiden speeches. I made mine a few weeks ago. Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, I did an apprenticeship, and it is some 52 years since I turned up in my brand- new boiler suit and boots at a large engineering company in Accrington called Howard & Bullough, then the world leaders in machines for textile making. Regrettably, it is no longer with us, like so many other companies from that time.
I agree that it is critical to build a higher-skilled economy. We need to deliver the skills that will deliver the jobs of the future, in engineering, chemicals, medicines, nuclear technology—both commissioning and new build—and the internet. Such high-tech, high-value jobs will deliver the products and services that are needed round the world. Only 12 months ago, when I was leader of Burnley borough council, we heard that Rolls-Royce was developing a new engine for a new range of airliners. Hon. Members may not know it, but over the next 25 years the single-aisle aeroplanes such as the Boeing 737s and Airbus 320s will all be replaced. The cost of replacing these will be in the region of $3 trillion. The power packs and engines required for those aeroplanes will cost in the region of $600 billion. That is a hell of a lot of work for the people who produce the aeroplanes and the engines and power packs to go with them.
I approached the leader of Derby city council and we visited Rolls-Royce, where we asked the main board whether these engines would be developed in the UK. It said not and that it was hoping to develop them in Germany, Singapore and the far east. It also said that wherever it develops the engine it will most likely build it—$600 billion of work that could have been done in this country now might go abroad.
I asked the Rolls-Royce board whether there was a financial inducement to building the engine overseas, and it replied, “No, there is no financial inducement. In fact, it will cost us more money to develop this engine overseas.” The question went back, “Then why are you doing it?”, and the question was put back to us, “Can you deliver 3,000 to 5,000 qualified, highly skilled graduates to design, build and develop this engine?” The answer from all present was, “Unfortunately, no.” Rolls-Royce replied, “If you can’t deliver the skills we need, we have no alternative to going abroad to develop this engine.” Some $600 billion of work over 25 years! That is an appalling situation and an indictment of the last 30 years in the development of the skills of engineers and technicians that we need in this country. It has to stop, and I am delighted that we are at least starting to deliver what industry needs for the future jobs of this country.
The town I represent has just got a brand new college on its university campus—a campus that is dedicated to advanced manufacturing. The borough council invested more than £150,000 in a brand new, high-tech machine shop, which I would like the Minister to visit. I invited Rolls-Royce representatives to come and see this new machine shop. They came all the way from Barnoldswick, and while they were there, they had a conversation with the people from the university of Central Lancashire and decided that because the new advanced engines would nearly all be made from carbon fibre, particularly in the cold engine section—the hot engine section will obviously still be made from metal—they would like to work with the UCLan campus to develop it. The university has therefore purchased an autoclave to develop carbon fibre turbine blades for Rolls-Royce. That is the advancement that this country needs and that will stop some of the work going abroad. We need to support colleges in acquiring the equipment that companies around the country need and in developing new technologies, and I am delighted that this has happened.
UCLan campus academics have developed what they believe to be the most efficient wind turbine in the world. It is only small—about 1 metre across—but they have found that it has the most advanced centre bearing in the world. We approached a local company, and it agreed to put £1 million into the development of the wind turbine to make it big enough to use onshore. It has a 15-metre autoclave in its factory and can make carbon fibre blades for the wind turbine. Through the borough council, I asked the previous Government whether they would support the development of the wind turbine, a vast number of which will be needed over the next few years. As everybody knows, we do not make wind turbines in this country—we buy them from abroad—but unfortunately the previous Government did not want to support the scheme, so it has died and the wind turbine is sat in an office in Burnley, waiting for someone to support its development. It would cost about £4 million, but would create thousands of jobs and save having to import wind turbines from abroad. The local company was willing to take up some of the loss, but unfortunately the scheme was rejected. That is very sad in these days.
We need to invest in new developments and in the people to deliver them. We cannot stand by and look back; we have to move forward and provide the skilled people of the future, and I hope that what we are doing with the 15,000 apprentices and what we are proposing to do about advanced manufacturing will deliver the people of the future, doing the jobs of the future and providing the work of the future.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in the Chamber while you have been in the Chair. May I also congratulate all those new Members who have made their maiden speeches today? I have not heard them all, but I have certainly heard most of them, and on the basis of what I have heard, those Members are going to make a significant and worthwhile contribution to the Chamber while they are here.
This debate, above all, is supremely relevant to my constituents. West Bromwich West is a traditional manufacturing constituency that suffered enormously in the 1980s from the policies of the then Government. Unemployment rocketed, which resulted in the creation of a generation of people who saw no prospect of employment, and a culture of low aspiration, low expectation and low skills and training. Members said earlier that we should not live in the past. That is quite correct. On the other hand, it is important that we look to the past and learn from the mistakes that were made, so that we do not replicate them.
The mass unemployment in my constituency in the 1980s and the substantial reduction in the manufacturing sector resulted in a skills gap that, despite all the efforts of the Labour Government, has not fully been closed. Even as the economy and employment opportunities improved, there was still higher than average unemployment in my constituency, and employers complained to me that the skills they needed still did not exist locally. The reason was that in the 1980s, as the economy went into recession on two occasions and manufacturing collapsed, no efforts were made to pick up those who had been made unemployed and retrain them with the skills to fill the opportunities that would subsequently be created as our economy grew out of recession. The result of that was a drag on the local economy throughout the past 10 years of the previous Government, as they implemented policies that led to economic growth.
What we must not see is the recent recession and the fragile growth that we have seen since then operating in the same way. It is fair to say that the previous Government recognised that a recession provides an opportunity for those who cannot immediately get jobs or who have been thrown out of their jobs, given the right support, to get the appropriate training and skills that they have hitherto not had the opportunity to get, so as to equip them for the new jobs that will be created in the future. That I know was what was behind the previous Government’s approach to dealing with the problem over the past two or three years.
The current situation presents an enormous problem in that respect, although I would not pretend that it had arisen entirely as a result of the cuts that have been announced over the past two or three weeks. There were potential problems beforehand, particularly with the number of young people wanting to go into higher education and the places not being available. However, it was the previous Government who made provision for 20,000 new places and who put a particular emphasis on providing the budget for the key STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—which are vital if we are to equip manufacturing to take us out of recession. I have not heard any guarantees that this Government are going to ring-fence the funding for STEM subjects in universities to ensure that this area, which is so vital to our future, is sustained. This is particularly important because a number of universities are already reporting that, because the provision of those courses requires higher capital investment, they could be the first on the list to be removed. We could therefore be undermining our scientific, engineering and mathematical potential in vital sectors, at a time when it is so necessary to get us out of recession.
I also want to talk about a subject that I have not heard mentioned so far—the education maintenance allowance. In constituencies such as mine, where people have low incomes and, historically, low aspirations, the provision of that allowance is essential to give young people the confidence to go into further education and, eventually, higher education. With the increase in competition that is likely to arise for the lower number of university places—it might not be lower in absolute terms, but it could be lower, relative to the demand for them—there is a danger that young people from low-income and low-aspiration backgrounds could be crowded out of the competition for the scarce places. That will make the EMA strategically even more important than it has been in the past, if we are to ensure that university opportunities are open to people from all backgrounds and incomes.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I wonder whether other hon. Members receive complaints about the education maintenance allowance, as I do. I, too, represent a constituency where there are people on very low incomes, but I get a lot of complaints that the allowance is badly applied and often abused.
Mr Bailey
Certainly in its early days there were some complaints, but they have not been reflected in my constituency. I had a meeting with the principals of my three local further education colleges only two weeks ago, and they stressed to me and my neighbouring Conservative MPs the important role that the allowances play in keeping young people between 16 and 19 in education in our area. I want to emphasise to the Government that they need to sustain the EMA as part of the infrastructure necessary to ensure that their stated policy of open opportunity for young people in universities can be maintained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned the transfer of money from Train to Gain into apprenticeships and capital for colleges. I want to make one comment on Train to Gain. I find it odd that, if it is so bad—the National Audit Office certainly had criticisms of it—it has not been abolished and the money transferred elsewhere lock, stock and barrel. The Government seem to have created a hybrid system. My experience of speaking to local employers is that Train to Gain was extremely beneficial, and there is a whole raft of statistics that substantiate their claims for the programme. Train to Gain was also essential for many companies that had introduced short-time working, to help them to sustain a level of income for their employees to prevent them from going elsewhere or leaving the jobs market altogether, and to prevent the companies from losing their skills.
I also want to say a few words about bureaucracy. When Labour was in government, it was a constant theme among the Conservatives that we were strangling education with top-down bureaucracy. Certainly, when I went round schools, I heard complaints about excessive paperwork and bureaucracy, and I cannot pretend for a moment that we were able to solve that problem. I am concerned, however, that despite all the coalition Government’s brave words, they seem to be heading the same way.
Earlier, I drew to the attention of the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), a statement he placed in the Library today about getting FE colleges to give
“learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information about performance, quality and standards.”
That sounds like fairly top-down instruction, a recipe for extra research that has no particular relevance to the people being educated, and a whole lot of form filling and publications that will siphon off money that could well be used in other directions. I sympathise with the Minister up to a point, because it is a perfectly laudable objective, but the new Government have to realise that having laudable objectives and ensuring that they are translated at the local level involves some sort of imposition and resources that have to be calibrated and calculated to ensure that they are worth while.
I am coming to the end of my comments, but let me say that in my new position as Chairman of the appropriate Select Committee, I look forward to talking to Ministers and interviewing them on their policies. I wish them well, as this matter is absolutely vital not just to my constituents but to young and unemployed people everywhere and to this country’s future and its position in the global economy. Investment in skills is as important as investment in plant and machinery, and it has the additional benefit of improving the lives of those who are prepared to get involved.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
First, let me say how delighted I am to see in the Speaker’s Chair a neighbouring MP who has given me so much support over the years. I should like to pay tribute to other hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today: the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison). The last is a good friend; she stood in my constituency back in 2005, and she is still remembered fondly in the local area.
To stand here and make my maiden speech is a tremendous honour, particularly in the light of those who have previously represented the constituency of Pendle, or, as it was formerly known, of Nelson and Colne—men such as Sidney Silverman, David Waddington and, for the past 18 years, Gordon Prentice. In fact, while researching for my own speech, I learned that Sidney Silverman’s maiden speech back in 1935 lasted 22 minutes and was on the merits of socialism. I am delighted to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I can both make a maiden speech and dismiss the merits of socialism within 22 minutes.
It is traditional to start a maiden speech by paying tribute to one’s predecessor, and despite the fact that Gordon Prentice was my opponent in the recent election, I have no hesitation in doing so. Gordon Prentice was a principled politician and committed to many causes. He was an independent thinker who rebelled against the last Government on issues such as tuition fees, the Iraq war and post office closures. He was an active Back Bencher and I feel that Gordon demonstrated to us newer Members that we do not have to hanker after ministerial office to achieve something in the House.
As I said in my acceptance speech just five weeks ago, it is the greatest honour of my life to be elected to represent Pendle. Located in the hills of the Pennines in north-east Lancashire, and some would say beyond, Pendle offers some of England’s finest countryside, including Pendle hill, from which my seat takes its name, as well as beautiful villages and busy towns.
The area is rich in history, not only with the story of the Pendle witches, which brings many visitors to the area, but with our industrial heritage with the Leeds-Liverpool canal, numerous mills and other incredible feats of engineering. The old industries of cotton and textiles have now all but disappeared, but the industrious spirit of the area remains as strong as ever.
Next weekend, my constituency plays host to one of the biggest events in the UK’s cycling calendar, with the national road race championships taking place through the villages of Roughlee, Barley and Newchurch. It is a great opportunity for us to showcase some of our award-winning villages and boost the local tourism trade, which is an increasingly important part of the local economy.
Pendle is a place of contrasts, where we have severe deprivation next to relative affluence. It is a place where mosques sit side by side with mills, highlighting the large number of my constituents who came originally from Pakistan or Kashmir. One of the first issues with which I had to deal as a Member of Parliament was the senseless murder of three of my constituents, the Yousaf family. They were gunned down while tending a family grave in Pakistan. Their killers are yet to be brought to justice, and I am committed to doing whatever I can to ensure that the family obtain justice through the Pakistani courts. On that issue as well as many others that affect my constituency, I will be at the forefront in pressing Ministers and holding the Government to account, so that the people of Pendle always know that they have a strong voice here in Westminster.
The M65 ends in my constituency, in effect creating one of the biggest cul-de-sacs in the country. As a result, most of those who wish to travel cross-country by road take alternative routes. We also lack rail connectivity. I pay tribute to the work of SELRAP—the Skipton East Lancashire Railway Action Partnership. That group’s aim is to reconnect Colne and Skipton, Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the north-west and the north-east, and I applaud its efforts.
We have some of the lowest house prices in the country. There is a high rate of empty and unfit homes, as people have moved away from the area and absentee landlords have bought homes and sometimes entire streets. It is clear to me, representing as I do some of the cheapest streets in Britain, that regeneration work remains vital to the long-term sustainability of the area.
We lack an accident and emergency department since ours was transferred from Burnley to Blackburn—which is 15 miles away—under the last Government, despite the protests of local people. The local primary care trust now wants the children’s ward to be transferred as well, but I am encouraged by the assurances of the Secretary of State for Health that NHS service changes are now subject to review. I look forward to him visiting Burnley general hospital tomorrow, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who made an excellent speech a few moments ago.
The people of Pendle are hardy folk, and we face up well to whatever situation we find ourselves in. That is probably best typified by one of Pendle’s most famous sons, whose memorial in Colne is close to where I live: Wallace Hartley. Hon. Members who are not familiar with the name will, I am sure, be familiar with the story: Wallace Hartley was a violinist, but he was also the bandmaster of the Titanic on her maiden voyage.
I am proud to represent a seat where a higher proportion of the work force are employed in manufacturing than in any other constituency in England, and I am delighted that manufacturing is back on the national agenda. I was also delighted to read in the coalition agreement that rebalancing the economy is a key Government aim and that the Government are committed to boosting the provision of workplace apprenticeships.
More than 8,000 people in my constituency are employed in manufacturing, producing everything from Silentnight beds in Barnoldswick to the biscuits that are sold in Harrods, which are produced in Nelson. It was a real pleasure for me, as a candidate, to visit so many of those firms over the past four years. It was a particular pleasure to take my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), now Chancellor of the Exchequer, to visit Rolls-Royce and Weston EU—two great British companies, working in the vitally important aerospace sector, that also have fantastic apprenticeship schemes. They are real companies providing real jobs that generate significant value added for the United Kingdom. That brings me to the topic of today’s debate: the need for us to build a high-skilled economy.
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting Nelson and Colne college. The college has a long-standing tradition of academic excellence, and since 2005 it has twice been judged “outstanding” by Ofsted. It provides academic and vocational sixth-form education for about 1,700 people—the vast majority of young people in my constituency—but I believe that among the things that make it so special are its unique pre-professional programmes and its outstanding apprenticeship provision, with success rates well above the Lancashire and national rates. Its tailor-made employer provision includes 14 individual apprenticeship frameworks to meet the needs of local and regional employers.
It would be far better to address the current skill shortages in the economy by supporting colleges such as Nelson and Colne and fostering their links with business than by pursuing the last Government’s attempt to ensure that 50% of students went to university. However, we must also recognise that four out of five people who will be working in 2020 are already in the work force. Given the damage done to occupational pension funds by the last Government and the probable increase in the state pension age, people are likely to be working for much longer than ever before. So we must have a strategy that ensures that training is not just focused on young people but provides incentives to employers to support lifelong learning and celebrates the good employers who are already doing that.
We also need a fair deal for British manufacturers, so that we can continue to be a world leader in sectors such as aerospace. British industry has been hampered by too much tax and regulation for too long. We know that tough times lie ahead because of the legacy left to us by the previous Government, and that will make building a high-skilled economy even harder. However, I look forward to working with the Government to address the challenges that we face, while never shying away from speaking out on behalf of the hard-working people of Pendle.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I congratulate both you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and the other Members who have delivered their maiden speeches this afternoon? In preparing my notes for this speech, I turned, as I am sure colleagues also did, to the guidance; I noted that it says that it is best to be brief and non-controversial and—at least on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker—I shall try to be both.
It is, of course, a great privilege to be elected to the House, particularly for me as I represent the constituency that bears the name of my home town. That makes me both a Lincolnshire yellowbelly and a meggie. The explanations behind those terms are somewhat dubious, and although I appreciate that Members are on tenterhooks to know them, I shall leave that for another day.
Members and others who have been fortunate enough to visit Cleethorpes—which, as they will all be aware, is the premier resort of the east coast—are referred to by us locals as “trippers”, and they are the lifeblood of the town’s economy. The constituency is, of course, much more than Cleethorpes itself. It runs from the delightful market town of Barton-upon-Humber in the north through many villages in the Barton and Ferry wards of north Lincolnshire and on into north-east Lincolnshire and the major industrial centre of Immingham, which together with Grimsby has, when measured by tonnage, the largest dock complex in the United Kingdom. The seafaring traditions are strong, and Cleethorpes and Grimsby are, in effect, one town. Although there is an historic rivalry between them, they are bound together by their connections with the sea. The Humber estuary itself is a site of special scientific interest, and there is also a beautiful hinterland taking in many of the villages on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds—an area that has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Cleethorpes is also the home of Grimsby Town football club, which therefore, strictly speaking, always plays away from home. The club has had a difficult few seasons of late, but I am proud to be a lifelong Mariners fan, and I am confident of better times ahead. Bill Shankly has been mentioned on two occasions this afternoon, and it is perhaps appropriate in a debate about training to mention that he served what might be called his managerial apprenticeship at Blundell Park before going on to higher things. I cannot quite remember the early ’50s, but I did live within shouting distance of the terraces of the football ground. The area is also fortunate to be served by an excellent combination of newspapers, which together help to create the identity of the area. There are two dailies, the Grimsby Telegraph and the Scunthorpe Telegraph, and a weekly, the Cleethorpes Chronicle.
Having given Members a snapshot of the constituency, I wish now to pay tribute to my predecessor, Shona McIsaac, who represented Cleethorpes for 13 years, during which time she worked diligently on behalf of her constituents and tirelessly for the causes in which she believed. Having worked for almost 16 years for my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), I know well that many individuals have cause to thank their Members of Parliament for taking up cases, trying to correct an injustice or bringing an issue to the attention of those in authority. On their behalf, I thank her for her efforts in that respect. She was, of course, bitterly disappointed to have lost her seat but was gracious in defeat. I wish her well for the future.
Cleethorpes, although it has been pushed from one constituency to another over the years, has had some notable, interesting and perhaps even colourful Members in the past. Before Shona McIsaac came Michael Brown, and before that Michael Brotherton and Jeffrey Archer.
I referred earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has just completed nine years as a distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I had the privilege of working as his constituency agent for 16 years, and he started me on the path that has led me to the House: 10 years ago, after addressing the Cleethorpes Conservative luncheon club, he suggested that I might try to become the candidate.
Today’s debate focuses on building a high-skilled economy, and that is of particular importance to my constituency, with its large concentration of industry along the Humber bank. As the new Member for the constituency of Cleethorpes, I shall aim to build on the work of my predecessors and the work done by local authorities, industry and the many different agencies that come together to reinvigorate and redevelop an area with which I have been associated throughout my life.
We must develop further a high-skilled economy that will benefit my constituency and the whole country. We can then progress out of this economic downturn more fully. We need to set the foundations for the future success that our young people deserve. It is our younger generations who will be the backbone on which the future of businesses relies. My fellow Lincolnshire Member, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), described this in his opening remarks as a major challenge. I welcome the Government’s pledge to increase the quality and quantity of apprenticeships that will be available.
I hope that such pledges will further the work of facilities such as CATCH—the Centre for the Assessment of Technical Competence, Humber—and training providers such as HETA, the Humberside Engineering Training Association, which operate there. During the election campaign, the Minister for Universities and Science, who was then a shadow Minister and is now, I am pleased to say, a member of the Government, visited the CATCH facility in Stallingborough and I think it fair to say that he was suitably impressed. It is a joint venture between the public and private sectors, and it has an extremely good success rate in securing permanent positions for the young people who train there, educating and training today’s school leavers, so that they become not a lost and forgotten generation but a driving force behind the economic recovery that remains the key aim of Government policy.
With its industrial history and foundation along the Humber bank, the people of my constituency are hard-working people. Cleethorpes has a number of challenges and obstacles to overcome to secure the support and funding that is needed to ensure that the Government’s vision of a fair and highly skilled economy is brought to all the constituencies of our country. As the Member of Parliament for the constituency, I hope to act as something of an ambassador, bringing together all the elements of the constituency—whether private, public or third sector—that will help to build the future success of our economy. If we work together, I am confident that my constituency will enjoy a brighter future.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I offer you my congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also congratulate all those who have made maiden speeches this afternoon, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who spoke eloquently about his constituency and, like many others this afternoon, on the subject of football. As someone whose wife—who is in the Gallery today—is a fan of Liverpool football club and has, in my opinion, a rather worrying keenness on Steven Gerrard, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), will be trying to make the early acquaintance of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram).
I am proud to address this House for the first time as the first Member of Parliament for Central Devon. My constituency was formed from parts of five others, so it could be said to have five predecessors, two of whom I am pleased are still Members of the House. First, there is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who has set the highest standards in looking after his constituents—standards to which I aspire. Like most lawyers, he has never been slow to offer me wise counsel, but unlike most lawyers he has very graciously never charged me a penny for it. There is also the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). Although he is not a member of my party, he is often held by my constituents who were previously represented by him to be a bit of a Tory at heart. I am sure that that will be a good qualification for his new role as a Minister in our coalition, and I wish him well.
There are three other predecessors who are no longer Members of the House, the first of whom being Anthony Steen, who served as the Member for Totnes. I have found him to be immensely courteous always and sometimes marvellously eccentric. He is a compassionate man who has done a great deal of good, not least through his work addressing the dreadful situation of human trafficking, and I am sure that he will be missed by the House. Secondly, Richard Younger-Ross was the previous Member for Teignbridge, and a very hard-working and assiduous local Member of Parliament.
Lastly, and for me most importantly, I pay tribute to Angela Browning, the former Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who was held in great affection on both sides of the House. She could not have been more supportive, generous and helpful to me. She was hugely respected by her constituents, regardless of their political leanings, and I am delighted that she has now been elevated to the other place. In the coming months, I shall try to live up to these illustrious forebears, to be inspired by their example and to contribute to the House as they have done.
Central Devon is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. It is also one of the largest, covering some 550 square miles, including a third of Dartmoor national park, numerous beautiful and scattered villages and several fine market towns such as Okehampton, Hatherleigh, Chagford and Crediton, where, some Opposition Members might be pleased to learn, Ernest Bevin was schooled. They are welcome to come and visit, but strictly out of election time if they do not mind. Other market towns include Buckfastleigh, Ashburton, Bovey Tracey and Chudleigh.
My constituency is steeped not only in beauty but in history. In my home town of Ashburton, a once important stannary town occupied with the trading of tin, there still exist two venerable and ancient offices—portreeve, the representative of the monarch, and master bailiff. Both of those offices stretch back to the early 9th century, well before even your illustrious office had been conceived, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed to a time when the ground on which we now stand was little more than a marshy outcrop of the River Thames. I offer my congratulations to Mrs J. Distin, Ashburton’s newly elected portreeve, who is the 1,189th holder of that office, and to Mr W. Shapley, our master bailiff.
Although Central Devon is an area of outstanding beauty and interest, it is not without its challenges and hardships. It is a constituency in which agriculture matters, so events that hurt agriculture have a major impact upon my constituents. In 2001, the foot and mouth outbreak was centred around the market town of Hatherleigh, with devastating effects. The pall of smoke that hung over that part of Devon from cattle being burned on their pyres will never be forgotten. Today, there is the challenge of bovine tuberculosis, which costs 30,000 cattle a year in this country and causes untold misery to Devon’s farmers. I am pleased that this issue is receiving the vigorous attention of our Government.
Many other serious issues affect my constituency, including the underfunding of our schools compared with other parts of the country. Devon is ranked 148th out of 151 local education authorities in terms of central Government funding. There are many reasons why that position is too low. I will continue to press on this matter for the sake of our local children, who have a right to a fair share of education funds.
In this debate I wish to focus on schools, not least because I have a strong belief that the greatest gift that any young person can receive, after a loving family, is that of a good education. For those who choose the vocational path, it is vital that education be provided with the same energy and vigour as that afforded to the more traditional academic routes. I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State responsible for skills and lifelong learning that there will be an extra £50 million of capital expenditure for further education and an extra 50,000 apprenticeships. He should be congratulated, as we should remember that education and skills are important not just in and of themselves but to the life chances of our young people.
Education is the great highway of social mobility—for individuals to move on and up, in many cases escaping poverty and deprivation in the process. I say that as someone whose mother and father left school at ages 15 and 14, and whose life was transformed by the winning of a free place at a grammar school. The greatest opportunity ever provided to me, that school became the foundation on which the rest of my life was built. I would like to see others have the opportunity that I was privileged to receive.
I have long admired the ideas and the reforming passion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. They have fully understood the force for good that education and skills can represent, but they have done more than that. They have truly understood the disgraceful and inhumane waste that is represented by continued educational failure—the appalling destruction of life chances, especially among the least advantaged. It is they who have understood the extraordinary power of choice: that choice will drive up standards; that parents know better than bureaucrats; that giving power to those who otherwise just have to take what they are given is the key to raising up the less advantaged; that future generations must be sustained not just by hope but by taking control of their destinies; and most importantly of all, that there is an age-old truth that the quest to create a stronger and better society cannot be left to the planners, to the bureaucracies, to the well-meaning architects of the state, but must be gifted to those by whom the consequences of success or failure are most keenly felt.
The Government’s radical agenda for education and skills will represent a vital journey—a true quest for equality, of a kind not that seeks to push down to some lowest common denominator, but that seeks to raise people up by providing choice and opportunity for every young person, irrespective of wealth, colour, race, creed and social background.
I thank the House for its indulgence and wish the Government every success in their vital endeavour.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I feel privileged to have this opportunity to make my maiden speech; I might say that I feel 21 all over again. It is a real pleasure to do so during a debate that is so fundamentally important to my constituents. My constituents in Newton Abbott have a real issue, and that is deprivation. We need regeneration, and skills have to be the route to regenerating the local economy, but before I move to that, let me pay tribute to my two predecessors, whom I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride).
Mr Richard Younger-Ross was very much loved by his constituents. He was a hard-working Member, and he pushed forward a number of issues that I shall also push forward relating to the inappropriate water charges in the south-west and the A380 bypass, which has continually deprived our economy of the growth that it needs. My other predecessor was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon expressed, a colourful character. I reiterate my hon. Friend’s comments about the real good that Anthony Steen did in putting human trafficking on the agenda. I am pleased that he is carrying on with that work.
Let me give the House a little of the colour and flavour of my constituency of Newton Abbot. If I could give the Boundary Commission some advice, it would be this: next time, can we change the name? Many people have told me that as they do not live in the town of Newton Abbot they feel completely disfranchised.
My constituency is two thirds urban and a third rural. There are four towns, and until recently one of them, Kingsteignton, was the largest village in the country. My towns have interesting histories, but they have suffered not just during the most recent recession but over the past 50 years because there has not been the investment in the south-west that it deserves. Newton Abbot has a proud history in engineering. In the days of the railways, in the 1950s, it was very prosperous, but I am sad to say that only one large company—Centrax—is left. It is a proud example, but we need more.
Teignmouth is a typical fishing village. We still have a small port, so there is a real challenge in making fishing sustainable. At present, our trawlers have to land at Brixham, a neighbouring seaside town—indeed, my original family home town—but that does not help my constituents.
Dawlish is absolutely beautiful. I encourage any Member who comes to my part of the world to pay it a visit. It is a typical tourist seaside resort, with some of the most beautiful views. It is probably best known for its long stretch of railway. I am sure Members have seen adverts showing the waves coming over the train. It is extremely picturesque, but things have changed and across my constituency tourism and retail are the main generators of economic wealth. Members will know as well as I do that they do not pay very well.
As the south-west is a beautiful part of the world, we have attracted a lot of retired people, and 30% of the population are more than 60 years of age. That presents a challenge, because there is great disparity between the cost of living and average income, which is why certain issues are particularly acute—water rates, for example. Many things need to be done.
I turn to regeneration and the vital role of the skills debate. One of the most important things is to help children to aspire. At the beginning of the Parliament, I heard a new Member make a very moving speech about how important it is that kids aspire, and in whatever we bring forward I should like to see a method for making that happen. It is partly about role models, so bringing in second careerers, perhaps people from the forces, is absolutely the right thing to do. We need those role models. We need to involve local businesses in schools much earlier. Simply introducing the connection in the fifth form—as it was in my day—is too late; it needs to start earlier. If we can do that, we shall make a big difference.
We should try to improve quality and variety in education along the line—primary, secondary and tertiary. There has been a focus in tertiary education on what I can only describe as the intellectual professions, such as law and accountancy. There has not been a focus on careers as plumbers, engineers and electricians. Those are all valid careers that require no less intelligence, just intelligence of a different variety. I should like some colleges to be the technical colleges that we all knew and loved when we were younger. They should look at proper hands-on training. When I visit colleges I am distressed to find that because of health and safety and all the other rules and regulation, education is all about bits of paper, not about students getting their hands dirty. Getting one’s hands dirty is an extremely good and valuable thing. There is a skills college in my community. I want it to be properly funded so that it can become a proper technical college, but we are only halfway through the process, so the Minister on the Front Bench will be hearing from me about that issue going forward.
Then there is the issue of linking tertiary education with jobs, and for my money it is absolutely crucial that we give apprenticeships a real chance. When I talk to people with small businesses in my community, they say, “Anne Marie, one of the challenges is that we cannot afford to take on apprentices, because at the moment all of the burden falls on the employer and it is a huge burden.” I am therefore very pleased to see new initiatives from the new Government that will share the cost of apprenticeships. I welcome that 100%.
Of course, we must not forget those who are coming to their second, third and fourth career—often those who have been made redundant, through no fault of their own. When I talk to people who have just been made redundant, I see that one of the challenges is getting extra training, which is really difficult. There is a lot of training out there, but it is very hard to find because there is no route map, and there is also not as much funding available as there used to be. So I am delighted to hear from our new Government that they are to streamline that and make it far more accessible.
For me, the skills agenda is a real opportunity for my constituency. It is a way of helping it to regenerate, and that is absolutely key. If I do nothing else in my term in this Parliament, I will work to regenerate Newton Abbot: to regenerate the four towns; to regenerate the villages; to make sure that farming, which my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon has already mentioned, has a real future; and to put the south-west back on the map, because it feels very much the poor relation and that is not right. I will be here, banging the drum to make sure that is not the case, until I finally leave this House.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to make this, my maiden speech, today. I understand that maiden speeches—first speeches in Parliament—are very like your first child: easier to conceive than to deliver.
Rossendale and Darwen, the constituency I have the honour of representing, was previously held by Ms Janet Anderson for 18 years. During that period Ms Anderson was a hard-working constituency MP, and will be well remembered by many people in my area. She will especially be remembered for her pioneering support and work for local Sure Start centres, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to her.
Rossendale and Darwen was formed in 1983, and the first Member of Parliament was David Trippier—now Sir David Trippier—who I am sure is well remembered by many people in the House. Sir David still resides in the village of Helmshore, where my wife and I have our current home. This is apt, as Helmshore is the geographical centre of the constituency, with the Robin Hood being the actual heart of the constituency. For those Members in the House who are avid readers of our two local papers, the Rossendale Free Press and the Lancashire Telegraph, I should add that that is not Robin Hood’s well, where I proposed to my wife; it is the Robin Hood public house at the centre of our village, where the beer, and the welcome, is second to none, especially on a Friday evening.
Rossendale and Darwen, being nearly 220 square miles, is formed of four separate towns—Whitworth, Darwen, Bacup and Rawtenstall. Each of these towns is separate from the others, and they are independent in both spirit and mind while being similar in many ways. Each is boarded by the lofty west Pennine moors, hemming them into deep valleys, with houses and mills alike with steep mountains rising above them; and streams rush through glens, giving the power that once drove the east Lancashire textile mills.
There are also many villages in my constituency, with small, close-knit communities, such as Belmont, Weir, Turton, Hoddlesden and Tockholes. Those villages doggedly cling limpet-like to the hillside during the winter months. Last winter, some were cut off from the outside world for several weeks. In the summer months, the villages are marked by horses paddock grazing, and I am sure that the village of Edenfield, in the electoral division of Eden, conjures into Members’ minds the appropriate visions of pastoral bliss and long summer evenings.
It is not the landscape, beautiful as it is, that binds together this area of east Lancashire, but the character of the people who live in Rossendale and Darwen. The first Member of Parliament to be killed in the second world war was from the village of Stubbins in Rossendale. Captain Richard Porritt, a member of the Lancashire Fusiliers, was killed in Belgium on 26 May 1940, and he is remembered in the Chamber with a shield to the right of your Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last November, I had the honour of attending a Remembrance Sunday service in Whitworth with two current members of the Lancashire Fusiliers just back from Afghanistan, who laid a wreath and cross in memory of their seven fallen comrades. Many families in my constituency continue to have a strong connection with our armed forces. I believe that we in this country have the finest armed forces in the world and I shall do all that I can to support them and their families while I am a Member of the House.
It is apt that I am making my maiden speech during a debate about building a high-skilled economy because I believe that Rossendale and Darwen can be in the vanguard of rebalancing our economy to that of a highly skilled industrial economy. Rossendale and Darwen were at the centre of the first industrial revolution. Rossendale was the centre of the world’s slipper trade, while Darwen was the birthplace of wallpaper, and both were major centres for the textile industry. Such was Darwen’s importance to the cotton trade that it was visited by Mahatma Gandhi in 1931 so that he could witness the effect of the Indian Congress party’s boycott of Lancashire cotton mills.
This white-hot flame of innovation that led to the invention of wallpaper and the introduction of the first power looms still burns in the breast of every young person in my constituency, and we must do all that we can to foster their full potential. I applaud the Government’s commitment to investing in workplace apprenticeships to ensure that our young people, especially in Rossendale and Darwen, have the correct menu of skills to continue our strong tradition of local manufacturing. There are still many well-known manufacturing companies in my constituency, such as J&J Ormerod kitchens in Stacksteads, James Killelea steel in Crawshawbooth, Crown Paints in Darwen and WEC engineering in Darwen, which was visited by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately before the election. All those well-known local manufacturing businesses provide high-skilled jobs for our young people.
The rebalancing of our economy is a key aim of the Government, as is set out in the coalition agreement. With a fairer and more balanced economy in which we are not so dependent on the financial services industry, and in which economic opportunities are more evenly shared among our regions and industries, I optimistically predict that Rossendale and Darwen will prosper and become a regional manufacturing superpower.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech. I congratulate all new Members who have spoken so elegantly and eloquently, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), whose maiden speech was well conceived and comfortably delivered.
I represent the constituency of Hastings and Rye. Of course, it is only us who call our areas constituencies. To my constituents, the constituency is home, where they live and where they bring up their families, and I will never forget that. Some six weeks since the general election, I still get a little lost going from one room to the next, and between staircases and lifts, but I remain impressed, humbled and not a little relieved to be in these historic corridors and as part of this historic coalition.
Part of my responsibility is to live up to the example of the previous Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye, Michael Foster. He was the epitome of a good constituency MP. He was immensely popular, not just because of the individual acts that he did for local residents, but because of his high visibility locally and his successful lobbying of the then Government for additional funds for the town. Unfortunately for him, his popularity grew in inverse proportion to that of his Government, but I recognise that, through his service, he set a very high bar—one that I shall try to reach and, hopefully, at some stage exceed.
The fruits of Michael Foster’s success are evident in Hastings. We have a new train station, further education college, and university centre, and two new state-of-the-art office developments. However, physical regeneration has not yet translated into economic regeneration. Our offices are still largely empty, the train services are still poor, and on the index of multiple deprivation, Hastings remains 29th from the bottom. We have some of the lowest wages and highest unemployment in the whole country, let alone the south-east. Cynics might be forgiven for thinking that Labour’s regeneration has been a triumph of style over substance so far. The make-up is in place, but I am afraid that the wrinkles are still very much there.
But deprivation is only one part of Hastings, and Hastings is only one part of an area of contrasts and variations. My constituency feels very much like a microcosm of the country, with urban and rural areas, with farmland adjacent to idyllic estates, and with idyllic villages next to deprived wards. We are the custodians of England’s most famous date—perhaps more famous than 6 May 2010.
Let me introduce colleagues to the wonderful aspects of my constituency. Hastings, Rye and the village of Winchelsea were all parts of the Cinque ports, which were put together in the 11th century to keep out seafaring invaders, and for the mutual benefit of trade and fishing. Each place has its own unique character. I urge Members to spend their summer holidays with us. They can enjoy local produce, the source of modern English history, top-quality entertainment, fresh air and exercise—and for the more sedentary among us, there are fish and chips and slot machines. They can even walk in genuine dinosaur footprints, which may appeal to some Labour Members.
Tourism is an essential ingredient of what we have to offer. Hotels and boarding houses boast that they have been popular with visitors since 1066—visitors, of course, have not always been so popular with them. We have fantastic beaches, wonderful countryside and arguably the world’s most remarkable heritage. We have flourishing language schools, visited by students from all over the world, and a community that welcomes them with open arms, not to mention open tills, because we need the business.
Like many towns, we suffer from the coastal problem of being at the end of the line. Looking at previous maiden speeches over the past 40 to 50 years, I see that there has been a recurring theme: transport. The A21 to Hastings needs renewing and improvement. Our survival and prosperity depend on access. There is no point having wonderful facilities if people cannot access them. It unquestionably puts off employers and tourists, both of whom we need, that it is so difficult to get to our part of the world. I am talking of a constituency where 43% of the work force are in the public sector. We are like an island. We know which way the tide is going; we need to attract the private sector to try to take up some of the unemployment. I fear that much of the money that has already been spent in my constituency will fail to improve the economy if we do not do something about that. For too long, we have been the underprivileged cousin of the south-east. Many of my constituents have suffered terribly from an economy that has simply left them behind.
I have two important considerations for my constituency of Hastings and Rye. The first is transport. I recognise the particular financial situation in which we find ourselves—there must be cuts; we have inherited a difficult legacy. However, I urge Government Front Benchers not to make them to vital infrastructure projects, on which everything else depends. In my constituency, they are a link road to open up the area to more jobs and more employers, improvements to the A21, and better rail transport. We must be accessible to prosper. Conservatives understand above all the importance of enterprise and encouraging private sector growth so that families and communities can grow on their own.
We have discussed the high-skilled economy, and I agree that we all need that for our country to advance. However, I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to a very old trade. In Hastings, we have the largest beach-launched fishing fleet in Europe. In Rye, we have an important port and fishing fleet. They have been treated shamefully in the past 15 years. In the 1990s, there were 44 fishing vessels leaving Hastings; now there are 20, and the fishermen eke out a precarious living. Those men earn their living in a traditional, honest and environmentally friendly way, battling with the sea and the dangers of the deep. However, the common fisheries policy, as enforced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made their lives impossible. In 2005, there were prosecutions of those fishermen. The role of Government must be to help people, not put them out of business. Their way of life needs bailing out. Our Fisheries Minister understands the issue and the urgency and has visited Hastings twice, but we cannot wait for a full renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. We need change now, with the cod season approaching and difficulties ahead of us. We need a Government who protect our fisheries and our fishermen. I urge particular consideration of coastal towns.
The Government recognise the importance of promoting private sector growth. I hope that we can demonstrate that in Hastings and Rye by supporting better transport links and securing a fairer deal for fishermen. All we ask is a fair wind and an even keel.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House for the first time. It is a nerve-racking moment, made all the more so by following the excellent contributions from hon. Members throughout the debate, with constituencies ranging from Central Devon to Pendle, and Hastings and Rye to Rossendale and Darwen. I am therefore grateful for the courtesies that the House extends to new Members during their maiden speech. I promise not to detain the House too long.
Sitting in the House as Conservative Member for a constituency in the north-east of England makes me something of a rare specimen, thought almost extinct just over a decade ago, but I assure hon. Members that we are showing encouraging signs of life and energy once again.
I follow in the footsteps of Harold Macmillan and Tim Devlin, as well, of course, as my most recent predecessor, Dari Taylor. Ms Taylor represented Stockton, South for 13 years, during which time she worked hard for her party and gave energetic support to the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young.
All Stockton MPs follow in the footsteps of Joseph Dodds, the first Member of Parliament for the seat. He won it when it was first enfranchised in 1868. He built up one of the largest majorities in the country in the next 20 years, having won only narrowly when he was first elected. Unfortunately, towards the end of his career, there were what might be termed financial irregularities, and he had to resign his seat after being made bankrupt. However, that was reported rather more generously in the press of the time than might be the case today. I hope it will not be taken amiss, or as not in the spirit of the new politics, in which those of us on this side of the House are so energetically engaged, if I say that Joseph Dodds was, of course, a Liberal Member for Stockton-on-Tees.
It will be my aim over the coming years not only to represent the good people of Stockton South and its surrounding towns and villages, for whose support and confidence I am grateful, but to wave the flag for Teesside. My predecessor Tim Devlin said in this House 23 years ago:
“It persists in the minds of southern folk who think that we northerners all live in back-to-back houses and keep whippets.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 972.]
Although some progress has been made in addressing perceptions of the north, there is much still to do. I hope to play my part in ensuring that such perceptions are challenged and corrected. In my own constituency, we have vibrant towns such as Yarm and Eaglescliffe, which showcase the very best that this country has to offer. There are also things that must be done: Ingleby Barwick needs more school places, Thornaby’s regeneration is not yet complete, and Stockton itself has a high street which, although not in my constituency, must be the focus of local efforts to secure real and lasting improvement.
The economy of the north-east of England is, and has for many years been, dependent on the public sector. I hope that over the coming years our private sector might take on a more significant role, and I trust that the Government will make promoting and sustaining that private sector one of its key aims in these difficult times. By building on the skills that we in the north-east region have, with our manufacturing and engineering heritage, I believe that we can build a stronger economy, regionally and nationally, which will benefit many generations to come.
Teesside as a whole needs to re-establish its true identity. Half of my constituency has been in Yorkshire, half in Durham, all was once in Cleveland, and all was also once in Teesside, and now, confusingly, we are told that we are in the Tees valley, although I have yet to find the Tees valley on any standard highways map. In Stockton South we have Durham university and Teesside retail park, but we are served by Cleveland police and Tees Valley Unlimited, and we celebrate Yorkshire day. Should any hon. Members find that perplexing, I invite them to visit that wonderful part of the world, especially over the summer recess—I can assure Members on both sides of the House that even in the north-east, we do indeed have a summer. Of course, they could fly direct into Durham Tees Valley airport—or at least they could have done when we had a direct service, which is another issue I hope to address and be involved with over the coming years. Those of us who were born and raised in Stockton can occasionally be heard to joke that we do not have a county. That joke has worn thin over the years and I hope the new Government recognise the anomaly and work with myself and others to address the current confusion.
The people of Teesside are hard-working and industrious, and there are all the signs of real success and wealth, but all too often, as is the case in so many other places, they sit next to pockets of real deprivation and need. We must raise the sights of those who have looked down at the ground for too long, and realise the true potential hidden beneath the surface of the terrible jobless figures and levels of personal debt which, for far too many families, have become the norm. It is by training and education that that can be achieved. My part of the north-east has suffered more than most during the recent recession, with the mothballing of our local Corus plant at Redcar, and the recent announcement that Garlands, a previously highly successful local company, has gone into administration, so we must ensure that our voices are heard loud and clear from both sides of the House.
Our local entrepreneurs, such as Sir John Hall, Duncan Bannatyne and Steve Gibson, are key drivers for our economy, not just in the region but far beyond. We must support individuals like them, from the smallest new businesses to the largest and most successful of enterprises. I want the north-east to be known as a place where business can be done. We have the skills and the spirit; we just need the chance to prove what we can achieve.
Throughout history, the north has been a powerhouse driving this country forward. Since the days of the industrial revolution, Teesside has played its part—Sydney Harbour bridge was made from our steel, and our coal powered the engines of empire. My constituents have sent me here to tell that to the House, to speak out for a great place and to support the Government in their work to tackle many of the problems that we now face.
The people of the north-east will look to the Government and to their representatives in the House to ensure that the transition to a new economic model is successful, and that jobs and livelihoods are protected. We want to grow, succeed and impress. I am confident that the new Government will listen to what the people of the north-east have to say, and I look forward to working to secure a bright future for its people.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me this afternoon, and in particular I want to thank the people of Stockton South for putting their confidence in me and sending me here to speak to you today and on however many other occasions I have the pleasure to address the House. It is a real pleasure to serve the constituency in which I live and in which I was brought up. I look forward to serving, and to working with Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the voice of the north-east is always heard here in Westminster and elsewhere.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is kind of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and generous of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), to allow me to speak. I know that the clock is against me, but I am no stranger to that. For many year, I worked in television so I am used to the ticking arm and the fierce direction of a floor manager and director who told me, in no uncertain terms, to shut up. I also worked as a criminal barrister for 16 years, so I am also used to someone firm in the chair telling me in even firmer terms to shut up, and on those occasions I never argued.
This is a great opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessors and to give a short explanation of the constituency that I have the honour and privilege to represent. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister knows the answer to the question that many ask about the exact location of Broxtowe. It does not exist on any map, but I urge all hon. Members to look at Nottingham on the internet. If they zoom in to the western side, they will see a stretch of land between the city and the border with Derbyshire. I urge those who travel up the M1 to come off at junction 25 or 26 and experience Broxtowe. It is a fine place, as my hon. Friend knows because his mother is one of my constituents. She lives in the village of Bramcote.
Many people would say, on visiting Broxtowe, that it is part of the urban sprawl, but last bank holiday I spent two days walking—I had sore feet afterwards—across the constituency to enjoy the green belt. In that time, I saw all the places that I am so very proud to represent, including Beeston in the south and more green areas around Greasley, Giltbrook and Kimberley in the north.
I wish to pay tribute to another place in my constituency and thereby pay tribute to my predecessors. It is a hamlet called Cossall, which lies in beautiful rolling pastures. It has a fine tradition of mining, and D. H. Lawrence’s fiancée had the joy of living there, but an unfortunate legacy from the mining industry is the threat of open-cast mining. The first Member of Parliament to represent Broxtowe—it was created in 1983—was Sir Jim Lester, who was well known and much loved in this House. He was followed by my immediate predecessor, Nick Palmer. Both men have many attributes in common, and I hope to share those in the years to come. They were moderate and reasonable in their politics, they worked hard for the people they represented, and both joined in opposing any plans for open-cast mining in that beautiful green land. I seek to emulate both in my time in this House.
During my time here, it will be an honour and privilege to represent the people of Broxtowe, as others have said about their constituencies. There are many new Members and we bring diverse experiences to the House, but we all hope to play a real part here. We will challenge and hold the Government to account, and we will ask questions whenever we can, but most of all we will represent our constituents. Many of us were selected many years ago and getting here has been a long journey, so we are well aware of the responsibilities that we all bear. We will take great joy and pleasure in representing our constituents and do our very best for them by bringing forward the causes that they all hold dear.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I welcome you to the Chair and wish you very well in your new role in the House? The House has been at its very best this afternoon, and I have enjoyed all the contributions, particularly the maiden speeches. The subject of education and skills always brings out the very best in Members. Indeed, for many of us, from whatever party represented in the House, it is the reason why we came into public life, and we have seen that today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his contribution. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, Dr Starkey, who is remembered fondly on the Labour Benches, and of Milton Keynes’ great heritage in higher education. I was pleased to visit the new university centre in Milton Keynes, and I hope that he continues to support it in its work to extend access and widen participation in that area. Of course, Labour Members are particularly fond of, and are keen to remember, the great Open university and the heritage of Jenny Lee and the Wilson era Labour Government.
We heard a fantastic and wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who I know was a very effective mayor of Liverpool during its year as capital of culture. He included many of the football references that we hear in the House. He obviously has big shoes to fill—many of us remember Peter Kilfoyle fondly—and I particularly enjoyed his reference to growing up on an estate. Those of us who grew up in very humble circumstances wish him well in his endeavours to remind the House that there are many people a long, long way from this Chamber.
We also heard an eloquent and articulate speech from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that she will not be overwhelmed by liberalism, as she referenced in her speech. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), who made many football references, so I will look at them in Hansard tomorrow. He spoke warmly of his predecessor, who was well respected on the Labour Benches.
I know the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) because she stood against me in Tottenham in 2000. She will remember that back then I looked a little more like Denzel Washington, but 10 years later I look a lot more like Forest Whitaker. She has championed the Conservative cause in London. I wish her well in her seat, and it is good that she mentioned Battersea Dogs Home—an institution of which we in London are very fond.
The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) made me want to rush up to north-east Lancashire. I do not claim it is an area of the country I know well enough, but I thought he gave a very eloquent speech in which he reminded us of that city’s manufacturing heritage.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also gave an eloquent speech. He was very kind about his predecessor and reminded us that we must continue to rediscover the importance of our industrial heritage—the Humber clearly played an important role in our history.
The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) could have got a job with a tourism agency in speaking about his constituency. His effective speech reminded us not just of the industrial nature of so many of the areas that we represent, but of the importance of agriculture and the skills that we need to support agriculture in our economy.
Let me pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made a warm and passionate speech. She placed a great emphasis on role models—an issue that I have also championed in the House—and again, the beauty of the area that she represents came across.
The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also paid an eloquent tribute, not just to his constituency but, importantly, to our armed forces. Historically, they have always played an important role in this country, by providing so many men and women with skills who have not just served our armed forces, but gone on to serve the wider community once they left the armed services.
Like the hon. Member for Central Devon, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) reminded us of the importance of seaside areas and the work that we must continue doing, particularly in the south-east, where there remain acute pockets of deprivation.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is a tribute to the north. He is keen to keep Stockton on the map, as his predecessor was, despite the boundary issues affecting his constituency.
I was not surprised that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), being a barrister, managed to cram a lot into her speech in the time available. I look forward to her contributions in the Chamber over the years ahead.
Let me turn to the returning parliamentarians. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for reminding us of the role of group training associations in extending apprenticeships and helping small businesses in particular to take part in our wider apprenticeship schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has tremendous expertise in higher education issues, but she also reminded us of the importance of the Leitch targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up we might hear something about whether the Government remain committed to those targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was right to remind the House that Derby remains an exemplar city, owing to its unique combination of both skills and manufacturing. There is much that we can learn from the success of that part of the country over the most recent period. We all want to replicate that success in different parts of the country.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his election as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and on his thoughtful speech. We all look forward to hearing more from him in these debates over the coming years.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on his advancement of the cause of UCLan university in his constituency and on reminding us of the industrial heritage of his area and the importance of companies such as Rolls-Royce.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), in an intervention. Importantly, she reminded us not just of the role of universities—she spoke about Cardiff—but of the many spin-out companies that emerge from universities, taking skills back into the community, as people graduate and create companies. They are illustrations of the huge success of “Science made simple”.
Let me come to the contribution of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I have had exchanges with him across the Chamber for about four years—first in my role as the Minister for skills and then as the Minister for higher education. I look forward to the debates that we will have over the coming months. He has always described himself as a high Tory. As a consequence, he has an elevated—some might say levitated—status in the Chamber. I know his constituency well; I remember it fondly from my days as a Peterborough cathedral chorister. I suspect that he can be found on a Sunday engaging in amateur dramatics in the village halls around Spalding, playing Hercule Poirot or even Miss Marple.
Mr Lammy
Indeed.
I was disappointed not to see a reference to higher education in the motion and not to hear much from the hon. Gentleman about its importance. It is my view—I hope that it is his—that a world-class university system is central to a high-skilled economy. I grew up in Tottenham during a very difficult time in our history—and as an ethnic minority in troubled and difficult times—and I am very proud of all that we have done to widen access and extend opportunities for poorer and non-traditional families and for ethnic minorities across the country. It was a huge achievement for the Labour Government to widen participation to 44% and to enable more young people and more black and ethnic minorities to go to university than ever before.
When we look at constituencies in inner-city Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester and at the pockets of deprivation in the cities, towns and villages that we have heard about today, and we see young people—whose parents would never have dreamed of going to university—going into higher education, we realise the major contribution that the Labour Government made to our high-skilled economy. It is important that that should continue.
It is a great shame that the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), recently referred to students and young people as a “burden on the taxpayer”. Students are never a burden on the taxpayer. Underlying his statement is a certain view of the state and a suspicion of the contribution that the state makes to advancing the cause of a high-skilled economy. We will take every opportunity to challenge such assumptions over the coming months.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, has announced the creation of 50,000 apprenticeships, but he is not in opposition now, and he must remember that he does not have those 50,000 apprenticeships until he has delivered them. The people who will actually deliver them, however, are in business and industry. Achieving that will take a lot of hard effort over the coming months, because I do not think that he is suggesting that the money that he has set aside will pay the salaries of those young apprentices. He is still expecting business to do that. So, at the moment, he has delivered only one apprentice: the public apprentice, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I wish the Minister of State well, but we will be looking hard at the detail over the coming months, and he will expect me to penetrate fiercely some of the hyperbole in his comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
It is a great pleasure to welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair. You and I debated with each other over many years while you were a Minister, and I particularly remember when you were Paymaster General. I know that, given your knowledge of the tax system, you will be looking forward to chairing a debate on the Finance Bill to take you down memory lane.
This has been a high-quality debate which has been conducted in a cross-party way, as different right hon. and hon. Members have made positive contributions. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in his opening remarks, he is listening to the contributions of all Members. We have also heard about football and have almost had an exercise in VisitBritain as we have gone around the country.
I will not be able to talk about every maiden speech, but their overall quality was superb. When I made my maiden speech, I was rather more nervous than those delivering the self-confident and assured maiden speeches that we have heard today. If I may, I shall take a tour d’horizon of those speeches. We had cock and bull from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart); we had a Conservative club haunted by Roundheads from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes); and we had a Yorkshire vineyard from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), as he talked about the “Last of the Summer Wine”.
Two hon. Members showed great perception in how to represent their constituencies. I am thinking of the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), as they listed their local newspapers in their speeches. I have always found that when I talk about the Kingston Informer, the Kingston Guardian, the Surrey Comet and Radio Jackie, it is always a very good way of representing one’s constituents.
As I mentioned earlier, we also heard about football, as Members talked about the various football clubs in their constituencies. I have to make a confession—I am a Kingstonian fan because they play in Kingston, and I am also an AFC Wimbledon fan, as the club shares the Kingsmeadow ground. I have to say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South that although he has the MK Dons, we have the real Wimbledon playing in my constituency. I also have to confess that, although I was born in Nottingham and my first team is Notts County, I am also a Liverpool fan. Let me explain why. I was the only member of the class who was a Notts County fan during the Clough years, so I had to support one team that was giving Nottingham Forest a hard time.
I therefore particularly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), as I know her constituency fairly well. I have never lived there, but I used to go to Nottingham university boating lake. I will not go any further into that, but we had some nice times there. As a student, I worked in Boots, which has a factory in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and during my student vacation I helped to make pork pies for Northern Foods. I am not sure whether politicians should confess to making pork pies, but when students were making them, complaints from consumers went up—I hope that it was nothing to do with my skills.
As Members from both sides of the House addressed the substance of today’s debate, we heard about how they, and organisations in their constituencies, are playing a critical role in improving our country’s skills. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South was quite right to talk about the Open university. As we debate higher education, the model of the Open university is one that people will want to replicate. I speak as a former student, now a fellow, of Birkbeck college, where part-time education is also key. We really need to engage in a more flexible approach to higher education, and the Open university has a lot to contribute in that respect.
We heard about the university of Southampton from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North, and we also heard how a number of Members had been apprentices. We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) about his time as an apprentice bricklayer. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) about his apprenticeship as a textile machine manufacturer.
That is why this Government are so proud, in their very earliest days, to have put extra money into the apprenticeship scheme, and to have set a target of 50,000 new apprenticeships. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) seemed to jest—how could we be so bold as to want to create 50,000 new apprenticeships?—but we are very proud to have set that target. The right hon. Gentleman appears to consider it unachievable, but I can tell him that I have discussed it with my hon. Friend the Minister and with officials, and we are certain that we will meet it and do better as time goes on. I hope that in due course, when we have achieved our aim, he will pay this coalition Government the credit that they deserve.
Mr Davey
What I have noticed about the targets set by the previous Government—which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech—is how often they were not met. The Government set target after target which they then failed to meet. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the targets that they set for apprenticeships, but they set those targets and never met them. We will meet our target, and I believe that we will meet it within the next 12 months. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will soon eat his words.
We heard an awful lot today about the importance of manufacturing industry. I believe that the Government’s skills programme will ensure that it receives the support that it deserves, at the basic skills and education level. Labour Members may complain about the state of manufacturing industry, but they have a poor record in that regard themselves. The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the new Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—I welcome him to his post—made a thoughtful speech on the subject, but I think he should bear in mind that whereas in 1997 manufacturing represented 20% of the United Kingdom economy, by the time the Labour Government left office the proportion had fallen to 12%.
Mr Davey
Of course that is true of many modern economies, but I think it ill behoves the Labour party to criticise this Government in their early days, given that its own approach to manufacturing industry was not to turn the tide and go against the trend.
Although we have a huge amount in common, when Labour Members talk about the skills agenda they sometimes forget some of the record of which they should be less proud. I am thinking particularly of the quangocracy that grew up around the skills agenda. There is currently a patchwork quilt of quangos involved in that agenda. Members may be interested to learn how the position has changed. In government, the Labour party did not just create the existing quangos, but created quangos, abolished them and created new ones, all within 13 years. The fact that that instability and reinvention happened time after time shows that the Labour Government never really had a true vision. They constantly spent large amounts on new quangos while failing to get some of that money to the grass roots—to our communities. A lot of money was wasted then.
When the last Government set up the Learning and Skills Council, I was sent strategy after strategy by that august body. At first I thought that I had a real duty to read every single page, but when I visited the LSC and talked to its representatives, I realised that most of those strategies would never come to anything. I am afraid that that happened time and again. Huge amounts were spent on quangos, reports and consultancy, but less money went to the companies and learners who needed it. We believe that the need to rationalise the quangocracy in learning and skills is a key issue, and we will deal with it. We will do so while also having to look at the spending issues in this area, and there will be huge challenges. I do not think there is anyone in this House or involved in FE, HE or the education system in general who does not realise that we face difficult choices in this area, but we are absolutely clear that we will do our best with the money that we have got into apprenticeships and into the capital programme for FE to ensure that the priorities get the funding they deserve.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apprenticeships again, can he tell the House whether, in the 12 months he is talking about, if we take together what he and his colleagues are proposing on Train to Gain and apprenticeships, more learners will be funded by the Government or fewer?
Mr Davey
That is interesting. We have to compare that with what the previous Government were planning. When we looked at the funding issues facing us, and the very difficult choices, we saw that the previous Government were planning £340 million of cuts in adult further education and skills this year. That is actually happening this year, and I hope the colleges and students—and the employers—who are having to deal with the financial situation imposed by the cuts realise that the people who are to blame for that are sitting on the Opposition Benches.
Mr Davey
Before I let the right hon. Gentleman in, let me say that I hope that when he gets to his feet he admits to the House that it is under the previous Government’s plans that we are seeing a 3% reduction in funding rates for college-based provision, a 10% reduction for apprenticeships for those aged 25-year-old and over and a 6% reduction in other work-based learning. This is what we are having to deal with, and it is creating huge problems, as he ought to know.
Mr Lammy
It is the hon. Gentleman who is in government so I think he ought to answer the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden): will there be more or fewer learners as a result of the announcements made today? The House has a right to know.
Mr Davey
Well, one of the things the House needs to understand is that we have a different approach to FE and HE. We do not believe we can sit here in Whitehall and have a centralised system that we micromanage, and that we can then suddenly guarantee that there will be x new trainers, x new learners and x new places, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham and his friends used to do. That is why they failed so often: they took a centralised, top-down approach.
We will ensure that our approach is employer-led and learner-led. That is why we are working with businesses to make sure our schemes and proposals get the support that they will need from those areas. That is a very different approach. We know that, as we meet the challenges ahead of us, the private sector will have to be involved and be working with the Government. Far too often, the private sector was too much of an afterthought in how the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues planned their skills agenda.
Change is inevitable and, as Dr Johnson said:
“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
So there will be difficult choices. We will not shy away from them, but when we have to make those difficult decisions, it will be the employers and learners who are uppermost in our mind, not the bureaucrats and the quangos and the consultants, where all the money was wasted under the last Government.
We have had a constructive debate. I say on behalf of my hon. Friends and fellow Ministers in the Department that we are keen to listen, even to ideas from former Ministers who may at last realise that many mistakes were made and want to begin to confess. I hope that through working across parties and with the Select Committee and new Members, we can revitalise and invest in the skills our economy so desperately needs—
Transport Infrastructure (Nottingham)
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise issues that concern not only my constituents but the wider Greater Nottingham conurbation and our region. May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair today? I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for coming along to lend me their support.
Nottingham is very fortunate to have one of the best integrated transport systems in the country, but that did not happen by chance. It happened because there was political will, because the city council worked closely with partners in the county and with local businesses, seeking to build consensus wherever possible, and because we are fortunate to have great people working in the city to deliver our collective vision.
Indeed, the Department for Transport has designated Nottingham as a centre of excellence for local transport delivery. More recently, the council received a comprehensive area assessment green flag for public transport improvement and was described as “getting better and better”. However, it is not those warm words that I want the Minister to attend to today, but the real achievements that make Nottingham’s case for further investment compelling.
Over the past five years, Nottingham has contained traffic growth and congestion levels. There has been increased public transport use, fatal and serious accidents have been reduced and we have encouraged many more people to walk or cycle rather than to jump in their cars. I am proud of our record, but we know that there is still much more to do if we are to have a transport system that is fit for purpose in the years ahead—one that supports economic growth rather than hampers it and encourages greener, eco-friendly choices.
When it comes to investment in infrastructure, short-termism just will not do. We have to think and plan for the long term, and that is why Nottingham has been developing three key capital projects to make the city an even better place to live and work, to attract inward investment, to create jobs and to get the local economy moving. These projects will regenerate neighbourhoods, link socially disadvantaged communities with training and job opportunities, improve the environment and cut carbon emissions. I know that they are not just objectives that the Minister will welcome but the stated priorities of the coalition Government, so I am very hopeful that he will give a positive response.
Let me say a bit more about the three projects on which I am anxious that he should focus. The A453 links Nottingham to the M1, the A50 and East Midlands airport. It is the main trunk road from Nottingham to Birmingham and is a vital link in our transport network. According to the most recent data, the A453 is the most congested road in the country. Delays are particularly bad at peak times and the 9-mile stretch between Nottingham and Kegworth is rated as the worst section of the national strategic road network, with the average vehicle delay doubling in the last five years. Delays can be expected of almost 15 minutes per 10 miles travelled outbound and more than 10 minutes per 10 miles travelled inbound. In 2007, the East Midlands Development Agency commissioned a study that found that the cost of congestion to Nottingham businesses came to £160 million a year, so it is no surprise that three years ago partners in the region agreed that it was the top priority for regional funding allocation. That was confirmed again in 2009.
There is also a human cost to the congestion. Driving through Clifton, one sees far too many flowers at the roadside that are a reminder of the A453’s terrible safety record: accidents are 33% higher than the national average for rural roads and 23% higher than the national average for urban roads. Between 2003 and 2007, there were 167 personal injury accidents of which two were fatal and 31 serious. Residents and business leaders, city councillors, district councillors and county councillors, and Members on both sides of the House all agree that the A453 desperately needs improvement.
Nottingham has been waiting almost 30 years for something to be done. The latest scheme will provide a “civilised road”—one that provides extra capacity, but is sensitive to the needs of Clifton residents who live alongside it. Planned improvements have been delayed twice before and we need it more than ever—so please, Minister, do not disappoint us again.
I read in the Nottingham Post that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has already, as he put it, “had a go” at the Secretary of State for Transport regarding this matter. I hope that the Minister will work with his colleagues in the transport team to secure the scheme’s future and, if necessary, to make representations to the Treasury on behalf not just of the 270,000 people who live in the city or the 750,000-plus people in Nottingham’s travel-to-work area, but of the people who will be filling the 20,000 new science and technology jobs that we hope will be created in the city by 2020.
The second element of Nottingham’s plan for a modern, integrated transport network that I want to raise with the Minister is Nottingham express transit phase 2—turning our tramline into a tram network. Tramline one opened in 2004, and its success has exceeded expectations, attracting 10 million passengers a year. Yes, it required considerable investment, and, yes, the construction work was disruptive, but I urge the Minister to come for a ride across Nottingham on the tram to see at first hand what a difference it has made. I urge him to come and see the park-and-ride sites, including those at Phoenix park and Forest recreation ground, which are full to bursting every day. Some 3 million car journeys have been removed from the city’s roads and there has been a 30% increase in public transport use in the north-west corridor of the city. I like our buses, and they are a vital part of the mix, but on their own they cannot achieve that level of modal shift—getting people out of their cars and on to public transport. For the A453 scheme really to work, even with a widened A453, we need a significant proportion of the people who are coming towards the city to transfer to public transport at a park-and-ride site on the edge of Clifton.
I urge the Minister also to come and see the regeneration, inward investment and sustainable development that have been achieved along the line one route. Perhaps he will even share my enjoyment regarding the inspiration it has provided to small local businesses. I admit that every time I pass the snack bar in Hyson Green called Tramwiches, it makes me smile.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentions Hyson Green in my constituency. Does she agree that as phase 2 of the tram project is a private finance initiative, funded in part not so much by grant but by revenues generated from some quite tough decisions having been taken about workplace parking levies and so forth, it is potentially less burdensome on public borrowing levels because of the re-phasing potential? As a consequence, it might be a good candidate when ranked against other schemes that the Minister is considering.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
NET phase 2 received approval because it will deliver for the city and the conurbation. It will take a further 3 million car journeys off our roads and will provide at least 50% of the additional capacity needed to avoid the transport gap that threatens the economic vitality of the conurbation. There will be 2,500 extra park-and-ride spaces, better integration with the railway station and hugely improved access to and from the south and west of the conurbation. It will link people, some of whom live in wards in which 60% of the population do not have access to a car, with the Queen’s medical centre, which is the city’s main hospital, as well as with both our universities, with local college campuses and with 2,000 workplaces, including 20 of the city’s 30 largest employers. It will also promote equality of opportunity, as line one has done, by improving transport access for the elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady please explain which wards in the city council will benefit from the tram but are those in which she says 60% of people do not have access to public transport?
Lilian Greenwood
The wards are those such as Clifton South in the city and places such as the Meadows, which I wanted to talk about. The Meadows and Clifton are two areas of my constituency that suffer from significant social disadvantage, including high unemployment, low skills and low educational attainment. Clifton also has a disproportionate number of pensioner households and a large retirement village. The tram will transform those communities, regenerating their neighbourhood centres and offering full accessibility for people with mobility difficulties, including wheelchair and motorised scooter users, and it will provide a vital link to workplaces and training providers. But most importantly, it will bring jobs. The Centre for Economic and Business Research projected that between 4,000 and 10,000 new jobs would be created by NET phase 2. All this, and a hugely positive impact on the environment—cleaner air and a healthy cut in carbon emissions—make this scheme well worth investing in and excellent value for money.
I am delighted to know that the Minister is a fan of light rail, and I know that he is fully briefed on Nottingham’s tram. I certainly welcomed his comments earlier in the week at the parliamentary tea for light rail when he said that local funding was a matter for local people. He knows that the local funding for Nottingham is secure. The mechanism is in place. So I hope that he will give his backing and the backing of his Department for this exciting expansion of light rail in the UK.
Last but not least, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Nottingham hub—the £67 million station improvement project to be jointly delivered by the city council and Network Rail to transform our railway station into the sort of modern transport interchange that the city needs. Everything is in place between the city council and Network Rail. The only piece of the jigsaw that is in doubt is the contribution from East Midlands Development Agency. We in Nottingham value EMDA and the important role that it has played in the city and the region. Securing its future is a discussion for another day, but we hope that the changes to regional development agencies will not be allowed to undermine this project and the opportunity to create a wonderful new entrance to the city.
Earlier this week the Prime Minister spoke about the review of spending commitments and said:
“Projects that are good value for money and consistent with the Government’s priorities will go ahead.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 868.]
I know that we in Nottingham can demonstrate that our plans meet this test. Can we afford to go ahead with these schemes? The real question is, “Can we afford not to?” and the answer is most definitely no. These transport schemes are absolutely vital to the economy of Greater Nottingham and the East Midlands region. They will deliver on jobs, on regeneration, on cutting unemployment and on improving access to training and skills. They will help us to meet the targets for a greener low-carbon future. They represent excellent value for money. If we need to be a bit more flexible on what we are asking for, tell us. We will be, but do not leave us stuck in the slow lane when it comes to economic growth. It would be short-sighted and very costly to delay these well-thought- out, well-planned projects for the sake of small savings now.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to ask the Minister the questions that people in Nottingham are asking me. Have the Government produced an analysis of the impact that delaying or cutting these projects will have on local and regional economic growth? What criteria will the government use to assess which major projects to continue funding? When will the decisions be made and who will be making those decisions?
Finally, will the Minister accept my invitation to come to Nottingham to see the congestion we face on the A453, to enjoy a trip on the tram, to look at the exciting plans for the railway station and to hear from residents, businesses and councillors from all parties about why investing in our infrastructure is vital for the future of Nottingham?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate on transport infrastructure for Nottingham and the surrounding area, and on the comprehensive and persuasive way she put her case this afternoon. I am aware that she made her maiden speech in the House a few weeks ago and mentioned both the A453 and the Nottingham tram. I am now pleased to be responding to her first Adjournment debate on a subject that is clearly of great importance to her, to other hon. Members and to her constituents.
No one doubts that an effective and efficient low-carbon transport infrastructure can help to support economic development and help to tackle climate change. Unfortunately, securing these outcomes in our current economic climate is challenging to say the least, but I am confident that we can meet these challenges and still deliver transport infrastructure that works for economy and the environment. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the coalition Government’s statement, to which she referred in her opening remarks, in which we have made clear our commitment to a modern low-carbon transport infrastructure as an essential element of a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy. She may also have noticed that light rail is specifically mentioned in the agreement. But we have also identified the pre-eminence of the deficit reduction programme at this time. The decisions that we take and the speed with which we are able to implement transport improvements will need to be determined in the light of the comprehensive spending review.
The hon. Lady asked about the criteria for assessing major projects, and I shall come to that point in a moment. She asked when and who will make decisions. Initially, the Treasury’s comprehensive spending review will tell us how much money the Department has in crude terms, and we shall then use the criteria to take the decisions. I am conscious of the uncertainty not just in Nottingham but across the country. We want to get a move on and give people clarity as soon as we possibly can.
The Department for Transport is playing a full part in the spending review that will report in the autumn. We have already announced a range of measures aimed at delivering reductions in spending. On 24 May, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave details of savings of £6.2 billion in Government spending in 2010-11. The Department for Transport is contributing to those savings, which has meant taking difficult decisions on funding and deferring decisions on schemes, including the A453, until after the outcome of the spending review.
Last Thursday, the Department for Communities and Local Government published further details about local government savings, including £309 million that the Department for Transport had identified in respect of local transport. In making those reductions, however, we have maximised flexibility for local authorities to reshape their budgets according to local priorities and to identify where efficiencies can be found. Given current financial constraints, it is essential to ensure that any new infrastructure is affordable and offers value for money.
On the criteria for assessing major projects, the hon. Lady may be interested to learn that my Department is committed to reforming the way decisions are made about which transport schemes to prioritise across the country. We are looking at the formula used to assess transport schemes so that the benefits of low-carbon proposals are fully recognised. We hope that work will be complete to coincide with the outcome of the comprehensive spending review so that we can take sensible decisions at that time.
Before I respond to the hon. Lady’s specific points, I acknowledge Nottingham city council’s high reputation as a transport authority. It has successfully managed major innovative projects, including the building of the tram. It is a beacon council for accessibility and has taken great strides in managing congestion in the area, as the hon. Lady pointed out. By August 2009, vehicle journey times during the morning peak had been reduced by almost 7% on baseline figures.
The Greater Nottingham transport partnership provides a good example of bringing together the private and public sectors to promote understanding of and support for the integrated vision contained in the joint local transport plan. From that partnership has come the “Big Wheel” marketing campaign, which has worked successfully to influence the use of sustainable transport options.
Nottingham City Transport picked up the winning new customers award at the 2009 UK bus awards, and in May this year the biggest, and first area-wide, statutory bus quality partnership was launched. Nottingham has seen year-on-year increases in bus and tram use. There are now 47 million bus passengers per year in Nottingham and 10 million tram passengers. With that base from which to work, I am confident that Nottingham City Transport is in a strong position to respond to the difficult financial climate we are now facing.
I understand the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the decision to defer spending for the A453 scheme until the next comprehensive spending review period. I do not want to introduce a note of discord, but I point out gently to the hon. Lady that the previous Government had 13 years to do something about the road, but did not. She might bear that in mind as we consider how to go forward.
Following consideration of the scheme orders for the A453 at the public inquiry in 2009, the inspector’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration. However, no decision on the inspector’s report and the scheme orders can be made until there is clarity about the availability of funding for the scheme following the forthcoming spending review. As the scheme is subject to statutory procedures, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot, for reasons of propriety, discuss the merits of the A453 project in the Chamber this evening. I can assure her, however, that the scheme will be given due consideration alongside other proposals. Her comments and those of other Members are noted.
On the proposed tram extensions, the Government announced last week that we would consider schemes funded through the regional funding allocation process as part of our commitment to review the way funding decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise. However, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said—I nearly called him the hon. Member for Shipley—the Nottingham project is slightly different. The extensions to the Nottingham express transit tram scheme are proposed to be funded almost entirely through the private finance initiative. The Government, through the Treasury, plan to make an announcement shortly on how we are dealing with PFI schemes, and it may be that more clarity can be given on the tram scheme at that point.
I would just say that the feeling I have picked up from speaking to Members on both sides of the House is that whether people were for or against the tram, there is acceptance—the route has been planned, it has been accepted, it has been established, and the issue now is really one of cost and finance rather than anything else.
Chris Leslie
It is entirely correct that it feels very much as though we have come so far—on the planning process, the commitment of all the legal fees and the consultancy fees, getting through the planning inquiries and so on—that it would be such a shame to decide not to progress at the eleventh hour, particularly when, as I said before, this scheme may not be so burdensome in its public borrowing aspects as perhaps others would.
Norman Baker
I do understand that point, and I am sure it is frustrating for Members all across the House, looking at various schemes in their own patches, to see this delay. I stress that it is a delay, rather than a cancellation—simply a deferral of schemes. We do want to get decisions as soon as we possibly can on all these schemes, but as to whether the PFI is good value for money, that is above my pay grade. It is a matter for Treasury Ministers to decide, although obviously the comments that the hon. Gentleman and others have made will be picked up and relayed to my colleagues in the Treasury.
I should record that the tram has been successful, carrying 38 million passengers—well above the projected figures. That is also a matter to take into account in looking at the future. So I can assure the hon. Member for Nottingham South that the Department understands the potential for trams, in the right conditions, to deliver a high-quality public transport alternative to the car. I believe that, as she rightly says, we have underplayed the potential of trams, and light rail in general, in this country. I am conscious that proposals have failed in the past, usually on the basis of high cost. She may like to know that I have asked officials to look at the reasons for the high cost of tram schemes, and to see whether there are any ways to reduce those costs to make trams a more affordable option in the future, particularly given the likely pressures on budgets following the spending review. That work is being carried out in the Department, coterminous with the work carried out in the Treasury, so that when the smoke has cleared, light rail will be in a position to benefit, potentially, from the new arrangements post-review.
As I mentioned earlier, the Department is taking forward work to deliver the coalition agreement commitment to ensure that low-carbon benefits of schemes are fully recognised in the transport appraisal decision-making process.
The hon. Lady mentioned the workplace parking levy, and of course it has been seen that the tram extensions proposed are closely linked to the plans for a workplace parking levy to be implemented in Nottingham, although of course there is no requirement for them to be so and it is open to the city council, if the tram did not go ahead, to introduce that levy if it wished to do so. Workplace parking levies are one of a range of measures available to local authorities for improving local transport and tackling congestion. Nottingham city’s plan to implement a levy is very much in accord with the coalition’s localism agenda, and I want to make it quite clear from the Dispatch Box tonight that whatever individuals in the House think about that levy, our view is that it is entirely a matter for the local authority to decide whether that goes ahead or not; it is not a matter for the Government to intervene in.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the Nottingham rail hub and improvements to Nottingham station. I know that work is in hand to develop plans and prepare for improvements in Nottingham railway station and the surrounding areas under the Nottingham hub scheme. That includes work to complete the necessary agreements to enable the scheme to proceed. I should deliver the usual health warning about the current financial climate, which the hon. Lady is well aware of, and the fact that we cannot offer assurances at this particular time about taking forward a scheme, although, as she referred to the contribution from the regional development agency, I would just say that obviously if the scheme could be reduced in cost in some way, that makes it more likely to proceed. I hope she might take that message back to colleagues and others in Nottingham. We in the Department do believe, however, that it is a good scheme, which has the potential to deliver wider benefits, including the regeneration and employment benefits that the hon. Lady mentioned, in addition to improving transport links in Nottingham.
It is clear that we face a challenging period. Tough decisions to tackle the UK’s budget deficit have been necessary, and they are ongoing. I appreciate, however, that it is not easy for people to see schemes with considerable local support, that have been in development for many years, being put on hold and given an uncertain future. The Government have identified that the most urgent priority is tackling the deficit, and the Department for Transport must play its role in that process. The Department will be in a position to identify major investment that can be supported only after the Government’s spending review has been concluded. In a period in which we face tight financial restraint, it is essential that we take a step back and consider which schemes should be prioritised. That is the only way we can put ourselves in a strong position to make the best use of available funds and to establish a strong base for the future development of the transport system.
I would not want the hon. Lady to go away from the debate with a negative impression, however. We face challenges, but we have a strong approach to address them, and the Department wants to work to deliver outcomes that meet national and local needs, and to improve the country’s transport infrastructure. We are keen to use whatever tools we can to achieve that.
I thank the hon. Lady for the invitation to visit Nottingham, which I shall be happy to accept, because a tram ride with her is an irresistible suggestion. I look forward to seeing some of the excellent schemes that Nottingham city has been delivering.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Blockade of Gaza
Carer Poverty
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alternatives to Child Detention
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I am delighted to have the opportunity today to draw attention to the issue of children in immigration detention. The UK’s policy of detaining children with families in order to effect their removal from the UK is an area of long-standing concern for many organisations that take an interest in immigration and asylum, and for organisations that work on behalf of children. Those concerns are significant, and the Government have, very early on, set out their commitment to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. We want to replace the current system with something that ensures that families with no right to be in this country return in a more dignified manner.
To help bring that about, the UK Border Agency is leading a comprehensive review of present practice on the detention of children. It will look at the actual levels and at how to prevent such detention by improving the current voluntary return process. The review will also consider good practice in other countries, and will look at how a new family removals process can be established that protects the welfare of children and ensures the return of those with no right to remain in the UK. It will come as no surprise to you or to the Chamber, Mr Weir, that in the current climate the review will also have to include value for money as part of its remit.
The review has already begun and its phase of collecting views and submissions will run until 1 July. It will take in the views of a wide range of partners, experts and organisations that represent the interests of children to create viable long-term solutions. Earlier this week, I went to Glasgow to discuss the matter with many voluntary groups. They made extremely useful inputs to the review, so we will be repeating those meetings in all regions and in other countries of the UK over the next few weeks.
The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund is helping the review by co-chairing a working group made up of a range of non-governmental organisations, and I am grateful to the fund for agreeing to do that. We are seeking to identify how the UK Border Agency can fulfil its role while taking the right account of children’s safety and welfare. We are carrying out the review as fast as humanly possible, so that the detention of children for immigration purposes can end and a practical alternative be put in its place.
I should emphasise that the UK Border Agency is fully determined to replace the current system with something more humane, without compromising on the removal of people who have no right to remain in the UK. We are talking about alternatives to detention and not about ending removals. Until the review is completed, current policies will remain in place, with one exception. As Members will know, the detention of children overnight at Dungavel immigration removal centre in Scotland has been ended as a precursor to such a practice ending across the UK. Currently, a very small number of children—fewer than five—are being held in immigration detention, but before we close Yarl’s Wood for the detention of families we need to find effective alternatives.
Damian Green
I will of course give way to the newly elected Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister very much for letting me intervene. I welcome this review, which is very much in keeping with the report the Select Committee produced last November. One of the recommendations was for the then Government—clearly, it is now for the new Government—to look at the role of local authorities. Will he confirm that local authorities will be consulted? The Committee was concerned that councils were sometimes not aware of children in their jurisdiction, and that that led to some children absconding and councils simply not being aware that they had gone.
Damian Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I take the opportunity formally to congratulate him on his election—his reappointment, rather—as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I can do so with a due degree of objectivity because I was not allowed to vote in the election, so he can neither thank nor blame me. I am sure we will have many constructive exchanges in the coming years.
To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the simple answer is yes. I mentioned earlier that I had had a meeting in Glasgow at which the city council played a significant, helpful and constructive role. The purpose of the consultation is for it to be as widespread as possible. As he said, local authorities will have statutory responsibilities for such children and will therefore have views about how best we can and should proceed, so I will very much welcome their input into proceedings.
The challenge is to develop a new approach to family removals that remains cost-effective and delivers the return of those who have no right to remain in the UK. I hope I will not be constraining the review if I identify some of the factors involved; indeed, I hope this will help those who wish to contribute. It is already clear from the initial stages of the review that there is not a single, simple remedy: it is not just about ending detention at the stroke of a pen. There may have to be—I think there will have to be—a number of changes at different points in the system, each contributing to the overall aim. Clearly, there is a need to achieve faster and better decision making on family asylum cases; we are already taking forward work on that. We are told there is a need for greater confidence in the initial decision that is made in asylum cases. I take on board that message; indeed, I may even have transmitted that message to Government in the past.
In a recent report, the UK Border Agency’s independent chief inspector, John Vine, commented favourably on the commitment to quality, and the UK is felt by many countries to have good systems in this regard. Members may know that in 2007, the provision of early legal advice was piloted in Solihull, in the west midlands, to test whether collaboration between the legal representative and the UK Border Agency decision-maker led to better information at the initial decision-making stage, so that better quality decisions could be reached. The findings were unclear, so we are working with the Legal Services Commission and key asylum partners to test those principles across an entire region of the UK Border Agency. It is called the early legal advice project, and it is an example of collaborative working and trying new things that I hope will characterise this area of alternatives to detention for families.
Another thing to consider is the need for better contact management and more active discussion of a family’s options if their claim is rejected and their right to appeal a decision has been exhausted. Discussions with a family might need to be backed up by improved support from NGOs, partners and other workers. The options open to families at present include some very generous assisted return packages, but the take-up rate for families is low compared with that for single asylum seekers. There is, therefore, a need for better marketing of those assisted return offers. Marketing may sound like an odd word in this context, but I use it because we should not be forcing the take-up of such offers. Better explanation and promotion of the offers is clearly needed; they are real offers to provide help and assistance when all the other options have been exhausted. To illustrate one apparently small but important point, the assistance includes help with excess baggage so that families can take with them belongings purchased in the UK. They would not be returning home empty-handed, and would have more to show for their migration journey and for their time in the UK.
I think that everyone involved would also like to see a clearer and more evenly managed process after applications and claims to remain have been turned down. The starting point—and what I hope will become the standard—would be a much more clearly identifiable transition from a voluntary departure to an enforcement approach that is shaped by the family’s own approach to their situation. The UK Border Agency would therefore set removal directions while the family is in the community, giving the family time to submit further representations and to apply for a judicial review if they wish to do so, as well as giving them time to make plans for their return. The arrangements would place a greater emphasis on self check-in or escorting to the airport. That approach, which already exists but possibly in a less clear way than it ought to, gives families every chance to comply with the need to return home without enforcement action. Making it much clearer to families—and their helpers—where they stand at this stage of the process seems to me to be necessary.
Other changes to processes may be called for, but inevitably some families who have no justification to remain in the UK will always refuse to leave voluntarily, despite all the encouragement we give them to do so. A changed approach should, and I hope would, minimise the number of those families, but there will remain difficult cases where solutions have to be found and where enforced removals are likely to continue. That approach could involve separating different members of a family and reuniting them before departure, so that some family members stay in the accommodation they are used to. However, I recognise that that approach would be hugely contentious and has its own practical difficulties. Therefore, in some cases we may still have to have recourse to holding families for a short period before removal—where keeping the family together is seen as being in the best interests of the children, which of course must be the paramount concern.
I hope it will not come to that. The Government and the UK Border Agency would much prefer that families who do not require humanitarian protection or refugee protection return to their home countries voluntarily. That is a responsible approach in a world where the number of people who choose to live in another country, for a variety of reasons, is continually expanding. Not everyone’s journey will be a success in economic terms; not everyone’s journey will be lawful. We believe that the Government should respond in a responsible, fair, dignified and humane way to this reality.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister for giving way to me for a second time. Will he comment on the report in The Guardian today that the Government are considering a reintegration centre—basically, a detention centre—of some kind in Afghanistan for families who are due to be removed from this country? Is that report correct, or wrong?
Damian Green
I would always hesitate to describe a report in The Guardian as being completely accurate. The proposed centre in Afghanistan is not particularly a British Government project; indeed, the previous Government raised this idea with other European Governments and with international agencies. The proposed centre’s purpose is, effectively, to have a retraining centre—a re-entry centre—in Afghanistan, which the right hon. Gentleman will know is the source of many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country, so that there is something for those children to go back to that will enable them to lead a better life in Afghanistan. I suspect he agrees with me that it would be much better for those young men to have a decent life and some hope in life in their own country. If they can have those things, that will stop many of them making dangerous—in some cases, sadly, fatal—journeys halfway across the world to try to reach Britain or other European countries.
So the basis of the report in The Guardian, for all that I said in my initial response to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, is true, but it is being presented in a luridly and unfairly hostile light. The centre is an effort to help people. I suspect that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Opposition spokesperson, will agree with that, because she was in government when the then Government originally suggested this process. It is a constructive and creative response to the problem of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and to present it in any other light is straightforwardly unfair. It is a constructive idea and I hope it comes to fruition. The tender for the operation is being examined, and we hope to make an announcement in the next few months about what will happen next.
This is a real, worldwide problem and as I was saying, we believe that the Government should respond in a responsible, fair, dignified and humane way to the reality of what is happening around the world today. The review into ending the immigration detention of children is an important part of that. Obviously, we will not take any firm decisions until the review has completed its work and we have taken into account the views that are put to us. I hope that during this debate, more ideas will be put forward that the Government can feed into the review, which may therefore give us what we all want to see: a fairer and more humane system that ends the system of detaining children for immigration purposes in this country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on his appointment as Minister for Immigration. I attended many debates with him in his Opposition capacity, but he has finally made it and now has the opportunity to put into practice all the good proposals for which he argued so strongly as the Opposition spokesperson.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for all the work that she did as an Immigration Minister in the last Government. She was always very firm in defence of the Government’s policy, but she was also very willing to listen to Members of this House when they raised matters of concern with her. I am glad that she has retained her position as the Labour party’s spokesperson on immigration in opposition, because of course she knows everything—where all the bodies have been buried, figuratively speaking.
I welcome most warmly the Government’s decision to conduct a review of the whole question of the detention of children in the immigration system. It may well be that during the general election campaign, the Minister read the reports of the Home Affairs Committee. If so, he will have seen our report published on 24 November 2009, “The Detention of Children in the Immigration System”. In a sense, he has prefaced that report in the comments that he has made today. He has also rehearsed some of the arguments that are used for keeping children in detention, while rejecting those arguments. Of course, one cannot prejudge the outcome of a review, but I would be most surprised if the Government, having begun a review on this very important subject, came to the conclusion that everything was okay as far as the detention of children in the immigration system was concerned.
Nearly 1,000 children a year are detained in the UKBA’s immigration detention centres. On average, such children spend more than a fortnight—15.58 days—in detention, but detention for up to 61 days is not uncommon. On 30 June 2009—the last date for which the Home Affairs Committee had information on children in detention—10 of the 35 children in detention at that time had been held for between 29 and 61 days. The Committee noted that the cost of keeping a person in detention was £130 a day; therefore, keeping a family of four in detention for between four and eight weeks costs more than £20,000.
During our very brief inquiry into this area, Members of the Committee visited Yarl’s Wood. We felt that there must be an alternative that can be used to deal with the Government’s proper function, which is to ensure that those who have lost their immigration cases and who have not been granted leave to remain in this country, either as asylum seekers or in any other context, are removed. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, accept that there cannot be an indefinite right for people to stay here after all the legal processes have been exhausted. What we must find is a humane way to deal with families, particularly children, who are kept in detention before their removal.
We went to Yarl’s Wood after hearing serious allegations about its operation, and what we found was a much more humane regime. Ultimately, of course, Yarl’s Wood remains a prison; one cannot walk in and out without being checked through. When the Select Committee arrived, we produced all our identification and were put through those checks. I am not sure whether the Minister has had an opportunity to visit since taking up his office; I am sure that the shadow Minister visited at some stage. Some the reports of conditions in Yarl’s Wood were lurid, and it may well have been like that in the past, but certainly nothing like that was obvious to us when we visited. The staff made an effort to accommodate families and children. We saw an impressive nursery school that had been built. It did not deal with anyone over the age of 10; it dealt with young children.
Unfortunately, our visit was somewhat marred by the Home Office officials’ terrible anxiety about the Select Committee visit. They tried hard to keep us away from the people being detained there, which was totally unnecessary. The point of Members of Parliament visiting an institution such as Yarl’s Wood is to ensure that we speak to the people there about their circumstances. What we found was that people were more anxious about the progress of their immigration case than about any of the ways and means by which they were detained I hope that, even before the review is continued, the Minister will take on board the fact that people in detention need access to proper and appropriate legal and immigration advice. I left the detention centre with about five or six cases, which I immediately passed on to the relevant constituency MPs.
It was depressing to see children being kept in such circumstances. Of course the Serco staff did their best to ensure that they were kept happy—there was a little shop, for example. We talked to a couple of the kids about what it was like being there. Though it is acceptable for a very short period, it is still a prison, it is still detention and their freedom is still restricted. The review is therefore timely and important, and I hope that it will be concluded as quickly as possible. As I missed the first few words of the Minister’s opening remarks, I am not sure whether he has a timetable. The Government are undertaking a lot of reviews, and although I do not hold that against them—any new Government want to review everything that happened before—we need timetables. Under the current system, however, it is important that people should be clear where they stand as far as their future is concerned.
I raised with the Minister the question of the local authorities’ involvement. We took evidence from the London borough of Hillingdon, because it contains Harmondsworth centre and Heathrow airport—those put into detention after coming off a plane and those about to be removed are held in close proximity to airports. One of the Select Committee’s recommendations was that the Government’s future building programmes should take proximity to airports into consideration. We were concerned to find that the local authority did not seem to know how many children were being detained and that it was not notified when children left detention. That is why we recommended that local authorities should be informed every seven days of how many children are being detained in their area. That would be quite a simple process for UKBA, so it is surprising that those facts and figures are not available. I hope that, in the interim—before the review is published—we will look at what we can do to get that information to local authorities. That must be easy for UKBA to do, so I hope that it will be done.
I do not want to detain the House long, given that the Government seem to be doing everything that the Select Committee asked them to do. My final point is a general one to which I will keep returning as long as I occupy the Chair of the Select Committee. I want to be fair to this Government as I was fair to the last one, and the former Minister will remember that on every occasion when we discussed immigration, I raised the same issue: the state of the backlog in the administration of the Home Office.
I see that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is here today. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should move the Home Office away from Croydon, as I am sure that a lot of his constituents work there and that Lunar house and all those other fine buildings contribute greatly to Croydon’s economy. However, it is not acceptable for us to go on as though the backlog will only be here until next year. The Select Committee is due a letter from Lin Homer setting out the state of the backlog, and of course progress has been made in the past 13 years, but I asked the then Minister for Borders and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), whether he would like to be the first Immigration Minister in history to leave office having cleared the backlog. For as long as I have been a Member of Parliament—23 years now—there has always been a backlog. When I was first elected, there were sacks of unopened letters in Lunar house, simply because the volume of correspondence was so great.
I know that the Minister has written to right hon. and hon. Members about how we deal with constituency cases. Looking around the Chamber, I think that all of us here have a smattering of immigration cases, some more than others, and the shadow Minister is probably the biggest consumer of her former portfolio than anyone else here. It is all very well to tell Members to write to officials at Croydon and to come to Ministers only as a last resort, but we all get the same letters back, drafted by the same person. Miss Homer, as director general and chief executive, takes ultimate responsibility—this is not a personal issue; it is just business, as they said in “The Godfather”—but the fact is that all the letters are the same. We do not expect the Minister to draft his own letters, but we get the same information whether we write to Miss Homer or to him. UKBA keeps telling us that we must wait until next year for the backlog to be cleared.
That is the problem for children in detention. If only the system actually worked and gave us quicker results, even if those results did not please people and the cases still went through judicial review. I declare an interest: my wife is an immigration lawyer and I worked in a law centre before I was elected, and the process does, of course, make work for lawyers. People apply for judicial review only if they have no other option, but at present, they apply for judicial review at the end of a three-year process. If we had dealt with their cases more quickly, some asylum seekers would not have had their children. Some of the children in detention are there because their parents’ cases have taken so long to be concluded.
In the spirit of a new Government with a fresh approach, I say that eliminating the backlog and dealing with immigration cases quickly is the best way to solve the problems of needing to build more detention centres and to keep children in detention. I know what the Minister will say: “You were in office for 13 years. Why hasn’t this been solved?” Believe me, I and others have been asking Governments for the past 20 years to do something about it.
Administrative delays have become an essential part of immigration policy, which means that people in this country are working illegally because they are waiting for their cases to be concluded. People come to me every week—tomorrow I will see another 50, and on average I deal with 60 immigration cases a week—who are desperate to work but cannot because they are waiting for UKBA to deal with their cases. Some cases take between six and seven years to be concluded. Dealing with those issues must go hand in hand with the Government review.
The Minister’s biggest battle will be against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and ultimately the Chancellor, but the Home Affairs Committee will be on his side arguing, as it has done in the past, his case for more resources for UKBA and to clear the backlog. UKBA is full of good and decent people, but the system needs changing. We have constantly asked for greater expenditure but, obviously, no Minister for Immigration has ever said in a debate, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, “Please can we have more money?” That would breach the convention of Government. The Select Committee will say that for him.
Even in the current climate, providing resources will save the Government millions and millions of pounds spent every year on detaining people, including families and children, and forcibly removing those who have been here for seven or eight years. Let us not get into that situation. Let us deal with cases as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we do not have to detain or lock up children any more. We can allow people their chance of a fair hearing before the courts and eventually before the Minister, and then the results that the Government put forward must be accepted.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Like the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I have known him for some time and, given the values that I know he has, I think that he will balance the need to reform our asylum system, to ensure that people who do not have a right to be in the country return home, with compassion for those who come here seeking sanctuary. It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East. He referred to his work in the previous Parliament as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and its report on the issue before us today.
Immigration and asylum, which are too often conjoined, are important in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the UK Border Agency in Croydon Central; its significant presence has a number of effects on my constituency. First, a large number of people are going through either the immigration or the asylum process, which has been the dominant issue in my casework in the four or five weeks I have been an MP. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, a significant number of UKBA employees are my constituents, so there are some interesting letters from people about their experience of working in the system and how it might be improved. On another occasion, I might share some of those views with my hon. Friend the Minister.
Thirdly, there is a significant impact on our local authority, and the right hon. Gentleman talked about the issues. The London borough of Croydon, as a social services authority, has responsibility for more than 700 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That compares with about 300 children from Croydon, so its social services role is very different from that of many other local authorities. Finally, immigration and asylum is a big issue with residents. Croydon has seen significant demographic change over the past 10 or 20 years. I am pleased to say that in most parts of my constituency, and most parts of the town, relations between different communities are good. However, in a few areas there has been significant activity from the British National party. I am pleased that it did not make the predicted breakthrough at the recent local elections.
Immigration and asylum was also a significant issue in the general election campaign. I suspect that other right hon. and hon. Members here today were contacted by Citizens for Sanctuary during the general election and asked to sign the sanctuary pledge. It gave me far and away my most uncomfortable moment during the campaign because I strongly feel that it is inappropriate to detain children, but, given that the party manifesto did not contain a specific commitment to end the practice, I felt that it was inappropriate for me to make a pledge without confidence that it could be delivered. The issue is important to me personally and to my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has visited Yarl’s Wood on several occasions and has spoken publicly about how distressing he found seeing children who are effectively behind bars.
The evidence in favour of changing the approach of the previous Government has been mounting for some time. The first UK study of its kind on the subject was published on 15 October last year in “Child Abuse & Neglect: the International Journal”. A team of doctors examined 24 children detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre. They found that the majority were experiencing mental and physical health difficulties related to being in detention. The Royal Colleges of Paediatrics and Child Health, of General Practitioners and of Psychiatrists, and the UK Faculty of Public Health produced a long and detailed report. Dr Philip Collins, a forensic adolescent psychiatrist representing the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:
“The harsh reality about this country’s immigration policy is that we are significantly damaging the mental health of many of the children and young people who end up—through no fault of their own—being detained in a prison-like environment by the UK Border Agency. The evidence is clear: this policy directly harms the mental health of children and young people. That is why the Royal College of Psychiatrists calls on the UK Government to end this practice without delay.”
On 17 February this year, we had the report of Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the former Children’s Commissioner for England:
“Children continue to report that they find the process of arrest and transportation distressing. Increasingly, children are separated from parents when transported to the centre. Most are not told what will happen to their belongings and pets left behind and many have difficulty contacting friends.”
While acknowledging that health care standards improved, the report states that significant areas require attention, saying that
“a mother informed the nurse at 11.20 pm that her five year old child had fallen earlier in the playground. The child could not lift her arm and was not seen by the GP until 2.05pm the next day and went to A&E at 7.02 pm,”
the next evening, and was found to have a fracture.
There is also the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, which, to be fair to the previous Government, noted that conditions, services and support for children, including a new school and better health care, have improved:
“However, given that the fact of detention adversely affected children’s welfare, inspectors were concerned that their detention did not appear to be exceptional or necessary, given that half the families detained were later released under temporary admission.”
As I say, the evidence that the policy the previous Government pursued was wrong has been mounting for some time. It must surely be possible to balance the need to remove those with no right to be in this country with the need to protect the welfare of children. I was glad to see in the coalition agreement a commitment to end the detention of children, which takes on the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations and, arguably, goes a little further. My hon. Friend the Minister has announced that the review is under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will confirm that the official Opposition will reconsider their approach.
I have a few questions for my hon. Friend before I close. The right hon. Member for Leicester East touched on the first: how long will the review take? I understand that while it is being carried out, some detention will continue but a time scale would be helpful. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend ran through the options that will be considered as part of the review; one was potentially separating families so some family members could remain in their home. I was pleased to hear that he recognised that that would be contentious. If we move from detaining children to breaking up families, it could be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire. Will the Minister tell us more about the pilot scheme looking at possibilities away from detention that UKBA has been running in Glasgow? The initial results showed that there had been some success, with people voluntarily choosing to return to their country of origin.
Will my hon. Friend tell us a little about the case management approach that a number of other countries have adopted in recent years to end the practice of detention? He talked a little about that in his opening remarks, but I understand that the policy that has been pursued in Sweden, for example, has reached the point where more than three quarters of families now voluntarily agree to return to their place of origin.
In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Weir, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was extremely gratified to see that the commitment to act on this issue was in the coalition agreement. I am also gratified to see that the Minister has already acted to set up a review, and I look forward to hearing how he intends to take it forward.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The issue is important not only because of the numbers of children who are detained, but, sadly, because it symbolises how far the Labour Government had gone, in some aspects, from the ideals that motivate many millions of the party’s supporters.
When I raised the issue on the Floor of the House about two years ago, I was one of the first people to do so. I have visited Oakington detention centre and Yarl’s Wood, and I have had two debates on the Floor of the House about children in detention. As hon. Members will have heard earlier, and as they will certainly have read in the documentation, no reputable organisation defends this practice, which almost certainly puts us in breach of the European convention on human rights. All reputable organisations—whether it is United Nations organisations in this country, Save the Children, the Refugee Council or Liberty—are united in opposition to this practice.
The practice of detaining children is wrong in principle. What are we doing detaining children in custody when they have committed no crime? Hon. Members might be surprised to know that when I discuss the issue with friends and colleagues in foreign legislatures—even those in third-world countries—they are surprised that Britain, of all countries, detains children indefinitely. When looking at these issues, we must always remember that the history of empire means that people look to Britain to set an example, but we are not setting one on this matter.
Detention was wrong in principle, and it was almost certainly in breach of a number of human rights conventions, but it was also wrong in practice. I know that because I have visited the detention centres. Ministers will tell us about the improvements, and they will tell us that everything is the parents’ fault because they should have left when they were supposed to. However, when we go to the detention centres to meet the families and the children, particularly if we have children ourselves, it is brought home to us on a level that we cannot put down on paper—even in excellent reports such as those by the Home Affairs Committee—what it means to children to be detained and deprived of their liberty. However wonderful the facilities, the children cannot run outside as far as the eye can see. As far as they are concerned, they are behind four walls. They have almost certainly been brought into detention in traumatic circumstances, such as after a morning raid, and they find themselves locked up for reasons they can scarcely comprehend—and locked up, in their view, is what they are. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who will speak for the Opposition, I have actually visited the detention centres and the children. Detention is a restriction of children’s liberty, and they face the trauma that that entails.
There are also issues about the conditions, some of which were dealt with by the Labour party when it was in government, but some of which were not. At Yarl’s Wood, in particular, there is an inflammable atmosphere. We have just had riots, and there have been all sorts of problems. Most recently—earlier this year—women were on hunger strike. Part of that inflammable atmosphere has to do with the underlying tension about the fact that children are detained at Yarl’s Wood.
Party colleagues will say that the parents chose not to go home at the first time of asking, so they are responsible for their children’s being in custody. Whenever I raise the issue on the Floor of the House, I hear that it is not the Government’s fault and that the parents are responsible, but where in the practice of justice and in the way in which this country is run are we in the business of punishing children for what their parents have done?
Keith Vaz
There is another issue, which I raised in my speech. Why do people have to wait so long for their cases to be dealt with? Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with cases in a more timely fashion and clearing the Home Office backlog would help to make the system more humane? She is absolutely right about the detention of children, but the reason why we have so many cases is that they are not being dealt with quickly enough.
Ms Abbott
My right hon. Friend has great experience as a constituency MP. He probably does more immigration casework than any constituency MP, and he has been doing it for 23 years. Added to that is his experience as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes an excellent point: the delays help to create an intolerable situation for people trapped in the system.
I am one of the longest-serving Members of the House present today, and I remember when detention centres were introduced. The House was told that they would be used only for short periods while we fast-tracked cases and deported people. Had the House been told that children, in particular, would be in these centres for months—there have even been cases of children being in them for nearly a year—it might have taken a very different attitude. A system that was meant to be used for short periods of detention while people’s cases were fast-tracked has turned into one—I have visited the detention centres myself—in which people and their children are held in limbo. That is one of the things that make this practice so unacceptable.
As I said, the detention of children is wrong in principle; it is wrong because it is an infringement of their liberty. It is also wrong because, in a way, we are making children and families suffer for the issues in our system, and the delays are very much part of that. We set a very poor example to other countries and other jurisdictions if we cannot construct a system in which it is not necessary to detain children.
The purpose of the detention centres, apart from expediting removals, was to act as a deterrent. There has been a strong feeling over the past 13 years that the grimmer and more exacting we made the regime for asylum seekers and immigrants, the less likely they were to come here. However, people must recognise that, for better or worse, the push-factors behind people migrating and seeking asylum are very great, and the idea that turning the screw one more time will see numbers drop has proved false.
We need to focus as never before on having an efficient and speedy system, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and I have spent 23 years struggling with the delays. In the long run, we also have to deal with the circumstances in people’s countries of origin that make them think, in their desperation, that they will chance their arm by coming to this country.
After 23 years of immigration and asylum casework, I would add that we also need to deal with some of the so-called immigration and legal advisers who prey on our constituents and give them false advice and false hope. Often, it is not the would-be immigrants or asylum seekers who put themselves on the path of collision with the authorities, but the advice they get from people who are feeding off them and making money out of them, even though they have little money to spend.
In the immediate term, we need to deal with the ongoing inefficiencies in the system and bear down on some of the lawyers and so-called immigration advisers. Although we are obviously very constrained, we also need, in the very long term, to create the right conditions in people’s regions of origin so that it is not necessary for them to flee here. That is the way to deal with the system.
Successive bodies and individuals have tried to get past Governments to deal with this issue. It was a particular preoccupation of a previous Children’s Commissioner and it is a preoccupation of the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, who did a comprehensive report on the issue two or three years ago. As I said, every reputable organisation that has looked at this has said that the detention of children is wrong in principle and detrimental to children in practice. Medical work has been done on the consequences of the stressful situation for children, and it is very alarming. I have said before, including to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, when she was a Minister: how can we, the politicians, agree to keep children in circumstances that would horrify us if they were proposed for our own children?
It must be wrong to punish children for the alleged infractions of their parents. There must be a better way than that. The way, of course, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) said, is not to split families but to bear down on the aspects of the system—whether the advice that is given or the speed with which cases are dealt with—that lead to people being in such a plight. What has been happening is wrong. There must be a way forward that does not involve splitting up families.
I have raised the issue time and again in the House and in questions, and I have visited detention centres, not because there are votes in worrying about the children in those centres but because I felt that what was happening was wrong, and that there must be a better way. It gives me no pleasure to say that it has taken a new Government to take a fresh look at the question. I hope they will not let the tribulations of office and its practical difficulties deflect them from ending what has been this country’s shame: the detention of innocent children in detention centres.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Weir, for calling me to speak for the first time in Westminster Hall. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who spoke as powerfully as ever on the issue in question. It was a great pleasure to hear her speak at the Liberty annual general meeting on Saturday; she spoke movingly about many issues, and I wish her the best of luck with her forthcoming selection process. I shall not say that I support her, as that might do her more damage than anything else.
I am delighted that the debate has been obtained, because the issue is very important. I have always felt that a good test of the underlying morals and values of a country is the way it treats people who cannot defend or look after themselves, and the most vulnerable people in society. That description applies to all sorts of groups, and child detainees are one of them. We fail the test incredibly badly in relation to them; we can talk another time about how well we do in other respects. It is a matter of great shame to this country that we treat people so badly.
The topic of the debate is alternatives to child detention. The main alternative that I can think of to detaining 1,000 children a year is not to detain them. That, above all, is what I want to say. We simply should not detain them. The suggestion that we should detain the family but not the children is at least as bad. We should not even consider something that tears families apart at what is often a difficult time for them. That leaves the question of what we can do with the children in the case in question, and before I discuss that I want to explain why I am concerned about the issue.
Cambridge has a great history as somewhere that is very multicultural and tolerant, with people from various backgrounds, and a number of people there have been involved in various ways with detainees. I might mention, in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), that the Conservative candidate in Cambridge was one of the Conservatives who signed the sanctuary pledge; ours was one of very few constituencies where every candidate did so. I am delighted that we did, and I wish it had happened elsewhere.
We are also very near the Oakington detention centre, which has a sad and sorry history. Children are not the main focus there, but recently it hit the news because of the death of one gentleman in detention in April. I am currently dealing with a case of serious assault there. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has been there to look around. I spoke to her earlier about my request to do so too: that visit was scheduled, but has now been delayed. I fear that my speaking here today means that it will be delayed further, but I look forward to the chance to see it.
Keith Vaz
On that point—I know the hon. Gentleman was not here for some of the earlier speeches—when the Select Committee asked to make a visit it took a long time to get that sorted out. When we got there, I think 10 Home Office officials attended, and only about three from Serco. There was a total of about 15; the room was full. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s wish, as it is my hope, that the new Government will perhaps let us in more often, if we ask?
Dr Huppert
It is indeed a problem getting in; my predecessor, David Howarth, tried to get in and was told that it was not possible for him to do that. It is somewhat worrying if there are institutions in this country in a state such that MPs cannot be allowed in to have a look.
Dr Huppert
Indeed; I plan to be persistent. I accept the fact that unexpected circumstances sometimes mean that things must be cancelled. One deferral is fine, but if the arrangement keeps being deferred I shall be more concerned, and shall certainly raise the matter here.
To move on to the issue of children, we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Croydon Central about the effects of detention on mental health; we have heard about its effects on physical health and overall well-being, and about the future that we are providing for the children in question. It is hard to see how any of that fits with the UK Border Agency’s statutory duty under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the way in which it is supposed to treat children, or with article 37 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which states that detention should be used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. It would be hard to say that that is being carried out.
Another issue is the advice and help that the children and their parents get. I had planned to speak for longer and to discuss legal aid for Refugee and Migrant Justice, but early-day motion 191 on that topic was discussed on the Floor of the House today, so I shall not take up time with it now; nevertheless, it is essential that we provide the right support to people.
The way in which we deal with age-disputed children is also a real issue. With very young children things are clear for all concerned. They are children, and there is no doubt. They should not be detained. We need to provide much more family-friendly and child-friendly solutions. There is a concern about children who claim to be, say, 17; it is hard to tell whether such a claim is honest. We need a clear, fair process to try to establish the age of those people. In many cases it will not be hard. We need a clear routine that appears fair and does not seem—as in so many cases that I have been made aware of—like arbitrary justice, with decisions being made semi-arbitrarily, based on various factors, about whether the truth is being told. It is hard on teenagers who are already in very difficult circumstances to tell them that there is no way for them to interact sensibly with the process.
The question was raised earlier whether we should punish children for the sins of their parents. I do not see seeking sanctuary in this country as a sin or something worthy of punishment. It is worthy of rapid decisions about whether people are genuine sanctuary seekers, who should be coming to this country—and we should open ourselves as we would hope other countries would, to support people in need—or whether there is something false about the story, in which case things are different. In any event, punishment is not the route. Trying to control the people coming to this country by being as nasty as possible to them while they are here is not worthy of this country. There are other issues that must be dealt with, and international development is clearly the right process for that, as has been mentioned.
The UK Border Agency needs to work faster. I am constantly coming across cases that have taken years to process, and that gives rise to questions about how fairly and rapidly the system works. The aim must be to reach a decision quickly and fairly about whether people are genuine sanctuary seekers, so that if they are not they go, and if they are they can stay. At the moment, it takes far too long. Competence is a serious issue in relation to the UKBA in several wider respects, which have even affected people who came to work for me in my former profession, from such places as the USA. There is something fundamentally wrong, in my experience, with the way the agency operates.
We need to end child detention as quickly as possible. I am delighted that that is in the coalition agreement. It is a fantastic aspect of the coalition that we can finally end such an awful thing. We owe the people of this country better than child detention, and I look forward to our fulfilling our aim in that respect.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir.
I have some questions for the Minister, and to help him respond fully it may help him if I go through them before I make any other comments, and pick up on hon. Members’ points. As to Dungavel, what, currently, will happen if a family in Scotland are required to leave the country—to be deported? Where are they sent, and how is that dealt with?
The Minister spoke about local authorities, and working more closely with them. I wonder whether the Government are planning to work with all local authorities equally, or whether they will build on the existing model that applies to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It is a slightly different model, and involves specialist local authorities that are particularly adept at dealing with these challenging issues.
What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities to make them aware of the situation regarding children liable to be removed, and of how the process will work? I know that it is early days, but I wonder whether he could give some guidance, because I am sure that the Local Government Association and individual authorities will be keen to know how it will work practically.
I am also interested to know how the Government propose to work with community organisations. We hear a lot about the big society. Like many people, I am keen to know what it actually means. I shall touch on some of the work with community organisations that was under way while my party was in government, but I am keen to hear a bit about the Government’s plans. Perhaps, if the Minister is unable to answer here and now, he could provide some information in writing in due course.
This debate is about alternatives to child detention. I have had the opportunity to speak to those who are responsible for the project in Glasgow. I do not know whether the Minister managed that on his visit to Glasgow this week, but I am pleased that he is going around the different nations of the UK to discuss the matter. What progress has there been on the Glasgow project? To date, has any family actually left voluntarily as a result of that very intense intervention, which I believe involves two social workers working with around four families at a time? I wonder whether there has yet been a success story, because, sadly, there had not been one as I left office, but I have great hopes that the project can deliver some results. It is still early days, but I would be keen to hear an update on it.
The Minister mentioned the assisted voluntary returns package but did not absolutely pledge that it will continue, although I did not hear him say that it would not. I would be keen to hear some clarification on the future of the package, particularly in the current financial situation. It is a reasonably generous package of up to £5,000 per individual, and I wonder whether the Government plan to keep it at that level, and whether the Minister has a hotline to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is his right hon. Friend these days, to ensure that that money will be there to enable the alternatives to progress. I welcome the fact that the Minister is cautious about the separation of families, and I shall touch on that in a moment.
An interesting issue in this area is the impact on human trafficking. Clearly, children are trafficked. If they are never detained, there is a risk that that could become a pull factor for those who have mal-intent towards children. In constructing the review and taking account of views, is there any particular oversight of that threat, so that as the review progresses and proposals come forward, it is considered, and there are not perverse outcomes which none of us in the House would want?
On that, would the Minister pledge to monitor the impact on children in what we might call private fostering? As the previous Minister, I was responsible for this area. There were occasions when adults were detained but the children would be elsewhere, and it could take some time to locate the children when the parents and family themselves had decided to separate. That lays open terrible potential risks to children in terms of child protection and safety. Again, if the review is well done and well constructed, the matter could possibly be dealt with, but there is a potential perverse outcome which the Government need to be aware of and plan against.
Has the Minister had any recent legal advice about section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 on the duty of care for children, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and its impact on the review? There has been previous legal advice, but I wonder whether the Minister is seeking legal advice about the impact of that legislation.
There has been some discussion of the importance of legal advice, with which I certainly agree. I wonder whether any further action has been proposed, either as part of the review or separately, on improving legal advice, which has dogged all of us as constituency Members who deal with casework but also anyone in government who has to deal with these challenges. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
The current proposal is to continue some detention, but, according to the coalition agreement—I stand to be corrected if I have misunderstood it—there is an intent to hold a family with children for between 24 and 72 hours only. What would happen in the current situation if a family with children who are already in detention launch a judicial review at the 11th hour? Will the Minister ever continue to detain the family? Does he rule that out, or do the Government not currently have a definite position? I hope that because I have given him notice of questions, he will be able to answer them fully.
We heard some useful contributions from Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has spoken many times on this subject. I should point out that the backlog has been a bugbear for us all as constituency MPs, and for anyone in the House who has any interest in the matter, but it has reduced. As a constituency MP and in my previous role, I have seen that and can testify to it.
I do, however, share a concern with my right hon. Friend about resources. Will progress go backwards now, given that there will be tight controls on and reductions in Government spending? Let us be honest: we are interested in this issue, but many people up and down the country would not see it as a priority. I wonder whether it is a priority of the current Government to make resources available to ensure that the backlog continues to go down, and that there is support for those going through the system so that they can get the right advice.
My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that the backlog does not help the situation regarding detention. Families who see other families staying for a long time because they have been caught up in the backlog are led to believe that there is not a real prospect of their leaving.
Keith Vaz
I do not want to prejudge my hon. Friend’s memoirs detailing her period in government before they eventually come out, but is it the case that the Home Office did not ask for more resources, or was it just not given more resources? Was there a plea to the Treasury that if there were more resources, more could be done about the issue?
Meg Hillier
I worked with two Home Secretaries who were robust in defending the Home Office’s need for resources for several areas, but, as the Minister will find out in his new role, resources are always challenging in a Department such as the Home Office. There are many priorities, and every time resources are put into one area, there is a risk that another area will bubble up, as I believe he with his greater experience dealing with these matters in Parliament will know.
Resources were always an issue, but it was not as simple as that. Often, local authorities did not want cases decided as quickly as they could have been because of the challenge of then housing and providing for families. There had to be some negotiation so that families who were able to stay were properly provided for in local authorities.
Ms Abbott
Would my hon. Friend agree that delays, which bear on child detention, are part of a process that feeds on itself? The more delays there are, the more people have shoddy legal advisers who tell them, basically, to play for time. If at some point we could bear down on the delays, it would save us money in the medium term.
Meg Hillier
I believe that my hon. Friend would agree that, as constituency MPs, we have seen reductions in the delays. I certainly am seeing that, and the figures that the Government can provide will show that they have reduced. Yes, as she rightly says, there is a self-propelling, negative cycle.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) raised some questions about the Opposition’s position, and I shall make that clear. Actually, the approach of the Government is very much the approach that was under way as the previous Government left office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that she has visited detention centres and seen what goes on there. I, too, have visited them, and that was one reason I was keen, as the Minister then responsible, to have a review and to work with organisations that had an interest in the matter. As I communicated to her and, in particular, to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and who was very interested in the matter, I was frustrated that a great deal of energy was being spent on argument and disagreement, not solutions. Any solution would not have solved the problem overnight. Do Members not think that in the past 13 years the Government would have stopped detention overnight if it were that easy? It is not that easy, and that is the reality of government.
Meg Hillier
Could I make some progress, please? Let us be clear that Yarl’s Wood also houses foreign national prisoners, not just families with children. We should get it into the debate that families with children are not the only people housed there.
I worry that my hon. Friend has forgotten our conversations in which I explained my plans to revisit some of the issues surrounding children in detention. Some work was done by previous Ministers responsible for immigration to improve support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, create expert local authorities that were able to deal better with those children, and create a children’s champion within the UK Border Agency.
At the end of last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), who in the past had focused more widely on the issue of children in the immigration system, spoke to me about his desire to see a particular ministerial focus on the issue of children in detention. He asked me to take on that responsibility. As I have said, I wanted to look at the whole picture, and I began that process by meeting a number of organisations involved, and the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire and the former Member for Bedford, because of their particular interest in this matter. Out of that meeting, held under the Chatham House rule—I will not name those who were there, although hon. Members would not be worried about that—we came up with the view that early legal advice was important, and that the early legal advice project already under way needed to be boosted. I subsequently met the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and ensured that we worked closely with it, because of its desire to see a difference in that area. That was a helpful partnership and I also worked with local groups.
Ms Abbott
I remember our conversations with great clarity. My hon. Friend is a good friend and colleague, but we took diametrically opposed views on the issue of children in detention. I thought that it was wrong, and I have always thought that. One argument is that there is a problem because this is not an easy matter, but the real Home Office position was revealed in many statements, which claimed that ultimately, children in detention were not the responsibility of the Government but that it was the fault of their parents. Behind that lies a narrative on immigration that suggests that the more punitive the system is made, the less likely people are to abuse it.
Meg Hillier
I disagree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps I could remind her that we both agreed that we should not let the better be the enemy of the good. I was attempting to improve the system, and I am pleased that we are now seeing further steps along those lines. A better take-up of assisted voluntary return was a particular issue, and I pushed hard for third parties to do that. The Government felt that it was not always appropriate if such matters were dealt with by the person who was deciding on the immigration claim, and I hope that that will be a major part of the review. Excess baggage is not a new issue, but it is an equally important one to help people settle back. We need a clearer process in which people know from the beginning what the options are, and work on that with community groups has been important. Removal directions should be provided in the community. Those things are all part of the plan and the intense work that the UK Border Agency was beginning to undertake, prior to the election.
The previous Government were learning from the best models from abroad, and the new Government are continuing with that. However, we must recognise that even those models from abroad—in Australia and Sweden, for example—allow for children to be detained under difficult circumstances. I refer the House to an Adjournment debate from 10 February 2010, in which I flagged up some of those issues, although at that point I had not met a number of the groups.
I wish this approach well, as it is the way in which the previous Government attempted to deal with the situation. However, it was not easy, and I am a little puzzled. Today the Minister reiterates an announcement of the end of children being detained, and he re-announces a welcome review that was already under way. In his opening speech, he clearly highlighted the likelihood of detention immediately prior to a flight. I refer back to my point about what would happen in the case of a late legal challenge; that is an issue that needs to be tackled and supported by the whole legal process. The Minister also mentioned the Afghanistan centre for Afghan teenagers, and I wonder whether that marks a division in the coalition, especially given the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cambridge.
Damian Green
I am grateful for the unanimous support for this policy from all sides of the Chamber.
Damian Green
Absolutely. This is the second time this week that something has happened to me that I suspect will never happen again. I attended the Citizens for Sanctuary summer party where, as the new Minister for Immigration, one expects to get brickbats, but instead I was given a bouquet. I suspect that that will be the last time, so I thought that I would enjoy it while it lasted. This debate is a metaphorical conclusion of that experience.
I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties for their contributions. The only comment that verged on the slightly churlish was the conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who was attempting desperately to find splits in the coalition. I am extremely pleased and proud to be advocating our policy, which was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The hon. Lady will toil in vain if she seeks to find splits in that area.
A number of important practical points were raised and questions asked in the debate, and I will now deal with those. First, let me say that I was remiss in not thanking the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for all the expertise and personal kindness that she showed when she was in government and I was in opposition.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly mentioned the review by the Home Affairs Committee. As he said, he recognises many of the ideas that the Government have put forward, as many were mentioned in past reviews by that Committee. I look forward to further expert contributions from the Committee. He also went through some of the statistics for children in detention, which I think bear greater examination. He mentioned the figure of just over 1,000 for the number of children in detention in 2009. If that annual figure is broken down, one finds the slightly depressing fact that the numbers go up as we go through the year: the figure for the third quarter is higher than that for the second or first quarters.
As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said, the central difficulty is about what should be done at the end of the process if a family simply refuses to go. Detention under the system that we are getting rid of was not necessarily effective. Of the 1,068 children who departed from detention in 2008-09, only 539 were removed and 629 were released back. There are clearly difficulties with the efficacy of removal and with taking away detention as an option—something that we are doing for all the reasons that have been advanced during the debate—but even with detention, more children were released back into the community than were removed. The old system was not particularly effective, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East for stating the actual figures, as they illustrate that fact tellingly.
Meg Hillier
Will the Minister confirm that those who were taken out of detention were never brought back into detention so as to be removed from the country again, or indeed removed from the country by another route?
Damian Green
I am not entirely sure that I understood that question. Is the hon. Lady saying that those who were eventually removed had never been detained and then released, and then detained again and later removed? Is that what she is saying? The honest answer is that I do not know. I was not the Minister at that time. She was. If she says that that is the case, I am grateful for the information.
Many hon. Members have mentioned Yarl’s Wood and other detention centres. I have visited Yarl’s Wood on several occasions, and in my experience the regime got markedly better over the years. Last time I visited, a functioning school was in operation and so on, and it was a much more humane place than it had been in previous years. I pay tribute to the Ministers who were involved in supervising that, as well as to the staff of the UK Border Agency who made sure that it happened. I suspect that we have all had the same experience. However, even when that place was in its most humane phase, it was still disturbing to see children locked up behind bars. That is one of the things that impels our policy.
There was mention of children at Harmondsworth. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Member for Leicester East, because it is my understanding that there are and were no children held at Harmondsworth. If I have misunderstood, I apologise, but I thought that he had said that there were.
Damian Green
I am grateful for that clarification. The position was not entirely clear.
The point was rightly made about access to local authority services. Local authority social services are embedded at Yarl’s Wood; they are there permanently.
My final point about the statistics is that the figure was more than 1,000 and it is now five, so we are doing our best, even in the interim phase while the review is going on, to keep the numbers to an absolute minimum.
Various Members on both sides of the Chamber brought up the issue of delays, which lead to problems in the system. I think that I was being invited by the right hon. Gentleman to give a new time scale for the end of the legacy. Given all his experience, he will excuse me from making such commitments in my second outing at the Dispatch Box, but he will know, from having sat through many of these debates with me in the past four years, that like him, I have been very exercised by the problem of delay.
I dare say that those who were Ministers in the previous Government would not dissent from the basic proposition that the long delays embedded in the system lead to many of the associated problems that we see. Bearing down on those delays and getting rid of the old legacy, as it has been called, as fast as possible is clearly a high priority. That will have beneficial spin-offs throughout the asylum system and, indeed, the wider immigration system.
At various stages, the debate drifted into a general immigration debate, and it is perfectly reasonable that the same points apply in that context. The fewer delays we have, the more likely we are to avoid the problems that we have seen, although it is a fair point—it was made by Ministers in the previous Government and will be made by me—that not every delay in the system is caused by the system. Not every delay is caused by the border agency. Some delay is caused by the legal processes that people have the right to go through and do go through.
Ms Abbott
On the question of delays, one thing that successive Ministers in the previous Administration never understood is that if we, in a panic—usually occasioned by the tabloid press—bear down on one aspect of the system, all that does is displace pressure to another aspect. That is why we were never successful in dealing with delays overall. We bore down on one thing—Romanian ladies in headscarves—and then got a bulge of children who claimed to be 18 but were not. So I beg, in a non-party political way, for a strategic, all-embracing approach. That in the end will produce the desired result.
Damian Green
I agree with that point and will seek to take the friendly advice that the hon. Lady offers across the Chamber in that regard.
Gavin Barwell
Does the Minister agree that one of the other reasons for delay and one that causes great frustration to UKBA staff is the difficulty of returning people to certain countries? Will he work with colleagues at the Foreign Office to see whether we can secure improved arrangements in that regard?
Damian Green
Absolutely so. The whole Government are working very hard to ensure that those who have no right to remain here are returned to their countries of origin. My hon. Friend, who has huge expertise already in this matter, representing Croydon Central, will have noticed that when the Government and the UK Border Agency have some successes in that regard, it is not universally popular. We are being criticised this week for resuming returns to Iraq, but that has to be part of the process; otherwise, the process will silt up.
Let me make some progress, as I am conscious of the time and there are many questions to answer. A point made by various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East, was about resources. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the state of the public finances left by the Government he supported for 13 years. As a result, there will be difficulties. All I can sensibly say is that the management of resources is as important as the quantum of resources. That is one of the things that the new Government are most eager to get to grips with as fast as possible, and we shall be doing so as part of the general spending review.
Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, asked about the Glasgow pilot. She will know that it encourages refused asylum seeker families to return voluntarily by providing intensive support, which is focused on helping families to confront issues that delay a return and building up skills to prepare for a voluntary return. Thirty-two families have been referred to the Glasgow pilot; 11 have been accommodated there. I am afraid that nothing has changed in that regard since the hon. Lady left office. No families have elected to return voluntarily to their home countries, and enforced departure has taken place of three families who were initially accepted into the project. However, she and I need not despair at this point, because one of the things that I learned when I was in Glasgow earlier this week was that the fact of that project has spread awareness of assisted voluntary return much more widely among the various communities—she will be aware that there are large numbers of such families there—which in itself has led to a significant surge in applications for voluntary return. The availability of that process and the information on it is quite heartening in terms of the wider review that I am conducting. The more aware we can make families of the existence of voluntary return, the more they seem to be interested in it. It is a difficult set of options before the Government, but that is one of the heartening points that should be made.
I will attempt to answer all the questions the hon. Lady asked. On Dungavel, in the one or two cases that occur now, the families are moved to Yarl’s Wood, so that is the only place where they are being held. The problem is lessening slightly as I progress through this speech. I have now learned that only three children are in detention at the moment at Yarl’s Wood. She asked, as others did, about local authorities. Clearly, the local authorities with the most expertise, whether we are talking about Croydon, Kent or Hillingdon—the ones that people would expect to be involved—will play a significant role in the review, but I take her point that other local authorities will need to be informed.
The hon. Lady asked about community organisations. One reason for trying to get out as much as possible is to engage not only the national end of the various organisations that are most concerned with either the welfare of children or, specifically, families in the position that we are discussing, but the organisations on the ground around the country, so that they can contribute their considerable expertise to the review.
On assisted voluntary return, the hon. Lady makes the point that we are living in a time of spending stringency. All I can sensibly say at this point is that, as she knows, in the long run nothing is as expensive as detention. Building and maintaining detention centres is more expensive than providing people with packages to return voluntarily, so if all goes well, the net effect on the public purse will also be beneficial.
The hon. Lady asked about the legal advice that I am receiving. All I can say gently is that I do not remember her ever sharing the legal advice that she received from Home Office lawyers when she was standing at the Dispatch Box. That was a very good habit of hers, which I intend to take up.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It has been extremely constructive. This is not necessarily an easy problem to solve, but we all agree that it must be solved. We cannot go on with the system that we had in the past. The final big question was when we shall finish the review. The report will be on my desk in the early weeks of July, and I shall proceed with all possible speed after that to come to a full conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Further Education Colleges and Training Organisations
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)
I am pleased to inform Parliament that the Government are announcing today a series of measures aimed at boosting economic recovery. These measures will give further education colleges and training organisations greater freedom to deliver the education and training that employers and individuals need, and to raise opportunities for lifelong learning through a system that is freed of unnecessary bureaucracy, and driven by empowered, informed learners.
The main measures are:
All colleges, except those which are performing poorly, to be given new freedoms to move money between budgets. This will allow them to respond quickly to local demand.
Working to bring colleges into line with schools in respect of Ofsted inspection, so that colleges which achieve outstanding results do not face inspection unless their performance drops.
Refocusing £150 million of resources to expand the number of apprenticeships available; and £50 million to support FE capital development;
Giving learners the information they need to drive the system, through the publication of clear and consistent information about performance, quality and standards.
I will be writing today to all colleges and training organisations about these and other changes, which will help them to focus on meeting the demands of employers and learners in their areas.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will also be writing to the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency—the body responsible for funding colleges and training organisations—confirming his priorities for the adult education and skills budget in 2010-11, including the refocusing of £150 million to pay for 50,000 extra apprenticeship places this year, and £50 million for new capital grants to colleges. A key goal will be to strengthen the supply of qualifications that are valued by employers; and to secure high-quality training opportunities to help unemployed people get the skills they need for work-readiness and sustainable employment; as well as encouraging an increasing number of people to participate in adult and community learning, both to re-engage those disenchanted by previous educational experience and to offer people opportunities to enrich their lives through learning.
Underpinning these changes, we are seeking to empower learners so that they can drive the learning and skills delivered by colleges and training organisations. A professional and impartial advice and guidance service will be available to support learners. Publication of clear information about the performance of colleges and training organisations will allow learners and employers to make well-informed choices. This will include information about learner success rates, learner and employer satisfaction, and the destinations of those who leave learning. As a result of the freedoms that we are announcing today, colleges and training organisations will be able to respond quickly and flexibly to their choices, offering a wide range of programmes that drive both high-tech innovation and new enterprise and support adult recreational learning.
Over the coming months, the Government will be looking at a wide range of other ways to remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the system, and we will be making further announcements in due course.
Houses in Multiple Occupation
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing (Grant Shapps)
Today I am announcing the Government’s intention to amend the planning rules for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) which were introduced on 6 April 2010.
I understand the concerns of local people who see their neighbourhoods being damaged by undue concentrations of HMOs and the significant impact this is having on their quality of life. However there are also many areas where HMOs are not causing problems and indeed provide an important supply of low cost housing. I believe that the planning system needs to take account of both these differing circumstances and allow for local solutions rather than continue with the present “one size fits all” approach.
The current rules impose a blanket requirement for planning permission in order to change use from a domestic house to a HMO. When introduced, it was estimated that these rules could result in an additional 8,500 planning applications per year and could lead to a reduction in supply. This goes against the recommendations in successive reports on the planning system that Government should reduce the number of planning applications for minor development. It also runs the risk of losing low cost housing in areas where it is needed most.
I believe that we need to move away from this kind of centralised, regulatory approach which has dominated planning in recent years and create a system which encourages local people to take responsibility for shaping their communities. Decisions should reflect local priorities expressed through the local plan, rather than nationally imposed rules.
I therefore intend to amend the HMO rules to allow changes of use between family houses and small, shared houses to take place freely without the need for planning applications. However, in those areas experiencing problems with uncontrolled HMO development, local authorities will be able to use their existing direction-making powers to restrict this freedom of movement by requiring planning applications. This change will allow the free development of smaller shared housing, which is a vital component of our private rented sector, unless there is a serious threat to the area.
My officials will work through the detail of the proposed changes with interested partners to ensure that the new rules work for local people without placing an unnecessary burden on businesses.
My aim is to have the revised arrangements in place by 1 October 2010.
Defence Vetting Agency: Key Targets Financial Year 2010-11
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Vetting Agency for financial year 2010-11 to deliver national security vetting to defence customers. Delivery of vetting to its repayment customers will be to similar standards as set out in their joint business agreements.
Key target 1: External validation of quality of defence vetting cases
To achieve at least a 98% satisfaction rating with 200 cases independently selected and reviewed from a random sample of security check (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases completed in the preceding 12-month period.
Key target 2: Delivering excellent customer service
To maintain customer service excellence accreditation.
Key target 3: Completing routine cases for defence customers
a. 85% of counter terrorist checks (CTC) within 30 calendar days.
b. 85% of SCs within 30 calendar days.
c. 85% of DVs within 100 calendar days.
Key target 4: Completing priority cases for defence customers
a. 95% of CTC/SCs within 10 calendar days.
b. 95% of DVs within 30 calendar days.
Key target 5: Completing aftercare cases for defence customers by
a. Taking into action all aftercare incident reports within seven calendar days of receipt.
b. Taking into action 95% of scheduled aftercare within 30 calendar days of the scheduled date of review.
c. Taking into action (where appropriate) 95% of security appraisal reviews within 21 days of receipt.
The timeliness key targets represent net performance that exclude delays outside of DVA control.
Key Target 6: Delivery of the Cerberus project in line with planning tolerances.
a. Manage third party suppliers to provide their side of the Cerberus interfaces by September 2010.
b. Achieve an operational capability for e-forms and case management system by December 2010.
c. Achieve roll-out in line with plan to vetting customers by March 2011.
EU Environment Council
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 11 June, together with Lord Henley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Stewart Stevenson, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in the Scottish Government, also attended.
The presidency presented progress reports on the proposal for a regulation on biocidal products, the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) directive and the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive.
The Council agreed conclusions on forest protection, and water scarcity and drought. A number of member states intervened to stress the importance of adequately preparing forests for climate change, and the presidency highlighted the need to reconcile increasing water scarcity with rising demand. Ministers also agreed conclusions setting out the EU position for the forthcoming meeting of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in October, and conclusions in support of the “Rio+20” UN conference on sustainable development. Lord Henley stressed the importance of concrete outputs from the conference which recognised the need for sustainability, the importance of ecosystems services and international governance in line with future climate change arrangements.
Under any other business, the UK and Germany raised the forthcoming meeting of the International Whaling Convention (IWC). Lord Henley emphasised the importance of IWC reform to ensure conservation of whales, and stressed the need for the EU to show leadership and consistency in opposing commercial whaling. The French raised an AOB item pushing for a moratorium on the authorisation of genetically modified organisms; the UK welcomed the progress made by the Commission and stressed the importance of ensuring proportionate and efficient regulation, but argued against a moratorium.
The lunchtime discussion focused on international climate change. The presidency gave a presentation on the outreach activities undertaken by the presidency and the Commission during the past six months.
The Commission presented their communication analysing the options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. In the policy debate that followed, member states welcomed the communication as providing a solid evidence base for further discussions on this issue. I intervened to underline the key message of the communication that the costs of moving to a 30% target are significant but manageable, and that they have reduced since 2008. I expressed my hope that the EU would show leadership by increasing our target to 30%, and insisted that unless we do so it is very hard to imagine that we will be able to remain on the trajectory of keeping global temperature increase to within 2°C. While a number of other member states’ interventions supported these arguments, others highlighted the reduced capacity in the European economy for the investment which would be required to meet a higher target. The Council agreed conclusions on the communication which noted the need to return to the issues no later than October 2010 and welcomed the Commission’s intention to conduct more detailed analysis.
Lastly, the presidency presented a progress report on the proposed regulation on reducing CO2 emissions from light commercial vehicles (i.e. vans), which was noted by the Council.
Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Veterinary Laboratories Agency
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
The 2009-10 annual report and accounts for each of the following was laid before Parliament today:
Veterinary Laboratories Agency
Veterinary Medicines Directorate
NHS South West
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I have asked Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS in England, to initiate a review into the approach and behaviour of the NHS South West in relation to Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust, in particular, to the dismissal of John Watkinson and, by association, the trust’s position in relation to the provision of upper gastro-intestinal (GI) services in Cornwall.
John Watkinson was dismissed from his role as chief executive of the Royal Cornwall NHS Trust in April 2009. He took his case to employment tribunal, which has recently published its judgment that he was unfairly dismissed.
In the opinion of the employment tribunal, John Watkinson was unfairly dismissed because he made a “protected disclosure” covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The disclosure was linked to the reconfiguration of upper GI services in Cornwall. The employment tribunal also found that Royal Cornwall NHS Trust acted as it did as a result of pressure from the South West Strategic Health Authority (NHS South West).
Verita, a specialist company that conducts independent investigations, reviews and inquiries has been commissioned to undertake this review.
The Terms of Reference for this review will be;
to examine all the SHA’s interactions with the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust in relation to the dismissal of John Watkinson and, by association, the trust’s position in relation to the provision of the upper GI services in Cornwall. In particular, to determine:
the chronology of events and decisions made in the running up to the dismissal of John Watkinson;
what involvement NHS South West had in his dismissal and whether or not this was motivated by the reconfiguration of upper GI services or otherwise; and
whether the SHA acted appropriately, proportionately, in keeping with its role and within its statutory responsibilities.
The review should not duplicate the review of the upper GI service configuration which was recently carried out by the independent reconfiguration panel, nor any subsequent appeal of the employment tribunal’s decision. However, it may consider these and any other relevant background evidence to make its determinations.
The findings of the review will be published later this year and I will update the House on the outcome of the review and my response.
Rail Franchising
(13 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Department for Transport will shortly begin a consultation exercise on the future of rail franchising policy. This consultation will provide industry partners with the opportunity to comment on the Government’s approach to rail franchising and whether bidders for longer franchises would be able to offer investment in improvements to trains and services. It will also allow the industry to set out its proposals for improving the efficiency and value for money of rail franchises, for both taxpayers and fare payers. I will set out further details to the House in due course.
To enable the next Greater Anglia and Essex Thameside franchises—which are currently in the process of being re-let—fully to reflect the changes resulting from this review of policy the competitions for these franchises, which were started in January 2010, are to be cancelled.
It is currently expected that a new competition for the Greater Anglia franchise will be advertised by the end of the year, after the consultation responses have been considered, with the Essex Thameside franchise following in autumn 2011.
It is also expected that there will be some consequent changes to the procurement time scales previously published for the InterCity East Coast franchise. Rail services will continue to run as normal on all affected franchises. A prior information notice (PIN) setting out the Department’s proposed future rail franchising programme will be issued in due course.