House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
1. What recent assessment she has made of the level of problem drug use in this country compared to other EU member states.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The most recent estimate of problem drug users for England is 328,767 for 2006-07. Estimates for 2008-09 will be available in October. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction estimates show the UK with the highest rate, although there is no consistent methodology for calculating estimates across different countries, which prevents direct comparisons. Nevertheless, that level of problem drug use is unacceptable. The Government are committed to tackling it and rebalancing the treatment system so that abstinence is the clear goal.
Sarah Newton
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, but does she agree that one of the biggest problems at the moment is the availability of so-called legal highs? Does she agree that the previous Government were slow to address the issue, and can she assure the House—and especially the families in my constituency who have young people going off to university for the first time this autumn—that she will take action to protect people from such substances?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She has made an extremely valid point on an issue that will concern a large number of parents and others. She is right to say that the previous Government were slow to deal with the issue of legal highs, particularly mephedrone. It was only pushing from our party while in opposition that led them to do something about it, and we are committed to introducing a temporary ban on legal highs.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has the harshest drug laws in Europe and the highest number of addicts. Portugal has the least harsh policies in all of Europe and the smallest number of addicts. Why is this?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing campaigner on the issue of drugs. As it happens, he and I take a different view on how we should approach the issue. What we need to be doing in this country is looking at making abstinence much more of a goal for individuals and looking seriously at ensuring that the treatment and rehabilitation provided to drug addicts mean that they do not simply go back on drugs in future.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
2. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the effects on police investigations of plans to give anonymity to defendants in rape trials; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had a number of discussions on this issue with her cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Justice. We have made it clear that we will progress our commitment on this subject with the care that it merits. Our consideration of the options will of course include a full examination of any impact on police investigations.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister will know that this issue has been brought up time and again in the Chamber. We have had a confusing and mixed set of responses from the various Ministers who have answered. Could she now confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation to give anonymity to rape defendants, and if so, what is the timetable for that, and on what basis have they made that decision?
Lynne Featherstone
There have been a number of discussions, as I just said, and the Prime Minister himself has said that the issue will be brought forward for debate in this Chamber at an appropriate point.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I would be interested at some stage to learn the Home Secretary’s views on the issue, because it is a crucial one both for the Home Department and for equalities. The Lord Chancellor told the House the other day that he had voted for anonymity in 2003. I voted against it, and that is still my view, but at some stage I would like to know the Home Secretary’s view.
As for the Minister, she will know that the Prime Minister recently told the House when he replied to a question on the issue that Baroness Stern had
“found that 8 to 10% of reported rape cases could result in false allegations.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 329.]
The Minister should know that the Stern report made no such finding and that what Baroness Stern recommended was independent research to study the frequency of false allegations of rape compared with other offences. Does the Minister agree that the Government ought to be implementing that recommendation, instead of proposing to introduce anonymity?
Lynne Featherstone
In the first instance, I am sure that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Justice will indeed look at what sort of research is necessary, prior to bringing any debate to the House.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I was slightly taken aback by the hon. Lady’s “Oh, we’re going to look at the research before we do this”, given that, up until now, it seems there has been a failure to talk to those tasked with implementing the policy. Has she or any of her colleagues spoken to the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on rape about the policy, and what has his response been?
Lynne Featherstone
I have not spoken to the ACPO lead on the issue, but I will refer that question to the Secretary of State for Justice, who may well have done so.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
3. How she plans to take forward the conclusions of the work of the “Together we can end violence against women and girls” strategy consultation on domestic violence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
Violence against women and girls ruins lives and destroys families, and its impact is felt down the generations. A cross-government strategy is the best way to address domestic violence and other forms of violence against women. In July, the Home Secretary will chair a meeting of Ministers across government that will be dedicated to this issue, and we look forward to discussing how we will take forward our approach in this area.
Mr Umunna
I am a supporter of the Cassandra learning centre, which is an organisation in my community that works on these issues. It was set up by the family of a victim whose killer was one of the first to be retried and sentenced following the revision of the rules on double jeopardy. What funding do the Government intend to make available to such third sector organisations working in this field and, importantly, will that funding be ring-fenced, given last week’s Budget?
Lynne Featherstone
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this area. The coalition Government have committed to look at how we can provide sustainable funding for, and support the development of, new rape crisis centres to provide for victims. At the moment, in the voluntary sector, this provision has been very ad hoc and serendipitous, and it is important to get it on a stable basis.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
What plans does the Minister have for longer-term funding for voluntary sector organisations, including refuges?
Lynne Featherstone
I can really only refer to the rape crisis centres—both parties in the coalition agreement have committed to up to 15 rape crisis centres—and sustainable funding from the victim surcharge.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
According to the British crime survey, the incidence of domestic violence has decreased by 64 % since 1997. Does the Minister agree that the British crime survey is the best measurement of long-term crime trends?
Lynne Featherstone
The British crime survey is a good source of information, but I will refer this matter back and the Minister will write.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
4. Whether she plans to renew the legislation which permits terrorist suspects to be detained for 28 days without charge.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
6. Whether she plans to renew the legislation which permits terrorist suspects to be detained for 28 days without charge.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government laid an order last Thursday to renew the existing 28-day maximum period for pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects for six months, while we conduct a review of counter-terrorism measures and programmes, including pre-charge detention. Both coalition parties are clear that the 28-day period should be a temporary measure, and one that we shall be looking to reduce over time.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Home Secretary for her answer. We are, of course, all committed to safeguarding Britain against terrorist activities. How many people have been detained for 28 days under these powers in the past three years?
Mrs May
I am sure that my hon. Friend has followed the old adage about not asking a question to which one does not know the answer. The answer is that, since 2007, no one has been detained for 28 days. Before that date, a number of people were detained for periods of between 14 and 28 days. As I made clear in my opening answer, we see the 28-day period as a temporary measure, and we are committed to reducing it over time.
Mr Davis
I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Will she give the House an undertaking that the deferral of the decision on 28 days does not indicate any weakening of her determination to constrain not only the excessive length of detention without charge but the other excesses introduced by the Labour Government—namely, house arrest, internal exile, secret trials and all the other issues associated with control orders?
Mrs May
Of course, my right hon. Friend has a distinguished record of fighting for these civil liberties issues. I can assure him that one of the key reasons for introducing the 28-days order for six months was that it would enable us to look at the pre-charge detention period alongside a number of other issues relating to counter-terrorism legislation that we wish to consider. These include control orders, and stop-and-search procedures under section 44. We want to review the various measures and look at them in the round.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
As one who proposed the period of 28 days, may I remind the Home Secretary that it was the alternative to 90 days or 42 days? If it were possible, despite the acute terrorist danger, for the 28 days to be reduced to 14 days, I would certainly be very happy.
Mrs May
I commend the hon. Gentleman on the campaign in which he, too, participated in the Chamber to ensure that his party’s Government did not introduce the 90 days or the 42 days, which we collectively opposed at the time when they were proposed. We consider 28 days to be a temporary measure. We will look at the issue in the round, in the context of other counter-terrorism measures introduced by the last Labour Government and the requirement to balance civil liberties with the need for national security.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
We have had to take a number of measures which have not always involved easy decisions, such as the 28 days’ detention. The right hon. Lady said after she had had assumed her post that she would review control orders. Has she reached a view, and if so, when will she inform us of it? If we could charge people through the courts we would all want to do so, but it is not always possible.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall the time when it was possible to exclude people from this country on the basis that their presence was not conducive to the public good? Is not our current dilemma about putting people under restraint for a period of days due to the fact that we are no longer able to deport people who have no legal right to be here because of legislation initiated either at home or abroad? What is the state of that legislation, and when will we be able to get rid of people who should not have been here in the first place?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points, and I shall try to limit my answer for brevity’s sake. Let me simply say that I share his concern about the country’s inability to deport people who, in some cases, have been identified clearly as a terrorist threat to the country and a danger to national security. We are looking at the issue, but obviously we must ensure that, whatever we do, we take our national security and the protection of British citizens into account.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Given that terrorism is not a temporary aberration, what more permanent measures has the Home Secretary in mind for the purpose of countering terrorism across the United Kingdom? In particular, will the Government make good their pre-election commitment to ensure that automatic number plate recognition systems are available in Northern Ireland, especially in the border area, to prevent terrorists from moving across our border?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has asked a very specific question about automatic number plate recognition. As he and other Members may know, the issue has come to the fore in a rather different context in England recently in relation to its use in Birmingham. We will be considering it as one of the various measures that we are considering in connection with CCTV.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
5. How many community protection officers there are in the city of Nottingham.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
I understand that there are 102 community protection officers in the city of Nottingham. Nottingham also has 30 auxiliary officers, funded through the working neighbourhood fund, who work with the community protection officers. Those officers work in close partnership with neighbourhood policing teams in the city.
Mr Allen
Will the Minister congratulate the city of Nottingham division of the police—and, indeed, police community support officers and community protection officers—on the massive reduction in crime in the city? Will he emphasise that that is because people trust the uniformed presence that they have seen on the streets in the last five or six years, and will he ensure that that level of uniformed protection remains in future years under this coalition Government?
Nick Herbert
I recognise the role that community protection officers play in Nottingham as part of the wider policing family, alongside PCSOs and police officers. The Government have had to reduce national allocations in order to reduce the budget deficit, but we have also relaxed ring-fencing to give the city council and its partners freedom to determine their priorities in order to meet local needs and provide local opportunities.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
7. What representations she has received from Scottish Water on removal of the security fences at Milngavie waterworks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
No representations have been received from Scottish Water, but I am aware of the hon. Lady’s interest and of discussions that have taken place between Scottish Water, the Scottish Government and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure about the replacement of security fencing with less intrusive measures.
Jo Swinson
I thank the Minister for that answer, but these so-called security fences around Milngavie reservoir cover only a tiny part of the three-mile perimeter, and as the rest is completely open to the public they serve no practical purpose other than being an eyesore spoiling a beautiful and popular local attraction. Scottish Water has said that it is waiting on a new directive from the Home Office before it can remove these fences, so can the Minister look at this issue again and ensure that that directive is issued without delay?
James Brokenshire
I know that the hon. Lady has run the campaign, and I understand her interest in ensuring access to the area around the reservoir. We will discuss with the Scottish Government the application that I understand they have received from Scottish Water in relation to this issue. The continuing need for the security fences will be looked at in the light of CPNI advice and any other alternative measures that may be forthcoming.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
8. What recent representations she has received on the amount of time spent on administrative tasks by police officers each year.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
15. What recent representations she has received on the amount of time spent on administrative tasks by police officers each year.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
When I have spoken to police officers, they have asked us to help to free them up to do the job they are paid to do. I am committed to returning common sense to policing, which means getting officers back out on the streets dealing with crime, not sitting behind desks filling out forms to meet Government targets.
Damian Collins
I thank the Minister for his answer. When I was recently on patrol with the Kent police in Folkestone in my constituency, they shared with me their concerns about the large amount of paperwork that goes to support front-line policing. Does the Minister agree that the priorities for the policing budget should be to support front-line police work in the community, not excessive bureaucracy?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Every Labour Home Secretary promised to cut bureaucracy, but the police still spend more time on paperwork than on patrol. We are determined to make a real difference by dealing with the central targets that bedevil policing and doing all we can to protect the front line.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Does my right hon. Friend agree that by freeing up police officers to spend more time on patrol, we will not only aid crime prevention but make the public feel much safer?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. What the public want to see is police officers out on the beat. They do not want them to be tied up with unnecessary paperwork. That is why we are so determined to deal with the performance management framework and the targets that have prevented them from doing the job they want to do.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister for Police to his first Home Office questions. What he has said is absolutely in agreement with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is that we should get police officers out on the beat. Will he therefore accept the other recommendation, which is that there should be full investment in new technology, giving police officers hand-held computers so they can spend more time on the beat than in police stations? Will he defend that part of the Home Office budget against any Treasury cuts?
Nick Herbert
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind introduction. I recognise the importance of technology in assisting the process of reducing bureaucracy, such as in our commitment to scrap the stop form, which is an unnecessary and bureaucratic impediment to common-sense policing. There is a role for technology such as hand-held computers in recording stops and searches in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Minister agree with me, however, that there are some administrative tasks that are worth performing, such as the judging of the Best Bar None competition in my constituency, which was awarded to The Woodman pub in Carshalton?
Nick Herbert
If my hon. Friend were to invite me, I would be delighted to attend the pub with him so I may judge the best performance for myself.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position, but I might just advise him that we did actually stop the stop form in the Crime and Security Act 2010—but I will let that pass. Will the right hon. Gentleman today tell the House how much money he expects to save by tackling police bureaucracy over the next three years? Does he understand that, however much he saves, it will be nowhere near enough to compensate for the 25% cut he is planning in the Home Office budget, which will remove 35,000 police officers and 4,000 PCSOs from the beat? How does he expect that to help to fight, and reduce, crime in Britain?
Nick Herbert
Once again, we see absolutely no understanding from the Opposition about the fiscal position we have inherited from them. The fact is that their Government left us with an unspecified cut of £44 billion to find across Government Departments. They would not say where that money was to be found, so we have to make the savings. I believe that police forces can do it, and we are also determined to protect the front line.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
9. When her Department plans to undertake its review of the terms and conditions of police officer employment.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
The Government have announced a review of the remuneration and conditions of service of police officers and staff. We will provide information about the review, including timing, shortly.
Tony Baldry
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Although I welcome the Government’s decision to honour the third year of the police pay award, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has now come to review police pay and conditions, and to ensure a more flexible work force who are not so dependent on extensive and expensive overtime?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government conceded that more than £70 million a year was being wasted on police overtime. We need to look at that and it is one of the things that the review will do. We have, however, stood by the third year of the police pay award, as my hon. Friend suggested, which indicates our good faith towards the process and the value we place on the police service.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Could the Minister for Police, whom I welcome to his departmental responsibilities, kill two Lib-Con birds with one stone—namely, reduce the £400 million in overtime and bring public sector pay under control by saying that every hour of overtime authorised by a chief constable or a senior police officer will be deducted from their own pay?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman may be offering himself as a candidate to serve on the pay review that we are proposing. Perhaps I should have a discussion with him about that. We have to strike a balance. Many chief constables believe overtime is an important management tool, but we are concerned about the extent of its use. That is exactly the kind of thing the pay review will have to look at.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
10. What recent progress the UK Border Agency has made on processing the backlog of outstanding asylum cases.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Under the previous Government, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency wrote to the Home Affairs Select Committee periodically to update it on this issue. However, in the interests of transparency, I am happy to update right hon. and hon. Members in the House today. Until the end of May 2010 the UK Border Agency had concluded 277,000 cases.
Richard Fuller
I thank the Minister for that answer. As he is aware, Yarl’s Wood family detention centre is located outside Bedford. Does he agree that the Government’s determination to end the detention of children for asylum purposes will be most welcome to people as a measure of fairness? It will be regarded as something that is long overdue and that shamefully eluded the previous Government.
Damian Green
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I regard as important. In a spirit of non-partisanship, I think it is regarded as important on both sides of the House. When we held a Westminster Hall debate on the subject last week, I was struck by the fact that there was universal approval of the new Government’s desire to end the detention of children—although the point was made that it might have been the last time as Minister for Immigration that I ever got universal approval for anything. However, we should welcome such steps forward while we have them.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I sincerely welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box, and I wish him all the best in a very difficult job.
In the light of the Minister’s answer about the backlog, I was pleased to see recognition of the UK Border Agency’s success but will he confirm the reasons behind the answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), at column 143W, on 22 June, about the dropping of the language requirement for dependants of people who successfully apply for asylum? What was his rationale?
Damian Green
The rationale, as with all our proposals on language, is that those who wish to come to this country need to be able to play a full role in its life. If as many people as possible who live and settle in this country are able to speak English, they will lead more fulfilled lives and be able to integrate better in our communities. That would be extremely helpful.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
11. How many asylum applications were made by individuals who had passed through another safe country to get to the UK in the most recent year for which figures are available.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
In 2009, 2,665 cases were positively identified as having travelled through another EU member state that is considered safe under schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
Mr Hollobone
What do we do with those people? Surely we should not be giving asylum to people who come to this country via another safe country. Yes, let us give asylum to people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, but not to tourists.
Damian Green
I rather agree with my hon. Friend, who will know that, under the previous Government, one of the many shambles in the immigration and asylum system was the problem of being able to remove people to safe countries. We will try to do better. The Dublin regulation, which is the system under which we do this, is working—in 2009, the UK removed 625 more cases than we accepted—but it is not working well enough. [Interruption.] If former Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench can contain themselves, I shall give the reason: we must do better at returning cases to specific EU countries. We are doing better with Italy. The next case that we really need to get to grips with is Greece, but the Government are determined to do this.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the great difficulties many of my constituents face when lodging an asylum claim? They have to travel to the UK Border Agency in Croydon to lodge claims for initial screening, and the full cost of that must be met by the individual concerned. Will the Minister look again at that system and consider any review that can make it fairer, so that constituents in the north-east do not need to travel to London?
Damian Green
It is perhaps a shame that the hon. Lady has launched an attack on a change made by her own Government in their last 12 months in office. I can see some logic in why Ministers in the previous Government made the change that she objects to: by and large, people who claim asylum should claim it as soon as they get to this country. That is one area where there is not much difference between those who sit on the Front Benches. So I am afraid that I will have to ignore her plea to change the system to make it easy for people who may have been here for many months or, in some cases, many years to claim asylum. Asylum is meant for people who come to this country as genuine refugees.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
12. What progress she has made reviewing the retention on the national DNA database of records of those who have been neither charged nor convicted of a crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government are committed to adopting the protections of the Scottish model for retaining the DNA profiles of those who have not been convicted of an offence. We will introduce our detailed proposals shortly.
Karen Lumley
Is the Minister aware that the previous Government failed to ensure that all prisoners were on the DNA database? Can he reassure the House that steps are being taken to fix that problem?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Despite their desire to retain DNA profiles indefinitely, the then Government did not focus on getting those who were convicted, possibly of serious offences, on to the database to ensure that it was effective in fighting crime. That is certainly something that we are looking at very closely in terms of the proposals that we will introduce in the House in due course.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. Why does he believe that the Scottish police support the current English model, rather than the Scottish model, for DNA retention? Is that because the English model is based on evidence, whereas the Scottish model is not?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes quite an interesting point. As I understand what he said, he now seems to be arguing for the indefinite retention of DNA, which has been found to be not acceptable and not proportionate. He says in some way that there is no evidence, but I remind him of the comment made in the other place by Lord Bach, who highlighted very clearly the report that Professor Fraser undertook in relation to the Scottish system in which he said that he did not uncover any evidence to suggest that the Scottish approach to retention had caused any detriment to the detection of serious crime in Scotland.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
13. What plans she has for the future regulation of CCTV cameras.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
17. What proposals she has for regulation of the use of CCTV cameras by police services and local authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
In our coalition programme for government, as part of our work on safeguarding civil liberties we have stated that we will further regulate CCTV. We will introduce detailed proposals in due course.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Although there has been criticism that some CCTV has been used randomly and not always effectively, is he aware of the Safer Leeds project, in which CCTV has played an important role in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders? Can he give an assurance that future regulation will not deter the proper use of CCTV that my constituents in Stourbridge feel is essential in the battle against crime?
James Brokenshire
As the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 9 June, we support CCTV cameras. When used properly, they can be a significant asset in the prevention and detection of crime, but any such use involves a need to ensure that civil liberties are properly protected. The use of CCTV has increased in the absence of a specific regulatory framework. For reasons of proportionality and retaining public confidence, it is important that there is appropriate regulation, and it is interesting to note that the previous Administration recognised that when they appointed the interim CCTV regulator.
Ian Lucas
In the past 13 years, some 21,000 individuals have been arrested in Wrexham as a result of the operation of CCTV cameras. Wrexham’s CCTV system is widely appreciated. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether he expects a reduction in the number of CCTV cameras as a result of the regulation that he is describing, and how will that regulation be consulted on?
James Brokenshire
On the latter point, we will announce further details on how we intend to take CCTV forward and on how engagement will take place. As I have said, we recognise the importance of CCTV in the fight against crime. As for moving forward, the installation and use of CCTV systems is very much a matter for local decisions, so the regulation will certainly provide a framework to assist local decision making about the CCTV systems that should be put in place to protect local communities.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend jumps on the liberty bandwagon far too much, may I urge some caution? CCTV cameras do not prevent anyone from going about their lawful daily business freely. Will he acknowledge that the people who were responsible for the tube bombings on 7/7 were identified only through the use of CCTV, as was the person recently arrested in Bradford for the murders of three prostitutes?
James Brokenshire
I thank my hon. Friend for underlining CCTV’s important role in policing and protecting our communities. Perhaps more focus could be given to its use in prosecutions and as a forensic tool. However, the use of CCTV has developed in the absence of a specific regulatory framework. We believe, for reasons of proportionality, that regulation should be taken forward, so we shall proceed with that in due course.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am interested to hear the Minister talk about CCTV in such a way, as it seems that there is already a slight shift in the coalition Government’s position. We know that CCTV has given people throughout the country their neighbourhoods back and the freedom to go about their daily lives. His Government talk about reducing red tape and regulation for the police, yet they plan to regulate CCTV and perhaps create more hoops for the police, who see it as a valuable tool, so will he answer a simple question once and for all: will the plans to regulate CCTV lead to fewer CCTV cameras? He is fudging.
James Brokenshire
It is interesting that the hon. Lady suggests that regulation is not required, because her Government established the interim CCTV regulator, thereby accepting that regulation is required and that the matter needs to be examined carefully. It is all very well for her to talk as if this issue has suddenly arisen, but she and her Government recognised the situation when they were in government. We will ensure that proportionate and relevant regulation is brought forward that will enable CCTV systems to be established by local communities in an appropriate way—
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
16. What plans she has to tackle serious and organised crime; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
Tackling serious organised crime requires effective co-operation and co-ordination across law enforcement. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges.
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased that Norfolk constabulary is collaborating with other police forces in the region to work against the scourge of serious and organised crime. However, I understand that, on a national level, that collaboration is not yet as strong as it is in counter-terrorism. What plans do we have to put serious and organised crime fighting on a similar footing?
Nick Herbert
I know of the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, having been the author of a publication that proposed better arrangements to deal with serious crime. We will not pursue the Labour party’s policy of compulsory mergers of police forces. We believe that it is necessary for police forces to collaborate better to deal with organised crime, just as better collaboration has been achieved in counter-terrorism activity, and that is the policy that we shall pursue.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that the internet is increasingly being used by those who get involved in serious and organised crime? Does he agree that a partnership approach, making use of the talents and expertise of people in business, is essential to reduce the extent of internet use for the purposes of crime?
Nick Herbert
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is already in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman about this matter. E-crime is a serious and growing problem, and it must make sense to tackle it on a partnership basis, with law enforcement agencies and business working together, and that is what we will do.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
18. What the percentage increase or decrease in the number of crimes reported in North Yorkshire was between (a) 1980 and 1997 and (b) 1997 and 2010.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
The police in North Yorkshire notified the Home Office of nearly 22,000 offences in 1980; just over 50,000 in 1997; and 48,500 in 2008-09. During this period there have been considerable changes to reporting levels and to how the police record crime, and I am advised that these figures are not comparable.
Hugh Bayley
Comparable figures show nationally a 38% decline in crime. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the police on reducing crime in North Yorkshire and York? Does he agree with the statisticians in his own Department and the UK Statistics Authority that the British crime survey is the best way of measuring long-term trends in crime?
Nick Herbert
I agree that the British crime survey plays a valuable role, but the problem is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not complete. For instance, it misses out the recording of crimes against young people. Last week, the experimental figures showed that there may be up to 2 million crimes that were previously being missed by the British crime survey. Police recorded figures also have their problems. We need measures of crime in which the public have confidence, and we will be making further announcements about that in due course.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that many crimes that were previously dealt with as breaches of the peace are now dealt with as antisocial behaviour? Will the Government now grasp the nettle and tackle such crimes using police forces, rather than councils, which are not open over the weekend and in the evening, when most of those crimes are committed?
Nick Herbert
It is important to convey the message that antisocial behaviour may be activity that is criminal and should be treated as such. The public still feel that there is too much antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhoods, and they want it to be prioritised by police forces. The best way to do that is not only by policing but through effective partnerships on the ground, using the full range of resources that can be provided by local authorities, other agencies and the police family working together.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
19. What recent representations she has received on the amount of time spent on administrative tasks by police officers each year.
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to group this question with Question 22.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have had no indication of that grouping. There is a practice now developing of this happening spontaneously. It really will not do. We shall see how it goes today. I call the Minister.
Nick Herbert
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
Amber Rudd
I thank the Minister for his answer. Recent statistics demonstrate that police spend 14% of their time on patrol and 20% on paperwork. Will he give an example of what administrative function might be cut from their work, so that we can give them the opportunity to spend more time out on the beat?
Nick Herbert
The most important example is the policy we have had for a long time: scrapping the unnecessary stop form, whose introduction made it harder for police forces to interact sensibly with the public, and resulted in a great deal of unnecessary bureaucracy. However, we will not stop at that, but will look at the whole performance framework and the central targets that have bedevilled policing for too long. We will free up police officers, so that they can do the job.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given that the Minister wishes to free up police officers to spend more time on the beat, and given the recent survey that predicts 35,000 fewer police officers on the beat, what assessment has he made of how many administrative tasks he will have to scrap to maintain an appropriate and effective police presence?
Nick Herbert
I should say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not recognise those figures. Our policy is that we want to do everything possible to enable chief constables to prioritise the front line and maintain police officers out in the neighbourhoods, where the public want to see them. To do that, we must ensure that we reduce bureaucracy.
Mr Speaker
Order. No blame is imputed to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). It is simply that the grouping of his question with Question 19 was not something of which I had notice, and it is not a grouping to which I would ordinarily agree, for reasons of progress down the Order Paper.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Later this afternoon, I will make a statement to the House on the Government’s plans to consult on the introduction of an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants coming to the UK, and the introduction of an interim limit.
Alun Michael
Does the Home Secretary acknowledge the evidence given to the Select Committee on Justice by Victim Support suggesting that what victims want, other than not to have become a victim in the first place, is not to become a victim again in future. Does she accept that consequently a key purpose for the police and all other parts of the criminal justice system must be the reduction of offending and reoffending?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his reference to the need to reduce reoffending. I entirely agree that we need to do more to reduce reoffending, but I would point out to him that, over 13 years, his Government did very little to address that issue, which is why we have in the coalition agreement a clear commitment to look across the whole criminal justice system to examine what can be done to improve rehabilitation of offenders and hence to reduce reoffending.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
T2. In recent meetings with Worcester’s Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities, I have found a strong welcome for the new Government’s focus on improving community cohesion and supporting integration. Does the Home Secretary agree that the English language requirement for people coming to the UK from outside the EU to marry will support those aims and benefit those communities?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I begin by offering my condolences to him on the recent death of his father, and pay tribute to the many years of distinguished service given to this country, both in the House and in another place, including as a Government Minister, by the late Lord Walker?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The English language is important in respect of people being able to live in the UK and integrate in communities here, which is why we have indeed already announced that we are tightening up the requirements for English language to be spoken. We require people who are coming into the UK to marry to speak English at a level that was not required before. It is perfectly reasonable to do so.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
T3. Before the election, Warrington Liberal Democrats said in a leaflet headed “Stop The Police Cuts”: “Just to keep force levels where they are today the police need a grant increase of at least 5%”.Does the Minister agree?
Mrs May
The issue that affects most people in relation to the police is seeing police not sitting in offices filling in forms, but getting out on the street, preventing crime, dealing with criminals, and giving people the safety, security and confidence that they want in their neighbourhoods. That is why we will slash bureaucracy, and get police on the streets—something that the hon. Lady’s Government failed to do in 13 years.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T4. Given that there are 11,500 foreign nationals in British jails, will the Home Secretary work with the Secretary of State for Justice and the Foreign Office to ensure that those in-sentence prisoners are deported back to their country of origin to serve out their sentences in their own lands?
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of foreign national prisoners bedevilled the previous Administration for years and led to the resignation of a Home Secretary. In 2008—the last year for which we have full figures—the UK Border Agency removed or deported nearly 5,400 foreign national prisoners. There is always more to be done. There are cases in which the court rules in an individual’s favour on specific human rights grounds and the Home Office disagrees with the court’s decision, but we all have to respect the court’s decision, so we are continuing to look at the administrative improvements needed to avoid administrative obstacles to the removal of foreign national prisoners at the end of their sentence, and to look at the legal problems.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
T7. What will the Home Secretary do if one of the new directly elected police commissioners is an extremist? What will happen?
Mrs May
I believe that introducing that important element of democratic accountability for police forces and not getting involved in operational matters, which will remain with the operational independence of police chiefs, is important. The hon. Gentleman’s question implies something with which I disagree. It implies that he is not willing to trust the British people and the common sense of the British people to elect people who will do a good job in their area.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
T5. The Home Secretary is aware of the current discussions about a potential merger of the police forces of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Does she agree that such discussions are worth while at this time to achieve a fairer allocation of police resourcing and a more efficient allocation of resources where it matters—on the front line with our police?
The Minister for Police (Nick Herbert)
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I am due to have a meeting with the chief constables of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire to discuss the matter. I will also talk to locally elected representatives. It is important that if voluntary mergers of police forces go ahead, they do so with the consent of local people.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware of the comments made by the Culture Secretary this morning linking the Hillsborough disaster to football hooliganism. That is a disgrace. I have recently spoken to some of the families who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. They are deeply distressed by that and angry about what has happened. How can they have trust in the Government to see through the proper release of the Hillsborough files, given that that is the view held in high parts of Government? As the Home Secretary leads on the matter, will she meet urgently with members of the families and the Culture Secretary to discuss the issue?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has apologised for any suggestion that crowd unrest was responsible for the Hillsborough disaster. The judicial inquiry was absolutely clear on this point. The Taylor report cleared Liverpool supporters of any allegations that they were to blame for the terrible events that took place at that time, and the families of those who, sadly, lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster have conducted a dignified campaign over the years to try to ensure that the information is released and that they can see all the details of what happened at that time. I have already met the Bishop of Liverpool to discuss the work that his panel is doing in examining these issues. I would be happy to meet representatives of the Hillsborough families.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
T6. In my constituency, Kingswood, under the previous Government, the local police station on the high street was bulldozed to make way for flats. Many of my constituents are rightly extremely concerned about that. What steps will the Minister take to ensure a more effective local policing presence in the future?
Nick Herbert
I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. Local people want to see an available and visible police presence. That does not necessarily mean old buildings, but it means the police using innovative ways to ensure that they have a presence in the community—for instance, by sharing community facilities.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
T8. A cut of 25% in police funding would be devastating for public confidence. What the Minister said before would require large reductions in the number of police officers, community support officers and civilian staff. Those reductions could come about only through large up-front payments in pension, redundancy and other costs. What assessment has the Minister made of the size of those costs, and how on earth will they be paid for?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman refers to front-line policing and to police doing the job that the public want them to do. We have answered a number of questions on that issue today, and the first thing is to ensure that our police officers are able to get out on the streets, doing the job that they want to do and people want them to do. I find it somewhat surprising that Labour Members continue to raise funding issues, when the people who are to blame for the funding situation in which we find ourselves are their Government.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
T9. As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, there are a large number of failed asylum seekers in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. Can she assure me that the situation will be reversed, and that policies will be implemented to ensure that our porous borders cease to be so?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making two important points. One key problem with the asylum system, affecting both the taxpayer and genuine refugees, is the appalling delays that were allowed to build up under the previous Government. That was unfair on genuine asylum seekers and unfair on the taxpayer. At the same time, as he said, our borders have been allowed to become much too porous over the past 13 years. That is why we are working on plans for a border police force, which will give much better protection to our borders than was ever provided under the previous Government.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is very little time left, so we need exceptionally short questions and short answers.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Home Secretary referred earlier to the problem with some CCTV cameras in Birmingham. I understand that more than £3 million has been spent on cameras that are now covered with plastic bags. Does she intend to unmask the bureaucrat who is responsible for that fiasco?
Mrs May
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a discussion is now taking place between the local police force and local communities about automatic number plate recognition cameras in Birmingham, and that is one reason why we intend, in looking at regulation on CCTV, to include ANPR.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
One of my constituents, who also happens to be my parliamentary researcher, was seriously hurt in an unprovoked attack after he had been out for dinner with a friend in Croydon last week. Does the Secretary of State agree that late licensing is partly responsible for the increase in violent assaults at night? Will she update the House on how plans are progressing to sort out late licensing?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend provides a powerful example of the impact of violent crime and alcohol, and certainly 47% of violent assaults are believed to be carried out by individuals under the influence of alcohol. That is why we will bring forward proposals to rebalance the Licensing Act 2003 in favour of local communities, and in particular introduce a proposal for a late-night levy to deal with the costs that are attributed to dealing with licensing problems in certain areas.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
My constituency has been targeted by the English Defence League for a series of demonstrations. Recent events have seen violence and disorder on the streets, police diverted to deal with that and property and constituents attacked. On one occasion the entire town centre was boarded up, costing businesses thousands. Could I bring a delegation of people from Dudley to meet the Home Secretary in order to discuss how we might prevent those problems in future?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Recent visits organised by the Children of Chernobyl charity have been disrupted because of late decisions by the UK Border Agency. Will my right hon. Friend urge the agency to take a risk-based approach to its investigations and recognise the long and trouble-free record of that excellent charity?
Damian Green
I am obviously aware of the problems that have emerged with what are perfectly reasonable investigations. Children are being brought a long way across the world unaccompanied, so it is not unreasonable for there to be some checks, but I am aware that there have been problems this year, and I shall be happy to take up any individual case that my hon. Friend would like to raise with me.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
At a time when the Government are looking to police forces to save money, will the Minister tell the House how much it will cost to elect and fund the proposed directly elected police commissioners?
Nick Herbert
We will be making further announcements in due course about our policy of replacing bureaucratic accountability with direct accountability through directly elected individuals.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that nearly 10 years into the life of the previous Government, it suddenly emerged by chance that foreign prisoners were not being considered for deportation when they should have been, and that there was a backlog of 400,000 asylum cases and other cases owing to incompetence? Will he ensure that there is a culture of openness, transparency and efficiency in the Home Office right from the start of this Government?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend makes a good point with characteristic trenchancy and passion. He is right. The situation with foreign national prisoners was a disaster, as was the asylum delay backlog. We are getting to grips with these problems. It is very important not only that we have the right number of people coming to this country but that the people of this country have confidence in the administration of the immigration system, because without that we will never have people assured that the borders of this country are as secure as they should be. That was one of the great failures of the previous Government.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
What progress is being made on the implementation of the European Union’s drugs strategy?
James Brokenshire
We are considering the whole issue of the drugs strategy in the context of legal highs and other emerging psychoactive substances, as well as in the context of the prevalence of cocaine use, which remains very significant. That is why the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is examining the issue and will be providing further advice to Government in that regard.
G8 and G20 Summits
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 and G20 summits which took place in Canada.
First, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the seven British servicemen who have lost their lives in the last week: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday, and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; and from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert, who died from injuries he received in an explosion earlier this month; and we also remember the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. As the country marked Armed Forces day this weekend, people did so with tremendous pride but also with great sadness. We must never forget what these men, and so many of their colleagues, have given for us, and our thoughts should be with their friends and their families.
As I have said, I am determined that our forces will not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than necessary. I led a discussion at the G8 where we made it clear that we
“fully support the transition strategy adopted”
by international partners. We are not after a perfect Afghanistan—just a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning. So the G8 sent a collective signal that we want the Afghan security forces to
“assume increasing responsibility for security within five years.”
The presence of large-scale international forces cannot be an indefinite commitment. We need to get the job done and bring our troops back home.
Let me report to the House on the main conclusions of the G8 and G20. I have placed copies of the communiqués in the Library so that people can see the details of what was agreed. The G8 is a good forum for the leading democratic economies to give proper strategic consideration to the big foreign policy and security issues. It has also played a vital role in helping the richer nations to improve the future of the poorest people in our world.
In my view, those two vital functions of this forum should continue. I want to take each in turn. On the big security issues, we discussed the middle east peace process and agreed the importance of putting pressure on both sides to engage in the proximity talks, with the aim of creating the conditions for direct talks later this year. President Obama specifically said that he would make this his priority in the coming months. While the changes Israel have proposed are welcome, they do not go far enough, and the communiqué says that the current arrangements in Gaza
“are not sustainable and must be changed.”
On Iran, UN Security Council resolution 1929 was welcomed. The communiqué states that all countries should “implement it fully.” Since the G8 includes Russia, I believe that this was significant. The UK also made the case for all members of the G8 to have positive engagement with Turkey, which could have a key role to play both in resolving the Iran issue and in encouraging progress on middle east peace. We also discussed North Korea, deploring and condemning the sinking of the Cheonan, and the vital topics of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
On development, while the G8 has played an important role in increasing aid spending by the richest countries in the world, some of those countries have not met commitments that they set out. I stressed the importance of transparency and accountability, and the accountability report that has been published sets out what countries have done in meeting their commitments. While not perfect, it represents good progress in ensuring that countries cannot make promises without being held accountable for them and for failing to meet them.
Even at a time when our countries face difficult budget decisions, it is important that we maintain our commitment to helping the poorest in the world. The UK is maintaining its commitment to increase spending on aid to 0.7% of gross national income. That gives us the opportunity to exercise leadership on behalf of the poorest. At the same time, in order to take the public with us, we also need to ensure that every penny will reach those who need it most. That means transparency and accountability along the lines that we are introducing. It also means that the projects we support must be deliverable, practical and measurable, addressing the causes of poverty and not just alleviating the symptoms.
The Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health agreed at the G8 is a case in point. Today in the United Kingdom, the chances of dying in pregnancy and childbirth are 1 in 8,200. In parts of Africa they are as high as 1 in 7. That is something we can change and must change, and the resources agreed, including a big contribution from the UK, could lead to an additional 1.3 million lives being saved. As the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood points out, if we save the mother we save the family, and if we save the family, we build a stronger society and a stronger economy.
I turn to the G20, which is now clearly the right forum for all the leading economies of the world to discuss the vital economic issues. The key goal of the G20 is to continue the recovery of the world economy and secure sustainable growth. The argument proposed by some that deficit reduction and growth are mutually exclusive is, in my view, completely wrong. The whole approach underlined by the International Monetary Fund for this G20 and the subsequent meeting in Seoul is about how the world should maximise growth through the right combination of three things: deficit reduction; tackling imbalances, particularly through actions by emerging economies; and structural reform in the advanced economies. There was broad agreement on all three, which is reflected clearly in the communiqué.
On deficit reduction, the G20 agreed that
“those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”
and that there was a risk that
“failure to implement consolidation would undermine confidence and hamper growth.”
The advanced G20 economies committed to at least halve current deficits by 2013 and stabilise Government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016. While we agreed that the speed and timing of deficit reduction will vary with national circumstances, the verdict of the G20 was unequivocal: for countries with large deficits, the time to act is now. Britain has one of the largest deficits in the G20, and the summit specifically welcomed the plans set out in our Budget last week.
On addressing the fundamental imbalances, China’s recent decision to move towards greater exchange rate flexibility is clearly very welcome. On financial reform, the G20 agreed a set of principles on bank levies to ensure that the financial sector makes a
“fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the financial system”.
That is very much in line with the plans for a bank levy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget. On ensuring that the banks in all countries can withstand future crises, we also agreed that
“the amount of capital will be significantly higher and the quality of capital significantly improved”.
The new standards should be finalised by the Seoul summit in November. The Basel accord took 10 years; this looks like it could be completed in a little over one.
Although the drawing up of clear, robust new rules is essential, it is important that they are not implemented too quickly. We do not want a further monetary squeeze or a reduction in bank lending at this stage of the recovery. The biggest stimulus we could give the world economy today is the expansion of trade. While the G20’s agreement to extend its pledge that no additional trade barriers should be put in place is welcome, continued failure to make progress on Doha is deeply disappointing. It has now been eight years in negotiation, and frankly, there can be little confidence that as things stand the round will be completed rapidly. That is a tragedy, because a completed trade round could add $170 billion to the world economy.
The UK led the working session on this issue at the G20. One potential way of making progress is to try to add to the benefits of the round, including more things in it, so that all parties can see reasons for going that final mile. This was supported by President Obama, and the director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, suggested that all trade negotiators should return to the table and consider, vitally, both what it is they really need from the round and what it is they are prepared to offer to get it moving again. This should lead to a report at the Seoul meeting in November. In my view, too many people still see this as a zero-sum game, where one country’s success in exports is somehow another country’s failure. This is nonsense: everyone can benefit from an increase in trade flows. We will play our part in breaking the logjam, and I want this country to lead the charge in making the case for growing trade flows around the world.
On climate change, while the G8 communiqué was strongly positive on limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than 2°, the G20 communiqué was more limited. This is partly because some countries do not see the G20 as the forum for discussing this issue. In discussions, it was also clear that there was widespread disappointment at the way that Copenhagen failed to deliver a legally binding global deal. We must not give up on this, and we will be playing our full part in pushing for a successful outcome at Cancun.
This long weekend of summitry was a good opportunity to build Britain’s bilateral relationships. Among others, I had useful meetings with President Obama, President Hu of China, Prime Minister Singh of India and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. In building a very strong friendship with our leading European partners, I also suffered the exquisite agony of watching England lose 4-1 to Germany in the company of my good friend Chancellor Merkel and the German summit team. While I cannot recommend the experience of watching England lose football to Germany in the margins of a G20 summit, I do commend this statement to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the service personnel who have died in Afghanistan since we last addressed the House: from 40 Commando Royal Marines, Sergeant Steven Darbyshire; from 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment, Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday and Private Alex Isaac; from the Yorkshire Regiment, Lance Corporal David Ramsden; from the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, Bombardier Stephen Gilbert; and the soldier from 101 Engineer Regiment who died yesterday. Our thoughts are with their families as we remember them and acknowledge the deep debt of gratitude we owe them.
May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? The G8 and G20 summits covered many issues of importance to the United Kingdom, not least the need to work internationally to sustain the UK economic recovery that began last year. The G20 declaration rightly identifies the G20’s
“achievements in addressing the global economic crisis”,
saying that the G20’s
“efforts to date have borne good results. Unprecedented and globally coordinated fiscal and monetary stimulus is playing a major role in helping to restore private demand and lending.”
Now that the Prime Minister has joined other G20 leaders in endorsing those pro-growth policies that have put the global economy back on the road to recovery, will he acknowledge the role of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in shaping that approach and winning support for it at the G20, thereby laying the foundations for that recovery internationally and here at home?
Is it not inconsistent for the Prime Minister to sign up to this approach abroad while continuing to denigrate that approach here at home? We welcome the G20’s commitment to
“‘growth friendly’ fiscal consolidation plans”
and the target of halving deficits by 2013. Will he confirm that this target is entirely consistent with deficit reductions that the Office for Budget Responsibility showed would have been achieved by 2013 under our plans? Will he confirm that nothing in the G20 statement provides any justification whatever for his choice to cut the deficit further and faster? Indeed, is it not the case that only last week President Obama called on world leaders to
“learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships”?
The G20 calls for growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, but how is it growth friendly to cut investment allowances for manufacturing firms, to scrap the regional development agencies and to cut back on investment in high-tech, export-oriented British firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters? How is it growth friendly for his Government to take an approach that the OBR says will cost 100,000 jobs?
With President Obama and major emerging economies, including India and Brazil, warning against the risk of Budget cuts too early and too deep, is it not clear that on the question of timing and content, the summit’s conclusions on deficit reduction amount to no more than an agreement to disagree? Given the risk of deflationary policies in the eurozone and the fact that growth forecasts in the United States have been revised downwards, is not weak demand the major threat to growth? Is it not the case that Government policy should still play a part in sustaining demand? Is it not clear, given that demand in our export markets again looks fragile, that the assumption of a 40% increase in UK exports, on which last week’s Budget plans were based, looks very optimistic? To which markets does the Prime Minister expect that 40% increase in exports to go?
The Opposition welcome the G8’s commitment to support the international security assistance force’s efforts in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister recognised in his statement, this will be a crucial year for Afghanistan, with the Kabul conference and elections in September. Because military effort must pave the way for, and go alongside, a political settlement in Afghanistan, will he update the House on preparations for the Kabul summit and Afghan elections?
Surely there is agreement on both sides of the House that we do not want our troops to stay in Afghanistan one day longer than necessary. We look forward to when the Afghan Government can guarantee their people’s stability and security, and thereby make us safer, as the Prime Minister has said previously. Will he therefore clarify his remarks on Afghanistan? He said:
“We can’t be there for another five years”.
Does the Prime Minister believe that that assists our troops in their task in Afghanistan? What effect does the Defence Secretary believe the Prime Minister’s comments will have on the morale of our troops fighting day by day on the ground in Afghanistan? Is it not the case that, as the Defence Secretary has said, setting artificial time scales is a very dangerous game to play?
May I now turn to the G8 approach to tackling global poverty? Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep frustration within the development community at what it sees as a major retreat by the G8 on its commitment to help the poorest? In particular, how can he, as one of the G8 leaders, justify the decision to drop the commitment of the 2005 Gleneagles summit to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010? That G8 commitment was hard won by the previous Labour Government. Is he aware that Save the Children called that “shameful”, and that Oxfam described the G8 statement as being
“lower than our lowest expectations”
on maternal mortality?
Writing on the eve of the summit, the Prime Minister said:
“Too often these international meetings fail to live up to the hype and promises made”,
but instead of strengthening the resolve of G8 leaders to deliver the promised action, he has allowed them to renege on their promises. Does that not reflect badly on his international leadership, for which the very poorest will pay a heavy price? Can the Prime Minister tell us how hard he tried to get the other world leaders to stick to, and deliver, the Gleneagles promises? He apparently told journalists that as
“the new kid on the block”,
he was focusing on a different aid target, namely the UN’s 2015 millennium development goals. Will the Prime Minister attend the key UN summit on the millennium development goals this September in New York? If he is not planning to do so, could he reconsider his decision in order to put the G8’s and the world’s efforts towards achieving the millennium development goals back on track?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her response.
We are preparing for the Kabul summit by having repeated conversations and meetings with President Karzai and others. I have met him twice since becoming Prime Minister, once here in the UK and once in Afghanistan, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend that important meeting.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to clarify the perfectly obvious statement that British troops should not be in Afghanistan in five years’ time. Let me put it to her the other way around. It was a Labour Government who took us into Helmand province in 2005. Is she really saying that 10 years later we should still be there? We want to get the job done, train up the Afghan army and police and bring our troops back home. She would be better advised to seek cross-party agreement on that than to take the position that she has chosen.
The right hon. and learned Lady then made some remarks about global poverty. Of course I deplore the fact that some G8 members have not stuck to the promises that they made at Gleneagles in 2005, but the slippage that she was trying to blame on the new Government took place between 2005 and 2010. The person to whom she wanted me to pay tribute—I would be delighted if he could be bothered to turn up to the House—was either Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister during that time.
The right hon. and learned Lady asked me to attend the UN summit on the millennium development goals in September in New York. I was intending to do so, but for reasons of paternal health—we have been talking about maternal health—I hope that I will be otherwise engaged in the UK, as we are having a baby. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be at the summit and doing a very good job.
The right hon. and learned Lady’s whole premise on which she based her argument about the G20, the need to tackle deficits and get growth is completely wrong. The whole point about the G20 is that if you combine fiscal consolidation in the countries that need it with expansion and dealing with the imbalances from emerging economies, you can maximise world growth. That is what it is about. She says that there is no case for going faster in those countries with excessive deficits—on the IMF figures we have the biggest deficit of all—but the Labour party is now completely isolated on this issue. The G20’s view is that
“it is clear that consolidation will need to begin in advanced economies in 2011, and earlier for countries experiencing significant fiscal challenges at present”—
and that is the UK. So the Labour party is isolated from the G20.
Let us see how Labour is getting on with the US. Tim Geithner, the US Treasury Secretary, said about the UK Budget:
“I think they’ve got the right balance, the right objectives and I think they’re demonstrating that again you have to act so that people can see you’re committed to follow through”.
So Labour is now isolated from the Americans. What about the Europeans? José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, said in Toronto that there is no more room for deficit spending. So Labour is now isolated from the Europeans.
Let me end with the IMF, because that is where we would have ended up if that lot had stayed in power. The IMF was clear:
“In this regard, credible and coherent fiscal plans should be clearly communicated as soon as possible. There is a pressing need…for fiscal consolidation in G-20 advanced economies”.
If that is not done, it could, says the IMF,
“weigh on the recovery and raise market pressure in an environment of elevated uncertainty about sovereign debt risks.”
There we have it. Whether it is the US, the EU or the IMF—and I could add in the OECD—the Labour party is now completely and utterly isolated.
As for quoting President Obama, here is one I prepared earlier. He said that
“we have been very impressed with the leadership that David Cameron has shown thus far. He has, I think, taken a series of steps on some very tough issues and…is prepared to make…decisions on behalf of…his country.”
The right hon. and learned Lady’s attempt to claim that somehow we are not completely in tune with the US, the EU, the G20 and the IMF is an attack that simply is not going to take off.
Mr Speaker
Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, so brevity is required, a legendary example of which will, I know, now be provided by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell).
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Is part of President Obama’s message to the leading industrial countries of continental Europe not to move too rapidly or too severely in cutting back on public expenditure or the money supply lest they precipitate a slump, as occurred in the case of Credit Anstaldt, as a result of applying similar policies, led by Germany?
The Prime Minister
The message is clear: countries that face big fiscal challenges have to address those challenges. Let me put it the other way around: for countries like us, with an 11% budget deficit, further fiscal action—or, indeed, no action—could lead to a serious problem with our economy. Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that when we tighten fiscal policy, as we should, that should be accompanied by a loose monetary policy. That is why I made the remarks that I did about the importance of not bringing in the banking rules too quickly, and why the Bank of England’s positive response to the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced is so encouraging. However, for Britain, the right measure, as the G20, the EU and the OECD say, is to deal with our deficit. If we do not, we could be in real danger.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I was going to congratulate the Prime Minister on his first foray into the G8 and G20, but he has already congratulated himself.
In his discussions with the Canadian Prime Minister, did they talk about the consequences for ordinary men and women of too rapid a deficit reduction and, in particular, the reduction in Canada in the late 1990s, when the environmental services budget in Ontario was cut by $200 million and the town of Walkerton experienced the most enormous impact, with disease and, regrettably, death from E. coli? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not grandiose announcements but the consequences for people in their lives with which we need to be concerned?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his probably justified rebuke, which was well put. However, at the risk of quoting another Prime Minister, Stephen Harper did say that the UK Budget
“highlighted the very fiscal consolidation that we’re trying to steer the G20 towards,”
so there was strong support from the Canadians for what we are doing here. As we do the difficult job of dealing with the record deficit that we inherited, we of course have to do everything that we can to protect the poorest and ensure that we stimulate regional growth, a subject that we will be talking about tomorrow. However, I keep returning to this point: not acting would be more serious for the UK economy and would lead to greater hardship for people.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
By what criteria will it be judged that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable to allow us to withdraw our troops, and how long will it be before we are talking to the Taliban, as suggested over the weekend by General Sir David Richards?
The Prime Minister
Let me try to answer both those questions briefly. The way to judge progress in Afghanistan is in terms of the basic level of security, stability and governance. So in Helmand, for instance, as we see districts that are under good provincial governors, with lead Afghan control over security, that is the time when we can judge that the job is getting done, and there is some prospect of some of that happening this year. As for talking to Taliban, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts it, a process of reconciliation and reintegration is taking place, where Taliban who are prepared to stop fighting and accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution can be reintegrated back into society. That should happen. That political track, which runs alongside the training of the Afghan army and the military surge, is vital, and we need to push further and faster on it.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
May I push the Prime Minister slightly harder on the issue of Afghanistan and talking to the Taliban? It is true, as he says, that those who want to lay down their arms can be welcomed back, but there may be many who are not, but who will nevertheless be required to do so, in the event of a political situation being arrived at, which all of us in this House know is the only eventual outcome for Afghanistan. There is a limited amount that the Prime Minister can say, but it would be good if he could reassure the House that, come the right moment and in the right way, the British Government will indicate their willingness to talk?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. This is one of those things that it is better to get on and deal with, rather than endlessly theorising about it. There is a huge difference between that part of the insurgency that is linked to al-Qaeda and is extremist in its ideology, and what has become in some parts of Afghanistan an insurgency based on the way in which particular tribes have been dealt with or on particular local issues. There is a difference between the two, and we need to bear that in mind in this important political track that we have embarked on.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that none of us wants to stay in Afghanistan a moment longer than is necessary, but does he agree that we have to get our priorities right between leaving and succeeding? If our priority is to leave, that will make it harder to succeed, whereas if our priority is to succeed, that will make it easier to leave.
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend on that. Transitioning provinces and districts to Afghan control should be done on the basis of the facts on the ground and the capacity that they have to do that, rather than on the basis of a timetable. Having said that, I do not see anything wrong with saying, “This is a task that has to take place over the coming years, but we should not be there, for instance, for five years.” That is a perfectly fair point to make—[Interruption.] I can hear chuntering from the Opposition. The last Government set quite a lot of interim short-term targets, and I think that is where the problems have come from.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement. I associate the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the condolences that he expressed at the beginning of his statement. President Obama has set a timetable for beginning the draw-down of US troops from Afghanistan, as have the Canadian hosts of the G20. If that is right for the United States and for Canada, why is it wrong for the UK?
The Prime Minister
There is a difference between what Canada has decided and what President Obama is undertaking. Canada has set a firm deadline for withdrawing all its troops from combat and other operations, and that date is firmly set in stone. President Obama has spoke about a review towards the end of this year and, from July 2011, he hopes to be drawing down the surge in troops that has taken place this year. That is very different from what the Canadians are discussing. We are part of that US surge. We surged our troop numbers, as the US did—albeit by less, but we still have around 10,000 in Helmand. We, too, should be looking at progress at the end of the year, and at that July 2011 date. However, I would rather give the House and the people of this country the certain knowledge that we are not going to be there in five years’ time in the role that we are now. Between now and then, however, let us try to deliver on the ground as best we can, and train up the Afghan national army and the police in order to deliver that security and bring our troops home. And let us do it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) suggested, on the basis of the facts on the ground.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Prime Minister wants the existing strategy to be given more time to succeed, but will he accept that, if it shows little sign of progress in the next few months, or even the next year or so, there should be an alternative to recommending total withdrawal? Total withdrawal would take us back to square one, and the existing strategy would mean our continuing to take excessive casualties. There has to be, and there could be, a middle way, and I hope that he will consider that if he sees that the present strategy is not moving in the direction that he would like to see.
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend is working hard on the middle way option, and that he is going to do further work on it. Of course I shall look carefully at what he produces. I would say to him that the surge in troop numbers has made a difference on the ground. In the parts of Afghanistan where previously it was impossible to step outside a military base, it is now possible to walk around the towns and visit the markets. I went to a training college, the last time I was in Helmand. The previous time, I went to a wheat seed distribution centre. Both times, I was able to have some freedom of movement. So there is some progress, and I think that this is the right strategy. We should use all that we have, this year, to give it every chance of success.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister prayed in aid the International Monetary Fund earlier, but he did not quote the IMF boss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who has warned that fiscal retrenchment wrongly done would cost 60 million jobs globally. How many of those 60 million jobs will be lost among the world’s poor, and how many will be lost among the poor of this country?
The Prime Minister
I discussed that with the IMF over the weekend. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s own interventions in the debate at the G20 were very strongly in favour of fiscal consolidation, particularly for the countries—such as Britain—with the largest budget deficits. I looked around that table at the G20. According to the IMF’s figures, our budget deficit, at over 11 per cent., is the biggest. The answer to the question “Do they mean us when they are talking about excessive deficits?” is “Yes, they do.”
The key point made by Dominique Strauss-Kahn and others is that this is a package. If we are to maximise world growth, which will bring more jobs and livelihoods, we need a combination of fiscal consolidation in the countries that require it and measures to deal both with the imbalances in the developing world and with the structural problems in the developed economies such as Germany’s. That is what needs to be done. Dominique Strauss-Kahn is recommending exactly the sort of action that we are taking here in this country.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
In the context of international development, the publication of the accountability report is very welcome, as is the specific commitment on maternal and child health. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that a commitment by the international community to a robust and specific process will be necessary in New York in September if we are to have any hope of achieving the millennium development goals by 2015?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a process of continual checking up on the progress being made towards the MDGs. Now, in 2010, we are two thirds of the way towards the final point, and we should be doing better. We chose maternal and child health at the G8 because those are two of the goals that we are furthest from meeting.
I, too, welcome the document to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I encourage my colleagues to read it. While it is not perfect, it sets out pretty clearly on pages 15, 16 and 17 what countries promised to do and what they have done. That is progress. We have all sat here and heard reports of the great things achieved at G8 summits, but this document holds countries’ feet to the fire and asks, “Did you do what you promised to do? If you did not, you must think again.”
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to draw attention to the likelihood of deaths in pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa, but does he not think that the summit was a little bit complacent about the immediate and very serious problem of food shortages throughout that area, and the consequent large migration flows as people desperately seek somewhere to live and something to eat? Is there not a real sense of urgency when one in six of the world’s population are suffering from food shortages, the largest number in history?
The Prime Minister
I would not say that the summit was complacent. It was my first G8 summit, and I was struck by the fact that about half the sessions were opened up to visiting leaders from the African Union, Algeria, Egypt and elsewhere in Africa, so that they could keep reminding the richest countries in the world of what they had promised to do. The G8 cannot substitute for the work of the United Nations and other food programmes—it is not an emergency organisation—but I do not think that it is complacent about these challenges. At least, for the first time, it is checking up on itself a bit more, and that can only be a good thing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Prime Minister Harper has reiterated his plans to start withdrawing Canadian troops from Afghanistan next year. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Prime Minister Harper about retaining Canadian troops who are in non-combat roles, such as the medical teams and their air troop transport helicopter teams?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question. A discussion has been held. However, I think we should put on record the fact that no one can accuse Canada of not playing an incredibly positive role in NATO. It has experienced a very large number of casualties in relation to the size of its population. It has made its decision about 2011, and we should not seek in any way to gainsay it over that. Of course we can all do what we can to encourage it to go on playing a role of some kind, perhaps medical or related to training, and obviously it will play a role in terms of development. However, I think that my hon. Friend’s point was well made.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I realise that watching the football with Angela Merkel cannot have been much fun for the Prime Minister, not least because—I think—he was not even born in 1966, and therefore could not console himself with the memory of that achievement.
In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned Turkey and its important role in relation to the middle east process in Iran. Has he had any discussions with fellow European heads of state about the fact that if we go on making it difficult for Turkey to accede to the European Union, it may well turn its back on Europe, in which case we will be the losers?
The Prime Minister
I have had those conversations at both the G8 and the G20. It is good that there is all-party agreement in this House that we should do everything we can to encourage Turkey into the European Union, to anchor her into the west in all the ways we can. Clearly there is a disagreement—a disagreement that is not going to go away—between France and Germany on the one hand and Britain on the other about Turkey and the EU, but irrespective of those positions we should all be doing what we can to encourage Turkey to feel part of Europe and of the direction we are taking. The role she can play in terms of Iran and the middle east peace process is very important, but she will not be so inclined to play that role if Europe turns her back.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that if we are to succeed in Afghanistan, we need unity of purpose. How concerned is he, therefore, by the resignation of General McChrystal and of key Ministers in President Karzai’s Government, and by the extended leave being taken by the UK special representative to Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
On the issue of the Ministers resigning from President Karzai’s Government, he has put in place quite talented replacements. On the issue of Stanley McChrystal, he is a very talented general who we believe had delivered the right strategy. I was consulted on the issue twice by President Obama, but in the end it was about what General McChrystal had said about the US Administration in the interview in Rolling Stone magazine, so it was an issue between the US Administration and Stanley McChrystal, rather than necessarily a matter for me.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has had three international outings and he has acquitted himself very well; it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. Ahead of them, he wrote in the Financial Times on 17 June:
“It is shocking that…women still do not have equal rights in the workplace. This is not just unfair; it makes no sense—because it deprives our economies of their full potential as workers and consumers.”
Will he therefore agree, in this spirit of bipartisanship, that having the gender pay audits that have been suggested in both the public and private sectors would be a way of getting rid of that huge problem?
The Prime Minister
We have supported—and, indeed, before the election we put forward a case for—gender pay audits, particularly based on those companies where any unfairness is found. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, quoting from my FT article, which is that that is one of the structural reforms that we in the west in the developed world should be carrying out in order to increase our growth rates, and as the right hon. Gentleman is being so friendly, I shall have to take away his thoughts and think about them again.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Whether it be Afghanistan, the global economy or, indeed, tackling climate change, the G8 and G20 summits are becoming useful vehicles for tackling global issues, but they make decisions that are then passed on to an organisation created just after the war, the United Nations, which is woefully out of date. Were there any discussions about updating the United Nations so that it can tackle these issues much better?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The UN Secretary-General was, of course, at the G20 meeting and made a number of contributions, but my hon. Friend is right that the architecture of international relations is badly out of date. We have the rise of India, we have the enormous strength of Germany and Japan, and we have the great growth of Brazil, yet none of those countries is on the Security Council. We have to recognise that it is all very well all of us—we all do this—saying that we must share global leadership with India and China, but if we are going to share global leadership we need to change these institutions. This was discussed. It is fantastically difficult because people have so many vested interests—as, indeed, do we—but I do think that it is absolutely right for countries such as India and Brazil to have the sense that they should be on the UN Security Council.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I praise, of course, the troops who have died and those who, sadly and unfortunately, are likely to die in the future, but is it not the case that there can be hardly a single Member who believes that a military victory in Afghanistan in any meaningful sense is likely to come about even in another nine years? Therefore, is it not all the more important to start negotiations sooner rather than later, as suggested by General Richards? I think the Prime Minister should recognise that there is growing concern in the country at large about what is happening and the number of deaths in Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right. We are all concerned about the number of casualties in Afghanistan. He is also right in that when we look across history at fighting insurgencies, in very few of them has there ever been a complete military victory—it is a combination of what happens militarily and in the country at large and what happens in terms of some sort of reconciliation process. That is important. We are committed to the reconciliation process and would like to see it go further and faster, but as I said, it is important to maintain a distinction between Taliban linked to al-Qaeda, who would have the terrorist training camps come back and who want world terrorism, and people involved in insurgency for any number of other reasons. Yes, of course there must be a political track and of course we should develop it, but we need to differentiate the sorts of Taliban we face.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that our global banking system remains incredibly risky, and that bearing in mind how long it has taken to get previous Basel agreements in place, it may be necessary to take steps to protect our particular vulnerability to the banking sector before then?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to put in place a system whereby banks have to ask themselves whether they have enough capital to withstand the sort of shock they suffered in 2008 and 2009. That is what needs to take place, and it is being put in place relatively quickly, but the rules need to be drawn up and agreed, and there may then be a pause before they are actually introduced, because at the moment the great risk is shrinkage of the monetary base—a shrinkage of bank lending—at this very sensitive time in our recovery.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
How can the Prime Minister retain his optimism after 11 British deaths in 10 days? How can a stable Afghanistan be built on the crumbling foundations of an election-rigging president and his criminal family, on an Afghan army that is mercenary and drug-addicted and on a police force that is depraved and entirely corrupt? We are in the end game position, as Canada and the Netherlands have explained. At the end of the Vietnam war a question was asked that should haunt us all now: who will be the last soldier ordered into battle to die for a politician’s mistake?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has long taken that view, but even though he makes that case he wildly overstates it. If we talk to British soldiers who serve with the Afghan national army they say that those soldiers are brave, they work hard and they are committed. Yes, of course we need to improve recruitment from all parts of the country, but I do not think it is fair to characterise the army as he does. There have been problems with the Afghan police force, but when we go to Afghanistan we see police trainers from European and American countries doing good work. I do not accept that all is as bleak as the hon. Gentleman puts it. We have had a number of casualties, which are heartbreaking in every individual case and it is heartbreaking that there are so many, but we have to remember what we are doing in Afghanistan. It is not creating the perfect society; it is training up the Afghans so that they can take care of their own security and we face fewer attacks from terrorist groups trained in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that today the number of threats coming from that area is reduced, because of what we have done in Afghanistan and because of what the Pakistan Government are doing in Pakistan. Of course we should not be blind to people’s concerns, but we should try to take people with us on the success there has been in reducing those threats.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that business growth is vital for the Chancellor’s plans and that credit is vital to business growth. The Governor of the Bank of England warned on Friday that lending to business remained weak and there was a risk of “disruption of credit”. The G20 proposals could cause banks more serious concern in that respect, so what will the Prime Minister and the Government do to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises receive the credit they need to ensure growth in this country over the next three years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and the concern that we should have about the economy is not the fiscal tightening that needs to happen, but to ensure that the banks are lending and that monetary policy is working effectively. Of course, monetary policy is not just interest rates—the price of money—but we also have to think about the quantity of money, which is bank lending. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget made a number of improvements to the credit lending schemes. I think that we can look to see whether there is even more that should be done, but let me repeat that the key thing that we were trying to do at the G20 was not to enforce credit rules now that would restrict lending, but to put in place the measures for the long term that will stop the catastrophe that we suffered in 2008 and 2009. That is the key. In Europe, we are stress testing the banks to ensure that they have adequate capital. Again, that is important: we need to ensure the soundness of the banking system, because that is part of the key to recovery.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
The Prime Minister mentioned that he had four useful bipartite meetings. Did he meet Juan Manuel Santos—the President-elect of Colombia—or did he indicate that he would meet him when he goes on tour? He is a gentleman who, as Defence Minister, dressed his troops as members of the International Committee of the Red Cross, carried out the extra-judicial murders of 2,000 innocent civilians and bombed Ecuador, where there is, I believe, a murder warrant out for him. Did the Prime Minister, or will he, raise those issues on behalf of concerned people in the UK who follow them very closely?
The Prime Minister
I did not meet the President-elect; I did meet the current President, President Uribe, who was at the G8 session on tackling corruption and the drugs trade, where there was a presentation from him and I had a conversation with him. I will take away the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and reflect on them when I have the conversation—I am sure that I will—with the President when he is not just the President-elect but the President.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Did the Prime Minister find time during the G20 summit to speak to the leaders of Russia and China about the ongoing diplomatic issues with Iran? May I urge him to work closely with those traditional allies of Iran to ensure that we try not to go anywhere near the military action that some hawkish nations want?
The Prime Minister
I had very positive meetings with President Hu of China and President Medvedev of Russia. We discussed, particularly in the Russian meeting at quite some length, the Iranian situation. It is encouraging that the Russians have voted for the sanctions resolution in the UN—resolution 1929—and it is important to show a united face to the Iranians about the unacceptability of their acquiring a nuclear weapon. The point is that nobody wants military action, by Israel or anyone else, to take place, and that is all the more reason for taking the sanctions route and trying to maximise the pressure and change the balance for Iran, to raise the costs for it of having a nuclear weapon. That is what this is all about.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Almost 80 years ago, countries across the world adopted policies of fiscal tightening and gave us the inter-war depression—the slump, with millions of people thrown out of work. We are now adopting policies of collective deflation. Is the Prime Minister not at all fearful that history might repeat itself and that we might see millions back unemployed?
The Prime Minister
It is quite difficult to talk about deflation when monetary policy is as loose as it is and when interest rates are as low as they are. This is where, with respect, the Labour party has not understood enough of the argument. We have to tighten fiscal policy in the UK. We are borrowing 11% of our gross domestic product. If we started borrowing more, or indeed we stood still, we could face the situation that others in Europe face—it is that serious—so where the demand should come from is by the combination of a fiscal tightening but with loose monetary policy. That is not the same thing that happened in the 1930s. The additional mistake made in the 1930s was to have trade wars, and hon. Members could hear from my statement just how hard this country is fighting to ensure that that does not happen.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As one of the many millions of disappointed football fans around our country today, may I thank the Prime Minister for raising the issue of goal-line technology? Does he agree that, when it comes to tackling the deficit, it is the Opposition who have taken their eyes off the ball?
The Prime Minister
That was an ingenious way of bringing goal-line technology into a statement on the G20, and I am amazed by your latitude, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] There was no point blaming the referee; as I said, we were not robbed, we were beaten. However, to Chancellor Merkel’s credit, every time Germany slotted another one past us, she apologised.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the only occasions in the past 25 years when England have beaten Germany at football have been under a Labour Government? When does he expect that we will be able to do that again?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s absence last week, he might have missed two surprising events. First, the shadow Chancellor made a speech that contained lots of criticism, but not one recommendation for reducing the deficit. Secondly, we saw a five-minute silent cameo from the former Prime Minister, although amazingly, for such a fiscal champion, it was during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but the Prime Minister is not responsible for speeches made by the shadow Chancellor, nor even for the former Prime Minister, so I think that we will leave it there.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said in his statement that the G8 sent a collective signal that “we want the Afghan security forces to ‘assume increasing responsibility for security within five years’”—he did not say “full responsibility”. He said later on that he wanted to give an indication that we will be out of Afghanistan in five years. Does that mean that we will be out of Afghanistan regardless of the situation in that country in five years’ time—full stop?
The Prime Minister
The point is that for many years after our troops have left, we will have a strong relationship with Afghanistan that will involve diplomacy and aid, and perhaps even helping to continue to train Afghan forces. However, in answer to the question of whether we should be in Afghanistan by then in the way that we are now, with large-scale military deployment and all the rest of it, no we should not. We should by then have trained up the Afghan army and police force, and seen an improvement in governance, so that we can bring our troops back home.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I read on page 3 of the G20 communiqué that fiscal consolidation plans should be credible and clearly communicated. Did the Prime Minister get the chance to read any of the weekend papers that suggested that the majority of the British people support the Budget and agree with some of the spending plans, which shows that our message is definitely getting across to all but Labour Members?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes the important point, which the International Monetary Fund also makes, that if we carry out fiscal consolidation and demonstrate that we have a plan and are getting on with it, that can enhance confidence. Confidence is the key to growth. If we are going to get people to spend and invest, they need to know that the Government have a plan for getting us out of the mess that we inherited, so that is key to getting our economy moving.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Prime Minister was discussing the banking levy at the G20, did he explain to his colleagues why he was so lenient on the banks? Instead of taking the axe to public services, he should be asking the banks to contribute more to address the mess that they created, instead of letting them off the hook.
The Prime Minister
I know that the hon. Gentleman missed the previous Parliament, but he could have read about some of the things that took place. During that Parliament, we argued for the introduction of a banking levy even if others did not follow suit. The position of the Labour party, although I am sure that it is changing by the minute, was that, under the great disappeared—the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—we had to wait for full agreement from every single country in the world. That was not our policy. We have introduced a banking levy, and quite rightly too.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I urge caution on my right hon. Friend when it comes to Turkey’s membership of the European Union? Unless we have already left the EU by that stage—I can but hope—Turkey’s membership could lead only to the British taxpayer being asked to put his hand further in his pocket and further strain on immigration into this country.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman says, there is not quite complete agreement on this issue, but as I would say to the French President or German Chancellor, even if people do not agree with me that Turkey should be a member of the EU, we should be straining every sinew to think of ways of encouraging Turkey to play a full role in the affairs of our continent. It is a member of NATO, and we have a strong bilateral relationship and a trading relationship with the country. Turkey wants those relationships with us, and we should do everything that we can to enhance them.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Has not the Prime Minister been a little selective in his quotes from the IMF? Did it not say clearly that there is a lack of co-ordination at the G20, that there are premature consolidations, particularly in Europe, and that if there were greater co-ordination between the G20 and other economies it would add 2.5% to world growth and create 8 million jobs?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right in one regard: the upside scenario posed by the IMF adds to growth and to jobs, but that scenario includes fiscal consolidation by countries such as Britain. I do not want to bore him with quotes from the IMF, but it said:
“Fiscal deficits and debt in some advanced economies reach unacceptably high levels… Sound fiscal finances are essential to sustain recovery”.
A key point from the declaration says that those countries
“with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation.”
That is what the IMF is saying about us. Yes, there needs to be action across the board, including by emerging markets and developing countries which have very high surpluses, not just fiscal surpluses but trade surpluses. In a way, that is what the G20 was about—trying to get people to put into the process what they need to put in. From us, that is fiscal consolidation; from the Chinese, it is dealing with their surpluses. Not everyone acted as much as we did—Germany included.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The communiqué says that the present situation in Gaza is not sustainable and must be changed. Was there any discussion at the summit about practical assistance that international organisations could offer Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza but weapons smuggling is stopped?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. There were discussions about what could be done, such as having international bodies at the various crossing points to try to examine what is being brought in. The change that has taken place is encouraging on one level because instead of effectively banning everything, Israel has listed those things that it will not allow in, which should lead to increased humanitarian capacity in Gaza. That has a very long way to go, and everybody knows that we are not going to sort out the problem of the middle east peace process while there is, effectively, a giant open prison in Gaza.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Were there any discussions about the possibility of one of our European neighbours falling into further recession? In that eventuality, what contingencies would be considered?
The Prime Minister
There are great concerns, particularly in the eurozone, about the sovereign debt and other problems that countries face. We should be constructive. As I have said before, I do not think that we should join the euro. In my view, we should never join the euro. However, the eurozone is important to us, and those countries sorting out their problems is important to us. We should not stand in their way if they want to take steps to do that. The key point for us is not putting more money in and not passing powers from London to Brussels. Inasmuch as those countries find ways of sorting out their problems, we should back them.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Also in the newspapers this weekend were comments by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize-winning economist, who predicted the global financial meltdown, that announcements in our Budget will, at best, make Britain’s recovery from a recession longer, and, at worst, put us into the double-dip recession that we said would occur. Does the Prime Minister agree that we ignore Professor Joseph Stiglitz at our peril?
The Prime Minister
One can find any number of economists taking any number of different views. I say that as someone who studied under them. In the end, if we look at what the IMF says, at what the OECD says, at what, as I quoted, the Americans and the European Union say and at all the advice we have had from the Bank of England and the Treasury, we see that it is important to deal with our deficit. Unless we do that, we will not get confidence, and unless we have confidence, we will not get growth.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Apart from the military operation in Afghanistan, what steps are being taken to win over the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan? Linked to that, what steps are the Government of Afghanistan taking to reform the madrassahs, the religious schools, which are often seen as a breeding ground for radicalism?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about religious education. It has been more of a problem in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. In terms of improving the quality of life for Afghans, it is worth remembering why the Taliban succeeded in the first place. They succeeded because there was no law and order, and no system of justice. Effective district governance and security, being able to go about one’s daily life, are key. Of course we want to see things such as girls going to school and better observance of human rights, but we should prioritise those things that I think the Afghans themselves would prioritise, which is safety and security.
Ian Austin
The Prime Minister has cracked jokes about his bilateral last night with Chancellor Merkel, but millions of people will agree with me that last night’s performance was no laughing matter at all. Is it not time that the governance of the game was shaken up, so that we treat football as a sport, not as a business? Did the Prime Minister find time to discuss with President Sarkozy how he can follow his example and launch an inquiry so that we never have to witness that sort of performance again?
Mr Speaker
That was a bit wide of the summit, but not, I am sure, of the Prime Minister’s capacities.
The Prime Minister
There are parts of sport and politics that probably should not mix. It is no laughing matter; it was very depressing. For all of us who wanted England to do well, it was heartbreaking to watch. At least we can say, “We weren’t robbed—we were beaten.” It was not all down to the disallowed Lampard goal—we were beaten fair and square. An interesting point that was made while I was watching was how much German football institutions put into youth training and their football academy. I am sure there are things that our own game, independent of the Government, as they should be—we only want to take credit when they win—can learn from that.
Limits on Non-EU Economic Migration
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Immigration has enriched our culture and enhanced our society. Britain can benefit from immigration, but not uncontrolled immigration. The levels of net migration seen under the previous Government—an annual figure of almost a quarter of a million at its peak in 2004—were unprecedented in recent times. It is this Government’s aim to reduce the level of net migration back down to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands each year, not hundreds of thousands.
Of course, it is necessary to attract the world’s very best talent to come to the UK to drive strong economic growth, but unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on public services and, worse, severely damaged public confidence in our immigration system. Our over-reliance on migrant labour has done nothing to help the millions of unemployed and low-skilled British citizens who deserve the Government’s help to get back to work and improve their skills. The coalition’s programme for government confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We have always said that we will consult on the implementation of that limit. It is important that the Government take full account of the views of business and other interested sectors. We want to ensure that we can properly weigh the economic considerations against the wider social and public service implications.
I am therefore launching a consultation today on the mechanisms for implementing that annual limit, including questions about the coverage of limits, as well as the mechanics of how they will work in practice. The consultation also recognises the need to attract more high net-worth individuals to the UK through the routes for investors and entrepreneurs, which will not be covered by limits, and we ask for views on how that can be achieved. At the same time, I have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Government on the levels at which limits should be set for the first full year of their operation, which I intend should be from April 2011.
I am sure that all Members of the House would agree with me that the Migration Advisory Committee has an excellent track record in this area, and I want to take this opportunity to record my thanks to David Metcalf and the rest of the committee for taking on this critical piece of work. The consultations will be complete by the end of September, and I intend to make final announcements about the first full annual limit before the end of the calendar year.
It is important that today’s announcement does not lead to a surge of applications during this interim period, which would lead to an increase in net migration, undermining the purpose of the limit and putting undue strain on the UK Border Agency. I am therefore also taking a number of interim measures, and I have laid a statement of changes to the immigration rules in support of those measures. First, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of out-of-country main applicants to tier 1 (general). For 2010-11, this route will be held flat from the equivalent period for 2009-10. The tier 1 routes for investors, entrepreneurs and the post-study route are not affected. Secondly, to ensure that those who do come through this route are the brightest and best, I am raising the tier 1 (general) pass mark by five points for all new applicants.
Thirdly, I am introducing an interim limit on the number of migrants who can be offered jobs by sponsor employers through tier 2 (general). This route will be reduced in the interim period by 1,300 migrants, the equivalent of a 5% reduction across the relevant routes of tiers 1 and 2. The tier 2 routes for intra-company transfers, ministers for religion and—I am not sure whether to say this, given the comments at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement—elite sportspeople are not affected. These interim measures will take effect from 19 July.
It is vital that we restore public confidence in our immigration system. Our plans to do that extend much further than the measures I am announcing today. We support e-borders and the re-introduction of exit checks. We have said that we will create a dedicated border police force to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We have committed to improving our asylum system to speed up the processing of applications. We have said that we will end the detention of children for immigration purposes, and the UK Border Agency has already launched a review engaging a wide range of experts and organisations on how to achieve this.
Our commitment to reduce net migration will require action, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) will indicate in a moment, beyond the economic routes. It may assist him if I tell the House now that I will be reviewing other immigration routes in due course and will be bringing forward further proposals for consideration by the House. And, of course, unlike the previous Government, we are committed to applying transitional controls for all new EU member states.
The commitment to introduce limits on non-EU economic migration is a major immigration commitment of the coalition Government. Today’s announcement is a key step towards the delivery of that commitment, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Lady for a copy of the statement. I am pleased that she has come to make the statement to the House. However, I had already seen the statement she has just made because it was handed to me by a journalist this morning at 11.15.
Obviously, the Home Secretary originally intended to lay a written ministerial statement today. Indeed, the title was laid last Friday. This morning I sought that written ministerial statement. I was told that the Home Office was having a press conference prior to issuing the written ministerial statement—something unknown in my time as a Minister. Therefore, I sought the written ministerial statement again. At 11.15 am a journalist who had been to the press conference handed to me a written ministerial statement that is almost precisely the statement that the right hon. Lady has just made.
I hope the Home Secretary takes the matter seriously. As I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House have a right to see written ministerial statements before they are circulated to the media.
The Home Secretary’s announcement represents nothing more than a small adjustment to the points-based system. It was spun to the media over the weekend as a profound adjustment to net migration. Migration to this country has gone up. If the Prime Minister were talking to his French and German colleagues, he would know that there were 4 million migrants in Germany, 4 million in France and about 1.5 million in this country. Since the 1990s, the last time the Conservatives were in power, there has been a huge explosion of migration around the world, as the UN has detailed.
Yes, migration has gone up since the last time the Conservatives were in power, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that net migration has fallen substantially over the past three years? Will she confirm that tier 1 migration—the most highly skilled—fell by 44% in the first quarter of this year? What is the problem with skilled migration that she seeks to resolve? Will she also confirm that the number of asylum seekers has fallen to the levels last seen in the early 1990s—a third of their peak, and the same peak everywhere else in Europe? We are 15th in Europe regarding the number of asylum seekers per head of population.
Will the Home Secretary continue to support the points-based system that we introduced, which ensures that no unskilled worker can come to this country—the door has been closed on tier 3 for the past two years—and that skilled workers under tier 2 can come to this country only if their sponsoring employer has advertised that job in Jobcentre Plus for four weeks prior? Can she confirm that she intends to continue with those measures, which we introduced?
How many skilled workers will be denied entry to the UK under that temporary cap, and what percentage of total net migration will that represent? What makes the Home Secretary think that the UK can avoid the problems the US experienced when President Bush introduced a quota on skilled migrants, with disastrous consequences and a whole series of readjustments 10 years ago? Can she give an example of the problems caused to our society by skilled migrants coming to the UK under the current flexible arrangements?
What effect does the right hon. Lady think her announcement today will have on population growth? Over the weekend I heard Government Members speculate that this morning’s announcement—this trivial adjustment —will somehow ensure that our population avoids reaching 70 million. Does she believe that? If so, how does she think that that will happen?
Given that this measure has been Conservative policy since the less progressive “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” days of their 2005 manifesto, why have they as yet failed to come up with a figure for their pre-determined quota? Does the right hon. Lady intend to implement fully Labour’s tough measures to deal with the abuse of tier 4, the student route, which, along with spousal visas and EU migration, will be totally unaffected by the cap she has announced today?
Today’s announcement will affect fewer than one in seven migrants to this country, and those whom it will affect are the migrants our economy needs the most. If the cap is set too high, it will be meaningless; if it set too low, it will damage our economy. At best it is a gesture; at worst it is a deceit. The Home Secretary knows that a cut in her Department’s budget of one third, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies—25%, according to her right hon. Friend the Chancellor—will have disastrous consequences for border control. Is that not the real reason for controlling immigration, rather than this artificial and unnecessary tinkering at the edges?
Mrs May
Let me first address the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the written ministerial statement and my coming to the House. He is absolutely right: I had intended to make a written statement, and the title was indeed placed before the House so that Members could be made aware of it. Over the weekend I spoke to the Government Chief Whip about the possibility of changing that statement into an oral statement, because at the time I felt it more important to come to the House to make an oral statement, which is precisely what I have done. The right hon. Gentleman said, “Will I take this issue seriously?” Government Members have taken Parliament seriously over the past 13 years, so I shall take no lessons from him or any of his colleagues about taking it seriously, given how they bypassed Parliament for 13 years and reduced the House’s powers to hold the Executive to account.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about migration figures, but immigration actually tripled under the Labour Government. It is our desire to get the number down from the hundreds of thousands a year that it has reached under Labour to tens of thousands a year. If he wishes to look at numbers, he should look no further than the past comments of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who said that there was “no obvious upper limit” to immigration. It is this Government who are taking the issue seriously, who promised that they would do something about it and who are taking the action that is necessary.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle made a number of comments about technicalities and the issue of jobs being advertised for four weeks in a jobcentre. Currently, immigrants can come into the country if the resident labour market test or the shortage occupation list requirements are met. We are consulting on whether they should be combined so that a tier 2 migrant is able to come in if both tests are relevant and met. That would be a significant tightening of the current rules.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the wider social impact, as opposed to the economic impact. He has only to go out and talk to people about the pressure in some areas on public services, hospitals and schools. Another issue that his Government failed to get to grips with over the years is the significant number of unemployed people in this country. Some of those people do not have the necessary skills to get into the jobs that are available, but the job of the Government is to ensure that they do have those skills and to give them the support they need to get into those jobs, rather than simply thinking that the answer is to pull in migrant workers from elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to students. If, instead of commenting on the statement he thought I was going to make, he had listened to the statement that I made, he would have heard me say that we would indeed be looking at other immigration routes in due course and bringing further proposals to this House. I recognise that this is one part of the job that we are doing as regards immigration, and other measures will come forward in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not yet have a figure for the annual limit on immigration, despite the fact that this has been a Conservative policy for some time and was in the coalition agreement. I can tell him why not: because we have, for some time, been committed to going out there and consulting those who will be affected—businesses, public service providers and others—about what the limit should be. As I said, the Migration Advisory Committee will be advising the Government and recommending what that annual limit should be. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to the approach of the previous Government, who, in one consultation exercise after another, merely paid lip service to consultation because they had already decided what they were going to do. People then got fed up with being asked to give comments and finding that Government took no notice. We are genuinely consulting people and will be listening to the responses that we get.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although individual employers may benefit by importing cheap labour, as a nation we will get richer only if our existing employees are enabled and encouraged to acquire skills themselves so that they can produce more, and enrich themselves and the country, rather than have those incentives to acquire skills undermined by the importation of cheap labour from abroad?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. This is another area where frankly, yet again, the Labour Government failed over the course of 13 years: they failed to ensure that people in this country had the skills necessary to get the jobs that become available. This Government, through our welfare reform proposals and our work programme, will be helping people and giving them much more support to get into the workplace, whereas under the Labour Government economic inactivity in the UK rose significantly. Many migrant workers were being brought in from overseas, and limiting that number will be part of the process of ensuring that we are able to help people to get out of unemployment and into the workplace.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s cap, if I may call it that, is a departure from existing policy, because this is the first time we have had a definitive figure. How did she arrive at the figure of 24,100? What will we do about the 24,102nd person who applies and is turned down? Will we give them the right of appeal if they have the skills necessary to help our country? What resources does she propose to give to posts abroad, which will be overwhelmed by a stampede of applications over the next year? Will she come before my Committee as soon as possible to discuss these matters further?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those points. He mentioned the possibility of a stampede at posts overseas in relation to this matter. The whole point of having the interim limit set over the next nine months or so, until the permanent annual limit comes into place, is precisely to avoid that stampede. It will not be possible for people to say that they are going to try to apply to come here before that limit comes in, because we have the interim limit, which we have set at slightly below—5% below—the numbers for the past year.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a change in policy. It is indeed, because under the points-based system the impetus is with the individual migrant: if they have the right number of points, they can decide whether they want to try to come into the UK. Under our system, we are saying, “We do want to welcome the brightest and the best, but we recognise that it is necessary to have a limit because we want to ensure that we are able to control immigration.” I am sure that Members across the whole House will agree that that is the view of many members of the general public who have raised this issue with them.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s sensible and proportionate measure. There have already been representations about it on the radio this lunchtime from care home owners. Will she gently remind them that there are 1 million young people unemployed in this country, who would welcome the opportunity to have training and employment in the care homes sector? Is it not a shame that some employers, and the Opposition Front Benchers, seem to put a vote of no confidence in our young people?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible and wise point. Of course, there will be those whom businesses want to bring in from abroad, and as I have said, we will raise the number of tier 1 general points required to ensure that they genuinely bring in the brightest and best. However, there are indeed sectors of employment in which many unemployed people would be very happy to train, and to take up the job opportunities that would then be available to them. As I have said, it is a great sadness that so many young people are unemployed in this country today and have not been given such opportunities as a result of the failure of the previous Labour Government.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary accept that her statement will be widely welcomed throughout most of our constituencies, but that during the election voters expressed another worry, which was that we are growing our population through immigration? At what stage will she consider the last Labour Government’s proposal to break the link between coming here to work and gaining citizenship? If we are to prevent our population from passing 70 million, we need to control both the number of people coming in and the number who can permanently settle here.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised that point. I said in my statement that what I have announced today is but one part of what we are doing about immigration into this country. We have already made a statement about tightening the English language requirements for people coming here to marry, and we will examine all immigration routes into this country across the board.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to carry on this important consultation in a measured and considered way, given that it is controversial but very important? We need to avoid unfair discrimination, particularly as most people coming from outside the EU are not white and not Christian. That must include discrimination against people who are skilled but not academically skilled—who come here to do skilled jobs in the catering trade, for example. Finally, will she ensure that we consult on having the best possible border police force, incorporating customs, police and immigration, thereby saving money and breaking down entrenched divides that are not working in the public interest?
Mrs May
On the last of my hon. Friend’s points, we will bring forward in due course more detailed proposals on the policing of our borders. On his earlier points, I draw his attention to the consultation document, which has fairness as one of its objectives, including fairness in ensuring that individuals have some understanding of the system and an expectation of whether they are likely to be able to come here under our proposals. The whole point of the consultation is to discuss with businesses and others what the best system would be and how it should operate to provide business with the flexibility that it requires, within the constraint of the annual limit.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Will these strictures apply to those usually immensely wealthy employers from the middle east who bring with them their own domestic servants, usually of nationalities not in the middle east? That practice has been deemed slavery, given the appalling treatment that is often meted out to those workers by their employers, not least having to work incredibly long hours, usually for no money. There have been allegations of physical and sexual abuse, and there is an almost invariable practice of the employer stealing the employee’s passport. Will the strictures apply to those individual employers, and will those practices be stopped?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the treatment of individuals who are brought here on the basis of working for others. I believe that Members in all parts of the House recognise that there are problems that need to be addressed, and we will indeed do that.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful and welcome statement, particularly in her points about skills. Does she agree that another key factor in our social problems today is a lack of adequate housing in many areas, and that in deciding on the future direction that immigration should take, the overall population factor mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is extremely important? We should consider the issue of housing in particular.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Housing is, indeed, one of those wider social issues that will be taken into account in the consultation, and I am sure that the Migration Advisory Committee will take it into account as it looks at wider social issues other than just the economic impact of immigration into this country.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
May I agree with the Home Secretary that immigration has enriched our culture and enhanced our society? I welcome the fact that she intends to consult business and other interested parties on the implementation of the new rules. May I ask for that to include further detailed discussions with the Scottish Government, particularly the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, and Scotland’s universities, to make sure that the difficulties that we have had under the current regime in recruiting world-class academic and research staff are not made worse, and to make sure that the reputation of those universities is not weakened?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and for reminding me that I did not make it clear in my statement that we will, of course, be consulting the devolved Administrations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has written to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales today on exactly this point.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which I am sure will be welcomed by my constituents who have been concerned about uncontrolled immigration. She talked about migration within the European Union. Will she give some indication of the process and timetable in relation to agreeing transitional controls on migration from new EU partners?
Mrs May
The process is very clear and is set out in the treaty. What happened previously was that the previous Government—certainly for the first tranche of accession countries that we have seen in recent years—simply failed to put those transitional arrangements in place, whereas other EU member states such as Germany did. We are absolutely clear that, with any future new EU member state, we would put those transitional arrangements in place.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
A certain someone, who is often described as a towering intellect of this House, said that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) was planning a cap on workers, not on dependent immigrants, students or asylum seekers, so it would not work. That someone is the Business Secretary; has he changed his mind?
Mrs May
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in relation to what we are proposing to do, it has always been our intention to look across the various immigration routes. I specifically mentioned, earlier, that we will look at the student route in relation to immigration, and we will do that in due course.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In welcoming the Home Secretary’s long overdue implementation of these measures, may I ask about her plans to crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs? In Dover, on Friday morning, 17 people of Afghan origin were found in the back of a lorry, of whom many were children and all were in a pretty bad way.
Charlie Elphicke
The lorry driver was Polish. It was a refrigerated lorry and many of the people were taken to hospital. It is important to have X-ray scanning on the French side of the border, for lorry cabs to be checked on the French side and for the French to be encouraged to do more as the first country of arrival. What measures might the Home Secretary take in that regard?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue and for reminding us of this problem as well as the number of people involved and the way that some of those being persuaded to come here are treated. We should all take human trafficking extremely seriously in this House, as, indeed, the Conservatives do. On our interaction with the French authorities, I am pleased to say that the Minister for Immigration and I have already held meetings with the French Minister for Immigration and that we are talking to the French on a regular basis about the processes that need to be in place to ensure that we can control our borders.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that any limit will have no impact on those seeking political asylum? May I also ask her to look into the case of Charles Atangana, who lives in Glasgow? He is a journalist in a trade union and is due to be deported to Cameroon tomorrow. He has previously been imprisoned there because of his activities, including writing articles that are critical of the state. Will she confirm that she, as Home Secretary, will have a compassionate approach to those seeking political asylum?
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that success in research and high-tech businesses in areas such as Cambridge is fuelled by many non-EU migrants who are sensitive both to rules and to how welcome they are made to feel? What steps will she take to ensure that it continues to be possible, or even easy, for us to attract the best and the brightest to this country to help our universities, industry and economy?
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that it is indeed our intention to ensure that we can continue to attract the brightest and the best. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that we do so within tier 1 migrant workers. We will consult with business and others on how we can best operate the limit to ensure that that continues.
Mr MacShane
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but I heard it on the “Today” programme this morning. She was right to criticise the previous Government for such things, but frankly, she is repeating all the same errors.
The Prime Minister met Mr Harper of Canada, Mr Singh of India and Mr Uribe of Colombia, but the Prime Minister must now tell them that their skilled people are not welcome in this country. Does the Home Secretary accept that her policy is frankly protectionist? I do not know whether she understands the bureaucratic gobbledegook that she had to read out, but no business can. Some of us in the House are still liberal on this issue, and the fig leaves in the Liberal Democrats ought to be ashamed.
Mrs May
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the technical gobbledegook of which he speaks is the rules that have been applied and how we will change the rules. Businesses understand those rules very well. The idea that the statement somehow says to every other country in the world that their skilled workers will never be able to come into the UK is completely and utterly wrong, and he should frankly be ashamed of himself for standing up and suggesting that in the House. As I said, immigration has been good for the UK, but uncontrolled immigration is not. We are ensuring that we put an annual limit on immigration. I believe that that is what people are looking to this Government to do. They are looking for us to take action on the things that we promised prior to the election, but perhaps he finds it difficult to accept that we are actually delivering on our promise.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The new rules announced today will be warmly welcomed not least among the rather newer residents of the UK. How will the rules be applied to ensure that not only big firms but smaller, entrepreneurial firms, which are quite often run by people from immigrant families, can bring in the brightest and the best?
Mrs May
I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the consultation document. We are asking businesses about a number of ways in which we can apply the limit, be that a first-come-first-served system or a pool system such as New Zealand’s, so that his points are taken into account. I am sure he will want to make his own representations on the matter.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I recognise that this is a difficult matter for any Government to deal with and that there are no easy answers, but will the cap be flexible in any way with regard to those fleeing religious persecution, especially Christians from Iran, Iraq and parts of Africa?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but as I said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who raised the issue of political asylum, the limit does not apply to asylum seekers. The statement is about economic migrants coming in from outside the EU.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I put my question on behalf of the 4.5 million people who lived on out-of-work benefits during the past decade, when four out of five of the new jobs created in the boom years went to foreign nationals. That was unforgivable and we cannot let it happen again. We were elected on a clear platform significantly to reduce immigration. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will stand firm in the face of lobbying that seeks to defend unacceptably high levels of immigration again in the name of skills? The skills we do not have in this country, and indeed across the rest of the EU, cannot reasonably—[Hon. Members: “Speech!”] I will give way now.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her points. She was making a valid point about the many unemployed people in the UK who have not had the skills to take advantage of the work opportunities that have become available. Our welfare reform proposals will provide extra support to help people get into work, and that is important. She is also right to say that people are looking to this Government to ensure that we control immigration into this country.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s exemption for ministers of religion from these provisions, but will she go further and set in place a protocol, such as the protocols that we have at present with universities and other certified institutes of higher education, so that those coming in from certified religious institutions can be fast-tracked and not have to go through the present process with the Home Office? Often, monks or sadhus who take a vow of poverty are asked to show what wealth they have before being allowed to come here.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which is an important first step in implementing the coalition’s proposals to get our immigration system under control. She talked about restoring public confidence in our immigration system. Does she agree that, in addition to the measures that she listed in her statement, doing a better job of removing those people who do not have a right to be in this country is a key element in that regard?
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
May I welcome both the statement and the direction of travel? I also welcome the direction of travel from those on my own Front Bench. Indeed, had we been clearer about our direction of travel, we might not be sitting on these Benches today.
I am, however, disappointed on two counts. First, the Home Secretary said nothing that she did not say to Radio Scotland this morning. I was not aware that it was the practice to make announcements to Radio Scotland first thing in the morning before coming to the House—[Interruption.] I never did that. Secondly, why does the statement address only non-EU immigration? Why do the Government not seek to repatriate powers over EU immigration? Would the Government not consider saying to their European neighbours that there will be no new accession until powers over immigration have been repatriated?
Mrs May
Yes, perhaps when the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has just got up. He suggests that what we are doing is a natural progression from the direction of his Front-Bench colleagues, but they were not proposing to have an annual limit. In fact, they have consistently derided the concept of an annual limit. It is this coalition Government who are taking the steps necessary.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. In my short time as a Member of Parliament I have met people who are in this country as economic migrants and working for large, established employers who should be establishing training schemes, taking people on and equipping them with the relevant skills. Does she agree that those employers should put their efforts into setting up apprenticeships rather than recruiting low-skilled workers from abroad?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the need for employers to see what they can do to ensure that unemployed people in this country can take up job opportunities. The policies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is bringing forward will ensure that we give the support necessary to help people get into the workplace.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
In my constituency fishermen from the Philippines have been very welcome in the fish-catching sector, especially as they have kept jobs in the fish-processing sector. Will the Home Secretary listen to specific information such as that when deciding the basis for work entry?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary spoke powerfully about human trafficking and how the coalition Government were going to deal with the problem. Is she happy that the Human Trafficking Centre in Sheffield has closed and is now part of the overall police effort, with the £1.8 million budget seeming to have disappeared?
Mrs May
I am so sorry; I am a little in advance of myself. If that does happen tomorrow, I congratulate my hon. Friend. Our honourable friend the former Member for Totnes had an excellent record during his time in this place on dealing with the issue and ensuring that it was discussed on the Floor of the House. Regardless of the result tomorrow, I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to do that, as he has in the past. Looking at how we deal with human trafficking is an important issue, and the response of the police is an issue that I am interested in looking at both as Home Secretary and, with my other hat on, as the Minister for Women and Equalities.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Whenever we talk about net migration, we always tend to talk about the numbers coming in, forgetting the large numbers of people going out. Given that under the previous Government net migration reached record levels, it would have been even higher had hundreds of thousands of British skilled workers not got fed up with Brown’s Britain and left to go and work abroad. Will my right hon. Friend work with her colleagues across Government to ensure that Britain’s skilled workers are incentivised to stay in Britain?
Points of Order
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Home Office questions this afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) asked questions about domestic violence and the concerns felt by refuges across the country about a possible serious cut in their funding. In response, the Minister seemed to confuse domestic violence with previous questions to do with rape, and kept praying in aid responses with which she hoped to furnish the House from the Ministry of Justice. If the Home Office no longer has responsibility for the issue of domestic violence or the sanctuaries from it—namely the refuges—surely this House should have had a statement to that effect.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, but I have a sense that, dissatisfied with the responses that she heard earlier, she is, in a sense, seeking to continue the debate. To the best of my knowledge, responsibility for the issue of domestic violence remains where it has always been. If Ministers feel otherwise, they might wish to respond to the serious point of order that she has just raised. However, I see that the Home Secretary is in her place, so it might help the House if she would care to respond to that point of order.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am happy to confirm that the Home Office does indeed continue to have responsibility in matters relating to domestic violence, although there will be aspects of dealing with domestic violence that require the intervention and consideration of the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Speaker
Whether that response satisfies the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) I cannot be sure, but it will have to do for now.
Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be in order for me to apologise to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Immigration for confusing the two of them this morning? Could I also point out that, in my defence, they were on the radio and all these posh Tories sound the same, and that the Home Secretary did not, however, deal with the point that the announcement was made by the Minister for Immigration this morning before it was brought to this House?
Mr Speaker
In almost all circumstances it is in order to apologise, but if that is the hon. Gentleman’s idea of an apology, I am not sure that I ever want one from him.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said last week, and five weeks ago, that you wholly deprecated the practice of Ministers announcing things to the press before they had announced them to the House. You will know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House complained about this when Labour was in government. We tried to ensure that it did not happen and, in many cases, succeeded—[Interruption.] I would say to those on the Government Benches that there is no point in sneering about this. The truth is that there is no point in fighting to get elected to this House if we might as well stay at home and listen to the announcements on the television or the radio, or read them in the newspapers.
Mr Speaker, can you confirm that we had a statement this afternoon from the Home Secretary only because an urgent question had been tabled? Can you also confirm that that happened after a written ministerial statement on the subject had been laid, and that that happened a long time after the Home Secretary had given a press conference today? We now have a Government who are systematically leaking matters to the press before they are announced in the House. That should not have happened in the past, and it should not happen in the future. Only if the House takes responsibility and takes action will we be able to stop this. Otherwise, Ministers will just laugh at the House. Will you, sir, refer this matter to the Committee on Standards and Privileges? It would be good if that Committee had already been set up, of course, but the Government have not yet done that. Will you refer the matter to that Committee, so that the House can take action?
Mr Speaker
The first point that I would make to the hon. Gentleman is an important one about which we need to be clear. A reference to the Standards and Privileges Committee cannot be made on the basis of a point of order raised on the Floor of the House. A written request must be made to me, explaining the rationale for the request, and a decision on that will then be reached. That is a procedural point. Secondly, I reiterate in the strongest possible terms that I utterly deprecate the practice of releasing to the media the content of ministerial statements before those statements have been made to the House. I deprecated it in the past, both from this Chair and as a Back-Bench Member, and I continue to do so. The question of whether this has taken place on a similar, greater or lesser scale in the past is neither here nor there, because two wrongs do not make a right.
Thirdly, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot confirm what he has just asked—namely, that an oral statement followed the submission of an urgent question. I am in no position to confirm that. I listened to the Home Secretary’s explanation of the reason for changing from a written statement to an oral statement. I can confirm, however, that I am willing to look further into the particular details of this case, and to decide what, if any, action needs to be taken. We need to establish a new pattern in this Parliament, whereby this sort of thing does not happen and, if it does, action is taken. I shall look into this as a matter of urgency and revert to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. I hope that that is clear; I get the impression that it is.
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Capital Gains Tax (Rates)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 346 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 247 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has delivered our first coalition Budget, making what he legitimately described as unavoidable choices in the face of a potential eurozone economic crisis. They will involve, first, a reduction in spending to repair the record deficit left by the previous Government. I remind the House that we inherited the largest deficit in peacetime history: for every £4 we spend today, we are being forced to borrow at least £1. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, this Budget will put us back on track to balance the structural deficit by 2015-16, with net debt falling as a share of gross domestic product by the end of the Parliament.
Secondly, the measures will include a restructuring of the tax and welfare system, underpinned by our commitment to fairness and protecting the vulnerable, even when faced with some tough choices—and there are tough choices.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend kindly clarify the rate at which the Department for Work and Pensions can undertake work capability assessments for people on incapacity benefit?
Mr Duncan Smith
I was not going to deal with that at this point, but while we are on it, I can tell my hon. Friend that I know there has been speculation in the media over the past few hours and days. I can confirm that, as we said previously, we will launch the work programme in 2011, and will migrate current incapacity benefit claimants to employment support allowance over the three years. We have absolutely no intention of changing the current plan to assess 10,000 claimants per week over the period. That is our expectation. As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will know, it will involve challenges, but we will stick to it and see if we can get there. Unlike the last Government, we will provide an extra bit of help for those on employment support allowance who undergo the work capability assessment and need that support. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will table a statement tomorrow giving more details.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady—my opposite number—will back up what I have said. She has already expressed the hope that we will proceed with the changes that she introduced and with which we agreed.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his timetable is the one that we proposed for the roll-out of the work capability assessment, and that it is expected to save about £1.5 billion over the next five years? Does he plan to make additional savings, and if so, where? The briefing that was in the papers today will have caused concern to people. Will the Secretary of State also tell us whether he will implement the small amendments to the work capability assessment that we announced just before the election in response to points raised by the citizens advice bureaux?
Mr Duncan Smith
We are continuing with the programme that the right hon. Lady left. We thought it a good programme, and I want to make it happen. She asked us to do that, and I agreed that it was right. We always said in opposition that we would do it.
As for whether we are looking for more savings, we are going to intensify the work support programme, which was not there before. I should be happy to give the right hon. Lady more detail about it, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will make a more detailed statement. We estimate that we will be able to return more people to work, but we will keep that estimate under review. The right hon. Lady will recall that when she was Secretary of State there was a constant review of the programme to deal with the group who were flowing in. Recommendations were made, and we are paying attention to them.
Yvette Cooper
Does the fact that the Secretary of State thinks he will be able to help more people to return to work—although he has cut the job guarantee and billions of pounds from the support that would help them to do so—mean that he thinks that other people will not get jobs instead, or is he suggesting that the Office for Budget Responsibility will raise its forecast of the number of people in employment? Where will the jobs come from for the extra people whom he is going to return to work?
Mr Duncan Smith
The right hon. Lady is assuming that the economy is static, and that nothing changes in it. We believe that unemployment will fall—that is what the Office for Budget Responsibility says—and that we will therefore create more jobs.
The right hon. Lady’s programme, which we inherited, provided support for the “back to work” element in only two parts of the country. We are extending support to the whole country, and that is where we will get the extra effort. We will continue the programme. We think that we have embellished it and made it somewhat better, and I guarantee that we will keep it under permanent review.
The third thing that we are doing is setting down a strong foundation for long-term reform, which is part of the Budget proposals. Although we must correct the failings of the last Government, we are committed to delivering a better future for Britain, and we have had to make the stability of our economy a priority. I know that it is difficult for many Opposition Members to talk about this, but I also know that it is what they would be talking about if they were in government. There are always difficult choices to be made at a time when we have to draw our horns in.
We have had to prioritise the stability of our economy lest we forget the shambles with which we were left. Borrowing will be £149 billion this year, the second largest amount in Europe, and, as the Prime Minister pointed out before the Budget, it was on course to double in five years to £1.4 trillion—£22,000 for every man, woman and child. As a result of the Budget, however, the debt will fall to £116 billion next year, £89 billion the following year, and £60 billion in the year after that. It will fall to £37 billion in 2014-15, and is projected to fall to £20 billion in 2015-16, with the current structural deficit back in balance. That is the task that we have set ourselves. That was the first test of this Budget: to tackle borrowing and get the deficit down. Our approach has been reinforced by the judgments of the credit rating agencies and the business lobby when they agreed on Budget day that the plan is credible. Measures include reducing current expenditure by £30 billion a year by 2014-15, stronger medium-term growth with more business support to restore UK competitiveness, and reducing regulation and tax rates; and unemployment is forecast to fall throughout the OBR’s forecast period.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many credit rating agencies made that judgment? My knowledge, which I admit is limited, is that there is one individual in Florida and another rating agency company comprising three individuals in the United States of America, and also that they consistently failed to remove the triple A rating from those companies and banks that caused the economic downturn in the first place. Why are the Government listening to people who clearly do not know what they are talking about?
Mr Duncan Smith
It is not just the Government who are listening to them; it seems that the rest of the world is as well. I must remind the hon. Lady that if we are not careful—[Interruption.] Whatever she says, if the credit rating agencies downgrade our rating, we would, like Spain and Greece, be paying far more to borrow the money that we are borrowing as a result of the previous Government’s position. Whether or not we agree that the credit rating agencies got it right on the banks is irrelevant, therefore. In this particular case, the question is whether or not we would end up paying more as a result of their bad rating, and that is something we were not prepared to risk. This is a Budget to get the economy back on track. It is a Budget to support the recovery and drive down the deficit, and, most importantly, to get Britain back to work.
Despite facing the tough and unavoidable choices forced on us by the fiscal position left by Labour, we are increasing the threshold for paying the basic rate of income tax, and increasing the child element of the child tax credit by £150 above indexation next year. We are making sure that the most vulnerable do not pay disproportionately.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
On that point, will my right hon. Friend advise me whether the current level of 3.9 million children living below the poverty line—inherited after 13 years of failure by a Labour Government—will be increased or decreased by the end of this Parliament?
Mr Duncan Smith
Directly in terms of this Budget, there will be no increase at all; that figure is approved by the OBR, and it is our determination to drive the figure down. Let me say to my hon. Friend that he is right: we have inherited from Labour one of the worst records of household unemployment in western Europe and, worse than that, we have the highest number of children living in workless households in the whole of western Europe. That is a shameful record of the previous Labour Government, and although Labour Members go on about it, it is we who have to deal with it, and I promise my hon. Friend that we will deal with it.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of children living in workless households has fallen from about 2.3 million in 1997 to 1.8 million today, and that it was, in fact, his party when in government previously that trebled the number of children in poverty?
Mr Duncan Smith
If the right hon. Lady wants to go on fighting past elections, she can; it will not change the results of them. The reality is that under her Government, child poverty rose—[Interruption.] It rose from 2004 onwards, and the Government threw a lot of money at it and absolutely failed. Under her Government, in the last seven or eight years child poverty has risen dramatically, and I have to point out to her that she has failed to recognise that as a result of their policies child poverty is now at serious risk of rising even further. We have to get it down.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a minute; I want to make a bit of progress first.
Universal child benefit will be frozen, but benefits will be recycled so that they are targeted at the most vulnerable through child tax credits. Thereby, the poorest will be protected. That is exactly what we will do in this Budget.
We will freeze public sector pay, but we will also increase the pay of those on the lowest incomes. I am sure the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford will welcome the fact that half the employees—the lowest paid—at her former Department will get at least £250 this year and next.
We will protect health spending, which was a priority, and honour our international aid obligations. We will reduce the deficit by raising taxes more and cutting spending less, but we will also reduce corporation tax from 28% to 24% to make the UK more competitive internationally and get people back to work. We will reverse the cynical pre-election clawback by the previous Government from this year’s uprating forecast, and we will do the decent thing and fill the gap they left. We were left with a £300 million shortfall, because the previous Government had uprated benefits when the retail prices index fell below zero but had made no provision to find that money in 2011, so benefits would have been uprated less than the uprating we shall put through next year.
Let us not forget that we chose to take hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals out of tax, improving work incentives. More than 880,000 people on the lowest incomes will be taken out of tax altogether and 23 million taxpayers will benefit. That is a Liberal choice—I say that to the hon. Friends sitting on my right—and one I wholeheartedly support.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talked about making sure that the most vulnerable did not pay disproportionately. Is he aware that in Islington, 2,154 families are in private accommodation on housing benefit and a third of them will be affected by the new caps on housing benefit? If and when they face eviction, what help will the Government give to stop hundreds, if not thousands, of Islington families being made homeless? If they are made homeless, what help will he give to get them somewhere to live?
Mr Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady is looking at things in a rather doom-laden way. The reality is that the changes to housing benefit will assist people into the right level of home. At the moment, through local housing allowance, we are paying vast sums of money to people who would not be able to get the same money if they were in employment. For example, in south-east London, which is similar to the hon. Lady’s area, people on low incomes living in private rented accommodation would still—even with the caps in place—be nowhere near the level of money that somebody on local housing allowance receives. That is not fair on those who are striving and working, but having to struggle to live in a house. Before the hon. Lady carps too much, she should recognise that we have also increased the discretionary payment, trebling it to £60 million. If there are specific difficulties there will be money for local councils to help and assist.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
May I take the Secretary of State back to child poverty? Page 34 of the Red Book makes it clear that there will be
“no measurable impact on child poverty in the next two years”
of Budget measures. Can he explain why the Government have published that assessment only for a two-year period and whether he will commit to publishing an assessment for the whole of the planning period?
Mr Duncan Smith
Indeed, we will. We shall launch a strategy in March next year and I promise my hon. Friend that I shall inform him about how it goes. As I pointed out, child poverty has risen by more than 100,000 since 2004, so when the Opposition lecture us about child poverty they ignore the facts. They spent a lot of money but they failed to meet even their targets.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the welfare state is obviously necessary to protect the poor and vulnerable, it has often acted as a disincentive for people to go from being out of work to work? I know that from my constituency. Will he ensure that over the next few weeks, when we consult on the future of the welfare state, all the relevant charities, agencies and local councils, which are very knowledgeable about such things, are fully involved so that the outcome is informed by the facts and not by prejudice?
Mr Duncan Smith
I give my hon. Friend absolute confirmation that we shall consult widely. As he knows, we are planning to reform the benefit system so that it no longer acts as a major disincentive for people to go back to work. We have had to take decisions in the Budget, but beyond that we want to bring forward changes that make work pay—significantly for those going to work for the first time, as they understand. My comments at the weekend were about the need to recognise that often people want to move 10 or 15 miles to take a job, but they worry about the cost of travel to work or losing their house. The coalition has to look at that sort of thing to see whether we can make it easier for people to make decisions and take risks without being punished every time, as with the last Government. It is worth remembering that, of all social housing tenants—it is a falling figure—only 5% change their houses during the year, whereas 35% of low-income private tenants change. That is the problem: they are static, and they are stuck in what they do.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
When will the right hon. Gentleman publish more details of the proposals for the cuts in housing benefit? The local authorities affected, such as mine in Hammersmith, which is a Conservative authority, really do not know what is happening, other than that 750 families, at least, will have to move out of the borough because even the substandard accommodation that he clearly wants them to move into is not available in central London. How does he expect those families who move to areas where less work is available than in central London to find jobs, as he says that he wishes they would?
Mr Duncan Smith
In fact, over a third of all the properties available for rent are available below the 30th percentile. The reality is that property is out there, and we know that we can do it. Of course, I did not say at any stage that these changes would be easy. They will not be easy—we recognise that—and they will not happen overnight. They will not start until next October, and most cases will be reviewed only on their anniversary, which could be anything up to a year and a half or two years away.
Mr Duncan Smith
Excuse me; I am answering the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) if hon. Members do not mind. We will publish the full details, and he can discuss them with us at any time—the door is always open, as soon as I am ready.
I felt it unfair therefore to make such a change, and I agreed that we needed to ensure that we protected the worst-off.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a second; I think that I have been reasonably generous.
I should like to return to the choice on the uprating of benefits—something on which, I guess, Opposition Members will want to intervene. Before the Budget, there was some media speculation, much of it fed by the Opposition. In fact, I think that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said that she would not support a freeze of benefits and that she would definitely want to oppose that. The media speculation was that we would go to that—in fact, I believe that that would have saved some £17 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament—but I resolved not to do that. We decided that it would be unfair for the worst-off. Instead, the Chancellor and I agreed that we would continue to uprate benefits by the consumer prices index, which is forecast in the Budget to be 2.7% this year. Of course, the CPI does not include housing costs, and it seemed more reasonable. However, the right hon. Lady was reviewing that before she left office, and I am sure therefore that she will want to tell me that she agrees with the uprating, rather than remaining as we were. I would therefore like her to tell me exactly what reduction in spending she was planning as her Department’s share of the £45 billion. I will give way to her if can tell me which elements of saving she would have made in her budget. She does not want to use the CPI; what was she going to do that added up?
Yvette Cooper
In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the additional support that we have put in to help the unemployed has kept unemployment at about half the level of previous recessions and nearly 750,000 lower than it was predicted. That in itself is likely to save more than £15 billion over the next five years. We believe that the right way to do welfare reform is help people into work, not just to slash the support for the most vulnerable people in society.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am very sad that the right hon. Lady chose not to answer the question. When I give way to an intervention from now on, I will ask Opposition Members—this goes for all of them—the very simple question: what would they have reduced? They were in government not two months ago, and they have left us with a terrible problem.
Mr Duncan Smith
Before I give way—I will give way in due course—I want to make a bit more progress, and I want Opposition Members to tell me what they would have advised the right hon. Lady to cut from the Department’s spending. It is utterly unreal that they can sit there now in opposition as though they have been there for six years and they had nothing to do with the mess. After all, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who is sitting on the Front Bench right now, said that there was no more money left, so where was the right hon. Lady going to get the money from?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a second; I think that I have been reasonable.
Our action to increase benefits in line with headline inflation measures is in marked contrast to the actions of the previous Government. I mentioned that there was no provision to find the extra £300 million that they would have reduced next year’s budget by. Let me look at some of the other measures. Today in the UK, nearly 2 million children grow up in homes where no one works. They are at risk of poorer outcomes than those of their peers in working households. That is unacceptable, so the Budget will deliver fairness for children and families while protecting the vulnerable. To help lone parents to raise themselves out of benefit dependency and into work, our measures include lowering the age at which lone parents will be expected to move into work to when their youngest child reaches five. However, it is important to remember that jobcentres have wide discretion on this, and as they assist parents, they will of course have the capacity to examine how things fit in with parents’ requirements around their children’s education. It is right and fair that lone parents should work as and when their children are in school, although more particularly in this case that will be part-time work.
When we are restricting eligibility for the Sure Start maternity grant for the first child, it is right that we provide additional support for families to buy essentials. However, it is also right that these essentials are not repeatedly bought for subsequent children but used again, which is what is done by many hard-working families on low incomes. For multiple births, the grant will come through a corresponding number of times, so people who have triplets or twins will receive different lots of that £500. Further help may be available from the social fund if there is an additional need.
Chris Leslie
I certainly disagree with the reduction in the maternity allowance, but can the right hon. Gentleman justify scrapping the health in pregnancy grant? The money would have been available for the grant, by the way, if the Government had been tougher on the banks with the banking levy.
Mr Duncan Smith
The reality is that the grant came far too late and had no effect on improving women’s health, which was its original target. It was actually paid after the child was born, so the whole grant was a nonsense from start to finish. Getting rid of it has affected nothing out there and there are far better uses for the money.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend read last week that the media commentator Stephen Pollard had spent his family’s health in pregnancy grant on a trip to the Fat Duck restaurant in Bray? That is an example of a lack of proper targeting of those who are most in need of such funding, and it shows why we were right to get rid of the grant.
Mr Duncan Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that example. We have put £2 billion into the child tax credit because we believe that that is a far better way of helping poorer parents. The grant is rather indicative of the way in which the previous Government scattered money around in the hope that they could buy some votes in the run-up to the election although, as was demonstrated, that failed.
Mr Duncan Smith
I want to move on to housing fairness and work incentives, but I shall give way in due course. I have been pretty reasonable about that.
Mr Duncan Smith
Perhaps not in the hon. Gentleman’s view, but he has never been reasonable in my view, so good luck to him.
The Budget tackled the ballooning cost of housing benefit. In real terms, the cost of working-age housing benefit has increased from £10.6 billion to £15.4 billion in 2010-11. If the system was left unreformed, it is projected that the housing benefit bill would reach £21 billion in 2014-15. It is out of control and what is more, housing benefit is often unfair for working families. Today, a tenant in a five-bedroom house in an expensive area such as Westminster could feasibly get more than £100,000 a year. Although that example applies to a small number of people, some 750,000 get more than £10,000 a year. Those cases are still in the minority, but they happen far too often. It is unacceptable and unaffordable that people on benefits are living in homes that our hard-working families cannot afford, so we have capped local housing allowance levels at the rate for four-bedroom properties.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest reason behind the increase in housing benefit is the lack of affordable rented housing in this country? Most of my constituents would rather live in an affordable rented house than a private rented home.
Mr Duncan Smith
Oh dear me; there is no stopping Labour Members sometimes. I must say to the hon. Lady: whose fault is that? The Labour Government slashed the building programme, so Labour Members have only themselves to blame. Everyone warned them about the problem for years. As far as we possibly can, we need to ensure that the houses that people occupy are of the size that they need. We should not have elderly people trapped in houses that are far too large for them and that they cannot look after. Only the most expensive areas will be affected by the cap.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will give way in a minute.
We have also introduced size restrictions to the social rented sector to make better use of existing housing stock, changed the percentile of market rents for local housing allowance rates to 30% to keep rents under control, time-limited the housing benefit award for jobseekers to reinforce back-to-work incentives and changed the current system of mortgage interest support, in which 92% of customers get more help than they need.
Of course I am listening to the concerns about the potential impact of housing benefit reform, and we will keep it under review. That is why we are tripling the discretionary housing payment to £60 million and we will provide for an additional bedroom for non-resident carers, who may need to stay overnight—something, by the way, that the other Government could have done and never did.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are no fat ducks in Wakefield. What we do have is a large number of poor families who will be hit by his cut to the Sure Start grant. I can tell him that if someone has a child who is two, they cannot expect a baby to travel in the same pushchair. I can tell him that if someone has a child of six of seven, they have already given away the pushchair by the time the next baby comes along, because that is how families organise themselves. He argues that people should reuse and recycle goods for babies, but people cannot fit two babies in the same cot—is that what he is now suggesting families in this country should do?
Mr Duncan Smith
I must say to the hon. Lady that that is a pretty poor intervention. The grant of over £500 for every child was far more than most poor, working families would ever achieve from any other source. As I told Labour Members earlier, we have to make tough choices. This is an area where people can share. Having had children myself, I know, as will many others in the House, that people share clothing and pushchairs. They do what they can to get by. There was a ludicrous idea that every child required the same amount of money, and I am afraid that in these difficult times we have had to take a difficult decision. I say to the hon. Lady that we are not going down the road she suggests.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its report on the Budget, said that the new measures were largely regressive, and that was before housing benefit cuts were taken into account? A survey at the weekend by Tim Horton and Howard Reed said that if the housing benefit cuts and spending cuts were taken into account, the poorest 10% were likely to face a six times greater reduction in their spending power than the richest 10%. Does that make it a fair Budget, in the right hon. Gentleman’s opinion?
Mr Duncan Smith
The IFS talked about it being debatable whether the Budget was regressive or progressive. I say honestly to Labour Members that if they do not like these measures and if they really want to be taken seriously, they need to tell me what they would have done. Had they won the election—heaven help us—they would have been on this side of the House justifying reductions in spending, not playing games on the other side. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that this is unfair, he should tell us what would have been a fair way of getting that £45 billion reduction.
I am committed to ensuring that disabled people and carers receive the support that they deserve. I have therefore asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for disabled people, to undertake a strategic review, taking a principled look at the support provided for disabled people across the piece, to ensure that the effect of all the measures is appropriate and that they work.
Over the last decade, spending on disability living allowance—this is the issue—has spiralled out of control, and the system has been vulnerable to error, abuse and, in some cases, outright fraud. In just eight years the numbers claiming DLA have risen by around 700,000. In 2010-11, spending is on track to reach just over £12.1 billion, twice the level of the 1995-96 spending in real terms. That is a significant sum, and we need to make sure, for the taxpayer, that the money is paid to those who desperately need it. That is why we need a proper medical assessment. It is not about cutting support for people who live with serious disability or health problems; it is simply about making sure that we target support at those who need it, and the system remains fair and affordable.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. He will recollect that towards the end of the last Parliament the entire House agreed to an increase in disability living allowance for blind people. Will he give the House a guarantee that he will not go back on that decision?
Mr Duncan Smith
We will give that guarantee. We will be laying the regulations for that this week, so there is definitely a commitment to go ahead.
Mr Duncan Smith
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been standing up so often, I will give way to him.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. My constituency has one of the highest levels of those on sickness benefits of various kinds. There are historical reasons for that. He asks what I would like to see. I would like to see fewer of my constituents on unemployment benefits and fewer people on sickness benefits because they were in jobs. The difficulty is how one achieves that without cruelty to those who desperately need support and want to be able to go to work. The vast majority of my constituents are not looking for handouts; they want to be able to get into work.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about people moving house. My concern is that that does not apply in constituencies such as Rhondda because we have a very high level of home ownership. For those people, unless he really is talking about just upping sticks and moving to another part of the country, what he is saying poses the very real danger of increased poverty. How will he make sure that those people have a chance in future?
Mr Duncan Smith
That is a very reasonable question. As I said earlier, we did not want to be here in the first place. We have inherited a major deficit, and we have to eradicate it. Whoever was to be in government—the hon. Gentleman should know this, having been a Minister—was going to face tough choices. There is no easy choice. Of course I recognise that he has a problem. We have said that we will increase the discretionary allowance. We also want to make sure that more money is spent on areas such as his that can, in turn, develop more jobs. That is a priority, and we will be making announcements about that.
These decisions are not about taking money away from people who need it; they are about making sure that those who need money get the money that they need. Nobody, after these checks, will have money taken away from them who can genuinely demonstrate that they should be receiving DLA. The key point is to make sure that those who do not need it are seeking work.
Mr Duncan Smith
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. If he will forgive me, I want to make some progress.
I started with a clear argument that the first coalition Government faced some unavoidable choices. I know that the Opposition, having been in government a couple of months ago—[Interruption.] The Opposition say that the choices are not unavoidable, but I would love to know what they would reduce if they were in government. What would be their choices? We have heard nothing about that except their talk about the £45 billion—not a single word about a penny piece being cut from any budget. We have to make spending cuts to repair a record deficit, reform the tax and welfare systems while protecting the vulnerable, and set the foundations for long-term, sustainable recovery.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that he believes that there will be an exodus from central to outer London, and he has said that there is housing to accommodate those people. What is his assessment of that housing in Chingford? Can he confirm that he will be doing a race impact assessment?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am happy to consider a race impact assessment—that is reasonable—and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me, my door is open.
We believe that there is enough housing in London. Of course, I did not say that this was going to be easy. The point is that far too many people in houses in central London are paid significant sums—over £100,000 in some cases. That is unsustainable. As much as I like the right hon. Gentleman—he is a fellow Tottenham supporter—I have to say to him that he knows as well as I do that these are tough choices, but they are ones that we believe that we can manage. We have tripled the discretionary fund to allow for difficult cases, and I suspect that a significant amount of that will be used in London because the nature of London means that there will be issues. We will get through this, and I guarantee that we will keep the situation under review. My offer to the right hon. Gentleman still stands.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
The Chancellor ended his Budget speech by saying that it
“laid the foundations for a more prosperous future. The richest paying the most and the vulnerable protected: that is our approach.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]
If the actuality falls out of line with the intention, will measures be brought forward to bring it back into line?
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend has to recognise that one needs to see the Budget in the round, over the lifetime of this Parliament and in terms of reform. What I want to do is introduce reforms that focus benefit money—the money that we spend—hugely on the poorest in society. That must be our priority. Right now, the benefit system that we inherited is out of kilter, and has sucked in too many people on higher incomes, and has left too many people on low incomes desperately looking for work, but unable to find it. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we are absolutely—and I am, too—determined to reform the system, so that the poorest benefit the most, and we make sure that they receive assistance to change their lives and become more profitable in all that they do.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am going to continue.
We have to seize the long-term prospectus for reform, and I shall introduce radical, long overdue changes to the welfare system, reforming the working-age benefit and tax credit system with measures consistent with our core principles: protecting the most vulnerable; improving incentives to work and providing the best route out of poverty; and tackling the pathways into poverty, welfare dependency, family breakdown and debt. That is crucial if we are to tackle income inequality, which is at its highest since records began in this country.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
A vulnerable group that my right hon. Friend has not yet mentioned is pensioners. Will he say something about what we intend to do to protect pensioners’ incomes?
Mr Duncan Smith
I was going to come on to that, but I shall deal with it now.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), fully supports all of this, and has made an announcement. [Interruption.] We are a coalition, and we are together. He has announced some radical proposals on pensions, and I am enormously proud to be the first Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to say that we have relinked pensions and earnings. Moreover, even in these difficult times, we will triple-lock that pension, so that it will rise in line with earnings or prices, whichever is highest, or by 2.5%. [Interruption.] I heard the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) chuntering about the consumer prices index, but earnings will rise in due course well above that, so she does not know what she is talking about. [Interruption.] Okay: she had 13 years to do that, but she did not do it. She should go and look pensioners in the eye, and tell them why the previous Government did not do so, when they had the opportunity.
The coalition is proud to make sure that we will reform the system that we have inherited. We will reduce the deficit, and we will improve the lot of the poorest in society. We will look back on this and say, “What a shameful 13 years the other side had.”
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State told us in May in his first speech that he would work to improve the quality of life of the worst-off in Britain. He said that
“we are here to help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.”
He has just spent 40 minutes defending a Budget that kicks the poorest and the most vulnerable in the teeth. How does that sit on his conscience? Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell a woman in her fifties, who has given up work to look after her elderly parents that, in fact, what they wanted to do was cut housing benefit and make her pay VAT—hundreds of pounds a year—and that even her carer’s allowance over the next five years would be cut in value by about £90 a year? Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell someone who is severely disabled—
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer this point as well if he is going to respond. Was it his idea, or was it the Treasury’s, to tell someone who is severely disabled and really cannot work, “We’re going to cut the value of support over the next five years by £300 a year”? If he could answer those points, that would be very welcome.
Mr Duncan Smith
I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady answered the original question. She was in government not two months ago. [Interruption.] No—the Opposition have to recognise that they have only just left government, so we have a legitimate right to ask the question. They left the deficit behind, which will lead to real problems for Britain—we have had to resolve it. If she does not like what we have done, what would she have done instead? Will she answer that question?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. He has not explained why he claims to help the poorest and most vulnerable, yet is cutting the benefits of those who are poorest and most vulnerable in society. Government Members like to claim that this is inevitable. This is an ideological choice that they are making. They have chosen to cut an extra £40 billion from the economy. They have chosen to cut an extra £11 billion from the value of benefits and tax credits. They have chosen to cut an extra £17 billion a year from Government Departments, and they have chosen to increase VAT. They have chosen to cut the deficit at a pace that is not only unfair and destructive to our public services but damaging to our economy.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady tell us exactly what the maximum level of housing benefit should be? Does she think it right that we are paying people more than £100,000 a year?
Yvette Cooper
No, I do not, which is why we introduced cuts in support for the highest rents as a result of the previous Budget, and set out a series of further reforms. I want to return to the point about housing benefit in a moment, because it is important.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On page 33 of the Red Book, paragraph 1.102 makes it quite clear that the Government intend to reduce housing benefit to people of working age if they under-occupy council housing. In his response to an intervention, the Secretary of State referred to pensioners under-occupying social housing. Does that not give the lie to what is in the Red Book, and show the real intention of housing benefit changes, which are an attack on pensioners?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am happy to accept an intervention from the Secretary of State if he wants to clarify the position, because he did indeed discuss pensioners who under-occupy homes across the country. It is right that we help and support people who want to move to smaller homes as they grow older, but he needs to give us an answer. If he is telling elderly people and pensioners that they are going to have to move out of the home where they have lived all their lives, and where they have brought up their children, that has severe consequences. He must clarify his position, because my hon. Friend is right.
Simon Hughes
The right hon. Lady’s attack appears to be that the measures introduced by the Government are ideologically driven—something that is difficult to justify with regard to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb); and others, who have a record of campaigning for the poor and disadvantaged. Might not the same fallacious argument explain why, for 13 years, the Labour Government never linked pensions to earnings? Was that an ideological option? I hope it was not but if it was, the right hon. Lady cannot make the argument, because it is fallacious.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right that there are many members of the Government who have indeed campaigned against poverty for many years, which is why their betrayal of the people whom they have stood up for is shocking. He will recall, too, that it was the Labour party that legislated and changed the law to restore the link with earnings. He should look rather carefully at the increase that, in practice, pensioners will receive over the next few years compared with the old standards. He will find that the new proposals are rather less generous than they appear at first sight.
Chris Bryant
Is there not also a real danger that the Government are presenting us with a straw man on housing benefit? In many of the constituencies that have the biggest problems in the land in trying to get people into work, it is not a question of people being paid more than £400 or of their living in houses that are too large, but of people living in houses that are not large enough and not looked after well enough by unscrupulous landlords. What we need to do if we want to help young people to grow up in households where there is work is to give them real opportunities to work.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the key is helping people into jobs, yet the Budget cuts the number of people in work, increases the number of people on the dole, cuts the help for people to get back to work, as well as cutting the income of carers and the severely disabled, cuts help for kids, and hits the elderly with a VAT hike. Nothing in the Budget will get a single extra person back to work. Instead, it cuts the number of people in work.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
To what degree does the right hon. Lady believe that the previous Labour Government were responsible for the massive budget deficit that we face?
Yvette Cooper
We have been through the greatest global recession for many generations. That has had an impact on economies across the world, pushed up unemployment across the world, and pushed up borrowing across the world. We think it was the right thing to do to increase borrowing in response to the recession. That is why unemployment in this recession has been about 5%, compared with 10% in the recession of the 1980s and 1990s. Helping more people back into jobs has saved us money and also helped to put borrowing in a stronger position.
Minister after Minister has tried to pretend that this is a fair and a progressive Budget. The Liberal Democrats are clinging to the fig leaf of their increase in personal allowances, despite the fact that it is more than blown away by the hike in VAT. The Prime Minister said last year about VAT that
“it’s very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest. It does, I absolutely promise you. . . VAT is a more regressive tax than income tax or council tax.”
That, then, will be why the Government have cut council tax, cut income tax and increased VAT to pay for it. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies made clear, the Budget is regressive, no matter how many times Ministers try to pretend the opposite.
Bob Russell
Does the right hon. Lady agree with the study by the Fabian Society and the Webb Memorial Trust that shows that 20% of the population is living in poverty? Talking about betrayal and 13 years of Labour Government, the inequality in Britain today, on some measures, is at its highest since the early 1960s.
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the level of child poverty is some 600,000 lower than it was in 1997 as a result of the action that the Labour Government took. He also knows that we deliberately made the measures of poverty by which we were judged relative measures. Of course, that makes matters harder as the economy grows, and of course there is always more to do. That is why we believed it was right to do more to help the poorest and those who were struggling—in contrast with this Budget, which does the opposite. Pensioners do not get the income tax cut, but they have to pay more in VAT. Those on the lowest incomes do not get the income tax cut, but they have to pay more in VAT.
The Ministers are like fraudsters in the fairy tale, telling gullible Liberal Democrat MPs about the beautiful progressive clothes that the emperor is wearing, if only they are clever enough and loyal enough to see them. Liberal Democrats are clinging desperately to shreds of invisible cloth, reaching deep into their Liberal and Conservative history to pretend that they can be progressive now. They are claiming that Keynes might have backed the Budget. They are calling on Beveridge for support, kidding themselves that they can call on their history and that they are following in the footsteps of great liberal Conservatives like Winston Churchill, who supported the minimum wage, but the truth is that the emperor has no clothes.
The truth is that if we look at the detail, the Budget is nastier than any brought in by Margaret Thatcher. Instead of Churchill, Keynes or the founders of the welfare state, the Liberal Democrats have signed up, with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his Chancellor, to cut support for the poor. It is perhaps apt that in this week of World cup disappointments, it was a footballer who got it right. In 2002, after England were defeated in the World cup by Brazil, Gareth Southgate reflected ruefully on England’s performance and said:
“We were expecting Winston Churchill and instead got Iain Duncan Smith.”
That is the reality for the Liberal Democrats now. With all their high hopes, they have betrayed the poor and the vulnerable, whom they stood up to defend.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I know he has a history of supporting people on low incomes. I do not know why he is betraying it now.
Steve Webb
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Will she confirm a fact for us about the pension rise that she pencilled in for 2012? Whereas we have guaranteed a minimum of 2.5%, can she confirm that her spending plans proposed a pension rise below 2.5%?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the old uprating rules are that the pension should go up by either RPI or 2.5%. If he had stuck to those old rules, pensioners would be better off in 2012, 2013 and 2014. As he also knows, all parties supported restoring the link with earnings in the next Parliament, but his proposals cut the support for the additional pension for 6 million women and 4 million men by £100 a year, as a result of his upratings by CPI, rather than RPI.
Steve Webb
As a new Minister, I have had to reply to many letters complaining about what the previous Government did. One of things that people complain about is the freezing of the additional pension by the right hon. Lady’s Government in April 2010. Can she confirm that under our CPI policy, the pension would have gone up in April 2010? Can she confirm that she froze that pension for millions of people?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will struggle to defend his progressive history if he quotes selectively from the figures. He knows that the Budget sets out the additional cuts and savings that he will make from benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from the switch to CPI indexation from 2011-12, which includes, as he well knows, the additional pension and much additional support for pensioners—and which he hid from pensioners on Budget day. That will lead to cuts of £1.17 billion in 2011, £2.2 billion in 2012, and £3.9 billion in 2013.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should also consider this: he had his negotiations with the Conservatives about the personal allowance that they were so keen on, yet they failed to consider extending that personal allowance increase to pensioners. They left pensioners out. If he really cared about pensioners, he might have increased the personal allowance for pensioners. As a result, all the pensioners across the country do not benefit from the increase in personal allowance, but they will pay hundreds of pounds extra every year in VAT—an increase that members of his party opposed, campaigned against and shouted about in the run-up to the election. Where are their principles now? Now they are ditching all those commitments and all those principles because they are happy for pensioners to pay hundreds of pounds a year more in VAT.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Can the right hon. Lady remind me, a new Member, which Government it was who gave pensioners a 75p a week increase?
Yvette Cooper
I do not think that was right. That is why it was right to increase the support for pensioners, to increase the winter fuel allowance and to bring in a floor, so that never again would pensioners face such an increase.
Members on the Government Benches jeer and call, but what are they going to do to the winter fuel allowance and to free bus passes? They are already briefing the newspapers that they plan to cut the winter fuel allowance and free bus passes, and that that is needed to protect the police and public services. I invite the Secretary of State to intervene and to confirm that he will make no cuts in the winter fuel allowance every year for the next five years.
Mr Duncan Smith
I tell the right hon. Lady that the coalition gave a commitment. We are paying the winter fuel payment.
Yvette Cooper
I hope that meant for this year, next year and future years. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that he is paying the winter fuel payment in full. It is not clear, however, what he thinks the full level is. Perhaps he could make the same commitment about free bus travel. Will he stick with free bus travel and not cut it for the next five years?
Mr Duncan Smith
I shall tell the right hon. Lady what I am going to do. I am going to answer questions when she answers this question: what would she have reduced with a £45 billion requirement on her head to cut the deficit? Until she owns up and answers that question, she has no right to ask us any more.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman has gone £40 billion further. He has proposed an additional £40 billion of cuts that we do not think are the right thing to do. He asks what we would have done, but I am sure that he has read chapter 6 of the March Budget, which sets out £20 billion of saving cuts in some detail and a further £19 billion in tax increases. I shall tell him what else we would not do: we would not waste money on measures such as free schools and the married couple’s allowance.
Nothing in the Government’s plans will get a single extra person back to work. In fact, the opposite is true. The Budget cuts the number of jobs in the economy by 100,000 a year. It increases the number of people on the dole by up to 100,000 a year, and that is on the admission of the experts the Government appointed. At the same time, the Government are cutting 200,000 jobs and training places and the youth guarantee and job guarantee schemes. How on earth will they get more people into work if they keep cutting jobs?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share the concerns of the Royal College of Nursing, which, in relation to a Department that allegedly is protected, suggests that at least 5,500 and, possibly, as many as 30,000 front-line nurses’ jobs will go?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the Government’s proposals do not even include the consequences of the spending review and the proposed additional £17 billion of cuts in public services.
We think that it is better for people to be in work than on the dole, and that is why we funded the future jobs fund and additional support and jobs. They were often in the community and run by the voluntary sector, and they helped young people to obtain the skills that they needed and to stay off the dole. Yet, shockingly, the Government have cut 90,000 jobs through the future jobs fund, putting all those people—additionally—back on to the dole and pushing up unemployment bills. As a result, even on the OBR’s calculations, those measures will cost the Government £2 billion more over the next four years. They will have to pay additional benefits for the unemployed, and the financial, economic and social price of higher long-term unemployment will cost us more for years.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper
I want to make some progress before I do.
The Secretary of State also said that he wants to make work pay. Yesterday he told Sky that there are marginal tax rates of 90p in the pound for some young people, that that was regressive and that he wanted, first, to change the system so that they are able to keep more of their own money. But, page 69 of the Red Book shows that as a result of the Budget an extra 20,000 people will lose more than 90p in the pound.
We agree that housing benefit needs reform, and we brought forward some measures in the March Budget and introduced a consultation paper last December to set out our proposals. We agree also that we have to stop some of the most excessive rents being paid, and that we should exclude some of the highest rents in every area. However, we should also consider how we provide more security and payments for people moving into work, so that work incentives are improved. There is a strong case for linking housing benefit to tax credits in the longer term, but the Government’s proposals do not set out any reforms; they set out only cuts, and destructive ones at that. Their plans cut almost £1.7 billion a year from housing benefit, and there is no analysis of how many people that measure will push into poverty or homelessness.
Mr Slaughter
There are clearly no poor people left in Southwark—certainly none on housing benefit, or the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) would not have the temerity to support the Budget. However, there are poor people in Hammersmith, Islington, Westminster and Kensington, so does my right hon. Friend agree not only that it is wrong to force thousands of families out of London, but that such measures will do nothing to get people into jobs, nothing for family break-up figures and nothing for community cohesion in London?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that those proposals will have an impact on families and on entire communities. Almost £1 billion will be taken from tenants in the private rented sector—almost 20% of their support. If tenants have on average 20% of their payments cut, how many of them does the right hon. Gentleman think will really be able to carry on paying their rent? People in Wakefield will lose £20 a week; people in Barking will lose £40 a week; and people in Broxtowe will lose £30 a week. That is before they face the cuts in tax credits and the hit from extra VAT.
Glenda Jackson
The Secretary of State cited a four-bedroom house in the private sector. My constituency is served by two local authorities, and in Brent the medium price for a four-bedroom house is £450 a week. In Camden the medium price is £1,020 a week. Currently, 42% of people claiming housing benefit in Brent and 18% of people doing so in Camden are in the private rented sector. That represents a sizeable number of families who will clearly lose their homes under the current Government.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns, particularly as many people who receive housing benefit are in work. They work hard, are in low-paid jobs and cannot afford to pay their rent without the extra help that housing benefit brings. So, the Government’s measures will hit people who work hard to support their families and make ends meet. They will find the rug withdrawn from under them.
I am particularly concerned about the combined proposals for lone-parent families, and I ask the Secretary of State to look at them, because he says that lone parents with five and six-year-olds will move on to jobseeker’s allowance and have to look for work. However, his own documents, which were provided at the same time as the Budget, assume that only 10% of those lone parents will leave benefits because of the risk they might be less work ready or need more time to find a suitable job that fits with their caring responsibilities.
Many lone parents need additional support to find work that fits school hours, but as a consequence of these proposals about 90% of them will still be on jobseeker’s allowance one year later, at which point they will suddenly be hit by the right hon. Gentleman’s 10% cut in housing benefit. Lone parents with young children might work really hard to find a job that fits school hours, but suddenly an average of £500 a year will be taken from their incomes because they cannot find work and because, as a result, he wants to cut their housing benefit. That is deeply unfair on families who might work really hard to try to make ends meet. What does he expect people to do? Hundreds of thousands of people will struggle to pay their rent, and parents will have to move house, shift their kids out of school, move long distances and break up communities in order to try to find an affordable home.
Emily Thornberry
Given that the Secretary of State seems to think that we are exaggerating the position, does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea if he spent a morning with me visiting some of the Islington families who will be profoundly affected by those changes to housing benefit?
Yvette Cooper
That is a very generous invitation, which I shall pass on to the right hon. Gentleman.
Where are the figures for the analysis of the impact of those proposals on homelessness? Where are the figures for their impact on families who will not be able to pay their rent? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea how expensive it is to keep a family in temporary accommodation? That is the problem. That proposal is just like the proposal on unemployment. If the Government do not provide the support up front, it will cost them more later on in terms of dealing with homelessness.
As for supporting families, not even in the worst of the Thatcher years did the Government ever introduce a Budget that hit children so hard. Of the £8 billion that this Budget raises from direct tax and benefit changes, however, £3 billion directly hits children: cutting the child trust fund and the value of child benefit, and overall cuts in child tax credit. That is even before we add the cuts that families face in housing benefit, free school meals, free swimming, the future jobs fund and university places. This is a savage Budget for children. The Government claim that it will be all right because there is not a measured increase in child poverty as a result of this Budget. Of course there is not, because the Treasury model will not measure the impact of changes to VAT or housing benefit, and it will not look ahead any further than 2012-13, before many of the cuts bite.
Look at the people the Secretary of State is hitting hardest—the very youngest children of all. Gone is the baby tax credit, so some mums will now find they cannot afford to stay at home for as long as they want with their little babies. Gone is our plan for a toddler tax credit, gone is the pregnancy grant, and cut is the Sure Start maternity allowance. Has he no idea at all that supporting a family and getting the children out of poverty when the babies are born can save money from the public purse for years to come? Instead, he wants to cut support from the babes in their mothers’ arms. At least Margaret Thatcher had the grace to wait until the children were weaned before snatching their support.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Child Poverty Action Group has said that this is a disappointing Budget in terms of child poverty and that it will make it very difficult to meet the targets for the eradication of child poverty already set by the previous Labour Government?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right. When one takes account of what the Government are doing to housing benefit and VAT, the real consequence of this Budget is that it will push people, including children, into poverty. We remember how the Conservatives did this before in the ’80s: they cut jobs and cut the help for people to get into jobs, they cut the support for people who could not find jobs, they cut help for pensioners, and they cut support for families and ramped up the VAT bills for them to pay. We also remember how those cuts cost us more for generations to come. It cost more to deal with people on the dole, it cost more to help families who were made homeless, and it cost more to deal with the long-term effects on communities devastated by unemployment.
These unfair cuts are not driven by good budgeting. They will cost our economy and they will cost our public finances, too. This is an ideologically driven Budget by a party that simply wants to cut the size of the state, no matter who gets in the way. The truth is that the Conservatives have the youngest, the oldest, the poorest, the weakest and the most vulnerable in their sights. The nasty party is back—only this time they brought along their mates. Shame on them. Both parties have broken their promises; now they want to break Britain too, and we will fight them all the way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Considerable numbers of Members wish to take part in this debate, as I am sure you can all see. Therefore, the Speaker has imposed a limit of seven minutes during the debate.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I welcome this Budget because I believe that it is an honest Budget. I have now sat through nearly 30 Budgets, and it is often a profoundly depressing experience, because there is great excitement during the Budget statement only for us to receive a let-down the next day when we actually start to read the Red Book. There is a lot of difficulty and pain in this Budget, but what you see is what you get. What we heard on Budget day was the essence of this Budget, which is the need to try to resolve the desperate financial crisis in which we find ourselves, with a potential debt of £20,000 on every man, woman and child, and £1 out of every £4 spent being borrowed.
I accept that there are many things in the Budget that many of us do not like. Does anybody in this Chamber like a VAT rate of 20%? We are in the desperate position of having to impose that rate on everything that we buy, apart from essentials—I am not sure why newspapers are zero-rated, considering all the rubbish that they put out, but it applies to some useful things like food—because we are faced with this financial crisis. However, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the pain is shared. I agree that a VAT rise is regressive, and we did not want to do it, but we have increased personal allowances, and in doing so ensured that is not the rich who benefit.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Who has done more than him to try to raise people out of the poverty and unemployment trap? Who has done more than he in setting up the Centre for Social Justice? Who has done more than he to visit all these areas and try to create a benefit and tax system that encourages people into self-reliance, self-help and self-belief, and does not trap them in sink estates without a job and without hope for the future? He has been working on this problem for more than a decade. Now, at last, he has a chance to put some of his ideas into action, and we welcome him to the Front Bench.
Mr Anderson
I understand the long and proud record that the Secretary of State has in this House. Does the hon. Gentleman understand, however, that some Labour Members have not just been there for 10 years, but have lived this? We lived this same experiment in the 1980s and we saw the devastating impact on the people we represent—the people who had to pay for the failure of the Government at that time, when unemployment was not a price worth paying in the areas where I and many other Labour Members come from.
Mr Leigh
Nobody doubts the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to relieving poverty, but does he think that the system that we have at the moment is perfect? Of course it is not. We are trying to create a fairer system in which there are real opportunities to create a society where people are given incentives to climb out of unemployment, despair and poverty. That is what this Budget is trying to do.
It is right to speak for the poor, but it is also right to speak for the many people who earn and who are creating jobs. Rightly, this will affect everybody earning more than £50,000—by the way, everybody in this Chamber will be £1,500 a year worse off—so it is not simply the case that only the poor are paying for this. Everybody, all the way up the income tax scale, is having to pay for our difficulties and helping us to climb out of this mess. Everybody in this nation is having to pay, and that is absolutely right. I also like the fact that this Budget is starting to create the conditions in which we can have a fairer tax system in which there is less churning of money and less of a deep unemployment and poverty trap. By all means let us raise personal allowances, and let us then try to move towards a flatter and fairer rate of taxation.
I will finish shortly, as each of us has very little time. First, let me make a point about much of the work that I was trying to do in the last Parliament to try to get efficiency in Government. We still have not got there. Does anybody think that we would have got into this mess if we had had a better Budget system? We need a triple lock. The Budget process that we have in this House is still not transparent enough. In the last Parliament, I tried to persuade the Liaison Committee that we should have a powerful Budget committee—a committee of this House—to which a Government Department should go when proposing to increase legislation. We should look at that and debate it in an open forum, not just have one minute per amendment, which is what we get with the Finance Bill. Does anybody think that our Budget process is, for example, as good or as powerful as the congressional one, whereby the President proposes and Congress disposes, and there are hundreds of hours of meetings?
We already have a good audit process—one of the best in the world—in the shape of the Public Accounts Committee, but we do not have the equivalent of the PAC inside Government. Frankly, the Treasury has not been strong enough in resisting waste, inefficiency and incompetence in Government spending. The Treasury has been overwhelmed, and the process is largely paper-based. We need a kind of star chamber—a PAC—so that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any other Minister come up with a proposal, they have to go before it, in private, to justify that proposal and to be hounded by senior Members saying, “Is this spending efficient? Is it properly piloted? Above all, are we reducing complexity in Government?”
Some of us think that complexity is so inherent in Government, with the civil service having this relentless itch always to try to control and regulate, that there is no way out of this, but I do not believe that. I believe that we can create a social security system which, although simpler, is fairer and provides more incentives. I believe that we can strip away whole areas of complexity. It will be a mighty task, but I believe, given all my right hon. Friend’s experience and all the work he has done, that nobody is better placed to carry out that work over the next five years.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I want to make a specific contribution about the assumptions that underlie Government policy on raising the pension age. Those assumptions relate to our increasing life expectancy, and therefore the number of years that we will spend receiving the state pension and the affordability of that. There is also a related assumption about our ability to work longer in the future.
Life expectancy is undoubtedly increasing in general, but I wish to give a social-class perspective on the matter. I sometimes think that we get so carried away with an analysis that we are all going to live into our 80s and 90s that we fail to examine how life expectancy varies between socio-economic groups. First, it is a clear fact that fewer individuals from lower social classes survive even to reach state pension age. It is estimated that almost one fifth—some 19%—of men from lower social classes who are currently 25 are likely to die before they are 65 years old, so they will never get a state pension. That contrasts with 7% of men from the highest social class. For women, the comparable figures for those dying before the age of 60 are 10% and 4%.
Secondly, the great majority of poorer people who do reach retirement age enjoy shorter pension lives, if I may call them that, than the better-off. At 65, professional men have a life expectancy of 18 years as a pensioner, while unskilled men have one of only 14 years. For women, taking the starting point as age 65, the respective contrasting figures are 22 years and 17 years. There are significant social-class differences, and the Government need to think through their implications.
What about the employment assumptions? Raising pension ages assumes that in future years, men and women will be able to work for an extra period. How reasonable is that assumption? Let us look at current employment trends. Some people, of course, continue to work past state pension age—I believe the figure is about 13%—but a far higher proportion are effectively out of the labour market before the formal state retirement age. We rather pretend that the state retirement age is 60 and 65, but the statistics show the myth behind that. The labour force survey data show that for the period of February to April this year, 24% of men aged 50 to 64 and 26% of women aged 50 to 59, in the period leading up to retirement, were classed as economically inactive. In other words, they were not in work.
When we look more specifically at those coming up to the state pension age, we see that very large numbers of them have effectively been retired long before the age of 65 for men and 60 for women. Some 43% of men aged 62, for example, are not working; by age 64, it is 53%. To take another example, 35% of women aged 58 are not working.
I am not making a particularly partisan point, but what conclusions do we need to draw? In general, it is not unreasonable to increase the age at which people become eligible for the state pension. I say that as a general proposition, but we need to be sensitive to social class. To be blunt, as many of us know from the people we meet in our constituencies, many people working in heavy industry or who have had tough lives in physically demanding jobs, such as in the mines, in steelworks, as cleaners or as care workers, cannot go on working for ever. There comes a point when they need a rest and need to retire.
Significant changes will be needed to employment practice and attitudes to work if more jobs are to be available for those in their late 50s and 60s. The statistics that I have cited show that it is currently difficult for many people of that age to get work. I suggest that we need to build on policies that are already in place to promote flexibility in state pensions. At the moment there are choices to be made at state pension age. People can take their pension at that point, as most need to and do. However, they can defer it and receive a higher pension later, or they can take the deferred element of their pension as a lump sum. We need to ask whether we can do more to promote that type of choice for those able to work, so that we bring more flexibility. The number of people deferring is relatively low. I am bound to say, as a former Pensions Minister who had some responsibility for legislating in that area, that I am disappointed at how low it is. We need to consider whether we could do more to encourage choice. Could we consider, for example, making the lump sum tax-free?
Finally, what about the people whose case I have cited, those who are already out of work in their late 50s and early 60s? We know those people from our advice surgeries and constituency offices. They are in a difficult situation. Are we really saying that someone of 60 who is not in work will have to wait another year to get their state pension? Are they simply destined to be classed as unemployed or disabled, and somehow trapped in a no-man’s land between grand assumptions about future retirement patterns and the grim reality of their lives? We need to think the matter through. I do not have the answers, but we have time to consider some of the issues.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I wish to approve the headline description of the emergency Budget and what it is intended to achieve, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has said during the Budget debate, is that the richest pay the most and the vulnerable are protected. We must test that claim as we proceed. The coalition Government face many challenges in achieving that, in circumstances in which the public finances are in a very serious state, which I do not need to describe again this evening.
I wish to give the Budget a fair wind at this stage, and of course as a Liberal Democrat I gather a degree of satisfaction from a number of measures that I and my colleagues have campaigned for, namely the increase in the tax allowance with a target of an allowance of up to £10,000, taking many thousands of people on low income out of tax altogether; the restoration of a meaningful annual increase in the basic state pension, for which pensioners have been crying out for decades; increases in the child care element of the child tax credit for the poorest; the closing of the gaping tax avoidance loophole created by the previous Government through changes to capital gains tax; the introduction of a banking levy; and the protection of lower-paid public servants. There are a number of measures that I applaud and welcome very much.
This is a coalition Government and a new arrangement altogether, with two distinct parties. Seeking consensus between those parties inevitably creates significant debate.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is showing by his demeanour that he is not very enthusiastic for his coalition. He says that he has campaigned for many things in the Budget. Can he tell the House when he and the Liberal Democrats campaigned for an increase in VAT?
Andrew George
As far as I recall, none of the three main parties ruled out the prospect of VAT increasing. It is only when one is in government that one can see the nature and state of the finances, and therefore fully understand the impact that it is likely to have.
Having said that, as all Members will know, there is an amendment about VAT on the Order Paper in my name and those of some of my hon. Friends. It asks, I think reasonably, that an impact assessment be undertaken, taking into account a number of factors including the impact that the VAT increase would have on businesses, charities and families and households across the income range and age groups. It is vital that, in order to advance a number of the challenging measures in the Budget, the Government should reasonably be expected to bring forward more information than they are able to at this emergency stage of the Budget, so that we can debate the impact of those changes.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I agree with the sentiments he is expressing. Does he agree that charities that are unable to reclaim VAT could be about £250 million worse off as an unintended consequence of the VAT measure?
Andrew George
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. There is not just a new coalition Government, but a new Parliament, and in it we should be able to debate issues both across the Chamber and within the parties of the coalition Government. That is not unreasonable. The Chamber should enable greater transparency and discourse across and between parties. The purpose of our amendment is to probe issues that need and deserve to be probed.
Andrew George
I shall not give way any more, I am afraid, because of the limit on time.
The motion refers to the Red Book, which, at page 67, in relation to chart A3, describes the VAT change as potentially “progressive”. I think that the notion is based on the expectation that those who spend the least will be less affected. Of course, those who spend the least are inevitably those on lower incomes, who will, as the Red Book explains, pay less VAT in absolute terms. But not everyone agrees with that: the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has described VAT as regressive, as have Labour Front Benchers.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is rather equivocal on this issue. It says that when contrasted with income, VAT does look more regressive as it hits those with high expenditures the hardest. It also says that those with the lowest incomes tend to have the highest expenditures relative to their incomes, so there is an issue that needs to be investigated a great deal more. I believe that the Government should reasonably bring forward an impact assessment of the type that I have described and that we should have an opportunity to debate it not just in the Finance Bill Committee but in the Chamber.
I represent the poorest region in the country, so I am bound to be particularly sensitive to the impact of the Budget on the poor. However, I am not just concerned about low-income families; I am concerned about the impact of the VAT increase on rural travellers, who have a car out of necessity, not luxury, and on charities, as my hon. Friend described a moment ago. I am also concerned about the contrast between the effect on businesses that are engaged in the renovation of older buildings, for which VAT is applicable, and on those that build new buildings, for which VAT is not applicable.
The key themes underlying the emergency Budget turn on the challenges that any Government would have, such as ensuring that those who dropped us into the mess that we are in—due partly to the management of public finances by the Labour party and partly to those in the City who contributed a great deal—should be doing the most to help us out of it. As is made clear in the Budget, there is also an issue regarding wealthy people who have managed to pay less marginal tax than their cleaners. Those people should start paying their way. I hope that the Chief Secretary will consider very carefully our amendment and the reason behind it when he winds up. In this area of policy and policy making, we should have an impact assessment and an opportunity to debate this issue.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It does seem strange that the House cannot debate the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), the hon. Member for Chelmsford—
Mr Robinson
The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell)—I am so sorry—and other very distinguished honourable dissidents opposite, who are clearly being silenced for some reason or other; I cannot comment on why. I thought the amendment very apropos and exactly to the point in all respects. I am sure that it has not been withdrawn, so quite why it has not been chosen for debate I cannot think. It is a pity, because we could have probed even further the support of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for it and for the package as a whole, which he was trying to defend last Wednesday with as much discomfort as is evident amongst the Liberals who have not yet entirely been bought by, or who have not bought into, the so-called coalition policies.
It is very sad. There has been nothing sadder, in my opinion, than the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who is now the Business Secretary, coming around to explain why he supports the Budget. One of the two reasons that he gave was essentially that he had been, belatedly—I think his leader got there first—to see the Governor of the Bank of the England, who had assured him that a crisis was imminent, that we were going to be downgraded and that we would be in the same position as Greece, all of which would happen in a matter of days or hours, if he and the Liberal party did not agree to every measure that the coalition subsequently put forward. All of that should have been entirely predictable at any point before or during the election, even as the bond market strengthened and the UK position strengthened during the election, and even as we learned afterwards that the funding requirement is going to be £20 billion to £30 billion less than expected. Apparently, the leadership of the Liberal party fell for the oldest trick in the book, the bankers’ scare, which has gone on for centuries—classically, of course, with Montagu Norman and all the rest in the 1930s taking that party and this country to the brink of collapse.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed that the same Governor of the Bank of England who backed the stimulus under the previous Government is now backing the present Government’s policies—to the detriment of the public?
Mr Robinson
I note also that when the Governor was still an economist, before he converted to being a banker, he signed the famous letter of 364 economists, which he has now, in a piece of classic recantation, given up on.
All those considerations point to the fact that events could have been predicted and should have been accommodated. We should not have reached the situation in which we had the Business Secretary proudly telling the House—I still cannot believe this every time I read it:
“Those factors drove the economy in terms of demand”—
the factors being monetary policy and devaluation of the pound—
“and they will continue to do so.”
So, we are to have monetary easing and a continued devaluation of the pound. I do not think that either is remotely likely. He went on:
“There is a reason for believing that that is what will happen: the Governor of the Bank of England called for this Budget and has now got it, and he has every reason to understand the need for monetary policy to support recovery.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 316.]
Well, over to you, Mervyn, and good luck!
It really is absurd. It is one thing to hand over control of the money supply and monetary policy to the Governor. We did that back in 1997, and I think that was a good move. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks) nods, and I know that he was in agreement with that move. However, it is quite another thing to say, “Look, we are giving up on fiscal policy too; you can have the whole of the economy.” When we did what we did, we joked amongst ourselves that we had got rid of one half of economic policy—notably the monetary side—to the Governor and that it would only be a matter of time before he laid claim to and was given the whole of it. Joke though that was, it has come to pass under this Government. That is sad and regrettable. The Work and Pensions Secretary is sincere in what he wants to do, but he has had to absorb many cuts, which will make his job much more difficult, as was brilliantly exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who spoke for the Opposition.
However, it is not just that. The only two sure things about the Budget is that it will increase unemployment and reduce growth. That we can predict, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has told us. Beyond that, the Government refuse to give any distributional analysis. Beyond the second year, we do not know what will happen, except that the OBR has pencilled in some figures for growth that it says are hazardous in the extreme.
The Budget is an enormous gamble at the great cost of the working people in this country. It is a gamble based on the assumption that the Governor will increase quantitative easing when he said he would not. Perhaps in some magical way he will take other powers to deal with the fiscal constraints imposed by the Budget, because he can do nothing else. He cannot reduce interest rates much more, unless he wants to reduce them from 0.5% to 0%, or unless he starts shelling money out, which is hardly credible. He said he would not do any of those things, so the truth is that we face a situation in which the future of the country is being gambled.
Apart from the good intentions of, and the megalomania that seems to be developing in, the Bank, that gamble rests on three factors: an increase in inventories, meaning an increase in output; an increase in investment; and an increase in private sector activity. Who really believes in their heart that any of those factors can be counted on, especially given that the Government have made the investment route highly unlikely by reducing capital allowances? They are served at the moment by a Financial Secretary who told the Committee that considered the previous Finance Bill that they would reduce such allowances—on nearly all counts, and they have been as good as if not better than their word. He could see no reason why investment should not be reduced to the cost of amortisation in manufacturing or industrial enterprises. If that is the negative, neutral view of the need for increased investment and output that infuses the Budget, and in particular the crucial elements highlighted by the OBR—it says that there is a need for greater investment and output, and to rebalance exports—we are in for a big let down on that gamble.
Let us take one other example—Sheffield Forgemasters. Anybody who has dealt with the Government knows that it is virtually impossible to get money out of a shareholder executive. It is like getting money out of a stone, but the firm reached a conditional agreement. That would have made an enormous contribution to the rebalancing of the economy, including in respect of import substitution, and now those products will come in from Japan, because the arrangement was cancelled. I am afraid that in their tone and their measures, the Government are making recovery immensely more difficult and, far from recovery, we face a further period of prolonged deflation.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We are expecting a few maiden speeches this evening, and I am sure the House will want to ensure that it complies with the associated conventions.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on this emergency Budget.
I strongly believe that over the past few years, the state has taken too much. It was interesting listening to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She declared that the nasty party is back, but I know from my personal life that to protect the vulnerable and to give people a genuine chance of making the most of their lives, we need to empower individuals, families and communities.
In talking to several of my constituents in East Surrey, the constituency I have the honour of representing in this House, it became vividly clear to me that budgetary discussions should focus not only on accountancy, numbers and economic jargon, but on people and their lives and futures: including the hard-working young family juggling child care and work, who are concerned about their jobs and the rising cost of living; the 22-year-old graduate with more than £20,000 of debt, wondering whether she will ever get a job or a foot on the housing ladder; and the couple about to retire who are worried about their pension after years of paying their taxes and saving for retirement, and who are left wondering whether they will achieve their aim—this must be the aim for every generation—of leaving a better future for their children and grandchildren.
For my constituents, this is what the Budget boils down to: real people, real lives and real issues. Yes, we have beautiful rolling countryside in East Surrey, most of which has been recognised as green belt, meandering between vibrant towns and beautiful villages. It is the epitome of what makes England unique. We know how fortunate we are, and we take seriously our duty as custodians and protectors of the local environment for future generations. We have great community spirit and pride in our area, which means that for the vast majority of people in my constituency, putting back into the community is a way of life.
It sounds idyllic. However, my constituents work very hard, and I know from my postbag that some of them face difficulties just as real as those faced by people in other parts of the country. A lot of them think—and I tend to agree—that the previous Government treated them as a cash cow, and squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. That is true of all those paying taxes, and of the various local councils who do sterling work on a shoestring budget from central Government.
On a national level, East Surrey has been served with distinction by two great public servants: Peter Ainsworth, for 18 years; and Geoffrey Howe, who now sits in another place, for 24 years. They championed the constituency in this place and always stood up for what they believed in. I know I have big shoes to fill, and at 5 foot 4½ inches, I need to stand on the shoulders of giants.
Peter’s radical stance on the environment was instrumental in shifting attitudes to green issues, and he introduced as a private Member’s Bill the Green Energy (Definition and Promotion) Act 2009. I also respect him for sticking to his guns on the Iraq war when it seemed unpopular to do so. From my dealings with him, I can say without equivocation that he is a good man.
I can say the same of Geoffrey Howe, whose mild manner disguised a steely sense of purpose. He was Mrs Thatcher’s longest-serving Cabinet Minister— 11 years is a long time in politics. In his now famous 1981 Budget, when our party faced the task of getting the country back on its feet, he followed the courage of his convictions by deflating the economy at a time of recession, in the face of resistance from all sides, including 364 leading economists who wrote a letter to The Times saying that the Budget had no basis in economic theory.
However, I believe we learned a greater lesson from that Budget—that we cannot pull certain economic levers in certain circumstances. The lessons from that Budget lie firmly with its weaknesses rather than its strengths. We have learned that we cannot be coldly dispassionate when setting economic policy, and that we cannot ignore the effect on jobs and people’s lives. That is why I support our programme to get people back to work. Getting people into work is the best route out of poverty.
As in 1981, our party once again faces the task of redefining our economy and reshaping our society. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s proposals for small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. A long-lasting recovery must have its foundations in the private sector, which is where jobs will come from. Jobs will come if we reward enterprise, endeavour and ambition, and if we have a step change in our approach to enterprise. We need to encourage a spirit of adventure. Without accepting that basic premise, we will not have people taking the risks that are essential to creating the next Vodafone, the next Dyson and the next lastminute.com.
Many Opposition Members say that having the state do less by focusing on getting people into work and building an economy based on rewarding endeavour will penalise the less well-off. They are wrong, and I should know. I grew up in very modest circumstances. My standing here in the Chamber is the result of the vision, care and support of a strong mother, who brought us up on her own and overcame numerous odds, and instilled in us character, discipline and the value of hard work. I do not believe that any state programme could achieve what she has. On the contrary, I would have been trapped in poverty, as millions are.
At university I struggled to pay my rent. But for the generosity of my college, Somerville, I would have been thrown out. That could have been the end of my university education, and perhaps I would not have made it here, so I understand that we cannot leave people to the mercy of markets. For me, the crux of the Budget is that we should empower individuals, families and communities to make the most of their lives.
Some have said that on the face of it, I am an unlikely candidate to represent East Surrey. I have pointed out to them that it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to represent this great constituency because every day I see there the values that shaped me and that I hold dear. Those values should be at the heart of our economic policy and should guide us as we seek to reshape our society for the better.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). He not only reflected on the beauty of his constituency but let us know that, just because people live in idyllic settings, that does not mean that their family or work circumstances are ideal. He has also given us a trailer for the many lively contributions he will make in this House, seasoned with strong personal reflections, which many Members will have taken on board.
Claims have been made that, with the coalition Government, we have a new politics. That new politics, we are told, is about honesty and rebuilding trust. However, we have at the heart of the Budget the departure of honesty, with parties justifying doing what they said they would not do. Parties campaigned to get votes on the basis that the last thing we wanted was a VAT increase, but it is the first thing imposed by this Budget. It is a Tory Budget with Liberal Democrat accessories. I concede that some of those Liberal Democrat accessories are attractive—and that is part of the political calculation behind the Budget—such as the triple guarantee on pensions, which is there so that the coalition can say to Labour opponents, “We have done something that you didn’t do, we have restored the earnings link and better.” I regret that Labour Ministers did not listen to all their Back Benchers during their 13 years in government and do something about the pensions earning link.
We need honesty all round. I welcome the intensity that is coming from some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, but I hope it comes with a measure of honesty, point by point.
Simon Hughes
The hon. Gentleman’s views are much respected, but may I say that I was always clear on this point? We did not want a VAT increase, although we had it under the last Government when it went up and then came down again. We were hoping that it would not happen, but certainly I said—as did all my colleagues, as far as I know—that it could never be ruled out. For many of us, the current position is that it may be one of the least worst options.
Mark Durkan
I am not sure if that was the least worst defence of a significant U-turn on a significant campaign issue. People did not just imagine that the Liberal Democrats campaigned aggressively on the issue of VAT increases, so to mount new politics on the basis of honesty and trust against that background is dangerous indeed.
I acknowledge that the Budget has Liberal Democrat accessories that are attractive, as are other aspects, such as the increase in personal allowances. But Liberal Democrats perhaps need to consider that this may be as good as it gets in the coalition. I recall a famous observation in Irish politics by a member of the Irish Labour party. Some time next year, the self-image of Liberal Democrats will change. They will realise that they are no longer in the vanguard of social justice and civil liberty, but instead have become the mudguard of a hard cutting Conservative Government. That will be their role in this Government.
It is not the case that the whole Budget is wrong, and from a study of the Budget notes it is significant how many of the measures build on aspects of the Finance Act 2009 and other Acts passed in the last Parliament. There are tweaks here and there, of the good, bad and neutral variety, but we should not pretend that there is no continuity. When the Chancellor made his statement, he said we would not have to look anywhere else for the Budget, because we would get it from him. He said that there would be no details hidden in the Red Book. However, when we compare his speech with the Red Book, we see that it is littered with phrases such as “We will produce proposals on this”, or “Other proposals will be published after we have the spending review in the autumn.” The details are all to come elsewhere, so we did not actually get them straight from the Chancellor.
This Government gave us some show-cuts on 22 June. Those cuts were for purely presentational purposes to show that this is a new Government, and to try to mark difference. The Chancellor even told us last week that that was one of the messages he wanted to go out from the Budget, so that people would know there was a difference. That is why the shadow Secretary of State was right to say that the Budget had an underlying ideological push. The scale of the cuts that will come in the autumn is there to drive a political narrative that pain has to be imposed, change will happen and those who do not like it should blame Labour, rather than the Government who are imposing that change. That is the narrative that the Government want, and that is why significant cuts will come in the autumn.
Where will we be then? The poor, who are being asked to pay more in VAT, will then see the services on which they rely squeezed. That is when the full toll of this Budget will be felt, contrary to what the Chancellor told us about getting it straight from him on the day in his statement. We know that this will be pain and penury by instalments, over time, so that they can maintain the narrative of blaming it all on Labour.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) about the need for a Budget committee in this House. When we consider the scale of the banking issues that this House has to deal with, they should not all be left to the Treasury Committee. The scale of the public expenditure issues we will have to cope with means that we need a discrete Budget committee that has a full and proper handle on them, as well as one for the banking issues. If we are serious about giving priority to cutting waste in government, we should also have a committee that tests Government expenditure in real time. The Public Accounts Committee looks at spending post hoc, and there is nobody who challenges spending plans in real time. We do not have a committee that permanently interrogates waste in government, proofing for good priority and busting waste, but that is what we need. There is no point setting up ever more independent offices of this and independent offices of that, when we do not give this House the tools it needs to provide joined-up scrutiny. We hear a lot about joined-up government, but we do not have joined-up scrutiny. We should take added measures, on top of those put through in the last Parliament.
I urge the Government to lead us in changing the Budget by reclassifying the Budget lines, so that we have one for front-line services, say, and one for spending that does not go fully to front-line services but broadly supports them. We should have three or four, but no more than five, classes of Budget line so that we know immediately if a measure affects front-line services or just administrative spend. We could then be more honest when we say that we are defending front-line services, because we would have a Budget information system that allowed us to do just that.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) for his fluent and assured maiden speech. There is a great future for him in this House.
The Budget that was presented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week was brave and bold, and it was the right thing to do. History will record that it will set our country back on the road to economic recovery and prosperity. Just as it fell to Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago to deal with the poisonous legacy of Labour profligacy and financial ruin, the Prime Minister faces a similar challenge today. Labour Members, in their faux outrage at the Budget, barely comprehend the fiscal catastrophe that they inflicted on our country, displaying a mixture of cocky bravado and denial.
Mr Jackson
I will not at the moment.
A modicum of humility or contrition from Labour would surely be appropriate and in order. Given Labour’s utterly negative message at the general election, with no vision of what a fourth Labour Government would mean, it is no wonder that few commentators and fewer voters take its protestations seriously. It simply has no coherent alternative, other than to tax and spend, and to bribe the core vote with other people’s money. Labour’s plan to cut the deficit was completely empty of detail and its deficit reduction bill merely partisan window-dressing.
The Labour party would have had more credibility at the general election and in this debate if it had been honest with the voters about the 20% cuts in non-ring-fenced departmental budgets that the previous Chancellor had already planned. We know that Labour prepared position papers in the Treasury for a 20% VAT rise, which, most importantly, the party failed to rule out in its election manifesto. Labour bet the ranch over the past 13 years on financial services that were not properly regulated, on unsustainable increases in public spending and on a housing market built on a South Sea-style bubble. Labour lost, and we all lost: a £155 billion deficit—bigger in percentage terms than in Italy, Greece or Portugal—a structural deficit that is £12 billion more than we were led to believe, and a debt mountain of £1.4 trillion from the Government who gave us £3 billion overspends on welfare payments and wasted £780 million on the reorganisation of Departments and agencies.
It is scarcely possible to believe that during a dozen years of plenty so many of our fellow citizens were failed, and none more so than the so-called working poor—those who get up in the morning and go to work, pay their taxes, teach their children right from wrong, and have a sense of pride and self-respect. People are rational, and they will do rational things. If we pay for people not to go to work, they will take the path of least resistance and not work. That is Labour’s legacy: the people who need our help, trapped in a half-life of bureaucratic form-filling, and a hopeless and aimless existence on benefits. I believe that the Labour Government were not malevolent, but merely incompetent to an Olympian degree. After 13 years, the number of children in severe poverty is rising. We also have a higher number of children living in workless households than practically any other country in the European Union, 4.8 million people of working age in workless households, and one in five 18-year-old boys who are NEET—not in education, employment or training.
Mr Leigh
The worst statistic of all is that last year, of the 85,000 children in receipt of free school meals, whom we should be helping more, only 45 got into Oxbridge, which is fewer than those who came from just one school—that attended by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the true demerit of what we have been creating in the past 13 years.
Mr Jackson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to that statistic. Likewise, the number of children who go from care into higher education is also a shameful figure. I therefore strongly endorse the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to tackle the deep-rooted causes of poverty in this country, and to tackle the twin aims of lessening the scale of social breakdown and improving the quality of life of the poorest in our society. If our Government achieve nothing less, they will have served our country in achieving that.
In my constituency, where we have recently suffered job losses, and where we also have low skill levels, lower-than-average pay and high welfare dependency, the problems are real and they are about people, not statistics. Hundreds of children in Peterborough live in dysfunctional families, their parents on welfare benefits. Those children lack ambition, a focus and, often, a moral framework, going without anything other than peremptory familial love and experiencing, through no fault of their own, an inevitable poverty of imagination, as well as, too often, material poverty. Dedicated teachers, nursery staff, health professionals and members of the extended family, such as grandparents, are often forced to assume a role in loco parentis. I believe that we have a moral duty to those children to do something about the situation, even if not to their often indolent and feckless parents.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not give way; I do not have time.
More than 6,000 of my constituents languish on disability living allowance and, most shockingly, more than 1,000 of them languished on that particular benefit for more than 12 years under the previous Labour Government.
We simply cannot go on as we are. I welcome the measures in the Budget. I believe that they seek to protect the vulnerable while rebalancing our efforts to generate a private sector-led recovery that will benefit everyone in the medium term. In that spirit, I particularly welcome the 50,000 extra apprenticeships, an increase in the child element of the child tax credit, the re-linking of pensions and the allowance increase of £1,000 for low and middle-income earners. I restate our commitment to Sure Start, to refocusing on the neediest families and to helping ensure that the 6 million carers in our country receive appropriate respite care. I welcome too the cuts in corporation tax, the £200 million increase in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, the green investment bank and the green new deal.
I hope that the new fiscal rules that the Chancellor has outlined will mean that by 2016, if we have extra money as a result of the cyclically adjusted current balance being in surplus, we will be able to cut tax again for the lowest-paid working people in this country. It took courage in this Budget to tackle the entitlement culture and some of the shibboleths and sacred cows, but putting this country back on track will require further tough decisions, which are the right thing to do. We should also disregard the opportunism of Her Majesty’s Opposition. There is nothing inevitable about a double-dip recession, and I believe that it will not happen. The Budget is borne of desperate necessity, but is there any evidence that seeking to encourage private sector growth and reducing the size of the state to 39% of GDP in four years is a bad thing and will not create jobs, wealth and new markets for our goods and services?
The Chancellor was candid and straightforward last week, in contrast to the Labour years of subterfuge, stealth taxes and fictitious growth projections. Tough but fair, a progressive and forward-looking Budget; a Conservative Budget for the nation and not for narrow, sectional, vested interests and the core vote—it is for this reason that I commend the Budget to the House and my constituents. I will be voting for it tonight.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is such a pleasure to see you sitting in that Chair.
There was a kind of creepy pleasure in listening to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) because, in a curious way, it was like hearing a really bad horror film, and there is always a great deal of pleasure to be found in a really bad horror film. As for this recalling of Thatcherism in all its glory, dressed up for the 21st century, I love the idea that we can simply get people to work. There are all these people living in Peterborough who apparently have no desire to work and are perfectly happy to stay at home, neglecting their children, but the hon. Gentleman has been their MP for all this time—how long?—so why has he not done something about it? The issue is that in Peterborough, as in the rest of the country, under this—in my view Thatcherite mark 2 —Budget, there will be no jobs. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)—I regret that he is no longer in his place—the only guarantee in the Budget is a massive rise in unemployment.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
In my constituency, the number of people in receipt of disability living allowance doubled under the previous Government; and not only did it double, it went up every year. Would the hon. Lady not see that as an example of the failure of the policies of the previous Government?
Glenda Jackson
Perhaps that is one of those areas—this was briefly touched on in an earlier contribution—that, like our health service, has increased so much because we are all living longer, so that people who might have died many years before are still living, but justifiably claiming disability living allowance because they are disabled. The hon. Gentleman should forgive me for giving him a tiny history lesson, but I would just point out to him that when his party was last in total government—as opposed to being propped up by the “30 pieces of silver” party—it massaged the unemployment figures by putting people on incapacity benefit, and that ran for years.
The hon. Member for Peterborough is also suffering from selective amnesia. Those of us who lived through the first Thatcherite era remember well the levels of unemployment, the destruction of communities, and the throwing on to the scrap heap of the greatest national resource that this country will ever have: its people. Their talent, their ability, their creativity and their capacity for hard work were all thrown away for the same reason that they are being thrown away now. “You can’t buck the markets” was the litany then; it is exactly the same now, even though it has been dressed up and presented in a very different way.
We hear massive arguments from Conservative Members that the Labour party created this fiscal downturn, yet they are all intelligent enough to know that that is grossly untrue. It is easy, in the blame culture that we live in today, to make threats to bankers and to say that they are the most blameworthy people, yet they have not been punished in the Budget at all.
Glenda Jackson
You really have to get another club to beat us with. I would have thought that there were a couple, although they are not necessarily to do with the Budget.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) both attempted, in their different ways, to make a salient point—namely, that this is a fair Budget because the richest pay the most. They must know that that is completely and utterly untrue. It is a grossly unfair Budget, because the poorest are the most dependent on public services, which we know will be slashed under the comprehensive spending review, when it eventually happens in October.
Maria Eagle
Did my hon. Friend see the analysis in The Observer at the weekend that suggested that the Chancellor’s
“budget cuts will hit Britain’s poorest families six times harder than the richest”?
Does she believe that that is in any way a definition of “progressive”?
Glenda Jackson
It is neither progressive nor fair. What is depressing about the path that the coalition Government have gone down is that they have learned absolutely nothing from the lessons of history. This is always the case: it is always the poorest who pay the most; their health suffers, they live in the worst possible housing, and their job opportunities are nil. I love the Secretary of State’s wonderful idea that they can move out of their social housing to another part of the country and find a job. This is coming from a Government who have already destroyed the regional development agencies. Sheffield Forgemasters has also been mentioned. There is absolutely nothing in the Budget that will help to create employment. One of the worst aspects of the Budget is that it will slash the confidence of those people who need it the most in order to get out there and compete in an ever-shrinking jobs market.
Glenda Jackson
This is a kind of psychobabble. When we get to the age of 18 and become adults, we really cannot blame everything on our parents, and, at his age, the hon. Gentleman really should not be blaming all those grandparents and great-grandparents for anything. The Liberal Democrats made their choices: they campaigned and they spent money on posters that warned of the VAT bombshell, but they have now signed up for it.
I want to go back to my point that it is always the poorest who pay the most. It will not be the richest who will feel the pain of the VAT increase; it will be the poorest. We have only to go round the supermarkets to see the kind of changes that are being brought into play. The special purchases of particular products that are cheaper than the branded product—or even, in some instances, than the supermarket’s own product—will be the products that the poorest people will have to buy.
Glenda Jackson
No. The idea that you have allowed children to languish in that state in Peterborough for all these years and done nothing about it—no, I am sorry, I cannot give you time. You voted against Sure Start. You voted against the new deal. You voted against every single policy that the Labour Government brought in over our 13 years to give every child a chance and to ensure that we as a nation invested in our greatest national treasure: our people.
Glenda Jackson
May I just point out to the hon. Gentleman that, when his party was last in government, it was not children who were not in education, employment or training? In Birkenhead, the city in which I was born—admittedly, I have not lived there for a very long time—there were men who were entirely fit, healthy and capable of work, but the only way for them to earn a living was to pick over the rubbish dumps to see if they could find anything to sell.
Glenda Jackson
You did not have to go through a rubbish dump to find things to sell. And I am a working-class girl.
There is a fantasy about a big black hole of debt that is resting on the shoulders of every man, woman and child in this country. I have lived all my life under the debt incurred by this country fighting and winning the second world war. We paid that debt off about five years ago, but I had not even been aware of its existence. During those decades, I and millions like me were given opportunities to move forward, to develop our talents and to create work that had not been dreamt of by the preceding generations. That could have happened again, but it will not happen under this Budget. This Budget is quite deliberately following the good old Conservative rule of divide and rule, and blame the poor—
Glenda Jackson
Don’t shake your head. In every soundbite you give, you are running with the idea that the people who are claiming benefit are scroungers, and that they have no job because they do not want to work. That is classic Conservative party doctrine. This Budget is a disgrace, because it attacks the most vulnerable in our society, and they are the people, regardless of their party political colour, whom everyone in the House should be committed to defending and protecting. You are simply destroying their opportunities.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. This might be an appropriate time to remind Members that, when they use the word “you”, they are addressing me, and I have been accused of many things for which I was not responsible. I call Helen Grant.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Paying tribute to my predecessor is a task that I find very easy. Ann Widdecombe was a high-profile and eminent MP who worked very hard for the people of Maidstone and The Weald. She is a woman of great integrity, honesty and sincerity, and a lady I am very proud to call my friend. Ann has been one of our most colourful and controversial politicians, and I know that her pragmatic contributions will be sadly missed in this place. Happily, her clarion voice will continue to be heard in the media and beyond, and, on behalf of the House, I wish her well in her future endeavours.
The constituency of Maidstone and The Weald is the perfect mix of rural and urban life. The rural aspect of the seat stretches some 20 miles to the south of Maidstone, encompassing vibrant communities such as Cranbrook and Marden, and picture postcard villages such as Benenden. In the north of the constituency, we have Maidstone, the county town of Kent, which is also the home of the 36 Engineer Regiment. I should like to pay tribute to the bravery of our engineers and to remember their losses in Afghanistan. May God bless them, their families and their loved ones.
I must declare an interest in our armed services, as my eldest son, Ben, is a Royal Marine training in Devon. As a forces Mum, I am gaining an understanding of the tremendous pride that families feel, but also of the emotional rollercoaster that they ride each day. I hope that what I learn from my son’s service will translate into something useful for our many military families.
I want to say something about social mobility. One of the greatest attributes of the British people is their belief in fairness, and it is that sense of fairness that supports the notion that whatever your starting point in life’s marathon, it does not have to be your personal best for the rest of the race. If you try to move up the field, or even get into the leading pack, you should have the opportunity to do so. Aspiration, family and enterprise have been essential elements in my own personal journey. They are also fundamental in a society in which mobility can flourish and not flounder. I should like to say a few things about each of them.
I believe in opportunity and aspiration, and in the ability of individuals to achieve, progress and reach their full potential, whoever they are and wherever they are from, if they choose to do so. I came from a pretty humble start, but I was allowed to progress in life because I had the good fortune to engage with people who instilled in me the importance of working hard and aiming high, and values such as individualism, self-empowerment, choice, freedom, free enterprise, self-reliance and self-esteem. I hope that we, as politicians, can advocate and reinforce those values, because if we do we may be able to help many, many people to rise beyond the circumstances of their birth, and if we do that, society as a whole will prosper.
I also believe in the power of the family. I believe that the family is a fundamental and vital tool in holding society together. It can provide security, stability and commitment. In the family we learn how to give, how to share, how to be kind, how to care, and how to build relationships. Those are the foundations that people need in order to progress. Yet for many years the family has been badly neglected as an institution, although it is also key to dealing with issues such as gun crime, knife crime, teenage pregnancy, truancy and antisocial behaviour. I hope that we, as a Parliament, will do all that we can to support the family.
As for enterprise, it enables aspiration to become reality. It can also create wealth, independence and choice. I set up my first business when I was 11 years old, digging up old bottles from a Victorian dump in Carlisle and selling them at an old curiosity shop. I know that that sounds like something out of Dickens, but it is absolutely true. At one stage I was making about £2 a week, which was a lot of money in those days. I have always loved business, and I have always been enterprising.
In our country it has nearly always been possible to aim high, work hard, be resourceful, take a risk and make money, but that is changing. Over-regulation is strangling enterprise. Every accident is someone else’s fault, and people are quick to talk about rights—but what about responsibilities? Even our employment legislation has become so potentially onerous that people must be very careful about whom they take on. Any redefinition of a job description can be construed as constructive dismissal, and any criticism of performance may equal “harassment”. I often feel that I cannot give a bad but honest reference without fear of litigation.
The combined effect of all that is a massive disincentive to enterprise, which is bad for business and bad for Britain. I hope that, through this coalition Government, we can get rid of some of this nonsense, replacing it with a much more common-sense approach. In order to do that, however, we may need to promote and recruit Ministers and Government officials who have at least some direct experience of wealth creation, and who understand the importance of cash flow and the working environment in which we must all operate.
Our country is facing very difficult times. The House is debating an emergency Budget and the effects that it may have, but however we choose to rectify our financial position, we must strive to preserve the things that underpin our chances of success: aspiration, family and enterprise.
I thank the House for listening to my speech, and thank the fine people of Maidstone and The Weald for electing me and sending me here.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on her maiden speech. As she admitted, she has a difficult act to follow, but the confident and assured way in which she addressed the House shows that she is well up to meeting the challenge. We look forward to listening to her on many occasions in the future.
This Budget is hypocritical, regressive and vindictive. It is hypocritical because, as recently as April, both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats rejected the idea of an increase in value added tax. The excuse that they have given since forming the coalition Government is that they found that matters were much worse than they had thought once they managed to see the books. I find that somewhat difficult to swallow, given that the problems relating to our finances have been well documented.
I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) that the Government have been suckered into believing information from the Bank of England about the danger of our being sucked into eurozone problems, when in fact we are in no such danger. Before the banking crisis and the recession struck, our historic debt stood at about 40%, a level comparable to that in some other regions. It was not particularly excessive.
It is rather galling that the Liberal Democrats have fallen so easily into the coalition Government, agreeing not only to the £6 billion of cuts that affect my area but to the cuts that form part of this emergency Budget. They seem to sit comfortably in this cutting Government; they seem to be comfortable wearing the Tory mantle that they appear to have assumed. I think that many people in the country will rightly feel that they voted for Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament only to be presented with Tories.
The Budget is vindictive because it attacks the less well off: the lower paid and benefit claimants. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) let the cat out of the bag when he called it a Conservative Budget—a traditional Conservative Budget, which attacks the public sector and cuts the welfare state. Are the Government trying to tell us that, in an emergency Budget, they will remedy all the ills of recent years in which our welfare budget has increased? Are they going to do all that in one Budget? Surely not. Surely they could have taken time to examine our debt problems in depth before making slashing, swingeing cuts such as these.
It seems that we are returning to the old Tory mantra: if it is provided by the public sector it is bad but if it is provided by the private sector it is good, and everything to do with the private sector is far superior to everything to do with the public sector. That simply will not wash. It is the old dogma that we have heard in the past.
VAT is obviously a regressive tax. It affects the less well off far more than those on higher incomes. It is a question of involuntary versus voluntary expenditure. Yes, people on higher incomes will pay more in VAT, because they will spend more of their disposable income on luxuries. Unavoidable expenditure on food, groceries and other necessities will affect the lower paid much more than the well off.
Mr Illsley
No, I will not.
As we have heard time and again this evening, housing benefit cuts will throw people out of their homes. It is apparently assumed that those people can move from one end of the country to another to find employment, but slashing public sector spending by 25% in every Department will surely result in further job losses. Here we are, throwing people on to unemployment benefit while at the same time cutting the welfare state that is designed to assist them. That will have an impact on areas such as mine, in which there are high levels of public sector employment. Why does my area have a high level of public sector employment? Because a certain previous Government removed its one major industry, the coal industry, many years ago. We have struggled to find incoming investment and employment to compensate for those job losses, and, as has been mentioned, when the coal industry was being closed down the Government of the time encouraged workers to go on to incapacity benefit rather than unemployment benefit because that reduced the unemployment figures. We therefore have a legacy of higher numbers of claimants of incapacity benefits such as disability living allowance. As for the idea that we will bring in a medical test for DLA, the conditions for DLA are based on care needs. They are based not on the medical condition of the person claiming, but on whether they require care throughout the day or night. The introduction of a medical would therefore remove a lot of people from that benefit, probably unjustly.
Why have the Government decided to cut at the ratio of 80:20? Why does the cut suddenly need to be so great? The hon. Member for Peterborough made the point that this is a Conservative Budget. The Conservatives have, with the co-operation of the Liberal Democrats, taken the opportunity to attack the public sector and the welfare state, just as they have done in the past. This is simple opportunism to cut the welfare state and the public sector work force.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
In the limited time available to me, I want to concentrate on some specific areas of the Budget that affect either my constituency or subjects about which I feel passionately, but first let me say that there was one subject the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Mr Illsley) did not speak about: bingo. It is a passion that we share, and it is important to mention it as I do not think it has been referred to so far in the Budget debate. Through campaigning, we recently managed to secure a reduction in the tax on bingo from 22% to 20%, and I am sure he would want to join me in campaigning to ensure that that reduction continues until we have got it back to the 15% level and that we get a commitment from the Government that they will look to reduce that tax as soon as the financial circumstances of the country allow.
The right hon. and learned Lady the Leader of the Opposition said in her response to the Chancellor’s statement that the Budget would “hit” constituents in Cheshire the least. I am unsure whether she said that out of concern for the poorest and most vulnerable people in my constituency or out of political mischief aimed in the direction of the Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne)—although I think I know which is the more likely—but I am nevertheless glad that she raised the matter. Crewe and Nantwich is home to some of the most poverty-stricken areas in Cheshire, and it is the people in those areas who deserve to be—to quote the right hon. and learned Lady again—“hit” the least.
In 2008, the year in which I was first elected to the House, Labour hit the lowest paid with the 10p tax fiasco. While this is a difficult Budget, I am proud of the fact that the coalition is doing the opposite by lifting 880,000 of the lowest paid out of tax altogether. I am also proud that we are introducing the earnings link for pensions, something Labour did not do for 13 years, instead, unforgettably, increasing the pension by 75p.
It is not just these headline measures that affect my constituency, however. The Government have announced that they will reduce regulatory costs by introducing a one in, one out system for new regulations. That was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who made an excellent maiden speech. She made the point that regulation is right at the heart of the issues that small businesses in particular face. At an election hustings event in Crewe and Nantwich organised by the Federation of Small Businesses, local business man after local business man told me about their No. 1 concern: stifling regulation. At present, a small business spends on average seven hours a week filling in forms. What a waste! Three in four firms say the Budget will make a positive impact on their business, and I have no doubt that to those job and wealth creators the reduction in regulations is one of the most important measures that back business in the Budget. It has inspired a welcome response.
Another measure in the Red Book that will benefit business in Crewe and Nantwich is the coalition’s commitment to investigate ways to help with fuel costs in remote rural areas. The coalition is considering the case for introducing a fuel duty discount in those important parts of the country, including a possible pilot scheme in Scotland, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to consider extending the scope of the pilot schemes to include thriving rural economies such as that in Crewe and Nantwich, which is at the very heart of our dairy industry.
I also want to speak about one of my particular passions: adoption and fostering, and looked-after children. As chairman of the all-party groups on both those subjects, and as someone who shared his childhood—and most of his adulthood—with foster children, I can say that foster carers will be very happy that their capital allowance rules will be amended in this Budget to ensure that they operate consistently and as intended for all carers. Foster carers are to be applauded for the sterling work they do in providing for some of the most vulnerable in our society, and none of them should be penalised by the taxation system purely because their business circumstances change.
We know we have to make choices in this Budget about where we make cuts. There are issues of essential spending and issues of discretionary spending, but money spent on looked-after children and the caring and support of vulnerable children by foster carers should never be seen as a luxury, so my plea on behalf of a part of our population that cannot speak for itself in these chastened and difficult times is do not forget about us. If the baby P and Edlington cases taught us anything, it is that when it comes to child protection we cannot afford to cut corners or pass the buck. With 40% of people in prison having been through the care system, we have to recognise that there is still much to do.
I believe that this is a decisive Budget. It deals with the record deficit the Government inherited from Labour and it contains important measures that will benefit some of the poorest and most vulnerable in my constituency, as well as the business and rural communities. It is hard to welcome some of the tougher measures contained in it, but, sadly, they are necessary, albeit painful, decisions. I applaud the overall structure of the Budget, therefore. We on the Government Benches did not build up the record deficit, but we will do all we can to knock it back down and get Britain back in the black.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to make my maiden speech, and I would like to congratulate the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on their excellent maiden speeches.
I am delighted to have been elected for my home constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. To represent the people from whom I have come is the greatest honour I can imagine. It is, however, sad that this, my maiden speech, comes on a day when we will be asked to vote on a Budget that is more regressive than anything Thatcher ever managed to produce. It is a Budget based on ideology, not reality; on aggressive cuts, not need. The hard-working people of my constituency will be among those hardest hit by the measures proposed: when tax credits are cut, when necessary benefits are lowered, when 100,000 jobs are lost that would have been saved under a Labour Government.
My constituents have not forgiven the Tories for the destruction they let loose upon Scotland in the 1980s. Unfortunately, if the Budget gets through, it looks as if history will repeat itself. How can a Budget that reduces the opportunities that are available, that takes away support from those in danger of losing their homes and that increases VAT be described as progressive? How can Liberal Democrat Members who publicly campaigned so hard against these measures support this Budget? I have quickly come to the conclusion that the Members on the Government Benches do not know the meaning of the word “progressive”.
One of the most famous sons of my constituency, the father of the Labour party, James Keir Hardie, was an intelligent man, ahead of his time. While, admittedly, he did show an affinity for the Liberals early in his career, he soon became disillusioned with the economic policies of Gladstone’s Government and came to the conclusion
“that the Liberals neither would nor could ever adequately represent the working classes.”
I wonder what he would make of their successors today.
Reading Keir Hardie’s story once again, as I prepared this speech, I was reminded why I became interested in politics. His family had little and lost the little they had because they were unprotected from unemployment and health problems, and there was a lack of education provision. He struggled against startling odds to educate himself, beginning at night school in Holytown in my constituency, and took great risks to enter politics and represent those unable to represent themselves. It is to lift people out of poverty and ensure that no one has to exist like that that I entered politics. We in the Labour party are grateful to Keir Hardie for blazing the trail that allows us to sit in the Chamber today.
Thirteen years after Keir Hardie first led Labour MPs into the House of Commons, my constituency was fortunate to be represented by the then baby of the House, Jennie Lee. She gave her maiden speech in response to Churchill’s Budget, using the opportunity to highlight the real suffering behind the figures. Since 1945 my constituency, in its various guises, has been represented by some of Labour’s brightest stars, including Margaret Herbison, who in her 25 years as an MP fought for miners’ rights and was instrumental in forging the foundations of our welfare system.
Peggy was succeeded by Labour’s former leader, the right hon. John Smith. My first political memory was hearing of his death when I was in a school assembly. His memory and influence remain at the heart of my community and its politics as much as they lie in the spirit of this Chamber. He will never be forgotten.
Following John Smith’s death a by-election was called and the right hon. Helen Liddell emerged victorious. Helen’s strong wit and character lit up the Chamber. She will be an excellent addition on the red Benches and I look forward to the contributions she will make there. When Helen headed for sunnier climes down under, the right hon. Dr John Reid took her place as Member of Parliament for Airdrie and Shotts. Dr, soon to be Lord, Reid has served the people of Lanarkshire for 23 years. His wit became apparent in the first minute of his maiden speech when he mentioned that the empty Tory Benches he was facing reminded him of a mass rally of the Scottish Conservative party. Following this year’s general election in Scotland, I could not agree more.
Soon after Labour came to power in 1997, Dr Reid began his ministerial career at the Department for Transport and went on to hold more Cabinet posts than any politician in recent history. As Secretary of State for Scotland, he oversaw the handover of power from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. He went on to become Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the peace process was in jeopardy. I know that the highlight of his political career was to witness Martin McGuinness and the Reverend Ian Paisley sit down together at Stormont as Deputy and First Minister, an outcome helped along by the work of Dr Reid.
Quickly gaining a reputation as a problem solver, Dr Reid was given two of the most difficult jobs in Cabinet in his final years in government—Defence and the Home Office. Three years ago today, he woke up for the first time in a decade without the pressures of ministerial office. He returned to the Back Benches with quiet grace and dignity, quickly managing to find an excellent assistant from his constituency. He now moves on to other challenges, including accompanying his predecessor next-door. To the country, he is the Labour fixer who sorted out Departments when they went wrong. To Parliament, he is a man of honour, loyalty and wit, but to me he is the man who gave me the opportunity to reach my potential and I thank him for that.
Before I finish, I pay tribute to the greatest feature of my constituency—its people. Their kindness and good-heartedness are best illustrated by the generosity shown towards St Andrew’s hospice in Airdrie, which requires donations of more than £40,000 a week to keep going, yet still manages to get the support it requires. In Shotts, a local boy, Kyle Grant, has won the hearts of our community by raising money with his family to obtain specialist treatment for cerebral palsy in America. Not so long ago, his target of £40,000 seemed like a far-off dream, but he has now managed to achieve double that amount. With the support of local businesses, local newspapers—the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser, the Wishaw Press and the Motherwell Times—and local people, charitable causes will continue to flourish in our area for as long as they are required.
I am proud to come from a place where people put others before themselves. That is at the heart of the politics of the area. It is the birthplace of the Labour movement; people do not just want a better life for themselves and their families, but for everyone else too. That is why when we do well, we do not pull up the ladder of opportunity behind us. That is why we support moves to end poverty at home and overseas. That is why I am proud to serve the people of Airdrie and Shotts.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) who has just given her maiden speech. I am sure the rest of the House will forgive her for making us feel a little bit old when she reminded us of her first political memory. It was a fantastic start and we all look forward to hearing much more from her in the near future.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to deliver my maiden speech in an extremely important debate. Tackling the long-term culture of welfare dependency is probably the single most important ingredient in really sorting out and fixing our broken economy.
I have the great honour to represent the constituency of Thurrock, which, for Members who do not know, is in Essex, on the borders of London. I am the sixth Member for Thurrock since the constituency was created in 1945. I am extremely honoured to follow in the footsteps of Andrew Mackinlay, who served the people of Thurrock in this place for 18 years. I say that with real sincerity. He was much loved and respected on both sides of the House. He was a committed parliamentarian and a stout and outspoken defender of civil liberties. He will be missed here and in Thurrock where he is held in considerable warmth.
My constituency is a collection of towns and communities. At its heart is the town of Grays and it extends to the west to Aveley, Purfleet and South Ockendon and to the east to Tilbury and Chadwell St Mary. One of our jewels is the port at Tilbury, which even today supports 10,000 jobs. It is one of the traditional industries that have been much neglected in recent years, and although it goes from strength to strength it needs further support.
Thurrock’s communications are one of its biggest strengths. Its proximity to the M25 and to London, and its location on the River Thames all make it an attractive location for business and a key logistics hub. We also have the Dartford crossing, which I am sure is the scourge of many a motorist—including Members—as they queue to pay the toll. I remind the House that when the crossing was constructed it was envisaged that the tolls would be lifted once the construction costs had been met. That time has been and gone, and instead of scrapping the tolls the last Government increased them. Since the tolls were increased the queues have become more problematic and no doubt cause significant costs to business users of the crossing when they find themselves stuck in congestion. We need to think again about the continued existence of the tolls, about future capacity needs on the M25 and crossings on the River Thames and the prospects for additional crossings to the west and the east. The review announced in the Budget must consider all the options thoroughly so that we have a transport system along the M25 fit for the future.
In recent years, Thurrock has become a major retail centre, with the development of the Lakeside shopping centre and retail park. There are signs that the retail offering is likely to expand still further, which is why this is a particularly exciting time to represent Thurrock. I have mentioned its strategic location and although there is much to celebrate, the area can do so much better.
The Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation has been charged with delivering inward investment and has made some progress. I very much hope it will be given the opportunity to deliver its plans, notwithstanding plans to fold it up into the Homes and Communities Agency.
In Thurrock, we are all excited about the potential for the development of creative industries following the major investment made by the Royal Opera House. We need to establish the national skills academy to support Thurrock as a creative industries cluster. I firmly believe that we have a once in a generation opportunity to secure the future development of Thurrock and it should not be squandered. I look forward to playing my part in building a better future for the constituency.
Having indulged the House by describing everything that is great about Thurrock, I turn to the business under discussion. The need for welfare reform was the main issue that brought me into politics as a teenager. In those days, I was living on a council estate in Sheffield. It seemed to me a real injustice that hard-working families—people working every hour to put food on the table—had no better standard of living than many households where no one was in work. The frequent lament at the working men’s club was, “Why do we bother?”
Over time, that injustice seems to have become more and more entrenched. The way that tax and benefits interact today means that work simply does not pay for far too many households. The result is that we have a society where too many individuals do not have the self-respect or discipline that comes from work and individual responsibility, the rest of society is burdened by an ever-higher tax bill and we as a country are dependent on migrant labour to fill those jobs that simply do not pay for our workers to do. We cannot go on like this.
I hope that the Budget really marks the beginning of our quest truly to reform the dependency culture that exists in Britain today and to give everyone the opportunity and incentive to work. In so doing, we will not only reduce welfare bills, but increase tax receipts to the Exchequer, so that the entire nation will become better off and future Budgets will be a lot less painful than this one.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to participate in a debate that has included so many excellent maiden speeches—from the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—and an astonishingly powerful maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). I often used to think that parliamentary democracy needed a regular infusion of youth, talent and drive to keep it going, but given how much great talent there now is on both sides of the House, I am not sure that that is the case; I do not think that we should see so much great talent, because it certainly does not do my career chances any good whatsoever.
The best way to secure a sustained recovery is to put in place the conditions for growth, but the Budget fails to do so. Indeed, from reading the Red Book, it is very unclear where growth will come from at all. Paragraph 1.48, backed up by comments from the Office for Budget Responsibility, states that the economic forecast is for a gradual recovery, with
“net exports and business investment making a greater contribution to growth than in the recent past, and government spending making a negative contribution to growth as fiscal consolidation is implemented.”
The notion of an export-led recovery is very welcome—it would help some of the firms in my constituency—but how on earth is this going to happen? The eurozone economy is in grave danger, and the notion that we can rely on growing opportunities for exports into Europe in the next few years seems very ill-judged. The policy stance adopted by some of the G20 at the weekend seems to indicate that, where there was once global co-operation for stimulus, there now seems to be broad agreement for austerity. If that is the case and the world’s major economies are collectively going to reduce demand, where does that leave the prospect for an export-led growth plan?
In similar vein, the Red Book states that business investment will also be a catalyst for recovery, but how will that happen when the Chancellor is cutting the capital allowances rate that would incentivise businesses to invest in new plant? How will that happen if the OBR’s own forecasts envisage companies having to absorb some of the rise in VAT through lower profit margins? How will that happen if, as the OBR states in paragraph C.29, business investment has a relatively high import content? How will businesses be encouraged to invest more when they face in the next few years higher import costs and lower profit margins. Admittedly, they will have lower corporation tax rates, but disproportionately higher cuts in capital allowance.
My region of the north-east and my constituency suffer more than their fair share during economic downturns. We in Hartlepool are still suffering from the social and economic consequences of deindustrialisation and the Thatcher Government’s response. I would be the first to applaud the Government if they genuinely helped communities such as mine to stimulate their sense of enterprise and entrepreneurialism. I, too, want an economy led by the private sector and for the north-east to achieve its potential, but nothing in the Budget will allow that to happen.
Nothing in the Budget gives us any clue about the future industries that would help our country to prosper in the 21st century. We lead the world in creative industries and are second only to the US in digital industries, but how could the Chancellor state that he wanted to see Britain open for business when he scraps video games tax relief? There was frighteningly little on how this country could lead the world in green jobs and green industries, and how the Government could encourage and facilitate such a move to a leading low-carbon economy. The north-east could be leading the world in energy infrastructure, incorporating nuclear, oil and gas and renewable technology that could help this country to prosper, but there was nothing at all in the Budget to encourage that.
The regional growth fund that was announced in the Budget is very welcome, as is the proposed White Paper on regional economic performance, but the proposals in the Budget were so bland and ambiguous as to be almost meaningless and gave the impression of being put in the Red Book at the last minute, as an afterthought. I am particularly concerned that the regional growth fund will be set up only in 2011-12 and 2012-13, so the job losses that take place now, as a result of the Government’s cuts set to take place in this financial year, will not be helped.
Scrapping the future jobs fund, which has been successful in Hartlepool, combined with the deep cuts to working neighbourhoods funding, will stop hundreds of young people from embarking upon a career. Potential growth of the economy in my constituency is therefore being hit now, in this financial year, with no clear assistance from the Government at all.
Within a few days of the new Government taking over, the largest private sector company in my constituency went into administration, which led to the loss of 650 jobs in Hartlepool. I am not blaming the Government for the company’s fall, but the coalition’s response was incredibly telling and deeply depressing. The response that I received from a Minister at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills following my request for assistance was offensively complacent—basically washing his hands of the matter and stating that the local authority and regional development agency should be expected to bear the load. Indeed, the local authority’s economic development team—the best in the country—and One NorthEast are working closely together for the workers who lost their jobs, but how can they work to the best of their abilities when the local authority has been asked to find £1.7 million of cuts this year? How can One NorthEast be expected to operate as effectively as it could when it has heard conflicting, contradictory and confusing reports about its future? How can help for a private sector-led recovery be given—for example, retraining opportunities for the workers who have lost their jobs—when the Department in Whitehall charged with helping business is facing some of the biggest cuts?
Many hon. Members in the Budget debate have mentioned the 1980s, when the Thatcher Government doubled VAT, and it was clear then, as it is clear now, that the priorities were to shift the burden from income taxation to taxation on consumption. That is not only regressive and impacts upon the poorest in society, but deflationary, taking demand and consumption out of the economy, so it will take us longer to climb on to sustained recovery. That deflationary stance always increases unemployment, and I fear that we will once again see unemployment rise to levels that are socially unacceptable and economically wasteful.
The coalition Government’s tired policies are devastating in any era. The policies did not work in the 1980s, and they will not work now. I ask the Government to think again and not rush headlong into an ideological zest for cuts that will increase unemployment.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah). I agree with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that they bring inspiration and enthusiasm to the House. We are all here to try to make things better, and I am sure that all of them will play their part.
The coalition Budget has been described as tough but fair, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will certainly agree that it is tough. Why does it have to be so tough? It is tough because we are borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spend, because we owe £22,400 for every man, woman and child in this country and because, thanks to Labour, we have one of the largest budget deficits in the whole of Europe, so we must take the action that Labour dodged. Now that the OBR has been formed, we know the true scale of the problem that we face, and we have worked it out so that no one can fix the figures anymore.
Mr Anderson
Does the hon. Lady disagree with the OECD, which said that the previous Government’s actions prevented this country from going from a recession into a depression? If those actions had not been taken, we really would have been in a mess.
Lorely Burt
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats supported some of the steps that the Labour Government took, but that does not allow Labour Members to wash their hands completely of this country’s financial state.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
But can the hon. Lady and her colleagues wash their hands of the fact that although they opposed a rise in VAT during the election, they will now go through the Lobby to support it? Surely that is hypocrisy.
Lorely Burt
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of VAT. If he has a little patience, I shall address that fully in just a moment.
I applaud the fairness factors in the Budget, many of which were suggested by Liberal Democrats. The £1,000 increase in the threshold at which people start to pay tax will bring 880,000 people out of tax altogether and benefit 23 million people on low and middle incomes. That increase is the first step towards a Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge. The tax on banks will not affect small banks, but it will allow tax cuts for other types of business to be introduced. The changes to capital gains tax will mean that top earners pay 10% more, although there will be thresholds so that others pay at a lower rate. The rate of 28% is not as high as Liberal Democrats might have gone, but the Government have been advised that 28% is the highest rate that can practically be set before revenue starts to be lost, so that is fair enough.
Pensioners have already been discussed today. They will benefit from the earnings link and the triple lock, which will mean that they receive an increase reflecting earnings inflation or 2.5%. No Labour Member has managed to explain why the Labour Government did not restore the earnings link over 13 years, and never again will we have the disgraceful situation of pensioners receiving a 75p increase, as Labour proposed. Child poverty is addressed through an extra £2 billion for child tax credits, and the pupil premium will help the most disadvantaged children.
This is a Budget for business. Business is the engine that will drive us out of the recession, so we have put our emphasis on ensuring that we have cuts rather than taxes, with a 77:23 split.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool said that this was not a green Budget, but there are good incentives for low-carbon investment through the reform of the climate change levy, the proposals on which will come in the autumn. We also have the green investment bank and the green deal for households, which will enable households to make improvements that will pay for themselves over time.
The reduction in corporation tax also shows that this is a Budget for business. In addition, we are pumping money into Royal Mail, which did not happen under the previous Government. The Budget contains nice little touches such as entrepreneurs relief. It does not involve any indexation or a taper, and the amount that retiring entrepreneurs can enjoy has increased from £2 million to £5 million.
The national insurance threshold increase in 2011 will take 650,000 people out of national insurance altogether. What a contrast that is to Labour’s proposals for a tax on jobs. The enterprise finance guarantee scheme is being extended to 2,000 businesses. Under the regional growth fund, I look forward to our pumping money into the regions, meaning that we are no longer a London-centric Government. We will ensure that the regions get the kind of support they need, especially for new businesses.
Of course, there have been hard choices. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) talked about VAT, and it is regressive. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said that we did not know the meaning of that word, but we really do. However, our VAT rate is still below the average for Europe.
Ian Swales
Is my hon. Friend aware that after Thursday, when Spain increases its VAT rate by 2%, only Cyprus and Luxembourg will have a lower rate of VAT than we do?
Lorely Burt
My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for his helpful intervention. We must put all these things into perspective. The existing exemptions will apply to items such as food and children’s clothing. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has tabled an amendment about VAT. He is rightly worried about the effect of the VAT rise on particular groups, but I point out that the Red Book states of the chart on page 67 to which he referred:
“Chart A3 shows that the top expenditure decile will lose almost 15 times more, in absolute terms, than the bottom expenditure decile from changes in indirect taxes.”
The increase is not nice, but we feel that it is appropriate.
Lorely Burt
I am sorry but I cannot take any more interventions.
We have talked about welfare throughout today’s debate, but I should point out that the welfare bill was set to rise to nearly £200 billion and we just cannot afford that. The autumn spending review will treat those most in need as a priority, and although we will make cuts, we will cut carefully. This year’s Labour Budget included plans for £44 billion of cuts and tax rises, but the previous Government did not say how they would raise that money and what taxes they would have increased. Until Labour Members are prepared to tell us what they would have done, they have no right to criticise this coalition Government.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
In March, before the election, the Chancellor told the News of the World:
“We are all in this together. I am not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor”,
which was very reassuring for voters to hear before an election. Since the election, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have tried to argue that the Government and even their Budget are progressive. However, having had a closer look at the Budget and the Government, we can conclude that neither is progressive in political or economic terms. I am afraid that it looks very much like the Chancellor is indeed planning on balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.
I want to spend a little of the time that I have examining the effects of several Budget measures on poorer and disabled people. Disabled people are some of the most marginalised and vulnerable of our fellow citizens, but they are also one of the greatest sources of under-utilised talent and potential in our country. They are generally at the poorer end of the income distribution and they are more reliant on public services than many of our citizens, so the Budget’s impact on them will indeed test the Chancellor’s claim that he is not aiming his Budget at the poor.
I characterise the Chancellor’s overall Budget strategy as further and faster deficit reduction than was planned by the last Labour Government, and an 80:20 split between spending cuts and tax rises in advance of severe spending cuts in the autumn. That is his general approach. We should remember that even the most Thatcherite hawks who did not believe in the existence of society in the 1980s only ever aimed at a 50:50 split between spending cuts and tax rises, so the Chancellor is making the Thatcherites of that time look soft and even-handed. That is not, by the way, how the people of Liverpool remember them for what they did in that decade.
We can say that for most disabled people on lower incomes, who are more dependent than most on public services, the increase in VAT is a disaster. Some Government Members have had the grace to accept that it is a regressive tax. Indeed, both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, before the election, said on TV that it was a regressive tax. The deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is in his place, has said so more recently. The increase in VAT, which both the PM and the Deputy PM promised us before the election we would not have, but which they are now both going to invite their hon. Friends to vote for, is not only a joint broken promise that will hit the poorest hardest, but something on which both parties will be judged.
The degree of reliance on spending cuts will also impact much more heavily on poor and disabled people than a more balanced ratio would have done. More than half the £11 billion of welfare cuts will come from indexing benefit rates to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. That sounds technical, but the effect is to set benefits on a permanently lower trajectory, thus year by year compounding the disparity at every uprating, though saving more money for the Chancellor. That, in my book, is the very definition of balancing the Budget on the backs of the poor.
The changes in disability living allowance will be judged not only on that score, which will in itself cut almost £300 a year from the payment. The Red Book also promises us reform
“to ensure support is targeted on those with the highest medical need”
and says:
“The Government will introduce the use of objective medical assessments for all DLA claimants”.
Indeed, one Government Member referred to DLA as a benefit that one languishes upon. However, DLA is an extra costs benefit: it is paid not on the basis of a medical diagnosis, but to compensate disabled people for the extra costs incurred by the effect their condition has on their ability to get around or look after themselves. People who work receive DLA. It is not a benefit that one languishes upon; it is a recognition from society that disabled people need a little extra support to enable them to participate in life.
Mrs McGuire
Does my hon. Friend agree with the Essex Coalition of Disabled People, which has indicated that the increase in people claiming DLA has resulted in more disabled people living independently in the community, rather than in the residential care that was in existence in 1993, 1994 and 1995?
Maria Eagle
My right hon. Friend is correct. She, like me, is a former Minister with responsibility for disabled people and has had to grapple with these issues.
This proposal is retrograde because it reverts to a medical model of disability, which disabled people themselves resent. It also has enormous deadweight costs. People who have never been able to walk do not need a doctor’s assessment to say that their mobility is restricted. What possible sense is there in subjecting them to one? It just looks like harassment. How does that sit with not introducing a medical for those components of attendance allowance which are the same as the components of disability living allowance? What about pensioners who got their DLA before they turned 65 and still retain it? Are they to be subjected to a medical test? Looking at the Red Book, it seems to me that we have a savings figure attached to this measure of £1.1 billion, and the objective medical test is simply designed to reduce the numbers on the benefit by 20%. The policy has not been thought through. This seems to be a proposal aimed at saving money.
Similarly on housing benefit, the Red Book says:
“Housing Benefit is often criticised as making excessively generous payments that damage work incentives. To address this, the Government will remove payments that trap benefit claimants in poverty instead of providing incentives to work”.
But only one in eight housing benefit claimants are unemployed. The majority are pensioners, disabled people, carers or people in work who are on low incomes. What is the point of making this benefit one that incentivises work when most of the people on it fall into those categories? It is nonsense. If instead we start with a suspicion that the reforms are actually about saving money, and we see that they cut £1.8 billion, we are more likely to get to the nub of the issue.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the welfare reforms are
“A mixed bag, with no consistent objective beyond the desire to save money”.
The private rented sector reforms just decouple the local housing allowance payable from the level of the rent even in local housing markets, which can only result in people falling into arrears and debt, and being subjected to eviction. In the public and registered social landlord sector the reforms are equally worrying. Many disabled people only have their home. It is the foundation of their lives and their security. It is all they have that is their own. These proposals will force people to move house and face increasing levels of debt. If their area gentrifies—nothing to do with them—they have to move on. If their children grow up and leave home, as they tend to do, they have to move on.
What about disabled people who have adaptations in their home? Are they to have to move? Often, those adaptations make life liveable. They are not a luxury; they are a necessity. Having debt and having to move from one’s home is difficult enough for anyone to cope with, but many disabled people are too vulnerable to cope well with such upheaval. How are learning-disabled people, those with severe mental ill health and those with severe physical impairments supposed to go out and look for a new home, as they may have to simply because of these reforms to save money? Disabled people are the least equipped to do that, even before the spending review cuts the support they can get in their local communities to help them with such things.
The Budget is a triple whammy for disabled people: VAT and the cost of living up; incomes and benefits slashed; help and support to navigate those challenges ended. If the Tories do this, they should not have the support of the Liberal Democrats and, quite frankly, the Liberal Democrats should be ashamed to walk through the Lobby tonight to support this appalling Budget.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), as well as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on making excellent maiden speeches and for raising the bar so high. I fear that all that is about to change. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank all Members of Parliament and staff for the courtesy and help that they have given new Members? This is a baffling and overwhelming place to get used to, particularly when lost down a corridor somewhere.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Paul Truswell, who was the Labour MP for the constituency from 1997 until the recent election. He was, and is, an honourable man, and although we did not always see eye to eye, I would like to think that we had mutual respect for each other. He was regarded as a very good constituency Member of Parliament, and only announced his retirement after a serious car crash. I hope that he is recovering well, and that he will enjoy his time with his family. I shall also say a few words about his predecessor, the late Sir Giles Shaw. I never had the fortune of meeting him—sadly, he died not long after his retirement—but he was a contender for the post of Speaker. I understand that he was a witty man, who was well respected for his ability in consensus seeking. Indeed, he had such an effect on the constituency of Pudsey, that someone asked if I was taking over from him.
It is an honour and a privilege to represent the Pudsey constituency, and I am grateful to the voters there for returning me. It is a long constituency that straddles the borders of Leeds and Bradford. In 10 minutes, we can be in the vibrant city of Leeds; in 10 minutes going in the other direction, we can be in the beautiful Yorkshire dales. The common reaction when I say that I represent Pudsey is, “Ah, named after the bear.” I point out that the town came first, featuring in the Domesday book. Pudsey is an old mill town, but many of the mills in the constituency have sadly gone. Indeed, at the height of their success, the pollution was so bad that it was said that the birds in Pudsey park flew backwards to keep the soot out of their eyes.
Pudsey is a big town that is suffering somewhat from out-of-town developments, but there is a vibrant market, and I hope that I can do my bit to help the town’s economy. There is a lot more to Pudsey than just Pudsey. The neighbouring town of Farsley is home to Hainsworth mills, which provide speciality textiles for the Royal Guards’ uniforms, and claim to make the fastest cloth for snooker tables. The cloth in the Woolsack in another place even comes from that mill. One of the town’s famous sons is Ray Illingworth, the former England cricket captain.
In Calverley, an attractive and typical Yorkshire village steeped in history, there is a wonderful old hall. In 1604, the local owner and landowner, Walter Calverley, apparently went insane and murdered his two sons. He refused to plead, and was ordered to be pressed to death at the York assizes—a method that was used to try to force a confession, and something I fear that the Whips would like to use on some of us in future. However, he died without confessing his crime, and his ghost apparently haunts the village on dark, lonely nights.
The next village is Horsforth, considered to have the largest population of any village. It is home to Leeds Trinity university college, which has just received that status and is famed for teaching and media training. Finally, there is Aireborough, an area that was regarded in the 2001 census as the most average place in Britain, which I would dispute. It is the home of the original Harry Ramsden’s fish and chip shop, Silver Cross prams and another furry friend, Sooty. I know that I am biased, but I love our constituency.
Let me move on to the debate. Yes, this is a difficult Budget, but these are difficult times and I am glad we have a responsible Budget, one which is sensible and is now clearly endorsed by members of the G20. The scale of our debt is truly terrifying and threatens to restrict what we will be able to do in future years. If we do not deal with the debt now, we will be wasting more than £70 billion a year on interest alone, which will threaten our household interest rates and business growth.
I welcome the initiatives of the Chancellor for encouraging regional growth. Tax breaks for new businesses outside London and the south-east are particularly welcomed by someone who is a Yorkshire MP. I want to see our private sector grow so that we are not so dependent on the public sector. Capital investment, too, has been mentioned. I was pleased to hear about the Leeds and Liverpool railway line. I know that there are other things that we want for our city in Leeds, for which I will be pressing the Chancellor. All these will encourage enterprise.
I shall say a little about my background. I grew up on a council estate in a family that had very little money. I was the eldest, and even I had hand-me-downs. What helped my family and others was the ability to start a new business. I remember my father starting a small roofing company. It was not much, but it was something. It got him off the dole and it employed another person. That is the sort of wealth creation that we need in this country so that we can help the small businesses to create the wealth to improve the prospects for our future, and also to help the millions of people who have been abandoned by the Opposition on benefits. I think particularly of the young people who are out of work. Through the creation of wealth and jobs we can turn the country round and improve the prospect of helping those people.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome you to your position.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on an eloquent maiden speech, as well as the hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who also made excellent maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) clearly knows her Labour history. A number of strong Labour women have represented her constituency in the past, and she showed today that she will be a powerful advocate for the community that she represents. She mentioned in her speech that her constituents have not forgiven the Conservatives for what they did in the 1980s. In my constituency, North Ayrshire and Arran, that is what I was told repeatedly during the general election.
As I listened to the debate today and as I have listened to the rhetoric from the Conservative party over the past few weeks, it reminded me of the 1980s. Fortunately I was a little older than my hon. Friend at the time. When I left school I knew nobody between the ages of 16 and 25 who had a job. Education or the youth training scheme, as it was then, were the only opportunities available. It was astonishing to hear again after 20 years the talk about getting “on yer bike”. For most people in areas such as the one that I represent, moving is not an option. For all the reasons that have been set out today, if we see the kind of attacks on our benefit system that are being outlined, that will become even less of an option.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) described in detail how the changes in the benefit system would have a disproportionate effect on some of the poorest in society. The Budget is deeply regressive and will be devastating for some of the poorest communities and some of the poorest people in the country. However, it will also devastate the economy, because it is a depressive Budget. The rise in VAT, the cuts in benefits to some of the poorest in society and, perhaps even more significantly, the huge cuts in public spending will drain huge amounts of money from the economy. In other parts of Europe, more and more Governments are taking an increasingly similar approach, and that is very worrying for not just the British economy but beyond, because it does not seem obvious where we will be able to sell our goods. So this is a very dangerous Budget.
I have already said that the current debate is reminiscent of debates that took place in the 1980s. In 1979, a Government were elected saying that they had no plans to increase VAT, but not long after there was an increase from 8% to 15%; and now, of course, one of the first steps that we see is a significant increase in VAT. Until the past few weeks I had never heard it argued that increasing VAT was anything other than a regressive policy that would disproportionately affect some of the lowest earners in society.
Mr Anderson
I remember a similar situation. Does my hon. Friend remember also that in the 1980s people continually said, “There is no alternative”? Now, the code for that is, “This is unavoidable”, and it is sad that the Liberal Democrats have been taken in by the Conservative party. The Lib Dems are the real dupes in this House.
Katy Clark
I agree. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who basically said that we could not afford the benefit system and, therefore, it was necessary to take these steps, but the House must remind itself again and again that we are a hugely wealthy country. We have the fifth wealthiest economy in the world, but the wealth and power in society are unevenly distributed, and that has to be the backdrop whenever we have these discussions.
Given the proposals that we have heard, this Budget simply seems to be a Tory Budget. I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ points about the policies that they have tried to inject, but overall the Budget will disproportionately affect those on the lowest incomes. A few days ago the TUC commissioned a paper, which states that overall the annual loss in income and services for the poorest 10th of households is estimated to be £1,514, which is equivalent to 21.7% of their household income. The average annual loss for the richest 10th of households is estimated to be £2,685, which is equivalent to 3.6% of their overall income. No doubt a lot of work will be done on those figures, but we must consider them when we discuss not only the Budget, but the Finance Bill, which we will debate over the coming weeks.
I agreed with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), and I fully appreciate the difficulties and stress that Liberal Democrat MPs in his position must feel if they have always argued that a VAT increase would have a disproportionate impact on the poorest in society. I hope that we see some detailed work on the impact of not just the VAT increase, but all those policies on the poorest in society.
In reality, we are seeing unprecedented cuts in spending on public services, but I find it difficult to believe that any Government of any political colour will be able to make the proposed reductions, because we are talking about departmental cuts of about 20% to 25% over five years. It is difficult to imagine that the Government will be able to deliver on that, because these are such savage cuts in the services that all our constituents rely on.
This is a bad policy not only because it disproportionately affects some of the lowest-paid and lowest-earning in society, but because it risks choking off the recovery that is so vital to us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) was absolutely right—we needed a Budget for jobs and growth, but we have something completely to the contrary.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I think that I will be the last person this evening to make their maiden speech—[Interruption.] No, I am sorry—I stand corrected. I am the penultimate person to do so.
Having grown up in Falmouth and having been confirmed in Truro cathedral, it is a real privilege to stand here today as the first MP for the new constituency of Truro and Falmouth. I am particularly pleased to join today’s debate, in which we are discussing the important contribution that many of the measures in the Budget will make in enabling enterprise to prosper in my constituency.
My immediate predecessors will be well known to Members of this House. Matthew Taylor served for more than 20 years as the Member for Truro and St Austell, and he played an important role in highlighting the issues of living and working in the countryside of Cornwall in his well-respected Taylor report. As chairman of the National Housing Federation and a director of South West Water, as well as serving in the House of Lords as a Lib Dem peer, he will be able to continue his work on the issues identified in his report. I look forward to helping him to take the words from its pages and put them into action, especially in delivering truly affordable homes for local people to buy or rent.
Julia Goldsworthy served as the Member for Falmouth and Camborne in the last Parliament, and she has recently returned to the Westminster to work as special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Her work in creating the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 is noteworthy, as is her dedicated campaigning work for NHS services in Cornwall. I look forward to working with her in her new role.
I have often heard colleagues in this House refer to Cornwall as part of the Celtic fringe; no doubt that is intended in a humorous way. While I am very proud of the Celtic culture, sports and traditions of Cornwall, there is absolutely nothing “fringe” about Cornwall or its people. Cornwall throughout the ages has been, and will continue to be, at the cutting edge of important national developments, as well as being at the centre of key moments of our history. The industrial revolution started in Cornwall, and Cornwall is leading the new industrial revolution—that of delivering the renewable and sustainable energy that our future economic security and growth will depend upon. Cornwall’s pioneering and inventive people and enterprises are ready to rise to the challenge of delivering a low-carbon economy and secure energy supplies. They need a Government who understand how to create the right market conditions for enterprise to succeed. I believe that this coalition Government have the determination to do this, and so to unlock potential in Cornwall.
My constituency is a slice of central Cornwall running from the north to the south coasts. It includes Cornwall’s administrative, retail and media centre and its only city—Truro. The Royal Cornwall hospital, the only acute hospital in the whole county, is in Truro, along with the Peninsula medical and dental school. I am grateful for the dedication of the staff in our NHS in Cornwall and the people who work hard in all our public services.
Cornwall has benefited from EU objective 1 funding, and now convergence funding, which has helped to develop the knowledge-based economy. Combined Universities in Cornwall has enabled people of all ages to access the opportunity to undertake higher education and obtain new skills. University College Falmouth is a world-leading arts organisation.
Throughout the constituency are very many beautiful villages, from the rugged splendour of the north coast villages of St Agnes and Perranporth to the no less beautiful but gentler coastline of the Roseland peninsula. As hon. Members will be aware, tourism is an important industry in Cornwall. Thanks to local farmers and fishermen, there is a thriving and growing local food scene, which comes together into some mouth-watering food festivals enjoyed by locals and tourists alike. I am delighted that the new coalition Government recognise the importance of farming and fishing to our national food security.
In the hinterlands of the constituency are the ruins of many of the mines for which Cornwall is famous. As a descendant of Cornish miners, I am particularly pleased to see renewable energy enterprises developing in the ruins of the old tin and copper mines. Cornwall has the hottest rocks in the UK and is a natural location for geothermal energy production. That, combined with our rich tradition of engineering and inventiveness, provides an ideal environment and ideal skills to develop that sustainable form of energy. Geothermal Engineering Ltd has submitted a popularly backed planning application to Cornwall council and if it is successful, we will see the first commercial geothermal energy plant in the UK, which will produce 10 MW of renewable energy to be fed into the national grid.
Nearby, at the former mine of Mount Wellington, is Kensa Engineering, an award-winning manufacturer of ground heat pumps that works with social housing providers across the country to deliver low-carbon energy and at the same time lift people out of fuel poverty. I am delighted that the coalition Government have stated their support for renewable energy incentives. I believe that the Government’s priority, as set out in the Budget, to enable more business finance and financial support for the low-carbon economy, will help support excellent low-carbon companies and energy providers such as those in my constituency. The Government’s emphasis on the need for economic growth to come from the private sector will also, I believe, create a better environment for the many businesses that already contribute so much to the local economy, particularly at Falmouth port.
Falmouth is not only important to the economy of Cornwall as the third-largest natural harbour in the world, it is of strategic importance to the UK. Falmouth has a long and proud maritime history and, as the most westerly port in the Atlantic gateway, has been at the centre of trade since ancient times. As ships for all purposes, including those needed to service marine renewables and the Navy, are getting larger, the deep waters of that safe haven are ever more important to the nation, not just to Cornwall.
I understand that many of the measures in the Budget will be tough for people living and working in my constituency. I do, however, believe that by taking the brave decisions in this Budget—
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate as the new Member for Glasgow Central. It is a pleasure to follow the excellent contributions of the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), and of course of the baby of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash).
I would like to begin, as is customary, by paying tribute to my predecessor. It is perhaps somewhat easier for me to take part in that tradition than for other hon. Members making their maiden speeches, as I have had the privilege of knowing Mohammad Sarwar for all 27 years of my life. He has been a tremendous inspiration to me and it is an honour to follow him into Parliament as the Member for Glasgow Central.
Mohammad Sarwar began his political career in 1992, when he was elected to serve on Glasgow city council. He went on to make history in 1997 when he became the UK’s first Muslim Member of Parliament. He was re-elected to serve Glasgow Govan in 2001 and, following boundary changes, won Glasgow Central in 2005. On election night in May of this year, when I learned that I had held the seat for Labour with an increased majority, I turned to my election agent and we congratulated each other on a well-fought five-week campaign. Overhearing our exuberance, my predecessor was quick to remind us that his hard work as an MP for the preceding five years may also have had something to do with it.
My predecessor enjoyed a distinguished parliamentary career, including serving as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs before being elected its Chair in 2005. A devoted internationalist who was respected on both sides of the House as a champion of the Asian and Muslim communities, Mohammad Sarwar did a tremendous amount of work to strengthen Britain’s relationships abroad, but first and foremost, my predecessor was a very passionate and forthright constituency MP who always spoke up to ensure that the interests of his constituents were well represented in this House. In recognition of his 20 years of service to Glasgow, he was last month awarded the Loving cup by the city’s lord provost. It is one of the highest honours that can be given by the great city. One example of his devotion to his constituents is his successful campaign to secure the future of thousands of jobs in Glasgow’s Govan shipyards, which he cites as his greatest achievement as a Member of Parliament. I hope that under this Government, the tremendous history of shipbuilding on the Clydeside will be protected and promoted, and not harmed.
As you can probably tell from my accent, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was born and brought up in the city of Glasgow, and I have lived there all my life. I love the city of Glasgow and I am a proud Glaswegian, so I feel immensely honoured and hugely privileged to have been given the opportunity to represent the people of Glasgow Central in Parliament. I thank them for putting their faith and trust in me and I promise to work tirelessly to repay that trust.
Glasgow has been through some very difficult periods in its history, and there will clearly be further testing times ahead, but I know the resilience, spirit and innovation of the city’s people, and that is why I am confident for its future. In the past 13 years, Glasgow has been transformed from its inward-looking, post-industrial slump to become a confident, outward-looking, economically regenerated city. It is now a leading location not just for shipbuilding but for high-tech industries and developing fields such as biotechnology. It is Europe’s fastest-growing conference centre and we now have more than 4 million tourists visiting annually. World-renowned universities such as the university of Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian university are also within my constituency, and I am proud to have graduated from the university of Glasgow with a BDS in dentistry. We all know the pain that can be inflicted by a dentist, but that pales in comparison to the pain inflicted by the Chancellor with this Budget—I know that was a cheap joke, but I could not resist it.
Glasgow Central’s school leavers and graduates can look forward to employment in the largest economic part of Scotland. Its business district, international financial centre, manufacturing sector and Clydeside media hub provide thousands of jobs. Glasgow Central also boasts a thriving retail industry and the best shopping in the UK outside London, including the style mile, which takes in Sauchiehall street, Buchanan street and Argyle street together with three shopping centres. Culture seekers are also catered for in my constituency, which boasts the Scottish exhibition and conference centre, the Glasgow science centre, the Kelvingrove art gallery, the gallery of modern art, the People’s Palace and several theatres among its many attractions.
Glasgow is a city that is brimming with confidence and is on the up. This will be demonstrated on the world stage when we proudly host the 2014 Commonwealth games. The spirit of optimism so evident in the city centre permeates into the neighbouring communities that surround it: to the north and west lie Dundasvale, Cowcaddens, Garnethill, Anderston and Finnieston; south of the River Clyde are the hard-working communities of Govanhill, Toryglen, Pollokshields, Kinning Park and the Gorbals; and in the east are Bridgeton, Calton and Dalmarnock, which I hope will reap the economic benefits of the Commonwealth games.
There is much to celebrate across Glasgow Central, but we still face many challenges. Although the previous Government made huge strides, we must recognise that there is still a way to go, and I am determined that the progress made in recent years will be built upon, not diminished. Some areas are still counting the cost of the devastating economic policies of the 1980s, which saw communities blighted and a generation of young people left on the unemployment scrap heap. Sadly, it seems that the same mistakes are being made again.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the bulk of the pain in this Budget will be felt by the poorest in the country. At times of economic difficulty, the Government should be supporting and protecting the most vulnerable in our society, not harming them and hitting them hardest. Severe cuts to child tax credits, housing benefit, and disability living allowance, as well as the VAT increase, will affect thousands of low and middle-income families and pensioners in Glasgow Central and across the UK. That is on top of the decisions to scrap child trust funds and the future jobs fund. I urge the Government, particularly hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, to rethink many of those previously tested and failed policies before it is too late.
Let me conclude with a message to my constituents. My first priority is to be a visible, accessible and hard-working member of parliament. I will fight for vital investment to ensure that we continue to create opportunity and jobs in Glasgow so that it can remain a great place to live, work and raise a family. I will work in the House with hon. Members on both sides to help to build a society that has equality and fairness as its guiding principles, providing educational opportunity, tackling child poverty and ensuring that everyone, no matter what their background, can match their aspirations with achievement.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)? She is no longer in the Chamber, but she held her own with charm and interest among the many excellent maiden speeches this evening. I congratulate all who made such speeches, especially the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), who delivered an informative, interesting and hard-hitting speech. He clearly has a great future in the House. I know I speak for all hon. Members when I ask that he pass on our good wishes to his distinguished predecessor—his dad.
It will come as no surprise to Labour Members that I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget, but I have been amazed when listening to some of their speeches during the Budget debates. It seems to me that they have a collective delete button that has erased the last 13 years of their memory. I regret the situation left by the previous Government, which has motivated the many tough measures that the Chancellor has been forced to take. I also regret that they left such a massive budget deficit and such a large public sector debt, and that they let spending rip to sustain the previous Prime Minister’s vain boast that he had done away with boom and bust. How empty those words seem now.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my hon. Friend also regret the fact that child poverty has increased by 300,000 since 2004-05? Does he welcome the fact that it should be frozen in the next two years?
Mr Binley
I welcome the Government’s pledge to ensure that child poverty does not increase in the next two years in these difficult times, but I was dismayed by the previous Government’s record, which left so many young people out of employment, education and training. That was terribly sad.
I regret that the previous Government thought that they had only to create a project and throw money at it to solve a problem. I come from industry, and I can tell Labour Members that in truth, how projects are managed determines their success or otherwise. Perhaps they can take that lesson on board.
I congratulate the Chancellor on his courage in the face of what he had to deal with. I think he produced a fair and balanced Budget, as do many of my electorate in Northampton. To fire a warning shot across the bows of Labour Members, I can tell them that a number of those who told me that this weekend were in fact Labour voters. Labour Members might need to temper their comments in the light of that information.
The success of the Budget is not assured. It depends on achieving the projected growth figures, which means being competitive. How sad that on the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness index, the UK fell from seventh to 13th in the rankings between 1997 and 2010. Sadly, that is another Labour failure.
As I said, the Chancellor did a great job in trying to be fair and balanced, not only for this generation, but for our children and grandchildren. Had we not taken that action and set out on that course, they would be left with the burden.
Mr Binley
I will not give way because time is very limited.
One thing that makes me most angry is the idea that we should spend the money and expect our children and grandchildren to bail us out. That is totally unacceptable.
I said that the success of the Budget is not assured, but I welcome the many initiatives that the Chancellor outlined in his speech, including the reduction in corporation tax, particularly for small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses announced that they will help more than 850,000 small and medium-sized concerns. Along with the FSB and the Forum of Private Business, I welcome the extension of the enterprise guarantee scheme, which will likewise help those small businesses. The FSB reckoned that a 1% increase in national insurance contributions would have brought about the loss of 57,000 jobs. So the previous Government’s record continues. The issue is not only what they did, but what they said they would do. We need to take that into account.
I am delighted that the Chancellor listened to our concerns about raising capital gains tax and that he has increased the threshold to £5 million from £2 million to further encourage entrepreneurs. All of that, welcome though it is, might not be enough to ensure that business has the available financial resources to produce the growth that we need. I am especially worried about that because some 94% of the people who work in the private sector in Northamptonshire work in small or medium-sized enterprises. I fear that they will not have access to the credit from the banks that they require to continue their businesses. Some 70% of the nation’s creativity comes from that sector, and SMEs added 2 million jobs to the employment list at a time when UK plc was shedding 1.5 million jobs. Without that sector, we would not have had the jobs growth that we had in the five or six years before the beginning of the recession.
We face some serious issues in ensuring that the SME sector receives the credit it needs to provide the growth that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary require. The G20 agreement to force the Government to make sure that the banks hold on to even larger amounts of capital flies in the face of our work in that respect, so I ask the Chief Secretary to look at ways of ensuring that the sector receives the money it requires. I want him to look at the levy on the banks to see whether he can allow some of that money to be spent on providing credit for the small business sector and I also want him to promise that he will look at ways of alleviating the £130 billion figure placed on us—seemingly by agreement—by the G20. I welcome the Budget, but I need my Government to recognise the need for SMEs to get the money they need to continue to grow to provide the jobs that we require.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
This is one of those occasions that Members dread, when they write a very calm speech but then have to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), nice fellow though he is. He has, in one contribution, echoed so much of the same political nonsense that has come from the Government Benches to justify this unnecessary Budget. Day after day, we have heard about the state that Labour left the country in and the deficit that Labour caused.
The hon. Gentleman forgets that from 1997 until 2007 and into 2008 we had unbroken growth every month—[Interruption.] I do not know about the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I have a very deprived constituency and, however critical I was of the Labour Government, a lot of people were able to leave behind the memories of the Thatcher 1980s. They got jobs, bought houses and started to take pride in themselves and their families. They started to think that they had a future. That was our Labour Government, but what those on the Government Benches seem to forget is that they are letting some greedy, irresponsible people get away with what they have done to this country and its people. [Hon. Members: “It’s your lot!”] This is exactly it: how could anybody on the Government Benches blame a Labour Government for a financial crisis that swept through the western world, bringing misery and poverty?
The fact is that those on the Government Benches are letting the bankers get away with it—it is obvious even in the Budget that they are doing that. Government Members are going to vote tonight for £5.9 billion of cuts in welfare benefits in the Budget, yet they are taking only £2 billion from the bankers. In fact, they are not even taking £2 billion from them; what they are doing is not hitting the bankers—the greedy, irresponsible ones; the ones who are pocketing the money and taking their bonuses—but hitting the banks and the customers.
Mr Mudie
No, we have no time, as the hon. Member for Northampton South said.
Those on the Liberal Benches—the real Liberal Benches —seem to be listening to the Government propaganda. I wonder whether they read David Smith in The Sunday Times the week before the Budget. David Smith—not a well-known Labour supporter—drew our attention to the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the Chancellor. The OBR produced a report, which I see one member of the Front-Bench team has read and understands, containing its forecasting from June, based on the Labour Budget of March. We are talking about the choice for the Liberal Members who entered the Government, having taken their Business Secretary’s word that Mervyn at the Bank told him that things were so bad that we had only one option—to push through the cuts, which are reminiscent of the ’80s—but we do not.
This is David Smith’s introduction to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report:
“The ‘before’ version, the OBR’s baseline projection, was contrary to some reporting last week, a rather attractive vision for the economy over the next few years.”
That is our legacy: “a rather attractive vision for the economy”. What was in that projection? The answer is that
“growth averages 2.7% from next year until the end of the parliament,”
in 2014-15, and
“inflation sticks to the Bank of England’s 2% target,”
throughout the life of the Parliament. As for unemployment —this is the choice that those on the Government Benches are making—it will go up with the Budget. Under the Labour Budget, as analysed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility,
“unemployment falls despite…Labour’s planned spending cuts.”
“Unemployment falls”—can those on the Government Benches say the same? The article continues:
“The economy rebalances away from consumer spending and government towards exports and investment. The saving ratio steadies,”
with
“borrowing falling from 11.1% of GDP in 2009-10 to 3.9% by 2014-15 and the current account deficit, 1.7% of GDP this year, falling to 0.8% in 2014,”
and both the structural budget deficit and the cyclically adjusted deficit falling. That was all in the independent report that the Chancellor called through.
So when those on the Government Benches are walking through the Lobby to force cuts on people—kids who want to go to university; disabled people; people on incapacity benefit—[Interruption.] Oh yes, of course, it is all emotional, but these are people. We are taking a gamble with the Budget, and it is an unnecessary gamble. Professor Budd spelled out in his report that it is unnecessary. When those on the Government Benches go through the Lobby to vote for the Budget—this great risk, as the Business Secretary admitted in the House last week—they ought to know what they are doing to ordinary people in their constituencies and our constituencies. The Budget has been described by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) as tough but fair, but the word that she left out was “unnecessary”. The Budget this year will mean a difference of £6 billion, but before the Chancellor brought it forward, he had to admit, when the result came in, that we were £11 billion better off. It is an unnecessary Budget and it is a gamble. Ordinary people will pay for it, and that is a disgrace.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard some wonderful maiden speeches today, including those of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) and my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), among other great constituencies of this country. I congratulate them. Our talk about the Budget today has been vital, because it will define the challenge of this Parliament and, quite possibly, of a political generation.
I should like to thank hon. Members on this side of the House for electing me a member of the Treasury Committee. It will be a great honour to serve on the Committee, which plays an important role in Parliament, and I look forward to working with its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), and all its other members, in carrying out my duties.
Before I go into the content of the Budget, it is important to remind the House why such a Budget is required. Yes, there has been a global economic crisis, but the sheer scale of the budget deficit has clearly been exacerbated by the policies of the previous Government, and it is time that Labour Members had the honesty to acknowledge that. As a special adviser in the Treasury during the last Conservative Government, when “canny Ken” was Chancellor, the most important lesson that I learned was that you cannot spend what you have not got. Based on the exchanges in the last couple of debates, however, it is clear that that lesson has been lost on Labour Members. It is as though they think that spending is an end in itself, that it is good to spend, and that we should carry on spending regardless. Well, we have had to take the measures to stop all that.
The economic crisis is affecting the whole of the country, including Cheshire, despite what the Leader of the Opposition said last week. In Macclesfield, we shall see the loss of 600 jobs with the closure of BAE Systems’ Woodford site in 2012. There are also closures at Kay Metzeler in Bollington, and at Swain and Sons in Poynton. Most recently, we have heard the announcement of the loss of 250 jobs when the Cheshire building society closes down its operations in our town. We have now seen a staggering 177 % increase in unemployment in the past five years. We are working hard locally to address the situation, and we will be holding a business forum to determine what further action can be taken.
It is clear, however, that an improvement in the economy locally, as well as in constituencies across the country, will require national action as well. That is why I welcome the Budget, with its measures to show that Britain is open for business. That will be important for local employers in Macclesfield, such as AstraZeneca, who need to have the confidence to go on investing in this country, and for those looking to start new businesses in regions such as the north-west, where job creation needs a big boost from business, not from the public sector. I am also pleased that the Chancellor is taking positive steps to reduce the budget deficit. It is the biggest in living memory, which is why we are having to take tough action to get the economy moving again.
Given such difficult circumstances, the focus of our debate should be not only on what needs to be done, but on how these huge objectives can be achieved. Policies and programmes will need to be reviewed as planned, but let us not forget the process by which the challenges should be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has already made some important points on this. The public spending review will be a critical task. Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, my former boss at the Treasury, recently gave the Chief Secretary to the Treasury some advice. He told him that he would need to have the hide of a rhinoceros in taking the review forward, and I have no doubt that that is true. I wish the Chief Secretary every success in establishing a rigorous and challenging review, and in deciding the urgent priorities in Government spending.
Delivering the Budget will also require a transformation in the culture of our civil service. We need to help civil servants to feel proud about their efforts to save taxpayers’ money. When I worked at Asda, colleagues there were genuinely motivated and proud to work towards delivering a lower cost of living to customers. They knew that to deliver everyday low prices they had to focus on delivering everyday low costs, and they were proud to do that. It was part of every bit of work that they did, day in, day out. I suggest that there are lessons to be learnt from that approach in the delivery of value for money in Government and effective public services. It is clear from the actions of Ministers in the coalition Government that they are committed to bringing about cultural change of that kind, and I fully support their efforts.
It is good to know that clear objectives are being set at the top, and that value-for-money Ministers will be appointed in every single Department; but I trust that, in such difficult circumstances, those objectives will be shared throughout Whitehall, and that the Cabinet Secretary will give more priority to the value-for-money objectives of permanent secretaries and their teams. I believe that much of the knowledge required for the achievement of those objectives rests with those responsible for front-line service provision, where the proximity of customers provides powerful knowledge and understanding.
During the general election campaign, I met thousands of public sector workers who were appalled at the amount of waste and the layers of bureaucracy that they had to face every day of the week. One hospital chef told me that he had three bosses. I think most people would agree that that should not be part of the recipe for providing nourishing meals for patients in hospitals. That is why I support Ministers in their efforts to learn from people in the front line and, despite many competing priorities, find time to listen to their views and work with them. I urge those Ministers to continue their efforts to break down the barriers that are preventing taxpayers from receiving the effective services and real value for money that they so richly deserve.
For those reasons, I support the Budget. It is tough and it will be challenging to deliver, but it is the medicine that is needed to treat the trauma of this economic crisis and return our ailing economy to full health. I entirely support the Chancellor’s proposals, which are set out so clearly in his Budget.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) on their excellent maiden speeches.
This is a Budget that will define not only the new Government but the kind of country that Britain is to become for a decade, perhaps even a generation. The choices made in this Budget will have an impact on every middle and low-income family, every community and every workplace. They will determine not only our economic destiny, but the very nature of our society. Those choices, presented as economic imperatives, are in reality driven by an ideology which yet again fails to understand that if a state retreats too far, the result is not a big society but a broken society.
I want to concentrate on public services and welfare. Let us be clear: this is a Budget of choice, rather than a Budget in which there is only one choice. The deficit could have been reduced over a longer period, as happened in the aftermath of the IMF loan in the 1970s and that of Black Wednesday in the 1990s. The balance between taxation, spending cuts and growth could have been different, and the overall package of measures could have been progressive rather than regressive.
Much has rightly been made of Liberal Democrat duplicity. I watched closely on Budget day as the Deputy Prime Minister anxiously passed the Red Book to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), frantically seeking to draw his attention to the tables on pages 66 and 67. The right hon. Gentleman dutifully made a trenchant speech, claiming that this was a progressive Budget and citing the tables as evidence. Within 24 hours, the Institute for Fiscal Studies had made it clear that such claims were as misleading as a typical Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflet. It confirmed that the overall impact of the Budget measures was regressive and that the poorest would be 2.6% worse off, while the richest would be worse off by only 0.6%. That did not include cuts in benefits and public services, which would widen the gap considerably. I do not see how Liberal Democrats can claim to be progressive when they are willing to vote for this Budget, let alone for VAT increases.
In legitimacy and credibility terms, the Tories have matched the Liberal Democrats in their contempt for the electorate. It seems to have been forgotten that the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), claimed to have modernised his party. It was no longer the nasty party, no longer indifferent to social and economic inequality. The right hon. Gentleman would govern from the centre ground, and would face down the right-wing ideologues in his party.
This Budget proves that that was all a charade. Instead we have the same old Tories, driven by a “leave it to the market” dogma, cavalier about social disintegration and contemptuous of the public sector. As throughout history, they seek to divide and rule, reversing new Labour’s economic prosperity and social justice paradigm and disregarding the link between public sector investment and private sector growth. They stigmatise the public sector and its work force as the primary cause of our economic problems, while irresponsible bankers and markets without ethics hardly get a mention. This narrative emanates from politicians and commentators who mainly use private education and health care, whose personal wealth guarantees their quality of life, and who are out of touch with the daily realities of most people in this country.
Let us consider the public servants who make a difference on a typical day in my constituency and those of every other Member: children’s centre staff and nursery nurses; teachers, classroom assistants and support staff; head teachers; police officers and police community support officers; prison and probation officers; doctors, nurses and ancillary staff; district nurses, home carers and mobile wardens; social workers, youth workers and Connexions staff; area co-ordinators and leisure staff. I could go on and on. Yes, and managers and administrators too; after all, effective organisations in the public as well as the private sector need good management and sound administration. There are also the construction companies, contractors and suppliers, providing a range of goods and services to public agencies. The public sector civilises our society, helps people to fulfil their potential, and protects those who are sick and vulnerable.
I do not deny the need for reform and cuts. In government, we should have devolved more to local government and local communities. The remuneration of public service executives should be transparent, and some roles can no longer be justified when tested against other priorities. However, cutting 25% to 30% of the public sector in only five years will both destroy our social fabric and slow the pace of economic growth. This coalition believes that as the state retreats, enterprise will flourish and the “big society” will fill the gap left by public services. That is fantasy politics and fantasy economics. The private sector will struggle to expand while the economy is fragile, which is why these cuts are too fast and too deep. Also, 1.2 million private sector jobs are dependent on the public sector, and 40% of public expenditure is spent in the private sector. The agents of the so-called big society—voluntary groups and community networks—will have their grants cut by local councils reduced to fulfilling only statutory duties.
The Secretary of State claims to champion the family, but he now wants people to break up their families and give up their homes in the pursuit of work. I thought his party was committed to a balanced, not a “get on your bike”, economy. He was at pains to say, however, that people would not have to go up north; heaven forbid!
Our opponents can attempt to rewrite history but they cannot change history. We are proud of the decisions we took to save Northern Rock, recapitalise the banks and boost the economy with a significant fiscal stimulus. We protected savers and home owners and intervened to save jobs and businesses. Our approach, in conjunction with that of our global partners, ensured recession did not lead to depression. Prior to the credit crunch, we delivered an unprecedented 11 years of economic growth, with people on low and middle incomes seeing major advances in their standard of living. We lifted hundreds of thousands of children and pensioners out of poverty, and public services were fixed and then transformed.
This Budget fails the tests of fairness and economic recovery. The Lib Dems have made their choice. It is Labour that is now left with the duty to fight for the interests of the—
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
We have had some excellent debates in the Chamber since the Chancellor presented his Budget to the House. They have been good debates not least because we have heard the speeches of some extraordinary new Members, and I hope I will be forgiven for dwelling for now on only the maiden speeches we have heard today.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) rightly perceived that Budgets are not simply collections of statistics. They are important because they are statements about our ambitions for our country and our communities. I was glad to see the scale of his ambitions for East Surrey and I wish him the very best of luck in the difficult business of delivering them, but he showed us that he needs no shoulders to stand on.
The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) put the emphasis on family and enterprise. She will find a ready audience for both subjects in the House. She spoke with real feeling about the need to draw politicians and civil servants into public life from a wider range of backgrounds. She is right about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) spoke movingly about her memories of John Smith and of her debt to John Reid. I served as one of his Ministers and she got his character absolutely right. She was passionate about her constituents and will clearly be an effective fighter in this place on their behalf.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) spoke about her roots and how they have shaped her political outlook. She left us very much wanting to hear more. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) told us about some of Pudsey’s famous sons—if that is the word to describe both Sooty and Sweep; I have never been quite sure—and I now know the home of Britain’s best fish and chips. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was passionate and informed about green energy. The House is in need of those qualities on that subject, and we look forward to hearing more from her.
Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) brought me enormous pleasure. He captured with brilliance his father’s passion and contribution to this place. He showed us that he is a magnificent successor to his father.
When all is said, however, at the heart of the debate is a judgment. The reality is that the Budget has presented us with the judgment of a gambler. That is not just our conclusion; we have heard it across the spectrum of informed opinion. KPMG said:
“This is a kill or cure budget”,
which
“risks choking off the recovery.”
The Chartered Institute for Personnel Development said that it
“will curb the demand for the goods and services that…drives business investment and exports.”
BNP Paribas—hardly a bedrock of socialism—said:
“We expect GDP will be much weaker than the Budget projections”.
Lombard Street Research said that
“there remain risks that aggressive fiscal tightening causes the UK recovery to stumble.”
IHS Global Insight said:
“There is undeniably a very serious risk that this accelerated and intensified fiscal tightening could derail a still fragile UK economic recovery.”
This afternoon, we have been presented with a contrast. In Toronto, international leaders gathered to agree that the need now was for what they called “growth-friendly” fiscal consolidation, yet at home we are presented with a Budget that suffered the instant indignity of its independent reviewers telling us that it will not speed up recovery, but will slow it down. It will not put more people in work, it will put more people on the dole. It will not move the Chancellor’s party—it is so kind of him to join us—from the 1980s, because at the heart of the Budget is an old calculation: unemployment is a price worth paying. That is a philosophy that the Opposition cannot and will not accept.
Only in the fine print of the Red Book does the scale of the Chancellor’s bet become clear. The Chancellor promised that he would be up front with us, but in the small print of the Office for Budget Responsibility report we see that he is gambling on growth of £192 billion in business investment and exports to pull us through. Last week, he told us he was all for caution, but now we have learned that he is relying on business investment that is higher, not lower, than Labour’s projections, helped no doubt by the cancellation of support for firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters and cuts to investment allowances for manufacturing firms.
What do manufacturers think of that? The Engineering Employers Federation said that manufacturers
“will now be left wondering where the necessary growth and investment will come from, given the cuts to investment allowances and capital budgets.”
Last week, the Chancellor liked to tell us he was all for caution, but now it turns out that he is relying on trade figures not seen in this country since 1974 and only beaten once—in 1950. Yet the prospects for trade in Europe, where half our exports go, are not better than when the March Budget was written; they are worse. Where, exactly, will all those exports go?
I wanted to know whether we had ever had a recovery like the one the Chancellor is gambling on in the next three years, so I asked the Library to do some research, and it said that only once has business investment and trade recovered in the way that he prays for, since the Library started collecting figures in 1966. Now, he is relying on the same performance for the next three years in a row. It is like betting not just on England winning the World cup, but on winning the next three World cups in a row. His strategy is nothing short of a massive bet on a recovery that has been hard-fought by businesses and families in this country. But of course, it has been made possible by the Liberal Democrats’ support, not least the imprimatur of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who is not in his place tonight. Thus the man who made his reputation attacking casino banks has ushered in casino economics to the Treasury.
It is now right to give the Business Secretary a little credit: he at least had the decency to give the House an extended mea culpa for his change of heart. In January, as some hon. Members will remember, he told the House that he agreed with my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor about the way forward. Now, he agrees with the Chancellor. At least he spared us the nonsense that, somehow, Britain risks becoming Greece—a country still in recession, with debt twice the level of ours and no ability to devalue its currency.
All this is hinged, it seems, on the words of the Governor—words, I notice, that were entirely absent from the Monetary Policy Committee’s minutes for May. In essence, the Business Secretary made markets his defence—it was not his fault; the markets forced him—but somehow, he forgot to mention that those were the same markets in which interest rates were falling during the election. The MPC’s minutes for May are, in fact, very helpful. They note that 10-year spot rates were declining, not rising, by about 30 basis points in the month before the election.
The tragedy, of course, in the Budget is that there was an alternative. No doubt we will hear from the Chief Secretary a pretence that, somehow, he inherited no plan. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, because until May he agreed with our plan. Labour’s plan to halve the deficit by 2013, with debt as a share of our national economy falling by 2016, is bang in line with the G20 communiqué announced to the House by the Prime Minister today. I notice that Sir Alan Budd agreed that we were on track to deliver that plan, not least because the public finances were £30 billion better than expected.
Mr Byrne
I will give way in a moment, because I want Government Members to hear this: far from the absence of detail in the Budget, the Budget prepared by the then Chancellor of Exchequer and presented to the House in March set out to the last penny £19 billion-worth of tax rises and, yes, £20 billion-worth of spending cuts, including £1 billion in cuts from the reform of public sector pensions, £1.2 billion in savings from welfare, £3.5 billion in holding down public sector pay, £5 billion in cuts to lower-priority programmes and £11 billion in savings through the biggest shake-up of Whitehall in a generation. That was on top of £15 billion of efficiencies in this year alone—all carefully broken down by Department.
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Matthew Hancock
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is no money left, or does he no longer agree with himself?
Mr Byrne
We can see at whose feet the hon. Gentleman has been training.
Our plan was different from the one the Chancellor presented. Unlike the plan that we heard last week, our plan really did have fairness at its heart. Last Monday night, the Chancellor’s spin doctors made fairness his key Budget test, and by Tuesday lunchtime he had failed it. The night before the Budget, we are reliably informed, Lobby journalists were equipped with an analysis of the Budget’s impact on different groups of citizens, yet somehow, someone forgot to tell the press that the picture was only fair because it included Labour measures. The Government would not dare to present a Budget to stand and fall on its own merits; they had to borrow ours. It did not take long to hear why.
What was the Budget’s impact on pensioners? Age UK says:
“Our research shows that cuts of this scale will be disastrous for older people”
and warns that thousands of lives will be lost. What is the impact on children? Save the Children says:
“Freezing child benefit…will hurt the poorest parents most, rather than their richest peers”.
A 20% VAT rate means driving some of the poorest parents into the arms of loan sharks. The Child Poverty Action Group said:
“This is a disappointing budget for child poverty…The increase in VAT is a regressive measure which will impact hardest on poorest families.”
Perhaps the final word should go to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In a phrase that will come back to haunt Government Members, it said that the cuts to benefits will
“hit the poorest hardest and keep on hitting them harder year on year”.
Six days on from the main event, the Government’s progressive credentials already lie in ruins.
The price of keeping down unemployment in the worst global recession for 60 years was a price worth paying. It was the price of a national defence in a global storm. When we left office, unemployment was 500,000 lower than people expected a year ago. Repossessions were half the level of the 1990s, and company insolvencies were just a third of the rate they reached in the recession of the early 1990s. We are proud that we got the country though the recession in one piece and that we have delivered a return to growth.
It is true to say that no Government would have had an easy time in this Parliament, but the difficulty of the task demands that we do not take gratuitous bets with the nation’s hard-fought recovery and that we pay down the debt in a way that is fair. The Budget fails both those tests, and we will campaign for a plan that is better in this House and beyond.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
And this from the man who wrote the note saying, “There’s no money left”, the most infamous letter in recent British political history. However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) gave us not one single word of apology for his Government’s actions.
Our good, full debate has been illuminated by the excellent maiden speeches made by the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar). I served on the Scottish Affairs Committee with the father of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, so I know that he has big shoes to fill.
This decisive emergency Budget sets out a credible plan to deal with the record deficit that we inherited from the previous Government. It is a tough Budget, and it needed to be tough to reverse the dreadful state of the public finances with which they left us. However, it is a fair Budget that recognises that we are all in this together and that those with the broadest shoulders must carry a greater share of the burden. The previous Government left behind the second largest budget deficit in Europe. Thanks to their incompetence, we are now borrowing £1 for every £4 that we spend, which is a gap of £149 billion this year.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was right to say that at the centre of the Budget was one big judgment: we must go further and faster to reduce the deficit to protect this country and its people from the biggest economic risk of failing to act. If we had failed to act as we have through the Budget, the consequences would have been severe, and the poorest would have suffered the most. We only have to look at Greece to see what happens to countries that do not live within their means: more businesses going bust and higher unemployment.
The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have come together to tackle the debt crisis facing our country. We have taken the tough decisions that the Governor of the Bank of England and the G20 called for, but that Labour ducked.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Danny Alexander
I will press on, if hon. Members do not mind.
At the weekend, President Obama praised the action that we have taken, describing it as necessary and courageous. Yesterday’s G20 communiqué made the situation clear when it said:
“Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”,
and no major country has more serious fiscal challenges than those that the previous Government left Britain. Her Majesty’s Opposition seem to have adopted the strategy of Fabio Capello: they blame everyone else and deploy the same formation of arguments, leaving a gaping hole in their own defence. They refuse to accept responsibility for their mistakes, let alone apologise.
This Budget stands for three things: responsibility—taking action to eliminate our structural deficit; freedom—helping the businesses that we rely on to rebuild our broken economy; and fairness—protecting the most vulnerable while ensuring the contribution of all. Failure to deal with the deficit is the greatest threat to growth. Failure to act now would mean higher interest rates hitting businesses, hitting families and hitting the cost of repaying the Government’s enormous debt, losing jobs and losing growth too. This Budget takes action now to restore confidence in our economy—the confidence that is needed to underpin the recovery that we all want to see. This Budget’s forward-looking fiscal mandate will eliminate the deficit in five years and puts us on track to get debt falling by 2015-16. The Office for Budget responsibility, in fact, forecasts that the measures in our Budget will lead us to meet that challenge a year early.
Before I outline our plan, let me remind the House of the previous Government’s commitments. They were planning £50 billon of cuts, about which they had nothing of substance to say. Some of their leadership contenders—I do not see any of them here—are rowing back even on that plan. Our emergency Budget sets out the path of public spending for the next five years with the following additional measures: an extra £17 billion comes from reductions in departmental spending, £11 billion from reductions in welfare spending, £3 billion from lower debt interest payments and £8 billion from net tax increases.
As has been observed by all sides in this debate, we know that this will be painful, but it is absolutely necessary to secure the growth and prosperity that this country needs in the future. The last Government’s spending plans implied a reduction in departmental budgets of 20%. We are committed to real increases in NHS spending and to protecting international aid, and this Budget implies, as the Chancellor said, that other Departments will face an average real cut of 25%. We will set out the details of those cuts in the spending review, and we will consult widely to inform those plans. In fact, we launched our consultation on Friday, and we have already had more than 20,000 substantive responses from public sector workers, setting out ideas for areas where they know savings can be found. If only we had had a single serious suggestion from the Labour party.
We have taken the tough decision to increase VAT by 2.5%. With a structural deficit some £12 billion larger than the previous Government told us, we had a difficult choice to make: whether to fill that hole by making yet more spending cuts or to increase taxes. Further spending cuts would, I believe, have made it impossible to protect the most essential services in the spending review, so the VAT rise was unavoidable.
Mr Anderson
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his colleague, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said, only on 15 June:
“I hope we don’t get a VAT rise because it is the most regressive form of tax”?
Danny Alexander
No party went into the election promising to increase VAT, but the hon. Gentleman should make no mistake: the rise in VAT is a result of the public finances that we inherited from his Front-Bench colleagues. One could say that it is a Labour inheritance tax.
Danny Alexander
I shall press on. I have already given way.
In response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), I can say that we have already demonstrated our commitment to transparency by publishing data on the distributional impact of the Budget measures, which has never been done before. We are committed to continuing with that level of transparency in future fiscal events, and we will continue to look at whether we can further improve the breadth of information provided. Parliament will, of course, as my hon. Friend requested, continue to have full scrutiny of the Government’s decisions, and I hope that the information that we have already provided, and will provide in future, will facilitate that debate.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Danny Alexander
No, I want to press on.
Thirdly, this is a Budget for fairness. Fairness underpins this Budget, and fairness runs throughout this Budget. This is the first Budget to include an analysis of the distributional impact of its measures. It shows that overall the richest will contribute most to deficit reduction, and it will have no measurable impact on child poverty by 2012-13. That is a good start, and of course we will take further action to underpin fairness on future occasions and in future Budgets. It is important to stress to the House the fact that the principles that have shaped the Budget will also shape the decisions that we make in the spending review, too.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, this is a progressive Budget. It is a Budget that takes almost 1 million of the lowest-earning income taxpayers out of income tax altogether—that is progressive. It is a Budget that locks in an annual increase in the state pension in line with earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest, to the benefit of 11 million pensioners. That is progressive, too. It is a Budget that increases capital gains tax rates by 10% for higher rate taxpayers, but keeps it the same for basic rate taxpayers. That is progressive. It includes a radical programme of welfare reform to focus support on those most in need. The welfare bill has ballooned from £132 billion 10 years ago to £192 billion today. If we ignore the economic and social pressures caused by this system, we will only put the whole country and the front-line services on which we rely under even greater financial pressure in future. The Government will tackle that situation head on, including through the reforms in the Budget to the disability living allowance, housing benefits, and the uprating of benefits. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said, these reforms will ensure that help is targeted on those most in need.
Danny Alexander
I will not give way. The irresponsible Opposition, when in government, caused many of the problems that we face today. We have heard accusations from them today that the measures we announced in the Budget are unfair. Let me test that accusation. The previous Government uprated pensions by 75p. That is not fairness. We have reintroduced the earnings link as our first action—that is fairness.
Danny Alexander
I will not; I must press on.
The previous Government abolished the 10p rate of income tax. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
It is for the Chief Secretary to decide. He is not giving way at the moment.
Danny Alexander
That is not fairness. We have taken nearly 1 million people out of income tax altogether. That is fairness. The previous Government left an open door for the highest earners to exploit the gap between the rate of capital gains tax and the top rates of income tax, costing the taxpayer £1 billion a year. That is not fairness either. We have raised capital gains tax for higher rate taxpayers, and only higher rate taxpayers, by 10%. That is fairness.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that pensioners will pay hundreds of pounds a year in VAT as a result of his VAT hike, but he chose not to include them in his increase in the personal allowance?
Danny Alexander
I thought that the right hon. Lady was going to do better than that. We have relinked pensions to earnings after 13 years. She failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary earlier about the uprating she had planned, which was less than ours even in the second year.
We should compare the Opposition’s denial that there is a genuine economic need to tackle the deficit with our decisiveness, taking the action on the deficit that we all know is necessary. Compare their complacency with our responsibility. Compare their legacy of ruin in the public finances with our approach of fairness as we take steps to clean up the mess that they left. Compare their obstinate refusal to take unilateral action in introducing a banking levy with our resolute leadership, which not only delivered a levy but brought France and Germany along with us too. The Opposition would have us living in denial. Their approach to the deficit seems to be see no deficit, hear no deficit, speak no deficit. One Opposition Member even told us in today’s debate that they believed the deficit was a fantasy. It is such self-indulgence and complacency that led us into the mess we are in. The way that they got us here is not the way out.
This is a Budget for responsibility, it is a Budget for freedom and it is a Budget for fairness. It is a coalition Budget, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. There is extensive gesticulation from some very senior and experienced Members, and no little sedentary chuntering from Ministers on the Front Bench, who now occupy senior and important positions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That provision may be made in relation to the rates at which capital gains tax is charged.
The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).
2. Value added tax (rate and supplementary charge)
Question put,
That provision be made for and in connection with increasing the standard rate of value added tax.
Wheelchair Services
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before Mr Anderson starts his speech, may I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, so that he can make his speech and be heard?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Some five years ago, as a new Member, I was approached by a number of children from Ryton comprehensive school in my constituency to see whether I would attend a lobby by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign that was being held outside the Department of Health. The lobby was held to support a teacher at the school who had a son by the name of Sam who had been diagnosed as suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy—the type of muscular dystrophy that attacks young boys in particular, many of whom do not live to see out their teens.
As a result of that lobby, I was approached by a colleague who is now a Minister and asked if I would take on the role of chairing the all-party group on muscular dystrophy. As a young volunteer—well, not so young, but a lot younger than I am today—I did not know what I was letting myself in for, but I can quite safely say that that was one of the most important decisions that I ever took in the House. As a result of the work that we have done over the past five years, we have made great strides in helping people with muscular dystrophy. However, the truth is that we are still a long way from finding a cure. As part of that work, we decided to hold a series of hearings, to which we would invite patients, professionals and people from the Department of Health, as well as people from the specialist commissioning groups and the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign.
Following that work, we produced a report last summer entitled “Access to specialist neuromuscular care”. Its subtitle is “The Walton Report”, because one of the key players in producing it was Lord John Walton. He was born 88 years ago, and is one of my constituents. Based in Newcastle upon Tyne, he has a long history as a leading light in the work on neuromuscular diseases. He has been a distinguished Member of the House of Lords for about 20 years. He brought to the Committee a real sense of purpose. Others who were involved include our old colleague Dr Ian Gibson, who is no longer in the House, and many others from both sides of this House and from the House of Lords. We produced the report based on people’s real-life experiences of living day to day with muscular dystrophy.
We knew that it was not going to be possible to find a cure. We knew that we were not going to get into a debate about research or about trying to find a drug that would be the silver bullet that cured muscular dystrophy. We knew that that would not be possible. However, we heard time and again from people living with the disease that their basic care needs were not being properly addressed. An example is hydrotherapy. Why is it that children who have hydrotherapy during term time cannot have it during the holidays because the caretaker is not at their school? If access to drugs were involved, and a child was told, “Go away for six weeks. You can’t have your drugs because we’re on holiday,” there would be an outcry. Similarly, parts of the country have good access to physiotherapy, but other parts do not.
A further important issue that cropped up time and again was that of access to powered wheelchairs. Because of the frequency of this complaint, we asked the representatives of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to go away and work with people to produce a new report. That report came out last week, and it is called “Get moving—the case for effective wheelchair services”. I have sent the Minister a copy, and I hope that he has received it, because he will then be able to give us all the right answers later. I am sure he will not mind if I put my glasses on so that I can read it properly.
These are some real-life experiences of people with muscular dystrophy. They are setting out some basic stuff very clearly indeed. Wendy Hughes from Devon describes her son’s situation, saying:
“I have never been more angry or upset about a seemingly hopeless situation. Zak’s fight for independence has been an upward battle and completely frustrating, demoralising and hopeless for the whole family”.
A patient whose 10-year-old wheelchair is described as “falling apart” said:
“I have had no chance of trying another chair. I need a different type and shape of chair now. No one is listening and it’s soul-destroying.”
Jill Brown, from Wiltshire, is 68 years old and has progressive neuropathic myopathy. She has been waiting 12 years for the powered wheelchair that she needs. Six weeks ago, she finally received it. Sadly, because her condition has worsened, the chair no longer meets her needs.
The report contains a catalogue of complaints and heart-rending real-life stories. Christopher Powell lives in Plymouth, and has a muscle-wasting condition. He says:
“My current wheelchair has so many faults and I’m paying through the nose to get it fixed. I actually had to make my own headrest for the wheelchair, made out of a Pringles tube wrapped in a sock. It’s very embarrassing.”
Mark Bishop is from Herne Bay and has had problems getting a wheelchair adapted to suit his needs. He says:
“It ended up taking two years for wheelchair services to adapt a wheelchair they had to what I wanted, and even now it’s not finished…Someone with a Meccano kit could have done a better job.”
Karen Duckmanton lives in Essex. She, too, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. She says:
“Even though I can’t walk and I need to be in my wheelchair all the time, wheelchair services told me that because I still had a small amount of power in my arms, I could not have an electric wheelchair. I think pushing the wheelchair has made my arms worse. I’ve been told I would be on the waiting list for 18 months for another wheelchair assessment.”
Carol Lawson from Chester-le-Street, quite close to where I live, said:
“I was given a manual chair by wheelchair services but I live on my own so lots of things like windows and shelves were out of reach for me—I couldn’t even hang clothes in the wardrobe. So I asked wheelchair services for an electric chair with a rising seat but they told me they couldn’t fund it.”
That is the story we hear left, right and centre when we approach the Department of Health and the various primary care trusts, although the need for provision has been accepted. It was recognised last year by Phil Hope, the former care services Minister, who said as recently as 19 March:
“Not having the right equipment to get about easily can restrict freedom, isolate and prevent an individual from fully contributing to society. That’s not right. That’s why we are developing a national entitlement standard for wheelchairs services.”
There has been national guidance on wheelchair services for a number of years now, but what is the real experience of the people concerned? They tell us plainly that the guidance is not working, but why is it not working? Here are some of the reasons given by the health service:
“Lack of awareness: Wheelchair Services may not have the specialist knowledge needed for these complex conditions.
Limited funding available: Wheelchair Services may have been allocated a limited budget by PCTs.
Equipment is restricted: Wheelchair Services may have a limited list of equipment it is willing to fund.
Equipment rationing: Equipment may be limited to one piece per patient.
Excessively strict criteria: The provision of equipment is often based on strict assessment criteria rather than actual need.”
Wheelchairs are not just a means of getting about, however. For some people, they are life support mechanisms.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent work done by the charity Whizz-Kidz, which provides bespoke wheelchairs for young people? Does he agree that wheelchairs that fulfil the needs of young people, fit them and are suitable for their purposes, enabling them to lead fulfilled lives, should be funded by the national health service?
Mr Anderson
I entirely agree. I have done some work with Whizz-Kidz, and the appendix to the report contains a reference to its work. However, while everyone welcomes the great work that is being done by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and other charities—especially Whizz-Kidz—we should not have to rely on charity.
Mobility is as important to the quality of these people’s lives, and in many instances to their longevity, as medication. If someone was told, “I am sorry but you will have to get into a queue because there is not enough medication to go round,” every one of us here tonight would be knocking on the GP’s door, or asking the primary care trust or the strategic health authority, “What are you playing at?”
This is not like an assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, when people are told “Yes, it would be good if you could have this, but we cannot afford it.” In this instance, people are being told, “You cannot have it for a variety of reasons.” In some parts of the country, such as Newcastle, there is a one-week waiting list; in others, there are waiting lists of up to 18 months. However, it ultimately costs the NHS more when people do not have the right wheelchair. They end up in hospital with diseases caused directly by the fact that they are not mobile, and experience physical as well as mental difficulties caused by the stress and strain of living with their problems.
At a lobbying event last week, a gentleman from Essex spoke to the main provider of wheelchairs there. That gentleman was almost in tears. He said—this was a gentleman in his mid-forties—“I have had this wheelchair for 12 years, and I cannot cope with it any longer.” But the truth is that this is not a difficult problem to solve. The Minister will probably talk about resources. We could all come into the Chamber every night and speak about a particular health-related problem, and I accept that there are limits, but the fact is that this could be cost-effective. People would not be in hospital, there would be fewer emergency admissions, and people could lead much better lives if they were not tied to equipment that does not work properly.
We must accept that the current position is not the position of 10, 20 or 30 years ago. People who are disabled now, thank goodness, expect more, and we as a society should give them more. Some great young people are involved in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign who go to university and lead independent lives in their own houses, with access to transport and travel around the world, and we should help them in every way we can.
There are a number of things that I should like the Minister to do. I hope that he will agree to meet me, along with representatives of the campaign and of the working group of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy. We are asking the Government to act on the following recommendations. We want them to set up a short-life review group led by the Department of Health to address the failings of wheelchair services, and to get that review group to examine the savings and improvements made by new service models and to ensure they are implemented nationally. We want them to set a national target for waiting times for wheelchairs at a maximum of 18 weeks from the initial referral to the delivery of the chair—I know the new Government are not keen on targets, but we are talking about really looking after people. We also want the Government to set aside an adequate ring-fenced budget for wheelchairs in each PCT under the supervision of a specialised commissioning group. We want them, too, to set up uniform eligibility criteria and a national consensus regarding the features and equipment that should be provided by the NHS so that that can be developed fully. As it is pointless providing a wheelchair if its condition is not maintained, PCTs must accept the cost of maintaining all wheelchairs, including those that have already been bought, modified or privately funded, and that maintenance should be carried out quickly and efficiently.
We should also look to the scheme set up by the people involved in the campaign which is aimed at ending the wheelchair postcode lottery, so that there is the same access to wheelchairs across the country. It is wrong that people in some areas get better access than people in others, but people with muscular dystrophy find that that is the case time and again and it is totally out of order. We should fully implement definition 5 in the specialised services national definitions set, with a named lead for special equipment on the specialised commissioning group. The above recommendations should be used to develop and form a national strategy for wheelchair provision to reduce waiting times, improve access and bring an end to the current postcode lottery.
I know those are big demands, but these people need them. The first young gentleman I saw in a specialised wheelchair was a young man of 25 who had served in the Army Signals. Most of his contemporaries were dead, but he has been saved because his father and mother went to a fête and Lord Tebbit and his wife were there. We all know the sad story of what happened to Lord Tebbit’s wife, and she was in a specialised wheelchair. The young man’s parents talked to Lord Tebbit on that day, and he pointed them in the right direction. They were therefore able to go and see the people who had built the wheelchair for his wife and get a purpose-built one for themselves, which they had to pay for.
This is not on in the 21st century. It should not be a matter of luck in bumping into somebody somewhere who says, “Why don’t you do this?” We are talking about saving lives and improving lives. The truth is, sadly, that a lot of these people will be dead before they are out of their teens. The lucky few will probably live to 30. In other parts of the world, they possibly live for 10 years longer and we can learn lessons from them, and a key part of the way they look after people is access to wheelchair services.
I have spoken specifically about the work we have done in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. Since this debate went on to the parliamentary agenda, at least five groups have contacted me and my office, saying these issues apply across the board. I have no doubt that they do, and I will be happy to work with them and the Minister to try to see whether we can find a strategy that works. It is very important, and it is life-saving.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) for taking the initiative in bidding for the debate and for securing it this evening? He has raised some very important issues on behalf of both constituents and the muscular dystrophy movement.
I know the hon. Gentleman has a very strong personal interest in this issue and I was delighted to attend the event in the House that he organised last week when he launched the report he has described this evening. I was sorry not to have been able to be present when he delivered it, but he rightly set it out in great detail this evening.
While I was at the event, I met a number of families who had been affected by muscular dystrophy and heard about some of the difficulties they have faced, and the hon. Gentleman has talked tonight about some of the very powerful testimonies set out in the report, which make compelling reading. The conversations I had with people at the reception left me in no doubt that wheelchair services is an area that really does require improvement: real improvement in how wheelchair services are commissioned and delivered, and real improvement in extending personalisation to wheelchair services, where there is still far too much off-the-shelf or “like it or lump it” provision. I hope that my responses and remarks will reassure the hon. Gentleman and the Members on both sides of the House who have stayed for the debate that the Department of Health and I take the issues seriously and that we want to make good progress.
I am keen that we take on board the observations that the hon. Gentleman set out tonight, which are contained in his report. I certainly welcome the work done on commissioning and writing the Walton report. He may be aware that there is already an advisory group looking at wheelchair services, involving service users, representatives from the NHS and local government, clinicians and third sector organisations. It would be very helpful indeed if a representative from the muscular dystrophy campaign was involved with the group and, through the debate, I extend an invitation to that organisation to take part. I also invite the hon. Gentleman and members of his all-party group to meet the chairman of the advisory group, David Colin-Thomé, to discuss specific issues arising from the report, with a view to holding a meeting with me to discuss how we take matters forward.
I certainly agree that there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman said. We can see from the reviews carried out over recent years that there has been tangible improvement, but—an important but—as the hon. Gentleman outlined, it has been extremely limited. The experience for many people is a poor one. The service is characterised by long waiting times. As we have heard, it is quite common for people to wait months for a wheelchair, and not uncommon for them to wait years for a powered wheelchair. That really affects outcomes for people. It poses particular problems for children whose needs change as they grow, and for those with progressive conditions such as muscular dystrophy or motor neurone disease, whose needs can change very rapidly. The service is also characterised by considerable regional variation—in assessments, procurement, and choice for the individual. Quite simply, that is unacceptable.
The majority of wheelchair services are provided by the national health service, and should be subject to consistent, national standards, applied by local commissioners to the needs of individual populations. I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree on the diagnosis, but we might disagree about the best way to effect a cure.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should ring-fence wheelchair funding and introduce a new target on waiting times. However, we are already performing the biggest ring-fence possible. By providing real-terms increases in NHS budgets for the duration of the Parliament, we are protecting all health services, including wheelchair services, at a time of unprecedented spending restraint; yet even with that protection, the NHS faces a stark challenge as the population ages and lives longer, and the increasing costs of treatment squeeze health budgets. That demands greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness across the whole of the health service.
If the NHS is to meet that challenge, local organisations must have the freedom to allocate funds in the best interests of their local communities. In that sense, I am afraid that proposals for a new ring fence and centralised targets swim against the tide. The Government strongly believe that we need less Whitehall control, not more; we need to liberate the NHS and ensure higher standards for patients.
In the case of wheelchair services, a ring-fenced budget could have the opposite effect. By extending autonomy for the local NHS, a ring-fenced budget could effectively cap resources, and cap the amount a trust spends on wheelchairs, rather than allowing commissioners to make a judgment, informed by local need, about what should be spent on those services. Furthermore, ring-fencing could result in services that fail to improve, and we need to make sure that does not happen.
With greater freedoms come greater responsibilities for the local NHS. We want to strengthen both the patient and the clinical voice, so that patients, general practitioners, consultants and other clinicians, rather than layers of NHS management, call the shots and control the way services work. We will strengthen accountability and transparency so that the public can hold the local NHS properly to account for the decisions it makes, and poor performance can be properly challenged across the country.
We need to address a number of issues and the hon. Gentleman has touched on several of them. First and foremost, commissioning has to improve. The fact that wheelchair services account for only a small proportion of local budgets means that they have been neglected by too many. Good assessment of local need is rare, performance information is patchy and procurement is often left to individual wheelchair service managers.
Furthermore, higher costs due to rising demand and improving technology have not been properly reflected in many local budget allocations for wheelchair services. As a result, service managers have tended to focus on purchasing the right volume of wheelchairs for their communities, but not necessarily the right kind of wheelchairs for individual clinical needs. That gives rise to some shocking examples of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr Anderson
I thank the Minister for his studied reply. One of the things that came to me was the fact that the spending that is put aside averages £2,000 per chair, but people want probably five or six times that amount for a chair that really meets their needs. Although I take on board the resources issue, it is pointless people saying that they can commission a number of chairs if, as he says, they are not worth having.
Mr Burstow
I take the point, but if one caps a budget, the danger is that the likelihood of rationing the service increases even further. We want to ensure that the services are tailored to local needs, but there are clearly some quite unacceptable performances around the country in how the service is being delivered at the moment.
On a related point, there are several funding streams for wheelchair services, and that is rather confused and confusing. Alongside NHS provision for wheelchairs, they can also be supplied through local children’s trusts and Jobcentre Plus, so there is duplication and inefficiency in the system, not to mention problems for service users in terms of understanding where their entitlement might lie. Indeed, in preparing for this debate, my jaw nearly hit the floor when I read that 57% of wheelchair budgets currently go on back-office costs. Fifty-seven pence in every pound that the taxpayer puts into these services fails to reach the front line at the moment. That is not acceptable; it is not a good way to use our taxpayer-funded resources for the health service. In these financially straitened times, it is clear that we have to make the available funding work much harder than that, and we can achieve much greater efficiency and a much better quality of service by encouraging a more co-ordinated system of assessment and provision across the Government. For example, there is a good argument for managing procurement regionally, not locally, so we can benefit from the economies of scale that that would provide.
It is also important that commissioning is sufficiently flexible to accommodate those who wish to use personal health budgets to purchase wheelchair services. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done to ensure that commissioning and procurement processes work for those with the most specialised needs. I do not think that we have been bold enough in using third sector organisations, in the sense not that they are charities that hand out something that the state does not provide, but that they are good partners with the state to go the extra mile to deliver the sort of service that we need. Indeed, Whizz-Kidz has been mentioned in the debate, and there is a major success story in the partnership that that charity has formed with NHS London, local primary care trusts and local authorities to improve wheelchair services for children.
I want to encourage more of those innovative partnerships with the voluntary sector, so that we can start to make a difference by improving quality and efficiency in the system. For instance, we could usefully deploy the specialist skills of a social enterprise such as Whizz-Kidz as the main procurement body in a more co-ordinated regional system. That area needs further exploration across the NHS.
The Whizz-Kidz example demonstrates another important point: the picture is not entirely black. There are beacons of best practice in some parts of the country, and we need to learn more from them so that one area’s best practice becomes common practice throughout the country.
I can announce tonight that the Government will be pursuing a pilot programme specifically to examine the commissioning of wheelchair and seating services. The work in the two regional sites that have been selected—the east of England and the south-west—will see PCTs, councils, NHS trusts and clinicians examining new ways of commissioning wheelchair services along the lines that I described. They will make recommendations for new models that will be underpinned by consistent approaches to eligibility and access, which could then be established across the country. I understand people’s frustration and desire that this should happen quickly, which the hon. Gentleman articulated clearly. However, the big risk of rushing to a conclusion is that we will not arrive at the best possible solution. It is important that we work through solutions to develop a robust, evidence-based system.
The pilot programme is an important start on building up the comprehensive understanding that we need. It will help us to uncover the best ways of organising wheelchair services to meet people’s individual needs, and it will sow the seeds for best practice to take root across the whole NHS. I hope that we can work with the hon. Gentleman and his all-party group to ensure that we achieve the tangible outcomes that we all want so that all people who need powered wheelchairs get the quality of life that they desire and can contribute to society in the way in which they want.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this helpful debate and look forward to seeing how we can take things forward in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Afghanistan: Implications for US Uplift
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
On Friday 25 June, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) completed the transfer of security responsibility for Kajaki in northern Helmand from UK to US forces and the redeployment of the company of UK soldiers based there to Sangin, where they will reinforce our existing presence.
The transfer of Kajaki is part of the reorganisation of ISAF forces in Helmand province and across southern Afghanistan which has been made possible by the significant uplift in Afghan and international troops, particularly US troops. As part of this process, security responsibility for Musa Qala in Helmand transferred to US forces on 27 March 2010, the UK-led Task Force Helmand came under command of the US Marine Corps’ 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) on 1 June 2010 and, on the same date, command of the British battle group based in Sangin transferred from Task Force Helmand to the US-led Regimental Combat Team in the north of the province.
As has been the case with previous changes in Helmand, the UK has been consulted throughout ISAF’s decision-making process and we welcome the transfer of Kajaki to US forces as enabling ISAF to further optimise the use of its forces in the province.
Transfer of Detainees (Afghanistan)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
The House will be aware that the Ministry of Defence has been judicially reviewed in the High Court. The claimant in that case, Ms Maya Evans, sought to end the practice of transferring detainees to the appropriate Afghan authorities. The Court’s judgment was handed down on Friday 25 June, and I am pleased to say that it found UK practices are lawful.
Our operations in Afghanistan are conducted to protect the national security of the United Kingdom and its people, at home and abroad. It is vital that we address transnational terrorism at its core if we are to safeguard the British people from its effects. In doing so, the ability of our forces to detain those who represent a threat to them, or to the Afghan population, is a vital tool if we are to learn about the insurgency, protect against the improvised explosive device threat, and finally ensure that those responsible are held properly to account. In seeking justice from those who attack, maim and kill our troops, coalition forces and Afghan civilians it is absolutely right that we do so through the Afghan judicial system.
There is no place for the abuse of detainees. We must always act in a manner that is consistent with our values. We took this case very seriously. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) provided a vast range of material to assist the Court in what it described as a massive, costly and time-consuming disclosure exercise. I welcome the Court’s recognition of the efforts the MOD went to to provide the Court with a full and clear understanding of all the issues raised.
In its judgment, the Court acknowledged the body of material, produced by the international institutions, among others, which covered allegations of mistreatment within the general Afghan system. But it also recognised the specific safeguards and monitoring arrangements in place to provide reassurance about the treatment of transferees, safeguards which will be further reinforced in line with the Court’s recommendations. This led to the Court’s conclusion that the steps we have taken with the Afghan authorities are sufficient to provide reassurance about their treatment and that UK forces can therefore lawfully continue to transfer UK-captured insurgents to sovereign Afghan authorities.
The British Government, working with international partners under International Security Assistance Force, will also continue to support all efforts to improve further the Afghan judicial system and the rule of law.
Diplomatic Missions/International Organisations (Parking and Traffic Fines)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2009, there were 4,979 recorded outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom. These totalled £534,060. In March this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned, giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result of subsequent payments totalling £7,760 there remains a total of £526,300 unpaid fines for 2009. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding fines totalling £1,000 or more.
Diplomatic Mission/InternationalOrganisation | Number of Outstanding Fines (excluding congestion charge) | Amount in £ |
|---|---|---|
Kazakhstan | 1399 | £147,880 |
Afghanistan | 303 | £34,780 |
United Arab Emirates | 272 | £24,440 |
China | 211 | £22,760 |
Cyprus | 209 | £22,540 |
Turkey | 158 | £17,500 |
Saudi Arabia | 159 | £17,000 |
Albania | 143 | £16,920 |
Pakistan | 128 | £14,440 |
France | 118 | £12,560 |
Nigeria | 104 | £12,460 |
Sudan | 91 | £10,400 |
Romania | 95 | £10,000 |
Egypt | 87 | £9,440 |
Jordan | 73 | £8,060 |
Russia | 162 | £7,120 |
Uzbekistan | 54 | £6,020 |
Ukraine | 43 | £4,920 |
Ghana | 45 | £4,880 |
Guinea | 47 | £4,820 |
Georgia | 43 | £4,660 |
Kuwait | 34 | £3,960 |
Libya | 36 | £3,760 |
Tunisia | 36 | £3,720 |
Liberia | 36 | £3.520 |
Malaysia | 30 | £3,280 |
Zimbabwe | 29 | £3,160 |
Algeria | 28 | £3,100 |
Germany | 29 | £3,020 |
Bulgaria | 25 | £2,880 |
Slovenia | 25 | £2,880 |
USA | 26 | £2,880 |
Oman | 26 | £2,820 |
Greece | 24 | £2,680 |
Kenya | 23 | £2,680 |
Iraq | 22 | £2,580 |
North Korea | 22 | £2,320 |
Iran | 20 | £2,160 |
Mozambique | 19 | £2,120 |
South Africa | 21 | £2,060 |
Mongolia | 18 | £2,000 |
Yemen | 19 | £2,000 |
Cote d’Ivoire | 17 | £1,920 |
Qatar | 16 | £1,880 |
Syria | 16 | £1,780 |
Bangladesh | 14 | £1,760 |
Morocco | 14 | £1,580 |
Italy | 14 | £1,540 |
Mexico | 14 | £1,520 |
Vietnam | 13 | £1,520 |
Gabon | 13 | £1,460 |
Mauritius | 13 | £1,460 |
International Maritime Organisation | 13 | £1,460 |
Lithuania | 12 | £1,360 |
Azerbaijan | 12 | £1,280 |
Belgium | 12 | £1,280 |
Indonesia | 11 | £1,280 |
Ethiopia | 12 | £1,240 |
Bahrain | 14 | £1,220 |
Benin | 12 | £1,200 |
Tanzania | 10 | £1,140 |
Serious and Drink Driving Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
In 2009, seventeen serious and drink driving offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. “Serious Offences” are defined as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment. Some 25,000 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the United Kingdom.
The table below lists those foreign missions whose diplomats allegedly committed serious and drink driving offences and the type of offence from 2005-09.
2005 | |
Actual Bodily Harm | |
Jordan | 1 |
Assault (Domestic Violence) | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Dangerous Driving | |
Turkey | 1 |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Angola | 1 |
Egypt | 1 |
Ghana | 1 |
Lebanon | 1 |
Peru | 1 |
Russia | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Harassment | |
Turkey | 1 |
Theft (Shoplifting) | |
Egypt | 1 |
Equatorial Guinea | 1 |
Zambia | 1 |
Theft and Robbery (of Motor Vehicle, Driving without Insurance) | |
South Africa | 1 |
2006 | |
Attempted Robbery | |
South Africa | 1 |
Deception (Going Equipped to Commit) | |
Nigeria | 1 |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Kazakhstan | 2 |
Belarus | 1 |
Côte d’Ivoire | 1 |
Kuwait | 1 |
Malawi | 1 |
Oman | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
South Africa | 1 |
Driving without Insurance | |
Pakistan | 1 |
Failure to Stop for Police/Driving without Insurance and Licence | |
Kazakhstan | 1 |
Robbery | |
South Africa | 1 |
Theft (Obtaining Property by Deception | |
Ghana | 1 |
2007 | |
Dangerous Driving | |
Russia | 1 |
Domestic Assault/Actual Bodily Harm | |
South Africa | 1 |
Driving without insurance | |
Ghana | 1 |
Driving without Insurance and Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Malawi | 2 |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Belarus | 1 |
Georgia | 1 |
Hungary | 1 |
Israel | 1 |
Italy | 1 |
*Other | 1 |
Kazakhstan | 1 |
Kuwait | 1 |
Moldova | 1 |
Nigeria | 1 |
Peru | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Turkmenistan | 1 |
Misrepresentation (Obtaining Insurance by Deception) | |
Côte d’Ivoire | 1 |
Robbery and Actual Bodily Harm | |
Guyana | 1 |
2008 | |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Cameroon | 1 |
Kyrgyzstan | 1 |
Morocco | 1 |
Mozambique | 1 |
Other* | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Thailand | 1 |
Uganda | 1 |
Vietnam | 1 |
Theft (Shoplifting) | |
Cameroon | 1 |
2009 | |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol | |
Brazil | 1 |
Germany | 1 |
Russia | 1 |
Tanzania | 1 |
USA | 1 |
Vietnam | 1 |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Cameroon | 1 |
International Maritime Organisation | 1 |
Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and without Insurance | |
Bahrain | 1 |
Driving without Due Care and Attention | |
Ghana | 1 |
Human Trafficking | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Sierra Leone | 1 |
Sexual Assault | |
Saudi Arabia | 1 |
Actual Bodily Harm | |
Nigeria | 1 |
Theft (Shoplifting) | |
Gambia | 1 |
Threatening to Kill | |
Pakistan | 1 |
Neglect of a Young Person | |
Cameroon | 1 |
*Details have been withheld because the number of diplomatic personnel in the mission(s) concerned is/are so small that disclosure would lead to the identification of the individual concerned. This would breach the data protection rights of that individual, in particular, the first data protection principle, namely, that personal data should be processed fairly. This is because the offences are only alleged to have been committed and have not been proven in a court of law. In these circumstance, section 40 (2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act confer an absolute exemption on disclosure of this information. |
Diplomatic Missions (Outstanding National Non-Domestic Rates Bills)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates requested from them. They are obliged to pay only 6% of the total national non-domestic rates value which represents payment for specific services such as street cleaning, lighting, maintenance and fire services. The total amount outstanding from all diplomatic missions is approximately £574,998. As at 1 April 2010, missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR.
Since a letter about outstanding NNDR bills was sent to missions on 22 February 2010, £26,471.68 has been repaid. Many missions have cleared their bills and some others have entered into arrangements to pay by instalment. Overall, the repayment rate is 96%.
Bangladesh | £80,612.37 |
Bulgaria | £13,022.25 |
Cameroon | £58,517.78 |
Cote d’Ivoire | £77,079.12 |
Equatorial Guinea | £15,782.37 |
Liberia | £15,388.02 |
Sierra Leone | £50,790.06 |
Tanzania | £13,572.67 |
Tunisia | £26,525.97 |
Ukraine | £26,103.15 |
Uzbekistan | £10,287.95 |
Zimbabwe | £93,414.78 |
TOTAL | £481,096.49 |
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations (Congestion Charge)
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The number of outstanding fines incurred by the diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom for non-payment of the London congestion charge since its introduction in February 2003 until 29 January 2010 was £36,057,690. The table shows the 57 diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines totalling £100,000 or more.
Country | Number of Fines | Total Outstanding (£) |
|---|---|---|
USA | 35,602 | 3,821,880 |
Russia | 29,375 | 3,204,900 |
Japan | 25,434 | 2,766,360 |
Germany | 24,358 | 2,644,810 |
Nigeria | 18,576 | 1,964,310 |
Sudan | 12,123 | 1,263,360 |
India | 10,977 | 1,205,680 |
Poland | 9,446 | 1,033,020 |
Ghana | 8,981 | 970,340 |
Spain | 7,860 | 864,860 |
France | 7,960 | 861,100 |
Kenya | 8,206 | 858,630 |
Greece | 7,526 | 821,460 |
Ukraine | 7,092 | 775,440 |
Romania | 6,911 | 757,300 |
Tanzania | 7,203 | 753,520 |
South Africa | 6,333 | 659,740 |
Algeria | 5,858 | 618,340 |
Kazakhstan | 5,373 | 575,480 |
Sierra Leone | 5,066 | 523,900 |
Korea | 4,363 | 488,340 |
Bulgaria | 4,256 | 459,040 |
Hungary | 3,911 | 424,000 |
Yemen | 3,768 | 407,820 |
Belarus | 3,598 | 391,080 |
Slovakia | 3,563 | 390,240 |
Cyprus | 3,401 | 370,600 |
Zambia | 3,355 | 358,160 |
Pakistan | 3,151 | 347,930 |
Cameroon | 3,091 | 329,420 |
Zimbabwe | 3,038 | 311,600 |
Ethiopia | 2,779 | 294,060 |
Czech Republic | 2,343 | 258,240 |
Mauritius | 2,370 | 254,240 |
Namibia | 2,362 | 247,240 |
Equatorial Guinea | 2,251 | 243,480 |
Cuba | 2,230 | 234,680 |
Swaziland | 2,267 | 225,400 |
Austria | 2,004 | 220,160 |
Mozambique | 2,035 | 215,220 |
Belgium | 1,889 | 209,480 |
Lesotho | 1,927 | 203,180 |
Denmark | 1,614 | 179,600 |
Botswana | 1,623 | 175,860 |
Malta | 1,518 | 165,420 |
Vietnam | 1,530 | 163,520 |
Malawi | 1,568 | 163,400 |
Cote d’Ivoire | 1,564 | 161,080 |
Afghanistan | 1,411 | 158,220 |
Egypt | 1,640 | 155,200 |
Uganda | 1,396 | 149,540 |
Jamaica | 1,284 | 138,800 |
Liberia | 1,249 | 135,880 |
Guinea | 1,324 | 135,820 |
Saudi Arabia | 1,327 | 129,490 |
DPR Korea | 1,119 | 116,100 |
Luxembourg | 925 | 101,720 |
Direct Payments for Health Care
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
The Government have today authorised the piloting of direct payments for health care, under powers in the Health Act 2009.
This Government want to put patients at the heart of everything the national health service does. Direct payments, and personal health budgets more generally, have great potential to put patients in control, enable integration across health and social care, and improve outcomes.
We have long supported the idea of personal health budgets, and we continue to support the pilot programme.
The Department has initially authorised piloting of direct payments in eight primary care trusts (PCTs) within the personal health budget pilot programme. More will be authorised as soon as individual PCTs are ready and have in place suitable systems and safeguards. Approved pilot sites will be able to offer direct payments to people across a range of conditions and services, including continuing health care, a number of long-term conditions, mental health, learning disabilities, and end-of-life care.
The personal health budget pilot programme involves around seventy PCTs across England. An independent evaluation will provide evidence on how personal budgets work and how to overcome the technical and cultural challenges involved. The evaluation is due to report in autumn 2012.
The table shows the PCTs initially authorised to offer direct payments.
Lead PCT | Conditions or services included in pilot |
Doncaster PCT | Continuing health care and mental health |
Eastern and Coastal Kent PCT | Continuing health care, end-of-life care, maternity, and mental health |
Central London (joint bid from Hammersmith and Fulham PCT, Kensington and Chelsea PCT and Westminster PCT) | Continuing health care, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes, and mental health |
Islington PCT | Continuing health care (in limited circumstances, with expansion subject to further approval) |
Merseyside (Joint bid from Knowsley PCT, Liverpool PCT and Sefton PCT) | Mental health |
Oxford PCT | Continuing health care and end-of-life care |
Somerset PCT | Children in transition to adult services, learning disabilities, long-term neurological conditions |
West Sussex PCT | Carers of people who have recently been diagnosed with dementia, children in transition to adult services, continuing health care |
Non-EU Economic Migration Limits
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
This afternoon I will make an oral statement to the House on the Government’s plans to introduce annual limits on economic migrants from outside of the EU from April 2011; and interim measures being taken to prevent a surge in applications during the interim period.
Judicial Appointments
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I am today announcing my intention to review the operation of the judicial appointments process and the structure of those bodies supporting the Lord Chief Justice and me on judicial matters.
The appointment element of the review will look at the end to end appointments process addressing in particular:
The proper balance between executive, judicial and independent responsibilities.
Ensuring clarity, transparency and openness.
Quality and speed of service to applicants and the courts and tribunals the process serves.
Governance, efficiency and value for money.
The appointments process must fully respect and maintain the independence of the judiciary, and appointment on merit must remain absolutely at the heart of the process. These principles will underpin the review.
In the light of the needs of the judicial appointments process, the Courts and Tribunals Integration Programme and the Government’s wider review of arm’s length bodies, the review will also consider whether the current structure of judicial arm’s length bodies
best meets the needs of the constitutional settlement, properly protecting judicial independence;
provides clear accountability; and
provides the most effective means of delivering a high quality service and value for money.
The review has been agreed with and will be conducted in close consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. I expect the review to report in the autumn.
G8 and G20 Summits
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Following the meetings in Canada I am placing the communiqués for the G8 and G20 in the Libraries of both Houses.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Introduction: Baroness Benjamin
Introduction: Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Death of a Member: Lord Flowers
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Lord Flowers on 25 June. On behalf of the whole House, I extend our condolences to his family and friends.
Commonwealth Games: Delhi
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of India regarding the funding arrangements of the Delhi Commonwealth Games.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we have maintained close dialogue with Indian officials responsible for all aspects of the Commonwealth Games. According to the chairman of the organising committee, Mr Kalmadi, the costs of the Delhi Commonwealth Games will be met by the revenues generated through the sale of broadcasting rights, sponsorship, and ticket and merchandise sales.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, is he not very disturbed by the report of the Housing and Land Rights Network, released by a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, showing that money which had previously been earmarked for the uplift of the poor—particularly the poorer castes—had been used to finance these Games, which have run hugely over budget? Will he, with other Commonwealth countries, raise this with the Indian Government?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Yes, my Lords, we were disturbed, and indeed the Secretary of State launched an immediate inquiry when some of these statements and allegations appeared in the media. However, although the noble and right reverend Lord is correct about the likely overrun of costs—which were estimated to be £250 million but are probably going to be considerably more than that—from our examination we are satisfied and have full confidence that the Games will be properly financed and that there will be no diversion from the very important funds that go via the Indian Government and DfID to the scheduled castes, slum clearance and other crucial issues. Therefore, we have full confidence in India’s commitment to deliver a secure and successful Commonwealth Games and to avoid the very problems that have been raised.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord used the word “examination” in relation to what was happening over the costs but he also said that a statement had been made on behalf of the organising authority that the costs were being drawn in the way that he described. When he used the word “examination”, did he mean that he and the Secretary of State have had the opportunity for independent verification or are they proceeding on the basis of an assurance?
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, before the Minister finishes on this Question, will he return to the point that my noble and right reverend friend made about the impact on the poorest people in India? Can he say a word more about the effect on the scheduled classes, to whom he referred, and particularly on the Dalits, and whether this will be seen as an opportunity to draw people from those underclasses—the untouchables—in India into the wider civic life of the nation?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right to say that this should be seen as an opportunity and I hope very much that it will be. I mentioned the Indian Government’s major slum clearance programmes, which must be going in the right direction. I believe that, far from being a disadvantage for those sorts of programmes, projects such as the Commonwealth Games can be a positive opportunity for, as the noble Lord said, drawing minorities and ethnic groups more effectively into proper civil life and the civic stream in India. We have full confidence that that can be achieved.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, we will all be glad to hear the assurance given by the Minister. It is particularly important because during the passage of the Equality Bill—I wonder whether he is aware of this—the previous Government, with cross-party support, included caste discrimination as a form of unfair treatment that should be dealt with. At the time, the Indian Government made some representations against that, which I am glad to say the then Government did not heed. Would he bear that in mind in ensuring that the assurance he has given is implemented in practice?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, that is a very valuable observation. I did not know that and I am very glad that I do now. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Jones of Birmingham
My Lords, at the moment, we stand as the 18th largest exporter to India, whereas 10 years ago we were the fourth largest. Will the Minister please explain, first, how we can use the Commonwealth Games to improve on that awful decline; and, secondly, why are we giving, through DfID, aid to a nation which has quadrupled its defence budget in the past three years?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, on the first point, the Commonwealth Games are part of an ever growing and stronger Commonwealth network, in which I take a particular interest. I believe that it can be of great advantage to all developing countries, including India—and to ourselves and our prosperity, exports and interests. The noble Lord is quite right on that point.
On the issue of aid, India is a country which still contains one-third of the world’s poor people, which is an enormous number. Part of our growing and enhanced relationship with India includes the immensely well targeted DfID programmes which are aimed at meeting the absolutely unbelievable poverty that still exists in India. Those programmes are, of course, greatly welcomed by the Indian Government and the Governments of the various states within India.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, have I missed something? Is India not a sovereign nation and is it really our business to tell it how much money it should or should not spend on the Commonwealth Games?
Lord Howell of Guildford
No, it is not our business. We have negligible influence on the matter and I would not presume to tell India how much it should spend. It will manage perfectly successfully and it does not need any additional comment from us, except helpful and friendly advice, which we are always ready to give.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, has India held the Commonwealth Games before and, if so, how many times?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I am not 100 per cent sure, but I do not think it has. This is a very big and important development for India and I think they will be the biggest Commonwealth Games held so far, with many participants from all over the world.
Immigration: Refugee and Migrant Justice
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their reaction to the probable closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, since this Question was tabled, Refugee and Migrant Justice has been placed into administration. The Government’s immediate concern was that the clients of RMJ should continue to receive a good-quality service.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, as other practitioners specialising in asylum cases—particularly, although not exclusively, those who operate on a not-for-profit basis—have had similar cash-flow problems to those of the RMJ, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the LSC may be able to find providers to take on the RMJ’s 10,000 cases? Will my noble friend acknowledge that there will be serious delays in looking after those cases, first, because the new providers will have to get to know what the cases are, and, secondly, because they do not know whether they will be funded in the spending round that begins on 1 October?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I will take the last point first. Yes, there is bound to be a certain amount of disruption if an organisation that covers 7 per cent of cases goes into administration. However, I can assure the House that the Government are giving high priority to minimise that disruption. On whether other non-profit-making practitioners are facing difficulty, it is true that there have been complaints about the change in funding and fees, which was made by the previous Administration with an eye to saving taxpayers’ money. The change is not popular but, as my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place, the organisations are coping. Trying to balance the good work that these organisations are doing against the taxpayers’ not-bottomless pot is difficult.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister has praised those who worked for Refugee and Migrant Justice, which over a number of years did an excellent job. I am also delighted that the Legal Services Commission is ensuring that the existing clients of that organisation continue to have proper advice and representation. Are there estimates of the extra cost to the Legal Services Commission in ensuring that proper advice and representation from fresh providers?
Lord McNally
There are no estimates on that. There will be an extra cost, but Ministers had to face a balance of judgment: did they take into account that RMJ was going into administration and that therefore there would be knock-on costs, or did they give it more taxpayers’ money with no guarantee that it would not again find itself in difficulty in a short time? It was a hard call but, as the noble Lord knows full well, sometimes Ministers have to make hard calls.
Lord Pannick
Will the Minister confirm that the problem faced by RMJ is the consequence of payments being made only after decisions are taken by the Home Office, or by the tribunal, in an individual immigration case, and that that can take two years or more? Will the Government therefore consider introducing a system of interim payments so that competent and efficient organisations such as RMJ are not threatened with closure?
Lord McNally
My Lords, if the description “competent and efficient” was correct for RMJ, one asks how it managed to get itself into administration. It represents 7 per cent of cases, so organisations representing 93 per cent are coping. Again, it was a difficult decision to make and I know that there have been complaints about the tough system of paying. However, we are dealing with taxpayers’ money and there is justification for ensuring that the organisations provide value for it. It may be worth noting that, in the round of bids, double the number of law firms are bidding for this business. That suggests that RMJ is not alone and that companies believe that they can deliver the service under the present scheme.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, reports are circulating that the UK Border Agency is refusing to grant extensions to RMJ clients in order that they might find new representation. It is saying that clients can raise any issues that they have with such a refusal at the time of an appeal. That is not only terrible for clients, but it is also poor value for money, because the appeal process is extraordinarily expensive. What advice, if any, is being given to the UK Border Agency in this respect?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the UK Border Agency has been asked to treat RMJ clients with common sense and to allow time during this period of adjustment. Therefore, according to my briefing, the right reverend Prelate’s first assertion is not true.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is room for both. Let us listen to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, RMJ says that it is owed £1.8 million by the Legal Services Commission. Is that the correct figure? The Legal Services Commission was supposed to be abolished by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Will the coalition Government revive it, or would it not be better for it to disappear as soon as possible?
Lord McNally
Again, dealing with the last point first, I am not even sure whether that is under review, but I certainly cannot give an answer. On the matter of money owing, a case from RMJ will be heard on Wednesday, so I am not sure how much I can comment on it, other than to say that it is the view of the Government and the LSC that no moneys are owing to RMJ. Indeed, when the books are finally balanced, it may prove to be the other way around.
Lord Davies of Coity
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the Minister said that he had to strike a balance. He also said that he did not know what it was going to cost. How does he strike a balance when he does not know what it is going to cost?
Lord McNally
Because Ministers have to take a view on whether paying out money to an organisation that has gone into administration is a better deal for the taxpayer than making the adjustments necessary to give the clients—as I said at the beginning, the clients are our first priority—the legal coverage that they deserve. Of course, during this period of adjustment, we do not know the final cost, but a decision had to be made. As I said, sometimes Ministers have to make hard decisions and we made this one.
Nuclear Posture Review
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the scope and timing of the proposed nuclear posture review announced by the Foreign Secretary on 26 May.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the review of the UK’s nuclear declaratory policy announced by the Foreign Secretary will take place as part of the strategic defence and security review. We will re-examine all the factors that make up our declaratory policy to ensure that it is fully appropriate to the circumstances we face today and into the future. The Government expect to report their findings from the strategic defence and security review in the autumn.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is very helpful that that will be brought together with the other matters in this very broad security review. Can he confirm that the nuclear posture review, which is the object of my Question, will include a critical analysis of the justification for the “continuous at-sea” aspect of our present nuclear posture? Does he agree that that requirement was related to the Cold War need to deter the threat of a Soviet first strike and that, as that threat is no longer considered to exist by the NATO alliance, the grounds for maintaining the requirement of “continuous at-sea” no longer exists either?
Lord Howell of Guildford
No, I cannot confirm that. The nuclear posture review, which will be in the context of the SDSR, will include questions such as our approach to nuclear-free zones and our assurances given to non-nuclear states who have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The review of Trident will focus on value for money and will be separate. It will look at whether it is possible to stick to the constant at-sea deterrent system, to which we are committed, with three boats rather than four. That is what it will examine. It will be a separate review from the SDSR plus nuclear posture review, which will be plugged together.
Lord Archer of Sandwell
Will the Minister confirm that the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty undertake to enter into negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament and, afterwards, for a treaty on general and complete disarmament? Are the Government proposing any steps to initiate such negotiations, or at least to encourage them? If not, why not?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As the noble and learned Lord knows well because he follows these things closely, the advances and progress made at the recent review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty pointed in that direction. The general desire, which is long-term but to be achieved step by cautious, realistic and practical step, is a non-nuclear world. That is what we all want to see, but progress towards it has to be through the kind of arrangements and protocol developments that were organised at the non–proliferation treaty gathering the other day. That was a considerable advance, and I am very glad that we were able to report our own decisions to reinforce it further with our declaration of the number of maximum stockpile warheads we would close. It is the right direction, but we have to move carefully.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to maintain the momentum towards nuclear disarmament? In particular, will the nuclear posture review look at the alert status of our deterrent? Obviously moving towards having a longer period in which people have time to consider their reaction is a very important part of moving the momentum towards disarmament.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important part of the developments. The review conclusions were very encouraging—they were not all-embracing, but certainly took us some steps forward. I will note what the noble Baroness said.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, the United States is making its posture a legislatively mandated review. Given the sensitivity of the subject, would it not be appropriate to do so in the United Kingdom in line with our consideration of UK future declarations of war?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I am not quite sure that this relates directly to what we are discussing at the moment, but I note what the noble Viscount said.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, the Government’s approach to the future of Trident is central to any nuclear posture review, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, intimated. Will the Minister tell the House how the strong preference of one of the coalition partners for alternatives to Trident renewal will be taken into account in a future review scrutinising spending to ensure value for money?
Lord Howell of Guildford
There will be a review, as undertaken in the coalition agreement, and the coalition partners will be free to express their views, as they have said they will. I have no doubt that there will be a very healthy, realistic and sensible analysis of the situation, but the overarching commitment is that, however we organise the matter, there must be a constant-at-sea deterrent that works, rather than one that does not work or costs a lot more money and involves a lot more missiles, as some alternatives would.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, given that many of the most significant developments in relations between nations in the past 30 or 40 years have been unpredicted and sometimes unpredictable, is it not important, in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the deterrent being focused on the Cold War period, to recognise that if we were to lose the capability, it might be very difficult to get it back again if it were to be needed?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those are very wise and practical words from my noble friend Lord Marlesford.
The Earl of Onslow
My Lords, is it not also reasonable to assume that had neither India nor Pakistan had nuclear weapons within the past 10 years, it is probable that they would have gone to war? Because they had nuclear weapons, they thought it would be a silly idea and so did not.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is quite right. That could be a good example of the theory of mutual deterrence working. Perhaps, if we look back over the history of the past 50 years, it has worked.
Climate Change: UN Framework Convention
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what approach they intend to take at the next Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland)
My Lords, the Government are committed to working towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions. We will be working with our international partners, both in the European Union and bilaterally, to secure practical progress in tackling climate change by the time of the next conference of parties in Cancun in November this year.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that response. Will he confirm that the Government acknowledge that the scientific evidence is clear that unless we mitigate the worst impact of climate change, countries of the world face catastrophe, and therefore an international agreement in Cancun is essential?
Lord Marland
My Lords, rarely has so much political capital been spent in trying to reach that agreement in Copenhagen, so it is a bit much to ask that it will happen in Cancun. We are optimistic that, unlike the England football team, we might get a result in South Africa in 2011, but, as the noble Lord will know, we need to be patient and realistic and to develop a dialogue with countries that do not row in tune with us at the moment.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, given that, as my noble friend’s answer implies, a unilateral UK climate policy makes no sense in scientific, economic or political terms, will he give an undertaking that should Cancun not result in an ambitious and binding global agreement to cap emissions, the United Kingdom Government will fundamentally re-examine and re-evaluate our climate change and energy policies in the light of the outcome of Cancun? If not, why not?
Lord Marland
I thank my noble friend Lord Lawson for his question. His views are widely known, and I compliment him, incidentally, for bringing a great wealth of knowledge to this debate. However, his views are, I am afraid, not in line with the Government’s policy. This Government are committed to a green agenda. Climate change is one of the gravest threats that we face as a nation and as a world. Urgent action at home and abroad is required to tackle it. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence from a range of independent sources indicates that global temperatures are rising due to human activities, and temperatures are set to increase over the coming century. It is our duty as a Government to solve these problems.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, one of the areas in which there was almost success at Copenhagen was deforestation and the REDD programme. Even if the grand scheme is not solved in Mexico, is it my noble friend the Minister’s judgment that we will move forward in this important area and find a solution? How are the Government approaching this at the moment?
Lord Marland
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He brings unrivalled knowledge to this subject. As he well knows, 70 countries are working very closely to firm up some of the loose agreements that were made in Copenhagen. We are very committed to that dialogue and will continue that process in earnest.
Business of the House
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde will now make a Statement on financial provision for Members. In the light of the subject matter, it may be for the convenience of the House if the Convenor of the Cross Benches is given the opportunity to intervene in the course of the Front-Bench exchange. If required, it may also be convenient to extend the maximum time allocated to Back-Bench questions and answers from 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
Immediately after proceedings on the first Statement have concluded, my noble friend will repeat a Statement entitled, “G8 and G20”.
Financial Provision for Members
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I wish to make a Statement on future financial provision for Members of this House.
In my view, we need fundamental change. None of us wants to live through again what we lived through in the last Parliament. In a House in which the overwhelming majority of Peers have always acted on their honour, we found ourselves severely criticised. All too often, that criticism was fully justified. The parliamentary expenses regime was opened up to public view, and the public saw a system that was badly broken. Difficult questions were asked, abuses were uncovered, apologies have been made and prosecutions are pending. We could not let this continue, and I pay tribute again to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Once problems were uncovered, she acted decisively, and the House is indebted to her.
We received a report from the Senior Salaries Review Body. Building on that report, my noble friend Lord Wakeham was invited to lead an ad hoc group to consider, consult and advise on the implementation of a new system of financial support. The group has now submitted its proposals to the House Committee, and its report, entitled Financial Support for Members of the House of Lords, is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
The Wakeham group supported the SSRB’s idea of combining the current daily subsistence and office costs allowances into one daily allowance. I agree with that. But the group suggests an alternative option, a simplification of the SSRB’s approach to overnight allowances by combining that, too, into one single daily allowance, payable on attendance on each sitting day. If this were done, it would mean the abolition of the expenses regime as we know it, and in future, payment for staying overnight, taxis, meals, secretaries and research assistants would all come out of that single payment. How much Peers spend on each item would be entirely up to them. There would be no extras, no small print. The single payment would be the end of the matter.
Under the current scheme, the maximum some Members may claim per day they attend is £334. The SSRB suggested that this should be £340. If we create a single uniform daily allowance, it should be set at a figure less than these two totals. I recommend £300. This is 10 per cent less than the current maximum and 12 per cent less than the figure recommended by the SSRB. Furthermore, there will be a lower rate at which Members can claim. I suggest that this should be 50 per cent lower at £150.
This is not a salaried House. Attendance will remain the key basis for the allowance—that is what the public expect. But in order to contribute effectively to the work of the House, Peers are often involved in preparatory and other work outside the Chamber and cannot attend, for example, for long periods in Committee. However, I believe that many will consider a lower rate appropriate, for example for Peers who are able to attend the House for only part of a sitting on a particular day.
We are rightly all under scrutiny for our use of public money and the public expect Members of the House to set the same high standards for themselves as they do for others. Some may feel they do not wish to ask for any payment at all. Based on provisional statistics, last year 13 per cent of those who attended the House did not claim any allowances. I hope that they will continue not to. The Wakeham group proposals cover a number of other important issues, including travel arrangements for Members. Its proposals will continue to recognise the additional costs faced by Peers who travel from long distances.
Axing through the current complex structure of expenses would represent radical change, but I believe that that would be right. It also holds other advantages. It would be cheaper to run than any more complex arrangements, less bureaucratic and less expensive to comply with, simpler to police and far harder to abuse. The controversial rules on so-called “second homes” would quite simply be swept away. There will be no more accusations of addresses of convenience, and no more juggling of utility bills and claims forms. If you come to Westminster and work in Parliament, you will be able to claim the allowance. If you do not, you will not.
This will mean a reduction in the amount that some Peers have claimed in the past. But in the present economic climate we cannot protest against a reduction. Indeed, in my own view, with a new system, levels of payments should be frozen for the life of this Parliament. I accept that this is a scheme that will not be welcomed by all, but it will be broadly cost-neutral compared with the existing scheme. The existing expenses regime is discredited. It lacks credibility and the public have lost confidence in it. This new plan means the end of the second homes fiasco. It means the end of expenses in the House of Lords. It means a new system that is direct, transparent and accountable. It means that we are making a significant step towards winning the public’s confidence again.
So, what next? The House Committee will meet soon to discuss the details of this proposal. Before the Summer Recess, I will table resolutions for the House’s approval. This House has suffered greatly from the faults of the previous system and the misbehaviour of a small minority. Ultimately, it is a matter for the House if it wants to make this change. The Government’s view is that we need clarity, simplicity and reform—and that the time for reform is now. I hope that your Lordships will agree, and I commend this Statement to the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Royall, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, for making this Statement on financial support for Members of the House of Lords. I am also grateful to him for his acknowledgement of the actions taken previously by my noble friend.
This House is rightly jealous of its reputation. It makes an enormous contribution to this country in the scrutiny of legislation and in holding Governments to account, and to Parliament as a whole. It is important in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of this House and its Members that it has a financial support system which is fit for purpose. I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the members of his group for the great care and attention that they have given to their work.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has informed the House that in addition to the detailed work undertaken by the Wakeham group on the SSRB recommendations, it has also suggested that consideration should be given to putting in place a simplified allowance to replace the daily and overnight allowance recommended by the SSRB. This will of course be a matter for the House itself to decide. But the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has stated that he intends to support the alternative simplified system set out in the Wakeham group report. I and my noble friend Lady Royall, the Leader of the Opposition, will also give our support to that recommendation.
I believe that the arguments for pursuing a simplified allowance are persuasive. Of course it has a swings-and-roundabouts characteristic about it, and there will be some inequities, as no system is ever likely to be perfect; but the simplified system should be easy to implement, easy to administer and, above all, easy to explain to the public.
We are embarking on a period of change to your Lordships’ House in the light of the Government’s proposals for reform and the establishment of a committee to prepare a draft Bill. It makes sense to move quickly to this new and simplified system, which can always be further reviewed as part of the reform process. I would be grateful for confirmation of that from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
It is necessary and important that Members have the financial support necessary to undertake their duties. Equally, we must ensure that public money is spent wisely and efficiently. I have noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this will be cost-neutral and that the maximum level set will be lower than the current level. Can the noble Lord give some indication of when the House is likely to be asked to discuss and approve the new system? Can he confirm that the new system, if approved, will be in place by the time the House returns after the Summer Recess? Can he confirm also that the necessary administrative processes can be put in place in time?
Overall, we can see a sensible way forward which can command public confidence and support Members appropriately in the fulfilment of their responsibilities to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness D'Souza
My Lords, I add to the thanks already expressed to the Wakeham ad hoc group for its report, which I know has taken a great deal of time and may have caused a few more grey hairs. It is particularly helpful that the proposals put forward by the SSRB have in large part been accepted, thereby holding true to the resolution in this House last December to accept the principles and architecture of that report. One or two of the more strange recommendations have been ironed out, such as the need to separate man and wife when travelling in a first-class railway carriage.
I say this in anticipation of the debate which is due to be held tomorrow on House of Lords reform. Let no one say that this House does not undertake reform. In the space of less than a year we now have a stringent code of conduct, an active sub-committee on privileges and standards and greater financial transparency.
There is of course room for further adjustment, which is why the suggestion of a review in a year’s time is welcome. The Leader did not actually suggest that in his speech, but I think it is in the air. One area that continues to cause some concern is that the daily allowance is tied to presence, and this may affect disabled peers where daily attendance would in fact reduce productivity rather than enhance it. I again ask that there be some flexibility in the implementation of allowances.
The Government have now put forward a variation on the Wakeham proposals; namely, a fixed daily allowance for all attendees. As we have heard from all sides, the chief advantage of this proposal is that it would immediately lighten the burden on the finance office: no invoices, no verification measures and no end-of-term adjustments. Another advantage is that adoption of this proposal, as has also been stressed, would for ever pre-empt any accusations of fraudulent claims.
I can see the attraction of this simpler payment system and agree with the government proposal, but I also have some sympathy with those who live outside London and who stay in London for the purposes of attending your Lordships’ House. These people will be penalised to the extent of anything up to perhaps £700 per month, receiving only £300 per sitting day rather than £341 for a receipted overnight stay.
There will be those who argue that an allowance structure will inevitably invoke questions about tax. I feel that the sum of £300 per day to cover all secretarial, office and subsistence costs is not unduly generous, and that any further reduction would seriously deter some Peers from attending at all. It would be helpful for those Peers who live in more distant parts for a distinction to be made, in any publication of costs incurred, between the actual total allowances for a given month and the travel costs, since these expenses are paid directly and thus are not part of any allowance.
The stated aim of the SSRB recommendations was to restore public confidence. I suspect that public confidence will ultimately rest upon more than the size of a daily fee; it is to be hoped that this House will be judged on the work that it does in improving legislation. That said, the changes put forward in the SSRB, the Wakeham report and the noble Lord the Leader’s Statement are all to be welcomed.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness the Convenor of the Cross Benches. I understand why the Leader of the Opposition could not be in her place today, and I am glad that the noble Lord stood in for her in such an excellent manner.
I think the whole House should thank my noble friend Lord Wakeham and congratulate him on the work that he did. He took on an immensely difficult task after the debate that we had last December. It was not clear to me that anyone would be able to find their way around this particular maze, with so many different groups of people wanting different things and dissatisfied with what was being presented. It is a real credit. He did not manage to find his way through alone, though; he did so with the help of a group of individuals from all sides of the House who no doubt helped and encouraged him in his work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked some specific questions, particularly about how long I anticipate this process will take and when the new regime will come into force. It is important that we move quickly to the new regime. The House Committee will therefore meet very soon and take a view on resolutions that will be proposed by me. If they are agreed they will be brought to the House. I hope that this will be done in the course of the next few weeks—certainly before the Summer Recess, because I envisage the new regime coming into force on 1 October. The current regime will continue until then.
We will need resolutions, in part to allow the authorities of the House to take them into account when they are creating the new system. I do not believe that anything I have said about the new system will give the authorities in the House of Lords any concern at all about being able to administer the scheme effectively, efficiently and more cheaply than was envisaged under the scheme proposed by the SSRB.
Turning to the points made by the Convenor of the Cross Benches, I recognise that some will be concerned about a net reduction in the amount of money they receive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, this is not a perfect system—nor does it try to be. It tries simply to iron out the worst of the difficulties that we have seen in the current system and the proposed scheme, and it has taken all those things into account.
The noble Baroness was right about all the changes that have taken place during the past 12 months. We have a new code of conduct, a new independent Commissioner for Standards, and we are reviewing the attendance allowances. For the House of Lords, it is a positively revolutionary pace.
The noble Baroness mentioned taxation. That is not a matter for me; it is up to HMRC and the Treasury. However, if the previous scheme was without tax, there must be compelling arguments for this scheme also to be without tax, given that many of the expenses which Peers have are very similar.
The Clerk of the Parliaments has discretion to allow some additional expenses for disabled Members. Nothing in the Wakeham committee report seeks to change that, and there is no reason why it should not continue. The Clerk of the Parliaments has in the past demonstrated an ability and willingness to look favourably on people who need those additional expenses, and I am sure that he will want to continue to do so.
Lord Wakeham
Perhaps it might assist the House if I said a word as chairman of the ad hoc committee. In carrying out our work, we stuck firmly to our remit, which was to stay within the principles and architecture of the SSRB report. However, is my noble friend aware that we found it a complex task to come up with a final solution, which is why we floated the idea of an alternative that would be simpler and cheaper to administer and easier to explain to the outside world? Therefore, I very much support my noble friend’s Statement. As a member of the House Committee, I shall certainly support his proposal.
Lord Strathclyde
I have already said how grateful the House should be to my noble friend. He has come up with an immensely useful and helpful report. It is now in the Printed Paper Office and I hope that noble Lords will take the trouble to read it.
Lord McNally
Clearly the noble Lord is not going to be sensible about it. Let him go on.
Lord Tomlinson
Is the noble Lord aware that there was unanimity in the Wakeham committee right up to the point of our last meeting? At that meeting, the idea of a flat-rate allowance was introduced. As a result of that discussion, I entered a footnote of reservation to the Wakeham committee report, because I do not think that considering that flat-rate allowance fitted with the mandate of the House, which was to work within the structure and architecture of the SSRB report. There was no such reference in the SSRB report, hence my note of reservation. The particular reasons for there being dissent also in the detail will come out in the debate, but let it not be said that the idea fitted in with the architecture and the principles of the SSRB report. That is why there is a note of reservation.
Lord Strathclyde
The noble Lord is right that it did not fit into the SSRB’s original report, but that is why my noble friend’s committee chose to offer it up as an alternative—as I understand it—in the light of its discussions. If the noble Lord reads the document, as I have done, he will see a remorseless logic that took the committee from where it started to its providing this idea as an alternative. It is an alternative taken in the round, looking at the bureaucratic costs, at each Peer being treated equally and at the end of the expenses regime, which I have found attractive.
Lord Dholakia
I welcome the Statement from the Leader of the House, for three separate reasons. The first is clearly spelt out—the system itself is simple to operate. It removes the complexity of the present system, which has resulted in adverse publicity in the media. Also, it has the least resource implications for administering the system. I have two questions. First, will the noble Lord explain whether there will be a built-in review procedure? The last thing that we should ever do is to determine the allowance applicable to us; we should allow an independent element to determine that. Secondly, will he establish some system of monitoring, given the concerns raised in the past about young people, women and people from ethnic minorities in the prime of their careers? Would the type of review that we are suggesting take those factors into account so that such people are not inhibited from becoming Members of this House?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dholakia for his broad welcome. It was important to hear a senior member of the Liberal Democrat Benches on what is, after all, a House matter and I welcome his words. I have not at this stage recommended a built-in review procedure. It is my personal view that the level that we set should be the one set for the rest of this Parliament. Last week, we saw in the Budget proposals for freezing public sector pay and many other aspects, as well as cuts in the public sector more generally. I think that it is a sensible approach to freeze these amounts. As for a system of monitoring, I should emphasise that one reason why I have recommended this proposal is that it is for the interim period between now and when we potentially pass legislation for a future reformed House. That is another reason why it is attractive. Between now and then, I am sure that many people will monitor those who arrive in your Lordships’ House—new Peers. There are reasons why people from ethnic minorities and those raising a family may find the certainty of the new arrangements rather more attractive than the old expenses regime.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I do not want to challenge in any way the recommendations of my noble friend the Leader of the House but, for clarification, was the proposal of my noble friend Lord Wakeham accepted by the committee or was it not?
Lord Strathclyde
Oh yes, my Lords, the proposal was made by the committee in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, explained his position extremely well; he put in a reservation because he felt that the proposal did not fit the mandate of the committee when it was originally set out.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, the Leader of the House made reference in outlining the scheme, which he supports, to an upper and lower level at which the flat rate might be paid. Could he give some indication of what criteria would be used to determine when the upper or lower rate was appropriate? If it is to be based on period of attendance—half day versus full day, as I have seen suggested—how would half a day and a full day be defined and how would attendance be validated?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely sensible question, one which is not entirely easy to deal with. There is a perception among those outside this House that a few minutes’ attendance reaps the benefits of large sums of money. In my experience, both as a former Chief Whip and as Leader of the House, I regard these abuses to have been exceedingly small; nevertheless, there is that perception. I am also aware that there are some Peers who, because of the nature of their outside work and for other reasons, do not spend a great deal of time in the House. It was felt in the discussions that I had that we should offer an alternative—a lower sum of £150.
Ultimately, it can only be up to the judgment of each individual Peer where and how they make that claim. A Peer may spend only half an hour in the House on a given day but, if they spent the morning reading and preparing for a complicated Committee stage on the next day, how are we to judge whether that time was well spent? In the end, all these claims will be made public. I hope that, with the co-operation of the House Committee and the House authorities, we will be able to make these claims known electronically on a rolling basis so that it will be easy to attach contributions to the amount of money claimed. That will create an internal accountability, which will be useful to Peers and public alike.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I hope that I am correct in understanding my noble friend as having indicated that the new scheme will be wholly divorced from the actual expenses incurred by Members of this House in coming here and undertaking their duties. I think that that is right—the noble Lord is nodding. Therefore, his remarks vis-à-vis taxation assume a more important light. I go back to what he started by saying, which is that this House and, indeed, the other place came under a great deal of unwelcome public scrutiny over the expenses arrangements and that the trust in both Houses was severely dented. Some may think that those wounds are not entirely healed. Would it therefore be acceptable if the noble Lord and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his group were to work on the basis that, whatever arrangements are come to vis-à-vis taxation, we have to accept that the allowance will now leave some Members of this place with substantial remuneration—that is to say, a return well in excess of anything incurred by way of expenses—and that it surely cannot be acceptable that this place, of all places, should expect a privilege in tax terms over any other citizen of this land? For us to say that it is much simpler to claim the entitlement and be done with it is fair enough, but that surely cannot satisfy the test that every other person has to live by, which is that, in terms of the tax charge, they can claim only those expenses actually incurred.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct to point out that the reason why we are even discussing this is because trust has been dented, not just in this House but substantially in another place. Both Houses are, in their own way, trying to find their way through this to come out at the other end with a greater understanding between the public and Parliament, so that we can try to rebuild that trust. My noble friend is also entirely correct to say that this is a move away from the expenses regime. We are not asking Peers to demonstrate what they have spent. In fact, we are not hugely interested in what Peers spend their money on, in where they stay or, indeed, in whom they stay with. What we are interested in is: have they turned up? Have they made a contribution? What should the value of that be?
The SSRB suggested in its report that in due course the expenses regime that it proposed should be taxed. I take no particular view on that. I am not an accountant and it is not a decision for me. It may well be a decision for HMRC and the Treasury to take in due course. My further understanding is that, if tax were payable, that would require legislation and that, if tax were taken off, no doubt many Peers would make the case for some sort of rerating to make an allowance for taxation. These are all issues for another day.
There is another view, which I laid out a few minutes ago. We hope that there will be legislation on a reformed House. If there is a reformed, elected House, those Peers—or senators, or whatever they are—will be paid. There is then the prospect in that legislation for another independent body—perhaps IPSA itself—to look at what the recommendations should be.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, does the Leader accept that there are people around the House, including me, who may be significantly worse off under the new regime but who none the less welcome the proposal that has come from the noble Lord this afternoon? I agree substantially with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. If we go ahead with this, we cannot expect to retain all the advantages of both the previous system and the new system and to suffer no change in how our tax status is viewed. The main benefit of the new proposal is that it ensures that the way in which your Lordships may be supported or remunerated—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested that it might amount to remuneration in future—bears some clear relationship to how people outside this House are paid for their services. As well as transparency and accountability, it feels at this moment as though we should be demonstrating not that we are so different from the rest of the world that we cannot be treated in the same way as other people, but that our work bears a distinct and reasonable relationship to what is done elsewhere and therefore we should be treated very similarly to people outside this House.
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the noble Baroness, particularly for her remark that she was likely to be one of those Peers who might end up with a little less money than under the old regime but still felt that this was the right way to go. That is a very sensible conclusion to come to. It also puts us on a different footing from the expenses regime. Some Members of this House will take some time to appreciate the difference in the change that has taken place. Expenses will no longer be claimed. There will be an allowance, depending on attendance. The noble Baroness is right: that brings the relationship to the general public closer. There was a time, perhaps many years ago, when the fact that Peers were unpaid and received an element of expenses was justifiable. As the years have gone by, that has become increasingly difficult to justify, which is why we need to make the change.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, one of the most attractive things that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has enabled the Leader to say today is that this will be cost-neutral, because the public, as they look at this, will ask, “Will there be an increase in what Members of the House of Lords receive in the future?”. However, is one of the other attractions not the simplicity of the system? It removes some of the ambiguities that many of us have felt uneasy about in the past. In responding, could the Leader return to the question that my noble friend Lady D’Souza asked about the separation of money that is claimed for travel? That is never received by any individual Peer and yet appears in the receipts of money that is claimed by Members of your Lordships’ House. There is surely a desire on all our parts to continue to encourage those of us who come from the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom to carry on coming here; we do not want to turn your Lordships’ House into a purely metropolitan establishment that draws only on Greater London. Is it not important that we show that separation? I also ask the Leader about the position of staff. Members of your Lordships’ House have research assistants or secretarial staff who are currently supported during recess with a specific payment. What will be their position in the future?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a straightforward case for the attractions of this in that it removes ambiguities with which many Peers have felt uncomfortable. Although they believe that they were on the right side of the line, they felt that they still had to explain themselves and to justify the position that they had taken. At a stroke, those ambiguities are removed. It is my assessment, with a little help from the House authorities, that this is cost-neutral. Potentially, there will be an added advantage of a reduction in the cost of the bureaucracy should we have had a more complex system of expenses.
Travel expenses will continue to be paid as before, although my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his committee make one or two suggestions on the SSRB’s report. There is already a different column for the declaration of travel expenses. I agree with the noble Lord that it is sometimes unfair that, because a Peer’s travel expenses are very high because they come from the far-flung parts of the United Kingdom, that puts them at the top of the list of those who have claimed expenses. Every year, we urge the media when they report on these things to take the travel expenses firmly into account. As the noble Lord has seen, they do not always listen to what I regard as wise advice.
Staff will be paid for by Members out of whatever resources they have, including the new £300 allowance. It will be up to Members to decide how best to do that over the year. There will be no extra or additional secretarial allowance paid during sitting days or recesses.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, perhaps I may reinforce the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about good employment practice with members of personal staff, particularly secretaries, who cannot be laid off in terms of good employment practice for three months in the summer and then reappointed. There may be something to be looked at further than that. On a broader point, has the noble Lord considered that, in pursuing the question of House of Lords reform and the endless question of how to deal with those Members of the House who are already here, if we abandon, as he is proposing, an expenses regime, one of the issues in principle about getting people to retire or asking them to leave will be overcome because there will be no reason why, in principle, some sort of pension should not be paid to them?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is typical of the noble Baroness to raise such a deeply controversial subject in the manner that she has. Tomorrow, we will spend many hours discussing all these issues. No doubt, the question of transition will come up. The noble Baroness, with all her experience, has spotted that in terms of transition there is a real difficulty about how we move from one House to the other. I can assure her that these issues are uppermost in our minds.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in relation to the point on tax, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Lord may not be aware—although obviously the Leader of the House will be aware—that in the detailed documents attached to the Budget Statement, it is said that HMRC will have to amend the rules to enshrine the long-established practice that expenses received by Members of another place are not taxable. In other words, it is proposed to retain the system whereby Members of another place are not taxed on their expenses because, as the note says, with the arrival of IPSA the determination of expenses for the House of Commons is no longer quite the same. That is being dealt with in another place.
On the more general point, it is welcome that transparency and simplicity are important and overriding considerations. There is another consideration as to whether the taxpayer will regard £300 a day as good value for money. Is it a little bit relevant that for many professions such as doctors, accountants, lawyers and others, £300 buys about one hour of their time?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, what my noble friend said about taxation, HMRC and Members of another place shows how complicated this issue is. There is already a whole variety of rules for Parliament and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, if you give money to research assistants, it is almost going through individuals’ hands, and HMRC may indeed wish to take all of that into account. That is the start of a wider debate that I do not wish to continue this afternoon.
I have also wondered about the figure of £300. I am sure that some members of the public would regard that as being extremely good value, when they look at the quality of the work that they are getting from individual Peers, and others may not. It is important for us all to demonstrate that when we claim this money we are working for it and playing a full part in the legislature of which we are all members.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, we on these Benches have not taken a particular view on these matters beyond believing that any system should be fair, transparent and clearly good value for the public purse; but sitting on these Benches involves becoming very aware of, and developing a great appreciation for, the tremendous hard work on the part of all working Peers on all Benches. One is also aware of how much of that work continues beyond the House going into recess. Is there not a stronger case for looking again at the resourcing of working Peers out of the House’s sitting time to ensure that they are properly resourced to undertake their important public role and that no one is left unnecessarily out of pocket?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate’s point about pay outside sitting days has been raised many times. This scheme will pay £300 per sitting day only, and the judgment that I and others who have looked at this matter have taken is that that amount should keep Peers going when we are not sitting. It is entirely fair enough to say that the totals do not add up to as much as full-time Peers can currently claim, but, as I said in my Statement, in today’s economic climate it is right for us who gain the most to say that we are happy to take a reduction.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that a number of the questions that are being raised are dealt with in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We have spent a great deal of time discussing taxation. The question of additional office costs is also dealt with in the report, as are the important questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, about long periods of illness. The noble Baroness’s point was not about the powers of the Clerk of the Parliaments to give additional help to noble Lords who have, for example, mobility difficulties, it was more about what happens during extended periods of illness and some of the representations that have been made in relation to them. We are starting to move into a more detailed debate.
I support, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, does, the thrust of the additional element brought into this report—the alternative suggestion. Of course my noble friend Lord Tomlinson is right to say that this was not included in the principles and architecture of the SSRB report. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, explicitly states in his report that he is moving outside the architecture and principles described in paragraphs 5.56 and 5.57. That notwithstanding, it is possible to move outside it because circumstances have changed. Clarity, transparency and simplicity are what we should aim for.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. As a leading member of my noble friend Lord Wakeham’s group, she has also demonstrated that there is an enormous amount of detail in my noble friend’s report. I hope that, when read in conjunction with my Statement today and with the report of the SSRB, it will make everything considerably clearer.
I accept what the noble Baroness said: perhaps I did not answer the Convenor of the Cross Benches sufficiently well when she asked about periods of illness, particularly for Members of the House who are severely disabled. I have never opposed any attempt to find a regime for a very few special cases. We are one of the few legislative assemblies to have allowed severely disabled people to play their part. I am sure that if the noble Baroness were to invite the House Committee to re-examine these issues, she would receive a positive response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, my question is about the word “attendance”, which sounds very simple. I spent the past week at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, where they have changed the rules. You get your hotel paid, and a smaller amount than used to be the case for subsistence. I was in Macedonia earlier this month, where the subsistence amount was the munificent sum of €28—in addition to the hotel, which they chose. Those who serve the House away from the House, such as members of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union—are they not attending the House for the purpose of this exercise?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is not envisaged that the attendance rules will be changed for Peers who are working outside the House. The current rules are clear about what can be claimed when Members are outside the House, and it is not intended that that should change.
G8 and G20 Summits
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, it may be a convenient moment to turn to the second Statement, which was made a few minutes ago by the Prime Minister in another place.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 and G20 summits which took place in Canada. First, I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the seven British servicemen who have lost their lives in the past week. From 40 Commando Royal Marines: Sergeant Steven Darbyshire. From 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment: Colour Sergeant Martyn Horton, Private Douglas Halliday, Private Alex Isaac. From the Yorkshire Regiment: Lance Corporal David Ramsden. From the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery: Bombardier Stephen Gilbert, who died from injuries received in an explosion earlier this month; and the soldier from 101 Regiment Royal Engineers who died yesterday. As the country marked Armed Forces Day this weekend, people did so with tremendous pride but also great sadness. We will never forget what these men and so many of their colleagues have given for us.
As I have said, I am determined that our forces will not stay in Afghanistan a day longer than necessary. I led a discussion at the G8, where we made it clear that we ‘fully support the transition strategy adopted’ by international partners. We are not after a perfect Afghanistan—just a stable Afghanistan, able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning. So the G8 sent a collective signal that we want the Afghan Security Forces to ‘assume increasing responsibility for security within five years’. The presence of large-scale international forces cannot be an indefinite commitment. We need to get the job done and bring our troops home.
Let me report to the House on the main conclusions of the G8 and G20. I have placed copies of the communiqués in the Library so that people can see the details of what was agreed. The G8 is a good forum for the leading democratic economies to give proper strategic consideration to the big foreign policy and security issues. It also plays a vital role in helping the richer nations to improve the future of the poorest. In my view, these two vital functions of this forum should continue. Let me take each in turn.
On the big security issues, we discussed the Middle East peace process and agreed the importance of putting pressure on both sides to engage in the proximity talks with the aim of creating the conditions for direct talks. President Obama specifically said that he would make this his priority in the coming months.
While the changes that Israel had proposed are welcome, they do not go far enough, and the communiqué says that the current arrangements in Gaza,
‘are not sustainable and must be changed’.
On Iran, UN Security Council Resolution 1929 was welcomed. The communiqué states that all countries should “implement it fully”. Since the G8 includes Russia, Britain believes this was significant.
The UK also made the case for all members of the G8 to have positive engagement with Turkey, which could have a key role to play in resolving both the Iran issue and encouraging progress on Middle East peace. We also discussed North Korea, deploring and condemning the sinking of the “Cheonan”, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
On development, while the G8 has played an important role in increasing aid spending by the richest countries in the world, some of those countries have not met the commitments they set out. I stressed the importance of transparency and accountability, and the accountability report sets out what countries have done in meeting their commitments. While not perfect, it is really good progress in making sure that countries cannot make promises without being held to account for them.
Even at a time when our countries face difficult budget decisions, it is important we maintain our commitment to helping the poorest in the world. The UK is maintaining its commitment to increase spending on aid to 0.7 per cent of gross national income. This gives us the opportunity to exercise leadership. At the same time, in order to take the public with us, we also need to make sure that every penny will reach those who need it most—that means transparency and accountability. It also means that the projects we support must be deliverable, practical and measurable, addressing the causes of poverty and not just its symptoms.
The Muskoka Initiative is a case in point. Today in the UK, the chances of dying in pregnancy and childbirth are one in 8,200. In parts of Africa, it is as low as one in seven. This is something we can change—and we must change. The resources agreed, including a big contribution from the UK, could lead to an additional 1.3 million lives being saved. As the White Ribbon Alliance points out, if you save the mother, you save the family; and if you save the family, you build a stronger society and a better economy.
Turning to the G20, this is now the right forum for all the leading economies of the world to discuss the vital economic issues. The key goal of the G20 is to continue the recovery of the world economy and secure sustainable growth. The argument, proposed by some, that deficit reduction and growth are mutually exclusive is completely wrong. The whole approach underlined by the IMF for this G20 and the subsequent meeting in Seoul is all about how the world should maximise growth through the right combination of three things: deficit reduction, tackling imbalances, particularly through actions by emerging economies, and structural reform in the advanced economies. There was broad agreement on all three and this is reflected clearly in the communiqué.
On deficit reduction, the G20 agreed:
“Those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation”,
and that there was,
“a risk that failure to implement consolidation … would undermine confidence and hamper growth”.
The advanced G20 economies committed to at least halve current deficits by 2013 and stabilise government debt to GDP ratios by 2016. While we agreed that the speed and timing of deficit reduction will vary with national circumstances, the verdict of the G20 was unequivocal.
For countries with large deficits, the time to act is now. Britain has one of the largest deficits in the G20, and the summit specifically welcomed the plans set out in our Budget last week. In terms of addressing the fundamental imbalances, China’s recent decision to move towards greater exchange rate flexibility is welcome. As, in the end, growth comes only from rising productivity, we also agreed on the need to pursue structural reform across the whole G20 to increase and sustain our growth prospects.
On financial reform, the G20 agreed ‘a set of principles’ on bank levies to ensure that the financial sector makes a,
‘fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the financial system’.
That is very much in line with the plans for a bank levy, which we announced in the Budget. On making sure that the banks in all countries can withstand future crises, we also agreed that,
‘the amount of capital will be significantly higher and the quality of capital significantly improved’.
We agreed that new standards on the quality, quantity and transparency of capital and liquidity should be finalised by the Seoul summit in November.
Basle took 10 years and this looks like it will be completed in one. Although the drawing up of clear, robust new rules is absolutely essential, it is important that they are not implemented too quickly. We do not want a further monetary squeeze or a reduction in bank lending at this stage of the recovery. The biggest stimulus we could give to the world economy today is the expansion of trade. Although the G20 agreement to extend its pledge that no additional trade barriers should be put in place is welcome, continued failure to make progress on Doha is deeply disappointing. This has now been eight years in negotiation and there can be little confidence that, as things stand, the round will be completed rapidly.
A completed trade round could add $170 billion to the world economy. The UK led the working session on this issue at the G20. One potential way of making progress is to try to add to the benefits of the round so that all parties can see reasons for going that final mile. That was supported by President Obama. The director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, suggested that all trade negotiators should return to the table and consider both what it is they really need from the round and what it is they are prepared to offer to get it moving again. That will lead to a report at the Seoul meeting in November.
Too many people still see this as a zero sum game, where one country's success in exports is another country's failure. That is nonsense. Everyone can benefit from an increase in trade flows. We will play our part in breaking the logjam. I want this country to lead the charge in making the case for growing trade flows around the world.
On climate change, while the G8 communiqué was strongly positive on limiting the rise in global temperatures to less than two degrees and on seeking an ambitious and binding post-2012 agreement, at the G20, the communiqué was more limited. This is partly because some countries do not see the G20 as the forum for discussing this issue. In discussions, it was also clear that there was widespread disappointment at the way that Copenhagen failed to deliver a legally binding global deal. We must not give up on this. We will be playing our full part in pushing for a successful outcome at Cancun.
This long weekend of summitry was a good opportunity to build Britain's bilateral relationships. Among others, I had useful meetings with President Obama, President Hu of China, Prime Minister Singh of India and Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey. In building a very strong friendship with our leading European partners, I also suffered the exquisite agony of watching England lose 4-1 to Germany in the company of my good friend Chancellor Merkel and the German summit team. Although I cannot recommend the experience of watching football in the margins of a G20 summit, I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Royall, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement made in another place. I also echo the tribute he has made to servicemen who have lost their lives. We all have deep sympathy for the loss suffered by their families and friends.
Much of the G8 summit was taken up, according to the communiqué, with problems of international conflict and tensions around the world. As noble Lords will be aware, most of the economic agenda was shifted to the G20 summit, to which I shall turn shortly.
On international issues, in a widely publicised article published just before the G8 summit opened, the Prime Minister made the commitment to withdraw UK troops from Afghanistan within five years. Will the noble Lord tell us whether our allies were consulted prior to the Prime Minister’s announcement?
While the whole House will applaud the concern that the G8 summit displayed for development issues, will the Minister confirm that the G8 has reneged on the Gleneagles promise to double aid to Africa? On the important issues of maternal health, which quite properly dominated the development section of the G8 communiqué, will the Minister tell us whether the UK’s contribution of funds for this purpose will be new money, or will it be met from the existing aid budget?
I turn to the G20 summit. As the House will be aware, it dealt predominantly with economic and financial matters, building on the earlier summits in Washington, London and Pittsburgh. Those earlier summits were characterised by a remarkable degree of unity on facing up to the global financial crisis. The unity of analysis and purpose was led at those earlier summits by the British Government, with significant support in Pittsburgh from the Obama Administration. Sadly, the Toronto communiqué exhibits a quite different tone. On the balance between stimulation and fiscal consolidation, the communiqué stresses the differences between national approaches. On the banking levy, the previous universal approach has been abandoned. On regulatory reform, it is not at all clear whether other Governments will follow the US lead in banning proprietary trading by banks, or whether they will adopt US strictures on derivatives trading. Does the Minister share the widespread concern that the present communiqué does not exhibit the earlier unity of purpose?
On specific matters, the communiqué states that,
“advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013”.
Will the Minister confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility has calculated that the Budget measures introduced in March by my right honourable friend Alistair Darling were indeed sufficient to achieve exactly that goal? In the Statement, the Prime Minister says that,
“the summit specifically welcomed the plans set out in our Budget last week”.
Is the noble Lord aware that that welcome does not appear in the communiqué?
The Prime Minister’s Statement also refers to the need for “clear, robust new rules” on financial regulations—not principles but rules. Will the noble Lord confirm that the coalition expects international rules to be imposed on the financial sector of the UK? Which elements of financial regulation does the Prime Minister expect that imposition to cover?
I turn to some of the specific measures in the financial section of the G20 communiqué. Will the Minister confirm that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to impose a leverage collar on UK banks, as suggested by the communiqué? Will he also clarify the coalition’s position on the requirements that previously over-the-counter derivatives should now be traded through central counterparties by the end of 2012, as the communiqué also states? Are the Government concerned about the consequent concentrating of risk in central counterparties, and what do they intend to do about it?
Given the considerable concern expressed by the banks about the premature implementation of higher capital requirements, will the noble Lord explain why the idea of pro-cyclical provisioning, which was prominent in the communiqués of the previous three summits, is notable by its absence here? Has the idea been abandoned? If so, what are the implications for the size of capital buffers to be held by the banks?
At several points, the communiqué refers to the need for mutual assessment by G20 countries of the implementation of agreed measures. Can the noble Lord tell us by what process that mutual assessment is to take place? Who will do it? What precisely are the criteria to be applied? Will it be done before the next summit?
Finally, although we all welcome the fact that the Prime Minister was treated to a helicopter ride by President Obama, did he also have the chance to undertake bilateral discussions with Mrs Merkel while watching the football? As is well known, the German Chancellor is having considerable difficulty holding her coalition together. Did the Prime Minister advise her on the benefits of having weak and submissive coalition partners?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I was going to say how grateful I was that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, was standing in for the leader of the Opposition. Having heard his speech, I am not sure that that is the case. He asked a series of extremely pertinent questions that, if this were a full debate of several hours, would take me tens of minutes to reply to. I hope that he will forgive me if on some of his specific questions I answer him by way of a letter. As I know that others in the House will take what the noble Lord said seriously and with great interest, I will make sure that a copy of the letter is put in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, started off with an important question about the statement by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Afghanistan, the so-called five-year limit and whether any discussions took place with our allies. We are in a state of continual consultation with our allies in Afghanistan. None of that statement was a surprise to them. They understood exactly the point that we were making. There is no desire in any country for its forces to remain in Afghanistan for any longer than they absolutely have to. Over the past few weeks, we have laid out a set of priorities that we believe will enable British forces to have largely removed from Afghanistan, as part of getting civil society in Afghanistan working again.
We have set ourselves new priorities on the aim of development aid. It is right that we and the G8 should do so. It is important continually to review our processes and priorities for our development goals, and the new priorities on the health of mothers, children and families speak for themselves. However, a unity of purpose does not mean a unity of means. Although it is true that Britain has maintained its commitment on funding overseas aid, other countries have found it more difficult. However, in the medium term, there is no reason why we should not get back to the original position. We do not anticipate new money coming in to deal with those priorities. It will be a change of priorities within the existing budget but, as we have explained, over time we hope to meet our target of 0.7 per cent of GDP.
On bank levies and the financial situation, as the noble Lord knows only too well, the IMF forecasts that the UK will in 2010-11 have the largest budget deficit in the G7. When he talked about the record of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was not quite sure whether he took pride in the legacy that the Labour Party left this country. We must never lose sight of the lesson of the past three years: taxpayers pick up the bill not only when one of our banks fails but when Governments spend too much money. The bank levy, the concentration of risks and higher capital requirements will all be debated and discussed as quickly as possible over the next few months. There is no question of the new bank rules being imposed. They will need to be agreed by all, and we believe that there is every possibility of those new rules being agreed by everybody.
The noble Lord poked fun at my coalition colleagues, which was entirely unnecessary. I can confirm to him that we are getting along extremely well. Sometimes people say that we have a lot to learn from our European colleagues. I hope that when it comes to working with coalition colleagues, they will find that they have a lot to learn from us.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will support the warm tributes that the Leader of the House and others have paid to our brave military personnel. Does he accept that many of us welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to get our troops out of Afghanistan at the earliest practicable time? Does he also accept that, if that requires involving the Taliban in negotiations, that is a nettle that will need to be grasped?
Lord Strathclyde
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for what he has just said. He reiterates the position extremely well and with a clear understanding of what the issues are. There is increasingly an appreciation and understanding that a violent and military-directed war in Afghanistan is not a winnable proposition for anybody, least of all for the people of Afghanistan themselves. All peace processes around the world have dealt with it by, slowly but surely, bringing all sides together. That will need to be the case in Afghanistan and is increasingly the thrust of our policy.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, may we from this side join the noble Lord in the tributes that he paid to the seven soldiers who lost their lives last week?
One matter of concern is the non-action on development aid, particularly the lack of action on the targets for alleviating poverty. How do the Government plan to ensure that the decisions taken by the G8 and the G20 will be actively implemented? Furthermore, why was climate change discussed only in the G8? If there is to be a global agreement on the way forward on climate change, surely the non-G8 members of the G20 will have to play a crucial role. Finally, do the Government agree that the G8 has now become an anachronism and that it would be better if its role was assumed completely by the G20?
Lord Strathclyde
My noble friend is right to draw attention to development aid, a matter which very much dominated the discussions of the G8. That delivered for the first time a comprehensive accountability report which assessed transparently the G8 progress against its development-related commitments. In the communiqué the G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitments on overseas development aid, on aid effectiveness and on HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, however cynical one is—and I am not suggesting for a moment that my noble friend is cynical when it comes to these matters—about a very serious attempt to give a new priority to these initiatives, the House will recognise that there was an agreement in the Muskoka initiative which means that funding for maternal, newborn and child health will be the new priority.
On the question of climate change, I can understand why my noble friend should feel aggrieved that this could be debated and discussed with one group but less successfully with another. However, there are those at the G20 who felt that it was not appropriate for it to be discussed at that level and that it should remain with the G8. However, there is the climate change conference in Cancun later this year. An enormous amount of work is taking place between now and then to give effect to a global agreement.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, on global imbalances, the Statement referred only to the modest, although welcome, adjustment that the Chinese authorities have allowed to the exchange rate of the renminbi, but surely the Government do not think that that will be enough to solve adequately the problem that is being generated by the continuing propensity of certain major economies, notably China and Germany, to invest and export very powerfully, and the propensity of other major economies, notably that of the United States of America and our own, to borrow and consume excessively. Is it not inevitable that if we continue with these imbalances, the trade surpluses of the exporting countries will be recycled to create excessive liquidity in the economies of countries such as our own that tend to consume too much, leading to another manic and unsustainable boom followed by a miserable bust? What were the Prime Minister’s suggestions at the G20 for averting this outcome, and what response did he receive?
Lord Strathclyde
I could not possibly comment on the noble Lord’s direct question at the end, but the whole issue of global imbalances concentrated the minds of the G8, and indeed of the G20. The new flexibility in the Chinese arrangements is an important step in the right direction. It is the kind of flexibility that we have been looking for for some time, it will make an appreciable difference—so we all hope—and it is recognition by the Chinese authorities of China’s importance to the world economy as a trading nation and as an increasingly important currency. The noble Lord might say that this is a very small step, but it is at least a small step in the right direction.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the case for maintaining the G8 while the G20 is functioning is rather less strong than the Statement that he read out suggests? Here, I join the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Only by stretching the word “democratic” a very long way indeed can it be applied to the G8, which has Russia among its members. It is also surely worth remembering that there are rather better qualified democracies in the G20, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, the membership of at least some of which we support as permanent members of the Security Council. I therefore hope that the Government will reflect a little on the need for these two forums to continue to run side by side and confusing the issues that they discuss quite a lot—a confusion that I suspect will increase when they meet in different places, as presumably they will have to when the G20 goes to Mexico in 2012, as is said in the communiqué. I therefore hope that the Government will reflect on the possibility of a sunset clause for the G8.
Will the Minister also be so kind as to comment on what the Government are doing to ensure that these endlessly repeated commitments to complete the Doha round are brought to a decision in the not too distant future? The wording of the communiqué is extremely weak. I thought that the wording of the Statement was first class, if I may say so. It reflects the view of those on all sides in this House and in this country that this is a really major objective. However, there is no sign whatever that the United States Administration are putting their back into completing Doha. What strategy do the Government have for moving that ahead at Seoul and thereafter?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, my right honourable friend found the meetings at the G8 and the G20 useful. They were particularly useful because they were different, and because, as a new Prime Minister, he was able to meet different political leaders at different stages. It is impossible for me to say whether these structures will be maintained in the long term. As the noble Lord recognised, they will not be meeting together in the future.
On the Doha round, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that he finds the Statement convincing but the communiqué rather less so. Frankly, we were rather disappointed by the wording in the communiqué. It is a key strategic plank of this Government to move issues forward on the whole question of the Doha trade round and we will be developing a strategy so that we turn that leadership into action by convincing different countries that it is in their material interest to see an increase in global trade. I am sure the whole House agrees with that but it will need our combined collective will, good judgment and the kind of experience that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, possesses in order to convince other countries of that necessity.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, first, can the noble Lord shed a little more light on the Prime Minister’s thinking on withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan by 2015? It was always the view in the past, as I understood it, that giving a date for withdrawal would be like signalling to the Taliban and al-Qaeda how long they would have to hold out before they would not have any opposition on the ground. My concern is that many people will think that this gives the Taliban and al-Qaeda an opportunity to scale down what they are doing, gather their resources and armaments, bring in fresh recruits and simply re-emerge when the foreign troops have departed. I wonder if the noble Lord can help me on that.
Secondly, the Statement says that the biggest stimulus that we can give the world economy today is the expansion of trade. Can the noble Lord tell us when the Government are planning to appoint a Minister dedicated to trade promotion? I know that, among his many other duties, Mr Mark Prisk has been appointed pro tem to look at trade—but the fact is that he has many other duties. Previously, the noble Lord, Lord Digby Jones, my noble friend Lord Mervyn Davies, and indeed I myself were dedicated to trade promotion and expansion. When will the Government be able to match what they are encouraging the world to do by doing a little better at home?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, on the point about Afghanistan, I agree that the view was taken in the past that making too rigid a timetable and setting the end date too soon simply gives a target for everyone to aim at. That is not true in this case because we are in a very different situation. We have been in Afghanistan for about nine years now and we can see that this current year is extremely important in creating the right grounds for long-term peace and rebuilding civil society. In this case, I do not think that we will run into the danger of giving the Taliban a target, and after all, five years is a long time to have to hang around waiting for British troops to leave. Moreover, that would not achieve the right conditions on the ground for rebuilding civil society in Afghanistan, which is important. So while I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, it is my wish, as I know it is hers, that those conditions will not apply.
On the question of the Minister for Trade, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness that such a Minister is important and that—by her own example and that of others in this House who have held the role—it is a key role for the Government and for focusing our overseas export effort. I am delighted to say that in the past 24 hours Mr Mark Prisk has been made the Minister of Trade. I know that, aided and helped in every way by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, they will make a valuable team. Moreover, my noble friend will be answering for him in this House.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, is not the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—who, having asked his question, appears no longer to be in his place—that the G20 was unwilling to tackle the question of climate change because the major developing nations such as China, India and, to a certain extent, South Africa and Brazil quite rightly attach much greater importance to economic development and the relief of poverty, to which moves on climate change would be entirely antipathetic? Nevertheless, does my noble friend agree that there is reason to welcome the response by that distinguished economist, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition? Although he devoted his comments largely to the minutiae of banking reform—which are important but not urgent matters; indeed, it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly—he accepted, tacitly at any rate, the urgent need for the fiscal consolidation which this Government have shown they have the courage to enter into despite some of the rumblings from the neo-Keynesian dinosaurs who appear to be around.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, enjoyed that in the spirit in which it was intended. I agree with my noble friend that fiscal consolidation is important. Not only have we struck the right balance but, increasingly around the world, it is seen that we have struck the right balance. On the question of the G20 and the G8, my noble friend is again correct. Different countries have taken different views of these issues, particularly the developing countries. That is not news today but has been true for some time. That is why the climate change conference in Cancun will be extremely important.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I commend the Government on their commitment to increasing overseas aid to 0.7 per cent of GDP, as I do their renewed commitment to reducing the terrible tragedy of maternal mortality. Does the Leader of the House agree that in any new strategy which the Government might develop for reducing maternal mortality, our professional organisations will be well placed to assist in the health service reforms required? Secondly, while a reduction in maternal mortality is important, we must also not forget that we need to reduce the terrible burden of other reproductive health issues, such as the greater number of deaths—even more than through maternal mortality—that occur through cervical cancer in low-resource countries, which is a totally preventable disease; the problem of fistulas; and the number of children dying in childbirth or immediately after, which is now some 3 million.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly draws us back to the issue of overseas aid. The reasons for changing the priorities of the G8 were not taken lightly. Obviously, in putting this new strategy into effect, there will be wide consultation with involved parties—most importantly with the health authorities of the countries most directly involved—so that the resources spent can be used as effectively and efficiently as possible. The noble Lord is also correct to refer to the range of preventable diseases that exist and which at the moment are not dealt with sufficiently well. This issue is part of an overall programme. I do not suppose we will see all the answers come out quickly, but the direction of travel is important.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend repeating the Statement, particularly the strong section relating to development aid. Can he confirm reports that there was a shortfall of some $10 billion in the commitment of $50 billion made at the Gleneagles G8 summit five years ago? Can he further confirm that the two countries primarily responsible for that are Japan and Italy? What conversations did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister have with them on that issue? Given that they have cited their fiscal position as the reason for not fulfilling their commitment, will my noble friend encourage the Prime Minister to give them a lesson on how to rigorously tackle the fiscal deficit while still being fair and caring about the world’s poorest?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there are many people who will be disappointed that some of the Gleneagles aims have not been met. My noble friend referred to two of those countries. In the communiqué that was delivered this weekend, there was genuine recognition that there needs to be more transparency and accountability on the part of those countries that have promised to help but have not yet delivered.
I know that the Prime Minister draws the attention of many people, not only from overseas, to the problems that we face in this country and how we are tackling them. They may well be a beacon of light to help other countries meet the commitments that they have already made and come up with the money.
Academies Bill [HL]
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“( ) the school has a curriculum which includes Personal, Social and Health Education as a statutory entitlement for all pupils;”
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, Amendment 32, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Gould, would make personal, social and health education a statutory part of the school curriculum.
We have had many debates on what children should be entitled to as part of their education. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was enthusiastic and lyrical about this last week. In fact, he reminded me of the Mock Turtle’s reflections in Alice in Wonderland about what school curriculums should contain. Pupils had,
“Reeling and Writhing … the different branches of Arithmetic—Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision … Mystery, ancient and modern, with Seaography: then Drawling … and Fainting in Coils … laughing and grief”,
with,
“French, music, and washing—extra”.
They could all have benefited from PSHE, in my view. The Mock Turtle lists all this while sobbing a little now and then. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was sobbing, but there was a great deal of sobbing when, at wash-up recently, PSHE was lost as part of the statutory curriculum.
Many noble Lords spoke passionately in favour of PSHE during the recent wash-up, as I described. In particular, there was an eloquent plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. My amendment seeks to reinstate the original intention of the previous Labour Government to ensure that all children have access to PSHE.
It may be worth looking at what we mean by personal, social and health education, as many terms are sometimes used rather confusingly. PSHE encompasses sex and relationships education, but it is broader—SRE is not primarily about health issues such as drugs, first aid and so on. PSHE encompasses life skills and some aspects of citizenship.
I have taught PSHE, advised on it, researched it and written about it and I want to distil some of that experience. It was inspiring to teach PSHE to children and to see their involvement and enthusiasm. If I were to list topics to be covered in PSHE, I would say that for younger children it is important to learn about staying safe; resisting pressure; friendships and other relationships; bullying; health hazards such as smoking and drugs; where to get help if in trouble; and basic facts about reproduction. Children will have their own topics. For older pupils, the topics will be added to and treated in more depth. At primary school, pupils may discuss the importance and concept of friendship. At secondary school, issues such as integrity and conflict resolution may be discussed.
Some may argue that children receive this kind of education from home and from mainstream school subjects. Sadly, that is often not the case, as young people tell us. PSHE has a particular body of knowledge and particular educational processes, such as discussion groups or role play, which make it an important part of the curriculum. Apart from the topics of PSHE that I have mentioned, young people need to develop language and communication skills and interpersonal empathy. Those skills can transfer from this area of work to life itself.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I have tabled my amendment for the same reason as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, because it seemed to me that this Committee should be able to debate compulsory PSHE and sexual relationships education. Noble Lords will remember that this was debated and powerfully argued by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Massey, but there really was no time for a proper debate during wash-up.
I open my remarks by briefly stating my position. It is a great pity that this has become a sort of battle. Whether PSHE should become compulsory is not a yes or no question. It tremendously depends on what is to be taught and who is going to teach it. We need to know not only what the government guidelines say but what is going to be taught. If I had been a pupil of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in one of her classes, I am sure that I would be much better informed even than I am today—and I should have enjoyed it. However, it is important to know that there are enough teachers available before we start making something compulsory. Otherwise, Bloggs, the geography teacher, who is not much good, will be put on to do PSHE, partly because it is a difficult and tiresome thing to teach. That would be absolutely disastrous.
I was told only the other day that, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, recent research shows that the sort of diet of sex and condoms delivered to 14 to 16 year-olds in most schools today makes absolutely no difference at all to the number of teenage pregnancies among the group. Unless and until there is satisfactory and independent evidence that it does make a difference, there is a strong argument for considering whether we cannot improve what schools are delivering.
I am assured by a number of experts, including representatives of Ofsted, that an increasing body of evidence shows that what makes a difference is the whole-school ethos to which the child is exposed. When families are willing and able to provide supportive parenting to their child, it seems axiomatic that parents should be consulted and involved as partners, particularly in any programme of sexual relationship education. I expect that that would be the case in a great many of the academies that we are talking about today. However, when home life is chaotic, the schools step in and make up for what the family cannot give.
Whether it is learnt at home or in school, it appears that what makes a difference is learning in a secure environment where each child is valued and respected and each child is safe and loved. It is learning that the way in which you treat others matters and that you, too, can be a success in spite of a disadvantaged background. Ofsted reports show that those schools where teaching and a whole-school ethos consistently encompass those values are those that it finds to be outstanding on academic results and child well-being. Some of them are working in very disadvantaged areas.
There are two extremely good reports on 20 primary schools and, I think, 12 outstanding secondary schools working in disadvantaged areas. Perhaps I might briefly quote extracts from those Ofsted reports. First, the report on 20 outstanding primary schools says, among a great many other things:
“It is no longer acceptable to use a child’s background as an excuse for underachievement. The challenge for schools is to make a difference … Viewed in these terms, the job of the school may be construed as providing, through education and care for children’s well-being, advantage where it is lacking, mentoring and support for parenting where it is needed, and complementary provision in a school community of high ideals and aspirations … Primary schools, together with”,
other school providers,
“of education and care, are in a pre-eminent position when it comes to having a lasting impact”,
on a child’s future. Secondly, its report on the secondary schools says:
“The outstanding schools in the sample succeed for the following reasons. They excel at what they do, not just occasionally but for a high proportion of the time. They prove constantly that disadvantage need not be a barrier to achievement … They have strong values and high expectations that are applied consistently and never relaxed”.
A prerequisite for respect for others is respect for self. For children from disadvantaged and chaotic families, that may not easily be learnt at home. Excellent schools can build self-esteem and emotional intelligence right across the school in an age-appropriate way. That involves a high level of staff commitment and strong leadership. Schools that generate empathy, self-confidence and aspiration of this kind lead to fewer early pregnancies, but that is not the whole story. They also prepare young people—again, age by age and in an age-appropriate way—for the responsibilities of adult life and parenthood and so could help to break the cycle of disadvantage passed on from generation to generation in some families today.
What are the Government’s plans for PSHE and SRE? I hope that they will reject or substantially revise the guidelines produced earlier this year by the previous Government, which concentrate mainly on contraception and largely ignore the role of cementing relationships and creating a stable family. The guidelines make no more than passing reference to the importance of supportive parenting, of a whole-school ethos or of respect for others and for self. I also hope that the Government will delay making SRE compulsory until they are satisfied that there are enough well trained teachers available to deliver this sensitive coverage.
Finally, I hope that the Government will focus their resources on encouraging more schools to develop and deliver whole-school policies that support the emotional and social development of all their pupils, including the less academically able. In this context, I very much hope that the academies that we are talking about today will, in particular, be free to adopt innovative policies—including a wide range of syllabus activities that will provide opportunities for all pupils to experience success—and facilities that include, where appropriate, boarding facilities. I hope that they will try to develop a whole-school ethos which is positive and supportive and which develops emotional intelligence and respect—both self-respect and respect for others. Can the Minister give me any comfort on those issues?
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name, following the great disappointment—the sobbing to which my noble friend Lady Massey referred—of PSHE being removed from the Children, Schools and Families Bill in the wash-up on 7 April. I do so to hear whether the Government are prepared to reconsider their previous negative approach to this issue.
In the wash-up debate, the support for the removal of the clauses from the Bill focused on two main points. First, there was the lack of trained teachers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Secondly, there was the view about whether PSHE was being well taught. It certainly was in some schools but, as Ofsted said, that was in too few schools and throughout the country teaching was extremely patchy. Using the shortage of teachers as a reason for not teaching PSHE is standing the argument on its head. The PSHE continuing professional development programme, which was established by my noble friend Lord Adonis, has gone some way towards providing a pool of trained teachers. I accept that more has to be done, just as I accept that PSHE should be taught by accredited teachers. The answer is that if a subject is a statutory entitlement for pupils, it is guaranteed that it will be taught in teacher training. If it is not, there is absolutely no guarantee that that is the case. Therefore, the pool of untrained teachers will continue. As my noble friend Lady Massey said, adequate teaching materials should be provided, which is not always the case at the moment. We are talking about timing and flexibility in how the subject is taught, as long as it is taught well and covers the main issues that I will refer to.
I find it extraordinary that the coalition Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—can reject something that prepares young people for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life. In doing so, they reject the teaching of mutual respect; valuing each other, which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, again referred to; loving and happy relationships; safety and health; and responsibility for oneself and others. Last week the Minister referred to the curriculum review, and the need to be innovative, be creative and respond to the needs of pupils. He will find the answer to that in the pamphlet written by his right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, Early Intervention: Good Parents, Great Kids, Better Citizens. I could quote most of the report in answer to why PSHE should be taught in schools, but one sentence refers to,
“the subject at the heart of this pamphlet: the need for intervention in the earliest years of a child’s life, thus ensuring that he or she fulfils their potential and is not subject to intergenerational transmission of disadvantage”.
Those are fine words and a fine concept, the fruition of which could be considerably assisted by making PSHE well taught in all schools by making it statutory. Disadvantage can be overcome if the teaching is there to do that.
If for no other reason, the teaching of PSHE makes economic sense because it is about prevention. It is about reducing health inequalities and social exclusion; safeguarding children and young people; reducing homophobic bullying and its consequences; and avoiding teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted illnesses such as HIV, and drug and alcohol misuse. It is about increasing the understanding of the short-term and long-term effects of alcohol on physical and mental health and sexual behaviour. While there is a clear need for sensitive and sensible messages on the avoidance of risk, which can lead to pregnancy or acquiring an STI or HIV, there is also a need to build the confidence—that is what it is all about—for girls to be able to resist the pressure and learn how to say no; and for all children in how to avoid exploitation and abuse.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about condoms. He is right: there is a problem in condoms just being delivered to schools. Nobody tells pupils what they are for and why they should be using them sensibly, or not using them at all if they are not having early sex. That is not taught. We are saying that we should make sure the teaching goes alongside giving condoms to young children. At a school I visited it was fascinating. Young people were issued with condoms, particularly after school. Some of the younger ones thought that they were balloons and had great fun blowing them up, but some of the older ones sat around and had that important conversation, which should take place in schools.
PSHE teaches young people to respect each other and not to pressurise others to do something that they do not want to do. Teaching children and young people about physical and mental lifestyles will save the NHS and local authorities a considerable amount of money. A further aspect of PSHE that we do not always talk about is that it underpins the employability of young people through the development of personal and social skills which commerce and industry demand in their workforces. It also identifies the necessary flexibility to deal with changing workplace and industrial situations.
PSHE is about economic well-being and financial capability. It can teach about managing money and how to avoid personal debt, and the problems that result from that debt, which sometimes mean considerable cost to the state. It prepares young people for their future roles, such as parents, employers, employees and leaders. A groundbreaking survey, which will be launched in October, asked the views of parents, teachers and governors, particularly as regards the SRE aspect of PSHE in England. It was carried out by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, the National Association of Head Teachers and the National Governors Association, in partnership with Durex.
The results showed a high level of agreement between the three groups, with 91 per cent of parents, 83 per cent of governors and 83 per cent of teachers believing that it is very important that young people have information on practising safer sex. While the majority of parents believe that PSHE-SRE should be taught in schools, part of the programme should be to engage those parents and provide them with information and practical support to help them develop the confidence to talk to their children about relationships, sexual health, alcohol and drugs, and their responsibilities and attitudes to others.
In that way, perhaps we can break down the intergenerational transmission of disadvantage described in the Early Intervention paper. PSHE teaching is an important way of building relationships with parents. Parents need to be more involved and lessons should not end in school. In the survey to which I have just referred, 84 per cent of parents said that what is taught in schools should be followed up in the home. The dropping of PSHE from the Children, Schools and Families Bill went against the views of parents, teachers, governors, the Youth Parliament and young people. Now that the Government have the opportunity to redress that situation, I hope that they will take it to heart.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I support a great deal of what has been said today. I shall go back rather further. In the early years of the previous Government, there was an attempt to introduce citizenship. My noble friend Lord Northbourne and I hoped valiantly that young children would be taught not just about their relationships with their parents, but about how they would bring up their children and what sort of a parent they should be. Sadly, the whole citizenship exercise disappeared into a vacuum of being taught all around the curriculum, so it was never followed through.
Following on from the Ofsted report, I wish to comment on the success that the schools mentioned had on things such as bullying. In some schools, from the moment a child enters, he or she has a mentor. It is another child’s duty to settle the new child into the school. It would be a huge help if that could be taken seriously and become part of the way in which all schools integrate the next generation.
It may not be totally fair to blame the Government—certainly not all members of it—for the way in which the previous Bill disappeared into the sand, but now that they have this opportunity to look at the situation again, I hope that they will come forward with sensible proposals.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Gould, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, have long been advocates and apostles of PSHE. Their difficulty has been that for a long time PSHE has been regarded as a “trendy left” view which has been dismissed on largely political grounds. Therefore, I want primarily to address my Conservative Party partners in the coalition. Three aspects of PSHE should give them pause.
The first was eloquently stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. It is that huge threats to children, such as drugs and alcohol, need to be discussed seriously within schools at a very early age—the middle of primary school—and onwards if people are to realise their immense and devastating consequences on children. They have to counter great pressure from, on one side, teenage magazines and what one might call youth culture, and, on the other, the supermarket culture. That is not easy to do.
The second issue, which supersedes any political views and which I again ask my partners in the coalition to consider very seriously, is parenthood. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been famous for the way in which he has consistently argued in this House that we have neglected at our peril the parenthood of the human species, which is long in growing up. Long ago, when I was Secretary of State, I remember proposing that parenthood should be a fundamental part of sex education. In other words, the emphasis should be at least as much on the responsibilities of bringing up a child—families will devote a huge part of their energies to that process—as on sex education itself. You cannot divorce the two and in some ways we have done great harm to ourselves by doing that. We now look at what one can describe in some quarters only as an abdication of parenthood. I do not refer just to people who are economically deprived but to the many who wrongly think that money substitutes for time in the bringing up of children. There are huge lesions to be mended in our relationships with children. I strongly thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and commend him on the consistency of his arguments in this field, which desperately need to be listened to.
Finally, on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and others who said that there are insufficient qualified teachers, conceivably the coalition might think of something rather unique and announce that it is its intention to introduce compulsory PSHE—with the emphasis as I have described—in three years’ time. That would immediately attract many young people to thinking about teaching in that field. We try to do everything instantaneously. Education, like growing a tree, is a slow process, and we need to think in terms of how one can obtain responses further down the line. In this case, many young people and many others who are coming into the profession would seriously think about a responsible approach to PSHE as part of the curriculum, although it may be unwise to introduce it immediately.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I begin by commenting on both amendments; I recognise the importance of giving children and young people access to appropriate and high-quality PSHE, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and others made such a compelling and eloquent case. However, I wish mainly to speak to Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in welcoming the emphasis placed in that amendment on parenting and the need to make young people aware of the parenting responsibilities that come with bringing a child into the world and, again, I salute the work of the noble Lord in this area, especially in helping young men to come to terms with what it means to be a father.
However, I have a couple of concerns with the amendment. First, it is not clear how the resulting curriculum would be determined. Research suggests that aspects of PSHE that have to do with sex and relationships are most effective if parents are involved to the greatest possible extent. That is why the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, about engaging parents, were so well made. While the Church of England has not had a problem with statutory provision, not least with the impact that it has on teacher training provision, I am aware of those, particularly in other churches and faith communities, who feel that the engagement of parents would be more greatly advanced if it was stated explicitly that the curriculum would ultimately be determined, on an academy-by-academy basis, by governors in consultation with parents, so that this important subject is taught in a manner that is consistent with the ethos of the academy and parental wishes.
Lord Layard
My Lords, I strongly support the two amendments in this group. In the past 40 years, there have been four surveys of the mental health of 15 year-olds in Britain. These show that the number of young people suffering from emotional and behavioural problems is twice as high now as it was 40 years ago. That is a shocking fact. It is terrible for young people and for the rest of us. We are talking about the health not only of young people, but also of the society that is affected by their behaviour. If we take into account the extraordinary costs for young people and for adults of the problems of young people not knowing how to live, we cannot turn our backs on the emotional and behavioural aspects of their education. We have been moving towards a disastrous situation in which our schools have increasingly become exam factories—factories for helping people to earn a living, not to learn how to live.
It is possible to teach people how to live. This can be done not only through the school’s ethos, which is extremely important—as has rightly been stressed, this could be the most important thing—but also through structured teaching of life skills. We already know a lot about how to do this, and we are learning more. For example, the Penn Resilience Programme, now used in 30 schools in this country, has been shown to reduce teenage depression markedly, and to increase school attendance, with emotional and behavioural consequences. Many other equally effective programmes cover areas such as developing altruism, learning about healthy living and avoiding risky behaviour, learning about mental health and learning about parenting—there are programmes that teach young people how to be parents, and others that cover nearly all the topics in the QCA’s excellent programme of study for personal and social well-being.
There is also plenty of evidence of the effectiveness of sex education. For example, one striking case is the comparison between our country and the Netherlands, where sex and relationship education, including parenting, begins in primary schools. There, the teenage pregnancy rate is one-fifth of the rate in this county. Therefore, we have plenty of evidence on which to proceed.
These are difficult subjects to teach and that is why I am enormously worried about the coalition Government’s approach of leaving them to individual schools. If they are difficult to teach, the most obvious thing to do is to have a concerted programme of teacher training. That can be done only at the national level but, as many speakers have already said, it will not happen unless there is a clear statement that education in life skills is a key element in the complete education of every child.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I speak on this matter in a personal capacity and I absolutely support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I also support much of the spirit behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, although I think that it is a bit too late to provide sex and relationships education to 14 year-olds, given the hundreds of girls under the age of 14 who get pregnant every year. Good PSHE includes all the information that young people need to lead an ordinary but successful life, or even an extraordinary life. It is not academic but what are schools doing if not preparing young people for the lives that they will lead when they leave and, indeed, the lives that they lead while they are still at school?
Much has been said this afternoon about the importance of teaching about parenting, and I absolutely agree. Noble Lords may have heard about the programme in which school nurses give out baby dolls to young women. These dolls scream in the middle of the night, they need burping, they need their nappy changing and they need feeding regularly. I recently heard about one school nurse who gave out a batch of these dolls and when they came back at the end of the week most of the young girls said, “Oh my goodness. I couldn’t possibly”, apart from one who said, “It was wonderful. I can’t wait to get pregnant”, so it does not always work.
Over the years, I have said a good deal on this subject in your Lordships’ House, so, in an effort not to repeat myself, I did some new front-line research last week with two teenagers who are doing work experience in Parliament. One told me about a girl in her sister’s class at school who at the age of 13 had a one year-old baby. Both of them said that they have to go to PSHE lessons but to quote one of them, “We don’t do anything”, and to quote the other, “We watch a lot of videos”. One said, “We had a lesson on drugs recently and they just said, ‘Don’t do drugs. Drugs are bad’. It was useless”. She also told me that she did not have any sex education until she was 17 and that they do not teach about contraception or abortion in their Catholic school except in RE, where they say, “Don’t do it; it’s a sin”.
That is just not good enough. I realise that this is a very small sample of hearsay evidence but it lines up with what I have heard from many other teenagers over the years. It tell me that, first, teachers are not properly trained to deliver PSHE; secondly, teachers are not confident to teach PSHE, and that is why they rely so much on videos; thirdly, the quality of PSHE varies immensely and is very poor in some places; and, fourthly, some children are not receiving the information to which they are entitled and which protects their well-being.
The only way to deal with all those things is to make the subject part of the national curriculum in maintained schools and mandatory in academies and all other schools that do not have to follow the rest of the national curriculum. All establishments which educate children and young people have a duty to have regard to their well-being. However, they cannot do that successfully if they do not give them the information that they need to live a happy life. Young girls’ life chances are being severely affected because they may not have the information or the self-confidence to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and often the state has to pick up the bill in the interests of the young girl and, in particular, her baby. Unless children have information about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and drugs, they may unwittingly become addicted at great cost to themselves and the country before they can turn round.
Much has been said about teacher training and, as usual, my noble friend Lady Williams has put her finger on it. Fully trained teachers cannot be produced in an instant, but her suggestion that the Government should show their intention to make the subject mandatory, given sufficient time to undertake the training of new teachers in initial teacher training or CPD for existing teachers, would be a solution to that problem. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that often the subject is given to Joe Bloggs the geography teacher. In my experience, it was given to Jill Bloggs the biology teacher or, in my case, Joan Walmsley the biology teacher. I taught it but I was not properly trained and I did not have the necessary confidence. I did my best but it was a very long time ago and the problem is that that is still happening.
I know that the Government are to have a curriculum review, which will be an opportunity to look very carefully at what we teach our children in schools. We need to give them the tools for life and not just academic qualifications for work. We must redress the damage that was done before the election when this measure very nearly got into legislation, but was prevented by the vagaries of our parliamentary procedures. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that this subject will be considered during the curriculum review.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It could be argued that there is no more important element of the curriculum than PSHE. The previous Government were certainly right to propose that it should be a statutory foundation subject. There is a public, societal interest in children being educated in these areas. Moreover, I believe that it is the inescapable responsibility of Government to ensure that that happens because only the Government can ensure that all children receive education in these areas; only the Government can establish a norm; and only the Government can promote best practice across every school.
Education about relationships and sex is, of course, a very important private and parental responsibility and should be respected as such, but it cannot be the responsibility of parents alone. By definition relationships involve two people and, indeed, two families. Ignorance in sexual matters is dangerous to others. Children need support and education. They grow up in an erotically charged environment, where advertising and entertainment sexualise almost every kind of transaction; and the internet opens the window to a host of sexual possibilities regardless of who receives the messages. I am afraid that it is commonplace in our culture for human beings to be objectified, exploited and even brutalised sexually. Inescapably, children and young people witness that. If there is an age of innocence, it is all too short. For that reason and because of earlier puberty, it is essential that sex and relationship education is introduced at primary level although, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, it should be age-appropriate.
There are powerful peer pressures to experiment and to take risks, and those are stronger than the social codes that seek to protect young people from precocious sexual experiences. Children and young people are vulnerable and, therefore, they need help from an early age to understand this environment and to start to establish their own secure and confident individuality. They need education about relationships—not preachy education but education that may well be imparted through the study of literature and drama, for example. They need to learn that good relationships are characterised by respect for the other person, by sensitivity and by love. They also need to learn about the physiological facts of reproduction, the practicalities of birth control and how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. They need to be taught those matters with no euphemisms and no evasion: sexually transmitted diseases may kill. Some families are not willing to teach that to their children and some families do not know how. Therefore, it is unacceptable to leave sex education to families as a private responsibility. I believe that religious objections, for example to teaching about contraception, have to be overruled.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I cannot help but notice that Members on the coalition government Front Bench have been struggling with the brightness of the light today. I hope that that is because they have seen the light on PSHE.
Lord Greaves
Will the noble Baroness agree that the sun shines on the righteous?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Well, I am sure that we are about to find out the truth of that. I do not want to keep the Committee any longer because I know that we have a great deal of work to do today. However, I want to support my noble friends Lady Gould and Lady Massey. Both have made strong and impassioned contributions—I do not want to rehearse their strong arguments—as have my noble friends Lord Howarth and Lord Layard. I was also interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who, as ever, spoke wisely on these matters, and in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
We have debated these matters hotly at times; we certainly did so during the wash-up, when I think that things got a bit frayed. It is fair to say that what happened was not vague—the then Conservative Opposition opposed the measures in the Children, Schools and Families Bill to include PSHE following all the consultation and discussions with the faith groups, parents and specialists involved. I therefore hope that, with the confidence that the Conservative Party has in government, it will be able to think again. I hope that this is not a party-political issue, but one on which we can come together for the benefit of children currently going through the education system and more widely for our community. I hope that my noble friends will accept my support for their amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for moving the amendment and giving us the opportunity to have this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said that there had been a history of a battle in this House. However, one of the advantages about my being the new boy is that I do not yet have all those scars and am not approaching this issue as a battle. I am seeking to approach it as I do other issues, by listening to the arguments. I have heard a number of forceful and persuasive points made today.
Perhaps I can give my noble friend Lady Walmsley some reassurance. These certainly are important matters and strong views are held on both sides. Perhaps properly they will form part of a much bigger debate that I recognise we need to have as part of the broader curriculum review to which my noble friend Lady Walmsley referred. We will need to discuss all these issues—whether we need to or not, we clearly will do so—as they will be part of the legislation later in the year. There will be a proper opportunity to discuss this issue fully and at length and there will be opportunities for noble Lords to—
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Will the Minister give us a clear timetable before Report on how these deliberations will go forward? Who will be consulted and how will the practicalities of the discussions work?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure that I am able to give a very clear timetable. As part of the discussions that we need to have on the curriculum review, we need to decide how the experience and views of Members of this House can be fed in. I am happy to come back to the noble Baroness on that point. We need to work out how to do this. We have heard that there are issues to do with content as well as principle and I recognise that we will return to the matter.
I am also struck, from listening to the debate, how far sex education at school has moved on since I was at school, when I seem to remember that I had a drawing of a hen and an egg and that was it. There has clearly been some progress since then.
On the more specific and narrower point to do with academies, which is what this debate and the amendment are about, the independent schools’ standards regulations require all independent schools, including academies, to have a curriculum that includes personal, social and health education that reflects the school’s aims and ethos. Those regulations require the schools to prepare pupils adequately for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. That is important and those regulations are in place. We recognise the importance of this area to parents and pupils and believe that that is sufficient for academies to deliver an appropriate PSHE curriculum. We know that many academies already see that area as key to engaging pupils.
Amendment 70 would have the effect, which may or may not have been intended, of removing any right of parental withdrawal from sex and relationship education. I know that there is a range of views on that. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressed one set of views; I know that others will have equally strong views that parents should have the right to withdraw their children. I do not believe that creating a difference between the maintained and the academies sector by removing a right of withdrawal is justified and I am not sure that the noble Lord intended it. In any case, I hope that noble Lords will accept my reassurance that these important issues will be returned to as we think about the curriculum review more generally and that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this interesting debate. As someone said, this is not a political issue; it is about the welfare of children and about how schools deal with this important subject, as well as engaging parents. The noble Lord was lucky to have a hen and egg when he had sex education; I had to knit a uterus. I will test him on that.
As we have said, personal, social and health education is about living not just in the future but now. Children live now. Three clear issues have emerged. One is about engaging parents. Of course I agree with engaging parents in personal, social and health education. Sadly, some parents do not want to be engaged and some simply cannot. They do not talk to children about relationships or health issues. Perhaps if we taught personal, social and health education to this generation of children, they would be able to talk to their children about personal, social and health education. Let us try to break the cycle.
Another issue was trained teachers. I still maintain that, if something is statutory in the curriculum, you will get teachers trained and you will get curriculum materials circulated. If it is not statutory, you will not get that; it will be at somebody’s whim—it will be Joan Walmsley teaching whatever she was teaching at her school. There will be no curriculum materials. Both are essential.
Another important issue is saving money. It also saves potential misery. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, spoke about the misery of depression, drug use and teenage pregnancy and about the importance of breaking the cycle of deprivation.
I look forward to the curriculum review, which many noble Lords have mentioned. However, I do not want this to drag on. We could end up with it just faltering. I noted with interest the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I need to think about the question of delaying this for three years. This is an urgent issue. Children are suffering from the misery of not having the chance to discuss issues about sexual relationships, drugs, alcohol and so on. We have to get on with it.
Would the Minister be prepared to meet with a group of us to talk about this before Report, because the curriculum review will clearly not be issued before then? I intend to withdraw the amendment for now, but I will certainly return to the issue at Report if we do not get a satisfactory response.
Lord Layard
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Because I will not have an opportunity to speak later, I just wanted to say that I strongly support her suggestion.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I ask the Minister to meet with a group of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now, but I will certainly bring something back at Report unless this issue is resolved.
Lord Lucas
“( ) arrangements have been made for Ofsted to prepare annually interim reports on the school;”
Lord Lucas
I should declare an interest, in that I run the Good Schools Guide and therefore spend an inordinate amount of my time inspecting schools, or rather causing schools to be inspected, and thus have a keen interest in the topic. Inspection is a crucial aspect of the Bill. We are considering schools that will be innovative, free schools. They will be newly founded, often with untried and untested combinations of people involved, with no established sponsors or with sponsors who are relatively new to the job. That will be at a time when there is considerable pressure on the central and local systems of support provided to schools.
The lesson that we have from the United States, as I am sure Rachel Wolf has told the Minister, is that charter schools succeed when they are properly regulated and inspected. If you think about it, it is obvious. If a school starts to go wrong, you can see it. If you can catch it reasonably early on, it is not too much work to put it right. If you let it go for a year or three, you will be in serious trouble.
We are also at a time when inspection itself is up for inspection. It is clear that this Government are reviewing the inspection regime in some detail and are prepared to make big changes—not surprisingly, if they want to cut the overall budget by 25 per cent. This is a good time to look at Ofsted and to ask: does it do what it is supposed to do; could we do better; could we do it for less?
Parents want, first, a regular report from Ofsted. The idea that you wait for four, five or six years between inspections is ridiculous. You want to know what is happening this year. You want to know that the school that you are about to commit your child to is still in good condition. Secondly, if Ofsted produces an adverse report, you want support. You want to feel that, whatever the problems at the school, they are now going to be gathered together and looked after. In both those aspects, Ofsted fails miserably. Most Ofsted reports are out of date. When Ofsted puts a school into special measures—this is my experience of the process, which has always been from the outside—parents spend a month or so in ignorance and, even then, when people start to react and be supportive, Ofsted just stands on the outside throwing rocks at the school, keeping on criticising, rather than being part of the support network.
Ofsted is also clearly not what schools want. Schools want support, advice and help in steering in the right direction. They want a constructive relationship with the people involved in inspecting the school. The most recent example of that that I can think of is the old FEFC inspections under our previous Government. They had that relationship with colleges. They would inspect regularly. Subject inspectors would be in and out of the college once or twice a year. Support and advice would be coming through the college. You worried about whether you might be ticked off for something, but the general relationship was supportive. You expected that the inspectors’ visit would, on the whole, be a constructive experience.
What the Government want out of Ofsted is value for the money that they are putting in. We are a long way short of that. After a fashion, we have an effective system of calling schools to account. Spreading good practice, knowing what is going on in schools and making sure that, say, PSHE is being properly taught, even though it is not being examined, are functions of the inspectorate. By and large, I do not have criticisms on that, except that it costs far too much to get there and does far too much damage to schools.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s argument, but why does the word “interim” appear in this amendment? Should this not be consistently carried on, rather than being purely interim?
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I apologise if the wording of my amendment is not exact. It is merely there to bring up the subject of inspections and to make it clear that I want them to be regular, not just every five years or so.
There is a good model of how this could be done. Every year, we are retiring a few thousand headmasters and deputy headmasters who have immense experience and the ability to judge a school pretty rapidly—the good ones. They know how to read a school, how a school works and what to look for. They have the ability to be immensely supportive and they are not that expensive because they have pensions. They have a commitment to the job and all they want is a reasonable return for the effort that they are putting in. If we were to pay £300 a day, that might be a figure with some echoes—we do it for that. It should not surprise us that heads and others with a real vocation and dedication to helping other people are prepared to work and put in similar effort for a similar amount of money. You are not looking at a lot of money. You are looking at people whom parents and heads naturally trust. You are starting off on a pretty good basis if you are staffing your inspectorate with that sort of person.
These people could go once a year into every school—and I do say “every school”. What is the point of an inspectorate not visiting outstanding schools? How are inspectors ever going to learn what best practice is if they never go into the best schools? Part of the point of an inspectorate ought to be spreading good practice. They should be there to say, “This is what I saw the other day”, or, “Why don’t you talk to him or her about that because they seem to be getting it right?”. If all you are doing is going round the schools that are not performing well, all you can do is spread bad practice. To be an effective inspector, you need to be in touch with good practice and with what is going on in the world of good schools. A simple report to parents—a paragraph or so, to say that since the last inspection report things are progressing, this is particularly good, there is still a bit of trouble on that but, overall, we are happy—is what parents need to know that they can take a baseline from the previous Ofsted report, read through it, know that things have improved or are much as they were and take a reasonable decision. Most schools with a head who is open to ideas will benefit enormously from having someone such as that around.
Once schools have come to trust the system, you would find that they were asking for extra days. When I was a governor of a college under the old FEFC system, we were looking to have these people in more often. We would say, “We’re not doing what we should do in biology. Let’s get the biology man around to give us an extra bit of help there”. Schools, particularly primary schools, are little, isolated, lonely places. They want support and they want to have contact with people who can provide that support and good ideas. At the moment, all we have is the school improvement partner system, which is too low-level and local. We would do much better if we moved to making that part of the inspection system. I think that we could run that bit of the inspection system for about £10 million a year and have a report on every school, every year. Over and above that, you obviously need a full inspection system. Every now and again, you need to go in and do the whole works. Even if you are quite generous on the budget and say that you will spend 10 man-days on average every five years, that will cost you only £20 million or so. Then you have the central system over that.
There is an enormous obsession with data in the current central system. Collecting the data imposes immense burdens on schools. Teachers worry about measuring every aspect of every child’s performance because the school improvement partner or the inspector may pick them up on this or that, which is not constructive. You do not need to look at data on that level. Any mathematician will tell you that, apart from in pure mathematics, figures are always wrong. Figures do not provide value on their own; they provide value only in relation to what is happening on the ground. Inspections should be about the human aspect of schools: the quality of the teaching; the quality of the atmosphere; the staff; and the relationships in the school. They are things that numbers never throw any light on, although numbers can be useful in confirming what is happening.
If we were to budget £50 million a year for Ofsted as a whole, that would be enough. We could then perhaps devote another £50 million to the same organisation, perhaps, if it was running well and was focused on supporting schools that were having a hard time, bringing them round and making them straight—if it was picking up schools that had scored four and setting them right—which needs a lot of concentrated help and advice very fast. That would still be half the current budget, but it would provide about 10 times the value. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I support much of what my noble friend has said. It is desperately important to have proper monitoring of what is going on in these new and very innovative schools and to have feedback, not only to the schools—I will come to what my noble friend said about the positive nature of the feedback that is needed, which I agree with him about—but also to the Secretary of State. Ministers need to know how well the experiment is going and what adjustments are needed from time to time.
I wholly agree with my noble friend that the current Ofsted system is not what is needed and not what we are asking for. It seems to have put everything into one rather unsatisfactory basket. Ofsted inspects for health and safety issues and can fail a school on the height of its security fence. That is not the professional judgment of educational experts. The people who should be doing the assessment of the school’s success and innovation should be people who were successful professional teachers who know what they are talking about. Popping in to see whether health and safety rules are being obeyed or whether security is being maintained is not what an educationalist should be doing. There should be a firm and distinct line between that kind of inspection and the professional judgments that my noble friend so well described.
It is important that we have a cadre of people who are constantly in touch with schools. I say to my noble friend that we need more than simply a once-a-year report. Somebody should keep in touch with the school on a fairly regular basis and go in from time to time to be a shoulder on which the head can—one hopes not cry—pour out her or his ideas, thoughts and problems when they arise, and provide wisdom and judgment. As my noble friend said, they also need to be a sounding board so that the Secretary of State and Ministers can understand what is really happening in these innovative and exciting academies.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
I have a certain sympathy with this amendment, although there are question marks about how it is phrased. I have most sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has just described. We have got into a muddle with the role of Ofsted, of SIPs, of the YPLA—or before that, of the department—and where support starts and ends and inspection starts and ends. Rather too many people are going into schools, particularly schools in trouble, without being clear about who is doing what.
I totally agree that Ofsted—or any inspection regime, in a sense—must have a lot more focus and not inspect the myriad things that it is inspecting at the moment. My personal experience is that you end up getting into a panic about whether the files are in order rather than rigorously checking and really improving education in the school. That cannot be right and has to be looked at.
However, we have to be clear that Ofsted, or whatever inspection regime there is in the future, must be accountable to the community and to parents in particular. I therefore differ from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that I would not want to go back to the somewhat gooey regime in which data did not really matter. Data really matter. Without them, there is a real danger of groups of children in a school being missed and not progressed properly. By all means, let us add real intelligence to schools and give them real support, but let us not go back to the days when whole sections of kids could be left behind because we did not notice that they were not progressing.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, I was reminded of visiting a children’s home some time ago with an inspector who made the point that she had been asked to be an inspector for care homes for the elderly and had declined because she was a teacher by background. She said, “What do I know about care homes for the elderly?”. There has been an issue—I am sure that it is still an issue—of ensuring that the inspectors are the right ones for the particular institution. The inspector also said that the remit of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, for which she worked at the time, was very much about supporting and developing good-quality practice and supporting the staff. After the remit moved to Ofsted, certainly the information that I received suggested that it became very much about checking that someone had done the right thing and criticising them if they had not, but not about asking, “Have you tried this? What about that way?”, and supporting the development of better practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested using retiring teachers. The National Union of Teachers has emphasised the need to ensure the proper and continuing professional development of teachers who are already practising. It is concerned that past advice from the Department for Education—then the Department for Children, Schools and Families—was, “You shouldn’t let teachers off during the school day to get continuing professional development. They should do it at other times because we need them in the classroom”. If we could free up teachers with quite a lot of experience to spend a day in another school and take part in the sort of inspection and support arrangement that the noble Lord is discussing, that might kill two birds with one stone inasmuch as it would give them a chance to see how someone else teaches and to learn from that. They could be refreshed by that, as well as producing a report that could be useful to parents or whomever, and they could support professional development at that school. That occurs to me having recently read the information from the National Union of Teachers. No matter how much we improve the training and recruitment of teachers, most teachers are already in post and will be there for a long time, so we really have to think about their developmental needs. That is a bit of an aside.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for moving this interesting amendment. My default position when I first read it was that it was completely opposed to what the whole Bill is trying to do: to free up Ofsted inspectors so that they do not spend endless amounts of time visiting schools that are simply outstanding across the board but devote that time to schools that are failing in some areas so that those schools can be given greater attention and support. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Perry, but that was very much where I was coming from.
When I heard the debate, however, I began to move towards seeing a couple of problems that need to be explored. I wonder whether part of the solution, which probably needs to be developed a little further, should not be the partnering of a highly successful school, which is enabled to become an academy, with a failing school. What would be the format of that relationship? Could the successful school assess and supervise the failing school in the interim?
Then there is the role of the governing bodies. Often very little is said about them, but under the new arrangements they will have hugely more power, authority and responsibility. How much training are they given? When one becomes a non-executive director of a firm, there are often lots of training courses about your duties, statutory responsibilities, the pertinent questions to ask and what you should look out for. The head teacher on the first governing body of which I was a member absolutely insisted that there was never any need for a member of the governing body to come to assemblies or to visit any of the classrooms, as that was way beyond their remit. Later on academy boards, I found that the head teachers of good, successful schools went out of their way to encourage governors to experience classroom teaching, to sit in the staffroom and to talk to teachers. Do people actually know this?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that his personal experience may not be universal? As one who has had a series of non-executive directorships over the past 30 years and has served on a number of school governing bodies, I must confess that the picture he draws is not that of my experience.
Lord Bates
I defer to my noble friend’s experience, but bodies such as the Institute of Directors put on training courses and provide structured guidance for directorships, so I wonder what the equivalent is for governing bodies? Is there a body which fulfils this role?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I have also been a school governor in one form or another for getting on for 40 years. Training courses for governors are run not only by local authorities but also centrally, and they are quite detailed courses. There is also a training guide on the web. The noble Lord might like to look at the Department for Education website where he will find that under “governors” there is a sort of teach yourself course to show you what you should know to become a good governor.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, as president of the National Governors’ Association, perhaps I may be allowed to make a tiny comment. There has been a good deal of improvement in the training of school governors, but it is not uniform. I think there is a desire on the part of the National Governors’ Association to pay rather more attention to this side of things so that all governors are given some training before they start as well as ongoing training whenever that is necessary.
Lord Bates
My Lords, one of the great joys of this House is the realisation that when you raise an issue, you suddenly find several world authorities in the Chamber with the answers ready to hand, which is fantastic. I will not delay the Committee except to say this. Under the new mechanism the school will be separated from the local authority, which will not provide these functions going forward to an academy. Given that, could there be a role for the governing body of the academy to take a more detailed view—almost a form of Ofsted standards “light”—of the institution? That would provide some internal checks and balances while at the same time it would strengthen the governing body’s understanding of what is actually going on in the institution for which it is responsible.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as in so many areas, this has been an interesting debate which again has ranged further than the specific scope of the Academies Bill, and I have been struck by a number of the points made. It seems that we have been talking about three separate strands: one is to do with information for government and accountability; one is to do with support for a school; and one is to do with information for parents. In that context, if I am not puffing my noble friend Lord Lucas too much, the Good Schools Guide, which I heard him mention earlier, is a good example of how parents can be given human and anecdotal information about a school. That is an extremely informative way to find out what is going on. Generally, going forward and thinking of the ways in which parents can access more frequent and better information about their children’s schools, it is clear that this is something the Government should think about. We have said that we will try to reform the league tables to make them more relevant, but I should like to reflect on some of the points made more generally by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lady Perry outside the context of the Bill, and perhaps we could discuss them further. The question of how one gives parents information that lets them know what is going on in a school in a regular and relevant way is an interesting one which I should like to explore further.
On the specific point of the amendment, and bearing in mind some of the reservations expressed by my noble friend about Ofsted, to give that body an obligation to carry out an annual report on each academy strikes me as a little excessive. Further, the fact that such a requirement would apply only to academies and not to maintained schools seems a little odd. That said, I would be happy to discuss this further and I will not charge £300 a day for the conversation, which I think is the going rate. With that response and some reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, certainly I will withdraw the amendment but I will make one or two points first. On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, it is wonderful that we have all these data, but you can make far too much of them. I am a physicist and I have played around with data all my life; I have gigabytes of data from the Department for Education that I decorate my website with. But in the end, what is happening in a school is what matters, and all the data can tell you is that maybe there are some questions that you should ask because there are so many different ways in which a particular pattern can be accounted for. I agree that data are important, but they have been turned into something oppressive under the current Ofsted system.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
I am sorry to intervene but I do not think that is right. What the noble Lord is talking about is what can be claimed to be the obsessions about narrow forms of data that dominate a lot of inspections at the moment and therefore dominate a lot of headlines. However, the intelligent use of data in terms of tracking individual pupils is something an inspector needs in addition to all the qualitative work that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, talked about. When schools are only just starting to get there on using data in an intelligent way, it would be a retrograde step to chuck that out and return to the rather blunter instruments of the public lists which do not do the more sophisticated work that I am talking about.
Lord Lucas
Yes, my Lords, I agree that, used internally, those sorts of data are wonderful. I recall how, 15 years ago, Greenhead College in Huddersfield was one of the pioneers of such data, and it made a great difference. Even the English department was enthusiastic about it because it helped the staff to be better teachers. In a dumb world, data are great, but you do not need to inspect on them. If you do, you turn something that is a helpful internal tool into a weapon of oppression. It is a matter of getting the balance between being inspected on enough data that happen to be produced by the system and not pressurising teachers into recording every single aspect of every single child at great length and in close detail. The amount of time people are spending on this means that it is not productive. The inspectorate should not be interested in data at that level except when diagnosing a school that is clearly going wrong.
I am concerned about my noble friend’s relaxed attitude to inspection, particularly of the free schools that will be coming through under this Bill. These creatures are going to need to be looked at very carefully. As I said earlier, the New Schools Network is clear about the need for inspection, and I am clear that if you are starting up a new enterprise and you want to be proud of it rather than be landed with nasty cases where things have gone wrong and you should have known about it, you need a good system of what I call inspection but my noble friend Lady Perry would call a relationship between inspectors and schools. You need something that allows someone in authority outside the school to say, “Hang on. Something is going wrong and we need to get in and help”. If you wait for data that appear late because you need a year or two’s data before you can see the trends, a newly formed free school could be heading for trouble. So I hope that over the next year or so I will be able to convince my noble friend that going back in time and picking out the virtues of the system of which my noble friend Lady Perry was such an eminent part will be a good model to pursue. Not only can we do that, but we can save the Government a great deal of money while getting there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) the school, if it was a selective school on conversion, has a roll no larger than it was at conversion date;”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, these are probing amendments with which I hope to learn a great deal from the Minister about the Government’s intentions with regard to selection. We probably all agree that selection is a major issue in any consideration of educational matters, and I am sure the Bill will be no exception. However, the idea of a selective academy is a perversion of Labour’s view of the future of the academy scheme.
As we have already heard, the previous Government used the academy system as a means of helping struggling schools to turn round the life chances of the hardest to teach, which often meant entering an area where a local authority had let down the children it was there to serve. We gave these schools new leadership, outside expertise and relieved them from many of the requirements to co-operate as part of the local family of schools because of the challenges and experiences that those schools had undergone.
I want to learn about what the coalition Government now propose. In effect, they are saying to schools which select a small minority of the top-scoring children at 11, “Take a share of the money that the local area has been allocated to support the most vulnerable, and outbid other local schools for the best teaching staff using that same money”. Is that really what the coalition Government want to say to schools? By definition, the schools with these advantages will be less likely to need support with issues such as special needs. That is what we are looking at.
Amendment 131 seeks to deal with this criticism by insisting on provision for children of all abilities where a selective school becomes an academy. What is more, unamended, the Bill will allow such schools to expand, so we could be talking about a significant expansion of selection. The Minister has indicated that this will not be the case and I should be grateful to hear him say that now. The Prime Minister has made great claims about having changed his party. Change is good and changed it has—I am sure many would say for the better—but, despite those claims, the Conservative Party has been forced—I remain to be convinced otherwise—to introduce this Trojan horse of more selective schools. We know that Conservative MPs want some red meat on selection, but the Government risk showing that they are prepared to bargain away the aspirations of the majority in return for the acquiescence of Back-Benchers in another place. The Minister shakes his head. I look forward to hearing his response and to being reassured and convinced otherwise.
Amendment 59 seeks to remove this aspect of the Bill by preventing academy schools selecting. I admit that it is a blunt instrument—I said at the start that this is a probing amendment at this stage—but it would be, by far and away, the most satisfactory outcome.
Amendments 40A to 40F seek to deal with the second criticism: that the balance between selective and non-selective schools could be disrupted, without any community consultation, by schools converting to academy status and then expanding whether through different age groups or intake.
Lord Bates
Can the noble Baroness confirm that selection was included in the concept of academies introduced by her Government; that you could select 10 per cent on the basis of the specialism of the academy? That was in the Education Acts of 2006 and 2002.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the 10 per cent based on aptitude, which is a different paradigm—I am not sure whether that is the right word. These are probing amendments and I want to hear what the coalition Government’s intentions are on selection. I am sure that we will all be interested to know.
As with the discussion on the admissions code earlier in Committee, Amendments 130 and 183 will reassure those who are concerned that schools could convert under existing admissions procedures—which may erode over time—with no statutory safeguard against it. Many people outside the Chamber are asking these questions. The amendments would ensure that, in future, no non-selective school could use academy status to become selective.
Indeed, others have expressed this concern from another perspective. The Guardian newspaper reported the views of the National Grammar Schools Association. It stated in regard to academies:
“There may be other covert dangers and, until everything is made clear in the area of legislation and elsewhere, we strongly recommend extreme caution. If necessary, please seek advice from the NGSA before making decisions that may later threaten your school”.
The head of the NGSA said he was concerned that if a grammar school became an academy, it could then be run by a small group of people who might decide to change the admissions procedure. The article continued:
“‘What is the protection for the parents?’, he asked. ‘Does there have to be a ballot? Does it become an all-ability intake?’”
The National Grammar Schools Association is unclear about the coalition Government’s intentions. I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could set out, with great clarity, their vision for the future of selection in academies.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 43 and 46. I can address them briefly because I agree overwhelmingly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, has said. It is recognised that in part of the coalition at least—I hope in the whole of the coalition—there is a quiet passion to ensure that the extension of the academy principle, which is strongly supported all around the House, should not inadvertently become a cause of further problems for the least privileged part of our secondary education system. As the noble Baroness said, all the amendments, including mine, are designed to obtain from the Minister a “battened down” statement, if you like, that will allay these anxieties.
On Amendment 43, and wearing my lawyer’s hat, a characteristic in subsection (1)(6)(c) is that,
“the school provides education for pupils of different abilities”.
A lawyer could make hay with “different abilities”. It could be that a school would satisfy this test if in future it was going to select the top 10 per cent and the second top 10 per cent. They would be of “different abilities”. It could pass the test if it were to select the top 5 per cent and those with tap-dancing abilities. Those would be “different abilities”. I caricature my point to make it, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I hope that I can provide the reassurance that my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked for.
However, before I try to do so, I would like to pick up on the noble Baroness’s use of the word “perversion”, which I know is a word that has been used before in the context of the development of this policy. “Perversion” is a strong word with a particular weight, and I make the point that I have made before: it was clear from the 2005 White Paper, produced by the Government of whom she was a member, that it was an aspiration that the academies programme would be rolled out far further, and the then Prime Minister was looking forward to the time when all schools would be able to opt out of local authority control. So to caricature our proposals as a perversion is a slightly strong use of language.
I come to the heart of the noble Baroness’s question. The Bill does not allow for any increase in selection by ability in the state-funded sector. That said, we think that the freedoms that academy status can bring should be applied to all groups of schools and not denied to any in particular. We do not believe that they should be restricted to failing maintained schools; instead, we should extend that more broadly.
Amendment 40A seeks to make it a characteristic of an academy that was formerly a selective school that it does not expand following conversion to academy status. As the noble Baroness has set out, Amendments 40B to 40F seek to place a limit so that they cannot expand their role beyond a particular percentage.
The Bill contains provisions that allow selective maintained schools to retain academic selection but it does not allow for new selection. If accepted, the amendment would mean that successful grammar schools and successful partially selective schools would not be able to meet local demand for places if they converted to become academies.
With regard to a cap, as things currently stand, maintained grammar and partially selective schools are allowed to publish expansion proposals under Section 18 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and the 2007 prescribed alteration regulations. Proposals are needed only if an expansion of over 25 per cent is planned, so any expansion below this level could be achieved through the normal admissions consultation. Provisions within the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 prevent any new selection from being adopted within maintained schools that were not already selective, and those 60 or so partially selective schools are also prevented from increasing the proportion of selective places.
Given that maintained selective schools are currently able to expand up to that point, to prevent them from doing the same thing as academies, as the noble Baroness’s amendments would suggest, would be more restrictive than the current regime within which they operate, and I cannot believe that that was her intention. Consequently, our wish is only to offer similar options on expansion to schools converting to academy status as are currently offered to maintained schools. We are seeking to maintain the status quo in that respect.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
It is important for me to understand how the status quo will be measured. How is selection defined? How will the Minister measure if there has been any change, and how will he monitor that? What is his plan to ensure that this is not a Trojan horse, or a back-door route to increasing selection?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will come on to deal with that, if I may. If it would be helpful, I am happy to set out in writing for the noble Baroness as clearly as I am able what I consider the safeguards to be. I recognise that many people are concerned about this point, and I want to try to nail that down for her.
As would currently be the case with any proposals for expansion of a grammar in the maintained sector, local groups would have to be consulted before any expansion, and that would persist with academies. We will continue to ensure that the proportion of selective places in partially selective academies does not increase.
Amendment 43 would make it a condition of being an academy that it provided for children of all abilities as opposed to children of different abilities, the point that my noble friend Lord Phillips raised.
If we were to accept Amendment 43, I am advised that national testing would be necessary to ensure that academies all had intakes of all abilities across the country and admissions would have to be manipulated to ensure that all abilities were represented. We do not think that that is proportionate; maintained schools are not required to go as far. There will be circumstances where those who apply for admission to a particular academy do not represent all abilities, although they would represent a wide range of different abilities representative of the area.
Amendment 132 would require academies to provide for children of different academic abilities as opposed to children of different abilities. Section 99 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 defines “ability” as
“either general ability or ability in any particular subject or subjects”.
It is clear, in our view, that what is meant by “pupils of different abilities” within Clause 1(6) is the meaning that is already established within legislation: pupils with a range of different general abilities or achievements. This interpretation is supported by the relief from this duty in Clause 5(3) for existing grammar schools wishing to convert to become academies. Such a relief would not be necessary if “ability” did not encompass academic ability.
Amendments 46, 59, 131 and 183 would require any existing maintained grammar school or partially selective school to remove its selective admissions arrangements on conversion to academy status. To deny existing selective schools these freedoms, or to require them fundamentally to change their nature before being granted them, seems to be unreasonable.
Amendment 130 seeks to prevent any non-selective school that converts to become an academy from acquiring selective admission arrangements after conversion. On that point, I reassure noble Lords that Clauses 1(6)(c), 5(3) and 5(4) of the Bill prevent academies from selecting by academic ability, except where a maintained school with pre-existing academic selection converts to become an academy.
I should be clear that the only schools that will be able to select by ability are those listed in Clause 5(4). As the schools defined as “selective” within that clause do not include independent schools, any independent schools joining the academies sector will also not be able to select by academic ability.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Will my noble friend be open to at least thinking about a rewording of Clause 1(6)? He made a fair point about my amendment, but wording that is more clearly contrary to selection could be put in that subsection instead. That would resolve a miasma of anxiety around the Committee.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand that miasma of anxiety. I am due to meet my colleague shortly, and perhaps that is another issue that we can add to our list of issues to discuss.
As I said, I think it would be helpful if I set this out clearly in writing; as I go through this, I am conscious that some of it is quite technical. I shall write to the noble Baroness and put copies in the Library, and I hope that will help. In the mean time, in light of the explanation and the reassurance that I have sought to give, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to receiving a fuller response in writing. I am sure that the letter will also be placed in the Library.
Given the academy provisions that already exist in law, it seems that the only point of bringing forward this Bill is to enable selective academies. I suppose that that is why one might choose to use quite strong terms. Having been a member of a Labour Government who made such a success of academies and having seen the transformation in the education that young people around the country have received, I feel very disappointed that the Government are not only starting with currently outstanding schools but taking the trouble to introduce selection into the academy programme. As I said, however, I look forward to hearing further from the Minister.
The Bill introduces selection, removes consultation and joins the free-school, free-market experiment by introducing a new funding mechanism for academies. I still feel very anxious about what it is trying to do given that, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said at the start of Committee, strong provisions already exist in law. In theory, apart from those provisions, there should not be a great difference—but these are really significant differences. The Minister needs to recognise the strength of feeling about these issues around the country. People have great concern about how we should go forward.
However, I made it clear that these were probing amendments. I look forward to understanding more about the Minister’s intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, these technical amendments in my name are intended to correct errors in the Bill. I have already written to Peers to bring this matter to their attention. These amendments have no practical impact on the Bill or on how it operates.
Amendment 41 corrects a typographical error in the drafting of Clause 1, which refers to “agreement” when it should refer to “arrangements”. “Academy arrangements” is a generic term for funding under both “Academy agreement”, in Clause 1(2)(a), and “arrangements for Academy financial assistance”, in Clause 1(2)(b).
Amendments 185, 186 and 192 are technical amendments designed to reflect the fact that amendments to Section 337 of the Education Act 1996 made by Section 142(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are already in force. The Bill currently also amends the predecessor provision. The amendments merely correct these errors. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
“( ) if the school provides nursery or primary education, its curriculum for children under five years old is the Early Years Foundation Stage;”
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 53 and 54 in the same group. Amendment 52 probes the Government’s intentions with regard to the education and care of young children in nursery and reception classes in primary and all-through academy schools. It also seeks commitment from my noble friend the Minister that academies will be expected to provide the balance, age-appropriateness and play base of the early years foundation stage to very young children.
Many children under five are now in primary schools' nursery and reception classes and it is essential that their teachers are qualified and experienced in the early years. The early years foundation stage—which I shall call the EYFS, although that is not that much shorter—provides much needed unity of principle and purpose across the range of settings. It offers a single framework to ensure quality, equality of opportunity and safeguarding. There is a real commitment among early-years professionals to this agenda.
The EYFS was introduced in the Childcare Act 2006 and has been a statutory requirement for all providers of education and care to zero to five year-olds since September 2008. It provides a clear statutory framework and standards, and although it is relatively new, its ideas, standards and approach are not. It has grown out of a long tradition of providing education and care for babies and young children under five years old and attempts for the first time to ensure that, wherever children are educated and cared for, they and their families can expect the same standard of education and care. I give credit to the previous Government for its introduction. Although I feel that it is time to renew it in the light of experience, as it is too prescriptive, it is generally a good thing and should be adhered to by all providing education to this age group.
Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum for primary and secondary schools, but it is not clear what the intention is in relation to under-five year-olds in nursery and reception classes. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister the following questions. How many of the current all-through academies provide education for under-fives and, of those, how many follow the early years foundation stage? Is it the Government’s expectation that primary academies should follow the early years foundation stage for under-fives? How will the Government ensure that under-fives receive age-appropriate, play-based education in primary academies?
Amendment 53 probes the Government’s intentions for inspection of new academies in relation to education for young children under the early years foundation stage. The Secretary of State has indicated his intention to grant academy status automatically to schools deemed to be outstanding by Ofsted, alongside an intention generally to exempt those outstanding schools-turned-academies from further inspections. However, in relation to the EYFS and provision for under-fives, I am particularly concerned about removing academies from the inspection framework, given that inspection under the EYFS is relatively new and that the main driver behind the EYFS is to improve quality and standards in early childhood education and care. I am also concerned that the emphasis on engagement with parents in the current inspection framework may be lost, with detrimental effects on some schools’ commitment to engage with all parents, which is so important at nursery age.
Under the law, all providers of education and care to under-fives must be registered on the early years register of providers and must meet the legal welfare, learning and development requirements as set out in Section 40 of the Childcare Act 2006 and associated regulations in order to remain registered.
However, schools providing for children aged three to five are exempt from the register, and EYFS provision is inspected within the main schools inspection framework. Maintained, independent and non-maintained special schools are required to be registered only in respect of any provision they offer for children below the age of three, in recognition of the need for extra safeguards for the youngest and most vulnerable children. Can my noble friend explain how young children’s welfare, safeguarding, learning and development will be quality-assured in academy schools?
Perhaps I may draw one related matter to the Minister’s attention. If there is a problem in the early years setting, there is currently a practice of the proprietors deregistering it and opening it up again as a different business, thereby expunging the history of the problematic incident and making it impossible for Ofsted to inspect whether the failings that led to it have been corrected. Indeed, some places have been reregistered several times. I give as an example the case of a nursery in Chigwell, where the two year-old daughter of Mrs Shatl Malin was accidentally hanged in the playhouse where she had been unattended for 20 minutes. The proprietors have reregistered the setting, and the parents have therefore no closure or explanation and no assurances that no such thing can ever happen again. While we have the opportunity in this Bill, I should like to ensure that no academy offering early years education can walk through this loophole by deregistering.
On Amendment 54, one of the best aspects of recent workforce development is the importance of an integrated approach to working with children and families. This is exemplified in the children’s centre model. Again, I give credit to the previous Government for introducing this way of working. In children’s centres, children under five years old and their families can receive seamless integrated services and information. These services vary according to centre, but may be very wide and serve the real needs of families. Indeed, the coalition Government intend to locate a lot more health visitors in them, which I support. I would not want the independence of academies to pull children out of the integrated structures developed under the Every Child Matters agenda, which all parties supported. This is particularly relevant in relation to safeguarding issues. Will my noble friend the Minister clarify what support will be available to academies in developing safeguarding policies and in their implementation? What connections will academies have to children’s trusts and local safeguarding children boards and what impact will there be on children’s centres and extended services where they are co-located with primary schools wanting to apply for academy status? I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support the thrust of the noble Baroness’s amendments. Having visited several nurseries in the course of the Childcare Bill and followed the debates about the early years foundation stage, I believe that it is vital to have good-quality early years care. There is a real challenge in achieving that in this country; we start so far behind the Scandinavians. We have not had a strategy until recently in this area. Many of those working in it are poorly educated and poorly paid young women, and there is often a very high turnover of staff. The settings in schools may be different to that general picture, but I ask noble Lords to put themselves into the shoes of a three year-old being cared for by a woman who then goes—then another one comes and goes, and another one comes. That is a very black picture. I am sure that it is not generally the case, but there is that danger.
The early years foundation stage really helps in setting out clearly what the expectation should be and what these children should receive. In particular, every child in the nursery should have a key person. That should be the person who makes the relationship with the parent of the child and follows that child, changes the nappies and looks after that child. Others will have to take their place from time to time but, rather than the child being passed around from person to person, there is someone there with a particular special relationship with that child. That is an easy thing to lose if there are lots of poorly trained and poorly supported people and there is a high turnover of staff. Given the vulnerability of the children and the challenges to the sector, I would appreciate the reassurance of the Minister that this clear framework for practice in this area will be applied to those children in future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I lend my support to these amendments, which I know at this stage are probing. I am very proud of the achievements of the last Government in relation to the under-fives and I acknowledge the kind remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. However, the fact is that millions of children have had a better start to life thanks to the considerable investment in free nursery education for all three to four year-olds and the creation of so many Sure Start children’s centres. My concern, which is shared by the Early Childhood Forum and others, is that it would appear that the authors of the Bill have given little thought to its effects on three to five year-olds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked a number of very important questions including about the risk of removing academies from the inspection framework for the under-fives, the issues around welfare and safeguarding and the loophole over reregistration. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, put his finger on some of the important workforce challenges that this sector faces, including issues about the lack of experience of many staff working in the sector. That is why it is so important to maintain the integrity of the early years foundation stage. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that his department has thought very carefully about these matters around early years. If not, perhaps he can give us some hope that there will continue to be national safeguards and infrastructure to ensure that attention is given to the points raised by noble Lords. This is an important matter and we will come back to it on Report if we are not satisfied that it will be dealt with effectively.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I understand the points that have been made, particularly those made very forcefully by my noble friend Lady Walmsley about the need to be clear about arrangements for the very youngest in our schools. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, too, in that regard. I know how much work my noble friends have done in this area, and I hope I can give some reassurance that the key safeguards they seek are already in place.
Amendment 52 would require academies that teach the under-fives to teach them the early years foundation stages of the national curriculum. Although I agree with my noble friends’ intention in this amendment, I would suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because academies are already required, under the Childcare Act 2006, to provide the early years foundation stage. That is spelled out explicitly in their funding agreement. This stage is more than just a curriculum, as it covers much broader outcomes for very young children, including issues such as social skills.
Amendment 53 would require academies to register as early years providers. The Childcare Act 2006 sets out the detailed circumstances in which some academies, as independent schools, are required to register on the early years register. It is not appropriate to require all academies providing nursery or primary education to register as early years settings if they do not necessarily meet the precise, detailed requirements for registration that the Childcare Act lays down. Some will meet those requirements, and will be required to register, but others will not. It is a complex area, but it is covered by the Childcare Act and academies are covered by that.
Amendment 54 is intended to ensure that academy Sure Start centres continue to provide integrated children’s centre services. We would certainly encourage schools with such centres to apply to become academies, as we would want them to continue to provide the excellent services they currently do. The particular circumstances would need to be worked through with the department by any school that had a Sure Start centre when it applied for academy status, but that is certainly something that we would want to discuss with them. It would require decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, and we would prefer to have that flexibility rather than make particular mention of them in the Bill. I understand my noble friends’ concerns about the future of these important children’s centres in schools, and I recognise the progress made in recent years on that. However, any issues which will inevitably arise in each case will be carefully considered as part of the conversion process. We certainly do not want to lose the progress that has been made.
I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords and that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw her probing amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for his reply and other Members of the Committee for their contributions. I am gratified that he is able to tell me that Amendment 52 is unnecessary, because the early years foundation stage will be taught. I will have to go away and look again at the detail of that. On Amendment 53, I am not quite clear what the Minister was saying. He said that some settings will be required to register and are already, and that some will not. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to write to me and clarify that, because I did not quite understand the reasons—perhaps he did not really go into them—why some do not need to register and will not. If they are to provide the education for that age group, I would have thought that they all had to be treated the same, because it really is important that the standard is kept up. That is what particularly concerns me.
Concerning the Sure Start centres, my noble friend suggested that they should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I would have thought that those current centres are so proud of their reputation—and jealous to guard it—that if they felt that in applying to become an academy they would lose that multi-agency, multi-professional ethos, they simply would not apply. I certainly hope that they would not, anyway. I will have to look rather carefully at my noble friend’s reply to see whether I need to probe him any further, but I would be grateful if he could write a more detailed response on my Amendment 53 and put a copy in the Library, because I really did not quite understand it. However, in the mean time I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 52 withdrawn.
Amendments 53 to 60 not moved.
Amendment 60A
“( ) the school offers a guarantee of minimum educational standards to pupils and parents (a pupil and parent guarantee) as set out in schedule (Pupil and parent guarantees)”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I shall briefly give the coalition Government another opportunity to think again about the events that took place during the wash-up. The Committee will be well aware of the Labour Government’s commitment to deliver for parents and pupils a guarantee around the quality and style of education delivered to them through our schools around the country, so we now turn to the amendments in relation to the pupil-parent guarantee for academies.
Amendments 60A and 170A would restore the guarantees that we on this side of the Committee aimed to provide for pupils and parents. Those guarantees were, sadly, blocked by the Conservative Party during the negotiations between our two parties on the legislation outstanding before Parliament in the run-up to the last election. Those guarantees would have given pupils and parents assurances of a decent education whatever school they attended, so that every local school would be a good school, delivering minimum standards for all.
We set it out in statute that the guarantees should include: catch-up support in the three Rs for primary school pupils or for those starting secondary school who fall behind, which would have included one-to-one tuition and small group work; online information for parents on their child’s behaviour, progress and attainment; a named personal tutor for every secondary school pupil; guarantees on school behaviour through home-school agreements; the right to learn triple sciences at GCSE; a guarantee of regular sport and exercise; and the opportunity for every primary school pupil to learn a musical instrument—on which, if the Minister wants to see that as my contribution toward Amendment 68, then in the interests of time I am happy if he wants to come back to me on musical tuition in his response here.
This is about giving parents and pupils the information and the awareness of what they can expect from their school system, so that no child should miss out and so that every school should be a good school. Now, we have heard a great deal from the coalition Government about the desire to empower parents and to give more power to communities. Of course, we very much want that, so I will be very interested to hear how the noble Lord can build on the work that we did in government to make sure that the best really is on offer for all our children in our schools.
Baroness Walmsley
The noble Baroness invites my noble friend to return to the days of an old new Labour Government; I do not agree with her. Actually, we did not agree with her at the time. We spoke against these pupil-parent guarantees as being motherhood and apple pie without any legal levers at all, so she will not be surprised to learn that we do not support her amendment.
Lord Bates
Indeed, the guarantees were not just without any meaningful evidence as to what they actually meant, but without any resources so that teachers would be able to undertake that additional, onerous responsibility.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
If I might add another voice from the Back Benches: to try to guarantee to every parent that their child will have an ideally good school—what a wonderful thought that would be. People have been trying ever since the end of the Second World War to provide a good school for every child; successive Governments have not succeeded in doing so. There are still an awful lot of schools which fail an awful lot of children, so to try to put into legislation a promise to parents that they will have a good school for their child is really an absurd suggestion.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, when my children were at primary school I recall the primary head teacher telling me with great joy one day that there had been a very large package delivered in the school playground. They were not sure where it came from and had asked the police to inspect it. They had indeed blown it up; it was 400 pages of further instructions from the Department for Education. Of course, we agree with many of the aspirations set out in the proposed new schedule but, as the noble Baroness will have heard from behind the Front Bench, we are committed to giving schools more freedoms to get on with the job, with fewer detailed instructions taking less time away from teachers for teaching. What she is suggesting is very much the kind of approach that we want to move away from.
As my noble friend Baroness Walmsley and others have said, writing things down on paper and spending a long time negotiating them does not necessarily make them happen. We therefore share the aspirations but not the method. For most of us on this side of the Committee, part of what was wrong with education policy under the previous Government was the overdetailed instructions and prescriptions to schools, which we all know that teachers grew intensely to dislike. The aim of this Bill and of the Bills which will follow it—a larger Bill is promised for this autumn—is to free teachers to talk with parents and deal with pupils, and not to spend an immense amount of time with pieces of paper and negotiations. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, of course I listened with great interest to the noble Lord’s contribution. The pupil and parent guarantees were actually about empowering parents and pupils so that they can ensure that, in partnership with their schools and their local authority or academy trust, they can get the things that they need for their children. It is about looking at the education service that this country provides from a bottom-up perspective—looking at it from the point of view of the parent and child and of what goes on in the classroom. If we think back to Second Reading, how chastened might the coalition Government perhaps have felt when my noble friend Lady Morris criticised them for focusing so much on structure? Here we have a chance for them, just for a moment, to think about one-to-one tuition, for example. What has happened to one-to-one tuition? We have gone from a situation where the Government were committed to guaranteeing it in statute, with a process through local government—
Baroness Walmsley
Will the noble Baroness be patient until the pupil premium comes along?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I cannot wait for the opportunity to discuss the pupil premium. There we have a real chance to see how the grand words will unfold into real benefits for pupils in schools. That is what I am interested in and what the pupil guarantee was all about. That is what this focus on structure and structural tinkering leaves wanting, which is what I am concerned about. I am very interested to debate how the pupil premium will work. An awful lot rests on what the pupil premium delivers—not just for disadvantaged pupils in this country, but for the coalition Government. I am happy at this stage to withdraw my amendment and I look forward to the debate continuing.
“( ) An Academy must operate in partnership with its local authority, and the maintained schools in that local authority area, on arrangements for the permanent exclusion of pupils.”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I will focus now on exclusions, which are always a key issue for schools, as we know. I am sure noble Lords will agree that exclusions by the academies proposed in the Bill will be no exception. There are many reasons why academies are more likely, historically, to exclude a greater proportion of their pupils than other maintained schools, especially in the early years of their creation. Often, when we look at the data on academies, it appears that by definition they result in a higher level of exclusions. However, we should not expect that those challenging schools which convert to academies under the old scheme would not have higher exclusion rates than other schools. That is the situation of the past. The figures show that exclusions tend to rise in the early days but fall as academies become more established. This is an example of how successful academies have been. In part this is because we have insisted—and this is key—that academies participate in local behaviour partnerships.
The then Department for Children, Schools and Families published revised guidance about behaviour and attendance partnerships for schools on 31 March 2010. The main provisions take account of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which makes it a requirement for all maintained secondary schools and academies to co-operate and form behaviour and attendance partnerships to improve behaviour and tackle persistent absence among pupils. That is the present situation. The partnerships must also report annually on their progress to the children’s trust board, which is in flux at the moment. These provisions will, I believe, come into force on 1 September 2010, unless the Minister is going to advise us of a different situation. By working in partnership on such issues, rather than working in isolation, schools could achieve great benefits—the benefits of shared physical and financial resources and people; the joint commissioning of the provision of shared expertise; and the sharing of knowledge of effective practice between schools. Those schools in behaviour partnerships are asked to work together to seek a reduction in differential rates of permanent exclusion or persistent absence of pupils with SEN, pupils from a particular ethnic minority group or pupils who are eligible for free school meals.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I am unhappy about these amendments on several counts. First, they seem to impose, again, external restrictions on academies, whereas the whole object of the Bill is to take away all the impositions that have been put on them. Secondly, Amendment 72 would give the local authority an overriding say in the exclusion of pupils. Surely, if a school is to be free and able to manage its own affairs, it should not have to operate in partnership with a local authority that no longer has any statutory or financial authority over it.
I have discussed these amendments with the principal of one academy, who assures me that academies are happy to operate independently and in informal collaboration with other schools in their area, though not necessarily within the same local authority, particularly over aspects of their work which might well affect those other schools. For example, if a pupil is excluded from an academy, it might well be that another school would be the better and right place for that pupil to go. In that case there is nothing to stop Fred, the principal of one academy, calling Mary, the principal of a maintained school, and saying, “Look, we’ve got a lad here who isn’t fitting into the academy well and is behaving very badly. We’re intending to exclude him; would you be willing to take him on?”, and so on. Trusting professionals in the service to do sensible things and work together on a collegiate and happy basis is far more likely to work than all this imposition of things from outside and putting them in legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on the lack of trust which this kind of amendment suggests.
The Earl of Listowel
The reassuring words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, are very helpful. When I visit special institutions for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties or children’s homes, I am concerned that often one finds that the children with the most severe difficulties are pooled together in one place. They become difficult to manage, difficult for each other, and difficult for those who are caring for them. When comparing Denmark and this country, one of the differences is that Denmark intervenes and takes children into care earlier. Children’s homes are used more and there is more of a mixed bag of children in them. Thus, the temperature of the place is lowered. As a result of this provision, I would not want to see the most difficult children pushed into one place. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that further thought will be given to how we can support head teachers in academies and non-academies to work together. For example, a small amount of resources could be put into a yearly local get-together where such people would be able to speak to and to meet each other.
Baroness Wilkins
Amendment 97 does not sit easily with the other two amendments in this group and is on a separate area. Therefore, we are moving on. This probing amendment seeks firm reassurance from the Government on how the Academies Bill may impact on specialist support services for children with low-incidence special educational needs and disabilities. I am focusing my remarks on specialist support services for deaf children, but these issues are applicable to other children with low-incidence needs, such as those with visual impairments.
The National Deaf Children’s Society, to which I am indebted for its advice on this issue, estimates that there are more than 35,000 deaf children in England, of whom 90 per cent attend mainstream schools. However, deafness is a low-incidence need. As a result, in many schools it may be many years before a deaf child enrols. The reality is that deaf children are spread unevenly in mainstream schools across any one area. There is no reason why a deaf child cannot achieve as well as their hearing friends, provided that they get the support that they need from the start. This support is normally provided through local authority specialist support services, which cover a wide range. They include providing the school with amplification equipment, such as microphones; ensuring that there are follow-up checks and maintenance; training mainstream teachers on how to support deaf children; and, most importantly, providing direct support to families to help with pre-school language development.
These services are normally funded by the local authority, but academies will be independent from them. I am therefore seeking reassurance that deaf children will still receive the support that they need in a school system with a greater number of independent academies. Currently, in local authority maintained schools, schools funding is allocated to local authorities by the Government. While most of the money is then delegated to schools, local authorities will usually retain or top-slice some money to fund services, such as the specialist support services for deaf children. The service then provides outreach support free of charge to all local authority maintained schools in its area. Where a school becomes an academy, any money retained or top-sliced will be taken away from the local authority and given straight to academies, which will be expected to buy in any specialist support that their pupils will need. But if a child has a low-incidence need, such as deafness, the cost of meeting this specialist support to one individual academy will be proportionately greater. The economies of scale that operate at a local authority level will not exist at individual academy level. I am deeply concerned that any extra funding that academies receive will not cover the costs for these necessary services, which may result in deaf children not getting the support that they need. This is not a theoretical risk.
The National Deaf Children’s Society is already aware of a number of cases in existing academies where deaf children have gone without the support that they need. Last year, when the NDCS did a survey of local authority specialist support services for deaf children, it asked whether any academies in their areas bought in support for any deaf children who were enrolled at those academies. I am shocked that nearly three-quarters of academies did not buy in any support, which raises alarm bells as to how deaf children in these academies are being supported, if at all. Surely, that is an inefficient way of funding specialist support services for deaf children. This top-slice money that academies will receive will go to all academies, even if they do not have a deaf child on their rolls. Does the Minister share my concern that this will be poor value for money?
My amendment aims to address these concerns. The first part would amend the School Finance (England) Regulations 2008 with the intended effect of moving funding for specialist support services for low-incidence special educational needs from the schools budget to the core LEA budget. This would prevent funding for specialist support services for low-incidence needs being top-sliced and spent inefficiently in the way in which I have described. I would welcome a statement from the Minister on how the department will address this matter.
I am all too aware that local authority specialist support services in some areas are not as good as they should be. For that reason, the second part of the amendment would also give the Secretary of State the power to make alternative arrangements if this is the case. I believe that the Government need to take urgent action to set up a working group to consider whether alternative arrangements, such as parent-led services, might offer a better way in those areas of delivering such services. I urge the Minister to ensure that any such working group includes representatives of children with low-incidence needs as well as their parents.
However, any alternative arrangements need to be carefully thought through and planned to ensure continuity in the service that deaf children receive. It is not good enough simply to throw our cards in the air and hope for the best. Government figures show that deaf children are already 42 per cent less likely to do as well in their GCSEs as other children. It is vital that this Bill helps us to ensure that deaf children get the support they need, regardless of the type of school they attend. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on this. Should he not do so, I will return to this issue on Report.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I very much support the probing amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Wilkins. I agree with my noble friend and I am glad that she indicated that it is not suitably grouped. I share her concerns over the impact of the Academies Bill on specialist support services for low-incidence special educational needs and disabilities. I also am grateful to the National Deaf Children’s Society for its briefing.
In particular, I am concerned about the impact of the Bill on outreach services to pre-school children. Parents are at the heart of a child’s learning, as we would all agree, but the parents of a child with special educational needs or a disability need extra help, as well as the child. In many cases, this extra help is provided by the local specialist support services. We have heard about the important role that local authorities play in that. For example, the parents of children with communication difficulties need guidance and support on how to communicate effectively with their child. Without such support, it would be far more difficult for these children to acquire language and to develop communication skills at the same rate as their peers. A huge responsibility rests with helping the parents.
We risk condemning children with these communication difficulties to a life of underachievement before they even begin school. We have already heard from my noble friend Lady Wilkins just how far behind they can fall if they do not have early access to the services they need. Almost certainly, when such children start school, the school they attend will be forced to provide costly catch-up support.
There is a range of other pre-school services that families of other disabled children will find invaluable. I am very concerned that if funding for these services is delegated to academies, they may be unable or unwilling to invest in pre-school services. I am also concerned that it may be unsustainable for existing providers to do this if much of their funding is reduced as a result of the Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Wilkins, I would warmly welcome reassurance from the Minister that the Bill will not risk undermining these valuable pre-school services for disabled children. We are all urging the earliest possible testing for special needs. If ever there was a need, it is for this group of children.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
I shall direct my comments to Amendment 72, although I also support Amendment 73. On this occasion, I shall disagree as strongly as I might with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
Of all the freedoms that academies may be granted, it is the freedom not to take part in the education of vulnerable excluded children that worries me most. This amendment is important and, if we do not pass it, we do so at our peril. Quite frankly, academies are not queueing up to take these excluded children. The children are often difficult to teach, they come from homes with difficulties, they do not do anything for the school in terms of its position in the league tables or its Ofsted inspection and they do not improve the school’s social image. Let us say it as it is: these kids are not top of the pecking order in terms of schools wanting to take them on.
We also know that traditionally we have dealt poorly with these children. If they go to a pupil referral unit, all the evidence is that they are very rarely reintegrated into the mainstream education system, they do not pass their exams, they do not continue in education, they do not fulfil their potential and they do not carry on to university or have the life chances that they might have. That is the problem that we are trying to solve.
This problem started in my day—and one knows how one becomes precious over things that began when one was in the department, so I apologise for that. Co-operation has now been built among schools so that they say two things—that their prime responsibility is to their children but that there is a generosity of spirit that accepts an obligation towards children in the community. That has meant that schools have had that generosity of spirit and have been prepared to take other children on to their rolls, rather than having them excluded to a pupil referral unit. That is my first point: if you can keep an excluded child or a child who is not settling in school within mainstream education, that has to be better than excluding them from mainstream education. That will not happen if you leave it just to market forces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made an interesting point when she talked about an academy phoning another school to say, “We have a child who does not seem to be settling or fitting in here. Will you take them?”. That is the way it will be. The middle-class schools that are already full will be able to say, “No, because we are full”, while the schools that will have to, by law, say yes are those that serve deprived areas. Those that have spare places will have to take on such children. The schools will already have children such as those, whom they will be working their socks off not to exclude, and they may not have the capacity to deal with these children.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that principals of academies may well share our concern for the most deprived and difficult children. The principals of academies whom I have talked to have expressed every bit as much concern and care for the difficult and disadvantaged children in society as we have in this House, who do not have to run schools. There seems to be a kind of arrogance on our part in assuming that, unless we control the schools, put things in legislation and make them do it, they will not of their own free will wish to do the right thing.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
But the evidence is on my side. The number of exclusions by academies is very great, while the number of children at risk of exclusion by non-academies being taken in by academies is very small. That is why the amendment is important. This is not about the Government saying to schools, “You must do this, that or the other”; it is about a partnership that already exists. We are not instructing schools to form these partnerships; they exist already. The schools work together and make professional judgments. There are times when a child needs to be out of a school. Such children do not settle, the relationships are broken and the damage is done. They need to be elsewhere. The best system is when schools, through generosity of spirit and professional judgment, almost come to an arrangement to help each other out. By doing so, they also help children out.
The only point of including the local authority in the amendment is that someone has to broker the arrangement. I do not care who it is. All that the local authority does is broker the partnership that provides this better way of dealing with excluded children. The local authority cannot tell a school to take a child—and that is good. All that the local authority does is hold the ring for families of schools to make professional judgments about where these excluded children should go. My prediction, which I know is accurate, is that if academies are allowed to exclude themselves from this partnership of schools that deal with these most vulnerable children, a lot of academies will do exactly that and the burden will fall on schools that are not academies but are still in the partnerships.
I have listened carefully to the Minister. As well as emphasising independence, he has emphasised partnership. Academies under his Government have to partner with an underperforming school to raise standards. What better way is there of cementing that relationship and philosophy than by his Government also saying that academies should stay in the partnership and play their part in making sure that we deal with our excluded children as effectively as we can? We have not done that well in the past, but the partnerships that have flourished in the past few years provide the evidence that that is the best way to proceed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I want to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and, unusually, disagree with my noble friend Lady Perry. The points that she makes about partnerships are precisely correct; indeed, a number of academies are part of these behaviour partnerships, which are working extremely well. In exactly the same way, many school confederations are working well. Many of us are now saying, “What a good thing confederations are”, although initially some of us were a little hesitant about the Government forcing schools into confederations. Where there have been confederations, many members of staff have found them very useful.
I particularly endorse Amendment 73 on the need for academies to participate in the behaviour partnerships in exactly the same way as other locally maintained state schools should. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, getting on the telephone and talking to other heads is precisely what it is all about. The partnership does not need to be heavy-handed or forced; it can be very light touch.
I also agree very much with the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. The low-incidence special needs can be overlooked and it is extremely important that they are not disregarded.
We are all concerned about these exclusions because we do not want these young people to fall by the wayside into the category that we call NEETs—not in employment, education or training. They are drop-outs from society, so it is important that we meet their needs. Many pupils with low-incidence special educational needs get disregarded. They are not a great nuisance. They sit at the back of the classroom, playing games and talking among themselves, but they do not get educated as they should because nobody has looked at what their needs are. We have got much better at this over the past few years, but it is vital that academies, too, pay attention to these young people. The Minister has promised to come back with another look at the process surrounding special educational needs and I hope that he will incorporate the issue in the review that he is undertaking.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, as another former Secretary of State, perhaps I may say how strongly I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, as well as by my noble friend Lady Sharp. I will be brief. First, like other noble Lords, I have first-hand knowledge of the fact that, in some cases, schools have decided not to accept a child with special educational needs—for example, one who is dyslexic, dyspraxic, deaf or blind—when they believe that that would lower their standing in the league tables. The league tables have been devastating in that way, by making it difficult often for an ambitious and able head teacher who values their position in the league tables to take such children. There is a danger, as my noble friend Lady Sharp said, that if you begin to regard the position of children with special educational needs, or children who are difficult, as somehow excluding them from being part of the academy, that academy will become still further removed from the problems of the whole of society. I feel strongly about this.
Perhaps I may refer to the interesting comments of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about Denmark. It is interesting also that the incidence of permanent exclusion in Scotland is proportionately a long way below that in England, because Scotland has chosen to go for short-term, temporary exclusions rather than for permanent exclusions that far too often condemn the child for the rest of their life to being outside society and often lead them straight on to being young offenders and things of that kind. I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by both noble Lords. I hope that the Government will seriously consider a different kind of approach to children who are excluded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, whom I congratulate on her open-mindedness on the issue, has indicated that partnerships play a large part in this. My noble friend Lady Sharp has seconded the view that they are crucial and significant. However, beyond that we must look at the whole situation of excluded children: why they are excluded, whether earlier intervention would save them from being excluded and whether temporary exclusions should be more common than permanent exclusions, with their devastating effect of taking the child almost altogether out of society.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I agree in many ways with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has just said. We face a long-running problem of how to deal with kids who get themselves into a position where they need to be excluded from school. She said that the Scottish example is that schools retain ownership of these pupils. You cannot throw them away because they are still part of you. Even if they are not on the premises, the school has a commitment to help with their education.
That is one approach. Another might be through the use of the pupil premium, when we get that going. The kids will suddenly become much more valuable because they have been excluded. The resources to help them and deal with them will travel with them. Certainly, there is scope for free schools to innovate in this area. Many of the children’s homes that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about are privately run. The troublesome end of education has become increasingly well looked after by the private sector. There is a real opportunity. I do not expect to hear it today, but I hope for a commitment from my noble friend to deal with this. We have a chance, if we are sharp and inventive enough, to make real progress.
The problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, is rather more intractable. Imagine that I said to your Lordships, “Right, there are 800 of us or thereabouts. I will take £500 from one of you, but don’t worry, I will give each of you £1”. That is all very nice, as 799 of us will go and spend the pound and feel a bit better off, but someone will feel very upset when they get a bill for £500 and only have £1 to pay it with. That is the situation that we risk landing ourselves in with schools with low-incidence problems of any kind. If we do not operate this on a pool basis so that the school with the problem can find the funds, all the other schools that do not have the problem will have spent the money and we will be in trouble. Again, I am interested in how we will solve this in a world where not 200 but 2,000 schools are academies and the problem becomes much more obvious.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I agree with what my noble friend Lady Williams said about the perverse effect of league tables. The good instincts of many school heads that I advocated in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said have been stifled by the imposition of league tables. The heads want to help these disadvantaged children but dare not do so in case it pulls them down the league tables, with all the perverse effects that that would have on their finances, reputation and everything else. I hope that we can continue to have faith and trust in the good instincts of those who run schools and that we can release them from the perverse effects of collecting detailed information and statistics simply for league table purposes.
The Earl of Listowel
Again, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, has said. As far as I know, the best performing country, Finland, does not have league tables but relies on excellent teachers and trusts them to make the right decisions for children. As I recall, Finland also does not have exclusions, but has smaller, very mixed-ability classes.
Two things come to mind in this debate. The two amendments in the group are well related. There is the danger with academies that they will not be so well supported by, for instance, the good approach of having a child psychotherapist working regularly with teachers to talk about particular problematic children. That is a good approach, but it is easy to think that it is too expensive and a bit of a luxury and that an easier option would be to move a difficult child somewhere else. I have sympathy with both sides of the argument. Given that these things are already established, I would prefer to keep the status quo, because league tables have a perverse influence. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If he could say a little more about the plans for league tables and how they will be improved, that would be helpful.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, this is a long-running problem. What we have heard from all around the Chamber this evening is that this matter concerns us all, across the parties, and that none of us is entirely sure that we have the complete and final answer. We are all aware that the early academies had an unusually high rate of exclusions. That was partly because they were going into the toughest areas and trying to reimpose discipline in schools that had lost control—there were special circumstances. I am happy to say that the figures have now come down.
We are also all aware that league tables have had a perverse effect not only on academies. I am well aware of one or two secondary schools in my part of Yorkshire of which it has been said that they have tried to avoid taking on difficult children from difficult areas precisely because of the impact that they knew it would have on their standing in league tables. I am afraid that I am unable to say anything specific about our plans on league tables; we will have to write to the noble Earl. As he will know, the question of how one can shape league tables to recognise the starting point as well as the output is being discussed, again across the parties and across the expert community, because it is recognised that league tables have had a perverse effect. We are engaged on this.
I will also say that these amendments were correctly grouped, because difficult children are often defined in all sorts of ways. I know little about the problems of educating children with autism, which is a low-incidence disability and special need. That also, in a sense, makes it easier for a school to say, “Let’s exclude that child. Let that child go somewhere else”. Therefore, there is an overlap. Children can be seen as difficult in a number of different ways.
On Amendment 72, I emphasise that academies are already required, through their funding arrangements, to take their fair share of challenging pupils through their involvement in local in-year fair access protocols. This will continue to be the case for all new academies, so they do not get out of this obligation. They should be free to co-operate with local partners in managing exclusions but, again, there is a question for the coalition of how one writes that down and in how much detail. The previous Labour Government were always in favour of prescribing everything in the most minute detail—usually twice a year, each time the name of the department or the Secretary of State changed. This, as the noble Baroness will of course admit, is a different approach.
Academies are regulated by their funding agreements, which require that they act in accordance with the law on exclusions as though the academy were a maintained school and that they have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on exclusions, including in relation to any appeals process. I hope that that provides assurance that academies have to follow the law on exclusions in the same way as maintained schools.
I turn to the subject of low-incidence disabilities. We recognise that this is a continuing problem, especially where there are only a very small number of young people in a district with those particular needs. Again, partnerships among schools will clearly be the best way forward.
Academies’ funding for SEN is paid on a formula basis by the Young People’s Learning Agency. If a pupil with one of the different forms of low-incidence SEN attracts individually assigned resources as a top-up to the formula funding, the local authority will pay this from its schools budget and will continue to be responsible for monitoring the provision. If the academy fails to secure such provision, it will be in breach of its funding agreement and the YPLA can ultimately investigate following a complaint. Therefore, measures are already in train. I am not saying that they will entirely resolve the problem, just as under the previous Government a number of other measures did not entirely resolve the problem. We all recognise that this is one of the most difficult issues in education in England and we will all need to continue to monitor and to work with others—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Can the Minister explain how this will be monitored? He said that, if it is a low-incidence special educational need, the YPLA will be responsible for paying an extra premium in respect of that need. However, the YPLA is a payment agency, not an inspection agency. How will it monitor matters to ensure that needs are met in an academy?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am not sure that I can provide an instant answer on that. Particularly in relation to low-incidence disabilities, whether it is to do with deaf or autistic children or those with other needs, a specialist voluntary organisation will often also be doing its best to monitor the situation. Therefore, when I say “following a complaint”, very often the relevant specialist society will be doing its best to support the pupil and will make sure that the YPLA and the local authority are informed and concerned if the need falls short. However, we are looking to develop partnerships among schools. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, went a good deal wider than this and spoke about young people in care going beyond the education sector to the other local agencies that deal with difficult young people. That is the way in which we have to go forward. On that basis of reassurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, on this occasion and given the hour, I have set aside my 2,000-word speech. I shall think carefully about what the Minister has said. I, too, was concerned by the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the idea that we can just leave the matter to trust. We know that, of the academies that exist, a very large number—I do not have the exact number to hand—currently take part in behaviour partnerships and they work. However, it is the ones that do not do so that I am worried about.
I shall read the report of the debate. It has been a good discussion and helpful in clarifying for me the Government’s position. I was concerned to hear the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Wilkins and was interested in the noble Lord’s response. However, again, we come down to the academy agreement. When we are talking about a change from the number of academies being in the hundreds to potentially all schools in the country being academies, we have to think much more ambitiously about how we can make these partnerships work.
Baroness Wilkins
Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may say that I regret that I am not reassured by the Minister’s words. However, I shall read them carefully and should like to consult my advisers. It is essential that the support services are kept together and maintained as a core service, but at the moment it does not sound as though they will be. I shall reflect on this issue.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I was about to say that I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Gulf War Illnesses
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Manchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in addressing the problems and needs of veterans of the first Gulf War with still undiagnosed illnesses, they will be taking into account the findings of the congressionally mandated and funded US Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, particularly those on exposures to pyridostigmine bromide and organophosphates.
Lord Morris of Manchester
My Lords, this debate is about the brave men and women, veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War, now in broken health with still undiagnosed illnesses, who were prepared to lay down their lives in our service in the most toxic war in western military history, and the bereaved families of those who did so.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords who will be following me in the debate and am especially glad to see here the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I know that the House well understands my admiration of the inestimable value of their services to Gulf War veterans.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, has my congratulations on his well merited elevation to the government Front Bench. For more than 12 years until today, we have sung from the same hymn sheet on Gulf War illnesses; and I can assure him that, even if today his hymn sheet varies somewhat from mine, I know he will act with all his customary integrity.
The timeliness of our debate is undoubted anywhere in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, in this 20th year since the end of the first Gulf War and with the Ministry of Defence still in conflict with the afflicted and bereaved over claims for more adequate support, the debate is seen as long overdue.
I have non-pecuniary interests to declare as Honorary Parliamentary Adviser to the Royal British Legion—the authentic voice of the ex-service community—and the National Vice-President of the War Widows’ Association. A further interest I must declare is that, in January 2002, the United States Congress co-opted me, uniquely for a non-American, to serve on its committee of inquiry into Gulf War illnesses, from whose deliberations federal funding of the congressionally-mandated Research Advisory Committee (RAC) on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses ensued. That is why I was asked to speak at the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington DC at the launch of the RAC's historic report in November 2008. It explains also why my continuing links with executive Government, Members of Congress and institutions like the US Institute of Medicine (IoM) remain strong.
Those links are of high relevance today when the Ministry of Defence is in denial not only of the IoM's own statement of the facts about its interest in the RAC's findings, but also of easily accessible factual information on the new US Administration's positive response to the RAC's report. Even the announcement by the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, General Eric Shinseki, on improved healthcare and benefits for veterans and the fundamental change in the direction of US policy on Gulf War illnesses, is ignored by the MoD. Yet when the RAC’s report was published in November 2008, notwithstanding its huge importance to British veterans, the MoD stated and it was reported to the House that it could not comment on the report until the IoM had peer-reviewed its findings. We were further told that the IoM’s review would not be published until February 2010 and that the MoD would then consider both the RAC's report and the IoM's fictional peer review.
This unconscionable delay was in spite of the RAC's deeply disturbing finding on the real, serious and potentially deadly effects of neurotoxic exposures to which almost all coalition troops were subjected. That they would be publishing a peer-review of the RAC's report was at once flatly denied by the IoM, who had already stated that they were not and would not be peer reviewing the RAC's report. It would of course have been preposterous and highly questionable legally for the IoM to undertake a peer-review of a report from a congressionally-mandated and funded committee packed with eminent medical scientists, all leaders in their fields and based on 1,840 scientific communications, the vast majority of which had appeared in peer-reviewed journals, most of the remainder having been included because of the repute of their authors.
Apologists say that the IoM had in fact been asked ministerially to undertake a peer-review of the RAC's findings and that the MoD was basing itself on a reported announcement that James Peake, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Bush administration, was referring the report to the IoM; but within days of his reported announcement, Secretary Peake had become the out-going Secretary: not just a lame duck but a dead one; and crouching behind a dead duck is not the most dignified posture from which to conduct policy-making on new help for war veterans in pressing need. Of course the MoD could have clarified the position by making a single telephone call to the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
The IoM's reaction to the MoD's version of its role vis-à-vis the RAC's report had been swift and sharp. It came from Roberta Wedge, the institute's senior future programmes officer, whose statement left no one in any doubt about how offensive they found that version of their role. Dr Judith A Salerno, the executive director of the IoM, had already told me in a letter on its role that the IoM had,
“not been tasked with a review of the RAC report”,
that it had not been nor would it be conducting a peer review and ipso facto would not be publishing a review of the report as stated by the MoD, in February 2010 or at any other date.
Meanwhile General Shinseki, leaving aside the keen controversy about the falsification of the IoM's role, made it plain that he had not been and would not be waiting for any comment from the IoM. Rather, having carefully studied the RAC's findings, he had acted and, in the view of Gulf veterans here, so should we have done. Shinseki had ordered an immediate review of the files of many thousands of Gulf veterans to establish, among other purposes, to what neurotoxic exposures they had been subjected and he spoke of,
“challenging all the assumptions made for 20 years”,
and,
“historic change in how the Department for Veterans Affairs would in future be considering Gulf War veterans illnesses”,
since when many new initiatives have been taken, including one on help for veterans with multi-symptom illness, in terms both of healthcare and disability benefits.
Of course, February 2010 has come and gone and time has falsified the replies given to noble Lords after the RAC’s report was published. That is why there is such determination now all across the ex-service community to prevent any further delay in addressing the implications of the report for British veterans of the conflict.
It was while reflecting on all this that I recalled a moving letter from Samantha Thompson, the widow of a Gulf War veteran who had been decorated by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at a ceremony held at 10 Downing Street, for his conspicuous bravery. Samantha told me in her letter that she and her seven year-old daughter,
“would have been far better treated had her husband, Nigel, been in the United States and not the British Armed Forces”.
Her anguish was shared by many other widows and by Gulf veterans who were trying to cope with still undiagnosed illnesses, some of them terminally ill, who should surely have been spared the strain and hurtful and demeaning indignities of still further delay in reaching closure on their claims for more adequate help. There was no delay in the response of Nigel Thompson and of all other Gulf veterans to the call of duty in 1990-91. Nor must there be any further delay now, 20 years on from the start of the conflict, in discharging in full our debt of honour to them.
It is among the highest duties of parliamentary life to vouchsafe just treatment for those who, alone in this country, contract with the state to sacrifice their lives in its service. That is why this debate is taking place in your Lordships' House this evening.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on securing this debate. It allows the new Administration the opportunity to indicate their approach to a problem which has been lying for far too long in the not-yet-settled tray. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, to his new ministerial responsibility. I remind the House that I was Chief of Defence Staff at the time of the first Gulf War. We knew that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. He had used them against his own people in Halabja only two years before in 1988 when 5,000 people were killed in a most dreadful way. We thus had to take all reasonable care before we attacked the Iraqi forces to protect our own troops in the event of a toxic attack. This we did, and rightly so. The alternative of not taking steps and then suffering toxic attacks and multiple deaths or illnesses would have been unforgivable. Noble Lords will agree that it is the duty of government to do all that they can to assist and compensate any who were made ill or incapacitated in the conflict.
As is well known, many veterans have suffered a variety of illnesses and some have died early. Time does not allow me to catalogue the series of promises and steps taken by earlier Conservative and the previous Labour Governments, but at no time has there been confidence that government treatment, both practically and emotionally, has been worthy of the sacrifice and loyalty shown by the men and women afflicted. Those familiar with the story will be aware that the veterans concerned feel that they have had a raw deal and their plight has not been followed up as thoroughly and expeditiously as it should. The MoD in particular has been seen as the uncaring, obstructive face of officialdom, lacking in the fair treatment of veterans who were clearly ill but felt that their plight was met with no more than vapid promises and little proactive support. At various times in the past two decades, the MoD has moved somewhat due to strong lobbying and parliamentary pressure—for example, conceding that the label “Gulf War syndrome” might be used as an umbrella term. But the MoD made clear that the label itself did not attract any pension for compensation rights.
It is perhaps ironic that the claims that have been met are under the former rubric of the MoD having to prove that the illnesses were not caused as a result of involvement with Operation Granby and deployment to the theatre. Under the new compensation arrangements, this burden or proof has been shifted to the veterans’ shoulders. A few Gulf veteran appeals to the war pensions appeal tribunal have also been successful, though even then there was procrastination by the MoD over implementing the tribunal’s findings, and no willingness to treat any group as a class action that would allow other veterans to be fairly compensated.
Five or more years ago, there was a determination not to treat service men and women differently, when dealing with pensions and compensation arrangements, from others in government service such as the police or fire fighters. This attitude has changed, and rapidly, in the past two or three years. In 2008, we had the previous Government’s command paper, The Nation’s Commitment. The new Prime Minister and Defence Secretary have spoken of a statutory military covenant and that our Armed Forces deserve special treatment. So will this new approach carry us through to a final and reasonable settlement of a long, tragic episode?
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has explained, the latest United States Research Advisory Committee’s report and the intentions of the US Veterans Department to reassess and to compensate those who have what they now accept is the unique condition of Gulf War illness. These latest findings of the RAC and the earlier independent inquiry carried out so ably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, provide a real opportunity for the new Administration to take steps to bring this regrettable treatment of so many of our fine service personnel to a reasonable and responsible conclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, made no specific recommendations about levels of compensation—that was not in his inquiry’s terms of reference—and clearly that is a matter for the pensions and compensation authorities.
To help the Minister, who has consistently expressed his party’s sympathy while in opposition to reach the right conclusions, perhaps I may remind him of just a couple of things that he said in the course of the many debates that have taken place in this House since this problem was first aired in Parliament almost 20 years ago. When the Lloyd report, to which I have referred, was first debated in December 2004, the Minister said:
“The report's recommendations now provide the Government with a unique opportunity to close this long-running chapter in the lives of many who have suffered after serving in the Gulf during the period 1990–91 … This group of people have been ignored by the MoD and this report is a considered and convincing case for recognition”. —[Official Report, 21/12/04; col. 1734.]
Speaking in a debate on the latest RAC’s work in February 2009, the Minister acknowledged that Gulf War illness,
“can no longer be marginalised or dismissed”.—[Official Report, 5/2/09; col. 854.]
Can the House now be assured that the new Government will act as the US Department of Veteran Affairs is now acting and ensure that all the British personnel afflicted by the symptoms of Gulf War illness are given comparable support and help? It is right to treat them fairly. That is what they ask and I ask the Minister on their behalf. All hope at last for a helpful and positive response to this long-running saga.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, it is customary to congratulate noble Lords on obtaining a debate during the dinner hour. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has already done so. However, with the little we have to do, with the notable exception of the Academies Bill, perhaps obtaining a debate is not now so rare an event. So in addition to congratulating the noble Lord, I want to change the metaphor and do something I have never done before in this House. On behalf of all those who are suffering from Gulf War illness, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for all that he has done for them over so very many years. He has been tireless in bringing their plight to notice. It was due to his persistence that the previous Government eventually apologised for the way that the Gulf War veterans had been treated. I hope of course that under the new Administration, the attitude will change still further.
If they think that they need only to go on long enough taking the same line as their predecessors and that the problem will then go away—by “the problem”, I mean the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester—I can assure the Government that he will not go away, nor will those of us in the House tonight who support him in his noble efforts, nor will all those in the country who are also only too well aware of what he does. Like him, I am in continuing correspondence with a widow whose husband died of Gulf War illness and who is now in the process of petitioning the Government in Edinburgh. I hope that she will succeed.
One might have thought that after 17 years, everything that could possibly be said on the subject would have been said, but that is not so. The first line so far taken has been that we do not yet know the causes of Gulf War illness. The second line is that, in any event, those who are suffering are getting all that they are entitled to by way of war pension.
As for the first argument, we now know, for the reasons so eloquently stated by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in his very well researched and powerful speech, that there are only two causes of Gulf War illness. One is the PB tablets; the other is the OP spray. Both are causes for which the MoD was directly responsible back in 1991. The Government and the MoD have fallen back on their second line of defence: yes, if there were causes for which we were responsible, nevertheless, we have done all that was required of us by paying the pension which has been established in all those cases. The MoD may not realise how very close it came to being sued some years ago for negligence. It escaped legal proceedings, but it is worth remembering that negligence is never easy to prove, and it was not necessary to establish negligence to show, as has been shown, that this case does not come within the ordinary run of cases.
Men are now suffering from Gulf War illness which is not the ordinary perils of war, for which the pension may or may not be sufficient. The MoD was itself directly responsible, even if it could not be shown that it was negligent at the time. As they are suffering from something for which the MoD was directly responsible, it is surely now time for it to accept that something more is required. Only if the Government accept that will we reach a just end to this very sorry tale.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I warmly congratulate and thank, in the same terms as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for the way in which he has so persistently and persuasively pursued the issue of the treatment of Gulf War settlements. Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I am a member of the Royal British Legion Gulf War Group, and have been since the problem was first identified—a non-pecuniary interest. Indeed, I know that all participants in this evening's debate are veterans of the issue. All of us have taken part in debates—in both Houses, in my case—about the issue for the almost 20 years for which it has been such a controversial concern for many of us.
I came to the issue first because I was concerned about organophosphate pesticides in workforces outwith the armed services—notably among sheep farmers in what was then my constituency. About 20 years ago, that became an apparent problem in the south-west because of the continuing use of very dangerous chemicals for dipping sheep. What came first to my notice was the extraordinary similarity of symptoms between those who came back from the Gulf, having been exposed to very similar compounds to those used in sheep dip, and those who had suffered serious illness as a result of their work on sheep farms.
I am not going to attempt to cover the areas of particular expertise and experience which have already been touched on this evening, because I do not aspire to do so. However, I am extremely concerned about a point that I hope the Minister will take up, which is that we may find in the near future that the victims of organophosphate poisoning, whether in the Gulf or anywhere else, may be the unfortunate further victims of the changes to the disability living allowance which have just been announced. Admittedly, they will not come into being for two or three years, but I am reliably informed by the brief from the Department for Work and Pensions that the move away from self-reported assessments to more objective assessments—I am using the department’s own words—may well prove to be particularly difficult in the case of veterans and those who have been exposed to these pesticides because, by their very nature, they are not easily identified and diagnosed by professionals. Indeed, many GPs, who were in many cases the first port of call for those returning from the Gulf, had no proper advice about the likely symptoms of Gulf War illness. As has already been referred to, the constant quibbling over whether there was one particular Gulf War syndrome, or a group of illnesses, went on for years in Parliament, outwith Parliament and in the Ministry of Defence. I am afraid that that made it even more confusing for those who gave medical advice to those coming back from the Gulf.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, said, the US research advisory committee’s report is an amazingly comprehensive and conscientious attempt to get to the bottom of these problems. What is so remarkable is that, in precise and comprehensive terms, it is absolutely relevant to UK members of the combined forces that went to the Gulf. Every item in the report, which I have read with great care, applies absolutely to our forces. Of course it does, because they were exposed to almost exactly the same preparatory conditions as the US veterans before they went there. What is so extraordinary—and I refer to the findings in brief—is that the RAC states in the report:
“Gulf war illness is a serious condition that affects at least one-fourth of the 697,000 US veterans who served in the 1990-1991 Gulf War”.
The scale that was identified by the RAC report is important and relevant to our troops and Defence Ministers. I share the dismay that other speakers have already expressed this evening at the way in which this absolutely clear indication of the scale of the problem has been treated with such apparent—not contempt, as that would be putting it too strong; but as if it was not really anything like as serious as has become so apparent through the work of the Administration in Washington.
That is not the whole story. As has already been indicated, the expeditious response to the RAC work by the US Department of Veterans Affairs has been remarkably different from the response we have had in this country. I can be brief because others have already expressed not only our anxieties and concerns but, most importantly, our hope and trust that the new Government will adopt a new approach. We should be delighted and should indicate how much we respect the fact that the US Administration have borne the brunt of this research and investment which is so relevant to our veterans. If we had had to do all that work on our own account and the US had not led on this, the money and time which would have been spent in this country would have been very considerable. We are very fortunate. I hope that the Minister and the new coalition Government will recognise just how fortunate we are that the Americans have led the way in this respect.
I hope that the Government will therefore take account of the precise terms of this Question for Short Debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. All we are asking the Government to do is to take full account of the very detailed, precise and comprehensive work that has effectively been done on our behalf. I am confident that the Minister, who has been involved in previous discussions in this House, will indicate that our coalition will take a fresh approach. As has been said, we are fast approaching the 20th anniversary of the deployment of the young men and young women who went to fight on our behalf in the Gulf. As we approach that 20th anniversary, surely it must be a debt of honour to recognise at long last what they did on our behalf and to make sure that there is no further problem in trying to obtain proper recognition of their sacrifice and suffering, and proper compensation to meet it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, as a member of the Government who were responsible for sending the troops to the Gulf on that occasion, I feel it is absolutely essential that they be treated with fairness now. In connection with the Budget, the point has been made again and again that this has to be fair. If anyone is entitled to fairness, surely it is a person who gave their service in the dangerous situation in the Gulf in 1990 and those who depend on him or her.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for raising this issue. One cannot but admire his tenacity, and of course one admires the work he has done with the Royal British Legion over the years in looking after veterans, particularly Gulf War veterans. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on his position on the Front Bench, which I sat on myself, and I look forward to his answers to the many detailed points.
I shall make my position very clear. I have listened tonight to the arguments from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I have read the very interesting briefing provided by the Royal British Legion. This is not the first time I have been involved in this debate. I think I have been involved in it about five times, and on every occasion I have scrupulously and with enormous effort gone through the paperwork and the reports on what has happened. I have to say to noble Lords that I see no reason to change the position that I represented when in government.
The former Government recognised that they made mistakes. They made errors of judgment and showed significant insensitivity, but they apologised fulsomely for that and put in hand programmes and procedures to address the problems. It is my view that, in recent years, Her Majesty's Government have done all that is reasonable for the Gulf War veterans. I do not accept that the MoD has ignored them and has not sought to discharge its duty properly and to address their concerns and provide appropriate facilities—indeed, we spent a lot of time arguing about the different chemicals, the causality and so on—but, at the end of the day, as I have said over and over again, the issue is about the level of compensation that these people should have according to what criteria and what is fair.
The Royal British Legion seems to have been straightforward in its latest briefing. It argues that that there should be a £10,000 or more ex gratia payment to the Gulf War veterans, but I have yet to read anything that suggests that there should be a specific ex gratia payment. Its submission also refers to the Prime Minister’s commitment to a military covenant enshrined in law. I understand that this will be in the Armed Forces Bill, and we await the detail to see precisely what it means. However, it is probable that we on these Benches will support the general principle of such a Bill, particularly in so much as it aligns with the forces charter that was set out in the Labour manifesto and that sought to consolidate in law a number of important improvements for all veterans. I think we all share the view that these brave people should have a solid background.
Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that such a Bill will contain a provision for ex gratia payments or new categories of compensation, as the Royal British Legion suggests. Compensation for injured and disabled service personnel must be based on a fair and transparent system. I believe that that is the system we have now and that the new Government will maintain such a system. No doubt they will want to review and improve it from time to time, but the system must be the same for all service personnel and it must have the same criteria. It must relate to a proper assessment of disability, it must be fair to all, and it should not depend on special cases driven by special pleading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on securing this further debate on illnesses in Gulf veterans and I thank him and other noble and noble and gallant Lords for taking part. The noble Lord has been a long and true champion of veterans and the wider disabled community, and I am proud that 40 years ago, my late uncle, John Astor, was one of the architects, along with the noble Lord, of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—the Alf Morris Act. The noble Lord has raised the sensitive issue of Gulf veterans’ illnesses on a number of occasions and many in the veterans community hold him in high esteem, as I found out when I was privileged to hold a number of honorary positions with the Royal British Legion.
The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. We have a moral responsibility to look after those in our Armed Forces, particularly when they are prepared to risk life and limb on our behalf. So let me begin by setting out the new coalition Government’s priorities in this area.
As the Prime Minister has said, we want to create an atmosphere in which we as a nation back, revere and support our military. There has never been a formal document setting out precisely what this means, and that is why for the first time this Government will create a tri-service military covenant. The Prime Minister is passionate about this. It will be the foundation of the new Government’s far-reaching strategy for and obligations to our service men and women, their families and, of course, veterans. It is long overdue. More broadly, we will ensure that the Armed Forces have the support they need and that veterans and their families are treated with the dignity they deserve. It is important to set out the broad principles that drive our approach and how this Government will go further.
Let me turn now to the specifics of Gulf veterans’ illnesses. As the noble Lord would expect, I have gone into this matter in some detail with officials. The Government are open-minded on the issue of the illnesses reported by some veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. Our priority is to ensure that Gulf veterans who are ill do receive appropriate medical care. Gulf veterans with concerns about their health should seek a referral to the Ministry of Defence’s Medical Assessment Programme at St Thomas’ Hospital. This facility gives free and speedy general and mental health examinations by an expert doctor with great experience of veterans’ health issues. The MoD pays the travelling expenses of attending veterans and will also arrange overnight accommodation for those travelling long distances. Over 3,500 Gulf veterans have used this service, where each individual receives an examination and clinical tests, dependent on their case.
The service provided by the Medical Assessment Programme remains popular with those who attend. Indeed, the programme provides valuable back-up support for the Department of Health and the devolved Administrations who, with support from the MoD, are running six community health pilots for veterans at NHS trusts across the country. The pilots, which will be evaluated later this year, will provide key input into planning future provision across the NHS. Financial support for veterans and their dependants is provided through the Ministry of Defence war pensions or Armed Forces occupational pension schemes. For those veterans who need additional support, the Veterans Welfare Service exists to provide help and advice to veterans, their families and dependants.
To date the MoD has spent around £9 million in funding expert independent medical research on Gulf veterans’ illnesses issues. This research has come to the same conclusion as the independent Medical Research Council report from 2003 which looked at all the UK and international research into these issues—namely that,
“there is no evidence from the UK or international research of a single syndrome related specifically to service in the Gulf”.
As recommended by the Medical Research Council, one area where we are looking specifically at the needs of Gulf veterans is rehabilitation. We are spending £430,000 on specific research into rehabilitative therapies for those with persistent symptoms. We expect this work to conclude in 2012.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Before the noble Lord leaves the question of causation, I hope he will come back to the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we now know the answer on causation from the much more extensive research carried out in the United States.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am coming to the United States reports in a while. Lessons identified from the 1991 conflict have been implemented for other operations. So far there has been no similar problem with unexplained illnesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, was the first British parliamentarian to be co-opted on to a US congressional committee of inquiry into Gulf War illnesses. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are well aware of the interest in the publication of the United States Institute of Medicine update on the Health Effects of Serving in the Gulf War, published in April, and that of the US Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, published in 2008. We look forward to seeing the US authorities’ comments on the reports before commenting in any detail from the UK perspective. Indeed, we understand that the US Department of Veterans Affairs has formed a task force specifically to look at the Institute of Medicine updated report and to make recommendations. Defence Ministers, particularly myself, and officials will consider any findings carefully.
We are aware of the frustration that some feel with the pace of work associated with these reports but they address complex scientific and medical issues. We have noted, however, that the Institute of Medicine report mirrors the findings of the Medical Research Council review of research into UK Gulf veterans’ illnesses published in 2003. In particular, the Medical Research Council review recommended giving priority to research aimed at improving the long-term health of Gulf veterans with persistent symptoms.
We further note that the Institute of Medicine report supports the international majority view and the MoD’s long-standing position that NAPS tablets given to service personnel and OP pesticides are not the cause of ill health reported in some Gulf veterans. This should be reassuring to UK Gulf veterans concerned about such health issues.
Noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, will be aware that the MoD’s vaccines interactions research programme, costing some £4.5 million, was an in-depth examination of the potential adverse health effects of the combination of medical countermeasures administered to troops in the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. The overwhelming evidence from the programme was that the combination of vaccines and tablets offered to UK forces at the time of the conflict would not have had adverse health effects. This programme has been the subject of a level of scrutiny far in excess of what might be expected in similar research. As well as peer review prior to publication, all stages of the study were overseen by an independent panel of experts and veterans’ representatives.
I know that exposure to OP pesticides during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict is of concern to some veterans. The MoD continues to monitor ongoing research in this area through its involvement in the Official Group on Organophosphates, chaired by Defra. Although the effects of acute exposure to OP pesticides are well understood and undisputed, no such incidents occurred during the deployment of UK troops to the Gulf in 1990-91, although OP pesticides were undoubtedly used.
While we are always willing to consider credible new evidence, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that there are too many symptoms for the ill health reported by Gulf veterans to be characterised as a syndrome according to the strict medical definition. However, MoD reviewed the position on its use and accepted it as an umbrella term, addressing the concern of those veterans who feel that the link between their service and their illnesses has not been adequately recognised.
We know that this does not go far enough for some, but we believe that we must take an evidence-based approach. The medical and scientific evidence published so far does not support the claim that veterans of the first Gulf conflict are suffering from a specific illness that differs from those experienced by individuals who served elsewhere.
Data from the medical assessment programme continue to support the results of the independent research. Gulf veterans seen as part of the programme complain of similar symptoms to the general veteran population, and most should be cared for by standard NHS resources. No unusual pattern of disease has emerged, nor is there evidence of unusual neurological or other disorders among Gulf War veterans. The same high standard of medical care and treatment is therefore as appropriate for them as it is for all veterans.
Gulf veterans, like other veterans, have access to a wide range of support: medical support at the medical assessment programme, financial support for any injuries caused by service and practical support through the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency welfare service. We are undertaking further research to offer tailored rehabilitation support. There is insufficient credible evidence to suggest that we should treat this group differently from other groups of veterans who report similar health problems.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is not going to go away. I give him a commitment today that I am happy to meet him with officials to hear any concerns that he may have. I thank him for raising his concerns again—concerns that affect people who have sacrificed so much on our behalf, and to whom we owe a great deal. I assure him that the Government are committed to helping them through treatment, rehabilitation and research. We also reaffirm the moral obligation to treat those who serve, their families and veterans with fairness and dignity.
Academies Bill [HL]
(14 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
“( ) Academy arrangements must include terms imposed for the purpose of securing that—
(a) the school’s food policy and catering service promote pupils’ physical and mental health and ability to learn, and(b) all food provided by the school meets the nutrient-based standards for primary and secondary schools currently in place for maintained schools.”
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 76B, which brings us to a subject that is most appropriate for the slot straight after dinner—school food. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that pupils in the new academies are entitled to the high standards of school food to which most schools have now risen, with the help of the School Food Trust, the Soil Association and others. We have to thank Jamie Oliver and the previous Government for an enormous increase in the quality and high standards of school food these days. If a great many schools wish to become academies, it is important that we do not lose that benefit for thousands of their pupils. There are now mandatory standards in place for the quality of food served in schools in England. The implementation of food and nutritional standards in primary and secondary schools in 2008, for primaries, and 2009, for secondaries, has seen great improvement in the quality of food served.
There are five good reasons why we need this amendment. First, school food is important for pupils' health and learning. A recent report from Ofsted has confirmed that. Secondly, good quality school food improves children's behaviour and performance. The School Food Trust's School Lunch and Learning Behaviour in Primary Schools research, published in July 2009, shows that children were over three times more likely to concentrate and be alert in the classroom when changes were made to the food and dining room. The School Lunch and Learning Behaviour in Secondary Schools research of July 2009 shows the same benefit for secondary pupils. The School Food Trust research has shown that school meals are now consistently more nutritious than packed lunches. This is of particular concern for children from lower-income families, whose lunches contained more fat, salt and sugar and less fruit and vegetables than children from wealthier backgrounds because, unfortunately, empty calories are cheaper. An affordable school meal service can help to close the gap between rich and poor.
Thirdly, school food is important to help our children maintain a healthy weight and get the nutrients they need to be healthy. School food sets a standard for food quality, encourages healthy eating habits, and raises awareness of the link between diet and health. In England, nearly a quarter of adults and about one in 10 children are now obese, with a further 20 to 25 per cent of children overweight. Research by the Government’s Foresight programme suggests that if current trends continue, some 40 per cent of Britons will be obese by 2025 and, by 2050, Britain could be a mainly obese society. I think that we all know that obesity increases a person’s chances of suffering from many serious health conditions affecting their quality of life and ability to earn.
The fourth reason is that standards at school should set a model for the food outside the school day. A good school meal service can help all children make healthy choices outside school as well as inside it. School cooking and gardening clubs teach healthy eating skills to young people and families to use at home. The skills learnt at cooking clubs increase the intake of nutritionally balanced food, while research from the recent Year of Food and Farming showed that children were more likely to eat fruit and vegetables that they had grown themselves—and so am I.
Fifthly, an Ofsted report just published shows that a good school food policy that promotes a “whole community” approach to food and food culture is as important as a high-quality catering service. It certainly does a whole lot for community cohesion and the enjoyment of our multicultural communities. If academies want to improve their children’s lives and learning, they need to pay attention to their food policy. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I support this amendment and I certainly think that the issue of helping children to enjoy wholesome, nutritious food in schools is very important. As the noble Baroness has already pointed out, the issue of obesity in young people is a problem that has been growing over a number of years. She mentioned the risk of the potential epidemic in diabetes and, indeed, other health problems. I have a certain degree of interest in this because I launched our Government’s fresh fruit scheme for schools—it seems many years ago now—in Wolverhampton. That scheme has worked well and, as the noble Baroness suggested, we have seen major improvements in the quality of school meals. It is important that this is not dissipated with the development of academies as proposed in the Bill.
I realise that the Minister may argue that the approach taken by the noble Baroness is, in a sense, trying to micromanage schools. Underlying our debates so far on the Bill is the clear tension running through between the desirability to give individual schools as much autonomy as possible and, on the other hand, the recognition that there has to be some kind of national underpinning. The debates on special educational needs and, indeed, our recent debate on exclusions are examples of that. The question before us is whether nutrition ought to be one of those matters where some kind of national leadership or guidance is necessary. I am persuaded that it is. The issue raised by the noble Baroness about the health of our young people is so serious that we have to look to schools to do their bit to help, and the approach that she has taken is one that we could support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, before replying specifically on the amendment, perhaps I may make a clarification arising from an earlier debate. Earlier, in the extremely good debate on PSHE, I said that the independent school standards which apply to academies also contained a requirement to teach personal, social and health education. I am afraid that I was misinformed on that point and I apologise to the Committee. It may be helpful if I provide a little clarification. The independent school standards require the promotion of self-knowledge, self-esteem and confidence; enabling pupils to distinguish right from wrong; and encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions and contribute to the community. All academies do, however, have to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on sex and relationships education. I apologise again for that earlier error. We know from that debate that there are important issues to be picked up on PHSE as part of the broader curriculum review, and I look forward to discussing those with noble Lords in due course.
On the specific amendment to do with school food, and full of my bangers and mash from the Home Room, I realise how important an issue this is for schools. I certainly agree with my noble friend about the importance of good diet and physical health—points also made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his work on promoting fruit. We take this seriously. Schools converting to academies will already have been providing healthy, balanced meals that meet the current nutritional regulatory standards. We have no reason to believe that they will stop doing so on conversion or that new schools will not do so either. I am not aware of any evidence that existing academies feed their pupils less well than a maintained school. We would certainly hope and expect in every way that they would continue to feed them as well. They are under a duty to act reasonably in the interests of all their pupils.
We believe that parents will demand the high standard of food that is increasingly being maintained. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in recent years to improve the quality of school food. I have heard from head teachers about the importance of good diet and how it improves behaviour and learning. We expect that parents will demand that that should continue. As an aside, pupils who currently receive free school meals will continue to receive such meals from academies. That will continue to be a requirement of the funding agreement. While I very much agree with my noble friend about the importance of this, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was correct in surmising that we feel that, in this balance between prescription and trust, this does not need to be set out in the legislation, important though it is. I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support. I am not aware of any evidence that the existing academies feed their children any worse than other schools. I am not suggesting at all that that happens. I am reassured by the Minister pointing out that schools that convert will adhere to the current nutritional standards. He suggests that there is no reason why they should change, but there is pressure to do so—children like to have chips more than once a week. There have been situations where parents were, perhaps unwisely, pushing pork pies through the bars of the school gates when these nutritional standards first came in. There are pressures to change.
I hope that the future of the School Food Trust, which has been so instrumental in improving the quality of school food and the skills of school cooks, can be assured. I understand that money is tight and the coalition Government will be looking for ways to save money, but I hope that a small sum could be found to make sure that the School Food Trust continues to exist. It has done excellent work in transferring best practice and helping to improve the quality of cooking in schools. It is not just cooking but the whole curriculum involvement in the school agenda in relation to food. Its website is wonderful, with many good examples of creative schools, catering managers and cooks sharing their good ideas with each other. It is the School Food Trust that does that. The Soil Association has also done some extremely good work, and I hope it will be able to continue to do so.
The health and weight of children varies enormously from one school to another. I know that what I am going to say is anecdotal. Recently, a young woman did work experience with me. She attends two secondary schools. One of her courses is in one school and the rest are in another. When we discussed this matter, she said, “It really is odd. At my main school, all the children are slim. At the other school I go to for one of my courses, they are all fat”. I asked her whether she had noticed any difference in the provision of food in the two schools and she said that she had not. But she was aware that in her main school where all the children are slim, years ago boxes of crisps used to be piled high. There were vending machines selling every kind of chocolate and fizzy drink that you could wish for, and chips were on the menu every day. All that has been swept away as a result of the new agenda on high nutritional standards in school food. I asked the girl to send me any evidence that she discovered as regards a difference between the approaches to food in the two schools, but I have not received any such evidence. It would be very nice to be able to say that there is a clear reason for the obesity in one school and not in the other, but I do not have that.
There is a lot of evidence that the quality and nutritional standards of food affect children’s behaviour, learning, social skills, cultural awareness and all the rest of the agenda of which we are all very much in favour. I hope that if we cannot ensure that academies stick to the standards we have the moment, at the very least, we should ensure the future of the School Food Trust in order to disseminate best practice across all schools. I shall then be somewhat reassured. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“( ) At least 25% of the people on the governing body of an Academy will be elected from among the parents of pupils at the school.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, we have had one or two little forays about governors and governing bodies in Committee. I have to admit that I am surprised at how small a role governors appear to play in the Bill. I reaffirm my position as president of the National Governors Association in moving this rather specific amendment on its behalf. There is general concern about the small number of parents on governing bodies. I am probing, I hope, to get a full answer on what the Government intend to do about it.
The composition of the governing bodies of maintained schools is set out in the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007. The precise arrangements will depend on the type and size of the school, but, broadly speaking, the arrangements mean that at least one-third of governors will be parent governors; at least two governors, but not more than one-third of the total, will be staff governors; and at least one will be a local authority governor. Existing academies are not covered by any such regulations. Their governor arrangements can vary widely, depending on the views of the proprietor. Academies tend to have some form of limited company arrangement. Some will have a body which calls itself a governing body, while others will state that the school is governed by the limited company, but that there will be an advisory body which may include some parental representation.
The NGA very strongly supports the need for the governing body to represent different stakeholders with an interest in the success of the school. This Government—not least with their launch of the idea of free schools—have a track record of championing the role of parents in setting the ethos and direction of a school. However, surely the way in which parents can most effectively do this is as members of a governing body. An academy is currently required to have only one elected parent as a member of its governing body. One elected parent governor does not represent parental involvement of the kind and extent that government Ministers have been promoting in other ways—or, incidentally, of the kind of numbers involved which the NGA also strongly champions. Its preferred option is to have at least one-third of the governing body as parent governors. The NGA’s advice to any of the outstanding schools which will opt to convert to academies is to retain the current structure, which it believes has served the schools well to date—at least, there is no evidence to the country.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have Amendment 82 in this group. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, said about the importance of parent governors. My amendment differs from hers only in that I have specified a range of numbers of parent governors, including a minimum, rather than a percentage, because schools can become tied up in knots if the percentage is calculated to include a fraction of a governor. We would not want a set of legs without the brain. The range that I have specified caters for very small primary schools and larger secondary schools. In both cases, the elected parent governors are an important factor in the governance of schools and fulfil the coalition commitment to involve parents more in the education of their children.
The composition of the governing bodies of maintained schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, is set out in the School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2007, but academies are not covered by any such regulations. Their governance arrangements can vary widely, depending on the views of the proprietor. In any case, it is vital that on the principal governing body, the board of the academy, or whatever it is called, there is proper representation of parents, staff and the local authority—all of whom have a vital and obvious interest in the good management of the school as part of the local community. My amendment also includes a requirement to have as governors two members of staff, one of whom must be a teacher, and a member of the local authority. Of course, if one of the academy partners—one of the sponsors—is the local authority, one would expect it to have representation on the board anyway. However, all academies should have this.
We have heard from many noble Lords that what makes a good school is not its legal status or how it gets its funding, but the quality of teaching within its walls. I agree, but the staff must feel that they are an integral part of the school, including of its governance. That is why it should be not just good practice but an essential requirement that staff are represented on the governing body.
The Secretary of State has also made it clear that the new academies will have a robust relationship with the local authority. Part of achieving that will be to have at least one member of that authority on the governing board. I am not talking about a majority or even a large number, because it is intended that the school should be autonomous and free from the local authority; but it will be easier for academies to be seen as serving the local community, which they will have to do, if local authorities are represented on their boards.
I was distressed when the previous Government introduced academies with a requirement only to have one parent governor on the board. That is not enough, and I hope that this Government will put it right.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I will intervene briefly, partly because I was the Minister who introduced the Taylor report, which laid down a requirement that school governors should include representatives of the staff, of the non-teaching staff, of parents and representatives of the local authority, roughly in the order of a quarter each. It was one of the more successful education reforms, for reasons eloquently set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and also because deep within the sense of the school was a feeling of it being owned by, and part of, the local community. That was where the significance of parent governors came in. The parent governor often shared the same income and problems of living as the community, and spoke for the community in a way that governors appointed by the proprietor or the agency simply could not do.
Secondly, it is vital to have some representatives from the staff on the governing body, so that they speak as part of the entity of the school and not simply as representatives of a staff union or association: they become part of the body and success of the school. As regards non-staff governors, anyone who knows the extraordinary record of teaching assistants—I thank the previous Government for this—will know that, particularly with respect to children with special educational needs, their role has been crucial and can be represented only by a governor who represents the non-academic staff of a school.
It puzzles me—I hope that the Minister will think hard about this—that a Government committed to the idea of decentralisation, of the big society and of involving far more citizens in building and creating that society, should dream of going back to a situation where we have just one elected parent governor in an academy. One reason for this was that it was felt that in the very deprived communities from which the early academies sprang, they would find it difficult to find more than one parent governor, because so many husbands and wives would be working all day long and would find it very difficult to attend governing body meetings. The much more privileged group that we are likely to see now coming into the world of academies of outstanding schools will certainly find it easier to produce governors, but that is no reason to move away from the principle that in every school—whether the community is deprived or not—there should be a clear commitment to the school by the community. I plead with the Government to reconsider the mistaken decision to cut down the governing body and its composition to just one, at a time when we should try to rebuild and strengthen relationships between parents, schools and the community. It is clear from the coalition agreement that the Government are committed to this.
I will leave this hanging in the air: will the Minister consider ways in which we can bring back the community and its parents to the support of, and involvement with, the school? What was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and by my respected and distinguished noble friend Lady Walmsley, suggests that this is something well worth thinking about.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, ask the Minister to give this important matter further consideration. One of the great strengths of our education system over the past few years has been the involvement of parents in schools through PTAs, voluntary work in schools or, indeed, helping in classrooms. In my experience and that of many others, strong parent governors can enhance the quality of governance within schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made a strong point about why the circumstances that applied to the original academies and those that apply to the situation before us now, whereby many schools are projected to become academies, are quite different. I also remind the Minister that we are talking about academies that are to be established without formal consultation and without the involvement of the local authority. If we take that together with the fact that academies at the very least will not be encouraged to have a large number of parent governors and the fact that decisions by Ministers, who are taking a huge amount of power to themselves, will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, then the situation regarding parent governors begins to fit a certain picture.
My concern is that we are seeing the development of almost private institutions without sufficient scrutiny at either local or national level. One way to counterbalance that would be to come back to the Bill, either tonight or at a later stage, with a much greater reassurance about the involvement of parent governors on these governing bodies. I believe that the same argument applies to staff members. My experience is that by and large they add value to the institution and enhance the confidence of staff in the governing body. It is important that there continue to be links between the local authority and individual schools. Again, in my experience, the local authority-appointed governors often bring a breadth of experience to the governing body. It would be very disappointing if that were lost.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, perhaps I may add one small thought to the debate. As I understand it, the parent governor will be not elected but appointed by the board of trustees for the academy. I think that that is a retrograde step. It is important that we have parent governors but I think that they should be elected from among the parents rather than appointed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I agree with everyone who has spoken about the importance of parents being involved in schools’ governing bodies. I completely accept that the Government’s position that there should be at least one parent governor will not be acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. However, I start by stressing the words “at least”, because it is easy to elide “at least one” into “one”. That, in part, is my response to the argument made by my noble friend Lady Williams, to which I listened carefully, about the big society and decentralisation. A perfectly proper argument is that a school, which is a very local form of organisation, knows best the kind of governors whom it needs for a properly balanced governing body, and it should be flexible in choosing the right people for that governing body. That is not to say that my assumption is that governing bodies in academies will tend to consist of only one parent governor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, gave an extremely good, common-sense answer to some of the concerns that have been raised: the governing body of any converting maintained school will determine the composition of the governing body of the new academy trust. With a converting academy, those people who know how the governing body has worked with the membership that is currently set out will make the decision. It is likely that they will draw on that experience and take it into account when choosing the membership of the new governing body.
Although it is certainly extremely important to have a broad representation on the governing body of academies, we do not think that it is right to prescribe a 25 per cent minimum. We want academies to be able to choose and to do what they think is right in their particular circumstances.
I say in response to my noble friend Lady Sharp that my understanding is that the arrangements for the election of parent governors will be set out in the articles of association, which will make it clear that the election of parent governors should be by the parents of pupils attending the academy, so there is an elective element. They will be appointed to the governing body of the academy trust.
Amendment 82 would also have the effect of introducing more prescriptive arrangements for the numbers of parent, staff and local authority governors. Again, the Government’s view is that academies should certainly be free to choose a governing body that has representation from staff and from local authorities. We are proposing that in the academy governance model there should be a maximum of two staff governors, but it is true, as has been pointed out, that we propose that academies do not have to have those particular categories unless they choose to.
I know that that will not satisfy all Members of the Committee, but the Government consider this principle of flexibility to be extremely important and we want academies to be autonomous groups. We certainly urge, in the strongest terms, the benefits of having parent governors—I am very clear about their benefit—but we are not keen to go down the prescriptive route. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
Before the noble Baroness does so, perhaps I could say a word about my amendment in the group. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, backing these amendments, given that it was the Labour Government who reduced the number of parent governors to one, to be appointed by the proprietor in the old-style academies. The excuse of the noble Lord for that change of heart appears to be his claim that these schools will be set up without consultation. Perhaps the noble Lord was not in the Chamber last week when the Minister accepted that a high degree of consultation with all appropriate groups was extremely desirable and that he would come back to us on Report with some suggestion about how he would ensure that that best practice is put in place. We welcomed that.
The Minister suggested that under the arrangements for the new academies a single parent governor, as the minimum, would be elected. That is different from the situation that applied with the academies as set up by the Labour Government. Indeed, it is a step in the right direction, but I suggest to my noble friend that it is not enough. He suggests that, on the basis of localism, the school should decide how many parent governors to have and whether it should have two staff members. I accept that, as he says, it is suggested that they should have two staff members, but they are not obliged to have them as a minimum. I also accept that the school is probably the most localist level one can get, but the proprietor may not be local; the proprietor may be a chain and failing schools will still have to have a proprietor. I therefore suggest to my noble friend that, if the proprietor is not local, it is not a piece of local decision-making if he decides that he does not wish to have two members of staff on the board of governors or more than one elected parent governor.
I remain of the view that it is good for the school, good for the education of the children and good for the link between the school and its community to have the kind of situation that I have suggested in my amendment. It is also helpful to the school in fulfilling its duty in relation to community cohesion. If we put a duty on schools, it is important that we give them the levers to fulfil it and I think that this is one of them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not want to disagree with the noble Baroness, as I agree with the substantive points that she makes in relation to her amendment, but I want to respond to her comments. First, we will wait for Report to hear the Government’s response to the point about consultation, but the fact is that it is not in the Bill. I want assurances that it will not be some fly-by-night consultation but will allow ample time for people concerned to have their say and for that to be considered. On the way in which parent governors are treated under this Bill and under the previous Government’s approach to academies, I, too, drew the distinction that there were specific reasons relating to the situation in which the first academies were created that will not apply where hundreds of academies are being created. However, on the substantive point, I very much share her concerns.
Lord Lucas
Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may ask my noble friend on the Front Bench a question. He cited a piece about parent governors being elected. Can he give me the reference to that, because I shared the belief held by my noble friend Lady Walmsley that that was not the case? I would very much like to correct that misapprehension.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and very much back the issues that they have been pressing. It will not surprise the Minister to hear that, alas, I am far from happy with his response. His admission that “at least one” tends to drift towards “one” in people’s minds confirms the fairly obvious route.
I hope that the Minister will be able to work this whole situation through. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, we are going to be looking at vast numbers of academies, although I feel that that is somewhat on the horizon, it really will be the case that local people—the big society, which is back to the Government’s definition—will have to be properly represented and able to do the job that they will need to do to get the best education for all our children, which all of us want.
I have no option at this stage but to withdraw my amendment. However, I certainly cannot guarantee that I will not be back on Report unless I have something rather more palatable to chew on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) An Academy is a public authority including for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.”
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Given the late hour, I shall make my remarks fairly brief. The amendment concerns the issues raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the Bill. By looking at them closely, we can go at least a little way towards comforting, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, who raised the issue of the minimum levels of special educational need, which might be so easily overlooked as a result of the Bill. Let me briefly explain that the Equality Act 2010 dealt precisely with the rights of children to be treated in an even-handed way by the schools which they attend, in particular with regard to children who have what are called protected characteristics—that is to say, children with disability, racial or religious minority issues which might lead to their being unfairly and unequally treated within the school.
Let me be precise about the things that are covered by the legislation. Issues such as harassment, victimisation, intimidation and bullying are part of what is assumed by the phrasing about children with protected problems and how they might be victimised at school. We do not have to go very far into theory to see that that is the real issue. There is the serious issue of homophobic bullying, to take just one example. There are also issues of racial bullying in our schools, which are mostly well dealt with by the staff and the head teachers, but which would nevertheless raise serious issues if they were ever to get hold. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it very clear that it regards this as one of the areas where it needs to keep an eye on how children are treated in schools.
In that context, it is perhaps worth remembering the so-called public sector equality duties, which fall on everyone in the public sector, holding them to that same set of obligations. There is considerable concern in the Equality and Human Rights Commission that because in the past independent schools have not been brought under the umbrella of the legislation, academies, which fall into a new hybrid area, as it were, might also be excluded from the operation of the legislation. I say again that the legislation covers quite a wide range, but it certainly covers provision for special educational need and minorities who might be otherwise seriously affected in schools. Provision for disseminating proper behaviour and proper monitoring of such behaviour falls within the terms of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and of the law of 2010.
Let me take one other example, which I think is important. Under the legislation, the Minister has power, in extreme cases, to make directions to order that the body concerned—in this case, a school—take action to ensure that that behaviour is dealt with and ceases because it is outwith the law. If there is no system of monitoring—a point raised very effectively earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—if there is no attempt to discover what is actually going on and if no one has power to insist that it is put right, the effects of the equality law become immediately blunted. It is so easy to say that equality law is some kind of political legislation, but the issues of intimidation, harassment and bullying are real, with us here and now and need to be dealt with.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I will not pursue the debate further, but I ask the Minister two questions. First, does Section 85 of the Equality Act 2010, which lays responsibility on maintained schools to accept this legislation and to deal with the issues that I have raised, still stand? In particular, what will happen about Section 87, which specifically excludes independent schools? Where will academies lie? Will they lie with the maintained schools, from which they are mostly converted, or will they go into the independent schools which were, in my view, curiously, exempted from that legislation? Secondly, will the Minister say whether, in the general provision of legislative requirements, the independent schools, which were again left out of the overall principles of the equality legislation, will in future be separated and exempted? Where will the academies lie? In view of the lateness of the hour, I will not pursue the matter further. I should be most grateful if the Minister could address these two questions. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am happy to confirm that this Government, like the previous Government, accept that academy schools are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and that, consequently, they are under a duty to act compatibly with the convention rights in their dealings with parents, pupils and others. The Act does not spell out or list all possible public authorities. This is for an obvious reason: some private bodies also carry out limited public functions and, for the purposes of those public functions, they are also public authorities, but only in respect of those functions. It is not possible to identify all of them at all times. Nevertheless, when they are providing a public service—schooling—they are clearly public authorities.
The noble Baroness will know that academies will be required to comply with all the duties in the Equality Act that apply to schools more generally with respect to disability, non-discrimination, reasonable adjustments and the like. It is quite correct that academies are not currently listed in Schedule 19. However, Schedule 19 will be updated before the duties come into force in 2011, and academies will be included in time for that. This will also deal with the suggestion in Amendment 81 that an academy should be a public authority for the purpose of the Equality Act. I regret that I do not have immediate information on the inclusion of independent schools. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow us to write to her on that issue.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am very grateful and, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) for at least three years, and(b) terminable by the Secretary of State giving one year’s written notice”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, the amendments in this group are probing amendments to understand why the Government have chosen the period of seven years for the academy agreement, not six years or eight years, to understand what evidence they have chosen to support that choice and to probe the direction that the agreement flows in. If a new academy is formed through an academy order and a funding agreement for seven years is established, how can such an institution, if it wishes, revert to the maintained sector? Is it a one-way street or a two-way street? What are the safeguards to ensure that an institution is not stuck as an academy if it wants to come back? I hope that the Minister will be able to furnish us with the evidence on this matter. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
If either Amendment 88 or Amendment 89 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 90 and 92 for the reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 108 and 178 in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Garden. I need not detain the Committee long at this time of night.
Amendment 108 is slightly different in that it concerns the application to convert to academy status, and is very much probing. At the moment, there is no provision in the Bill to withdraw an application once it has been made. Will the Secretary of State allow a maintained school to withdraw an application, and what will be the latest time by which a school can withdraw it? Presumably there will be some point of no return prior to the conversion date or the date on which the academy order is issued, which is the date that allows the school to convert to an academy and therefore to negotiate a funding agreement.
Amendment 178 proposes one of a permutation of clauses—or, rather, it proposes the same clause with a permutation of times in it—and proposes that an academy, once established as an academy, can revert to becoming a maintained school. Its purpose is really to provide a mechanism for the school to revert to maintained status.
It might be of interest to the Committee if I note that the seven-year rule in the Bill came from the Education Reform Act 1988 of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. The rule was originally five years, and Lady Blatch, whom many people in this House will remember, moved as a Back-Bencher that this should be changed to seven years on the grounds that any young person attending what was then a city technology college should be afforded the opportunity to complete a full seven years—the period of secondary education up to 18 years of age. The assumption was repeated by the Minister of the time, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and it might be worth asking whether it continues to be the assumption that academies will provide sixth-form education. Certainly our primary schools and many of our special schools will not necessarily provide sixth-form education.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, my Amendment 179 is also in this group of amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned, probably a number of us were sent them and we have used them in differing ways, but they are in fact extremely similar. My proposal is very much, as we argued in the first place, that if you have to go through a series of consultations before you take the specific step of applying properly to become an academy, the whole procedure of consulting the parents, the staff and everyone—the kitchen sink, as it were—to become an academy is the same as the procedure before you decide to come out of the process. All of that indicates the concern about the whole process. There are without doubt, as originally set out, a number of reasons why a school, having suddenly leapt to the idea that becoming an academy is definitely the way forward, might regret converting to one, so it should have the option of returning to maintained status if that is best for the education of its children.
I therefore join other noble Lords in what they have said about these amendments, and I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy us on these points.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 92 in this group. I cannot resist commenting on the fact that we have been in debate on the Bill for 20 hours and are still only on Clause 2. That says something about the drafting. My amendment covers a simple point. I suspect that the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary, but it makes clear that the seven years’ period of notice the Secretary of State can give under Clause 2(2) in relation to payments to an academy may be given at any time. It follows a well worn precedent in normal law of contract, but if he assures the Committee that it is superfluous, so be it.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I make a brief intervention on the group of amendments concerned with reversion to maintained status. What I am looking for is clarification on the consequences, intended or unintended, of any of these amendments in the case of an academy that had formerly been a church school or a school of particular religious character. Is there a clear intention here that such academies should revert to that form of status, and if so, to what extent in any of these amendments is that intention secured? Moreover, in the provisions that require consultation, in the case of church schools should there not be explicit consultation with diocesan boards of education or their equivalents, for whom such a reversion would have resource implications?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Sharp. She reminded us, in her clear exposition of the history behind the answer to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about the period of seven years and where it came from. The previous Government followed it and we are doing the same.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
In terms of the noble Lord’s approach going forward, I ask what evidence has been used to carry on with that timeframe. There is nothing in the impact assessment about timeframes and I would be interested to know what the evidence is.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My noble friend Lord Wallace says that the evidence is as good as the evidence the previous Government had. The answer to the question is that, over time, the period has shown itself to demonstrate stability for parents and children because it gives them some certainty. However, in terms of the impact assessment, I can give no better answer than the previous Government themselves had.
We think that reducing the period of notice required for termination would create greater uncertainty. We are not aware of evidence that suggests that a shorter notice period would provide a better solution. However—and this comes back to earlier discussions about the difference between the funding agreement and the grant arrangements—there may well be a case where a new school is created for providing a shorter period for the school to prove itself. That is the reason behind the proposed new grant arrangements. In such a case there would be greater flexibility to allow for more regular review of performance, and then once the school had established itself as what is called a free school, it would be possible, if both parties agree, to move on to the more conventional contractual funding agreement.
Furthermore, it is right that the academy itself is sure of this same stability to make long-term plans and that the Secretary of State, when committing to funding, is confident of the proprietors’ commitment to the academies programme. The amendments would add unfair uncertainty to the academies programme. On the question put by my noble friend Lord Phillips through Amendment 92, I am advised that it is already the case, as he says. The Bill gives no prescription about when the notice to terminate may be given.
Amendment 108 seeks to allow the governing body of any school which has applied for an academy order to withdraw the application at any time up to one week before the conversion date. Until the academy arrangements, including the funding agreement, have been signed by both the academy trust and the Secretary of State, the academy trust is free to withdraw its application for an academy order, even if the order has been made in respect of that school, and in theory that could be right up until just before conversion. An order merely permits the school to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State; it does not require it. The decision by a school to enter into academy arrangements with the Secretary of State should be taken after due consideration. The academy trust will want to be confident of its decision when it signs the funding agreement or grant letter but, as I say, in theory that could be up until the point before conversion.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I return to my question in the light of what the Minister has just said. I understood him to say that if a school of a particular religious character becomes an academy and then seeks to revert to maintained status, nothing within the process guarantees that that particular character will be continued and protected.
Lord Hill of Oareford
On the specific point the right reverend Prelate raised in the question he asked earlier, I can tell him that we shall come later to amendments in regard to religious schools and land issues. Perhaps I may write to him to clarify the precise point.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I thank the Minister for his remarks and for putting on record some very helpful information about moving in and out of academy status.
With regard to the seven-year timeframe, given the debates that we have had so far, the main difference between having an academy agreement and having a direct grant payment is the term. I am trying to understand what the Government see as so important about the seven years. Regarding the term of the grant letter, we were advised that the main difference there was the variation of the term. This is an important issue. If the coalition Government had simply carried on everything that we did when we were in government, we would be looking at a very different education Bill now—we would be looking at PSHE and guarantees around one-to-one tuition.
This is about understanding what the Government see as an appropriate term. If it is a new, experimental school that is being funded through a grant letter, then how long is enough—one month, two, three? Does it have to be a year or five years? At what point does it become a stable, going entity? I would be interested to know that, along with what evidence the Government are going to use. If they do not have evidence now, and I understand that there is an experiment unfolding around the free schools, it would be good to understand what criteria are going to be used to look at how well those new funding grants and the terms around them are performing.
I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record those helpful remarks about the transition to and from academy status, and I will read Hansard to understand the implications fully. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) An application under subsection (1) shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed in regulations.”
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
Again, this is about teasing out more from the coalition Government about the practicality of how applications should work and the kind of criteria that the Secretary of State will be using to make decisions about whether a school can become an academy. I am sure that these are matters that have all been thought through.
I would be interested to know whether the Government have considered putting much more detail in the Bill. When we had an academies programme that started off with numbers in the tens, the academy funding agreement and the intensive coaching approach that the Department for Children, Schools and Families adopted was very appropriate. Then we moved on to academies in their hundreds and the YPLA was established, and so on from there. We increased transparency around the standard funding agreements and so on.
Is the Minister considering publishing the criteria for decisions around academy applications? Is he also considering putting more in the Bill as we start to think about a whole system that could be made up of academies rather than a small number focusing on school improvement?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 112, 118, 123, 126 and 187, in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Garden. The key amendment among them is Amendment 123, which has two purposes. In the first place, it asks the Secretary of State to state the criteria for approving an academy order. This is both important and urgent. It is important because, as my noble friend the Minister has made clear, there remains a two-stage process for applications for state-maintained schools converting to academy status. First, they have to apply under the conditions set out in Clause 3 and, if approved, the Secretary of State, under Clause 4, issues an academy order. Once an academy order is issued, the school then has to begin negotiating an academy agreement or a funding agreement with the Secretary of State.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the impact assessment suggests that only 200 schools a year will achieve academy status during the next three or four years. My noble friend the Minister made it clear that this was merely a guesstimate based on past experience. He has also told us that more than 1,700 schools, many of them judged outstanding by Ofsted, have expressed an interest in becoming academies. Even if you halve that, so that the number of applications received is 850, you have to ask whether all those which receive academy orders go on to negotiate academy agreements. The Secretary of State has indicated that all those judged outstanding by Ofsted will be able to proceed unless they are carrying a significant deficit on funding.
If this is so, the department will have to process many more than 200 schools, with not insignificant costs, not least because each school will receive a welcome present of some £25,000. Will all schools applying which have been judged outstanding automatically—unless they carry a large deficit—receive an academy order allowing them to proceed to negotiating a funding agreement? If not, what other criteria will be used to select those that are allowed to proceed? What about the schools judged good or satisfactory by Ofsted? They are also being encouraged to apply, albeit to a slower timetable. By what criteria will they be judged? Neither the Explanatory Notes nor the guidance to schools wishing to apply makes clear what criteria will be used to judge applicants. Amendment 123 would make the criteria public so that schools thinking of applying might be able to judge whether it is worth their while doing so.
The second aspect of the amendment is that it seeks to make it clear, where a school is under notice from its local authority under Section 30 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 or Sections 15 to 17 of the Education and Inspections Act 1996, that the local authority will cease to maintain the school. When GM status was introduced in the early 1990s, many schools sought it as a way of avoiding closure. How far is this likely to be considered by this Government? We face over the short term a very considerable drop in numbers at some secondary schools, especially those that deal just with the 11-to-16 age group, and closures and amalgamations are still very much on the cards. How far will they be allowed to use an application for academy status as an escape route from reorganisation?
Amendment 112 asks that, where a school is being converted to an academy because it is failing and not serving its community as well as it might, the decision is taken in conjunction with the governing body, and that, just as with other schools, the application is made by the governing body and not imposed on it.
Amendment 118 picks up the second issue raised in Amendment 123. This amendment was proposed to us by my honourable friend the Member for Bath, Mr Don Foster, and relates to school reorganisations. There were some instances where plans for a sixth-form reorganisation had been foiled by a key player opting out to become a grant-maintained school. The suggestion is that before a school opts out in this way an independent view should be sought on how it affects the provision of education within the community as a whole. Who better to provide such an independent view than the schools adjudicator, who has already had to look at the contentious admissions procedures? The proposal, therefore, is that when the conversion to an academy is contentious in a local community because of reorganisations, the schools adjudicator should be asked to look at the situation and the Secretary of State should have regard to his or her advice—not necessarily follow it, but have regard to it.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 112. Like the noble Baroness, I have some concerns about the way in which the power to which the amendment refers might be exercised—although, in my case, particularly with regard to church schools, which will come as no surprise. The principle issue relates to the power to intervene should schools standards not be up to scratch. Noble Lords will be aware that such challenge and intervention currently lies with local education authorities for church as for community schools. In our diocesan boards of education and our sister Roman Catholic dioceses and schools commissions, we have long been accustomed to work with them to address weaknesses.
We need to find ways in which to enable diocesan boards of education to be fully involved in identifying weakness and working with governing bodies in supporting improvements at an early stage prior to the exercise of the Secretary of State’s draconian powers as set out in the measure. With or without such a provision in the Bill, there is a further danger in the clause as it stands in that the powers that it confers could be used in respect of a school where standards were unsatisfactory to radically change the character of a school. By turning over responsibility for a school to other providers, the existing trustees could be bought out, the original intentions of a school of religious character overruled and a school of a particular character brought to an end.
The Secretary of State is, I believe, of the view that this would not be compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, but we are not at all sure about that since, as the Bill stands, it would appear that a school could be taken away from the church without the relevant church body—in our case, the diocesan boards of education—having had any opportunity, along with the governing body, or power to challenge or intervene at an earlier stage. We hope that some of these issues can be further explored before the matter returns to the House.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, this group of amendments deals with academy orders which enable the conversion of a maintained school into an academy. Amendments 105, 115 and 123 seek to place in regulations the process of applying for an academy order and to require the publishing of the criteria that the Secretary of State will take into account when approving academy order applications and entering into academy arrangements. As your Lordships might expect by now, we are unconvinced that it is necessary to prescribe in regulations the application process for an academy order, as this is an entirely administrative process. The Government have made it clear that they will apply a rigorous fit-and-proper-person test in approving any sponsors of an academy or promoter of a free school.
In response to one question raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp, I can confirm that the Secretary of State will publish on the department’s website criteria for deciding applications from schools which are not outstanding. I agree that it is important that people know where they stand. We will make sure that those are available when we have done some more work on that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
Can the Minister clarify whether that means that every school that is outstanding which applies will automatically get an academy order, unless it has a deficit of over £100,000?
Lord Hill of Oareford
No, my Lords; I was coming to that. There are some exceptional circumstances where that would not necessarily happen. There may, for instance, be cases where further information or action is required, including where a school is subject to existing reorganisation proposals—such as those referred to in Amendment 123—and where, as my noble friend has said, the school has a deficit or its performance has changed significantly. The Secretary of State has that power and would want to review each case on its merits. There will need to be flexibility in the Secretary of State’s consideration of these factors to make sure that he can make the most appropriate decision in each individual case. Information on those exceptional circumstances is, I believe, available on the department’s website.
In a similar vein, Amendment 126 would require the Secretary of State to make an order through secondary legislation specifying the mandatory contents of an academy order. While each order will inevitably contain certain standard elements, each will be different and specific to each school depending on the circumstances of each case. I think that we touched on this briefly last week. The parliamentary Delegated Powers Committee report on this Bill, dated 17 June, concluded that it would not be necessary for Parliament to scrutinise academy orders, while the expectation is that the academy orders will be brief. Therefore, it is not our view that we need to set out in an order what those orders will contain.
Amendment 118 seeks to require the Secretary of State to seek the advice of the schools adjudicator before agreeing the conversion of a school from maintained to academy status. The local authority normally would decide proposals for changes to existing maintained school provision, including closures, alterations and new schools. Where the local authority itself is the proposer of a new school, the schools adjudicator may be called upon to decide the competition. The decision on academies has, however, always been the Secretary of State’s. Given that the process for converting to academy status will not result in a net change in provision available to parents and pupils in the area, we do not believe that involving the schools adjudicator would be necessary. It might, indeed, introduce another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Sharp on Amendment 187, the Secretary of State does not intend to delegate to the Young People’s Learning Agency any decisions about, or the making of, academy orders. I can confirm that he has no intention of delegating this function, which goes hand in hand with the decision to enter into academy arrangements themselves and which he cannot delegate to the YPLA. Academy orders are made in respect of maintained schools; therefore it is not appropriate to delegate it to the YPLA, which is responsible for certain roles—funding, challenging and supporting academies—once they are up and running, but not before.
Finally, Amendment 112 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make an academy order for a school that is eligible for intervention. Generally speaking, schools are eligible for intervention where standards are too low or there are concerns about performance standards. It is crucial that schools that are failing their pupils can be given the opportunity to convert to academy status and to do so quickly to improve their pupils’ chances. There is evidence that schools obtaining academy status can make improvements to raise standards for all their pupils. It is right to make sure that those schools have that opportunity, too. Removing that option would not be in the best interests of pupils. I hope this has provided some more information and factual answers on several of the points that have been raised. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, given that the hour is so late and the complexity and importance of the information that the Minister has just shared with us, I will want to read Hansard and think about it. One of my concerns relates slightly to the FOI amendment that is coming later. I am concerned about transparency. The coalition Government have said time and again that there is a strong commitment to transparency. We are dependent on a host of information being posted on the department’s website but, given the number of websites being culled at the moment, I am slightly anxious about it. So I want to think about what the Minister has said this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“Community facilities
(1) An Academy order must include provisions which make available for community use some or all of the school’s facilities.
(2) Such provisions shall not be fewer and on less advantageous terms than those which have been available prior to the application being made for an Academy order.
(3) Such provisions may be made by means of a contract or contracts with a local authority or other non-profit making or commercial body.
(4) “Local authority” in this section means a county, district, unitary or parish council.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, Amendment 128 stands on its own. It appears to be obligatory for everyone who now speaks to refer to the lateness of the hour. All I can say is, with 10 groups still to go, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Amendment 128 is clearly a Committee stage probing amendment. It returns to the question of the relationship between the school and its surrounding community, which featured in amendments to which I spoke last week. This is about community facilities that are provided by the school. There has been much pressure on schools for a long time to share their facilities with the wider community. It is something that has been increasing slowly because it is not easy for a school, administratively, to do this; it is not easy to arrange. However, some schools have for a long time provided educational facilities or the accommodation for such facilities in their buildings. More often, the use of sports facilities, such as sport halls, tennis courts, pitches and so on, is provided. I think that many of the new Building Schools for the Future schools have had built into their funding agreements the provision of facilities for the wider community. They are an important part of the place of a school within its community.
Amendment 128 suggests, first, that academies, wherever and whoever they are, should, as part of their agreement, make a commitment to providing at least some of their facilities for the wider community. That should be built into the agreement so that academies cannot walk away from it. Secondly, the facilities available should not be less overall than they were before the school became an academy. Preferably, they should be better. The position should not get worse for the wider community. Thirdly, the amendment draws attention to the way in which schools often come to arrangements with local authorities of various kinds—from the county council down to the parish council—to do this jointly. In many cases, what appears to be a simple facility, such as a children’s play area, can be more complex. The children’s play area might be provided by the parish council or the district council but is on county council—that is, school—land, which would transfer to the academy under these arrangements. The use of those recreational facilities needs to be continued. The amendment highlights all those issues and I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I have some sympathy with this amendment. Certainly, as regards independent schools, under the Charities Act a great deal of sharing of facilities is required. That is extremely effective. Academies will be very much in the same position. It would be interesting to know how this will work for them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his probing amendment and I am happy to provide the assurances that he seeks. Perhaps I may mention that the new Titus Salt School, the site of which he will know very well, has built a car park for its staff that is available for people who use Roberts Park at weekends. The noble Lord will know exactly where I am talking about.
The model funding agreement requires academies to be at the heart of their communities and to share their facilities with other schools and the wider community—for example, by making their sports facilities available for local groups to use. That will remain a requirement on academies. We therefore entirely agree with my noble friend that it is important for a school to be at the heart of its community and that it should, as far as possible, encourage the community to make use of school facilities in the evenings and at weekends. The place to impose obligations on an academy is through the academy arrangements—either the funding agreement or the terms and conditions of grant. We therefore resist the imposition of this in the Bill but entirely sympathise with the intentions of the amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging response and for the fact that it will now be in Hansard if nowhere else, which at least can be quoted back at the Government if it turns out that in some cases schools are trying to renege on these matters. Perhaps I may add that, yes, I know Roberts Park. I think that I was five years of age when I was sat in a thunderstorm in a shelter in Roberts Park and I began to contract the symptoms of measles. I remember it very well indeed. I am not quite sure what that has to do with academies, but it is certainly to do with Roberts Park and me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State before making a property transfer scheme shall consult with—
(a) the local authority;(b) the current owner, if not the local authority; and(c) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Garden. Clause 7 applies not to land but to items such as electronic hardware and software, furniture and cleaning or catering contracts. It permits the Secretary of State to make a property transfer scheme, which, in effect, transfers to the academy various property and contractual rights and liabilities that previously belonged to the local authority or, through it, the maintained school that the academy is replacing. As it stands, the clause makes no mention of any consultation with the owner of the property—whether it is the local authority or otherwise—or with people such as the catering contractors who might be affected by such a transfer. It seems natural justice that they should be consulted and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that they are consulted. Will my noble friend also explain what subsection (6)(a) means? What sort of property rights,
“could not otherwise be transferred”?
I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I have been asked to speak to Amendments 171 to 174 in the name of my noble and right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln, who cannot be in his place today due to commitments in his diocese—although I dare say that his commitments will be over rather sooner than yours and mine.
I should like to speak to these amendments as a group because they relate to complications that could arise from the Secretary of State’s powers to compulsorily purchase the site of an existing church school as part of the academy formation process. The amendments are technical and are being put forward because of the extraordinary complications in respect of the ownership provisions of many voluntary schools sites—again, predominantly those held in trust by Church of England bodies.
As I am sure all noble Lords will know, the School Sites Acts of Queen Victoria are still in force and contain a technicality called a “reverter”. It is our view that reverters will be likely to apply to at least some sites dealt with under the provisions of this Bill and that in consequence the rights of the heirs of original donors will come into force if and when the school site is purchased by the state. Thus, the closure of a school in order for it to reopen as an academy may trigger reverter conditions, enabling the trustees to reclaim the land. Likewise, the original donation of the land in trust probably had conditions attached such as its use for church schooling only. In this respect, we do not think that the Government have taken into account the effects of the Schools Sites Act 1841 and of the Reverter of Sites Act 1987. Many of our school sites can be regarded as being part of the church’s historical assets and every effort needs to be made through discussion with the diocese and trustees to ensure that the transition is both smooth and a legitimate handing on of the asset in trust.
These are therefore probing amendments through which I hope to draw out the Minister to clarify the Government’s thinking on this arcane subject. They seek to protect trustees and heirs from the complications that might ensue and to protect the Government from a nasty and expensive legal trap if the issue is not clarified and addressed now.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the amendments in this group deal with the transfer of school property to the successor academy. Amendment 160 deals with the transfer of property other than land. In response to the question from my noble friend Lady Sharp, that means things such as desks, computers and so on. The amendment would impose a requirement to consult the local authority, and possibly others, before the property may be transferred. In the case of converting academies, the clear intention is that there should be a smooth transfer between the existing school and the academy, as part of which the school would need to be able to continue to use its property, including things such as desks, computers and so on—property other than land. I am conscious that we have discussed the question of consultation in other contexts and I have said to the Committee that I will reflect further and come back to it. I am aware that views on consultation differ, but I will bear in mind my noble friend’s points as part of my reflection.
The amendments spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter are, as he says, extremely technical and complex, particularly as they concern the Reverter of Sites Act. Perhaps it would be acceptable to him if, for the convenience of the Committee, I were to write to him at length on those points and place the letter carefully in the Library. I understand the significance of these issues to the church and do not want to rush them, get them wrong or end up, as he says, with an expensive lawsuit. I am advised that we have some answers to the points. Perhaps I may write to the right reverend Prelate and circulate the letter widely. When he receives that letter, if there are specific circumstances that the church authorities have in mind and about which they are still concerned, I would be happy to consider the matter further if he or others contact me. If he and the rest of the Committee agree to that proposal, perhaps he will refrain from pressing his amendments and my noble friend Baroness Sharp will withdraw hers.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
I thank the Minister for those assurances and will not press the amendments this evening.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I am grateful to the Minister and am glad that he is going to think about this. It seems to be natural justice that there should be some consultation with the owners of the property concerned. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greaves
“Powers and duties of local authorities: oversight and monitoring of Academies
(1) The Secretary of State may by order appoint a local authority as the body responsible for the oversight and monitoring of Academies in its area or part of its area.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may be made for all Academies in the area of a local authority or for one or more types of Academies.
(3) Such an order must be made if the number of Academies of a particular type in the area of a local authority is at least ten or twenty five per-cent of the total, whichever is the smaller, unless the Secretary of State considers after consultation with a local authority that there are special circumstances that make such an order impractical in that particular case.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the operation of the powers and duties of local authorities under this section.
(5) An order made under subsection (2) and regulations made under subsection (4) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 160B in this group. The two amendments cover important and fundamental issues that it is probably too late to discuss in detail: however, they are still fundamental and important. I do not claim that these are perfectly honed amendments that could go into legislation: they are an attempt to set down principles and issues that are important. They probably indicate my lack of detailed knowledge of education legislation. Nevertheless, the two issues are clear, and these are probing and speculative amendments about them.
The first amendment refers to the powers and duties of local authorities in relation to the oversight and monitoring of academies and clearly suggests a role for them in intervention in, and challenge of, underperforming academies. It does not propose any change to the basic powers and freedoms of academies. It suggests that, over a period, the role of supervision and oversight of academies should transfer from a national body—from the Young People’s Learning Agency or whatever other national body the Government of the time decide to use—to local authorities.
If there are a few hundred academies, having this role in the hands of a national body will be feasible and practical and will probably work. However, the more academies there are, the more the creation of a large national bureaucracy to carry out this work will become unrealistic and impractical. If there are 5,000 or 6,000 academies, then it will not seem sensible for one national body to be responsible for oversight, and it certainly will not fit into the Government’s mantra of localism. One might say that it is an old-fashioned state socialist way of doing things, but I do not want to get under the skin of the Labour Party too much, so I say that very gently.
My proposal also fits in with the remaining residual local authority roles in relation to pupils who are, or have been, attending academies. In this Committee we have been discussing roles relating to transport, special needs, excluded pupils and so on. There is clearly a residual local authority role in relation to academies or in relation to pupils attending academies, and it would be sensible if there were not two different bureaucracies dealing with the same schools.
Clearly, we are talking about light-touch oversight. As I said, I am not talking about in any way changing the status or freedoms of academies. However, it seems to me that if oversight is put into the hands of bodies which are closer to the academies, are more local and are more likely to have close relations with them for all sorts of reasons, they will have the knowledge and close links that will make it much easier for them to intervene effectively if and when things go wrong in a school. If and when that happens in an academy, there will have to be outside intervention—we all understand and accept that—but how much easier it will be if this is done by people who already have close working relationships and links with those schools rather than by people charging down perhaps several hundreds miles from Whitehall. Alternatively, the YPLA, or whatever other agency is involved, might have to set up local or regional branches to do this work. There will then be a risk that local authorities will, in a sense, be duplicated by the regional and local branches of the national agency. As I understand it, that is exactly what this Government are trying to avoid. Certainly they seem to be taking an axe to quite a lot of the existing regional bureaucracies—something that I shall not complain about too much—but it seems to me that setting up new ones would be the wrong direction in which to go.
I am not suggesting that the detailed mechanisms in Amendment 160A are the right ones. I am not necessarily arguing for them; I am putting them on the table for a discussion about the way in which it would be sensible to move as more and more academies are created over the next few years, if that is indeed what happens.
Amendment 160B is rather different. It would put local authorities in the driving seat in the process of converting existing schools into academies. This is a probing amendment to ask the Government some fundamental questions. First, what are their ultimate objectives in converting schools into academies? What is their strategy? What do they think the position will be in five or 10 years’ time? Do they expect that ultimately all or most schools will convert to academies—perhaps all schools except those in need of intervention in terms of special or other measures? Is that their ambition?
Several times, the Minister said that the Government want to give all schools the opportunity to apply to be academies. That implies that they want all schools to become academies eventually. If that is their position, we are moving towards a situation in which the local management of schools, which took place in 1988 and subsequently, will be taken to its more logical conclusion and all schools will be given a substantial degree of independence. Any relationship that they have with the local authority will be turned upside down and schools will decide whether to pay for local authority services, rather than having some services provided automatically.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said in a powerful speech at Second Reading that this is the latest in a series of initiatives to make a special category of schools. She referred to technology colleges, grant maintained schools and so on. So far, all those initiatives have resulted in a minority of schools getting special status. Is this the same thing again: that a minority of schools will become academies and that all the rest will continue as usual? Do the Government think that that will happen, after a period of years, or do they envisage every school becoming an academy? I do not think that the Government have made that clear at all and I do not know whether they have a clear idea. I suspect that Michael Gove has a clear idea about it, but I am not sure whether the Government collectively have. That is a fundamental question and it is one reason for tabling this amendment.
The Government are cutting local authorities out of the process of the creation of academies. That will result in a lot of resistance from local authorities, which will attempt to persuade many schools not to become academies. The same will apply to diocesan authorities. The alternative is to put local authorities in the driving seat, letting them supervise, organise and attempt to get some order and sense into the conversion process in their areas.
In Committee, we have talked a little about the transitional period during which an authority might have half of its schools as academies and the other half which it will still have to look after. Perhaps the latter will eventually be a minority, a rump of schools, which inevitably will be the less successful schools, or perhaps the mediocre, satisfactory schools. It is not clear whether the process will work in an efficient and economical way. During this transitional period, it will cost local authorities more money as they will have to provide all the services, but for fewer schools. I believe that putting local authorities in charge of the process will mean that they will be able to manage the whole thing more efficiently and economically. If you give local authorities a job, they will become enthusiastic about it; they will do it; and I believe that you will end up with more academies in a more sensible, organised way than by doing this nationally and trying to lock local authorities out of the process, as that will result in tensions, difficulties, inefficiencies and extra costs.
The wording of these amendments is not necessarily the answer, but these fundamental issues have to be faced, even at this time of night. I believe that the Government are missing a huge opportunity if they do not use local authorities more fundamentally in their ambitious programme to convert schools into academies. I beg to move.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves. I listened to his comments with care and he made some extremely interesting points about oversight. I agree that one has to keep that under review as the situation develops. It goes to the heart of the question about the future role of local authorities, which we have touched on previously in Committee. I recognise that the coalition Government have not yet come up with a complete or satisfactory answer on what it should be, other than saying that we are clear that local authorities should have a strong strategic role.
The issue of it being a revolving picture is related fundamentally to my noble friend’s Amendment 160B. Perhaps I may answer his question directly by reference to Baldrick in “Blackadder”: I do not have a cunning plan around how many schools are likely to convert. I know that my noble friend may find that hard to believe, but it is true that our approach to the legislation is to say to schools that they have the opportunity: it is a choice rather than a compulsion. We do not have a clear view of the landscape in five years’ time because the shape of that landscape will be determined by the response to this permissive legislation.
We see this as being an opportunity that we want to give to schools rather than requiring them, or a local authority acting on their behalf, to convert or plan for conversion. Linked with that is the desire to be able to seek academy status quickly. It may indeed be that over time local authorities will develop a new role more akin to commissioning. I think that was the thought behind my noble friend’s amendment and the 2005 White Paper laid out thoughts on how the role of local authorities might develop. As the department and the Government more generally reflect on the proper role of local authorities and how to work with them—
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I have been listening carefully to the Minister. If the Government do not have a vision for the role of local authorities going forward, would it not be a better idea to take this legislation at a more reflective pace so that people can engage with the coalition Government more proactively and in a considered way? Why are we rushing this? If the noble Lord does not have a picture or an answer, why are we here at 11 pm instead of having more time to think more carefully about the matter and have a proper debate? I do not understand what the rush is.
Lord Hill of Oareford
This relates to a debate I had earlier with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who asked: why the rush? Our answer to that question is that we know there are schools which appear to be keen to convert and to take advantage of academy freedoms. Our instinct is that, given that information and given the choice between going slow and cracking on with it, and providing answers about the strategic role of local authorities going forward, as I fully accept we must, we incline to the latter view.
I fully recognise the experience of my noble friend Lord Greaves in the proper role of local authorities. I hope that he will contribute to our deliberations on these matters. He said that these amendments are meant to illustrate a point rather than being particularly prescriptive in their intent. I have listened to what he said and will continue to reflect on it. I hope that in the light of that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the honesty in his considered reply. I am a little alarmed by the idea that Baldrick may be in charge of government education policy, but I do not think that he quite said that. If I cite him correctly, he said: “We have not come up with a clear answer to the role of local authorities”. The more that we have considered the Bill, the more obvious it has been to me—this point was made by some of my noble friends—that it would have been a good idea for it to have had pre-legislative scrutiny to try to bottom out some of these issues and at least to present us with some considered alternatives on these important matters.
The future role of local authorities in relation to schools is vital. Clearly, a few hundreds of academies can be created without, in most areas, severely affecting the role of local authorities, but not once it gets into the thousands. I think that there are about 20,000 schools in England. If 5,000 or 6,000 of them, a quarter of them, converted to academies, which is clearly possible under the criteria that the Government propose, during the next four or five years, that would have a severe effect on the viability of local authorities—at least in some areas, because their creation would tend to be geographically patchy.
I believe that we are to get a schools Bill or an education Bill which will be a bit fatter than this Bill later this year. If so, this issue should certainly be returned to at that time, if not before. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter. Finally, the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, as to why we are rushing this, is that we have a Secretary of State in a hurry. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if it results in bad legislation with all sorts of unintended consequences, we will have to sort them out in due course.
Baroness Thornton
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment—which I expect he will do rather than test the opinion of the Committee on the matter at this time of night—does he have a view on what is the tipping point? If he does not, perhaps he would like to ask his noble friend what he thinks the tipping point is before a local authority becomes unviable.
Lord Greaves
That is the $64,000 question, or perhaps more than that at present exchange rates. I do not know. We will all have a view on that. It will depend on how big or small the local authority is. A big local authority, such as Lancashire, could probably survive quite a lot of its schools becoming academies, because it would still have a critical mass, but if a small local authority—a small London borough that has only a few schools—is left with just two or three primary schools, it will be in serious trouble.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Is the point not round the other way? If the cumulative impact of a lot of independent academies in an LEA area is to render problems for the education system, what happens if the LEA no longer has any intervention powers? How is the public interest in a community to be upheld?
Lord Greaves
I am beginning to feel like the Minister, the way that I am being cross-questioned by the Labour Party. I am not a Minister; I am not a member of the Government. My first amendment faces exactly the problems that the noble Lord just raised. They are serious problems. The answer has to be properly thought out. It may take longer than this Bill to think about, but it ought not to take very much longer. Having said that, I have said more than enough tonight and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I shall speak also to Amendment 167. Amendment 161 is jointly in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, and Amendment 167 is jointly in the names of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Williams of Crosby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote.
As my noble friend the Minister referred to Baldrick, I think that he will sympathise if I say that Clause 8 could have been drafted by Monty Python himself. It is a dog’s dinner. Quite why we have to have this new definition of “academy proprietors” when the first five clauses make no reference to academy proprietors and they make only a desultory appearance in Clause 6 and a latter-day appearance in Clause 7, I do not quite know. It does not seem to me to be worth its presence in the Bill, which is complicated enough already.
I shall briefly deal with Amendment 161. I am a little shy about proposing it at 11 o’clock at night, but I shall nevertheless do so briefly. The use of the word “proprietor” is unhappy, given that all these academies can only be charities and that the word “proprietor” has an almost aggressively private ring about it, a ring of ownership. If you look up the definition, all its resonances and ring are about personal, private ownership. I am not expecting the Minister to make any concession on this tonight, but if he reflects on this and thinks that the word “operator” would be more in tune with the culture of the Bill, so much the better. The language of Bills can often be quite important in the way they are understood by the public afterwards.
I turn to the heart of this group: Amendment 167. It deletes subsection (4) of Clause 8 which states that all academy proprietors—to use the language of the clause—shall be exempt charities. I know that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts will argue in the next group along the lines that I now do—it is nice to be in harness with him again and to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, o’er yonder because we battled it out for a year over the Charities Bill in 2006. The question of who regulates this new breed of schools is vital. I am entirely happy that the Bill makes clear that all these academies are to be charities—indeed I would have been frantic if it had not.
However, as we in this House know only too well, charities are both highly privileged entities in the national legal fauna and have very considerable tax and other advantages over any other sort of legal animal. Because of that and their ancient nature, and because they are at the heart of civic society and our wonderful voluntary movement, they need to be and, indeed, are specially regulated. It is also fair to say that the law of charity is very particular and complex and requires more judgment on the part of those who apply it than most other parts of our law. It is no accident that the Charity Commission was established in the first half of the 19th century and has maintained to this day its pre-eminent—indeed, almost absolutist—role with regard to the oversight of charity activity and, starting at the beginning, of charity registration.
Therefore, it was with some alarm that I read the Bill and saw that academies were to be exempt charities because, as many Members of your Lordships' House will know, that means that they are taken out of Charity Commission regulation. It is particularly odd on two grounds. First, schools and other educational establishments used to be regulated by what was then called the Department for Education and Science, but that special possession was taken from it and put back into the responsibility of the Charity Commission many years ago.
The second oddity is that existing academies are subject to the regulation of the Charity Commission. I understand that there was a little brouhaha when at first it was suggested that the regulation should not be with the Charity Commission, but that was overcome and the academies remain subject to the oversight and regulation of the Charity Commission. It is worth pointing out that the DCSF, in its guidance to academy schools which it issued less than a year ago, makes very plain why the Charity Commission rather than anyone else is to regulate them. The reason is principally to ensure that academies that are charities must remain charities with the essential attribute of charitable status, which is independence, above all things.
Although the Government will rightly claim that one of the great virtues of the new wave of academies is to be more independent—I do not for a minute suggest that my noble friend the Minister has any other thoughts in his mind—sometimes things can occur that are not intended when one is legislating, and we must be absolutely sure that the independence of new academies, over and against local education authorities for example, is not replaced by subservience to the Government of the day. That is the principal benefaction, if I can use that word, of charitable status, which is why the Charity Commission goes to great lengths to ensure that academy schools are properly independent of government.
The Government say in their guidance that the agreement must be reached after,
“arm’s-length negotiations with the governmental authority”,
and that the trustees of an academy school must not,
“commit themselves simply to giving effect to the policies and wishes of the governmental authority”.
Finally, the trustees cannot agree to allow the governmental authority,
“to decide who is to benefit and in what way … However … it is possible for trustees to accept funding from a governmental authority on terms that are quite prescriptive”.
That gives you a flavour of this long document.
My amendment, which is supported by my noble friends, would bring the regulation back into the hands of the Charity Commission. I do not seek that for any other reason than that it has the experience and expertise to do this job not only better than any other regulating authority but, dare I say it, with less bureaucratic stumbling than might be the case if the regulation were moved to—what is it called these days? Is it still the DCSF?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry. I have got the abbreviation wrong. I am well behind. On utilitarian grounds, and on the grounds of the most effective regulation, the Charity Commission should not be ousted in the way it is in subsection (4).
I also need to say this. The Charity Commission could not take on the role of regulating the new academies unless it was given more staff—it is currently losing nearly 60 staff. Whoever is given the task of regulation will have to have the necessary staff, and any regulating hand will have to have more staff than the Charity Commission, because the Charity Commission has resort to a huge reservoir of experience, expertise and assistance. Noble Lords may ask who will regulate. That is the problem. The Government say that the Charity Commission is not the regulator, but there is nothing in the Bill about who they wish to be the regulator.
Let us concede for the minute that they insist on a different regulator, although I hope the Minister will have second thoughts about that. There are very few examples of other principal regulators. Most of our big national museums are regulated by DCMS, while Kew Gardens is regulated by Defra. Some of the universities are regulated by HEFCE, and some housing associations have a separate principal regulator. There has to be a principal regulator, and if I may say, the principal regulator in the case of the universities has delegated much of its regulatory function to the Charity Commission under a memorandum of understanding. So it all gets a bit confusing and, I would say, wasteful.
I end by saying that, whatever else, we must have the name of regulator on the face of such an important Bill as this. It is not enough for the Government to use their powers to appoint a principal regulator by secondary legislation. We all know how futile are the powers of this and the other place in relation to secondary legislation. We ought at least to have the possibility of commenting on the appropriateness and quality of the principal regulator the Government have in mind in order to assist them.
Finally, why on earth are the Government doing this? I hope it is not because they want to whip these academies through without the careful initial oversight of the arrangements, particularly of the new academies, that the Charity Commission could and will provide. I hope that the Government are not hoping that this will rush things through. If that is the case, they could repent at leisure. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have two amendments that address many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Phillips, although they approach them from a different angle. Given the lateness of the hour, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to them now so that the Minister can deal with the various arguments. I apologise for not having participated in the debates before, although I have read in particular the Second Reading debate carefully. As we are discussing charitable matters, I should declare my interests as president of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations and chairman of the Armed Forces Charities Advisory Company, inelegantly known as AFCAC.
The most important of my amendments is Amendment 164. It would remove the words “is a charity” and replace them with the phrase,
“may be deemed to be an exempt charity if and in so far as it is a charity”.
I am not quite as concerned as my noble friend Lord Phillips about the use of exempt status, but I am concerned about the way in which the charitable status and arrangements are being drawn in this Bill. I do not oppose the principles of the Bill; indeed, I support them, because I am for aspiration in our education system and it seems to me that this Bill will lead to higher aspirations. However, Clause 8 causes me some concern. This is a probing amendment, about which I am much looking forward to hearing from my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I shall take a moment to say a word about the background. The Charities Act 2006, which was a Lords starter like the Academies Bill, went through a high degree of scrutiny, not only pre-legislative scrutiny but also because the parliamentary examination took place twice over. We had reached the end of the process when we came to the wash-up before the 2005 election, when our progress resembled the childhood game of snakes and ladders—we had reached square 99 but then stepped on a very long snake and went all the way back down to square two, from where we had to start again. I had the privilege of serving my party on the Front Bench and, as my noble friend Lord Phillips said, we spent many happy hours with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and others dealing with the issues in that Bill. The result of what some might say was an inordinately long gestation was that we had a huge amount of input from the sector and the wider public. I must say that the then Labour Government were prepared to listen and I think that we made some sensible changes. I think that the sector believes that a delicate balance that reconciles the many strongly held views about the charitable sector and its position in our society was achieved. This Bill, if unamended, will damage that delicate balance.
What is the balance? First, the Bill reintroduces presumption by the back door. The Charitable Uses Act 1601 stated that there was a presumption of charitable status for three purposes: the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion and, of relevance to us tonight, the advancement of education. Therefore, if you checked into the Charity Commission with the Hodgson educational trust, it would be bound to give you charitable status. However, it became perfectly clear in recent years that that no longer held water in our society and that we therefore needed to find a way in which all applicants for charitable status, with the benefits described by my noble friend Lord Phillips, had to show that they afforded an appropriate level of benefit to the public to offset the tax and other benefits that they received. So we achieved a level playing field.
This public benefit test was to be achieved by the Charity Commission and we wanted to make sure that the commission was insulated from political pressure from all sides of the House. Therefore, written into Clause 6 of the Charities Bill were words to the effect that the Charity Commission should not be subject to the direction of any government agency or any Minister of the Crown. We had a level playing field with an independent regulator.
The Bill as drafted blows a hole in this because Clause 8(1) states:
“A qualifying Academy proprietor is a charity”.
That restores presumption. There is no mention of a public benefit test; it just states that it is a charity. Therefore, we no longer have a level playing field. Above all, we are introducing an unlevel playing field in an area of great controversy. It was on education that some of the most difficult discussions and debates in this House took place because of the existence of fee-paying schools that are charities. Indeed, several schools have had their charitable status called into question or, in certain instances, revoked.
The second worry is that this undermines the authority of the Charity Commission and damages its independence. We went to great lengths to make sure that it was above suspicion; if it could be bypassed at any time, that would be a great mistake. I have absolutely no doubt that these academies will be able to show that they can pass the benefit test, so why damage the balance that we created in the 2006 Act?
Most important, we are creating a dangerous precedent. A future Government—not this Government or any Government that I am thinking of—could use this ability to say that something is going to be pushed through on the ministerial fiat. It would be a great mistake to allow that kind of precedent to be created in the Bill.
On the implications of exempt charity status, I entirely share the views of my noble friend Lord Phillips. We need to know what the regulatory body will be. The sly, shy hint in paragraph 29 of the Explanatory Notes does not go far enough. We need to know whether the regulator will have a public benefit test and, if so, whether it will be the same as that of the Charity Commission. It is essential that it should be so.
When my noble friend replies, will he say whether he thinks that he has the power to enforce this? Section 13(2) of the 2006 Act states:
“The body or Minister must do all that it or he reasonably can to meet the compliance objective in relation to the charity”.
However, as far as the Charity Commission is concerned, that is only one of five objectives. It has a public confidence objective, a public benefit objective, the compliance objective to which I have just referred, a charitable sources objective and an accountability objective. We need to know whether those other objectives will be met in this case. As my noble friend has said, we need to know what will happen to existing charities and whether we will have a further unevenness in the playing field.
I do not expect to reach finalisation on this tonight but I seek from my noble friend reassurances on two or three central points: first, that the Government will not reintroduce presumption by the back door; secondly, that they respect the independence of the Charity Commission and its expertise; and, thirdly, that they see the great dangers of the precedent that we will be creating.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I will not make any long arguments. My noble friend Lord Phillips has referred to museums and to Kew, but I think that, although the secondary legislation to appoint a charitable regulator other than the Charity Commission is in draft, it has not yet been triggered. I think that the matter is still in limbo.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
In fact, it came in at the beginning of this month.
Viscount Eccles
I stand corrected. That secondary legislation was drafted by the previous Government and I must confess that I had some hope that the coalition Government would see that there had been an error and not implement it. An extremely strong argument has to be made in order to appoint any charitable regulator other than the Charity Commission. In default of that argument, the Charity Commission should be the charitable regulator.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I have got slightly confused about the groupings. I think that I have a clause stand part in here. Anyway, I shall make a brief contribution to this debate.
The contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on the question of charitable status and the automatic exemption proposed in the Bill was so key that I am not sure that I want to add much more. When I read the Bill, it gave me great cause for concern. I sat through much of the proceedings on the Charities Bill as a new Peer and learnt how thoroughly this House can interrogate a piece of legislation. I came to understand the importance of presumption and the role of the regulator in safeguarding the values that the charity brand, if that is the right phrase, has for members of the public. This is a fundamental step to take.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families considered this measure for its last Bill but rejected it on the basis of advice that we received, so we were listening carefully. There were lots of good reasons why academies might want to become charities, but in the end there were not enough good reasons to suggest that all the careful deliberation that this House and the other place went through to achieve that settlement should be thrown out. To carry on the Monty Python link, I would say that this clause is a dead parrot, as it really is dead as a concept. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I have heard some convincing arguments today for why Clause 8 should not remain in the Bill.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I deeply regret having mentioned Baldrick. I am learning as I go and I shall attempt to be more concise in future.
I shall attempt to respond to some of the broad points that have been made and the specific concerns that have been raised. I am conscious of the expertise that resides with both my noble friends, so I think that the sensible way forward, if they are prepared to spend the time, is for me and officials to sit down with them and go through these points in more detail, taking advantage of their knowledge and trying to address some of the points that have been raised.
Perhaps I may respond in general terms to the main thrust of the points made around Amendment 167, which would remove the provision for academy trusts to be exempt charities. The effect of that, as my noble friend made clear, would be that they would have to continue, as now, to register individually with, and be regulated by, the Charity Commission. As we discussed earlier, hundreds of maintained schools may apply to become academies during the next few years and, as charities, they would, if not exempted under subsection (4), all have to be regulated by the Charity Commission. That would clearly be a huge additional burden. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Phillips that whoever does it will have to deal with it, but I believe that the Charity Commission accepts that the burden of taking on that regulatory role would be considerable.
A range of educational bodies are exempt charities. Further education colleges and higher education colleges are exempt charities and not regulated by the Charity Commission. The governing bodies of foundation and voluntary schools are shortly, following discussion and agreement between the Charity Commission and the department, to become exempt charities as well. They will cease to be regulated by the Charity Commission and will be regulated by the department instead. We therefore thought that academies could be treated consistently with these other schools and educational bodies and be made exempt in the same way.
I know well that the Charity Commission is committed to ensuring that proper public accountability for academies is maintained. It is our intention that funding agreements or grant arrangements should place an obligation on academy trusts to publish their governing documents, reports, accounts and the names of trustees. I hope that that offers the noble Lord at least some reassurance that there would not be an unacceptable reduction in accountability and transparency.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has agreed in principle that the YPLA should be appointed as the principal regulator for academies. That is the government body with day-to-day responsibility for academies. Once opened, it could be the appropriate body to carry out that role. I am told in response to a point raised in the debate that all principal regulators appointed under the 2006 Act have been appointed under secondary legislation.
I hope that my answers have provided at least some factual information. However, having listened to the debate, I repeat my invitation to my noble friends Lord Phillips and Lord Hodgson to spare the time to sit down with me and discuss these matters at greater length. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister cannot be fairer than that. I am tempted to make some comments of my own on some of his, but that would be wicked, cruel and unnecessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(b) may apply to be a community interest company (CIC)”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I shall be very brief on Amendment 165, because it is an alternative route to heaven for academies. It would permit them, instead of becoming charities, to become community interest companies. It is a probing amendment which may repay some study, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say about it.
The Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004—inelegantly entitled, I agree—has in it a bit on community enterprise. Part 2 of the Act, which comprises Sections 26 to 63, establishes the concept of community interest companies. If the Minister’s officials care to look through those clauses, they may be able to or wish to advise him that it could be a useful structure for the new academies to adopt. I shall not weary the Committee tonight with a recitation of how they would all fit together, except to say that Section 35 sets up a community interest test, rather like the public benefit test, while Section 27 establishes a regulator of CICs, as they are known, with extensive powers, and Section 30 caps dividends and distributions, so they are not profit-making in the normal sense of the word. There are a number of less important aspects, which might have value in this approach.
CICs cannot be charities, so they would be travelling a totally separate road. They come under Companies Act regulations. However, this could be a useful alternative—not compulsory, but a possible alternative—to becoming an exempt charity with some of the issues that we have just been debating in the previous group of amendments. This amendment seeks to explore the possibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will probably have something to say on this. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and I had several happy hours in the Chamber discussing community interest companies and how they should be formed. The noble Lord is correct—it was a matter of some significant discussion at the time that a community interest company could not be a charity. However, a main feature of a community interest company is the asset lock. That is why it is such a valuable company form for social enterprises. I am not sure how that could be applied as an alternative form to a charity. This is a complex issue, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is about to make it even more complicated, because I know that he has very firm views on this, but I cannot see how the asset lock would work here.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I do not like being known as a man who complicates things, but I shall just say that I, unusually, do not support the noble Lord in his amendment. The fact that a CIC cannot be a charity is a fundamental impediment. It would also mean that it could not have a principal regulator under the Charities Acts 1993 and 2006, which would be a really major drawback. However, the noble Lord has at least drawn the attention of the House, inadvertently perhaps, to the charitable incorporated organisation, which is a new corporate animal created under the Charities Act 2006. The Charity Commission is still struggling to find the regulations appropriate to the birth of this new beast but, by jingo, when it is born, it will be a perfect vehicle for these new academies. As Clause 8 has been drafted by Monty Python, it will not be a permitted corporate carrier of a school, although plainly it should be. So I am grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment, even if I disagree with it.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to agree with my noble friend Lord Phillips but, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the CICs—a word I have learnt tonight—are not charities so, from a practical point of view, I am advised that any academy which became a community interest company would have to pay corporation tax, rates tax and small amounts of additional VAT. It would also lose Gift Aid on direct donations. Therefore, there may be practical reasons why it is a less attractive option apart from any point about the asset lock, which I am sure I will also learn about rapidly. Given that my noble friend Lord Hodgson will, I hope, be able to discuss these issues more generally with me, perhaps we can touch on this as well as part of those broader discussions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, may I make a point to the Minister? I am concerned about the timing of this Bill because the issues raised tonight are extremely complex. We are due to have Report stage within a week and, knowing that the machinery for getting approval for amendments in government does not move as speedily as one would wish, I am concerned that there will not be enough time to give full consideration to these matters. I hope that he will give some consideration to ways in which this House can really have enough time to deal with these matters appropriately.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have been invited to withdraw my amendment, which I am happy to do. I think that there are ways around the asset lock, which I will not bore the House with at 11.40 pm. To my noble friend Lord Phillips, I had thought about putting down an amendment about a CIO—a charitable incorporated organisation—but since the regulations were not yet drafted, that would be otiose to our discussions on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“Academy proprietors: freedom of information
In Schedule 1 (public authorities) to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, after Part IV insert—
“Part IVAAcademies56A A qualifying Academy proprietor, within the meaning of section 8(2) of the Academies Act 2010, when exercising functions under that Act.””
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the coalition agreement pledges to review the Freedom of Information Act with a view to increasing its scope. This, the first legislative act of the coalition, seeks to reduce its scope. It should not.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, in Amendment 168 my noble friend proposes inserting a new clause that would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to add academy proprietors to the list of public bodies covered by that Act. Having thought about this, and having come newly into the department, I think that he makes a very good point in his new clause. I can see no reason in principle why academy proprietors, in relation to their function of running academies under academy arrangements, should not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act in the same way as all other state-funded schools are.
I am also happy to confirm that this Government, like the last one, accept that academies are public authorities for the purposes of the Act. In principle, then, I am completely with my noble friend on the merits of his amendment. It also helps us to address some of the broader debate that we have had about consultation, where I accept the points that have been made from around the Committee. Making sure that information is available and that there is as much transparency as possible is part of the process of helping to overcome suspicion, so it will help in that respect as well. I undertake to consider the issue further. If my noble friend would be happy enough to withdraw his amendment, I will come back to the issue on Report.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, that is very cheering news at this time of night, I shall go straight off and have a whisky to celebrate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
“( ) requiring the appointed person to ensure provision of premises which meet designated minimum design standards, including standards which meet the needs of students with disabilities”
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I will try to race through this. I apologise for not signalling the subject at Second Reading, which I could not come to. It was, however, trailed in the Statement on free schools. I was grateful for the insight into government thinking which the Minister provided then.
Amendment 175, in my name, is predicated on one overarching fact—that the design of school buildings is fundamental to their purpose; and that a well designed school building, as well as keeping initial and recurring costs down and being environmentally sustainable, contributes materially and significantly to the educational success of the school. In the new Westminster Academy we can see even wider social achievements, including not only the educational results of a drop in truancy and a big rise in attainment, but also a drop in crime around the school. There is nothing in the Bill about the role of design; nor, as far as I can see, is it in the remit of the very interesting New Schools Network, about which the Minister wrote to us. Design was not directly included in the statutory remit of the original academies either, but they were to be created as part of a framework which insists on design criteria.
Design is not an amateur matter. We may all think we know a good design when we see one, but it is not just a matter of good taste. It is a matter of functionality, and of buildings or other objects which achieve a purpose. As regards school buildings, the standards—the modern ones in the Building Schools for the Future programme of the last Government—are well accepted. I entirely agreed with the Minister when he said in the Statement on free schools, in answer to my question, that the building regulations need a fresh look. I am referring not to this ancient corpus of law but to the up-to-date and innovative standards of our excellent new schools. If academies are to be built or put in refurbished buildings outside this framework, unless the sponsors have access to or understanding of school design skills, the children who study there will be deprived. Money will be wasted. I am sure that the noble Lord opposite does not want academy students to be let down in this way.
Listeners to the “Today” programme on 18 June will have heard new sponsors of academies being grilled about how even to get their building up in the first place. Procurement and construction are complex processes, requiring expertise and negotiation. If good design is not part of the process from the beginning, it invariably loses out and so then do the students, not least those with disabilities. My amendment would ensure that the appointed person in the regulations in Schedule 1—usually, no doubt, the sponsor—has a duty to find out what the appropriate design standards are and apply them. As I said, the standards exist. They could of course be adapted to allow for a range of educational models and school ethoi. This would work very well if the Government continued with the client design adviser system, another successful innovation.
I do not think that we should allow our children’s education to be vulnerable to the vagaries and variations in expertise of groups of people who may have clear ideas about the teaching culture they want to set up but no acquaintance with design. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, about the importance of design. There is such a thing as a dysfunctional building. Schools are buildings around which large numbers of children have to be moved every day. It is very important that they are well designed for that purpose, as well as for concentration and calm contemplation of the lessons. If the buildings magnify sound, they will not be very good for that purpose.
I am also concerned about the green credentials of schools. Will the Minister say something about the design standards in relation to the use of energy and water, and the disposal of waste and all those issues? I have often suggested that schools are ideal places for ground-source heating. They have large tarmac playgrounds under which you can put the pipes. It really is important because in the future energy will be even more expensive than it is now and we will all have to pay for it.
I recently went to an academy school where in order to switch the lights off at night the caretaker had to go to the top of the building. However, he was forced to leave the lights on all night because health and safety would not allow him to come down the stairs in the dark. That new, purpose-built academy building was ablaze all night. It was a disgrace and I hope that we will avoid that sort of thing.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Whitaker and I have stood shoulder to shoulder in campaigns for good design in recent years and I am happy to join her in the field tonight. It is too much, no doubt, to ask that the magnificent £50 billion Building Schools for the Future programme should be continued, but it is essential that design standards should not be dropped in the school building that does continue. Presumably that will mainly be the construction of academies. Do the Government intend still to provide some funding to support the creation of fine new academy buildings, as their predecessor did? Will the Government at least maintain minimum design standards?
This matters very much. Children and staff in schools, like everyone else, should work in a good built environment. The benefits of that for their morale, spirit and performance are marked. Good design is practical and works better. Well designed schools, like well designed hospitals, hospices, railway stations and magistrates’ courts, are statements about the values we hold as a society, our attachment to civic values and the public realm and our commitment to sustainability, an important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There are important symbolisms in good design.
Good design is an expression of national self respect. It is a manifestation of the respect we have for our community. There is a noble tradition of design of school buildings and it is one which we must not lose. Our Victorian and Edwardian forebears took it as axiomatic that a school should be a proud statement on behalf of the community in its design. The school building programme launched after the Second World War by Ellen Wilkinson, as Secretary of State, led to a commitment in a number of local education authorities to good design in a modern idiom. The schools designed in Hertfordshire for the local education authority by Stirrat Johnson-Marshall were celebrated. He was an architect who was described as,
“Socratic in manner of discussion and intolerant of formality in any guise”,
which, I think, means that he sought to find out what people thought, to elicit their best ideas and to develop his designs accordingly, as good architects do. Equally, later in Hampshire, the schools designed by Colin Stansfield Smith were celebrated, and the local education authorities which committed themselves to a programme of high-quality design in school building were strongly and admirably supported by the ministry’s architecture and buildings department.
More recently, under the previous Government, we had the Building Schools for the Future programme. I shall mention two schools that were jewels in that programme. The Mossbourne Academy in Hackney was built in an area known as “murder mile” because of the gangland killings there. It replaced Hackney Downs comprehensive, a school which had gone so far down in the world that the tabloids described it as the worst comprehensive in England. The school reopened in 2004 in buildings designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership. The first intake of the new school consisted of children, nearly half of whom were eligible for free school meals and 30 per cent had special educational needs. They took their GCSEs in 2009 and achieved some of the best state school results in the country. The Mossbourne Academy topped the league tables in value added. That was, above all, due to the leadership of Sir Michael Wilshaw and first-rate teaching by his colleagues, but design, they acknowledge, was also an important factor—as was the case at the Westminster Academy, which my noble friend and I visited earlier this year. There, the architects Allford Hall Monaghan Morris were awarded the RIBA Sorrell Foundation Schools Award. This is an opportunity for this House to pay tribute to Sir John Sorrell and his wife Frances for their extraordinary generosity and creativity in their support through their foundation for good school design. The design of the Westminster Academy is beautiful and clever. As my noble friend said, the results in the new school soared by comparison with the results in the old school because pupils were treated with respect through design, and thus learnt to treat their school and neighbourhood with respect. The head teacher and her staff above all deserve the credit, but she insists that the quality and nature of the design of the school were crucial in making possible the curricular flexibility which, in turn, was key to the motivation and success of that school.
The Government want to impose the minimum bureaucratic burden on academies, and that is right. Good design cannot be promoted by regulation, but bad design can be averted. I hope that the Government will keep the minimum design standards that the DCSF pioneered in the public sector. I hope also that the Government will keep the engagement of CABE, which is not a quango to cull. It mobilises at negligible cost talented and expert people to illuminate and promote good practice in design. Here the leadership of Ministers is needed and, as elsewhere in education, leadership, aspiration and ambition are the magical ingredients. Only the best should be good enough for our schoolchildren, their teachers and the staff in our schools. We can afford the best. Good design costs no more than bad design. It is simply a matter of doing the job well. Indeed, good design costs less over the lifetime of the building.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am tempted to answer that lengthy catalogue of good schools in London and close to London by giving examples of schools in Yorkshire and outside the south-east, because often in this House and even more in the national media we tend to focus on what happens in London, not in the rest of the country. One thing which disturbed me in recent years was when I visited a school in Yorkshire which appeared to have been built for a 25-year lifespan. Its sustainability was not good. Also a prison was built for a 25-year lifespan. That is part of what is wrong with current thinking about public buildings as a whole. I also went to a school last year which had been built within the past 10 years and had almost no worthwhile roof insulation. Sustainable standards are not very good in many of the new schools that have been built under the BSF programme. So let us not kid ourselves that the previous Government left us with an unsullied legacy of well designed, highly sustainable buildings of comparable quality to those wonderful Victorian school buildings now being replaced.
I appreciate the thinking behind the amendment, and I am conscious that behind it are stories about charter schools in the United States being put up in warehouses. We had some friends visiting us from New York this weekend who talked about some of the problems that they have run into there with people starting schools in unsuitable buildings. Of course, we wish the premises of all schools to meet the needs of their pupils, including those with disabilities. We are well aware that the quality of the built environment of the schools in which they are educated does affect their outcomes. However, sufficient protections are already in place to ensure that children at academies are as fully protected as those at maintained schools. All schools, including maintained and independent schools, are required to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which include a requirement to prepare and implement accessibility plans. These provide for the implementation of improvements to the school premises to accommodate existing and future disabled pupils within a reasonable period. The 1995 Act will be revoked by the Equality Act 2010, but the requirement for all schools to prepare and implement accessibility plans is replicated in the new Act.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Will the Minister confirm that the department will continue to keep in operation the minimum design standards that operate at present?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have no reason to doubt that—and if I discover that it is not the case, I will of course write immediately to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Listowel
I interject briefly to seek reassurance on those minimum standards. I am reminded by this debate of a report some time ago about a head teacher of a new academy school that had been built without a playground. The head teacher reportedly said, “We don't need one, we will have them working very hard in school all day, thank you very much”. A paper presented to the British Psychological Society emphasised the value to children of having play breaks in the school day, and looked at how those play breaks had been squeezed over time. It would be reassuring to know that there is something in the minimum standards about a play area for children in every new school. If the Minister would write to me on that, I would appreciate it.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have joined in at this dreadfully late hour. I particularly value the point about CABE, which is an economical and expert organisation that we hope will continue to be used as it has been. I am grateful, of course, to the Minister for the degree of his understanding, and for his assurances on accommodation for children with disabilities. I was not quite so sure about the firmness of his assurances about design standards for all schools. Perhaps he might write to me with the assurance that the current design standards will be used for academies, or perhaps we could have a brief chat about it. If the outcome is satisfactory, there will be no need to take the matter further; but we do feel strongly that there must be this assurance. I will read Hansard carefully and hope for another letter, or perhaps a conversation. In the mean time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“( ) In section 133(6) (requirement to be qualified) omit the “or” after paragraph (a) and at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, or (c) an Academy”.
( ) In section 212(1) (general interpretation) insert at the appropriate place the following definition—
““Academy” means an Academy within the meaning of the Academies Act 2010;”.”
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I tabled this amendment to ensure that academy support staff are not excluded from the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, which was set up under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The establishment of this negotiating body was supported on all sides of the House. There are concerns that, because academies have freedom to negotiate separate pay and conditions, their staff will be excluded from the negotiating body.
Many people will recognise that changes in educational practice over the past 10 years mean that support staff now play a very important part in schools. Over the years, we have treated them extremely badly. The negotiating body is the first move on the part of any Government in creating a proper career structure and providing proper negotiating machinery for support staff, who have been paid extremely badly. We are seeking assurances from the Government that academy staff can be included within this negotiating body. I beg to move.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, there are over 200,000 more support staff in our schools thanks to the investment put into school improvement under the previous Government. More than 123,000 of these staff are classroom teaching assistants, who support teachers in identifying and helping children who need extra support.
The previous Government established the School Support Staff Negotiating Body to ensure fair pay and conditions for hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs on the front line help to give every child the best start in life. This was part of a partnership that we built between government, employers, unions and staff, known as the Social Partnership.
A forum for real dialogue between government, the trade unions and school staff is something which I consider to be extremely important and which I am sure all of us in this Chamber can look back on with pride. Whatever else the coalition Government may disagree with us about, I hope that—in going forward with the previous Government’s approach—they do not forget that it is by working with, and not against, staff that you can drive change and raise standards in our schools. I hope that we can hear some very constructive language and views from the government Benches.
It is true that under the previous Government academies were not covered by the national pay and conditions structures, although they were invited to be involved in the school support staff negotiation process. As I understand it, the amendments in this group are not intended to represent reneging on that position. If academies are to become the norm for secondary schools in this country—if the majority of schools adopt academy status, as I understand is the Government’s view—these amendments are looking for an understanding that, rather than being a tool for driving improvement in a number of areas, it is right and proper that there should be a framework for collective bargaining, particularly for these important staff members who have made such a difference in our schools.
Giving a few schools in challenging areas the freedom to vary the terms and conditions is one thing, as it may help them to break down entrenched disadvantage and to attract new staff to schools where morale may have been low and staff turnover very high. However, by giving such freedoms first to the strongest schools may undermine the aims of the academy scheme and, therefore, the rationale for the approach to the rights of workers in the sector to collective bargaining. The rationale simply will not stand up. I hope that the Minister can respond with supportive language to these ideas. I look forward to hearing his views.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I always try to be as helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, as I can. I certainly echo what she and my noble friend said about the importance of support staff and the contribution that they make. On this occasion, I fear that I shall not be able to be as supportive as she perhaps would like and as my noble friend might like in substantive terms.
Our view is that the freedom over staff pay and conditions, which has been extended to academies in relation to teaching staff, is an important freedom and it is one of the reasons why schools have wanted academy status. Our view is that if it is good enough for teachers, it is good enough for support staff. I suspect, although I do not know because it was before my time, that at the beginning, when academies were given greater discretion over pay, there may well have been concerns that it would lead to staff at academy schools in some way being done down because they were not part of national agreements. Over time, those fears have not been realised.
There is no reason to believe why the same should not happen as regards school support staff. Academies could use their greater freedom to treat them well and perhaps to treat them better. We believe that those freedoms have been vital to academies’ success. They allow them to make changes to the school, to drive up standards and to employ the best staff. It is one of the core freedoms. On this occasion, I certainly feel that academies ought to be able to have those freedoms in relation to school support staff.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister was not more forthcoming on these amendments. It seems to me that over the years support staff have not been treated well and this was a positive move to give them status. However, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not pursue the matter further. Perhaps the Minister and I can have words about it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The Earl of Listowel
“Annual reports
The Secretary of State must produce a report every twelve months on the impact of the number of Academies established in the past year on the teaching workforce.”
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I will endeavour to be as brief as possible. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report every 12 months on the impact of the number of academies established in the past year on the teaching workforce. The purpose of that is twofold: first, to produce some mechanism to monitor the impact of these changes on the workforce; and, secondly, to flag up the concern that inadvertently these changes might lead to the creaming off of the best teachers into the best schools with the best pupils, with the consequence that the poorest pupils in the worst schools would have the least good teachers. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but it is much better to consider such possibilities now rather than just walking down the road and running into them later.
As regards the reports, will the Minister consider some way of monitoring the impact of academies on the general teaching workforce? Perhaps there is already enough to measure what is happening on the ground. Can he comment on that, or perhaps write to me? I would also be grateful to hear from the Minister what action he can imagine if what I have described were to happen. He has already referred to what can be done—for instance, Teach First is focused on the most vulnerable children in the most difficult areas. I think that City Challenge helps in this area, too. What other mechanisms might be put in place to redress the possibility early on before the rot begins to set in?
I worry about stratification. I have already mentioned the consequences of a mixed market in the Prison Service, in child care and in independent social work practices. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the guardians ad litem, who were crack social workers appointed by the courts to represent the voice of children in public law in the courts. They present rather a good case in point for the rationale for having academies, because those social workers were frustrated by working in local authorities. By working for the courts, they were independent and pretty much decided how much time they wanted to dedicate to each child. The posts attracted many of the best social workers, paid less for their experience and gaining little career progression. At least a couple of your Lordships had spouses working in this area. Unfortunately, 12 years ago the Government decided that they wanted firmer control over these practitioners and as a consequence many of them simply left social work.
It is easy to be critical when one is not responsible for such a change, but I remember attending a meeting where the guardians were gathered. It was so disappointing to see such a great deal of expertise leaving the profession. Now we have the Child and Family Court Advice and Support Service, which amalgamates the former guardians ad litem and the former court reporting officers. There again we see a problem, in as much as CAFCASS requires officers who have at least three years’ experience in social work. That means that frontline social workers are pulled off the front line into CAFCASS and are taken away from where they are needed most.
My point is that that was all done with the best of intentions, but the consequences were not thought through at the time. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. I would appreciate a sense that the Government have considered the issues, that they have ways of monitoring the impact and that there are means of taking action if that becomes a problem in future. I beg to move.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I hope that I can provide some reassurance on the concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which he has made consistently throughout Committee. The Department for Education publishes comprehensive statistics each year on the school workforce—I give way to my noble friend.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I was expecting the number of my amendment to be called. I apologise; I will be very brief. First, as it is the last amendment in this long Committee, I should like to say a word of tribute to the Minister, Lord Hill of Oareford, because after a baptism of fire—perhaps a baptism by exhaustion is a more favourable phrase—he deserves great credit for having sat through the whole thing and been so helpful in his responses.
My amendment is similar in many ways to, but not the same as, that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The noble Earl is particularly concerned about the issue of monitoring and of the effect on the teaching workforce. I have sympathy with him, because we know that there has been recruiting of head teachers to academies over and above the normal recruiting of head teachers. There is a real worry about weakening the quality of the teaching force in maintained schools. However, my reasons are rather different. I will mention them in a couple of sentences. They are all about accountability.
My great concern about the Bill is that there is very little structure of accountability in it. Once local authorities have gone and once the consultation has gone, we begin to look at the frightening prospect expressed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts when he talked about the possibility that the powers rested with the Secretary of State and his department, almost unchallenged all the way down to the schools themselves. That is why I propose a report to Parliament to bring one body of accountability back into the picture. There have been very few countries—the Soviet Union was one exception, and Germany under the Nazis was another—where there was no accountability whatever between schools and central Government. That continues to trouble me. Although I do not pretend that my amendment will by itself meet the need, there is a serious need for greater accountability. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, has accepted that. We look forward to what he has to say at Report.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Forgive me for having pre-empted my noble friend Lady Williams; I will make a second stab at it. Before I do so, I thank everyone who is still here at this late hour and everyone has been here throughout this Committee. My noble friend pointed out that it has been something of a baptism of fire, but noble Lords’ comments have been unfailing helpful, courteous and stimulating, and I am extremely grateful.
I understand the desire of the noble Earl and my noble friend Lady Williams for information. The department publishes comprehensive statistics each year on the school workforce in England, which may well provide him with some of the information that he is interested in on teachers. Those data are published provisionally in April and the final data are published in September. They contain information about the number of teachers and other school staff in academies compared with previous years. The noble Earl would be able to see that information, and it may provide him with some of the facts and figures that he wants.
In relation to his fears about what might happen, from a practical point of view, it is the case that the first wave of new academies will all be outstanding schools, so it may well be the case that the impact on staff will be less pronounced than was the case with some earlier academies where there was a bigger turn-around job. Common sense says that there will be more continuity in a school converting from maintained to academy status. I agree with the noble Earl’s underlying point. Our job overall is to attract more good teachers into all schools. I do not think that one should accept the premise that there is a given number of good teachers and therefore be afraid that that fixed number of good teachers will just be parcelled up throughout the system. I think all noble Lords would agree that we need to do all we can to increase the supply of good teachers. We will aim to do that by working to raise the esteem of the profession, which is clearly vital, strengthening the ability of schools to improve discipline, removing some of the bureaucracy that we have discussed in this Committee to enable teachers to get on with teaching, and extending programmes such as Teach First and Future Leaders. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Earl.
However, we are not convinced that if we provide more of this kind of information, an annual report by the Secretary of State is necessarily needed to address the issues of substance. We are not certain that it needs to be in legislation. So far as the annual report and the points made by my noble friend Lady Williams are concerned, I accept that we need to have information out there on which people can make decisions. In part, I hope that will be helped by our earlier discussion about freedom of information, which will be part of making more information about academies available. As part of my commitment to think about how one gets more information out in general, we need to look at how parents can get information about schools more readily.
The academies programme will continue to be evaluated, and the results will be published. The National Audit Office and the Education Select Committee are likely to have a continuing role in monitoring the provision of education at academies. With that panoply of different forms of scrutiny, our view is that a formal report to Parliament would not be necessary. That said, I accept the underlying force of the points made by my noble friend and the noble Earl. I hope that will provide some reassurance and I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous and helpful reply. I hope, like him, that there is no given number of good teachers. I am afraid that my experience elsewhere is that there have been shortages of the best, but I very much hope that his Government’s programme next year will continue the process that was begun by the preceding Government to raise the status of teaching and to make it more attractive. The current recession may well boost that.
A thought occurs to me. One thing that we have done in children’s homes in this country is to have Danish pedagogues working alongside British practitioners. Since we have talked a fair deal about Finland and other countries, perhaps we might encourage an exchange with a country such as Finland so that some of its teachers come and practise in our schools, particularly in our more difficult inner-city schools, as another means of raising standards.
I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Reports to Parliament
The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the progress of schools which have converted to Academies, and on the implementation of this Act, not more than 12 months after its commencement, and each year thereafter.”
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank the Minister for his response, and thereby sadly, but not necessarily permanently, will not move the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford