House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to make Britain’s railway system more financially viable.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Sir Roy McNulty’s review of value for money on the railway has produced a scoping study that identifies that the UK’s railway is, prima facie, up to 40% more expensive than railways elsewhere in Europe. We must adjust to a world in which our aspirations for a successful railway have to be met from within a much tighter public spending envelope. I have therefore asked Sir Roy to accelerate his work looking at the drivers of cost across the industry, and to produce recommendations for creating a sustainable railway with growing passenger usage and declining subsidy.
Chris Skidmore
According to the parliamentary report “Transport in the South West”, the south-west has been hit with an increase in the price of unregulated fares. The report states that some rail fares between Swindon and London—a distance of only 77 miles—are the highest for a comparable distance anywhere in Europe. Will my right hon. Friend consider the impact of unregulated fares, especially in Bristol and my constituency of Kingswood, in future rail policy decisions?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. About 60% of rail journeys are undertaken using regulated fares, which are governed by the formula imposed by the Department for Transport, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has today initiated a consultation on future franchising strategy, and we can certainly take my hon. Friend’s representation as a response to that consultation.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The inefficiencies identified by Sir Roy McNulty must be addressed as a matter of urgency, but does the Secretary of State agree that passengers, and indeed freight, must not be priced off the railway, and that essential investment, such as electrification, must go ahead?
Mr Hammond
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for the review and the work that Sir Roy McNulty is doing, and I am glad that she recognises the urgency of ensuring that our railway is affordable and sustainable, so that it can attract the investment that it needs. I agree with her that we need a sustainable railway with growing passenger numbers and growing freight usage.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that we want a sector that not only is financially sound, but delivers a better quality of service for passengers?
Mr Hammond
My hon. Friend is, once again, absolutely right. The objective must be to have a railway that is responsive to the needs of its customers, generating viability by responding to those needs—in fact, a railway that does what businesses throughout the economy do if they are to be successful and sustainable.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that a central issue for the financial viability of the railways is the Government’s future policy on fare increases. The coalition agreement commits the Government to fair increases in rail ticket costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm recent reports that he has proposed to the Treasury changing the formula on capped fares and season tickets for next year from the retail prices index plus 1% to as much as RPI plus 5%? Does he not understand how unfair and unreasonable a fares hike of up to 10% will be to millions of hard-pressed commuters across the country if he cannot give an assurance to the House that every penny in increased fare revenues will be reinvested in the new rolling stock and capital projects that our railway system so badly needs?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman got to the nub of the issue in his last sentence. The coalition agreement commits us to a policy of fair fares, and we are committed to ensuring that fares are fair for rail users. No decisions have been made as yet about future fare increases, but he correctly identifies that, as a result of the spending review precipitated by the fiscal crisis that we have inherited, there may have to be a trade-off between fares and continuing vital investment in our railway. I have said that it would be wrong to rule out, ahead of the spending review, any change to the fare policy.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
3. What progress has been made on his Department’s review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
9. What progress has been made on the Government’s review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
10. What progress has been made on the Government’s review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government today launched their consultation on the future of rail franchising policy. Our proposed reforms will lead to longer, more flexible franchises to incentivise private sector investment in the railways, which will benefit passengers and improve value for money.
Nick de Bois
Given the current poor standard of commuter service that my constituents in Enfield North receive from National Express, as evidenced by the lowest average customer satisfaction rates across the south-east, how will our franchising proposals improve the experience for passengers in my constituency and elsewhere?
Mrs Villiers
We will ensure that the new rail franchising system imposes on train operators demanding performance requirements, based on passenger outcomes and passenger satisfaction. Operators that do not meet those demanding requirements will face serious sanctions that will include, in the most serious cases, termination of the franchise. We believe that longer franchises will lead to more private sector investment and the improvements to stations and railways that passengers want, to improve their journeys. Longer franchises will also enable train operators to build longer-term working relationships with Network Rail, which are so vital to ensure that our railways are run efficiently and deliver value for money.
Iain Stewart
Many of my constituents in Milton Keynes are angry that despite paying about £5,000 for annual season tickets and having undergone years of misery as the west coast main line was upgraded, they are still denied access to Virgin trains at peak hours; the trains either do not stop at all or—perversely—they do stop, but only to let people off, not on. The long-term solution is the extra capacity that High Speed 2 will deliver, but will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when the west coast main line franchise comes up for renewal in 2012, she will ensure that my constituents have fair access to high-speed services?
Mrs Villiers
All representations from the affected communities will be taken on board as the decisions are made. We hope that what will result from the rail franchising reforms on which we are consulting at the moment is a better and more intelligent and flexible approach to timetabling. That will enable the demands of passengers to be more readily met than they are by the current inflexible system. My hon. Friend is right that the long-term solution has to be a new high-speed rail line. There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when the west coast main line will be simply full to bursting and we will need to provide extra capacity. That will release more space for commuting and stopping services on the west coast main line.
Brandon Lewis
The tourist industry in Great Yarmouth is worth almost £500 million, yet the train station is not exactly a welcoming gateway to our town. Residents would like a better station. Will the Minister give some assurance to the residents of Great Yarmouth that under the new franchise agreement we will be able to put some onus on the franchisee and Network Rail, to make sure that they can invest in things such as the stations themselves, so that we can get a better train station for Great Yarmouth?
Mrs Villiers
I recall the discussions that we had on this issue when I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency. I believe that the issue is a prime example of how the reforms that we are proposing could yield significant benefits for passengers. They will give the opportunity for private sector investment in stations such as Great Yarmouth’s. At the moment the franchise is of about seven years, and that simply does not give the certainty needed for private sector investment to pay for itself during the franchise. With longer franchises, we can expect more station improvements of the sort that my hon. Friend wants.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Minister agree to meet a small delegation led by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) to discuss the Nuckle project in Coventry? The situation has been going on for a number of years and it needs resolving one way or another.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Given that franchises have failed already, many more franchises are going to fail under what is likely to be a much harsher financial regime. Is it not time to bring things in-house and begin to recreate the state railway systems that operate so well and so much more cheaply on the continent of Europe?
Mrs Villiers
The hon. Gentleman’s views on the railways are well known, although I am afraid that I do not share them. It would have been impossible for there to have been the significant growth in passenger numbers that we have seen since privatisation without the benefits that private sector innovation and enterprise have brought. Reversing things and renationalising the railways would be a retrograde step.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I note from the Order Paper that there are five identical questions on rail franchises from new MPs no doubt keen to impress their Whips. Half an hour before oral questions we had a press release from the Department for Transport announcing a consultation on the new rail franchises. Will the Minister confirm that in the new consultation that she has announced this morning, there will not be any barriers to stop new models, such as mutuals and co-operatives, from taking over franchises?
Mrs Villiers
There would be no barriers to mutuals and co-operatives bidding for franchises if they fulfilled the criteria. All franchise bids will be judged objectively on the quality of the services they will provide for passengers and value for the taxpayer.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
4. What plans he has for the future of the port of Dover; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
Dover harbour board has submitted a transfer scheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If—I reiterate if—that is approved, that will allow the board to privatise the port of Dover.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the Minister for conducting this review. Will it consider the community’s bid to buy the port of Dover and turn it into Dover’s people’s port? It is important that people know that the big society is not just about cycle paths, canal-side tow tracks and things like that—the big society is, well, big. It should include the port of Dover, and deprived communities should benefit as much as well-off communities.
Mike Penning
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his stalwart and continuing hard work on behalf of his constituents and his continued view on where Dover port should go. The consultation that I announced yesterday is part of the manifesto commitment to allow local people, businesses and the port to ensure that there is as much information as possible in the public domain, including the proposals on the people’s port.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The future of the important port of Dover will be very much influenced and helped by improving transport links and access to it, particularly from the north-west. Does the Minister think it important, therefore, that the proposed Mersey Gateway is given the go-ahead to improve that access?
Mike Penning
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but the key to this question is Dover. He is asking a separate question, and if he wants to write to me, I will be more than happy to answer it.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had with representatives of environmental groups on transport issues since his appointment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
Since May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other members of the Department’s ministerial team have had a number of meetings with environmental groups at which a wide range of transport issues have been discussed.
Karen Bradley
I thank the Minister for his response. Many people living in rural areas such as Staffordshire Moorlands have no alternative but to use the private car. Will the Minister provide more details about his discussions with the environmental groups that he has been meeting regarding how to promote alternative transport in rural areas to encourage carbon reduction and promote economic growth?
Norman Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that in rural areas it is difficult to find alternatives to the private car, but there are examples across the country, not least in my constituency, where voluntary organisations have come together to form effectively operating bus routes, and there is a good community transport network, with dial-a-ride and other such services. We are also investigating in the Department alternatives to travel, including the roll-out of broadband and home working to enable those in rural areas to benefit from society as a whole. Ultimately, of course, local authorities are best placed to decide on local transport polices, and the Government’s policy of removing ring-fencing will enable them to respond more sensitively to issues such as that which my hon. Friend raises.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Environmental groups and, earlier this year, the Transport Committee have highlighted the fact that electrification of the midland mainline would bring great benefits in terms of changing rolling stock and improving the service, as well as the environmental impact. When will the Government prioritise the necessary “stitch in time” investment in the electrification of the midland mainline?
Norman Baker
The Government are committed to electrification of the railways and believe that that is sensible in order to remove carbon emissions from the transport sector, in so far as possible, and to improve the conditions and experience for passengers. Obviously, any decisions on that and other matters are subject to the spending review, but that is the direction of travel that we wish to follow.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
One voluntary sector organisation that Ministers will want to meet is the Campaign for Better Transport, whose new report, “Smarter Cuts”, shows a rather better understanding of the state of public finances than that of some people in this House. It emphasises the need for cuts that are consistent with our need to meet carbon emission reduction targets and deliver long-term value locally as well as nationally. Will Ministers actively consider this important and useful report?
Norman Baker
We are very happy to consider that report. I have already met representatives of the Campaign for Better Transport in the course of my ministerial duties. My hon. Friend is right. In this difficult spending review and the process afterwards, we must ensure that we prioritise job creation that is green, and ensure simultaneously that we cut carbon. In addition, the Government’s localism agenda, which devolves power to local authorities, will enable us to respond more actively to the points that my hon. Friend correctly makes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Many environmental groups were quite concerned when the Secretary of State, on first taking office, declared that he was going to end the war on motorists. That perhaps did not show quite the right set of priorities in putting environmental issues at the top of the agenda. May I urge the Minister to work with groups such as Sustrans on alternatives to motoring and on ensuring that there are green alternatives where motoring is the only option?
Norman Baker
The Secretary of State was concerned about issues such as private sector wheel clamping, which had led to unfair treatment of motorists. That view is shared across the coalition. He is also concerned to ensure that we decarbonise road transport and achieve carbon gains from the roll-out of electric vehicles, for example. There is no difference at all between our positions on that. We have a coherent transport policy that will deliver jobs and carbon reduction.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
6. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policy of Sir Andrew Foster’s report on the intercity express programme.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
My statement to the House of 6 July announced that a decision on the future of the intercity express programme would be made as part of the spending review announcement in October, and that the Government would use the intervening time to pause for reflection and a fresh, detailed analysis, including a review of the alternatives in line with Sir Andrew’s recommendations.
Mike Crockart
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, but given that the country and indeed his Department continue to suffer from significant budgetary pressures, would it not be better to cancel the IEP programme and extend the life of our InterCity 125 trains, which have performed very well over the years, so that we can continue to invest in matters such as upgrading track infrastructure and high-speed rail, which would deliver significant economic benefits?
Mr Hammond
The previous Government commissioned a report from Sir Andrew Foster, which has now been delivered. It was a detailed piece of work containing a lot of recommendations, and one of Sir Andrew’s suggestions was that we should review the possibility of an upgrade and life extension of the existing 125 fleet. That is one option that we will consider during the pause that I mentioned.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
If the intercity express programme survives the comprehensive spending review, Hitachi intends to build the trains in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, creating hundreds of jobs there and thousands in the manufacturing supply chain. It would be one of the biggest investments in the north-east since Nissan. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and a delegation of north-east businessmen and trade unionists so that we can get the point across about how important the scheme is to the north-east of England?
Mr Hammond
I am always happy to meet Members, and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I met the president of Hitachi recently on his visit from Tokyo, and that I have met the Japanese ambassador, and they forcefully made the same points as him. We will of course take them into account.
I should perhaps say that Hitachi is also interested in other rail projects in the UK, and we have heard very encouraging signs that the company intends to establish a serious presence in the UK as part of our future rail infrastructure development.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that as a direct result of our investment, more people are using our railways than at any time since the 1940s. That is good for the environment and for tackling congestion and all its consequences. Continuing with our programme of additional rolling stock will not only lead to more jobs but be good for British manufacturing and growth. It is also a good way to continue to encourage more people to leave their cars and use our rail network. Will he aggressively lobby the Treasury for more investment in rolling stock, rather than listen to some of his hon. Friends who want cuts in additional rolling stock?
Mr Hammond
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is conflating the debate on the high-level output specification rolling stock programme with that on the intercity express programme, but once again he shows a failure to recognise the reality of the situation that we have inherited from the previous Government. We have to deal with the fiscal crisis facing this country and prioritise investment in matters that will support economic growth and the decarbonisation of the economy. We will do that job effectively, and he will hear the result once the spending review is announced in October.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
7. What representations he has received on upgrading the A64 between York and Scarborough; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
As well as verbal representations from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), I have received two letters that the former has forwarded to me and two from the latter.
Miss McIntosh
Having newly been elected to Rillington and Filey, I am very aware of their concerns, particularly about road safety in Rillington. Will the Under-Secretary look favourably on reviewing any potential upgrade in the long term, but take measures in the short term that will save lives at Rillington, and use the opportunity to green the economy and improve the quality of life for people all along the route?
Mike Penning
I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on bringing the matter to my attention. The upgrade would cost £500 million, but the local authority has made no representations for regional funding allocations since 2006. I will look at measures as they are presented. However, while the spending review is still going on, no commitments can be made.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
8. What estimate he has made of the number of passenger flights cancelled as a result of travel agents going into administration in the latest period for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In the year to 31 March 2010, 29 companies licensed by the air travel organiser’s licence scheme failed. Under the ATOL scheme, managed by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2,445 passengers were able to complete their holiday and return home without charge. A further 45,114 were entitled to full refunds.
John Robertson
The Minister will know that 180 passengers were stranded at Glasgow airport on Friday, thanks to the collapse of Goldtrail. There were also 16,000 people stranded abroad. How does she propose to try to help those people get compensation? In some cases, they have been told that they will have to wait for at least two years before they get their money back. How can she stop those companies causing such disruption and ensure that people get home as quickly as possible?
Mrs Villiers
The CAA is working hard to repatriate the people affected by the Goldtrail failure, which has caused significant anxiety and disruption to people’s holiday plans. Our officials are working hard with the CAA to ensure that that repatriation effort goes well. We are also urging the CAA to ensure that lessons are learned from XL and the long time it took to process claims. The CAA urges all those who are ATOL protected to submit the relevant documentation so that refunds can be processed as quickly as possible. In the longer term, we need a bigger reform of the way in which the system works.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
To refer my right hon. Friend to earlier answers on rail franchising—
Mr Speaker
Order. We cannot go into that. We are dealing with a specific question about cancellation of passenger flights, on which I thought the hon. Lady wanted to contribute. Never mind—we will move on.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
12. What plans he has for the future of the franchise for the east coast main line rail service.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government intend to let a new franchise to return the operation of east coast main line rail services to the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State launched a franchising review this morning, seeking views on the most appropriate options to secure longer-term investment. In the meantime, services will continue to be provided by the East Coast Main Line Company Ltd, which the Department owns in its entirety.
Hugh Bayley
The headquarters of the east coast rail service has been based in York since the 19th century because logistically it is the right place to be. Will the Secretary of State examine the case for reducing uncertainty for the key business partners of the east coast train operating company by confirming that the new franchisee, when appointed, will be required to keep the headquarters of the business in York?
Mr Hammond
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on behalf of his constituents and I understand the concerns that the uncertainty will cause. However, it would be wrong, in view of the franchising consultation that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced today, for me to start making prescriptive statements about what a future franchisee under an as yet undetermined franchising regime will be required to do.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
13. What progress has been made on the Government’s review of rail franchising; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier.
Peter Aldous
Will the Minister confirm that the review of the Greater Anglia franchise will recognise the vital importance of the east Suffolk line from Ipswich to Lowestoft, and the need for both an hourly service along the whole line and the reintroduction of through trains to London, which are being withdrawn in December?
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be wise for me to start making timetabling decisions at the Dispatch Box. However, we are determined that the franchising reform, on which we will consult in the next few weeks, will deliver improvements for passengers, improve train operators’ ability to respond flexibly to increases in passenger demand on particular routes and help deliver the private sector investment to provide vital enhancements to our railways.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Given that current legislation prevents organisations and companies that do not yet run rail franchises from bidding for them, will the Government consider changing it in their review to allow mutuals and co-operatives to bid for future franchises?
Mrs Villiers
I think that that question has been dealt with already. If mutuals and co-operatives can satisfy the requirements of the franchising process, they will be permitted to bid.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I think this is the appropriate moment to ask my question, Mr Speaker. In her discussions with rail franchises and franchisees, will my right hon. Friend ask them whether they will consider bringing longer trains through stations whose platforms have not been lengthened when they have available rolling stock? That is common on the continent, but we do not do it here, and it would greatly help at overcrowded stations such as Wandsworth Town station in my constituency.
Mrs Villiers
I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s strong campaigns for rail services in her constituency, and our visit to Clapham Junction railway station was particularly informative. She makes a good point about the more flexible use of capacity, and the train operators and Network Rail would certainly do well to take it on board. I suggest she raises it further with them.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
14. What recent representations he has received on a compulsory requirement on cyclists under 16 years old to wear cycle helmets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I recently met representatives of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who told me in no uncertain terms that they would like wearing cycle helmets to be compulsory for children under 16.
Annette Brooke
I am sure the Minister shares my concern at the last set of figures for 2009, which show that for under-16s, serious injuries are up to 489 and that there were 16 deaths. Will the Minister give the House some information on the review of cycle helmet effectiveness that was planned for later this year? How will he make progress on striking the balance between encouraging cycling but, more importantly, encouraging child safety?
Mike Penning
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this subject up. It is ever so important that we encourage more people to take up cycling, particularly young people, but at the same time, we must not scare them off by trying to force them to wear helmets, recognising the peer pressure on them. The Department ensured straight away that all its videos, DVDs and anything it broadcasts on the internet do not feature children under 16 without a helmet. That is the sort of message we need to send. Compulsion would be almost impossible to enforce, but we need to work to educate more young people to wear helmets.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On enforcement and the increase in cycling in recent years, which is set to continue because of the previous Government’s investment, is the Minister holding discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office on policing cyclists? I am referring particularly to the minority of dangerous cyclists who get the rest of us a bad name by cycling on pavements and breaking the basic rules of the road. How will we enforce safe cycling?
Mike Penning
Any cyclist who breaks the law and gives the former Minister a bad name needs to be brought before the courts. We see such behaviour on a regular basis, particular in urban areas and at lights, where people ignore the Road Traffic Acts. The police should enforce the rules on cyclists the same as they would on any other road user. The law needs to be used.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
15. What guidance his Department provides on the searching of religious headwear at airports.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
There is a large and well-integrated Sikh community in the UK. Special arrangements to take account of their headwear have existed at least since the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets. On 29 April, the European Union altered the rules on the searching of religious headwear at airports, and this has provoked a furious reaction from members of the Sikh community. On 25 June, I instructed UK airports that they should temporarily revert to the previous arrangements, despite the EU rules. The Sikh community has recognised this positive step and we are now working with them and with the EU to identify a suitable way forward.
Gareth Johnson
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is aware of the EU’s initiative that means that turbans can be searched and, indeed, unravelled by airport security officers. Does he agree that we need an approach that protects the security of travellers, but that also fully recognises the importance of turbans to the followers of the Sikh religion?
Mr Hammond
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. The ultimate solution probably lies in the introduction of scanners as a primary means of security screening at our airports. At the moment, that cannot be done under EU rules. Part of my discussion with the EU is seeking to persuade it that we can resolve the particular problems of religious headwear by addressing the wider issue of adopting scanners as a primary screening method.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
16. When he expects to announce his Department’s decision on the planned widening by the Highways Agency of the A14 around Kettering.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
All expenditure on the strategic road network is being considered under the spending review. When the outcome is known in the autumn, I hope to provide my hon. Friend with greater clarity on the future of this scheme.
Mr Hollobone
This project is very important to my constituents in Kettering, so may I draw to the Minister’s attention as he makes up his mind the fact that the road is already at capacity, with 70,000 vehicles a day going round the town? That section of road is actually three roads in one—the A6, the A43 and the A14.
Mike Penning
Not only are there 70,000 vehicles a day, but 20% are HGVs, which is 10% higher than the average in the UK. The project will cost between £86 million and £142 million. When the spending review is over, we will assess the problems that Kettering is having because of that huge amount of traffic.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
Since I last answered departmental questions, we have announced a new framework for the economic regulation of airports; our south-east airports taskforce has commenced work; we have announced the sale of High Speed 1; and we have launched a £15 million fund to incentivise the purchase of low-carbon buses. I have also prepared and submitted a spending review bid to the Treasury.
Dr Poulter
I thank the Minister of State for her earlier answer in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) in respect of recognising the importance of the East Suffolk line to the future prosperity of central and eastern Suffolk. Part of improving the infrastructure is a vital stretch of track called the Beccles loop, which would enable a future franchisee to run a full London to Lowestoft service. May we count on the Secretary of State’s support in pursuing the funding for that vital stretch of track?
Mr Hammond
Any future proposals for rail enhancements will be considered in the usual way in setting the output requirements for control period 5, which will define Network Rail’s investment programme from 2014 onwards.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
More than 1 million Londoners are entitled to Labour’s freedom pass and more than 11 million older and disabled people in England are entitled to Labour’s concessionary bus pass. Pass holders have been made anxious by reports in the media of the submission made to the Treasury by the Secretary of State in relation to the comprehensive spending review. The CSR is three months away, so can he reassure those anxious older and disabled citizens that he has not submitted, in his job application/CSR bid, any change in the eligibility requirements for those who receive the bus pass?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman refers to two separate things. The arrangements in London are of course the responsibility of the Conservative Mayor of London, and I cannot answer for the decisions that he will make on the operation of the scheme in London. With regard to the national scheme, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both made clear their commitment to the scheme in its current form. It is enshrined in primary legislation and we have no plans to change it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T2. The Chancellor promised that the vulnerable would be protected from budget cuts, but I know that Ministers will be well aware that there has been much speculation about the future viability of the bus service operators grant, which is clearly essential to many marginal rural services, the sustainability of which would be called into question if that were to be in any way cut. What reassurance can Ministers give me and my constituents that those rural services, which are essential—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I recognise the importance that many attach to the bus service operators grant. The Government intend to try to increase the number of people using the bus. However, we also want to get a fair deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and that is the direction of travel that we wish to pursue. Ensuring that people can travel by bus in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere in rural areas is important to that objective.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T7. Has the ministerial team seen the comments by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) in which he called for the privatisation of motorways and a widespread increase in road tolling? Will Ministers rule out such proposals for the duration of this Parliament?
Mr Philip Hammond
The coalition Government have indeed ruled out the tolling of the existing road network for the duration of this Parliament.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T3. What are the Government going to do to make it safer for motorcyclists by improving the tests for motorcyclists? In particular, the last Government so reduced the number of test sites that we had the slightly ludicrous situation of motorcyclists who had not passed the test having to travel considerable distances on their motorbikes to take the test. So can we see some improvement in the test regime for motorcyclists?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have announced a review into both parts of the motorcycle test, not only because of the concerns he raises, but because of some of the accidents that have taken place on tests, especially on part 1, which is off-road. We have a ludicrous situation in which some people have to travel two and a half miles with their L plates on to take the test, go off-road, fail it and then have to ride all the way back. That situation is being reviewed, and we hope to have answers in the autumn.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the Minister let my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), know what progress he has made on the Todmorden Curve rail project?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I know that the local authorities are working hard on this project and have engaged Network Rail to do some important work on it. I very much appreciate the benefits that it could deliver, particularly when tied in with development proposals, if they go ahead. I am keeping a close eye on that. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give him guarantees on funding at the moment because of the state of the public finances. However, I know that the local authorities are taking this very seriously.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although high- speed rail services are important to our economy, many communities along the route, whichever may be chosen, will be adversely affected, including some communities in my own constituency? Will he therefore agree to mitigate, as far as he can, the impact on those communities, and will he also agree to—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is Topical Questions, so one question—short and sharp.
Mr Hammond
I think I can gather the balance of the question, Mr Speaker. We well understand that the national strategic and economic benefits of the high- speed rail network have to be balanced against local environmental disbenefits. Of course, the project will be designed with maximum sensitivity in mind, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I will be visiting the line of the proposed route in the summer recess.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Last week, I spoke to residents in Heswall in my constituency who are most concerned to get the train to Liverpool rather than their cars. The Wrexham to Bidston electrification project is vital for that. Will the Minister explain briefly what work her officials in the Department are doing to work with Network Rail, Merseytravel and others to take this vital project forward?
Mrs Villiers
We are in touch with Network Rail and Merseytravel on this issue. Indeed, I discussed it with the director general of Merseytravel only recently. The hon. Lady will appreciate that this has been worked on by the Welsh Assembly Government, and I very much hope that progress can be made on it. However, she will appreciate that, as I said previously, the crisis in the public finances that we have inherited means that I cannot give guarantees on additional funding from central Government at the moment.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T5. I see that the shipping Minister has been to Harwich and Felixstowe in the past week. I invite him to come and see the port of Dover, so that he can see at first hand how our plans can be the jewel in the crown of the big society and make Dover the jewel in the crown of the nation once again.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State respond to a letter that I received from a constituent of mine, Mr Rod East? He is 61 and has a concessionary bus pass. Plymouth city council will have to renew it in 2011 under the system it is operating. Will he please confirm his earlier statement that no changes to the concessionary bus pass will apply to Plymouth city council?
Mr Hammond
I can only repeat what I said earlier: we have no plans to change the national concessionary scheme. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have both made very clear their commitment to the national scheme.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
T6. I welcome the Government’s commitment to high speed rail, particularly to encourage people to use rail instead of domestic air travel. Given the rising cost of rail compared with flying, what will the Secretary of State do to get the price mechanism right in order to get this shift from air to rail?
Mr Philip Hammond
The High Speed 2 project will introduce a massive increase in capacity. These will be huge trains, with 1,100 seats each, and they will run at a very high frequency. Simple demand-and-supply economics should help to keep travel affordable. At the same time, after 2012, aviation will come within the European emissions trading scheme, and the carbon costs of aviation will start to be reflected in the cost of flying.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Minister rule out reclassifying Network Rail as a public company, which would be a Railtrack mark 2, and commit to a not-for-dividend organisation?
Mrs Villiers
We are looking at the options for reform of Network Rail. We believe that the status quo is not acceptable, because Network Rail is not accountable enough to its customers or the passengers whom they serve. As for its balance sheet status, we believe that this is a matter for national statisticians. We will make decisions on the future of Network Rail based on what is best for passengers and the taxpayer, and not—as the previous Government did—on the basis of tortuous calculations about whether things are on or off the balance sheet.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
T8. One of the projects currently under review in my area is the east-west link road in Camborne and Redruth, which is a crucial element of a broader regeneration project, led by the private sector, that would create 6,000 new jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that when it comes to prioritising transport projects after the comprehensive spending review, one of the key criteria to apply will be the impact on enterprise and jobs?
Norman Baker
I fully understand the importance attached to that scheme in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I can confirm to him that the impact on the economy and job creation will be a factor taken into account in deciding whether to proceed with the scheme, along with the public finances and the opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
1. If she will discuss with the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposals for border controls to identify young women entering the UK from European Economic Area countries who may have been trafficked.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s tireless work in this field. Let me also do something that I tried to do a little prematurely on a previous occasion, which is to congratulate him properly on his election as joint chair of the all-party group on human trafficking. Tackling human trafficking is a coalition priority, and the Government are currently considering how to improve our response to this terrible crime, including through the creation of a border police force. I would be happy to ensure that border controls and the protection of vulnerable groups are covered in our consultation.
Mr Bone
Could the Minister for Women have a conversation with the excellent Home Secretary about citizens coming from the European economic area who bring in children who are not of the same name as themselves? They are waved through at the moment. Could they not be separately interviewed, to ensure that they are coming in for a proper purpose and are not being trafficked?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, although I have to say that if I start speaking to myself, people might get the wrong idea. The separate interview is done in relation to non-EEA nationals, based on a risk assessment undertaken by UK Border Agency officials, and is something that has been important. We can and do interview EEA nationals. Obviously trafficking is covert, and it is often tricky to detect. Our border controls must be part of a much wider approach on the issue, but I am certainly happy to take away the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made and have a look at it.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But is it not critical to reduce the demand for sexually exploited trafficked women, which is how the organised crime behind trafficking makes a profit? What is the Minister doing to reduce the demand for the sexual exploitation of women?
Mrs May
I recognise that the hon. Lady has had a long-standing interest in the issue, and has fought and campaigned hard on it for some time. As she will know, her Government introduced a new offence of paying for sex with somebody who had been exploited or forced into that position, which is intended to deter men from paying for sex with those who have been exploited, a category into which those who have been trafficked would obviously fall. We are currently waiting to see how that offence plays out, in terms of its impact.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
2. Whether an equality impact assessment has been undertaken on the proposals in the June 2010 Budget.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
5. What assessment the Government Equalities Office has undertaken of the relative effects of the June 2010 Budget on men and on women.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)
We have had to take tough decisions to reduce the deficit and secure the economic recovery essential to maintaining the living standards of women and families in this country in the longer term. The June Budget does that fairly, with a focus on protecting the most vulnerable in society, including low-income families. Assessing policy options in the light of tough financial constraints is not a one-off but an ongoing process. My officials are working with and talking to Departments about how to take account of equality considerations as they develop and implement the policies that will achieve budget reductions—budget reductions made necessary, I would remind the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), by Labour’s mismanagement of the economy.
Nia Griffith
I find that answer quite surprising, given that three quarters of the burden of the emergency Budget introduced by the right hon. Lady’s Government will fall on women. Will she explain in detail what assessment she has made of the impact of the Budget, and what representations she has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mitigate its effects?
Mrs May
I think that the hon. Lady is referring to some research that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has undertaken. That research is partial in its assessment, because it fails to take into account a whole host of issues in the Budget, including the council tax freeze. The hon. Lady should also recognise the steps that we took in the Budget to protect people on low incomes. They include the exemption from the public sector workers’ freeze—lower-paid public sector workers are predominantly women, and they will be exempt from that pay freeze. We are also working to freeze the basic rate of income tax, to increase the personal allowance, and to remove 880,000 people from income tax altogether, the majority of whom will be women. We are very conscious of the need to look at the impact of the Budget, but I suggest that the hon. Lady needs to look at the good things in it that will help people on low incomes.
Rachel Reeves
Mums, children, and women in retirement will contribute twice as much to bringing down the Budget deficit as the predominantly suited men in the square mile will pay through the banking levy. Given that the Government are so keen to stress their family-friendly credentials, does the right hon. Lady feel that that balance is fair?
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
The latest figures for business start-ups estimate that men start up 150,000 more businesses than women. If the same number of women as men were setting up businesses, £7 billion would be added to the economy. What is my right hon. Friend going to do to help women set up in business?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. She herself has an excellent record of supporting women in business, through the women’s networks that she has started. We are looking at how we can ensure that women’s entrepreneurship is encouraged, but the figures that she cited are absolutely right, and we need to ensure not only that that contribution to the economy is made but that we are not wasting the talent out there that could be put to good use for society and for the economy as a whole.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention, in any work that she does in this regard, to women who are returning to work after bringing up a family, as they are in the greatest need of extra training?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, and we shall certainly look into it. Before the election, we had specific proposals that were geared towards helping women who were returning to work, to ensure that they were given the necessary skills to resume their place in the work force.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am deputising for my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has informed you and the Secretary of State that she cannot be here today for family reasons to do with her children.
Given that 75 per cent. of the burden of the Budget will be borne by women, will the right hon. Lady tell me what is the point of her role as Minister for Women and Equalities in this very male-dominated Government if she cannot even ensure that men and women bear the burden of the Government’s deficit reduction measures equally? When she answers that question, will she clarify whether she is speaking in a personal capacity or whether she, at least, understands the constitutional concept of collective responsibility, even if the Deputy Prime Minister does not?
Mrs May
The figure that the hon. Lady has cited is not an official statistic; it is a figure that was derived from a piece of work that excluded analysis of significant parts of the Budget. That is why it is not a figure that I am going to recognise. Furthermore, if we had not taken those decisions in the Budget to deal with the deficit, and if we had adopted Labour’s plans to deal with it, that would have hit women even harder than our proposals. Under Labour’s proposals, expenditure on debt interest would have been higher than the expenditure on crucial public services, which are of particular importance to women.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
3. What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on increasing recruitment to the civil service from black, Asian and other minority ethnic people.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
Black, Asian and other minority ethnic representation in the civil service has been increasing steadily, and is broadly representative of the economically active population. We are committed to attracting the best talent from the widest possible pool of candidates. They have been targeted, and successful efforts have been made to render the civil service and the fast stream more diverse. My Cabinet Office colleagues are examining the range of BAME internships run by the Departments, and I expect to have discussions with them on the matter in due course.
Eric Ollerenshaw
We all welcome the Government’s announced policy on internships for under-represented minorities. How much progress has been made on that vital policy so far?
Lynne Featherstone
It is nice that my hon. Friend and I are together again after our time on the Greater London assembly, along with many Opposition Members.
The work relating to our commitment is still at an early stage. It is important for us to build on existing programmes. Some Whitehall Departments already run internships in the summer development programme. The Cabinet Office is examining current practice and future options, and I look forward to working with it in due course to ensure that the practice is extended to all Departments.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
This year’s Budget cut the budget of the Equality and Human Rights Commission by 15%, and further cuts are expected. Does the Minister believe that the commission will be able to continue to carry out its statutory duties, and can she tell us what impact the cut will have on the initiatives to which she has referred?
Lynne Featherstone
There have been cuts in all budgets. The EHRC will probably concentrate on its core functions, and I expect its budget to be sufficient to enable it to deliver the equality that we all require from it.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
4. What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on proposals to extend flexible working arrangements in the public sector.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
I have had several discussions with colleagues on how we can implement our commitment to extending the right to request flexible working to all. That, of course, includes those in the public sector, which has a long and successful track record in this regard. In my Department, for example, 57% of staff work flexibly, and all vacancies are advertised as being available on a flexible basis. We will seek to share that and other good practice in the public sector more widely.
Sarah Newton
Flexible working enabled me to balance caring for my husband and children with working. Without that opportunity, I probably would not be standing here today. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plan to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees is the most progressive measure to encourage a culture of flexible working that any Government have yet been able to promise?
Lynne Featherstone
Hear, hear. I am glad to learn that flexible working has been an enabler in my hon. Friend’s life, as it will be in so many other lives. Flexible working and the right to extend it to all will enable businesses to draw on all the skills and talents in the country, and on a wider pool of skill. It will improve recruitment and retention rates and increase staff morale and productivity, and we will all gain from that.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
6. What progress the Government have made on the provision of a system of flexible parental leave.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s continuing interest in this issue. The Government are committed to implementing the coalition agreement pledge to promote a system of flexible parental leave. We are working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which intends to present proposals later in the year.
Julian Smith
Small businesses in my constituency and throughout the country are concerned about the coalition’s plans to change the parental leave system. However, British Chambers of Commerce has indicated to me that it would be less concerned if the Government guaranteed that this would be the only change to parental leave legislation in the current Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether she plans to introduce the additional paternity leave regulations that are due next year?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of small businesses. We all recognise the problems that many of them have experienced in this respect. I continue to believe that flexible working and flexible parental leave will be of benefit overall and will benefit many small businesses, a number of which already operate flexibly. However, we are looking into how we can avoid constantly requiring businesses to effect innovations, and we are examining the timetabling of the additional paternity leave and flexible parental leave regulations.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
7. What recent discussions she has had with her international counterparts on international standards for the treatment of openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)
Last month we published “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality”, which included a commitment to use our international influence to encourage other countries to advance LGBT equality. I am committed to using meetings with international counterparts and any other levers open to us to tear down the barriers that still exist for LGBT people throughout Europe and around the world.
Simon Kirby
Will the Government use their influence to support the UN statement that calls on states to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstance be used for discrimination or criminal proceedings?
Lynne Featherstone
This is such an important area in which we can use our influence and we will encourage more countries to support the UN statement on the decriminalisation of LGBT issues. We will robustly examine the human rights records of other UN member states as well.
Business of the House
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week beginning 26 July will include:
Monday 26 July—Conclusion of proceedings on the Academies Bill [Lords] (Day 3).
Tuesday 27 July—The Backbench Business Committee has chosen the usual format for business in which a Member can raise any issue.
The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent. Colleagues will wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 27 July.
The business for the week commencing 6 September will include:
Monday 6 September—Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
Tuesday 7 September—Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill.
Wednesday 8 September—Opposition day [4th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 9 September—The House will consider a motion relating to UK armed forces in Afghanistan. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 September will include:
Monday 13 September—Second Reading of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill.
Tuesday 14 September—Second Reading of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill.
Wednesday 15 September—Motion to approve Ways and Means resolutions on which a Finance Bill will be introduced, followed by remaining stages of the Identity Documents Bill.
Thursday 16 September—General debate on the future of the UK’s armed forces. The subject for this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 September will be:
Thursday 9 September—A debate on future controls on legal highs.
As this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I as usual thank the staff of the House for their hard work since the beginning of this Parliament, not least on the induction programme for new Members? I hope that the staff have a good break before we return in September.
Ms Winterton
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement, which I assume is the actual business of the House as opposed to his personal view of what it ought to be. I also add my thanks to the staff of the House for all their hard work supporting us over the past 10 weeks.
As the Leader of the House said, on Monday next week we will debate the concluding stages of the Academies Bill. Against the fiasco of the abolition of over 700 Building Schools for the Future projects, the Bill has been rushed through its Commons stages. On Monday this week, the House debated the Bill on Second Reading, and the Committee stage began yesterday. That meant that Members had just over an hour after the debate had finished to consider the speeches made during it and to table amendments. Such timetabling of debate raises serious questions over the validity of the Bill, which has not been given sufficient time for scrutiny.
Mr Speaker, the Opposition Chief Whip and I have written to you about this, but I want also to urge the Leader of the House to look at this matter seriously to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny and proceedings are safeguarded.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Deputy Prime Minister answers questions next Tuesday he tells us where he got the idea that the directors of Sheffield Forgemasters were refusing to dilute their shareholding and that that was a reason not to give them the loan? We now know that on 25 May a letter was sent to the Government by a major Tory donor, Andrew Cook, who started his letter:
“I am the largest donor to the Conservative party in Yorkshire and have been since David Cameron was elected leader.”
Indeed, he had given half a million pounds to the Conservative party and had provided flights worth £54,000 to the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. The letter stated that Sheffield Forgemasters management were refusing to dilute their shareholding by accepting outside equity investment. On 21 June the Prime Minister said in terms that the directors of the company were refusing to dilute their shareholding. On 22 June the Deputy Prime Minister repeated the allegation in the House.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I will not take points of order at this stage. I feel sure that the right hon. Lady is nearing the conclusion of her remarks.
Ms Winterton
We on the Opposition Benches knew all along that that allegation was not true, because it was a condition of the loan that the company look for additional outside investment. That point has now been admitted by the Deputy Prime Minister in his letter to the company of 2 July, but he still has not set the record straight in Parliament. The ministerial code says:
“It is of paramount importance that ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
Will the Leader of the House ensure that either the Deputy Prime Minister at his questions next week or the Business Secretary in a statement will tell us the following: first, whether the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) told the Business Secretary that he had given the letter of 25 May from the Tory donor to officials; secondly, whether either the Secretary of State or the Minister of State—[Interruption.]—informed the permanent secretary that officials had been given the letter; and, thirdly, whether the Prime Minister was aware of the Andrew Cook letter and its allegations and whether the Deputy Prime Minister was aware of the letter when he repeated the allegations?
Parliament needs answers to these questions, and we need them before we rise for the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we get them, and if he cannot get them, will he ensure that a proper inquiry is held into this matter?
Sir George Young
The first issue was the time that we have allowed for the Academies Bill, and I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has raised that today. Last Thursday I announced the business for this week. On the Order Paper was the Academies Bill programme motion, yet she did not mention that even once in the many issues she raised with me last week. If she thinks today that the programme motion was an outrage it seems slightly strange that she failed to say so last Thursday when she had ample opportunity to talk about this week’s business.
On the second point about Sheffield Forgemasters, I—and many other Members—spent from 10.45 to 11.15 last night listening to the Adjournment debate during which all the issues that the right hon. Lady has raised were dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who made it absolutely clear that the issue has always been commercial affordability. He took numerous interventions from Opposition Members, and he dealt wholly adequately with the subject, and I am surprised that the right hon. Lady has raised it again.
Mr Speaker
Order. More than 30 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and I would like to accommodate as many as possible, but we have a further statement to follow and heavy pressure on time. What is required is brevity, a textbook example of which will be provided by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the Secretary of State for International Development on his announcement today that the pause on the development of the airport in St Helena will be lifted and that an airport will be built, thus securing the economic future of that British overseas territory and best value for the British taxpayer? Does he agree that an annual debate on British overseas territories would be of great benefit?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He refers to the written ministerial statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announcing his “provisional conclusion” that an airport is indeed the right solution for St Helena, that the short-term cost is more than “outweighed” by the long-term benefit and that it will promote inward investment and the development of the tourist industry. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who chairs the all-party group on St Helena. They have consistently advocated that sort of solution.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Newham is to have an estimated 1,300 fewer secondary school places, due in part to the loss of 14 Building Schools for the Future projects. I attended yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate to request that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) meet me to discuss the impact of that. Sadly, despite my numerous attempts, he refused to take my intervention. May I ask that we have a debate on this important issue on the Floor of this House? We need an opportunity not only to discuss the impact of that programme, but for the Minister to be more gracious.
Sir George Young
As the hon. Lady said, we have just had a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on the Building Schools for the Future programme. I will convey her particular request for a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I know that, as a rule, he is more than happy to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House, and I am sure that he will readily agree, particularly when he reads Hansard tomorrow morning, that a meeting with the hon. Lady would be appropriate.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
The Leader of the House will know how important the post office network is to many of our constituents, particularly those receiving benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions has put out for tender on the cheques received by those who cannot cope with the card account. Will he ensure that we get a statement before the recess from the DWP on the access criteria it will use in judging that, so that those people can still use the post office network to access their benefits?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I will contact the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to see whether my hon. Friend and the House can be given the relevant information before we rise on Tuesday.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The duty of the Leader of the House is to protect the interests of the House. When we have asked questions of Ministers at the Dispatch Box we have been labouring under the misapprehension that they have actually been speaking on behalf of the Government. Yesterday, we heard the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister which, it was later said, was a personal statement or a statement of Liberal Democrat policy. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about how we are to determine who is answering questions on behalf of whom on the Government Benches? While doing that, will he consider the suggestion that there should be a dress code for the Liberal Democrats? They should wear blue down one side and yellow down the other, so that when they turn the yellow side towards the Dispatch Box we know who is talking and when they turn their blue side towards it we know that they are speaking for the Tory Government. What we need to know is what—
Sir George Young
I will not comment on the suggestion of a dress code for Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. Ministers are accountable at this Dispatch Box for the work of their Departments, but it is not unknown for Ministers to make personal statements from this Dispatch Box. I have listened to many debates, on abortion and on other issues, where Ministers have made it clear when they are speaking about and representing their own views. I have made my own views known on many issues from this Dispatch Box, so it is not unprecedented—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We must have a bit of order. I want to the hear the reply from the Leader of the House. I am enjoying it.
Sir George Young
It is not unprecedented for Ministers speaking at this Dispatch Box occasionally to make their personal views known.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
For a long time, Harlow has had a major problem with rail fatalities, with eight in 2008 and one only last Thursday morning. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate on rail safety and consider establishing a system of special rail guards, similar to special constables, with volunteers from the local community?
Sir George Young
We have just had Transport questions, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to ask that question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One rail fatality is one fatality too many and I shall certainly raise with the Secretary of State for Transport the proposition that my hon. Friend has just put to the House.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), it is clear that at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was answering in a personal capacity. That denied the House of Commons the ability to hold the Government to account. May we have an extra PMQs in September so that we can try to get some accountability from the Government?
Sir George Young
The Deputy Prime Minister’s views on the war in Iraq are well known and should have come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
One debate that would be welcomed by many of my constituents would be on Britain’s throwaway culture and the explosion in the cost of clearing up litter in this country to the tune of more than £850 million a year—a statistic made even worse by the mess left by the previous Government.
Sir George Young
I commend the work that Bill Bryson and the Campaign to Protect Rural England are doing to prevent the additional costs on local authorities of picking up litter. I commend the Stop the Drop campaign that they are promoting at the moment. I hope that all citizens will take their responsibilities seriously and avoid putting extra pressure on local authorities by increasing the sums that they have to spend on clearing up litter.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
So, now that we can assume that personal statements can be made as opposed to other statements, was the junior Minister who answered on Forgemasters last night making a personal statement, a statement on behalf of the Business Secretary, or a statement on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister? What we want are personal statements from the last two to tell the truth about the letters and the whole issue. Get them there at the Dispatch Box and stop this silly nonsense about personal statements.
Sir George Young
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to look at Hansard for the debate on Sheffield—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chunter like that from a sedentary position. Let us hear the answer from the Leader of the House.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman may not have seen me, because I was sitting where the Dispatch Box might have obscured his view. He will have seen in column 532 that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to “the Government’s decision”.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Many of us would have been pleased to see the action of the bailiffs to clear the so-called village from Parliament square, but slightly dismayed to find the remnants still parked on the pavement. Does the Leader of the House agree that some time should be made available to debate robust measures to clear up the mess once and for all, so that the square is open for all to enjoy and for legitimate protest?
Sir George Young
I commend the action that the Mayor of London has taken, supported by the courts, to enable the green to be cleared and, I hope, restored, so that it is a visual amenity and not an eyesore. Clearly there is work still to be done because the pavement is obstructed, and that is a matter for Westminster city council. I understand that a meeting took place recently between Westminster city council and the House authorities to discuss options for dealing with the encampments, but we are also considering amending the current legal framework governing protests around Parliament square and seeing how local byelaws might be strengthened.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how much the prosperity of our regional towns and cities depends on the universities of those towns and cities? Is he aware that many vice-chancellors believe that they will have to cut thousands of teaching jobs and thousands of research jobs if this needless 25% cut goes right across the university sector?
Sir George Young
I think that that would carry more weight if the hon. Gentleman explained to the House how the deficit that he left us might be addressed. Despite the horrendous deficit that we inherited, there are 10,000 more university places than there were last year and that is a tribute to our commitment to higher education.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
Following the damaging comments and testimony of the former head of British intelligence about the Iraq war and the activities of the former Prime Minister, can we have an urgent debate on the representation of, and the confidence of the House in, the present middle east peace envoy?
Sir George Young
If my hon. Friend is referring to the Chilcot inquiry, I think it would make sense to await the outcome of that before the House holds a debate on the issue that he has outlined.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Department for International Development’s statement on the development of St Helena airport, as I have long argued that that makes sense in terms of value for money. Can we have a debate so that we can hear from DFID about the process that it went through to determine that making that investment now will save money in the long term? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills might learn something from that in relation to issues such as Forgemasters.
Sir George Young
I commend the ingenuity of the hon. Lady’s question. She will have seen the written ministerial statement setting out the reasons behind the provisional conclusion, which concerned whether an acceptable contract price was achieved and whether the risk of cost and time overruns were addressed. That is the right way to go and it represents the best value for money for the British taxpayer. Of course, that conclusion could not have been reached without the assent of the Treasury.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Notwithstanding the excellent efforts of the Combined Maritime Forces, the NATO naval force and EU NAVFOR—the European Union naval force Somalia—thousands of people remain captive in Somalia and the horn of Africa. Is it not time to have a review of and an urgent debate on the Government’s counter-piracy policy, which affects British interests?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He could raise that issue in Tuesday’s debate on the summer Adjournment. Now that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House knows that it might be raised, he will come equipped with a suitable reply.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on the Irish economic crisis? Given that the centre-right coalition Government there introduced an emergency budget that has led to high unemployment, cuts in services and the loss of Ireland’s credit rating, such a debate would enable this centre-right coalition Government here to learn lessons.
Sir George Young
The last time I looked at the opinion polls, the view in this country of what the centre-right coalition, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, is doing was rather favourable.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) about benefit cheques. If that contract is taken away from the Post Office, people on several of the islands and in many rural parts of my constituency will have nowhere to cash their cheques. Many of the people who receive those cheques are among the most vulnerable in society and they will not get the same help and advice in outlets such as petrol stations as they would in a post office. I hope that we will have an urgent statement on that next week.
Sir George Young
I think that all hon. Members will share my hon. Friend’s view about the importance of the Post Office network maintaining its viability and the implications for its viability if the scenario that he outlines takes place. I shall certainly reinforce the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I shall see that information is given to the House—if possible before we rise—on progress on the contract he mentions.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Thousands of Christmas Island nuclear testing veterans have waited many years for compensation. My understanding is that the Ministry of Defence has now accepted that there is a direct link between that testing in the 1950s and the cancers from which those people are now suffering. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House in September and update us regarding the compensation package?
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. There will be questions to the appropriate Department on 13 September and I suggest that he seek to table a question for then, as that might be a suitable forum in which to raise the issue further.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is my blue and, I hope, red side. May we have a statement as soon as possible on the courtesies that need not and should not be extended to leading members of the British National party, even if they have been elected under an appalling system of proportional representation? That would enable those of us who do not wish to rub shoulders with neo-Nazis at Buckingham palace garden parties to return our tickets even at the last minute.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend invites me to tread on delicate territory. The best response that I can give is that the responsibility for invitations to the garden party at Buckingham palace rests not with me but a higher authority.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we debate early-day motion 560 to praise the BBC for its unrivalled and fearless independence on the “Today” programme and to frustrate the plans of the coalition nomenclatura to shoot the messenger?
[That this House congratulates John Humphrys for his forensic questioning of the Foreign Secretary on NATO's strategy in Afghanistan, which added to the BBC's unrivalled reputation for fearless independent journalism.]
Sir George Young
I am not aware of any plans in the coalition to curtail the editorial independence of the BBC. I pay tribute to the “Today” programme, which I listen to every morning.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Can we have a debate on the civil service compensation scheme? Although there is much agreement across the House and, indeed, among most unions on the need for reform, there remains a great deal of concern out there and it would be helpful if the House had an opportunity to discuss this issue with a Minister, particularly to underscore the importance of meaningful consultation between the unions and the Government.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to debate that issue, because I have announced the Second Reading of the Superannuation Bill for when we come back in September. The Administration are carrying forward the policy of the previous Administration in reducing the compensation available to civil servants who are made redundant.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Could we have a debate on the industrial relations problems in the aviation industry, particularly with British Airways? Without any recommendation from the leadership of the Unite union, BA cabin crew have now voted for a fourth time to take industrial action, which suggests that there is a serious industrial relations problem in that once proud and well-respected company. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to get both parties together and try to get this industrial relations problem sorted out?
Sir George Young
I very much hope that there will not be any more industrial action on the part of British Airways, as that is not in the interests of either its employees or the travelling public. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is keeping an eagle eye on those discussions, but it is primarily a matter for negotiations between the employers and employees. I am not convinced at this stage that it would be right for the Government to intervene.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am sure that many hon. Members will have noticed that the Members’ dining rooms are frequented by mice. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on whether a tough Lancastrian cat could be obtained from Bleakholt animal sanctuary in Rossendale to repel those rodent invaders?
Sir George Young
It is indeed the case that mice are seen on the parliamentary estate. I have actually seen an hon. Member feeding them out of kindness. I will pursue with the parliamentary authorities my hon. Friend’s generous offer of a cat, but there might be even more cost-effective ways of dealing with the mice than a Lancastrian cat.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Defence Minister comes to the House to make a statement on what steps are being taken to protect serving and former personnel from the risk of prosecution following the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement at the Dispatch Box? What steps can the House take to ensure that men and women who are doing their duty for the country are not put at risk by such statements?
Sir George Young
I repeat what I said a few moments ago. It makes sense to await the outcome of the Chilcot inquiry before venturing into the debate on whether the war in Iraq was legal.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
In view of the sudden outburst of indignation about the programming of motions, will the Leader of the House remind us when the routine programming of Bills was introduced?
Sir George Young
The programme motion for the Academies Bill was tabled a week ago. I must say that I looked in at the opening of yesterday’s debate at six minutes past 2 and there were three Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We need a statement on Forgemasters before the recess, because we need to know—perhaps the Leader of the House can give us the answers—whether the Prime Minister was aware of the letter sent by Andrew Cook. Were Liberal Democrat Ministers aware of it, or were they kept in the dark?
Sir George Young
I am amazed that Opposition Members continue to flog this dead horse. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, explained in the debate yesterday what he did with the letter from Andrew Cook.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the crisis faced by many fishermen and women up and down our coast, and particularly in Suffolk Coastal? I absolutely commend the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), and of my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous), but may I press for an urgent debate on fisheries management in our country, and perhaps the repatriation of powers from the common fisheries policy?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises an issue of great importance to her constituents. May I suggest to her what I suggested to an hon. Friend earlier—that on Tuesday, she raises that important issue in the debate on the summer Adjournment? Again, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will come equipped with a reply.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the Thornton relief road in my constituency? It was first mooted in 1934, and would not only boost the construction industry but provide much needed support for businesses and residents who face congestion every day in Thornton.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman asks for a debate in Government time, but I think that the issue would be best addressed in an Adjournment debate, and I suggest that he applies to Mr Speaker for one.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The last Administration used complex formulae for funding allocation to cheat rural areas of their fair share of support for education, health and other public services. They hid behind those formulae. May we have an urgent debate on the assessment of need in, and the allocation of funding to, rural areas, to ensure that they get a fair, not a skewed, share of national resources, having been so denuded by the Labour party?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He will have seen in our proposals on health funding that in future, health resources will be distributed not by Ministers, but by an independent body. I hope that he applauds the pupil premium initiative, which will address some of the deprivation issues in rural constituencies.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Andrew Cook issued a statement this morning to the effect that he has offered funding to Sheffield Forgemasters. May we have an urgent debate on whether Government officials were involved in encouraging or negotiating any deal between Andrew Cook and Sheffield Forgemasters, in what seems like a takeover bid for the company?
Sir George Young
I am not sure what responsibility Government Ministers would have for an offer to Sheffield Forgemasters from Mr Cook, but if the hon. Lady would like to table the relevant question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I am sure that she will get an answer to her question.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware that there was a meeting earlier this week of a number of people to whom Barclays allegedly mis-sold the Morley—now Aviva—global balanced or cautious fund, which then turned out to be adventurous. Will there be an opportunity in the near future for a debate in Government time on the mis-selling of financial products?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. Perhaps he would initially like to raise it on Tuesday in the summer Adjournment debate, before perhaps having a Westminster Hall debate of greater length on the subject.
Mr Phil Woolas (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On the Order Paper this morning, notice was given of 28 written ministerial statements. By 11.15 this morning, only 15 of them were available. Will the Leader of the House instruct his private secretary to write to Ministers, reminding them that written ministerial statements should be made available to the House at the earliest opportunity? At 11.25, the statement on e-borders was made available to the Library. From it, we learn that the electronic borders system, which is responsible for keeping our borders safe, is to have its contract with the supplier finished. Does that leave our borders vulnerable, and may we have a debate on the subject?
Sir George Young
I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s request for a debate. On written ministerial statements, I hope that he will applaud the fact that today, some time before the House adjourns for the recess, we have got out 28 written ministerial statements, whereas in the old days, under Labour, they all came out on the last day before the recess. Of course, we will seek to make those statements available to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Last Friday, I visited an engineering firm in my constituency that, despite the recession, has refused to lay off any of its workers. It now has problems trying to access funding from its bank, which is trying to reduce the firm’s overdraft, despite the fact that the firm has £500,000 of orders on its books. May we have an urgent debate on how we can robustly encourage the banks that we own to lend to business?
Sir George Young
Indeed. My hon. Friend reminds the House that part of the contract in supporting the banks was that they should increase the amount of lending. I will see what we can do to find an opportunity to debate the matter. Perhaps that is something on which the Backbench Business Committee would like to reflect.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the great privilege of being at the Government Dispatch Box is that one speaks for the Government—and the great constraint is that one speaks for the Government. How can he assure the House that, at the Government Dispatch Box, with the dignity that it affords to an individual who steps up to it, individuals do not, perhaps inadvertently, mislead the House into thinking that they speak for the Government, when actually they are speaking just for themselves? Speaking at it is a privilege, and it needs to be taken as such.
Sir George Young
As I said in response to an earlier question, the views of the Deputy Prime Minister on the Iraq war are well known and should have come as no surprise at all to any Member of the House. Nor is it unusual for Ministers speaking from the Dispatch Box occasionally to let their personal views into the public domain.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Just for clarification, my yellow tie should not be taken to mean anything of significance.
Will the Leader of the House explain who will be in charge of the country, and acting Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister goes on his well-earned holidays or if he is incapacitated? Would it be the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor or, in fact, the Leader of the House?
Sir George Young
I am sure that it would not be the Leader of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a Deputy Prime Minister, and that title makes his responsibilities clear. However, I see—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It is unfair of Members to heckle in this noisy, disruptive fashion. I am enjoying the Leader of the House’s responses and I want to hear them.
Sir George Young
I see no prospect whatever in the near future of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister becoming incapacitated.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In view of all the written ministerial statements today, does the Leader of the House share my concern that the statement from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should have been a statement to the House? We could then have discussed the long-term implications of the abolition of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the withdrawal of funds from the Sustainable Development Commission—matters that are vital. I am pleased that the Environmental Audit Committee will have a role in reviewing all that, but we need those resources. As there are implications for the devolved Administrations, we need an overarching policy on green issues. When can we have a debate on the subject in the House?
Sir George Young
On the hon. Lady’s first point, she wanted a statement to the House, but she has one. She wanted an oral statement. She will know that today we are debating the Academies Bill, and we already have one oral statement on Equitable Life. The more oral statements that the Government provide, the less time there is to debate important issues. However, I will see that the substantive issue that she mentioned is raised with the appropriate Minister, and that she gets a response.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that when the Chilcot inquiry issues its report, there will be a full day’s debate on it? Those of us who voted against the Iraq war did so because we always believed it to be contrary to international law and illegal. The only reasonable inference that one can draw from all the evidence that has emerged is that Blair took Britain to war on the basis of a lie.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend makes a powerful plea for a debate on the Chilcot inquiry. When the report is published, it would be appropriate to have a debate on it, in which hon. Members who took a different view from him at the time could share their views, and in which the House could debate the matter in a proper manner.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
This week, there have been reports of potentially scandalous financial dealings at the top of Network Rail, just as Iain Coucher is leaving the organisation. The Transport Salaried Staffs Association has forwarded to the Government, on behalf of management staff in Network Rail, a report asking for a thorough investigation of those dealings by the appropriate authorities. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Government arrange for those investigations to be undertaken, and that we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the issue?
Sir George Young
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity earlier this morning to raise that issue with the Secretary of State for Transport. Any allegations about anything illegal should, of course, be pursued by the police; I am sure that they will take note of the point that he has made. I will share the broader issues that he has raised about the responsibilities of Network Rail with the Secretary of State for Transport.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Hill farmers in Skipton and Ripon and across England are facing a bureaucratic nightmare as a result of the transition from the hill farm allowance to the uplands entry level scheme. Will my right hon. Friend advise me about the best route to represent their interests at this critical time?
Sir George Young
There will be Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 9 September and an opportunity next Tuesday for my hon. Friend to share his concerns with the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Yesterday in my constituency, we learned that a number of Playbuilder schemes in children’s parks are to be cancelled. We are not sure whether that is because the funding has been removed entirely or whether it is merely because of the removal of ring-fencing. Will the Leader of the House encourage ministerial colleagues who make statements about financial plans to ensure that the House is fully informed about those plans’ impact on children, who are most deserving of our protection?
Sir George Young
It is important that local authorities should know in advance what their budgets are likely to be. However, how they spend their budgets and balance their responsibilities for children with other responsibilities is essentially a matter for local government rather than central Government.
Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has announced the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, two important constitutional Bills that will be debated in September. Will he explain why there will be no pre-legislative scrutiny of those important constitutional Bills?
Sir George Young
It is our intention for there to be pre-legislative scrutiny where appropriate, but the hon. Lady will understand that in the first term of a new Parliament with a new Government, it is not possible for all the legislative proposals to be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. There will be draft Bills on House of Lords reform, which is a constitutional measure, and on privileges, but if we want to make progress and improve the constitution of this country, there cannot be draft Bills on everything.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
During last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House agreed to seek a statement from Foreign Office colleagues about the health of democracy in the Maldives. I do not believe that such a statement has yet been forthcoming. Given that the Foreign Office has issued a travel warning for British tourists to the Maldives, that opposition MPs there are still being detained and that the Chief Justice has been intimidated, will the right hon. Gentleman redouble his efforts to secure such a statement?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. As he will know, this country, the UN, the US and EU heads of mission have issued a public statement urging the political parties of the Maldives to engage in a constructive and open dialogue, to address the challenges to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We have stressed to the Government of the Maldives the importance of upholding the rule of law and we remain a strong supporter of the democratic reform process in the Maldives.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the body of scientific evidence indicating that military low-flying activity can have serious implications for the health of the subjected population. Will he allow Government time to debate the continued need for low-flying military tactical training areas—in particular the Welsh MTTA, which covers the north of my constituency? The practice has been banned in other states such as Germany.
Sir George Young
There are also low-flying aircraft in my constituency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that our pilots need at times to fly low as part of their training. However, I will raise his concerns with colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to see whether there is any way in which we can address the problems that he has described.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The announcement of a timetable on Afghanistan is plainly wrong and will be welcomed by the Taliban. We have heard two different withdrawal dates and that withdrawal will depend on conditions. May we have a statement so that we can better understand the Government’s policy? It is important that we get the matter right on behalf of our armed forces.
Sir George Young
There was a statement on the matter yesterday. Furthermore, I have announced a debate on Afghanistan in the first week back, at the initiative of the Backbench Business Committee. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity after the recess to raise the concerns that he has outlined.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
In the light of the comments made by the Leader of the House today, might it not be appropriate to have a debate on whether the title of Deputy Prime Minister should be changed to “Deputy Prime Minister in a Personal Capacity”?
Mr Speaker
I call the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] The Leader of the House.
Sir George Young
I was wondering whether that merited a response, Mr Speaker. I have decided that it does not.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Last year, One NorthEast attracted £750 million-worth of inward investment into the region. In fact, 82% of inward investment into the north-east comes through that regional development agency. May we have a debate to expose the fact that abolishing the RDA is an act of economic vandalism?
Sir George Young
If they want, local authorities can replace RDAs with local enterprise boards. If the hon. Gentleman’s local authorities believe in the value of regional development agencies, they are perfectly at liberty to recreate one as an LEB.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the right of Back-Bench Members to hold the Government to account? On 15 July, a Communities and Local Government Minister said that no local authority had faced cuts larger than 2%. That statement has not since been corrected, although it is not true. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the war in Iraq was illegal—apparently in a personal capacity, although without informing the House of that fact. What can Back Benchers do, faced with this uncertainty about how Ministers take responsibility?
Sir George Young
The hon. Lady has raised that issue in a week when we have had the first debate in Back-Bench time in 400 years on one reckoning and in 12 years on another. We are anxious to give Back Benchers more powers. She is perfectly entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government the question that she has posed about funding for Slough. She will get an answer.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister is making a statement about the national citizen service now to Downing street and not to the House of Commons? Given that there will be no Prime Minister’s questions until 8 September, can we arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the House on Monday to give a statement on that service, and also on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sheffield Forgemasters, so that he can clear up his Ministers’ mess?
Sir George Young
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to look at the document “The Coalition: our programme for government”. He will see in it a clear commitment in the social action chapter to set up the national citizen service. There has been no fresh announcement of Government policy outside the House.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
A constituent of mine who was the victim of a serious child abuse episode, and her family, came face to face at their local hospital with the paedophile responsible; he was sat grinning in reception. Will it be possible during this Session, perhaps after the summer recess, to have a debate on how the rights of victims are being subordinated to those of perpetrators of crime?
Sir George Young
I understand how distressing that encounter must have been. We must see whether there are better ways of protecting victims of paedophilia from those who have perpetrated it. I have taken note of the hon. Lady’s bid for a debate. There could be a debate in Westminster Hall, or the Backbench Business Committee might like to take it on board.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House wishes that the question of Sheffield Forgemasters would go away, but it will not. When we have a further debate or statement on the subject, will he get Ministers who respond to address the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? When Ministers took the decision—we understand that they were Lib Dem Ministers—and officials were engaged in the discussions, were they aware of Andrew Cook’s objections? Were they aware that Mr Cook was a major donor to the Tory party? Importantly, were they aware of his conflict of interest and that he was expressing an interest in personally investing in the company?
Sir George Young
The issue of the Andrew Cook letter was dealt with extensively by the Minister of State in yesterday’s debate. The hon. Gentleman had a half-hour Adjournment debate but took only nine minutes to develop his case at the beginning. He has had ample opportunity on the Floor of the Chamber to raise the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to colleagues for their co-operation, which enabled no fewer than 48 Back-Bench Members to take part in business questions. We now come to the statement—[Hon. Members: What about points of order?] Points of order come after statements; we look forward to them with eager anticipation.
Equitable Life
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Equitable Life.
Both coalition parties are committed to justice for Equitable Life’s policyholders; we each made manifesto commitments, and these are reflected in our programme for government. No one should be in any doubt about our commitment to policyholders, who have waited a decade for justice. We are committed to implementing the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation, made two years ago, and
“to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders through an independent payment scheme for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
We have taken important steps towards implementing that commitment. We announced in the Queen’s Speech that a Bill would be presented to Parliament in this legislative Session, and today we are doing just that.
When I came into office, I reviewed Sir John Chadwick’s terms of reference and asked him to complete the work that he had started. I can tell the House that Sir John’s report, alongside the extensive actuarial advice underpinning it, has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Vote Office. I want to thank Sir John for his dedication in completing this complex and challenging task. Sir John has helped to progress the aim to establish a scheme that is fair both to policyholders and to taxpayers. He has proposed a flexible approach to determining losses that eliminates the need for policyholders to show what they would have done if the maladministration had not occurred.
I want to stress, however, that Sir John’s review is just one of the building blocks in resolving what is a complex matter, and that there are other judgments to be made in determining the final shape of the scheme and the amounts that will be paid out. I have always been committed to dealing with this matter with the utmost transparency. I therefore want to set out to the House today the key elements of Sir John’s methodology and the figures calculated at each intermediate step in quantifying losses according to his approach. First, however, let me make it clear that these are preliminary figures. There is further work to be done before a final estimate can be produced. These figures have been produced for the Treasury by Towers Watson, and I have placed a copy of its letter in the Vote Office.
Let me remind the House that the ombudsman considered that the financial loss suffered by policyholders was a consequence of the reduction in policy values in July 2001. These amounted to a reduction in the gains they expected to make from their policies, rather than the sums they were contractually entitled to. As a result, Equitable Life’s policies are lower in value today than they would have been without these cuts. The difference is the absolute loss, which Towers Watson estimates as being between £2.9 billion and £3.7 billion. Sir John then goes on to identify relative loss—that is, the difference between the returns that policyholders actually received from their Equitable Life policies and the returns they would have received if they had invested in a comparable product in an alternative life insurance company. This step produces a loss of between £4 billion and £4.8 billion.
For a number of policyholders, because of the strong performance of comparable life companies, their relative loss is greater than the absolute loss they suffered. Consistent with the ombudsman’s recommendation, Sir John has advised that relative loss for an individual policyholder should be capped at the absolute loss they suffered. It is hard to see how it would be fair either to the taxpayer or to other policyholders if some policyholders received more through redress than they had actually lost. If the proposed cap is adopted, then the figure will be £2.3 billion to £3 billion.
Sir John and the Equitable members action group—EMAG—are in agreement that not all policyholders would have decided against investing in Equitable Life had its regulatory returns not been subject to maladministration. There is scope for debate about by how much investment would have been reduced. Sir John advises that the majority of policyholders would have invested in Equitable Life irrespective of maladministration. He therefore proposes that policyholders should receive only 20% to 25% of the capped figure that I mentioned. I know that some stakeholders will dispute this proportion. This results in a figure of £475 million to £650 million.
Another difficult aspect of Sir John’s methodology is the assessment of internal relative loss—the loss that policyholders have suffered as a result of keeping money in Equitable Life when it was not being regulated properly. Taking this step into account, Sir John’s final loss figure is £400 million to £500 million. This figure is lower principally because a number of policyholders made relative gains as a result of maladministration.
As I said earlier, Sir John’s work is a building block that helps us to produce a fair and transparent payment scheme. I am aware that some of his findings will be contentious and are based on complex analysis, so I will reflect on his report and I will listen to representations by interested parties, including Equitable Life and EMAG, which has campaigned tenaciously on behalf of policyholders. As is apparent from the letter from Towers Watson, further work needs to be done over the summer to produce a final estimate of loss.
As the ombudsman noted, it is appropriate to consider the impact of any scheme on the public purse. The scheme will be a significant spending commitment for this Government and will therefore be considered in the light of what is affordable as a part of the spending review. I will set out the funding available for the scheme at the spending review on 20 October, alongside the final loss figure.
The ombudsman also concluded that the design of the scheme should be independent of the Government. I support this view, and I announced on 26 May that I would establish an independent commission to advise on the best way to allocate payments to policyholders and help to develop the design of the scheme. Today I can announce that Brian Pomeroy, John Howard and John Tattersall have agreed to form the independent commission on Equitable Life payments. I believe that their experience and expertise will be invaluable to the commission, and I am confident that we have the right people to do the job. The commission will start work imminently so that we can begin making payments as soon as possible. I have asked the commission to report by the end of January 2011.
The final question that I would like to address is how soon policyholders will receive payments. I would like to end the plight of policyholders as quickly as possible, and I aim to begin making payments in the middle of next year. If we are to achieve this goal, however, it is important to avoid any unnecessary delays. I will do all that I can to make sure we stick to this timetable, and I hope all interested parties will help us to do so. This is, however, a very complex task. We have made much progress since the Government were formed, but there is a great deal left to do. We need a simple, transparent and fair scheme that meets the needs of 1.5 million policyholders who have between them 2 million policies and have made 30 million premium payments. It is in the interests of each of those policyholders to complete this task quickly, but also carefully and thoughtfully.
In the past two months, we have published Sir John’s report; set up the independent commission on Equitable Life payments; published the first robust figures surrounding the calculation of relative loss; opened up the process, making it much more transparent; put in place a framework for the payment scheme; and produced legislation to give the Treasury statutory authority to make payments. We have achieved more in two months than the last Government did in the two years since the ombudsman reported. The coalition Government have demonstrated their commitment to justice for Equitable Life policyholders, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement and for the opportunity to review Sir John’s report in full at the Treasury this morning.
I would like to start by repeating the words of apology to Equitable Life policyholders that I made to the House earlier this year for the failure of regulation of Equitable Life under successive Governments between 1990 and 2001.
I thank Sir John Chadwick for his detailed report, which we commissioned. He has taken on an extraordinarily complex matter, and he has done an admirable job. I also thank officials at the Treasury for the work that they have done over the past six months in getting ready the legislation which I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has published today. I, too, thank EMAG. I am grateful for the work done by the all-party Equitable Life policyholders group, chaired by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton).
When I came to the House earlier in the year, I said that there was a clear ethical obligation, even if not a legal obligation, for compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. Equally, however, I knew that case-by-case compensation for policyholders, as suggested by the ombudsman, was not practical. I said that there were two tests for the right solution—speed and justice. I went on to say that we expected the Government to produce a report within two weeks of Sir John’s final report, which we wanted to see in May. So here we are in July, and there are a few questions that I should like to put to the Minister this afternoon.
First, is the Minister actually accepting Sir John’s recommendation? Earlier in the year he did a good impression of wanting to ditch Sir John’s approach and revert to the one set out by the ombudsman. Today, Sir John makes it clear in paragraph 10.17 that the ombudsman’s approach
“poses very difficult issues of principle, and would be impossible to implement within any realistic time-frame.”
Can the Minister confirm that Sir John’s approach is the right one? He called it one of the building blocks, but will he set out whether he is accepting Sir John’s report?
The second question that the House will want to know the answer to is who precisely will be entitled to help. Sir John states in paragraph 6.3 that help should cover new investments made between 1 September 1992 and 31 December 2000. Does the Minister agree with that approach? How many policyholders will be included on that basis, and how many will be excluded?
Thirdly, how much are policyholders actually going to get? Part 6 of the report sets out an approach and a method for calculating losses. Can the Minister confirm that what he has just said is that the maximum compensation will be based on a quarter of the relative losses faced by policyholders, and that that figure will itself be capped at absolute loss? Many policyholders will find that hard to square with what he said in the House earlier this year. What the House will want to know this afternoon is how much, on average, policyholders will actually get.
Fourthly, how quickly does the Minister want to complete this process? I am glad that he wants to get started next year, but the House will want to know how quickly he wants the final payments to be made. Finally, what appeal mechanism will the Government put in place for those policyholders who want to challenge their individual determinations?
It is incumbent on all of us to speed this matter to resolution. I am glad that the Minister has set out legislation this afternoon, and we will support it going through as rapidly as possible, but there are questions that our constituents will want answers to today. I hope that he will be as full as he can in replying to what I have asked.
Mr Hoban
I find the right hon. Gentleman’s comments rich, as he was a member of the Government who for nine years sought to frustrate, block and delay investigations into Equitable Life and its regulation; who ignored Lord Penrose’s findings of maladministration in 2004; who did everything they could to stop the ombudsman’s second inquiry; who bombarded the ombudsman with new documents and comments on her draft report; who took six months to reply to her report when it was published; and who set up a review by Sir John with a report carefully timed to be released after the general election. I will take no lessons at all from him about speed of response.
Sir John’s report sets out a range of approaches to calculating loss. As I said in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman had sight of it, as he said—I have not accepted that report. I will reflect on Sir John’s findings and think very carefully about them. The amount that policyholders will receive will be determined by a number of factors, and partly by the compensation figure set as part of the spending review process, as I said very carefully in my statement. The independent commission will need to respond to that matter when it designs the payment scheme, which was a key recommendation of the ombudsman that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues rejected but we are prepared to accept and put in place. He will have to wait until that scheme design has taken place and we have worked through its implications across 1.5 million policyholders, their 2 million different policies and the 30 million transactions that they entered into.
I am determined that the scheme will proceed as quickly as possible and that we can resolve the problems faced by Equitable Life policyholders—problems that the right hon. Gentleman and his party did little to sort out over the course of the past nine years.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important statement, and a lot of hon. and right hon. Members wish to take part in the exchanges on it, but there is also very important business to follow, so there are pressures on time. What is now required is brevity.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on achieving so much in two months. He said that he had done more in two months than Labour did in two years, but he underestimates it. He has done more in two months than they did in 10 years.
Nevertheless, there is a great deal left to be done, as my hon. Friend himself said. Halfway through next year is still a long time to wait for many of the more elderly policyholders. Can he give the House an undertaking that he will stick to that timetable so that those policyholders receive their compensation before they die, in many cases? He said that he was still considering Sir John Chadwick’s proposals. Will he ensure that not only he but the independent commission takes representations from EMAG, and do so quickly?
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for welcoming the statement. I am committed to the process taking place as quickly as possible. There are some challenges in the design of the scheme that we will need to think about when it comes to payments, but I am determined to ensure that payments start at the end of the first half of next year.
I want EMAG and others to take part in the debate about the scheme, and I am very happy for them to make representations to the independent commission that will help to draw up the detail of the scheme. I think we have a programme that will deliver justice in a way that is more robust, transparent and open than the process set out by the previous Government. I would also say to my right hon. Friend that we would have been in a better place if the previous Government had acted sooner to tackle the problem rather than trying to kick it into the long grass.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)
I appreciate the difficulties of calculating loss and the complexities of the process that the Minister has set up, but can he give us any idea of the percentage range of compensation that our distressed constituents might receive? That is the question that people want an answer to.
Mr Hoban
I accept that point. It would have been better if this whole process had started much sooner and we could have given policyholders much more assurance. We will not be able to determine how much will be paid to policyholders until we go through the spending review process, but I have committed to return to the House in October to say how much will be allocated by way of compensation. That pot of compensation will then be allocated by the independent commission.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am a member of EMAG, but I will not take any compensation for my own benefit.
May I put it to my hon. Friend that his statement will be welcomed? However, although no one thought that £4 billion was likely to come, most of my constituents—I probably have more than most who are affected—would regard £400 million as less than they expected. About £1 billion would be far more likely to be acceptable and proper.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman’s failure to disclose the figure for the likely compensation today is unlikely to reassure Equitable pension holders. What they are looking for is a body to be set up that is both independent of the Treasury and totally transparent in delivering figures that they can trust. They are looking for him to expedite that so that payment will be made as soon as possible.
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to statements given in the House. The independent commission is at arm’s length from the Treasury and will be responsible for designing the payment scheme. I would have thought his constituents would welcome that independence and transparency, which was not evident in the ideas put forward by his colleagues.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Can the Minister provide more detail on the advice and guidance that will be provided to those affected by this sad situation, following his announcement and given the extreme passage of time?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some of the changes that I want to make to the process of ensuring that Equitable Life policyholders receive justice are to do with speed and transparency. More information will be available to policyholders on the Treasury website, where they will be able to see some of the work that Sir John has done and the letter that Towers Watson provided to us. There will also be questions and answers on the website to help address their concerns.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Given that the Financial Secretary said that the cost to the Exchequer will be considered in the light of what is affordable according to the spending review, will the independent commission, which is designing the disbursement scheme, have terms of reference that allow it to challenge or influence the amount in the light of its findings?
Mr Hoban
I may be old-fashioned, but I think that it is up to Parliament to decide amounts that are spent and taxes that are raised. The commission will have a role in designing the scheme, but it is important that Parliament takes a view about how much should be spent. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ombudsman herself said in her report that we need to take into account the impact of any compensation arrangements on the public purse.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
My hon. Friend will know that EMAG and many Equitable Life members consider that Sir John Chadwick’s remit, which the Labour party set when it was in government, is deeply flawed. I am glad that my hon. Friend says that what he has announced will be only one building block. Why will Equitable Life members get only 20 to 25% of the absolute loss? Can he reassure me that retrospective payments for Equitable Life members who died waiting for justice will be honoured?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes two important points. She referred to the cap of 20 to 25%, which is Sir John’s assessment and proposal. I am conscious that others, including EMAG, have different views about what the proportion should be, but they accept the principle that some policyholders would have stayed with Equitable Life. Her second point, about the estates of deceased policyholders, is very important. I have given the commission wide terms of reference, with two exceptions. First, it must take into account the estates of deceased policyholders—that is fair. Secondly, there should be no means-testing.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary’s fair and measured statement might be taken more seriously had he not, in opposition, belaboured the Labour Government and made wild promises about paying full compensation to Equitable Life policyholders. Does he understand that people thought—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. The question of his neckwear or lack of it is of no concern to the House. I just want to hear what he has to say.
Mr MacShane
Mr Speaker, I have just had extensive root canal treatment and cannot tighten anything around my neck—I am terribly sorry—but I can open my mouth. Does the Financial Secretary understand that Equitable Life policyholders will feel betrayed? When will the Government stop doing endless U-turns?
Mr Hoban
Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman wears a tie, it does not add to the sense that he makes when asking questions. We made it clear in opposition that we accepted the ombudsman’s findings the day she published her report, unlike the Labour Government, who took six months to do that. We accepted the recommendations that compensation should be for relative loss and that account should be taken of the impact on the public purse. We have been consistent in that approach. I do not believe that the Conservative party has U-turned in any way. We have stuck to our commitment and made more progress on the matter in the past two months than the Labour party made in two years.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I am delighted with the Financial Secretary’s announcement. The largest postbag that I receive as a south Derbyshire MP is about Equitable Life. It is disgraceful that the matter has been going on for so long. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend and greatly look forward to the announcements next April.
Mr Hoban
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is not the only Member with a bulging postbag as a consequence of the issue. I am surprised at how many more of my constituents have announced that they are Equitable Life policyholders since I became the Minister responsible. I believe that there is good news in the statement, and I hope that hon. Friends will contact their constituents who have policies to let them know about the coalition’s progress.
Mr Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I think that my right hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary deserves some credit for his work on the issue. However, I thank the Financial Secretary for his helpful statement. Will he attend a meeting of the all-party group when it is re-formed so that a more detailed discussion can take place, given the shortage of time here and all hon. Members’ interest in the issue?
Mr Hoban
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent work as one of the joint chairmen of the all-party group. I note that the shadow Chief Secretary spoke to its members early this year, and I am happy to do the same. We have a good story to tell and I will not turn down any opportunities to tell it.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does the Financial Secretary feel bound by the 20 to 25% cap that Sir John seems to have plucked from the sky, or does he share my view that that flies entirely in the face of the transparency that the Government are trying to achieve for Equitable Life policyholders?
Mr Hoban
The debate is one of proportion rather than principle. In its representations on the matter, EMAG accepted that some policyholders would have stayed with Equitable Life or invested in it, despite knowing that it was not properly regulated. Indeed, several people joined Equitable Life quite late on, when its problems were well known, so there is some sense to the approach. The debate is about proportion, and I am prepared to take representations on that.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is unfortunate that the Financial Secretary has omitted any word of gratitude to Tony Wright and other members of the Public Administration Committee, who pursued the matter with great energy and intelligence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to make the issue a political football. My constituents will ask what alchemy reduced £4.8 billion to a maximum of £650 million. Why do they have to wait another year? Were they not deceived by the Conservatives’ exaggerated claims in their election propaganda?
Mr Hoban
Given that the hon. Gentleman was meant to be seeking a bipartisan spirit, it did not last much longer than his first sentence. I paid tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton), and I know from discussions with hon. Members of all parties that all Members of Parliament want to get the matter resolved. We all have constituents who have been involved, and the Public Administration Committee was one of many routes whereby the previous Government were pursued to deliver justice for policyholders quickly.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I thank the Financial Secretary very much indeed for his comments about the speed with which he will deal with the matter, particularly on behalf of my 80-year-old constituent, Jim Barratt, who said that, at his age, time was not on his side. Given that the coalition has declared that it will apply transparency to the matter, has EMAG received the information on “Head A” calculations, which it requested, but was not forthcoming under the previous Administration?
Mr Hoban
I have made it my duty to maintain a good and open relationship with EMAG. I met its members again earlier this week and I spoke to the chairman, Paul Braithwaite, this morning to advise him that I was making the statement. Today, I am publishing 2,500 pages of material that help underpin Sir John’s work and I hope that people who are interested will examine that in detail and respond to his findings and the actuarial advice that he received.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
When the policyholders realise just how much they will get, they will think that it is a far cry from all the statements by the then Tory Treasury spokesman, who has somehow landed up as Secretary of State for Transport, and the Liberal spokesman, who promised the moon and to pay everything in full. The small print indicates that those policyholders will now realise that the Tory party and the coalition are in full retreat on the payments that they should receive.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Financial Secretary for the speedy and decisive action that the Government have taken in the past two months. However, my constituents will ask whether, given that Sir John’s report is supposed to be a founding block, there is any likelihood of moving towards fuller compensation. Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned the spending review. How fixed is the £400 million to £500 million? Could the figure be lower?
Mr Hoban
Sir John’s report presents a range of numbers, which we need to look at in the context of the spending review. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary will hear Members’ representations on the matter, but we need to ensure that we put this matter in the context of the other spending commitments that the Government wish to make.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I have been consistent in my support of the parliamentary ombudsman recommendations, and I welcome the Financial Secretary’s statement as a building block. He has been very clear that he wants payments to begin in the middle of next year, but may I press on him an appeals procedure, because if we do not have one or a timetable for appeals, the matter could drag on for many years?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point and I am grateful for his welcome of today’s statement and the progress that I announced. He is absolutely right about an appeals mechanism, and the Treasury are looking at that proposal at the moment. Policyholders who question the data that are used—some data are quite old and policies are complex—will want a mechanism by which they can appeal, so that is important. However, I am keen to ensure that the appeals process is quick and thorough, so that people are comfortable with the outcome they get.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend. As someone who took part in the Equitable Life debate in March, I do not recognise some of the wilder accusations that are being levelled against him. May I press him on the key point of his statement, which is the capped figure? I think he confirmed to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) that he will review the figure when he reflects on Sir John’s report, but will he confirm that he will publish, and make a statement on, his methodology as to how he reaches it, whether or not he agrees with the report?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Although I congratulate the Minister on the undoubted speed and transparency of the process, many of my constituents will be seeking reassurance that it is safe to save in future. Will the cap of 20 to 25% be sufficient in giving them that reassurance? If not, what other measures will be taken?
Mr Hoban
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Many people’s confidence in saving has been shaken as a consequence of what happened at Equitable Life, but she will recall that last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced reforms to the regulation of financial services, which will include a new consumer champion—a consumer markets and protection authority. That is one way to help to improve regulation and to give people confidence about saving for their future.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has dealt with this matter compared with the previous Labour Government. He is looking to make payments in mid-2011, which is a great deal better than the other lot led us to believe, but winter is coming up—winters tend to be a bit colder in the High Peak than in other constituencies—so is there any opportunity to make interim payments?
Mr Hoban
That suggestion has been made on a number of occasions, and I thought very carefully about interim payments. It is difficult to make an interim payment before the scheme is designed. Such payments would add complexity and delay to the creation of the scheme. When the commission considers its findings, I hope it may well decide that certain groups should receive payments in priority to others.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Policyholders in my constituency were pushed from pillar to post and had to get judicial review to get some accountability, but the previous Government did absolutely nothing. With regard to the timeline of making payments by the middle of May next year, what criteria will be applied as to who gets their money first?
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
The Financial Secretary has intimated that he aims to begin to make payments by the middle of next year. Thirty thousand policyholders, including a sizeable number in my constituency, have already died, and I urge him to rethink the question of making a pro rata, interim payment based on his cap figure. Will he please think about that more seriously than his previous answers suggest, because I am fearful that more people in my constituency will die and not receive fair treatment?
Mr Hoban
Many hon. Friends have raised that issue with me in debates in recent weeks, and I have asked my officials to look carefully at it. I have also thought through very carefully how we could make such a proposal work, but I am yet to be persuaded that we can do so in a way that is fair to policyholders who might not receive an interim payment.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement. Many of my constituents will be delighted at the speed with which he has tackled the matter. I noted the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s apology, but also that it was limited to Equitable Life policyholders. He did not apologise for the fact that the economic situation left behind by the previous Government has limited necessarily the payments that my constituents and others will receive. Should his apology extend to that?
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is important that the compensation scheme is seen to be administered by an independent commission, and that it was wrong of the previous Government to ignore many of the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendations?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that the scheme should be designed to be independent. That is what will give maximum credibility to the scheme, and that will get maximum transparency for, and maximum support from, Equitable Life policyholders.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Equitable Life was a poisoned pill left by the previous Government, even if no note accompanied it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) rightly said, 30,000 people have died waiting for justice. Conservatives, who have long pushed for justice for policyholders, recognise that there will be an element of rough justice no matter what happens. Will the Financial Secretary ensure that the process is speedy? Even if interim payments are not possible, will he bring the matter to a close quickly, so that people can have certainty, because they did not get that from the previous Government?
Mr Hoban
I accept my hon. Friend’s point about speed, but I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on the need for appeals mechanisms, because rough justice works both ways, and we need to ensure that people are treated fairly under the scheme.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I welcome the fact that the Financial Secretary has recognised that the 25% cap will probably be the greatest concern of many of our constituents. He said that he will receive representations, but what is the deadline for those? People will want to influence him on that decision.
Mr Hoban
As I said, the process for deciding on the maximum compensation that is payable will conclude at the spending review, and we will publish the results on 20 October. I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to write sooner rather than later in that process. There are a range of views on that number and people will have their opinions on whether it is appropriate, but of course, we must set the overall position in the context of what the public purse can afford.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
We have heard a non-apology from the shadow Chief Secretary for the previous Government’s obfuscation. Will the Minister write to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ask for a special communications allowance for Labour Members, so that they can write and apologise to the families of the 30,000 people who have died and the 1.5 million policyholders who have had to wait 10 years?
Mr Speaker
Order. That question may be amusing, but I am afraid that it is irrelevant to the Minister’s responsibilities, and he must not answer it.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
May I welcome the Minister’s announcement and the speed with which he has come to the House to outline the next steps in the process? Further to an earlier question, will he clarify the time scale in which he wants to receive further representations from interested parties? He said that he wants to reflect on Sir John’s findings, but can he give us an indication of the time scale for receiving those representations?
Mr Hoban
I have not set a formal deadline or time scale, but I am sure that over the summer recess, my hon. Friends will talk to policyholders in their constituencies and gather their views. The Leader of the House today announced a debate on 14 September, I believe, on Second Reading of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill, which might give my hon. Friends the opportunity to make an oral representation.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Earlier this month, I held a public meeting in my constituency on Equitable Life, and I heard directly from many policyholders how they suffered, especially because of the inaction of the previous Government and their callous disregard for their rights. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the coalition Government will do all they can to end the long suffering of the Equitable Life victims?
Mr Hoban
Indeed I can give that commitment. I am also very mindful that at points over the previous nine years, the previous Government could have acted to bring justice to policyholders but chose not to do so. I am afraid that that is another aspect of that Government’s legacy that the Conservatives have to sort out.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Minister has moved so swiftly. Equitable Life victims in Elmbridge, like those across the country, were subject to the most shabby treatment by the last Government and no amount of synthetic outrage now can hide that. They feel raw and their trust in government is almost totally undermined. May we have further reassurance that there will be close consultation with the victims in the weeks ahead, especially on the vital issue of quantum and the mooted cap?
Mr Hoban
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Confidence in this process was significantly eroded by the previous Government. I hope that what I have announced today will enable policyholders to turn a new page and recognise that we are determined to be much more open and transparent in our approach, and that will help to build the credibility of the process.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Policyholders in my constituency are not interested in apologies that come nine years too late: they want justice. The Financial Secretary has outlined the start date for payments, but will he set a concluding date for the completion of this whole saga?
Mr Hoban
I am conscious that this is a very complex business. There are 1.5 million policyholders with 2 million policies and 30 million transactions. The policies are not straightforward and the data are old and difficult to access. I want to do as much as I can to make the process as quick as possible, and my hon. Friend has my commitment that I will do everything that I can to ensure that the date is speeded up.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Dozens of my constituents affected by the scandal, and a cousin who lives abroad, were favourably impressed by what was said in opposition creditably by Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs. Will my hon. Friend accept that the experience of root canal surgery by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) will be as nothing compared with what those MPs will suffer if we fail to live up to our promises? I welcome the speed with which my hon. Friend is taking action, but the content of that action must live up to the speed.
Points of Order
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Deputy Prime Minister, when trying to justify the recent decision by the Government to refuse the proposed loan of £80 million to Sheffield Forgemasters said that the decision taken by the last Government had been made knowing the funds were not available. He said:
“Lord Mandelson was writing out cheques to companies like Forgemasters, which he knew would bounce”. —[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 343.]
But I am in possession of a letter sent to me a few days ago by the permanent secretary at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills commenting on the financial controls in place during the time that the decision to approve the loan was taken. That letter says that
“when a new project or policy is considered the Department provides thorough advice to Ministers, including on the following aspects: value for money, legal implications, delivery of policy objectives, stakeholder and media reaction and available sources of funding. When funding cannot be identified from within existing departmental budgets it is agreed with HM Treasury.
I confirm that the process above was in place while you were a Minister here”.
In other words, the permanent secretary, an official for whom I have the highest regard, is clear that it was not the case that the previous Secretary of State approved financial decisions for which funds were not available. The Deputy Prime Minister has already got his facts wrong on the directors’ shareholdings. We also have the news that a major Tory donor wrote to the Government specifically on this point and appealing for the loan not to be granted. Now the permanent secretary’s letter shows that the Deputy Prime Minister has got his facts wrong again, this time on the issue of financial approval of the loan itself.
I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can we ensure that when the Deputy Prime Minister next speaks at the Dispatch box, he does not simply spray around unfounded accusations but gets his facts right on this crucial issue?
Mr Speaker
The straightforward answer to that point of order is that—if memory serves me correctly—there will be an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday next week. If hon. Members wish to put questions to the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, they will have an opportunity—not least in topical questions—to do so.
So far as the wider comments the right hon. Gentleman made are concerned, I can only reiterate what I have already said about the correction of errors and underline the importance of Members using their own devices to pursue those matters. I cannot be drawn into the debate. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his position and I have indicated what opportunities there are for the pursuit of the matter.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week I raised a point of order with you about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saying in the House that he would not make any announcement about the abolition of Government offices and he was currently discussing that with interested parties—despite the fact that he had written to the contrary to the Deputy Prime Minister nine days previously. On that occasion you said that you had had no indication that the Secretary of State would come to the House to make a statement.
This morning, a written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State has announced that 1,700 posts in 10 Government offices are to be abolished. That follows a meeting that he had last night with trade union representatives when he said that he would reflect on the issues and discuss them. That is the second time in a week that the Secretary of State has indicated one thing and done another. Is it not reasonable that he should now come to the House to make a formal statement on an important issue that will affect governance and on which he has ducked and dived by making that written ministerial statement this morning?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State has chosen to disclose his policy through a written ministerial statement and it is open to any Minister from any Department to do that. The hon. Gentleman and others may be dissatisfied with that, and it is open to them to interrogate the Secretary of State about whatever contradictions they believe that his course of action has embodied or caused. But it is not for me to rule on whether there should be a written ministerial statement or an oral statement. The hon. Gentleman has aired his concern and I have a feeling that he will continue to air it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, the shadow Education Minister, the hon. Member for Gelding (Vernon Coaker), who is in his place, told the House:
“Just last month, the Swedish Education Minister warned the UK against adopting the free school model, stating:
‘We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced’”. —[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 124.]
I believe that he was referring to an article in The Sunday Mirror on 30 May 2010. However the Swedish education Minister Bertil Ostberg said the next day in a Swedish publication Varldenidag:
“The article is very biased. It is taken out of context and misleading. I have not warned the British Government against introducing Free Schools. As for the Swedish Free Schools, I clearly said to the newspaper that the Swedish Free Schools are here to stay and it is something positive”.
The shadow Minister’s statement on Monday was therefore inaccurate. Will there be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to come to this House and correct that inaccuracy?
Mr Speaker
First, I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Secondly, I have no responsibility for Swedish Ministers, Swedish schools, Swedish policies or Swedish newspapers.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am genuinely sorry to have to bring this point of order to your attention and to seek your clarification and guidance. I had hoped to receive clarification from the Leader of the House earlier, but did not do so. It is a fundamental point, not about individuals or personalities but about the procedures of this place. As a shadow Minister, when I step up to the Dispatch box I speak for the shadow ministerial team and I speak collectively. I did the same as a Minister when I spoke with the authority of Government and I had a responsibility to speak on behalf of the Government.
It seems this week that we have had several situations in which statements that have been made have not been prefaced with the phrase “I speak in a personal capacity”, but spoken as the Deputy Prime Minister or other Minister. Can you provide guidance on that point, for both the shadow Cabinet and the Government? Alternatively, can you show us how we can trust that statements made at the prestigious and honoured position at the Dispatch Box are Government statements, not individual views? If we wanted to give our individual views, we could go on “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Ministers speak from the Dispatch Box as Ministers, not as individuals or on behalf of parties. Ministers are responsible for what they say, and I must assume that they speak in the House on behalf of the Government.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At a recent Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister suggested that Lord Mandelson was going around the country with a cheque book giving out tens of billions of pounds. I now understand, from research in the Library, that the figure is hundreds of millions of pounds—a factor of 100 times less. What steps will you take, Mr Speaker, to ensure that this grotesque misleading of the nation and Parliament is corrected on the Floor of the House?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is: none. That is for the simple reason that he is seeking, and has sought, to continue a debate.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would welcome your clarification, not least in the light of the debate that was held here on Tuesday about the pre-release of statements prior to the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box. I do not have Superman’s X-ray vision, and I stand to be corrected on this, but I saw a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary come to the House and distribute among Government Back-Bench Members a document that looked very much like the statement that the Minister then went on to read. Can you offer your guidance, Mr Speaker, so that that sort of thing does not happen in the future, if indeed it happened today?
Mr Speaker
When a statement is made and has been delivered, copies are made available to all Members. That is the proper way in which to proceed. I hope that is clear.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure it requires it, but we shall see. We shall give the hon. Lady another bite of the cherry.
Alison Seabeck
The document in question, which may or may not have been a statement, was distributed during business questions, although it might have been something else.
Mr Speaker
What I have already said in response to the hon. Lady’s point of order stands. I am happy to reflect further on the point, but I am not sure I want to get into the issue of precisely at what point these statements are distributed. If anything further is required on that matter, no doubt she will come back to me, and I will be happy to seek to respond. But that will do for now.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to the point of order by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), whom I much admire, may I, through you, Mr Speaker, reassure her that the pieces of paper to which she referred contained nothing more noxious than a few helpful suggestions of questions that might be asked—a practice that, while not entirely to be praised, is not unknown on both sides of the House, whether in government or opposition?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the House is enriched as a result of that point of order. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting on your guidance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) about the position of the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to remarks attributed to him on a personal basis. Given your guidance to the House, Mr Speaker, do you think it appropriate that the Deputy Prime Minister should now come back to the House to clarify his statement yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions that the war in Iraq was an “illegal” war?
Mr Speaker
My response to the hon. Gentleman is that he is pushing his luck. I have ruled on this matter, and I have nothing to add.
Bills presented
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Sir George Young, Mr Mark Harper and Mr David Heath, presented a Bill to make provision about the dissolution of Parliament and the determination of polling days for parliamentary general elections; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 64) with explanatory notes (Bill 64-EN).
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Sir George Young, Mr Mark Harper and Mr David Heath, presented a Bill to make provision for a referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections and to provide for parliamentary elections to be held under the alternative vote system if a majority of those voting in the referendum are in favour of that; to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 63) with explanatory notes (Bill 63-EN)
Equitable Life (Payments) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Hoban, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Danny Alexander, Mr Francis Maude, Mr David Gauke and Justine Greening, presented a Bill to provide finance for payments in cases where persons have been adversely affected by maladministration in the regulation before December 2001 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 26 July, and to be printed (Bill 62) with explanatory notes (Bill 62-EN)
Academies Bill [Lords]
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:49 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 70, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) Payments may be made in respect of capital expenditure under an Academy agreement to an additional school only where the Secretary of State has first consulted with—
(a) local parents and children,
(b) the relevant local authority,
(c) any other persons deemed appropriate.
(1B) The purpose of the consultation under (1A) shall be to establish whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment for existing schools in the area where the school is (or is proposed to be) situated.
(1C) Where a need is demonstrated the Secretary of State may not make payments with respect of capital expenditure under subsection (1).
(1D) A school is an “additional school” for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it does not replace a maintained school that has been or is to be discontinued, and
(b) it is not a school in respect of which an Academy order has effect.
(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1D)(a) a school does not replace a maintained school if it provides education for pupils of a wider range of ages than the maintained school.’.
It is a privilege to be back standing here as the hon. Member for Gedling—
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
We will never look at the shadow Minister in the same way again.
Vernon Coaker
I know. Perhaps it is the way I speak. Anyway, it is a delight to be back here. It does not seem long ago that we were finishing the debate last night—[Interruption.] No, it was not long ago. I am sure we have all had plenty of opportunity to enjoy ourselves in the intervening period and not think of anything but the Academies Bill and all the other relevant papers and documents.
Amendment 70 is an important amendment, particularly given the fiasco—frankly—of the past few weeks with respect to the Building Schools for the Future programme, the cuts to it, the reassessments and the other problems with the list. I will not rehearse those problems, but the relevance of and the need for the amendment are even more acute than they would have been had it not been for what has happened over the past few weeks. Schools up and down the country were expecting capital moneys to be provided for them to improve schools and tackle problems with school buildings. Many of those proposals were developed by local authorities, and many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will have helped to work up those plans over a number of months and, sometimes, one or two years, because the school-building programme was linked to school reorganisation for school improvement. But of course that was all dashed by the lists published and the review announced by the Secretary of State for Education in order to prove that he could cut budgets.
The Government are now looking to create new schools using money from their budgets. Their defence is: “Don’t worry, this isn’t coming from Building Schools for the Future money. It’s actually coming from cuts to low-priority computer programmes”, and they talk about £50 million. However, neither the Secretary of State nor the Schools Minister ever add that the £50 million is up until March 2011 only; and neither do they mention that there have been, I understand, 38 expressions of interest to the New Schools Network, which has since sought to talk to the Department. Is it 38? When he replies to the amendment, will the Minister tell us how many free schools he expects to open? I understand that the first is due to open in September 2011. How many such expressions of interest have there been so far? How many of those have changed from expressions of interest to applications? How many does he expect to open in 2011? Alongside that, how many does he expect £50 million will pay for? What will that £50 million mean for those 38 schools?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend seen the podcast on the Department for Education website by the Secretary of State, where he says that all schools will get more money, more efficiently and more cheaply? How is that possible, given that he has just cut the BSF programme?
Vernon Coaker
Frankly, the reality is that it is not possible. What we are getting from the Secretary of State is an explanation for what he has done on the grounds that the money was not there in the budget for the Building Schools for the Future programme, when the letter from the permanent secretary to the shadow Secretary of State quite clearly points out that the money for BSF was set aside in the proper way. The school rebuilding programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency has not been cut; it has been absolutely massacred. That money was there, and the permanent secretary—this is an extremely important point that will bear repeating on a number of occasions—said in the letter to the shadow Secretary of State that if the proper procedures had not been followed according to Treasury rules, the permanent secretary would have required a ministerial direction to proceed with the policy, as my hon. Friend knows. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education has confirmed that, in fact, no such ministerial direction was given, so my hon. Friend now knows the reality.
As for this £50 million, we are now being told, “Don’t worry, it’s not going to affect school budgets. It’s not going to be a problem with respect to school buildings.” However, free schools are already being affected across the country.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was very generous yesterday too, and the Committee appreciated the answers to some of the questions. However, he is talking now as if, under Labour’s proposals, the money for Building Schools for the Future was already in the bank—that is, already in the Department. However, it was made clear time and again that the money for Building Schools for the Future would be made available from savings made elsewhere. He talks as if the money was already in existence and had been earmarked, but that is complete and utter nonsense. It is now being spread about that schools would have been assured of that money, but the previous Government gave no such assurance.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman and I often agree on education matters, but on this particular matter I do not agree with him. He will know—not only from his experience in the House, but from his local authority experience, which he had on a local education authority, as he reminded us yesterday—that when we talk about money being available, that means money being accounted for in the proper way, so that proposals to do certain things in the future are made according to the rules laid down by the Treasury. The Treasury will not allow anyone to say that they will involve schools in various waves—for example, in Building Schools for the Future—unless they conform to certain rules. The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is that the then Secretary of State—now the shadow Secretary of State—conformed to all the Treasury rules to ensure that when those schools became ready for rebuilding, the money was there in the proper way.
I was also making the point that free schools, which are the Secretary of State’s preferred route forward, are already saying they are feeling the consequences of the changes that the Government have made. In the Yorkshire Post on 9 July—I will not read out the headline, in order to save the Secretary of State from embarrassment—it was reported that free school pioneers are worried about the impact of the changes that the Government are making and feel that they have “dealt a blow” to their proposals to establish a free school in Kirklees. Whether it is right or wrong to have a free school in Kirklees, it is not just those on the Opposition Benches who are saying that the position with respect to Building Schools for the Future has caused problems for existing schools. People whom one would have expected to support the Government—indeed, to come out dancing on the streets about what they are doing—are now turning round and saying, “Actually, the route the Government are pursuing is causing a problem.”
One of the good things about being in Committee is that it gives us the opportunity to look at things in detail. When the Minister replies to this debate, I wonder whether he will comment on the terms of reference for the capital programme, which I want gently to share with the Committee. I do not know whether my hon. Friends or other members of the Committee have had a chance to look at the terms of reference for the allocation of capital funds—they might want to refer them to their constituents, because they are contained in one of those papers that gets tucked away, but which has huge significance—but there are five of them. The second is:
“To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand”—
that refers to free schools or additional schools, or whatever we want to call them. The fifth is
“To enable the establishment of new schools.”
I do not know about my hon. Friends, but the Minister might need to tell us how the Government can reassure us on that. He has turned round and said, “Don’t worry, the Building Schools for the Future money has nothing to do with free schools or additional schools.” However, we then read in the terms of reference for the review group that the Department has established that two of the five criteria by which decisions on how to allocate capital funds are made refer to how capital funds are to be allocated to these new schools. Anybody looking at that would say, “What’s going on there?”
When we look at the criteria under the heading “Distribution of capital investment”, we read the following:
“To increase choice locally determined by parental demand”.
When we read more about the review, we see why amendment 70 is so important, especially as it talks about allocating capital money. At the moment, there will be no consultation with local parents, the local authority or anybody else about what will be done; it will just be the Secretary of State determining that a free school in an area would be a great thing to have. A few people will get together, write out a bit of an application—a few hundred words here, a few hundred words there—and then go the Secretary of State, who will say, “Oh, what a good idea! We’ll set the free school up.” However, I would again like to share with hon. Members what the document that I have quoted says. I look at this with incredulity, especially after the great fanfare with which the Secretary of State made his announcement. In that document, the Secretary of State says:
“To review and reform the requirements on schools including the building/School Premises Regulations”.
What that actually means is as follows—and this is why amendment 70 is so vital.
When the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister talk to parents about establishing schools and so on, they should make things clear. Perhaps the Schools Minister’s constituents are different from mine, but I do not get many parents coming to me and saying, “Can I be on the fifth floor of a tower block?”, “Can I be in a disused Tesco?”, or, “Those portakabins are pretty good—can I pop round there?” Most people I speak to want to get rid of the portakabins. However, the Secretary of State’s vision of this new school world—this free school nirvana—is this: “It doesn’t matter where you establish schools; it’s fine.”
We all know—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) often makes this point, and quite rightly so—that, at the end of the day, what really turns a school around is not its structure, and often not the buildings, but the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership. However, there is no one here who would not also point out to each and every one of us—there was a survey about this a couple of days ago—that the quality of school buildings is an essential part of how we, as a civilised society, provide the standard of education that we would want in our schools, for ourselves, our teachers and our children.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
The Labour party was famous for selling off school playing fields. To return to Building Schools for the Future, the majority of those building programmes were carried out under private finance initiative schemes. They were never put on the Government’s balance sheets. They are all off the capital account, and are being paid for out of the revenue of the next 25 years. So how can the hon. Gentleman say that he had the money for those programmes, when he did not know whether he would have that money over the next 25 years to pay the rent on the schools that he built?
Vernon Coaker
I have already answered the point about money for schools. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes round to the schools being built through PFI schemes and tells them, “We don’t want you in here building a school through PFI.” The programmes delivered through PFI, through local authority funding or through Building Schools for the Future have transformed the quality of school buildings, and over the next decade they would have transformed the whole of the secondary school estate, either through rebuilding or refurbishment. This is a choice that we have to make: the hon. Gentleman can oppose the programme, and that is absolutely fine. He can stand up and oppose it—
Vernon Coaker
Not now! This is one of the good things about being in Committee—we can get excited and nobody really minds.
The hon. Gentleman can oppose the Building Schools for the Future programme and say that what the Government have done over the past few years has been a waste of time, but I would say to him that we have a tremendous record and that Building Schools for the Future would have delivered that transformation.
Returning to the point about playing fields, it was our Government who introduced regulations to ensure that there was agreement, including from sporting bodies, on any such land that was sold, and that the money was reinvested in the school. In one or two instances, I supported the sale of playing fields in my area when schools were being rebuilt with gyms and all-weather courts as a consequence of the money that was realised from the sale. Often, land that was labelled as playing fields was nothing more than waste ground. Numerous Members from across the country asked whether it would be possible to sell off such land as long as the money was reinvested in sports facilities in the local area. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Burnley would have supported the amendment because it would introduce consultation with local people, the local authority, parents and children on any activities where capital expenditure is moved to fund the free schools.
However, my point is that tucked away inside “Reducing the burden on schools” is the fact that the capital review will cover not only school premises regulations and design requirements but also playing fields. Does the Minister therefore envisage some free schools being set up with no access to playing fields or other outdoor sports facilities? I have heard him quite rightly highlighting the essential role in the curriculum played by sport. How on earth is that to be delivered in the light of these regulations? I know that he will get up and say that they do not mean that at all, but I can tell him that that is exactly what they mean. This is exactly what the Secretary of State said when he was talking about capital moneys being made available for free schools. He wanted the schools to be able to be set up very quickly and cheaply, and that would involve changing the regulations that local authorities would normally have had to abide by. He wanted to reduce the central requirements so that a huge number of free schools could be set up as quickly as possible, funded by moving money from one departmental pot to another. Our amendment would ensure that that choice was made apparent to local people, and I know what their decision would be if they were asked those questions.
Vernon Coaker
I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is an interesting and important debate, but it would help the Speaker and the Hansard writers enormously if we knew who was rising and who the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was giving way to.
Vernon Coaker
I apologise. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.
Geraint Davies
Given the Government’s strategy for the use of disused sites, does my hon. Friend agree that there will now be a perverse incentive to let schools on valuable sites fail, so that they can sell off their land and use the funds to set up other schools in disused premises? Under Labour, certain schools on good sites had difficulties, but their infrastructure was supported. They might now be asset-stripped to pursue the new strategy involving free schools on disused sites.
Vernon Coaker
That is certainly a possibility. If we change the regulations, anything is possible. The Minister will no doubt say that that will not happen, but the thrust of our argument is our desire to place certain statutory requirements in the Bill to protect the quality of educational provision, including the provision of playing fields. Any weakening of the regulations or of the findings of the capital funding review could be very damaging.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With your indulgence, Dawn—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I have a problem saying your surname, because I have a problem with Ps and Rs. Sometimes when I have addressed you in Committee, it has disturbed the Hansard writers. They wondered who the hell I was talking about. With your indulgence, I would like to make a couple of points. The first is about private finance initiatives in schools. Any local authority that has a PFI school building programme will know of the huge impediment that that brings, as well as the restrictions on developing anything in the school without enormous knock-on costs. I hope that no one is running away with the idea that everything about PFI is perfect, because that is far from the truth.
My second point is the more important, however. I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but so far he has not raised the question of what happens if a local authority is forced into the invidious position of allocating certain resources from LEA funding, limited though it is, and one of the schools then fails. Who will pick up the pieces? Nothing in the Bill suggests the existence of a fail-safe system enabling those pieces to be put back together once the whole has been torn apart by the establishment of a free school.
Vernon Coaker
I was not trying to suggest that PFI was a panacea for all ills, and I know that it has sometimes led to problems. I was merely suggesting that it was one of the options that had allowed some local authorities to build new schools that might not have been built otherwise.
I was going to deal with the question of what will happen if a school fails, but the hon. Gentleman has made the point well enough to save me the trouble of making it myself. I entirely agree with him. As we discovered yesterday, one of the main drawbacks of the Bill is the huge amount of detail that it contains. In relation to one clause, we were told not to worry because a committee—I cannot remember what it was called—would be set up to examine all the issues that had been raised, as the Government did not know the answers yet. We as a Parliament, however, are being asked to pass the Bill.
Some of the problems with the Bill were illustrated very effectively by the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and other Members will doubtless make similar comments later. Moreover—let me make this point again to the Schools Minister—we cannot amend it. We can table amendments, but for a number of reasons the Government do not want it to be amended.
Does the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) wish to intervene?
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am sorry. I was simply trying to catch Miss P’s eye.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I do not think that my name is all that difficult to pronounce. It is Pri-mar-olo. “Dawn” or “Miss P” will not do, I am afraid. I call Mr Coaker.
Vernon Coaker
Thank you, Ms Primarolo. [Laughter.]
The Government are seeking to save money by cutting the Building Schools for the Future programme, but they say that this expenditure is nothing to do with those cuts. They say that they are economising on low-priority IT projects. That will provide £50 million, and they have already received 38 expressions of interest.
I do not think any of us believe that that really adds up. The £50 million is only until March 2011, and because of the comprehensive spending review, no one has any idea what will happen after that. On 20 April 2010—apparently everything has changed since then, but I think it useful to draw attention to this—The Independent quoted the Secretary of State as saying:
“The capital cost”—
of new free schools, that is—
“will come from reducing spending on the government’s extremely wasteful Building Schools for the Future programme by 15 per cent.”
I know that when a party gets into power things change a little, but the Secretary of State cannot really have believed that there was not a budget for him to use if he wanted to fund his free school experiment. He did not say that last year; he said it on 20 April 2010.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Is not one of the saddest aspects of the debate on Building Schools for the Future the fact that it is being portrayed as simply a capital programme? It was never intended to be that. It was intended to bring about a transformation of secondary education. It was intended to improve the curriculum, improve inclusion and raise standards. Nothing that I have seen suggests to me that that will happen as a result of the free school programme. The Bill is being pushed through the House at great speed, and we are being given no evidence or details.
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend made a number of valuable contributions yesterday, and she is absolutely right to remind us of those facts. As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, Building Schools for the Future was not just about school buildings; it was about transforming opportunities for young people.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The fact that 26 of our schools in Liverpool missed the boat and had their BSF projects cancelled was not due to the bureaucracy to which Government Members keep referring. A detailed reorganisation ensured that we now have the right number of schools for the right number of students in the right areas. We do not need any more schools in Liverpool, but we do need schools with suitable buildings in which young people can learn. It is an absolute disgrace that young people in Liverpool will miss out on those suitable premises on the whim of this untested, untrialled free school process on which there has been no consultation.
May I ask my hon. Friend—
Luciana Berger
May I ask my hon. Friend, very briefly, whether he agrees with what was said the other day by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? The hon. Gentleman said:
“It would be a nonsense to take money that could be used for improving existing schools to create new schools where, on the ground, the will of the local community is for the existing schools to continue.”
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the devastating impact of the cuts in the Building Schools for the Future programme on Liverpool, although, of course, it can be seen throughout the country. She is also right to draw attention to the comments of the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, who asked why money should be withheld from perfectly adequate existing schools to create new schools. That is a question that the Minister responsible for schools will have to answer.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The budgets of three schools in my constituency—among others—have been cut: Stopsley, Putteridge and Denbigh. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of new school buildings, but of capacity? In the Luton local authority area, 11 new schools have been cancelled—and, unlike the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my constituency does need more schools. Is not the free schools policy a perfect storm for areas such as mine which need new capacity? The building of free schools is the only option for us now.
Vernon Coaker
That is exactly the point. If free schools are to be built, the money must be found somewhere, and the Government are struggling at the moment. They have raised £50 million by scrapping a few computer projects, which were described as low-capacity but would have been important to the people who would have benefited from them, but where will the money come from after that?
A week or two before the election, the Secretary of State said that funding the free schools programme would require cuts of 15% in the Building Schools for the Future programme. That is a direct quotation. It has not been corrected, and I have not heard it claimed that it was taken out of context. As I have said, that is really where the money will come from.
I am trying to be helpful to the Government and the Committee. We oppose the Bill, but we recognise that the Government will probably push it through. Even if that is the case, however, the whole point of the Committee stage is to try to improve the Bill by amending it, and to raise issues of great importance. That is why it is so disappointing that Members—on both sides of the Committee—cannot amend the Bill. I recognise that the Bill has come from the Lords, but it is astonishing that we will have spent three days debating it on the Floor of the House and not one amendment will have been allowed. I am not a political or legislative historian, but I cannot imagine that many other Bills can have spent three days on the Floor of the House without amendment. I say in all honesty to the Minister that I will not be surprised if we find sneaked into the Bill that will be coming in the autumn a couple of little measures tweaking and putting right one or two things in this Bill, because that is what usually happens when Governments rush through legislation—afterwards they think, “Oh dear, there is a problem.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are 75 amendments and five new clauses on the amendment paper, and the Committee is perfectly entitled to pass any of them.
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Gentleman and I have debated other Bills—indeed, we have served on Bill Committees together—and on those occasions he has made one or two good points to which I have said, “That’s quite a good point, and I’ll come back to it on Report,” and then a Government amendment is introduced. That is the usual process in the House, and when it happens everyone tells this joke: “If it was such a good amendment and the Government have come back with their version of exactly the same proposal, why did you not accept it when it was moved by the Opposition?”
The situation with this Bill is totally different from how the Minister has just described it. Not all the amendments on the amendment paper are in my name—some have been tabled by his hon. Friends, and comments have been made by other Members as well—but we are totally unable to amend the Bill. Let me say to any new Members on the Government Benches who might be tempted to strike out in a spirit of independence by organising to make a change to the Bill through proposing an amendment and seeking to press it to a Division that it would not be very long before those who traditionally sit on the far end of the Treasury Bench came to see them to explain that that was probably not the best thing to do. I just say in all honesty to the Minister that I think it is deeply disappointing that we cannot amend the Bill in the way that many of us would want.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I understand my hon. Friend’s surprise, but the Government have form on this. We have just completed our debates on the Finance Bill, all of which were taken on the Floor of the House, which never happens, and not one amendment was accepted—although, to respond to what the Minister has just said, there were many proposed amendments to the Finance Bill as well. There are two major Bills, therefore, that did not go upstairs to Committee for detailed scrutiny and to which not one amendment was made, because the Government are determined to steamroller both through the House.
Vernon Coaker
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I was going to say that what is happening in respect of the Academies Bill is a one-off, but he has pointed out that this happened in respect of the Finance Bill as well. One would hope, however, that it is not a precedent of how other Bills will be dealt with.
I have tabled amendment 70 in order to try to be helpful. The amendment does not say that no capital moneys can be paid to free schools. In fact, it says capital moneys can be paid to free schools, but before that money is paid there has to be the agreement of “local parents and children”, the “local authority” and
“any other persons deemed appropriate.”
I thought that we were all in favour of the new localism and local decision making, and the point of the amendment is to allow the local people and communities along with the local authority to determine whether the capital moneys proposed to be used to set up a free school—that will be agreed by the Secretary of State—should be spent in that way, when it might have been used for the benefit of other schools in, for example, Liverpool, Halton and Luton.
I am trying to be helpful to the Government, therefore. I am saying to the Government, “You establish the free schools—the ‘additional schools’ as the Bill calls them—but if you’re going to take capital moneys away from other schools in the community to establish the free schools, then let’s see whether the local people and the local authority agree.” Given the furore we have seen over the cuts to Building Schools for the Future, with communities throughout the country seeing their new school buildings taken away from them, I wonder what they would say when asked whether they would wish to see their new school buildings sacrificed on the altar of a school experiment that is unproven and supported by no evidence one way or the other. I know why the Government will not accept this amendment, therefore: because they would be frightened of the answer they would get from local communities, who would turn around and say, “We want capital moneys spent for the benefit of the whole community, not for the benefit of a few.”
I have some questions linked to the amendment for the Minister. How many free schools does he expect there will be? How much money does he expect to spend on each free school? What do the changes in the review of capital expenditure actually mean? Are there going to be any regulations or are we going to allow children to go on the 13th floor, let us say? I note that the head of Tesco property offices is one of the advisers to the capital review group, and we will see what happens there. Can the Minister confirm that he expects the first free schools to open in 2011? Does he expect to spend all of the £50 million? Does he expect that to be enough money to develop the 38 schools in September 2011?
While we are talking about Building Schools for the Future, may I also ask the Minister to confirm how many academies have been affected by the BSF cuts? Looking at the list, it appears that while many local authority-maintained schools have had their BSF money stopped, lots of the academies are listed as under review. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain to us exactly what is happening in that regard?
How much does the Minister expect the free schools to cost not only over the next six months or year, but over the next five years? How much money will the Department for Education be trying to get from the Treasury in the next spending review? What evidence does he have that the moneys to be invested in free schools is a policy worth pursuing and that it is worth taking money from the vast majority of schools to fund what I regard as an educational experiment?
We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the comments of other Members who may also want to contribute to this important debate. At the heart of the debate on all the amendments, including amendment 70, is the fact that there are those of us who wish to try to ensure that opportunity and excellence for all is made a reality in every single community. There is a difference between the Government and the Opposition on this. Sometimes we are characterised as wanting to pull down those who can excel. Far from it: we want all children to achieve, including those who have talents and ability. We want all children to have school buildings of which they can be proud. The amendment before us seeks to ensure that, where the Government want to divert capital moneys from one set of priorities to another, that is done on the basis of local support—the support of local parents and the local authority—and not done at the whim of the Secretary of State.
Mr Ward
May I say how much I, as a new boy, have enjoyed the Committee stage and how useful I have found it as a mechanism for at least asking questions and trying to clarify points? Yesterday’s proceedings were long, but very useful to me in trying to understand how this process works.
There is value in this amendment. It is always important to spend public money as wisely as we possibly can. There will be disputes about policy initiatives and priorities, but whatever the priority, we need always to get the best value for the money we spend. If that was ever important, it certainly is now. In the spirit of the Committee, I shall not go into why we are in the difficulties that we are in, but most people accept that we are in a time of great austerity where we face cuts, tax increases and spending decisions that require careful thought.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will recall that we both made our maiden speeches on Labour’s flagship Bill in 1997. He will also recall the optimism that existed in the country then for education and for the incoming Government. How different the mood is today. My constituency, which has been devastated—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) might laugh, but he is laughing at the fact that 11 schools have been taken out of the project, with three under review, and at the impact that that has had on more than 7,000 children in my constituency. Frankly, I say to him that this is no laughing matter and I shall ensure that my constituents understand that the coalition thinks that it is.
As the shadow Minister said, what has happened in constituencies such as mine has resulted in absolute devastation. The amendment is very interesting because it allows us to discuss the capital programme and how we should see that in relation to what has happened to the BSF programme and how we spend capital in the future. What is also interesting is that this Government are having a review of capital expenditure, yet they are pressing ahead with the Bill. Both have an impact on each other, so this is a remarkable situation.
Let me deal with what is being done and what is being spent. In yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education talked about lavish expenditure on schools. I think that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. When he tried to say that somehow this was inefficient, I pointed out to him that last year’s National Audit Office report said that the cost of BSF schools was no more than any other programme and, in fact, was cheaper than the original academies that were built. It is not the case that these schools were in any way inefficient or that the money was not available.
Mr Hancock
I am slightly curious about the hon. Gentleman’s comment that our schools deserve lavish expenditure. What on earth was going on during the past 13 years, when so many schools were allowed to be neglected and none of the resources that were needed were coming from the Government?
Derek Twigg
I am surprised at that intervention, although I suppose I should not be. In the past 13 years, £24 million has been spent on schools in Halton. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Ditton primary school waited years for a new school building, and once Labour came into power it got one built. A number of schools have had major building programmes and major improvements made, so it is not the case—it is plain incorrect—to say that Labour did nothing until the BSF programme. In fact, significantly more was done under Labour than was done in 18 years of a Tory Government. His party now supports such a Government.
Pat Glass
I am sure that I am not the only person in the House who worked in education during the time of the previous Tory Government. I remember what it was like in those school buildings, where I was putting out buckets in the hall when it rained and excluding children from the hall because it was dangerous. I said that BSF is not about a capital building programme—it is a transformation programme. Our school buildings say what we think about our young people. To have children in office blocks, disused buildings and old schools—
The Temporary Chairman (Martin Caton)
Order. I have been indulgent, but interventions should be a lot shorter than that.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I shall come to when I ask the Minister how his handling of the amendment will affect that specific point, which is very important.
I am not sure how the Bill or, to some extent, the amendment will address the problem of school places and provision. The cancelling of the BSF project caused major problems for schools such as St Chad’s Roman Catholic school and the Heath specialist technology college in Runcorn in my constituency, which were going to expand. How will they now expand? They are popular and successful schools that have seen increases in their GCSE results—the Heath had a success rate of more than 82% last year. Problems were also caused for the likes of Bankfield in Widnes, which is my old school and has been told this week that it has an outstanding report from Ofsted. How can that school expand?
Wade Deacon school has a 100% pass rate in GCSEs at A to C and serves both an affluent area and a disadvantaged area. The previous school, Fairfield, is now being closed down and will amalgamate with Wade Deacon. They were going to be built on one site. How will that happen now? It will mean a split site and all sorts of difficulties, with 400 pupils displaced. That is the consequence.
I am not sure how the Bill and this clause will help the situation in my constituency, and that is a consequence of the decision that the Government took. This amendment is about ensuring that parents’ and the LEAs’ views are known and taken into account. Parents and LEAs will take account of the sorts of buildings that schools need, and that was what BSF was delivering. They were consulted on the buildings, they had a lot of say, and the buildings were designed to suit the ethos of the school and what it wanted to deliver. In particular, they were designed to suit other parts of the community’s involvement in them.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Just last week, I was able to visit Springwell community school, a school that is being rebuilt in Staveley in Chesterfield, which is quite a deprived area that, at one time, had terrible problems. On 1 November, it expects to receive the keys to its new Building Schools for the Future school and all involved are incredibly excited about the facilities that they have there. I have been around the new facilities and they are not in any way lavish, but they will be taking delivery of a high-quality establishment. What was important to me was that they said that the whole BSF programme enabled them to reassess not just what buildings they wanted, but the whole way they did education. Is that something that my hon. Friend has found? The BSF process was about much more than just getting buildings up.
Derek Twigg
Derek, even, Mr Caton. I am happy to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), but I must say that we are not from the same branch.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) makes an important point, as he has before. For instance, all the schools discussed with other bodies in the area, such as the health authority, how they could improve the provision of health care and how community involvement could be increased. In areas such as mine, although we have seen significant improvements in education over the past 10 years, the average school gets more than a 72% pass mark at grades A to C, which is above the national average. For a borough that is the 30th most deprived in the country, that is some achievement, which has been given no recognition by the Government in the Bill. That has been an important part of the process. Getting the community involved and getting adults involved to improve the educational ethos and get parents and families to take an interest in their young people—many do, but many more need to—was an important part of the involvement with the schools, too.
Health is particularly important in Halton because we have some of the worst health problems in the country. We have the highest teenage pregnancy rates. That would have been an important part of the programme. These schools were not just educational establishments; they were community establishments that would have dealt with some of the problems that affect the communities in their localities. How will the Government deal with that through this Bill?
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Caton, as we debate in a little more detail the Government’s proposals on additional school provision. I have made it clear, both yesterday and in earlier debates, my position of being sceptical—
Dan Rogerson
Personally—yes, absolutely—I am sceptical about this sort of additional provision. However, the coalition agreement sets out our intention to explore avenues to make these opportunities available to communities where there is demonstrable demand for them. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he has received proposals from people in certain areas of the country who want to explore this idea and move forward, so it is sensible to make provision to do that.
Yesterday, I asked for clarification whether, in areas where such schools are to be brought into existence, the facilities will be of a high enough standard that any young people enrolled in those institutions will have the same sort of protections as other young people. I hope that any providers that wish to enter the market will make sure that, as far as possible, they provide sufficient resources for that rather than seeking to draw down moneys that might otherwise have gone elsewhere. That is the sort of provision that people might expect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) has laid out some of the political realities of the situation and the difficulties that some have in understanding where the money might come from in the current situation. Given some of the comments and remarks that Opposition Members have been making, one would have thought that everything was perfect under the previous Government and that everyone was getting all the resources they wanted in both capital and revenue terms. The school funding in my constituency was about £300 or so below the national average, so people there feel strongly that they have not had those resources. I expect that you will rule me out of order, Mr Caton, if I continue down that line, but it is important to get on the record that although some hon. Members might have experienced huge investment in their constituencies and although I welcome the fact that the Government put resources in when the money was available to do so, that money did not reach all people and not everyone was satisfied with the deal they had.
Toby Perkins
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments because we in Derbyshire are also campaigning for more funding for our schools. He says that north Cornwall did not benefit from Labour’s investment; is he saying that education funding has not increased dramatically in north Cornwall in the past 13 years?
Dan Rogerson
I am talking about the funding formula. As we have been talking about different parts of the country benefiting in different ways, I thought it important to get on the record that my students were disadvantaged by that formula.
The amendment is useful in that it has prompted a discussion on these issues, but there are problems with it. I note in passing the phrase in proposed subsection (1A)(c):
“any other persons deemed appropriate.”
In yesterday’s debate, the Opposition argued that it was not sufficient to deem people appropriate and that the list should have been much longer, and included staff, for example, so a little inconsistency is apparent.
Putting that point aside, the problem with the amendment is that it is a little vague. Essentially, it relates to situations in which anyone in the local community might think that their school needs a bit more investment for a project, but no level of investment is specified. I can see how the amendment could kick in when a school has been identified by Ofsted and everyone else as needing drastic investment, but it talks about
“whether there are outstanding requirements for capital investment”.
Presumably, the consultation would leave it up to those who responded to a request to define what they deem to be “outstanding requirements”, so the amendment would effectively mean that if anyone said, “We want a bit more in our existing school for this”, no money would be provided. The amendment is intended to toughen up the criteria governing such requests, and I am tempted by that, but it is flawed because, in practice, it would act as a block.
I am sympathetic to some of the issues that have been raised, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them and clarify how local people may be reassured that the Government’s proposed capital programme will meet as many demands for improvements to existing schools as possible.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I want to support the amendment and I am concerned about the implications of the Bill on the review of expenditure on capital programmes into the future. In my borough, five Building Schools for the Future secondary school projects have been cancelled very recently. The first one that I want to talk about is the proposed amalgamation between two schools, Ryton and Hookergate, which are on the western fringe of the borough and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). That proposed merger was the result of prolonged negotiations regarding those two schools, and the cancellation is a matter of grave concern.
Hookergate—a school that has long served the communities of Chopwell, Rowlands Gill, High Spen and Greenside, as well as many smaller, isolated rural settlements—is sadly subject to a declining pupil population, and it was set to be amalgamated with a school a few miles to the north, in the town of Ryton, on a site that the local authority was negotiating for with several landowners in the area.
Ryton school serves a very broad catchment area, including Ryton and Crawcrook. It also serves communities on the western fringe of Blaydon such as Stella, and the areas of Clara Vale, Stargate and Emmaville. Indeed, the formal part of the consultation on the local authority’s proposal for amalgamation was due to start the day after the Secretary of State made the announcement in the House cancelling the programme.
Another school affected by the cuts proposal is Whickham comprehensive, a large, successful school with some 1,500 pupils in the town of Whickham. It serves surrounding villages such as Marley Hill, Byermoor and Sunniside. It is very popular, but it is in grave need of renewal, as it is in a 1960s CLASP-style building, CLASP being the consortium of local authorities special programme. It is also bursting at the seams, having suffered a fire in one of its blocks several years ago.
St Thomas More Catholic comprehensive school is very popular and successful, with high levels of academic achievement, despite the poor and cramped conditions on its site. The Joseph Swan school, named after the inventor of the incandescent light bulb, who lived in Low Fell in Gateshead, is a successful school serving the community of central Gateshead and Low Fell, where there are three Liberal Democrat councillors. It was to have its dining block and humanities area rebuilt, on the back of the highly successful rebuild of the school’s main body through the traditional capital programme of the late 1990s.
Government Members have criticised us for not investing enough in schools during the 13-year tenure of the Labour Government. In my borough, we had the five schools that I mentioned left to do, but Lord Lawson of Beamish school was rebuilt using the private finance initiative; Kingsmeadow comprehensive was completely rebuilt using PFI; and the Heworth Grange and Thomas Hepburn schools are at the on-site stage. I have to declare an interest: I am still nominally the chair of governors of Thomas Hepburn school. The steelwork is now being erected so that the school can be rebuilt. Numerous primary schools were rebuilt or refurbished through combinations of old-style capital spend and PFI.
The £80 million that was due to come to us as part of Building Schools for the Future included the opportunity to adapt four schools to ensure that they were able to offer inclusive education for children with special needs, where it was the choice of parents to include youngsters with SEN in mainstream schooling. That was part of the transformational aspect of BSF to which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) referred. That additional SEN money that BSF talked to us about recognised the SEN review in our borough, and our ability to deliver; we could generate, according to the ready reckoner, approximately £10 million to invest in special schools, thereby completing our secondary school investment programme.
In Gateshead, we have built the angel of the north, a millennium bridge, and the Sage Gateshead concert hall and music complex, at which many Members from across the House have attended conferences. We have completed many capital projects, but what I am most proud of is the improvements in education for the children of our borough, and I hate the prospect of that improvement coming to a halt.
When the Secretary of State announced the axing of BSF, and when hon. Friends and I first raised the issue, Government Members accused us of feigning anger and outrage. After 27 years as a local councillor in Gateshead, and after a decade as the lead member on education serving the Gateshead community, I can reassure all Members of the House that I am not feigning anything. In particular, there is no pretence in my profound sadness that the much-needed continued investment in schools in my borough has been snatched away from the children who we all seek to serve.
I welcome the undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday to meet the borough’s MPs and discuss this issue. I hope that at that meeting he will reassure us that the Building Schools for the Future programme for Gateshead has a future and has not been sacrificed on the ideological altar of investment in academy school buildings or new free schools for other, more favoured parts of the country.
In that vein, I was struck by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, on the BBC last week that he would use his influence to lobby on behalf of places such as Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle—all places where the Liberal Democrats have had a significant foothold in local government representation. I hope that the Government will demonstrate transparency and that such decisions on school funding are made on the basis of fair criteria rather than behind-the-scenes deals.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am sorry, Mr Caton; I was rather taken aback. It must be something to do with men with beards.
I hope that the amendment is pushed to a vote because I, for one, will support it, and for a number of reasons. First, however, I shall address some of the comments made by Labour Members. In the past 13 years, one or two Bills went through the House for which no amendments were taken.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the former Minister, said that the futures of Conservative and Lib Dem Members who tabled amendments might be harmed because people with the position in this Government that the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) held in the last Government would be emotionally attached to them for some time, trying to persuade them not to do it. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Leeds East made an intervention on that point; I could see a smirk on his face that broke out into a full grin. It brought back those lovely moments when he was able to exercise his persuasive powers; Members might have weakened, taken the advice of the Labour Front Benchers and tabled amendments.
I say to my coalition colleagues, particularly those in the Cabinet, how sad it is that these two debates have been so intertwined and what a mistake it was to link the Building Schools for the Future fiasco and its associated problems with an idea that might have got greater support if the two issues had been divorced. Nearly every contribution during yesterday’s and today’s debates has linked both issues.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Earlier, I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who suggested that a school could not henceforth get capital funding unless it was prepared to be an academy. Under the last Government, it was known that if the local authority was not interested in having an academy, there would not be much in the way of BSF funding. The issues have always been connected, by both parties.
Mr Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is strange how things can change and memories can lapse in a short time. I am disappointed that Labour Members have not been more forthright in apologising. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) suggested that we were laughing at what he was saying, but that could not have been further from the truth. Certainly nobody on these Benches was laughing; we were nearly in tears over what was happening.
Derek Twigg
It was the Member sitting behind the hon. Gentleman who was laughing, but he has now left the Chamber.
Mr Hancock
If any Member laughed, I would be angry. I feel that in the past 13 years we have wasted opportunity after opportunity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was full of enthusiasm when we heard the words “Education, education, education” coming from No. 10 —not once, but umpteen times. What did that really mean? Why did it all go so manifestly wrong? Why were schools in my constituency that were desperately in need of help not given it? Why did the city council go cap in hand to Ministers on three occasions begging for the resources to build a new King Richard school—not in my constituency but in that of the then Labour Minister? It was not given the resources that the school desperately needed.
I am sad that this debate is intertwined with the awfulness over what has happened to our schools as regards Building Schools for the Future. I agree with the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and others who have spoken that this is not just about the quality of education. Schools provide a cocktail for children. As well as a good education, they provide a safe haven and a structure and buildings which give a community a sense of being. That is particularly true of large comprehensives. I have comprehensives in my city with close to 2,000 children in some of the most densely populated areas of Europe, let alone Great Britain. A school is seen very much as a focal point and an important aspect of community life, and it is very sad not to have the resources to rekindle its ability to serve several more generations.
The amendment is correct because it does more than probe. It spells out the inadequacies of the Bill, which does not talk about failure, but about taking resources from other areas. It presents a threat. If the idea of free schools gets off the ground, then fine—if that is what people want, let people choose to have it. I do not support it, and I cannot believe I ever will. However, I do not want to see resources taken from the schools I represent, which are desperately in need of new buildings and more equipment. I do not want those kids or those parents to be persuaded to go to a school that will not have science labs or outside space, and will not allow children to develop to their full potential. There is nothing in the Bill that says a free school will have to ensure that every child who goes there will have every opportunity to fulfil their potential in whatever direction they want to go in educational terms. That is a fundamental failure of the Bill.
I admire the Secretary of State enormously for his gung-ho approach to things. It was long overdue that we had Ministers who were prepared to fight their corner in the way that he does. Even when he is wrong, he comes out fighting. He is prepared to take a few blows, but he also likes to deliver a couple back. His deputy Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has done an excellent job on this Bill, despite the fact that he must understand, like many of us, that the extreme frustrations felt in this House are mirrored a million times over around the country. There is a lot of uncertainty in the education family, whether teachers, governors or whoever, about where the proposals will lead. In many ways, it is a mistake. That is why I will be supporting the amendment, which I commend to the whole Committee.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly echo the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and I welcome the amendment.
The Government’s announcements on Building Schools for the Future and the progress of this Bill, which have happened roughly at the same time, are very much related to each other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, Building Schools for the Future was not just about new buildings— it was about school improvement and educational transformation. I understand that that is the Government’s thinking on the Bill.
These developments are having significant impacts in schools in communities up and down the country. On Second Reading, I mentioned three examples of schools in my constituency in Liverpool. De La Salle Catholic boys’ school in Croxteth, an outstanding school that was due to become an academy under the Building Schools for the Future programme, now does not know whether it is going to get the extra investment, which it desperately needs. Another school, St John Bosco, also in Croxteth, and also an outstanding school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, also needs that investment. Last weekend the head teacher asked me, “Should we now apply for academy status?” That is not because those at the school have a new plan in addition to their previous plans on educational transformation, but simply because they think that might be the way to secure the extra investment that they were going to get under Building Schools for the Future.
Dan Rogerson
Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there were people who thought exactly the same when the previous Government were in office? There were conversations such as that. I know that the current Government will be listening closely to what he says, and I am sure they will want to underline the fact that there will be a wider capital programme but, as other Members have said, what the hon. Gentleman describes was surely sometimes the perception under the last Government.
Stephen Twigg
The difference on this occasion is that the schools affected have worked for years on a programme for their own improvement, and they came together in Building Schools for the Future. Now that has all been stopped, except for schools that will potentially have academy status. The problem is the uncertainty. I want schools to make the decisions that are best for them. The head of De La Salle wants his school to be an academy and sees the educational advantages, whereas the head teacher and chair of governors of Holly Lodge, another school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, have decided that they do not want that for their school. I do not want schools to make such decisions simply on the basis of whether the extra money is available.
I wish briefly to make a point about where we go from here. Although there is a real sense of loss and devastation in Liverpool that we are not getting Building Schools for the Future funding, there is also a hard-headed pragmatism. We recognise that there will be a new show in town, and we are starting to consider what the alternatives might be for securing the much-needed capital funding for the city.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that Building Schools for the Future would have carried on precisely as originally envisaged had Labour been in power, and that the 50% reduction in capital spending that the last Government had pencilled in, in broad terms and with no details given, would not have had an impact on it?
Stephen Twigg
That is absolutely my understanding, and the figures that the Department for Children, Schools and Families gave under the previous Government were those signed off by the Treasury.
Stephen Twigg
I am being tempted to take a lot of interventions, but I understand that Members of all parties may want an early vote because they need to be somewhere else a little later this afternoon. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this will be the final intervention that I take.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman ought to see that the answer to his question has been given in the debate. The Government are already indicating that there will be extra money for free schools. They could have said, “We don’t think Building Schools for the Future can be afforded, so we’re going to do this in a different way over a longer period.” They could have gone ahead in the form that we had proposed, but spread over a longer time. That would have meant that the type of work that we had done in Liverpool, and that had been done in Durham and elsewhere, would not have been wasted, and we could have moved forward on that basis.
I was making a point about where we can go next. It would be useful if the Minister could inform the Committee of what the key factors will be when the capital review team considers the criteria for schools such as Holly Lodge, St John Bosco and De La Salle in my constituency. Will it be to the advantage of a school if it is willing to seek academy status? Will deprivation be a factor in whether a school is given priority, and will educational improvement be a significant factor, as it was under BSF? Will the Government consider links to the wider economic policy in a region? If Liverpool is to get the private sector growth that is crucial to our economic future, we need investment in our education. Will the capital review team consider that factor?
I urge the Committee to support this sensible amendment, which would enable local voices to be heard as important decisions are taken about the spending of large amounts of public money.
Mr Gibb
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local parents and children, local authorities and others before making payments in respect of capital funding for any additional free school.
We have been clear that we want to improve choice in education. A free school proposal will be required to demonstrate parental demand and support, and where there is such demand for a free school in an area, we will not turn down a proposal simply to protect other local schools. However, I reassure hon. Members who are concerned that money from BSF will be used to fund free schools that that is not the case. We have reallocated £50 million from the harnessing technology fund to restart the standards and diversity fund established by the previous Government in 2008 to promote new schools. That fund will provide capital funding for free schools until the end of next March. Any free school projects that require up-front capital outlay will have to demonstrate a compelling and strong value-for-money case to support the investment and provide evidence of genuine parental demand.
Vernon Coaker
I will be very brief, because I know that other things are taking place this afternoon. I will press amendment 70 to a Division to test the Committee’s opinion, and I thank those who have contributed to the debate on it, including my hon. Friends the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). The Minister will know that it is not just my hon. Friends and I who believe in the necessity for more local consultation on the Department’s capital spending priorities, because we also heard the concerns of the hon. Members for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) about the Government’s proposals.
Amendment 70 seeks only to allow local people to determine their priorities for the spending of capital moneys. As I said, the new politics and the new Government were supposed to be about localism, but at one of the very first hurdles they have come to, they are clearly failing that test.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Caton. I would like to raise a question that I have raised already with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The issue concerns the London living allowance and the fact that it would appear to be impossible to backdate any claim from the date of election to the date when a Member can first log on to the system. I am still awaiting a response from IPSA and seek your guidance, Mr Caton.
The Temporary Chair (Martin Caton)
That is not a point of order, and the Committee needs to proceed. However, the hon. Lady might like to raise it with the Speaker.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Caton.
Mr Walker
My name was mentioned in the Chamber, Mr Caton. I would like to apologise to the hon. Lady and the House for the misinformation that I provided in that answer. I am trying to get at the right information, but that is no excuse for my behaviour in providing the wrong information. I apologise to you, as the Chair, and the House for what I believe is misleading the House.
The Temporary Chair
That was very helpful, but I really would like to get on with the Academies Bill.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Caton. It was impossible for myself and a number of other people to make the very important Division just now, because of the large numbers of people coming out and pushing against us as we entered from the Portcullis House end, and because of a number of Members who, unfortunately, instead of vacating quickly, decided to hang around talking, preventing people from getting in. As a result, a number of people just missed a very important vote. I would like to put on the record my concern at the eight-minute time limit and the fact that people are not getting out of the way quickly enough to allow Members from Portcullis House to vote.
The Temporary Chair
The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well, and I hope that hon. Members recognise that they need to show courtesy during a vote.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Further to an earlier point of order, Mr Caton. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has rightly apologised for having misled the House. However, if he is to be able to do his job, he must have the necessary information from IPSA, for which he must answer in the House. If there is a delay in providing him with the accurate information, he and the House are put in an impossible position.
The Temporary Chair
Things have now been clarified, and I would like to move on to amendment 71.
Vernon Coaker
I beg to move amendment 71, page 3, line 7, at end add—
‘(7) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the extent of centrally-provided SEN provisions that, were the school to operate as a maintained school—
(a) would be required by a school with the likely pupil profile of the proposed additional school, or
(b) is currently called upon by the maintained school which is converting to Academy status.
(8) Before making any payments under an Academy agreement the Secretary of State shall make an assessment of the likely disruption to centrally-provided SEN services that might result from equivalent reductions in local authority budgets.
(9) Payments made under an Academy agreement must reflect the assessment made according to subsections (7) and (8).’.
We come to another important amendment. However, before I start, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to his new post. He has just been allocated a ministerial post in the Department for Education, as the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. I congratulate him on that appointment, which I gather will involve shared ministerial responsibilities with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I very much welcome his appointment to that position, and I know that he will work with diligence and determination. He and I have known each other for a long time. We go back over a number of years, in our various roles in Nottinghamshire, so I sincerely hope that he does well. I wish him the best and wish him good luck with things over the next few months, years or whatever it turns out to be. [Interruption.] Well, maybe not decades—I certainly will not be here if it is, but that is another story.
I have tried to be conciliatory and reasonable in the debates on amendments that we have had so far in this Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The debate, on a whole series of issues, has so far been of a high standard, with contributions by Members from all parts of the House, as is appropriate for the Committee stage, which in many respects is different from the full debates that we often have on motions. The Committee stage is about trying to ascertain what the real meanings of clauses are and what the consequences of different parts of the Bill will be, and to see whether we can adapt, change and improve the legislation, or at least the guidance that goes alongside it.
Nowhere is that more important than in special educational needs. I do not doubt for one minute that Members from all parts of the Committee will have at the front of their minds how we can ensure that the provision that we make for special educational needs—particularly through the changed arrangements, with the academy model proposed in the Bill—protects those with special educational needs. Again to be reasonable, we also know that the Government made some amendments in the House of Lords that significantly improved the Bill. If I might say so, those changes—made as a consequence of the debate and discussion in the other place—have made a significant difference to the Bill, a point that is also worth putting on record.
The point of amendment 71 is to try to understand in more detail the consequences for special educational needs provision of the changed arrangements for schools, with more schools opting out, becoming academies—or free schools—and being independent of local authorities. We want to know what that will mean for the provision of services for those young people who we would all want to ensure received the quality of education and support that we would want them to receive.
There is no doubt—I am sure that this would be true whatever the challenges that existed—that we can all point to the quite exceptional services provided by local authorities to support young people with special educational needs, either in school or through their families. Often, the important thing is not just the support that the child receives in the school, but the support that the family receive to support their child in that school. Clearly, the local authority’s role in that is crucial. I am sure that we can point to many excellent examples, but I know that we could all identify instances where things have not worked out so well, and where a local authority has not provided the standard of service that we would want. Overall, however, the role of the local authority in co-ordinating support is extremely important.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that there are far too many young people across the country who still have not even gone through the assessment process with their local authority and been identified as having special educational needs?
Vernon Coaker
That is a very good point. I mentioned yesterday that this is not simply a question of young people being assessed by a local authority and not receiving a statement, even though most people think that they should have received one. I have no professional expertise in that area, however.
To be fair to the Government, the inclusion in clause 2 of proposed new subsection 8A, which deals with low incidence special needs, is important and significant. We are talking not only about the young people who everyone would expect to have statements for their special needs, and for the first time the Government have put into the legislation the term
“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”.
That represents a significant improvement to the Bill. I know from my own experience that young people with low incidence special needs often do not receive the support that they deserve, and neither do their families. They often do not receive the kind of educational or social support that they need.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Vernon Coaker
I will in a moment.
Proposed new subsection 8A is very well intentioned, but clause 2(6) also states that the Secretary of State may intervene when
“a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision for pupils with low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”.
What does that actually mean? It is all very well to put that proposal into the Bill, but how will it be funded, organised and co-ordinated? How are we going to decide in a meaningful way what
“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities”
means? This is a huge problem. I am not criticising the Government; I think the inclusion of those words is very good. I would rather have the problem of trying to identify what they mean than not have them in the Bill, which would risk people not having those needs met.
The inclusion of the provision raises the serious question of how it is to be funded. Where will the funding come from? How much is it expected to be? Who will co-ordinate the arrangements if, instead of the local authority, we have lots of independent academies, special schools and free schools? How is this part of the Bill going to be achieved?
Charlotte Leslie
The hon. Gentleman has partly anticipated my question. Does he agree that our looking at how to cater for low incidence special needs in the Bill is symptomatic of the much wider question of how to deal with programmes such as School Action and School Action Plus? I am sure that they represented a well intentioned move away from statementing and the closure of special schools, but their results were questionable. Does he agree that this wider problem needs to be addressed, and that the Bill provides a spectrum through which to look at it?
Vernon Coaker
We discussed special schools and the number of special school places yesterday, but let me say this. I approve of the policy objective—which has been shared across the House for a number of years—that, when appropriate and given the proper safeguards in regard to such matters as parental choice, we should include as many young people as possible in mainstream education. It is clear that, if that objective is implemented, the number of special school places will fall. A more difficult question is whether we are all certain that, in every single case, a young person has been placed in mainstream education rather than being given the opportunity of going to a special school, and I think that the answer to that is probably no.
The hon. Lady is right to suggest that this raises questions about special schools and about inclusion. I think that the policy of inclusion is right, but that does not mean we should not ensure that the process by which it is decided where a child should be educated is a matter for discussion and agreement, involving the child’s parents, rather than diktat.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. As he says, we go back a long way, and as he knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.
We will discuss inclusion when I have a chance to speak at greater length. As I know that, rightly, you will not allow me to do that now, Mr Caton, let me simply say that the statementing process is critical to all this. A statement must be clear about the detail of needs, because the specificity of its analysis bears a direct relationship to the extent to which we can quantify and deal with those needs. Historically the standard has not been good enough, but the Government will consider it carefully in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Vernon Coaker
That is a fair comment, like the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) about the number of special schools, special school places and statements in process. All that needs to be kept under review.
The Minister should bear in mind—he may wish to discuss this when he winds up the debate—that new paragraph 8A and subparagraph (6) do not necessarily concern young people for whom a statement would be thought appropriate. They concern young people with low incidence special educational needs, which can involve a multiplicity of conditions and which will, I think, prove difficult to define. Certainly the criteria to be employed in the making of a judgment will be a matter for considerable debate. However, as I have said, I would rather have a debate about the meaning of the subsection than see it excluded from the Bill. It constitutes a good and brave step forward. However, as my amendment makes clear, it also raises questions about local authority co-ordination and funding.
Mr Hayes
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My own points are, first, that that should not be used as an excuse for not statementing children who would benefit from a statement for the reasons that I gave earlier, and secondly, that we should be as determined to help children with low incidence special educational needs as we are to help those facing more profound challenges. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, we need to be clear about the mechanisms that will be required, but I do not consider that to be incompatible with any of the provisions in the Bill.
Vernon Coaker
I do not disagree with the Minister, but I think we would all agree that statementing has not always taken place when it should have. It is always necessary to examine the process and see how it can be improved. Ultimately, irrespective of the severity of a child’s need, we must ensure that that need is met. For some that will require through statements, for some it will require special school education, and for some it will require inclusion in mainstream schools. The inclusion in mainstream education of as many young people as appropriate—which was supported by the last Government and the last Conservative Government and, I believe, by the present Government—is absolutely right, as long as it does not cause us to conclude that it must take place irrespective of the wishes of parents or the needs of the young people themselves.
Mr Mike Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I entirely agree about the fallacy that will be perpetuated if the Bill leaves the House without a clear definition of low incidence special educational needs. The lack of clarity has been used as an excuse all along, which is why so many children have not received proper assessments or statements. It has been too easy to find a way around the wording, because it has been so vague. If the Bill leaves the House without a refinement of that definition, the lack of clarity will once more be used as an excuse, and those who are on the edge or the cusp of special educational needs will once more be left adrift. That will be the case not only during the first stage of their education, but throughout their educational career. I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. in trying to get clarification, but does he agree that it would be wrong for the Bill to leave the House without such clarification being written into it?
Vernon Coaker
I very much agree and it is important, given that the Government will not amend the Bill, for the Minister to read into the record the criterion that will be used to assess whether a young person has low incidence special needs. I say this as someone who thinks that it is very brave of the Government to propose the measure. But as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, if there is no defining criterion, we will have a well-intentioned measure, but what will it mean? That is extremely important.
There was a big discussion in the House of Lords and the measure was included in the Bill. A large number of Lords spoke about it and said that it was important. The Government accepted that but the situation has moved on. The hon. Member for Portsmouth South is right; for a local authority or school to be obliged to support a young person with low incidence special needs, do they need a statement? If not, there is no legal obligation—I am not an expert on these laws—on the school or authority to provide anything for that child. Yet everybody, including the Government—they have included it in the clause—thinks that there are young people with low incidence special needs who need additional support that they are not getting through the system.
This is a real problem for the Government to address; it is crucial. I am not trying to be smart or trying to attack; I am just saying that if we want to improve the Bill and we want to make a difference to those with low incidence special needs, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth South said, we have to try to define that, at the very least by the Minister reading it into the record.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I wanted to add to the points about low incidence special needs, as there are other reasons why it is important to spell out the protection of services provided centrally. In those councils where the cancellation of centrally provided services has taken place on the assumption that schools would buy services back in, there has been a failure to take up that buy-back option, which affects SEN in particular but also other services. That is an important reason why we need that protection to be in the Bill. If not, as my hon. Friend says, Ministers need to take the matter on board so that there is robust protection for centrally provided services. Otherwise, those services will disappear.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with my hon. Friend who re-emphasises my point. This is part of the tension within the Bill; independence is to be given to schools. Some may agree with that; we have difficulties with the haste with which it is being done. But what mechanism is there to ensure that local authorities provide for these young people in a way that gives them the support they need?
Mr Hayes
Following the Education Act 1993, we have had codes of practice for SEN whose provisions are important in ensuring good practice. In the halcyon days when I was shadow Schools Minister, I was able to debate those codes of practice and the Government listened to some of the Opposition’s arguments. That is one important aspect of protecting SEN students and their parents. But also if the Secretary of State were unhappy with the provision, he retains the powers to intervene.
Vernon Coaker
That is true, and it is stated in the Bill that where a local authority fails to secure satisfactory provision the Secretary of State may intervene and make “alternative arrangements”. The problem is what does “low incidence special educational needs or disabilities” mean? How will a local authority or a school—an academy or special school—know whether they are meeting the expectations of the Secretary of State without a definition of what that actually is? Without that, the response will just be subjective, with people saying, “That isn’t very good” or “That isn’t working,” which is clearly unacceptable.
The Minister might not be able to do this today, but it is extremely important that at some point—even late on Monday—something is read into the record that defines what that term means. Other Members may disagree, but it is my view that for that to be done otherwise through guidance or a letter will not be sufficient. The force of Parliament needs to be behind some definition and criteria for the term, over and above its mere mention in the Bill and, even with the best intentions, something in a code of practice. I cannot say how important that is to making this bit of the Bill work.
Robert Flello
What I say will to some extent reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). For a host of reasons, not the least of them financial, local authorities will already decide how well to staff the team who go out and make the assessments, and if there is any wriggle room whatever they will wriggle: they will avoid putting resources into that team or department. It is therefore crucial for the future of some of the most vulnerable children in this country that we get something on the record today so that local authorities—of whatever colour—cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities.
Vernon Coaker
That is right, and my hon. Friend’s comments highlight that we are not trying to make a party political point. We want to ensure that that is the case for local authorities of all political colours and types; that is fundamental and crucial. As I have said, however, I accept that it may not be possible to do this today, as the lawyers will, no doubt, need to check it.
Mr Graham Stuart
I think that I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Low incidence is not about the acuteness of the need; it is about the fact that it is pretty rare. One of the risks of having funds devolved to the individual academies is that they may see this rare condition only once every five years, when suddenly a pupil turns up out of the blue with that need. That is why there is an issue about the difference between where the resource lies and who has the incentive to deliver the service. We need reassurance as to how we will have the system and incentives in place to ensure that, without the Secretary of State having to intervene at a local authority level to assess the whole authority’s failing, the needs of the parents and child concerned are met and there is not a big fuss in doing that.
Vernon Coaker
I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. However, I am unclear about the legislative mechanism that we will use to try to stop bad situations arising. I cannot be sure what it will be without there being something either in the Bill or, perhaps, in statutory guidance.
Mr Hayes
Such is the silky charm of the hon. Gentleman and the persuasiveness of his argument that even in these few minutes he has already extracted the following from me. He is right that that needs to be set out clearly on the record. He is absolutely right about the code of practice in respect of SEN reflecting the fact that we now have reference to low incidence special needs in the Bill, as he has acknowledged, and about the funding agreement that was put in place for an academy reflecting not only the obligations in the Education Act 1996 but that code of practice. I make that commitment today, and he can claim that in this useful debate he has encouraged me to that end—although it may be an end that would have been reached in any case in my discussions with my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who, of course, takes the lead in these matters. However, I would not want in any way to understate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to that process.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the Minister for that. Perhaps he could clarify in his winding up exactly what he meant. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I am not trying to be rude. Is he saying that an existing code of practice is to be amended? If he is saying that, I gently say, again, that that illustrates one of the problems with the Bill, because most of us would like to see what amendment he is proposing to the code of practice.
There is a huge debate—the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this—about what the term means. Does it mean a rare condition? This debate is not only about low incidence SEN, because the Bill also refers to low incidence disabilities. All I am saying is that this is a difficult area.
Mr Hayes
I complimented the hon. Gentleman—it was not flattery—but I do not want him to get too insistent as a result. I will, however, give him the assurance that I will deal with this matter when I sum up and that we are absolutely clear that the code of practice is salient. I do not want to tease him too much, but he will know that when he was the Minister, and when his predecessors were Ministers, the codes of practice were always published separately and debated in this House separately—indeed he and I have both participated in such debates. Of course I will speak about this again when I sum up.
Vernon Coaker
I thank the Minister for that. We will all wait to see what is said in the wind-up, because we are all motivated by a desire to see how we can make a brave amendment in the Lords a reality. We must not create something that is extremely difficult for ourselves. For too long, many of us, from across the country, have seen special educational needs not met, including those of people with profound difficulties. If we are making provision in respect of low incidence needs, we need to address how we ensure that we meet them.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
We seem to be having an outbreak of cordial co-operation in the Committee. Paragraph 8A is an improvement on where we were at the beginning of the Bill’s proceedings, and it deals with low incidence SEN and disabilities. Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether it ought also to include looked-after children, to ensure that the provision of services for them in any academy means that they are getting the expenditure and support that they need?
Vernon Coaker
That is an extremely interesting and good point. As I say, the problem is that there are a number of points like that. That one would be worth testing with an amendment to see where it is catered for in the Bill or, if the Bill does not cater for it, where it is catered for in any document relating to the Bill. For example, I think I am right in saying that the new model funding agreement does not contain a requirement for there to be a teacher responsible for children in care, whereas the old funding agreement did contain one. If I have got that wrong, I will correct it. All sorts of little changes sometimes take place in the documents, letters and guidance that go along with such Bills. The changes are sometimes not debated to the extent that they need to be and they then turn out to be crucial. Even Ministers get to the point where they try to do something and are then told, “You can’t do that because section (c) on page 48 of the guidance that you passed says you cannot.” They find that a little change that they had not properly noticed, which may have been implemented with good intent, has unintended consequences.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) was right to make the point that he did. One of the organisations that I shall refer to in a minute has made representations to us about how we ensure that the needs of children in care and of children with other associated needs are met within the new academy model arrangements that the Bill proposes. All sorts of questions like this arise, particularly if we strip out, as the Bill does in essence, the role of the local authority and devolve the funding to individual school. One unanswered question goes to the heart of the Bill: what is the co-ordinating mechanism at a local level to try to ensure that some of these things happen? That is not in place, and that is a real problem.
Mr Graham Stuart
On a slightly different track, is the shadow Minister aware of evidence that, despite the vast increase in the number of learning support assistants, the more time children with special educational needs spend with learning support assistants and the less time they spend with a teacher, the worse is their learning experience? One of the dangers of a centrally co-ordinated system is that schools that challenge a child’s being taken off for special support might deprive that child of being in the classroom with the teacher and, perhaps, having a better opportunity to learn. We must get the balance right between ensuring provision and not having a monolithic delivery that stops innovation, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society who are too often failed.
Vernon Coaker
I do not disagree with that. Again, the freedom for a school to determine the appropriate mix between teachers, teaching assistants and other staff as well as the appropriate delivery method is a matter for the school. The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that. However, it does not negate the fact—I think he was making this point, too—that alongside that there is a need for some sort of co-ordinating mechanism. He is quite right that there is a need for balance and there will be debate and discussion about where that balance should be and where the line should be drawn. However, part of the problem is that, as I said yesterday, this is a bit of a leap in the dark. We are almost being asked to take a leap in the dark and being told, “Don’t worry, it will be okay.” There are some fundamental questions that Ministers have been unable to answer, even though they have the best of intentions, because the Bill is permissive and just says, “Well, we’ll allow this to happen but we are not quite sure where it will go.”
A number of concerns were raised by different organisations. We have heard concerns from the Adolescent and Children’s Trust about children in care and about how these services will be met. It is seeking assurances about looked-after children and young people in academies, and it says that it wants recognition from the Government that there is a need for a local agency to assess need and to plan and cost education support services and that necessary resources must be not only identified but ring-fenced.
The Association of Educational Psychologists has also written to us, extremely concerned about some of the changes to local education funding and about how we can ensure the protection of educational psychologists if all the money goes to the schools. The National Autistic Society has made many of the same points about protecting young people in schools. TreeHouse, another charity for autism, is concerned about what it will mean if funds and resources are devolved to individual schools.
Then we come to funding. The Local Government Association states in its briefing, which all Members will have received, that
“90% of funding for schools goes, via the local authority, directly to schools with the remainder allocated back to schools following consultation with schools through the local Schools Forum…Around 20% of this ‘central spending’ goes to private, voluntary or independent nurseries, and the majority of the rest (60%) is used to provide services for pupils with special educational needs, and those who are excluded from mainstream education…In the debate around the advantages to schools of seeking academy status much has been made of the advantage to schools of retaining this 10% of ‘central spending’. However, it is important to understand that this is funding to meet the need of the pupils with the greatest needs. It is crucial that this funding is distributed in a way that does not unfairly benefit academies over maintained schools.”
I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to look at the Government’s impact assessment, but tucked away, where it states that local authorities will face a reduction in the moneys that they receive for the provision of such services as it will be distributed to schools, it states the assumption that the savings to local authorities in administration costs will be negligible. So, although they will have fewer resources to provide for special educational needs in an area, they will not make any savings from an administrative point of view either.
It is also totally unclear exactly how all this will be worked out. What will a school that chooses to become an academy receive? I know there is a ready reckoner on the Department’s website, but will the Minister explain how it works? [Interruption.] That was not done yesterday: we asked, but there was no time to do it, so I am asking again today because I think we would all like to know how the ready reckoner works so that schools can understand what they will receive.
What proportion of the money that those schools receive would have gone to local authorities to provide, centrally, services for children with special educational needs? What proportion of the additional money they receive will go to schools and will not be retained centrally by local authorities? How will that be worked out given that every school that is fast-tracked to academy status is outstanding and has, as the Centre for Economic Performance has said, lower numbers of pupils with SEN?
How will schools that have a lower incidence of SEN and that apply to become academies be funded? Will it be on a per pupil basis or a needs basis? If schools are funded on a per pupil basis rather than on a needs basis, big schools with a low incidence of SEN that convert to academies will receive exceptionally high amounts of money that would previously have been retained centrally to provide SEN services to the pupils and children across the local education area who needed them. Why did The Times publish an article on 12 June saying that there was considerable confusion among local authorities and schools about how much money schools would receive? Why are some local authorities saying that when they add together all the amounts that the ready reckoner comes up with as being distributed to schools on the basis of centrally provided services the total is sometimes more than they receive? We need some explanation from the Minister about that.
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
Are not the SEN requirements on the new academies more stringent than those for the academies that were opened under the previous Government?
Vernon Coaker
The hon. Lady will know that I praised the Government at the beginning of my speech for making some amendments in the House of Lords. The amendment that applied measures in the Education Act 1996 to academies was a good one, as were the amendments that introduced paragraph 8A and subsection (6). I shall not argue with her about that.
Elizabeth Truss
Is not the hon. Gentleman essentially saying that the previous arrangements worked for the existing academies and that the new arrangements are even better?
Vernon Coaker
I am saying that the existing state of play is not good enough and that the amendment that was made in the House of Lords to apply the 1996 Act to academies was a good one. We are debating the further changes that the Bill will make to delegate funding straight to schools rather than via local authorities—money that would have been retained centrally to provide services. Government Members—not only Front Benchers, but Members such as the hon. Lady—need to explain how SEN services that are currently provided centrally will be protected if all that money is delegated out to schools. How will that work? The point of this Committee is to understand the Government’s thinking about how that will happen.
Vernon Coaker
Before I give way, let me say what we did yesterday, very successfully. I gave way a lot, and nobody complained at the end that we did not get anywhere, so I will keep giving way, if it means that nobody complains.
Robert Flello
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is extremely generous in allowing interventions. My apologies for labouring the point, but I think that it is crucial. My view is that we have not made enough central provision for special educational needs services. My fear is that the measures, instead of going further and strengthening the central provision of SEN services, will water it down.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with that, and it goes to the heart of the debate. To be fair, that is the point that the Chair of the Education Committee made about where we draw the line. Where do we draw the line between a school innovating, and a school having the ability to use its budget to provide for children with SEN?
I know that this is not being suggested, but we would not want the Secretary of State to make thousands of individual decisions about the right mix of teachers and teaching assistants, the curriculum, and so on; that would be a matter for the individual school. However, my hon. Friend is quite right: alongside that consideration, where do we draw the line to ensure that there is money for the central provision of services—local authority provision—so that we can ensure that the support that is sometimes needed is available? That is a difficult balance. The point of this Committee is to try to test the Government’s thinking on where they draw the line, and on what the funding amounts are. At the moment, we have a ready reckoner, but nowhere in the impact assessment, or anywhere, do the Government lay out exactly what they think the cost will be.
Mr Hayes
It is absolutely right that the central provision that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) mentioned will continue, but the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) should not underestimate the capacity of academies to purchase that provision. He will know that that already occurs; I think that it happens in Walsall, for example. The peripatetic services that a school will require can be purchased, and I do not underestimate their calibre and their appeal to academies. I do not think that he does either, does he?
Vernon Coaker
I am not trying to make the point that there are not perfectly reasonable people in academies, or in schools that may become academies, who would be able to purchase services. I do not disagree on that, but it does not answer the questions. Where do we draw the line between what we provide individually for schools, so that they have the freedom to innovate and take forward their provision for SEN, and what should be centrally provided? What is the estimated cost of all that? Is it all funded, particularly given that the Government have now included low incidence special needs and low incidence disabilities? Where is the extra money for that, and how much will it cost? How will it be co-ordinated? What does it actually mean? What are the criteria? How does that relate to the statementing process? The problem for the Government is that that has not been thought through.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The shadow Minister seems to be making a strong argument for reintroducing special schools, which is the opposite of the policy of the previous Government.
Vernon Coaker
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone, because that was not the policy intention of the last Government or the previous Conservative Government. I am sorry to bore people who have sat through Committee proceedings for the past day and a half, because I have said this twice, but the policy objective—he may disagree with this—was not to close special schools. It was to ensure that people had the choice of being included in mainstream schools, if that was appropriate for them. That was the policy of the previous Conservative Government in the ’90s, as was absolutely right, and of the Labour Government until 2010, as was also absolutely right. I hope that it will be the policy of this Government.
Of course, that will mean that the number of special school places will sometimes go up, and sometimes go down. As long as that is done on the basis of having determined what is in the interests of the child, it should not matter, because it is the policy objective that is important. I tell the hon. Gentleman this: if there are 10,000 places in special schools—I do not know how many there are—and it was properly, and with parental agreement, felt that 3,000 of those 10,000 places should be in mainstream schools, I would be happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, “I support the reduction of special school places from 10,000 to 7,000,” but that is on the basis of need and individual choice, not on the basis of ideological diktat.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he was also generous yesterday. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), he acknowledged and paid tribute to the fact that the Government have strengthened the law so that academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. Will he also pay tribute to how the new model funding agreement also strengthens provision? It provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct academies to comply with any SEN obligations that were not in the previous funding agreements.
Vernon Coaker
I tried to make that point at the beginning; otherwise, we would not make any progress. I said that there had been improvements to the Bill and that there would have been improvements in some of the documentation associated with academies. That does not change the fact that, when it comes down to it, the Government are not clear on what the funding arrangements will be, how they will work and the correct balance between centrally provided services and the academies.
As the Chair of the Education Committee asked, where do we draw the line and what is the balance between those issues? The Government have not given us any definition of what they mean by
“low incidence special educational needs or disabilities.”
In Committee, we have to tease out those sorts of issues from the Government, to ensure that the legislation that we pass in this Parliament is as robust and effective as it can be.
Mr Ward
May I introduce one other aspect? The discussion is seemingly taking place on the basis that there is an abundant supply of learning support services and professionals. That is simply not the case. In many cases, the authority has to carry out a difficult rationing role. A good example is educational psychologists, of whom there is not an abundant supply. It is worrying that that rationing process, which most local authorities treat in a fair way, may now face a situation in which schools can simply buy in precious resources to the detriment of other schools in the district.
Vernon Coaker
That is right. The issue is not only the quantity of support services for children with special educational needs, but their quality. There is also the issue of the effectiveness of some interventions. This big area of debate is no doubt outside the scope of what we are discussing at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the provision of quality.
Bill Esterson
Whether we are talking about SEN provision, looked-after children, educational psychologists, behavioural support or other issues, what concerns me and many other Members is how we guarantee that the support will be there when it is needed, whether at school or centrally. There is also the matter of whether that can be legislated for or not. The Minister was beginning to drive at that point in his last intervention. That is what I want to hear about and I am sure that other Members are thinking the same thing.
Vernon Coaker
I agree with my hon. Friend; no doubt the Minister will try to pick up that issue in his remarks.
How will special educational needs be monitored? What is the role of the Young People’s Learning Agency? How will schools get help? How effective is the YPLA in respect of the quality of local, centrally provided services? What experience and expertise does the agency have? How will we ensure that all these things are effectively fulfilled? How much will it all cost? Who will be responsible for intervening if a school is not offering effective provision? How will the Secretary of State know that something is not being done? Who would make the decision about any of these failures? There is a huge raft of questions that I hope the Minister can begin to address.
Our amendment is simple. It tries to ensure that a decision is made about the effect on the provision of centrally provided services of decisions about what money should go to individual schools. At the heart of that is the need for better information from the Government about where the balance should be. The amendment seeks to clarify the situation by saying that we must retain sufficient resources at a central level within the local authority to provide the necessary level of support and help for children with special educational needs, notwithstanding that the Bill will delegate large sums to them. What will be the impact of that? It is a leap in the dark—we simply do not know. Frankly, the Government have not provided the level of detail that the Committee requires because they have not had time to do so.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
A man may not make a maiden speech twice. Due to a misunderstanding in Westminster Hall, I appear to have lost my maidenhood, so I apologise to the House. I would like to speak about amendment 71, but very briefly, with your permission, Mr Caton, I would like first to pay tribute to my predecessor, David Maclean of Penrith and The Border, and then bring my remarks back to this important amendment.
In Westminster Hall, I was unable to recognise the extraordinary service that David Maclean paid to this House over 27 years. I thought that I was stepping into big shoes, but I had no idea how large. I remember climbing up a snowdrift in December last year feeling like Scott of the Antarctic reaching an isolated farmstead to find that David Maclean, like Amundsen, had already been there before me, and repeatedly. As I have moved around over the past few weeks, I have seen the incredible care that he paid to his constituents. Every time I pick up a sheaf of documents, I can see that he has written no fewer than 11 letters of astonishing energy and specificity. During the debate over the past two days, I have often heard the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) ask people to answer the question. On the basis of the letters that I have seen, Mr Maclean answered the question repeatedly, and with vigour and honour. When asked, for example, about windmills, he did not simply say, like an ex-civil servant such as myself, “On the one hand, but then on the other,” but instead attacked the technology and the proposal and ensured that people organised as a social committee to oppose it.
Let me conclude on the subject of my predecessor by saying that his greatest moment was during the foot and mouth crisis, when, with his staff, which he and I would call a cromach, in his hand, he moved across our landscape, denuded of livestock, with funeral pyres burning on the border, and defended his constituency—the ancient constituency of the Western March, that ancient mediaeval frontier—like a warden of the Western March.
In relation to amendment 71, I have been charmed by the reasonableness of the hon. Member for Gedling. I entirely agree with him about the importance of special educational needs provision; I have personal reasons to do so. I agree also about some of the dangers that he has mentioned, such as the potential confusion between funding arrangements and the responsibilities defined within the Bill. He and the bodies that he cited are absolutely right to be concerned about special educational needs provision. I am no expert on the subject, so these comments are meant respectfully to him.
As I say, I am not an expert on education, nor am I a lawyer, but it seems to me, as the hon. Gentleman has already accepted, that many of the things for which he is pressing have already happened under clause 1(8)(a). Some of this—again, I am not a lawyer—seems declaratory in nature rather than necessary. The focus on recognition of the condition and the right of appeal is central, but with respect I would say that there is some confusion about the amendment, and that it would not achieve the purposes that he wishes. He has talked at immense length about his concerns over funding, quality, and the definition of low incidence special educational needs. Amendment 71, to my non-lawyerly eye, would not achieve any of those objectives.
In fact, if one listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, one heard him focus repeatedly on the word “mechanism”. He is very interested in process, and on that we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead of beginning from where we are and what academies are actually doing, and accepting that the Bill will improve rather than decrease the performance of academies in relation to special educational needs, he is obsessed with central processes. He seems to believe that local authorities are the ideal mechanism.
Pat Glass
The amendment is on a really important matter, and the fact that so many Members are present after 4 o’clock on Thursday shows how important.
Given my background in this area, I wish to start by saying that a lot of it is about definitions. I welcome what the Minister has said, but as someone who is steeped in the issue and has worked in special educational needs for many years, I have to say that I am sorry, but it just is not enough. SEN is a notional term—it is almost in the eye of the beholder. It is not defined in law. There is a huge code of practice intended to give the term feel and shape, but that code of practice is nothing more than guidance. It mentions the responsibilities of local authorities, but not necessarily those of schools or academies. If we are to rely on the code of practice, it will need to be rewritten with those things specifically stated.
SEN is also a disputed term. The very fact that we have an SEN tribunal, with which local authorities struggle all the time, and which is large, growing and very costly, and that SEN cases are in the courts all the time, suggests that the term is not defined now and will become less defined in future.
I have gone into many schools, some of which achieve incredibly highly, and found that 50% of their children are on their SEN register. That is clearly nonsense, and there are all kinds of reasons for it. It is the teacher in the classroom, or the head teacher, who defines whether a child has SEN and places them at school action or school action plus. In many cases, they do not even advise the parent. That is illegal, but it happens. Head teachers do that for myriad reasons, including that they feel it will improve the school’s contextual value added and its standing with Ofsted.
Some local authorities still delegate funding on the basis of school action and school action plus, however stupid that may seem, as I tell them. The number of children who are at school action or school action plus or defined as having SEN depends on so many different contextual issues in different places.
That brings us to the comments about who gets a statement and who does not. In defence of my former colleagues, I have never dealt with services that do not want to do a good job or want to prevent children from getting the support that they need. However, they are rationed services and they have to prioritise. No matter how much money the previous Government and the Government before them put into the more severe and complex end of SEN, which is growing, it inevitably drifted off to the less severe end. That is why there is a problem of children with statements who should not have them, and others who need them but do not get them. I hope that the Government can resolve it, but previous Governments have not been able to do so. One can put as much money as one likes into the hard end of SEN, it will inevitably drift off to the mild end of the spectrum.
As the Chair of the Select Committee rightly pointed out, low incidence SEN is exactly that—SEN that occurs rarely. It is sometimes called, “low incidence; high need; high cost.” Low incidence SEN services are generally classified as services for deaf and hearing impaired children and for blind or partially sighted children. Autistic spectrum disorder is not classified as low incidence SEN. It was in the past, but it is the fastest growing SEN. What will happen to autism services? If the provision is not defined, services for children with autism may be delegated.
Robert Flello
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend’s extremely well-thought-out speech, which clearly shows her vast knowledge. Does she recognise the situation that I came across in one of my surgeries at the end of last week? A family came to see me about their 18-year-old son, who is now, sadly, in the criminal justice system. It took until he was 14 before he was diagnosed with autism—far too late for the proper interventions to be made. He is now 18 and in the criminal justice system.
Pat Glass
Sadly, that happens far too often. Unfortunately, when children are diagnosed with ASD or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, whether they are put through the behaviour system or the autism system greatly depends on family background and the clinical specialist they see.
Andrew Bridgen
What does the hon. Lady believe to be the underlying level of SEN in the pupil population?
Pat Glass
That is a difficult question. The more severe and complex end of SEN is growing quickly, for all sorts of reasons. For example, we are the binge capital of Europe, so why are we surprised when there is an impact on complex and severe needs? I think that the figure is approximately 0.06% of the school population. It is a small proportion. The figure for children who experience some special educational need during their education is between 18 and 20%. That does not mean that all those children have SEN throughout their career. However, vulnerable children who under-achieve are a much greater proportion of the population—approximately 30%.
Let me revert to low incidence SEN. Special educational needs and admissions are the biggest parts of the ombudsman’s work. Local authorities sometimes get them right and sometimes get them wrong. They are the most contentious areas in education. I predict that the only people who will get anything out of this measure will be lawyers. Defining low incidence SEN is a lawyer’s dream. If we do not get that right now, the House will end up returning to the issue later in the year, as someone rightly said, but in the meantime, parents and children will lose out.
Educational psychology is not defined as a service for low incidence SEN pupils. Given the degree of cuts that my local authority needs to make, it is currently looking at what percentage of the educational psychology service it can reasonably cut without damaging front-line services. Low incidence SEN services do not necessarily cover autism—depending on the local authority—educational psychology services, or children with physical or medical difficulties. The Bill mentions “low incidence…disabilities”. I worked in children’s services for most of my adult life, but I have no idea what that means. I guess we must leave it to a lawyer to decide.
One thing that I am very concerned about is that parents are not involved. I have learned over the years to my cost—I have done things wrong in the past that I have learned from—that the most important people in such procedures are parents, but they will not be consulted under the Bill, which is being rushed through the House without any consultation with the organisations that support parents or with parents themselves. Frankly, the Government will come to regret that.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) talked about the code of practice being an administrative issue. If he had a child with SEN, he would not see it that way. The code of practice is about children’s lives and chances, and if we lose it, it will not come back.
Rory Stewart
With respect, I have a sister with SEN. I intend no disrespect at all, but the question we are addressing today is how best to serve such people. When I make a distinction between administration and law, I am making a distinction between the end—our objective, which is to help those people—and the means to that end. I am afraid that Labour Members have confused the two. They imagine that the only means to that end is through the current local authority processes. We agree on the objective and the rights of the child and the parents, but we will achieve our objectives much more accurately if we do not try to micro-manage the process here in the House.
Pat Glass
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but his view is not mine. I am opposing the Bill not for the sake of it because I am a Labour Member—I have learned over the years that it is not what makes me noble that matters, it is what actually works for children. If evidence were presented that convinced me that academies will deliver for SEN children or that free schools would make outcomes better for them, I would support them, but with my years of experience, I have serious concerns.
Mr Hayes
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, who I can tell is both experienced in, and passionate about, this matter, but it is important that she sets out her views on what the existing academies have done. If she is so concerned about the effect of academies on SEN, does she feel that there has been a deleterious affect on the interests of SEN children as a result of the previous Government’s academy programme?
Pat Glass
If the Minister had been here—was it yesterday or the day before?—he would have known that I gave a very detailed speech on my concerns about academies. Children with SEN only very rarely gain admission to academies and there is concern about monitoring the progress of those who do, and a much higher proportion of SEN children are excluded from academies. That was an issue when we had only 200 academies, but if there is a much larger number, we will make the problem that much bigger. In addition, we would effectively exclude SEN children from the most high-achieving and outstanding schools.
Gavin Barwell
I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech, but I wish to pick her up on one point related to exclusions. The latest figures from the Department suggest that in academies the exclusion rate for pupils with SEN is five times higher than for pupils without SEN, whereas in the general maintained sector it is nine times higher. So the evidence suggests that academies are less likely to exclude pupils with SEN than the maintained sector as a whole.
Pat Glass
I would argue that academies serve poorer neighbourhoods and it is more difficult to get into an academy in the first place. People may argue that academies take a higher proportion of children with SEN than maintained schools, but as I argued earlier it is up to academies to define who is SEN and who is not, and they may have a very different tolerance level from that of maintained schools—that has certainly been my experience.
Mr Graham Stuart
I mean no disrespect to the hon. Lady’s expertise or passion in this area, but she suggests that the existing academies make it harder for children with SEN to get in than other schools. However, the only data that we have suggest that that is not true. She suggests that academies may block children with real SEN getting in and then falsely nominate children as having SEN afterwards. She needs to substantiate that, because it is a serious allegation and if true should be looked into in more detail.
Bill Esterson
Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend that some academies are artificially changing the arrangements—I am choosing my words carefully, and perhaps the Select Committee should look into this—but many maintained schools have been doing the same thing. That is something that I am familiar with from where I used to live, where schools would artificially depress the number of children described as having SEN, under pressure from local authorities, for financial reasons. There is a danger that this legislation would see that continuing with the academies. That should be looked at in greater detail, as the Chairman of the Select Committee suggests.
Pat Glass
I agree with my hon. Friend.
The biggest body blow to centrally supported specialist low incidence SEN services came from delegation targets. In order to reach delegation targets, which were mandatory, local authorities arbitrarily put over the side into schools anything that would take them to the magical 96%. In some local authorities, specialist services were lost and they have never recovered.
Charlotte Leslie
I am enjoying and being informed by the hon. Lady’s contribution, which is based on her experience. On both sides of the Committee, there is a recognition that SEN provision is inadequate. I did a study a while ago that showed that children on school action plus had higher exclusion rates than those on other forms of SEN statementing. We need to tackle a range of issues in this area, and I wonder whether we are looking at a large problem through the small angle of one clause in this Bill. The problem may be solved only by—to use the cliché—a root and branch review of the entire SEN system. That would improve the role of academies in that area as well. Perhaps the Minister could address that point as well.
Pat Glass
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, and there are many deficiencies in the wider SEN system. My concern is that if the issue of low incidence SEN is not defined properly, the situation will be made much worse. In some respects this is not a party political issue, because we are all here to do the best that we can for children with SEN and their parents, whose lives are a struggle without making things worse.
We have lost good specialist services over the years, when funding was delegated to schools but they did not buy the services back. I have learned to my cost, when these things have happened, that we simply cannot get those services back quickly. Teachers of the deaf and the visually impaired and blind do not hang on the back of cupboard doors; they take years to train, and it is hugely expensive. Building those services back up once they have gone, particularly if the local authority does not have the funding to do so, will be impossible and will severely disadvantage these groups of young children.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Are there not examples of local authorities—one thinks of Suffolk—where the arrival of academies has not damaged SEN provision? So it does not need to be that way. Some academies have the ability to buy back services from the local authorities, but where that does not occur, does one not have to question the quality of the provision?
Pat Glass
There are two issues there. First, in the past it has depended on the number of academies. With all these arguments, there is a critical mass issue. If enough academies go and take their funding with them, it will no longer be possible for organisations, whether the local authority or some other body, to provide that service to the standard required. Have I answered the hon. Gentleman’s question?
Mel Stride
Yes, the hon. Lady answered the first part of my question. The second part was: is it not of concern to her that, when academies choose not to buy their services from local authorities, those services might not be of the requisite standard? That, in itself, is a concern.
Pat Glass
No doubt there are variations in the quality of service across the country. However, in my experience, the low incidence, high-need, high-cost services across the country are usually very good and valued by schools. The difficulty is that, at the moment, there is not a market place for it, so if we lose these services and a school finds that it needs them—for instance, if a blind child comes to the school—but has no idea about Brailling, specialist services, disability or any of these things, it will not be able to buy them from a market outside.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
In incidents such as the one she describes concerning valued services, might not an academy school look to buy those services off the local provider for the benefit of their own pupils?
Pat Glass
Yes, it could, and yes, it should. However, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) said yesterday, sometimes good people do bad things, and head teachers are not always as forward thinking as we would like them to be. Obviously, the best ones are, but if a school does not have any blind children, why would it buy in to a sensory service? It could also argue that, if a child wishes to attend that school, it cannot meet their needs.
Mr Ward
I must say this is a fantastic debate. I was not sure of the right time to introduce this point, but it is not always the case that, if a school has its own budget, it will do the best thing by the children. The best example is probably the provision of education social work. It might seem that the school is the client of the education social worker, but of course it is not—the child is the client. Very often, if a school is offered the money, it will buy in its own education social worker, who will be a door knocker for getting those kids into the school. Once a child is on the roll and the school is getting the funding, some schools will say, “Actually, we’re not too bothered if that person doesn’t turn up today.” Believe me, it is true! It happens—because, in many cases, schools are forced into doing it. But the child is the client, and if the best place for the child is in school, the education social worker will try to facilitate that to the best of their ability. However, if that education social worker is employed by the school, sometimes the school will let the child in, but sometimes it will not be too bothered. I have known young children who have been out of school for two years—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Interventions, by their very nature, should be short.
Mr Hayes
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady, as I am anxious to achieve an Hegelian synthesis between our positions. There are two things, really. The first is that the Government will be issuing a Green Paper to look at the whole issue of SEN. She is right that we need to consider it in the round—it is an issue that the Government take seriously—and that is what we will be doing. Secondly, with your indulgence, Mr Evans, let me say that the amendments to the Bill that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has suggested would mean that academies would have an unqualified duty to admit pupils with SEN statements. I just wanted to place that on the record so that we can make progress.
Pat Glass
I will wind up now. I welcome the amendment that has been made. It does help and it will give confidence to parents and teachers working in the sector. However, I have real concerns about the lack of clarity. The people who will gain will be lawyers, and there is a lot more work for the SEN tribunal to do. Parents and local authorities will yet again be left without clarification, and in many cases they will be left to find their salvation in their own way. There are good local authorities and there are not so good local authorities, and it is the children in those authorities who I am concerned about.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to address the House—through this Committee—for the first time, Mr Evans, in this important debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), on making what I believe is his second maiden speech, and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who has added considerably to this debate. I do not think that I shall be able to add as much, in terms of detail.
As hon. Members would expect, I have studied previous maiden speeches and, not surprisingly, found them to be very formulaic. Although I do not intend to stray far from that formula, it would be worth recognising that change has come to this House. I look around and I see my new colleagues brimming with enthusiasm, optimism and energy—[Interruption]—well, some of them—and for this opportunity I will be eternally grateful to the good people of South Basildon and East Thurrock for sending me here. They have put great trust in me. I intend to repay that trust by being open and honest with them, and accessible and available. My one aim is to ensure not only that they have a voice, but that that voice is heard.
South Basildon and East Thurrock is based on the old Basildon seat, which has rightly been seen as a bellwether seat for many years. Despite the recent boundary changes, it is still able to claim that title, as I believe it represents a marvellous cross-section of this wonderful country. Situated just 30 miles down the Thames from this place—and yes, I have heard every single Essex joke going, so we do not need to go through those—my constituency is made up of two halves. The Basildon half consists of Basildon new town and the wards of Vange and Nethermayne, as well as Langdon Hills and the established town of Pitsea. To the south, on the Thurrock side, I have two main towns—Stanford le Hope and Corringham—and a number of rural villages, including Fobbing, Orsett, Bulphan, Horndon on the Hill, Linford and East Tilbury, and an area called The Homesteads.
The area is one of great diversity and although much of it is new, it has a rich and varied history. Basildon, as hon. Members probably well know, was one of the new towns founded in 1949, following the shortage of housing after the second world war. However, the name Basildon dates back to Saxon times and can be found on many ancient maps. Although many of the other towns and villages that I have mentioned can also claim that, with hundreds of years of history, there is one that particularly stands out: Fobbing, a village where one of the first of the uprisings that eventually led to the peasants’ revolt took place—a revolt led by Wat Tyler, who incidentally gives his name to an important local country park. Those uprisings were the beginning of the end of serfdom. How appropriate it is that just over 600 years later it is this new Government who have decided to return some power to their citizens before there is another revolution.
Mr Mike Hancock
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on the way in which he presented his maiden speech. He made an offer that a dozen or so Members may find hard to refuse. An offer of hospitality at his house for a weekend, just as the recess is starting, is one that think many Members should be persuaded to take him up on. He will be able to show them round his wonderful constituency. Let me also say how right he was to pay tribute to his predecessors. Making a maiden speech is never easy, and it is a pleasure to be the first to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spared a few moments in his speech to remember David Maclean. Those of us who knew him here will have respected him not only as a parliamentarian, but as a man of enormous courage who bore the injustice of the illness that beset him with great fortitude and—I genuinely believe—real courage. I saw the way in which he battled with his illness over a number of years. I had very little in common with him, but I always admired the formidable way in which he coped with it, up until his very last days in the House. It was a great pleasure to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say about David Maclean, and he was right to remind the House of his commitment to his constituency.
It is not often that we feel humbled both by a Member’s commitment to the issue being discussed and by the amount of knowledge that the Member brings to the discussion. It was a pleasure to witness the forthright and passionate way in which the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) presented her case. I was opposed to the idea of the Bill’s being dealt with by a Committee of the whole House, but if ever there was a reason for such an arrangement, it was the hon. Lady’s speech today. If it had been made in a Public Bill Committee, it would have been lost to the wider world. That is a tribute to her, and perhaps to the system that has allowed a larger audience to appreciate the words that she uttered, and has allowed her to bring her experience of these matters to bear. We should be grateful.
Nevertheless, I have a niggling anxiety that the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it ought to have received. The debate that we have had, splendid though it has been, is unlikely to prove helpful, because some members of the coalition will see it as a formula for future legislation. I hope that that will not come about, and that this will prove to be the exception rather than the rule. I do not think that allowing the whole House to deal with legislation is helpful to Back Benchers in particular, or to the substance of the debate. The issue of special educational needs, for instance, is fundamentally important.
The Minister told us, courteously and properly, that he would make helpful statements that would address some of the issues in the amendment. Nevertheless, the amendment poses significant questions. If a Committee had considered it over a number of weeks, and a number of days in each of those weeks, it could have been dealt with properly before being returned to the House on Report, and could have been agreed to. We could have had a much better Bill. Like everyone else, I am delighted that the Bill has improved enormously.
I spent 10 of the happiest years of my working life working with young people with extraordinary personal difficulties—children and adults with extreme special needs, ranging from those who had been institutionalised for their whole lives—some had spent 50 or more years in an institution—to babies whose parents had recently been told of the problems that they faced and the lifetime of care and devotion they would have to show to someone with severe disabilities of one form or another. When I was doing that job, people used to ask me what I did. I said, “I bully for people who cannot bully for themselves.”
The one thing I learned at the beginning of my work with children, and with parents in particular, was that they expected so little from society. They did not ask for the earth or for things that could not be obtained. They simply asked for a fair share of resources when they were needed, whether that was in nursery, primary or secondary education, or in proper health care. Every single part of that was a struggle and continues to be. That goes back to the Education Act 1944 and to the formulation of the national health service. People with learning disabilities and those with mental health problems were neglected. They were ignored. They were put aside. They were institutionalised and forgotten. It has taken us 70 years to draw that system towards reality.
The hon. Member for North West Durham was right; the striking anomaly is that parents have not been mentioned. The parents need to be consulted and will need to be convinced. I used to try to convince parents of young people aged between 20 and 30 that they had to let those young people go. They had cosseted them with all their love and care but they had to let them go. Those parents were starting to realise that their children would outlive them and would need to experience some risks. Young people, particularly those with acute needs, must experience such situations at the youngest possible age. I want to be convinced by the Bill that free schools will accept their part of the obligation. I am not convinced by the way in which the Bill is formulated that it will give the certainty of care that people want.
I am disturbed by the fact that there seems to be some ambiguity about the interpretation of some of the words. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that there was clarity in terms of subsection (8)(a), which addressed the issue. It does not. Who will challenge the provision? Who will have the right to say whether the proper provision is being provided? Who will step in? Where will the Secretary of State put suitable alternative arrangements if those arrangements do not exist because resources have been siphoned off elsewhere? Will he put new money in?
Mr Hayes
As usual, the hon. Gentleman is speaking with insight and I want to be clear with him. The Bill and the Government have no intention of diminishing the status of special educational needs or of the people who endure that, including the parents. There will be no relaxation of the statutory responsibilities in respect of admissions and statementing. Pupils with SEN statements must be monitored by local authorities; that is a statutory responsibility and there is no diminution of that. The hon. Gentleman is right; we must be determined to redistribute advantage in society, and we will.
Mr Hancock
I am delighted, and it was remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his ministerial position. I apologise to him. It is not often that an MP makes a point here and not only gets a Minister to put him right but also hears the Minister state for the record what the Government will do. That is to be welcomed. I only hope the eating is as good as the preparation seems to have been. I have some doubts about that, however, because I know from experience, from my lifetime of 40-odd years in local government and a working career that involved spending a lot of time addressing this subject, that promises have been made but so many of them have failed to be kept.
Ian Mearns
I have experience over the years as a local authority representative and also a school governor, and I have come across all too many children whose parents do not even know that they do not have aspirations for their child. Particularly in deprived communities, many parents, and consequently their children, accept the lot they are given. They have a stoicism, and also a lack of understanding about how the systems work and how they could make things better. Because of that, they do not have the fortitude or understanding to pursue improvement for their own child, and in such a scenario who will look after the child’s interests in respect of these independent academies?
Mr Hancock
I 100% agree. Sadly, I have seen that so many times—somebody who has devoted their whole life to their child, but to caring for them in their home environment so that they have never really tried to develop their true potential. Mencap’s slogan was about everyone having the opportunity to achieve their true potential, and all aspects of SEN education must always involve offering every child the opportunity to fulfil their potential.
I think there is a problem for existing schools that have a very good record of trying to facilitate proper care and to provide suitable and proper education for people with SEN. Some of them might find that because of the establishment of an academy or free school and the attractive way in which they are promoted as being something better, parents will take their children away from their old school and move them into the new academy or free school simply because they have been told that it is the thing to do and that that is the way the future will emerge. That will cause damage to the fabric and set-up of the existing school, and some of them will suffer greatly.
Mel Stride
Does not that argument suggest that parents cannot be trusted—that they do not have good judgment when it comes to looking after the future of their own children? Should we not put more trust than that in parents?
Mr Hancock
I am wholly in favour of trusting parents; it is the silver-tongued politicians I am worried about, who make the suggestions to people that this is like manna from heaven and that the whole world will be changed. Politicians have more than once talked with forked tongue and parents have been misled into believing that a certain direction was the way to go only to fall foul of a politician’s promise, which was usually made before or during, rather than after, an election campaign. Very seldom have such promises been made after an election campaign, and very seldom have they been fulfilled.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I can talk from the experience of being a parent of a child with special educational needs, and also as an MP representing lots of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. My eldest child had trouble with his arithmetic; he would get 3s and 7s the wrong way round. I was told by the teachers that it would be okay and he would work his way out of that, but I became concerned as he got older and reached the ages of eight, nine and 10. I therefore asked about getting the SEN specialists and an educational psychologist to take a look. That did not happen; the school refused to do that because they said there was nothing wrong with him. After another academic year went by and nothing happened, I decided to employ an educational psychologist myself, and it was clear that my son had SEN issues. The local school and local authority were quite happy to take and run with the document from the independent educational psychologist —for whose services I and my family had to pay several hundred pounds—and the SEN statement was therefore put in place.
The Bill will change the way things happen, and they did not work in the past, certainly in my area. I hear what the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) says about his concerns and the remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but I believe this Bill will put checks and balances in place to prevent what they fear from happening. The system does not work now and it did not work in the past, and this Bill is an opportunity to sort it out.
Mr Hancock
I have nothing but admiration for the hon. Gentleman for having both the ability and the courage to take on the system on behalf of his children. Parents get worn down by the system, having been frustrated by it time after time. They are physically worn out—as young people, in some instances—because of the struggles they have had to make. He was lucky that he had both the courage and the resources to take on the system, because so many parents do not have that and are always relying on somebody else to fight their battles for them.
Charlotte Leslie
I realise that this does not directly relate to the amendment, but part of the Bill deals with additional schools or free schools. There are parents of children with autism who are very much looking forward to setting up a free autistic school. That will benefit other parents of children with autism in their area who would wish to send their children to a particular school but whose local authority has not recognised that need until now. They have had their ambitions stifled by a local authority system that may not be working.
Mr Hancock
I would love it if we had an autistic school in the heart of Portsmouth. However, what happens if the autistic school is on the other side of Dorset and suddenly somebody has to pick up the bill for sending a child there? It simply will not happen and this provision will not be there. This approach is okay in London, where travelling is not a problem. Setting up specialist schools for autistic children would be great in closely defined neighbourhoods, but if these schools have to cover a large area, they will be very expensive to set up, extraordinarily expensive to staff and expensive for local authorities to fund places for or for parents to have to pay for.
Andrew Bridgen
I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), because on Friday I had a meeting with two teachers, both of whom have children with special educational needs, and they are very keen to set up a free school to provide for children with such needs. Such a school would help not only their children, but others in the local area. So this situation is not uncommon.
Mr Hancock
I can understand that. I share the frustration of those parents with the current system, but this problem will not be solved by one or two people, or a group, believing that they can solve it by setting up a free school. That is because such a school will not help the greater number of children, for example, the increasing number of children with autism.
The hon. Member for North West Durham took an intervention about autism when she was explaining how difficult it had been to make progress on dealing with it, and she was asked what she thought about the Bill. I think that it will retard the benefits that have been introduced, particularly in respect of autism. It is difficult to get resources for people with autism into schools; lots of schools simply cannot cope with it.
One hon. Member, who is no longer in his place, intervened to talk about his own experience; he discussed the role of child psychologists, and how it was very difficult to get them and for schools to have them. Once again, that shows one of the flaws that we must address. I was delighted that the Minister said that we would have a Green Paper and an opportunity to discuss, in some detail, the fuller implications of special educational needs. We have to protect and serve these young people now and in future generations.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the problems with provision caused by an increase in the number of diagnoses, and he also said that the Bill will retard the situation. Is not the fundamental problem relating to the diagnosis of autism the patchwork delivery across the country and a lack of specialism in certain areas? I can cite a part of the country where that applies. In Cardiff, until recently, there was no such thing as a “female child with autism”. That was not because there were no female children with autism, but because the specialism was not available in the first place. That is a question of medical and other provision, and is surely not germane to this Bill.
Mr Mike Hancock
Once again, in all the years that I have been here I have seldom been in the House on an occasion where so much common cause has been put by people who care so passionately about the issue. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a widespread lack of clarity about who diagnoses, about who is prepared to do it and about who is really suffering. For years, autism was seen as something that kids would grow out of. It goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) about his son’s failure to be able to do his maths properly. The old adage of, “He or she’ll grow out of it”, was used for years as an excuse to people whose children had autism. That was a complete failure of the medical and educational systems in this country.
Charlotte Leslie
Will the hon. Gentleman get rid of my confusion on one issue? There seems to be inconsistency in the attitude towards parents. On the one hand, there has been concern that parents are not key in the Bill and that they have not been consulted enough, but on the other hand, when it comes to empowering parents the same enthusiasm is not shown. Speaking from my experience, I find that parents do not want to be consulted so much as to get what they want. The measures in the Bill to enable parents to do that are, according to my experience of what parents want, far more important to parents than just being listened to and not having what they want happen after that.
Mr Hancock
That is the story of the past 60 years. Parents were spoken to but they were not listened to, so they ended up not getting what they wanted. When parents are consulted, particularly parents who have children in this situation, they are only too aware of what they would like to see happen. They would like to see services without having to arm wrestle for them and without having to fight the system and to appeal. That has happened with the failure of many local authorities properly to carry out assessments and to provide statements for children. Why should parents have to struggle to get a statement for their child, as they have to, simply because they disagree? I have been to statement conferences on children where none of the officials in the room had met the child. They were all talking from somebody else’s notes, which had been provided by people who had met the child. The parents were sitting there in total disbelief and I just told them, “Let’s get up and go,” and we walked out.
Charlotte Leslie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I find that the debate is again moving towards a general complaint about the whole system of SEN provision and I want to thank the Minister for his announcement today that there will be a Green Paper to look into this matter. Once we have the whole system of SEN sorted out, the issues that we are facing with this Bill will become much clearer and much less problematic.
Mr Hancock
The hon. Lady is a formidable supporter for the Minister, and one that the House will have to learn to deal with. She is fighting his corner and that of the coalition very well, and I would probably be grateful for it except on this occasion I do not agree with one word of what the coalition has come up with.
Rory Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is the relevance of this to amendment 71? I do not understand how it is relevant.
Mr Hancock
That is perhaps more of a question for you, Mr Evans, than for the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] I give way.
Pat Glass
How do I follow that? On the issue of parents, I said earlier that I am someone who has been humbled and that I have made mistakes. That is why I am saying to the Minister that there is an important role for parents. It is always harrowing to listen to the stories of parents when they know that there is an issue and that their child has needs but those needs are not being addressed. There is always a dilemma. We hear a lot about how hard up we are, about how there is very little money and so on, but there is not enough money in the world for SEN. We must face that. It becomes about priorities.
I have never met a parent who did not want the best for their child. Sometimes they have not always been able to display that in the best way—sometimes they have been very aggressive—but they still want the best for their child. In all my years of experience, however, I have never once been approached by a parent who said, “I want to open my own school”—never once. That is not to say that it does not happen because, as I said earlier, there are good local authorities and poor local authorities. I sympathise with parents who live in those areas where there is a lack of provision, particularly for autism.
Pat Glass
Oh, right—can I make one quick point? Where special schools have been set up, whether by parents or by other organisations, the difficulty is that we all want to put money and resources in at the hard end, but what inevitably tends to happen is that that drifts away. When we look at schools that have been established, with the best of intentions, for the children with the greatest need, the children tend, in some cases, to have less severe needs.
Mr Hancock
I am grateful for that intervention, and for your patience, Mr Evans, in allowing two interventions on the jump, so to speak. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She is honest enough to say that she has made mistakes. There have been some big mistakes—I have made some very bad judgments in cases that I have fought. I remember a particularly harrowing case that we did not win because of cost: one child’s care would have cost more than £120,000 a year, which is a formidable sum of money in any circumstances. Everyone agreed that the placement was right, but the local authority simply could not contemplate spending more than £1 million over 10 years on one child. As we walked out, I asked the parents what they wanted to do and the father said, “Well, Mike, it’s about time you and I decided to rob banks to get the money for these kids to have the care they really need.” No parent should have to think that the help their child needs will not be there. I wish Ministers all the very best, because I believe that they are well intentioned, but this is a big issue.
I shall come back to amendment 71 for the benefit of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who could become a bit difficult if he pulls that trick too often in Committee; he will not be very popular if he starts asking about the relevance of comments to amendments. The importance of amendment 71 is that it poses questions that are not answered in the Bill. People want the reassurance of having those measures in the Bill because this is about laws and the way they are interpreted. The amendment would make it clear that parents have a right to be properly consulted and would make clear where the various aspects addressed in the amendment would be delivered.
Mr Hayes
I know that my hon. Friend is reaching the exciting peroration to his speech and I do not want to interrupt the seminar that he and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) are offering us, but it is important to point out that we take autism seriously and that academies do not prevent appropriate planned provision, including for autism. He might know that Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit that provides not only for pupils there but for those in the wider community. I want to give an absolute assurance that the Government take autism seriously and that they will look at it in the context of the Green Paper I have mentioned.
Mr Hancock
I never doubted for a minute the Minister’s sincerity or his commitment to it. What I do doubt is the ability of any Government to deliver properly the provisions we want, and I do not want to be seen to be supporting something that I think falls short of what all the parents we have been talking about expect from us. They want to see clarity of thought, a clear direction of travel and a means by which academies and free schools can provide this education without detriment to other schools in their area or to other young people with similar difficulties. That is why amendment 71 should be pursued. I hope that it is not withdrawn; I hope that it is voted on and that the House gives it a fair wind, because it would substantially help the Bill.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on making his maiden speech. I have been to his constituency and I used regularly to visit a secondary school there in Pitsea. I recommend that he should go and visit it. I am not sure if it still has the same head, but he used to sing in a famous pop group in the 1960s. I cannot remember the name of the group but it was very famous at the time—
Pauline Latham
Very memorable, yes. From time to time, he would entertain his school in assembly by taking up his guitar and singing some of the songs for which he used to be so famous. I suggest that my hon. Friend visit him. As that was one of the first grant-maintained schools to go, I am sure that it will become an academy school as soon as possible. However, it is in a poor area. My hon. Friend has not just got nice leafy areas in his constituency; it is quite a mixed area, so I wish him well.
There are to be guidance notes on SEN when the Bill becomes an Act. I have a few questions about SEN, because there are many children in schools who have not just SEN but health needs. I cannot see anywhere where that has been addressed; I guess that it will come in the guidance notes. I urge the Minister to clarify what legislation there will be that impacts on the health funding that currently supports special needs children, and how that funding will continue in academies. It is very important that health needs are met, particularly in residential special schools, because it is expensive to educate children in that way, and the health authorities have an obligation to fund the meeting of some of the needs. I am not quite sure how that dovetails with the funding for schools from the local education authority.
Mr Hayes
I will deal with that matter when I sum up—some time in the distant future, no doubt—but to be clear, the hon. Lady’s point is profound, because not only does it apply to children who have special needs from birth, but it deals with the important issue of acquired special needs. It emphasises the fact that special needs are dynamic, because the conditions that children and young people face are themselves dynamic. We will certainly consider those matters. I will say a little more on the subject when I sum up.
Pauline Latham
I thank the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that many parents will be interested to hear what he said, because the issue is important to them. There is also the issue of funding of residential special school places. I mentioned that there are residential schools that cost an enormous amount of money. Some of that money comes from health funding, and that is an issue that he will deal with, but I would like to know—again, this will probably be in the guidance—how we will fund residential special schools. There are quite small schools that are very important for the children who go to them, who often have complex special needs that it is difficult to meet in anything other than a residential school.
Mr Hayes
So that I do not have to say too much when I sum up, perhaps I ought to make it plain that the law is clear that when a child is statemented, and their needs are specified, there is a duty to ensure that those needs are met. That might include provision outside the local authority area. Indeed, I spent a great deal of time in the 1980s, when I was a councillor in Nottinghamshire, fighting for parents, families and children who wanted their needs met outside the county. That does not change as a result of this legislation.
Pauline Latham
I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, as I am sure parents have concerns about security of funding for schools that wish to become academies. If one has a child in such a school, and one wants continuity, it is extremely difficult when there is any sort of worry about whether funding will continue.
I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend—
Pauline Latham
Sorry. Perhaps in time. I know that under the Academies Bill, special schools will not become academies immediately; they must wait another year. I think that was said yesterday. What about independent special schools that wish to become academies? Will they be allowed to become academies at the same time as schools in the maintained sector? Will they be allowed to become special schools within the academies system at that same time, or will they have to wait a bit longer?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for his excellent maiden speech. I am from the north and I know his beautiful constituency extraordinarily well. I also know David Maclean, who was a fantastic MP, and I pay tribute to him, too. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), whose constituency I know slightly less well, although I think that it is somewhere near where “Dad’s Army” used to be filmed.
One thing that I have picked up from this debate is that Members on both sides are concerned about special educational needs. The hon. Member for Gelding, the shadow Minister, made that clear. [Laughter.]
Vernon Coaker
On a point of order, Mr Evans. Is there any way of sending out a notice that would enable hon. Members to get right the name of my constituency, which is Gedling? Otherwise, as I keep saying, I am going to have to change my voice.
Neil Carmichael
I am sorry about that. I am deaf in my left ear, and I always assume that that is some excuse. Very many apologies. I am from Stroud, and that sometimes gets mispronounced, although not as significantly as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency can be.
Amendment 71 has a couple of problems. Funnily enough, the shadow Minister—I shall not make my mistake again—emphasised that. It is too much about assessment rather than provision. Assessing things raises the question of how long it will take and what the implications are. The problem with the amendment is that it will delay the arrival of academies. I believe that a step is being taken in the direction of improving special educational needs provision, and that is one of the points that I want to make. We need to talk a little about history.
Graham Evans
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I want to share what happened recently in one of the schools in my constituency. A severely autistic child had been in the mainstream for many years—from reception and through years 1, 2 and 3. It was becoming apparent that he needed more care than could be given in that school. The community is close-knit; everybody knew the child and the family. However, the length of time that it took the local authority to come up with the statement was a complete disgrace. Eventually, it made the right decision and said the right things, but we could see the angst on his parents’ faces when they came to collect him from the playground. Do we have to put parents through that, when even as lay people we know what the answer will be? Why cannot the authorities that currently have to make the decisions make up their minds more quickly?
Neil Carmichael
My hon. Friend’s point is exactly correct; local authorities can and must start addressing those issues.
I also want to talk about special schools, which have been mentioned. Of course going into mainstream education is preferable to going to a special school, but the fact is that there is a place for special schools. Some time ago, when I was a parliamentary candidate for Stroud, we were fighting a battle to save Bownham Park, a special school that was providing an excellent education—not for a huge number of pupils, but for a number large enough to justify its continuation. It provided education to a range of children from the ages of seven to 16. That school was closed. The parents wanted to keep it open, but the Government were effectively behind its closure and the local authority, under a Labour administration, was pivotal in ensuring that that happened. That is the sort of history that we have to bear in mind when we consider the performance and decision making of local authorities. It emphasises my hon. Friend’s point. Local authorities are sometimes responsible for poor decisions, and we cannot allow that to continue.
Andrew Bridgen
Does my hon. Friend agree that pupils with special educational needs are very vulnerable to disruption, and that little is more disruptive than moving school? In my constituency, we have a three-tier education system, which adds an extra complication for all pupils, especially those with special educational needs because they have to move again at 14. I would like that to be reduced to a two-tier system. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to those concerns.
Neil Carmichael
That is a good point. Three-tier systems are not particularly common, but where they exist I am sure that that is a difficulty. They do not occur in Gloucestershire, but they do, or did, in Northumberland, where I hail from.
I often find in my postbag complaints about statementing. For many parents, getting a statement is something of a struggle. Local authorities tend to take a long time over these decisions, partly because it is a budget issue, partly because it is a question of understanding why a statement should be issued, and partly because it depends on the resources available within the appropriate department. Many parents find it difficult to get the statement that they think they require for their children, whom they clearly want to look after.
Mr Buckland
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the amendment is that any assessment ignores the fact that SEN is a dynamic area of education which is changing constantly, so that as soon as an assessment is made it will be largely out of date?
Neil Carmichael
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. SEN is an emerging story—we all know that. The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), with her vast and important experience, made those points as well. That complicates the situation on statementing.
It is not just a question of parents getting a statement, but of what happens when they do. That is just as problematic. I have seen in my postbag cases where a statement has been provided but its consequences are not deliverable for the child. We must remember that provision through local authorities is not as perfect as it ought to be.
We need to consider what happens in academies—that is what the amendment is all about. We already have governors in schools, and they are very important. Governance performs a valuable function in ensuring that schools perform properly, reach appropriate targets and deliver the high-quality education that we need. In the schools of which I have been a governor, we have had a governor specially responsible for special educational needs.
Neil Carmichael
Yes, and such accountability is necessary and good, and we will find it in academies. Of course, we have to ensure that not only is there a legal requirement for such governors, but that they do their job and ensure that SEN provision is properly maintained, promoted and delivered in their academy or school. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to consider that as the Bill takes its form.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that academies take more than their fair share of SEN pupils? In fact, many academies are keen to do so as part of their funding agreement. Many educational charities that want to set up academies—I am sure many more will want to do so as a result of the Bill—have a special interest in looking after pupils with special educational needs. The divide that has been drawn between the academy and the local authority is a bit artificial. Some Opposition Members see the local authority as somehow the protector of pupils with SEN and academies as their opponents, but that is wrong. Academies are there to strengthen and support SEN as part of the process of inclusion that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Neil Carmichael
I certainly do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that academies’ record in that regard is good so far. We know that because there are more than 200 of them and we can see the provision that is being delivered.
Mr Ward
May I follow up on the point that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made? I have heard discussions several times over the past day or two about whether academies are inclusive, both in the number of free school meal pupils that they have and in SEN provision. The point has been made that they have a higher than average proportion of children who get free school meals or SEN provision, because of the communities that they serve. However, the evidence is that over time that proportion goes down. The danger is that because—no, I will sit down, because I am getting into a speech now; I am learning.
Neil Carmichael
I am not sure whether it was a speech, but the point is interesting and we should look into it. Of course, the Minister has already promised a Green Paper on the wider issue of SEN, so we should discuss that matter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for a point well made, but I believe that thus far, academies are delivering proper provision.
This matter has already been discussed in the House of Lords, and Baroness Wilkins, in an effective performance, produced two changes to the Bill. One is that the Secretary of State can intervene if special educational needs are not properly provided for. That is a sensible step and a provision that is broadly welcomed.
Ian Mearns
A cumbersome aspect of that is that the Secretary of State’s office could be inundated with individual cases of parents who feel that the special educational needs provision for their child has not been tackled effectively.
Neil Carmichael
That is also an interesting point, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill is essentially a good measure. It provides for more academies, and we support that because we believe that good leadership, good management, flexibility and less intrusion from local authorities will deliver a higher standard of education. Of course, that must include provision for special educational needs.
We have been promised a Green Paper on special educational needs. The time to discuss the subject is when that is published. A constant theme of the past two or three hours has been the lack of satisfactory provision for special educational needs throughout the country. There are pockets where it is not good enough and delivery that needs to be improved. As long as that is the case, we cannot be satisfied, and we must therefore endeavour to improve the overall provision for special educational needs.
Mr Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. It was also a pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Both spoke in a fine fashion, and they will be an adornment to not only their constituencies but the House.
I want to start on the most positive note that I can. I think that we all agree that the current system for dealing with special educational needs is not appropriate. The—I used the word yesterday—“pushiest” parents, certainly the most articulate, are best able to get their children statemented and their needs recognised. That is the current system, and people realise that it is not good enough. We heard from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), in another excellent contribution based on her years of experience, her explanation of the difficulties. The current system is broken.
The Minister has promised a Green Paper in the autumn to look at the whole subject of special educational needs. At that time, I hope that the House will have more time to reflect on, consider and possibly improve the policy. Rushing policy making does not always help, particularly when dealing with low incidence SEN or something that is on the margins of the mainstream. Although there are so many children with SEN, it remains to be tackled.
I do not support amendment 71, but I think that it may be looking for an explanation from the Minister of how the system will work. The hon. Member for North West Durham, who will be an excellent Member of the House and an excellent member of the Select Committee, talked about priorities. That brings me to my favourite topic when dealing with public service reform: incentives. Too often, we reorganise the system without fully understanding the incentives that are in place for the various players in it. We deserve an explanation from the Minister. Given his ability, I know that we will get it. I want to hear how precisely the incentives will work for schools that at times resist parents who are trying to do the best for their children, to the extent that only parents with the nous, money and self-confidence can challenge them and get their child statemented. What happens to the others? I want to hear how the system will work so that, following the changes, it does not become worse. There is nothing obvious in the Bill to make it worse, but I want a cohesive narrative from the Minister about how the system will be better even before the Green Paper is produced. I want to be assured that it cannot possibly get worse. We cannot have more parents in that position.
People come to us, as constituency MPs, about all sorts of topics. I can think of many constituents who are particularly articulate, well educated and well placed, and who have relatives and friends in good positions, yet they are still endlessly and unjustly frustrated by a system that can often seem unbelievably resistant to doing the right thing.
Ian Mearns
Having worked in the system and taken a number of cases to education appeals panels, I have often seen a situation in which council officers think they are doing the right thing by the system by refusing parents what they want, because they believe that other provision is nearly as good but less costly. Does the Chair of Education Committee accept that if parents want provision that costs tens of thousands of pounds a year, allowing that provision incurs an opportunity cost to the system and other children within it?
Mr Stuart
There is always an opportunity cost and people always have to make judgment calls. We need to know who makes those calls, what the pressures on them and their incentives are, and their accountability. It all comes down to that, and understanding what the accountability mechanisms will be if there is a much-increased number of free academies.
Mr Hayes
Rather than waiting till I sum up, may I deal with that point head-on now? My hon. Friend, as Chair of the Education Committee, clearly has an entitlement to ask such penetrating questions—indeed, we expect him to do so—so let me be clear. The Secretary of State would decide whether appropriate provision had been made. If not, he would either direct the local authority to make it, or in exceptional circumstances, ask an alternative body to do so. The funding for such provision in the latter case would come in the first instance from the Department for Education, which would then consider how to ensure that funding in the longer term prevails. That is an absolute assurance that the Government take my hon. Friend’s point seriously: those powers rest with the Secretary of State.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I assume that in reality, the “Secretary of State” means the Young People’s Learning Agency. My understanding is that the systems, embryonic as they are, are probably not as good as they ought to be, and I assume that YPLA officers representing the Secretary of State will do that work. I understand and accept the Minister’s reassurance, and I think the Bill has been improved, but I am trying to work out how the pressures and incentives will work to ensure that the school admits fairly and looks after SEN children in the appropriate way when the decision gets all the way down to the school, the parent and the local authority officer, who is quite a long way away from the YPLA officer. I am struggling to imagine what will happen at that level and to think that all the way through.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful for the Minister’s compliment, which was not flattery—if I had said that it was, he would have corrected me.
One of the issues in this Bill, which the amendment seeks to draw out, is the system-wide implications of a growing number of schools—including free schools and existing schools—becoming independent and taking away money currently spent on their behalf by the local authority. Those of us of a supply-side revolution, 1980s, turning the sick man of Europe around disposition naturally think that things will regrow and they can be better directed by people closer to the front line. However, we need an explanation, because schools are not businesses and we need to understand how it will work.
I wish to chide the Minister gently, although he may not have been responsible, because the place that one would naturally look for that explanation—it may be a by-product of the last Government’s approach—is the equalities impact assessment. At the risk of upsetting my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would criticise the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—I will pronounce his constituency correctly—because in many ways he has been too gentle about the equalities impact assessment in the last couple of days. I think it is less adequate than he has made it out to be.
The equalities impact assessment is rather thin. It provides fair information, but it tries to put the best gloss on that information. Given that this is an important document to accompany a flagship Bill, I would not expect paragraph 22 to be repeated, in its entirety, as paragraph 24. I would not expect paragraph 23, which is quite long, to be split and repeated in its entirety as paragraphs 25 and 26. It would suggest that someone has not even bothered to read this so-called important equalities impact assessment. At the end, I was waiting for an assessment of the system-wide impact and the long-term and profound implication of having lots of free schools. But when I got there I found paragraph 31, which states:
“We believe that the Academies programme is already working towards promoting inclusion and equality to the benefit of all pupils in the programme. An adverse impact is unlikely”.
Well, thank you very much. That is not an adequate explanation of the possible system-wide impacts of this Bill.
I know that we will have a master class and a tour de force explanation from the Minister on the system-wide impact and why the Bill will work, but the impact assessment is inadequate. I meant to be gentler about this than I have been—I have a tendency to overstatement —and I apologise to the Minister. But I wish that the impact assessment had been a better document and included more recognition of the potential system-wide impacts, especially on marginal areas—if I may call them that—such as SEN.
Gavin Barwell
I will keep my remarks brief as I am conscious of the time and that the Committee wishes to hear the Minister’s reply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who made an exceptional speech. She brings real expertise in this area to the House and I am sure that we will benefit from that in the months and years ahead. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Both yesterday and today he has approached these proceedings in a much more conciliatory tone than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did on Second Reading. That may reflect the difference between Second Reading and Committee stage, or it may reflect the difference in their personalities, but it is certainly appreciated on this side of the Committee.
I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman on whether primary schools should be allowed to be academies and whether surplus places would be a ban on academy status. However, he is right to bring the issue of special educational needs up today. I imagine that all hon. Members have received a briefing from the Special Educational Consortium, which tells us that 21% of children have some form of SEN and that 12% of children with SEN achieve five grade A* to C passes at GCSE, compared to 57% of their peers. That shows the importance of getting this issue right—not just for the children with SEN, but because if we do not get it right there will be an impact on other children in the mainstream setting. The likely impact of this policy on children with SEN is therefore a key test. I am not sure whether the amendment addresses some of the concerns that he raised in his speech, but he is right to ask for some more detailed clarification, particularly in the light of the important amendments that came through on Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords.
It is worth briefly putting on the record the improvements that the Government have already made by ensuring that for the first time academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. I also want to mention the improvement that I referred to in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman kindly took, which is that the new model funding arrangement now provides that the Secretary of State can direct academies to comply with any obligations relating to SEN. Although the new agreement will not apply to existing academies, hopefully many of them will choose to convert to it, given that in other ways it will provide more freedoms. Over time, therefore, the new agreement might spread.
The core of the objections and concerns raised relates to what will happen if many more schools become academies and the pressures that that will put on services provided by local authorities. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the scale of the changes—he used the phrase, “opening the flood gates”—although Ministers have provided reassurances on the pace at which they think things are likely to proceed. However, many of the same issues arise over the role of local authorities in school improvement. For example, my council provides a very good school improvement service, which I hope schools will still want to buy into when they become academies.
I want to make three more quick points. First, the requirement for academies to have the same obligations as maintained schools is not in the Bill, but will be in the funding agreements, which means that parents who think that academies are not fulfilling those obligations will need to go to the Secretary of State, I presume, if they have a problem, rather than resort to the law. Not to have to resort to the legal route, but to go to the Secretary of State, might actually be an advantage to parents. However, as the hon. Member for North West Durham said, we should think about this from a parent’s perspective, so it would be helpful if the Minister could provide more guidance on how that complaints procedure would work. What does a parent do if they have a child in an academy that they think is not meeting their child’s SEN needs? What is the process for making a complaint?
My second point is one that has already been made—it is about the Opposition amendment passed on Third Reading in the Lords on protecting low incidence SEN services. The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling about the need to define exactly what those services are was spot on. It is really important that we get a clear definition, either today or on Monday, as the Bill goes through this House.
My final point concerns children receiving central SEN services. Children with high levels of need will tend to have statements, so the idea that the money follows the pupil and goes to the schools is very important. In my constituency, we have a school called Addington high, which has an excellent unit for children with autism, and most of the children there will have a statement. It is right, therefore, that the money goes to the school, but clearly, as some of my hon. Friends have said, where local authorities are providing services, much will depend on the value that schools place on those services. If they are good services and the local authority is doing a good job, it seems likely that any academy that takes over will want to purchase those services.
The hon. Member for Gedling was right to raise the issues before us, because further clarity is required in certain areas. However, I do not support the amendment, because I am not sure that it directly addresses some of his points. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I will be brief as well. Many would have liked to speak in this debate, but time is short. I pay tribute to today’s maiden speeches, particularly that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Together, the two of us represent 2,500 square miles—it would cover several countries. He has walked across his, I have attempted to ride across mine, and I can assure hon. Members that I prefer my form of transport. Anyway, he is making great steps and it is great to have him as my neighbour. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who is also my neighbour—we cover so much of the north! She and I have worked for many years in special educational needs, and she spoke eloquently and with great force about the issues.
I look at things from a different angle, having represented local authorities and individual applicants for some 15 to 20 years in special educational needs tribunals and SENDISTs—special educational needs and disability tribunals. I have seen all manner of proposals put forward. In particular, I have represented the Hillingdon association of secondary heads, which is known by the acronym HASH, which is appropriate for all the 1960s head teachers.
Pat Glass
No doubt the Minister will confirm this for me, but I understand that the YPLA is the rump of what was the Learning and Skills Council. If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns about that? I am not aware that the Learning and Skills Council has the level of SEN expertise needed to deliver on some of the things that we are discussing.
Guy Opperman
I hesitate to say that I agree absolutely, but I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady’s argument, because the local education authority will have all the educational psychologists and other areas of expertise that are required in these processes. I would question whether the alternative provision exists; indeed, I would go further than that. Everyone who has done a SENDIST case, running it through the myriad reports, will know the tremendous difficulty that exists in obtaining the right level of reports and presentation to push the thing forward. I would suggest that if people have to go to the Secretary of State, things will take much longer and be much more complicated. I return to the point that this is not me rebelling; I am just saying that the assertions of the founder of all these kinds of reforms—Lord Baker of Dorking—was clear at the outset of this process that we should keep it very simple and put the matter to the LEA, because it will be best capable of dealing with it.
I accept what the Minister said when clarifying the point approximately 15 minutes ago. He said that there is always a duty to ensure that the needs are met. That is entirely true, but anybody who does SENDIST work will know that there is a parallel duty to perform with the financial resources available. The complication is that there are genuine concerns that the financial resources will not necessarily be available in the processes that are being proposed. That particularly applies where there are special educational needs in more rural areas such as mine, where we have 1,200 square miles to cover, catchment areas the size of the M25 and an ability to provide for those needs, along with the necessary rural transport. However, I have not heard sufficient clarification that those rural transport needs will be accommodated as part of the Bill.
Briefly, let me finish by saying that I do not support the amendment, but I hope that we will receive a great deal of further explanation.
Mr Hayes
We have had a long and interesting debate on this subject, have we not, Mr Evans? It has been a good-natured debate too, with high-quality contributions by hon. Members from across the Committee, who have drawn on their extensive experience and expertise. I defer to those hon. Members who have that professional expertise—expertise that they have been able to articulate today in a way that has shown the House and this Committee at its best, as was made clear in his generous contribution by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I can confirm is a stallion, by the way. [Hon. Members: “How do you know?”] Because I have known him for a very long time, and I know that his reputation precedes him.
On the subject of my friends on the Opposition Benches, I count the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) as a friend, and I have not yet had the chance to congratulate his daughter, Hattie, on her eighth birthday yesterday. I shall do so now, because I want to get it into Hansard. In addition, I want to mention that he has a number of other children and I hope that they enjoy “Toy Story 3” when they go to see it on Sunday. Moving on! Time is short.
The amendment would have the effect that, before making any payments under an academy agreement, the Secretary of State would have to assess the impact on local authority-funded SEN services of a new academy or an academy conversion before deciding funding levels for such academies. I had thought that I would have to speak for longer on this subject in order to cover it in considerable detail. I have before me the Balfour Act and the Education Act 1944, along with every other significant education Act at my disposal. It is a sad fact that I will not be able to draw on them, but in the few remarks that I will make, I shall try to answer the salient questions posed by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no definition of special educational needs. They are, however, defined in some detail in section 312 of the Education Act 1996. I will not go into those details now, but the Bill will not change them at all; that definition will remain in place and it is important.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about autism, and—I say this from the heart—gave a rather moving account of his experience of parents dealing with the challenges of special educational needs. Academies will be under the same obligations as other schools in respect of special educational needs. As I said to him earlier, academies are already providing evidence that they are looking at these matters with appropriate diligence. The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit, for example, of which other schools are taking advantage. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said today, and we will ensure in our study of special educational needs in the Green Paper that autism receives the particular attention it deserves. I have worked closely with the Lincolnshire Autistic Society, and I know of the good work done by that society and others. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by raising that matter today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) asked two specific questions. Yes, although we intend to convert special schools into academies, we understand that that will need to be done on a considered and measured basis. We need to do work on the issue of funding in particular, and we will do so before the conversions take place. She also asked about the role of the health service in respect of children and young people with SEN. Primary care trusts contribute to the costs of individual placements as well as supporting pupils. Their responsibility is to the whole population, however, so that funding should be unaffected. The costs of non-maintained special schools remain with the local authority, and none of that budget will be transferred to the academies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, asked a number of questions. I have dealt with the question of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities. I can confirm that, as he suggested, the YPLA will be instrumental in ensuring that those responsibilities are carried out. A number of hon. Members asked how a parent could complain if an academy did not meet a child’s special educational needs. That was a theme that emerged implicitly throughout the debate.
Let me make it clear. An academy must have a clear complaints process, and a parent who wished to complain would have to be dealt with in line with that process. If that complaint were not satisfied, the YPLA would enforce the obligations in the funding agreement. If that does not prove satisfactory, a complaint about the YPLA can be directed to the Secretary of State, who will enforce those obligations in the courts if necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a number of points about parents who, he said, would not have the wherewithal required. He said that these things were all very well in theory. I spoke earlier about redistributing advantage in society. I am very conscious of the need for us to get the statementing process right, given how often it disadvantages parents in that position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), the Minister of State, Department for Education—with whom I have worked hand in glove in the House for many years—will be looking closely at the whole issue of statementing. We understand some of the concern that has been expressed. It is crucial for parents of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to be dealt with appropriately, fairly and reasonably, rather than being bemused and bewildered by a process that is bureaucratic and insensitive to their circumstances.
The amendment raises issues similar to those that were raised in another place. As Members have pointed out, the main issue is the fear that an increasing number of academy conversions will render local education authorities unable to maintain the level of centrally funded services that they currently offer. That fear is not without grounds, and I entirely agree that we must consider it. I am also convinced, however, that we will have time in which to do so. The number of schools that will convert in September will not be large enough to have a significant impact on local authority services.
I see the hon. Member for Gedling egging me on, stallion-like, but I have a number of other things to say which I hope will satisfy him.
Of course some local authorities already have a majority of secondary schools as academies. Those academies were approved by the last Government, who funded academies in the same way as the current Government intend to fund them. However, we also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. We will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and I can confirm that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. That consideration will be in addition to the Green Paper that I mentioned earlier. The work will take place over the autumn, and as my noble Friend Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, said yesterday, we have instructed officials to ensure that the Special Educational Consortium is involved in the work.
We are committed to ensuring that children with special needs in both the maintained and the academy sectors receive the services that they require and, indeed, deserve. My commitment to children with special educational needs stretches a long way back. As a member of the Government, I will do nothing that would act to their detriment, and we as a Government will do nothing in respect of the academies programme that would disadvantage them or the people who care for them in any way. I am pleased to be able to put that on the record.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole Committee will welcome the Minister’s assurance, but he also mentioned a review of funding in 2011. Can he tell us what impact that might have on the commitment in the Bill that the funding agreement will last for at least seven years? How will the two interact?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what I said a moment ago. We would not expect special schools to be in the first tranche of academies, and we will review the funding before those schools become academies. That is entirely consistent with the Bill. We hope that when the schools have become academies the arrangements will be in place, and the seven-year period will kick in after that.
We have also set up an advisory group to help us to work through, in particular, issues relating to SEN and special schools. It is because we want to use the practical expertise in the sector that the group includes heads and governors from special schools—including the non-maintained sector—and mainstream schools with specialist units, as well as local authority representation at officer and political level. As Lord Hill said in another place, the Government undertake to monitor the impact of the increasing number of academies on local authority SEN services and will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that adjustments to their funding with respect to the academies properly reflect their changing responsibilities. Make no mistake: local authorities will continue to have key responsibilities in respect of SEN, including their responsibility to statement children. We intend to ensure that that is properly funded.
Vernon Coaker
I agree very much with the Minister that this has been an excellent, high-quality debate. There were many contributions, and may I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for not being present for his maiden speech? I understand, however, that it was excellent, and I am sure he will be a worthy replacement for a friend of ours, Angela Smith. I wish him well in Parliament, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him.
I was not quite sure whether the contribution of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) was a second maiden speech or a maiden, but although he did not agree with me, I still thought it was a reasonable speech, if that makes sense. [Interruption.] No, I say in all sincerity that it was a good speech. Tribute was paid to his predecessor, David Maclean, by the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), and we all had great admiration for the way in which he battled against some of the difficulties he faced. I am sure the new hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will be a worthy addition to the House and I wish him well.
I want to pay tribute to some of the other speeches made, particularly that by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). Many Members have paid tribute to her contribution. Her speech was not only very well informed, but very moving. The power of the stories that Members can bring to the House from our experience as professionals outside it makes a huge difference, and there was great credibility in what she said and we all learned from her remarks. I am sure we will continue to benefit from her contributions as she pursues her parliamentary career. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) for his generous remarks about my approach and for the conversations we have had about many of the matters we have been discussing today.
I am also very grateful to the Minister for his reply. It is clear that the Government are thinking of making a number of significant changes—I do not want to use the word “concessions” as that makes it sound as if there was a battle—on the issue under discussion as a consequence not only of this debate, but of contributions outside the Chamber. I have to say that some of the concessions—the changes—that are now being made ought to have been made before. I am not trying to be churlish; I am saying that because these are such important matters. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the evidence base for the Bill—the impact assessment and the equalities impact assessment—really is not good enough, given the Bill’s importance. These are essential documents that go alongside a Government Bill. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that they are extremely important documents because they are the evidence base on which Government legislation is supposed to be based. The Chair of the Select Committee was harsher than I was, but I must say that those documents did leave quite a bit to be desired.
We are all pleased to hear about the Green Paper, the welcome review of SEN funding for academies, and the Minister’s commitment to examine the role of local authorities and to ensure that their role is properly recognised in the system as things progress. There was also a specific recognition of one of the points raised. I am not saying that this happened because of the point I raised, but I did say that the model funding agreement that had been published did not contain a requirement for a teacher in the academies to be responsible for children in care, and the Minister responded by saying that that will be changed. That, too, is very welcome.
It would be churlish of me not to say that significant change has been made as we have progressed through our consideration of the Bill, and that is very welcome. The amendment seeks to push the Government to recognise that important problems remain in how this structure has been set up. The definition of low incidence SEN and low incidence disability is fundamental to the Bill, but we are passing a piece of legislation that contains no definition of that.
As Members from across the House have said, that is a recipe for confusion, litigation and lawyers, because how is a local authority, an academy or whoever supposed to know whether they are meeting the requirements of the legislation, given that we currently have no criteria for determining that? I know that the Minister has given a commitment for this to be contained in codes of practice and in other places. In the spirit of trying to be helpful, may I say that it is essential that that kind of clarity is provided in respect of legislation, particularly with something that is such a key part of the Bill? I know that he will take that on board and take it forward.
The Minister has tried to address the other aspect of what our amendment was trying to ensure, but confusion remains as to what the funding will mean for individual schools and what it will mean for the amount of funding that is left for local authorities in terms of that central provision, which will be essential. Confusion also remains about the co-ordinating role in order to ensure that all of our young people get the support that they need. How the Secretary of State is supposed to do that from the centre right down to school level is a real problem, given that the Young People’s Learning Agency is supposed to be the vehicle by which academies are held to account. The YPLA is a new body, and it has no experience of dealing with special needs or of this provision. So to rely upon it as the vehicle or body that will try to ensure that the Secretary of State is informed about whether an academy is appropriately using the money that it gets to support children with SEN is simply a wish rather than something that the Government have evidence to demonstrate will actually work.
This has been a hugely important debate, and the Government have made some significant concessions. It is a shame that we cannot amend the Bill to give it the legislative and statutory force necessary to give all of us the reassurance that we need. However, given the Minister’s concessions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Transfer of school surpluses
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 61, page 5, line 22, leave out from ‘proprietor’ to end of line 23 and insert ‘to appeal to a Local Commissioner’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 62, page 5, line 25, leave out ‘review’ and insert ‘appeal’.
Amendment 63, page 5, line 26, leave out ‘review’ and insert ‘appeal’.
Amendment 64, page 5, line 43, at end insert—
‘“Local Commissioner” has the meaning given by section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974.’.
Mr Wright
I begin by paying tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I class him as a good friend. He is a kind and courteous man and I am sure that my daughter Hattie will be very pleased that she has been mentioned in the House again. He is more than welcome to join us for “Toy Story 3”—indeed, I see him as the Buzz Lightyear of the coalition Government. To infinity and beyond!
May I clarify a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who was in the Chamber assiduously this afternoon, until I got up, when he left? He mentioned that his area produces angels, and in many respects he is right—Gateshead is a fantastic place—but I think that he was referring to the angel of the north, which is a strong and proud icon of our region of the north-east, and I should point out to the Committee that the angel of the north was fabricated in Hartlepool. That is an important point.
I shall be brief, because there is not a lot of time left and there is a lot of work still to do. It was very important that we had considerable debates on Building Schools for the Future and on special educational needs. Clause 7 requires that where the Secretary of State approves a maintained school’s application to become an academy, the local authority must determine whether, immediately before the conversion date, the school has a surplus and, if so, the amount of the surplus. Once that is done, the local authority must pay the surplus over to the proprietor of the academy.
Subsection (4) states that regulations may be brought forward on how the payment of any identified surplus could be made and subsection (5) lists what those regulations can include. An important part of those regulations would be the manner in which the proprietor of the academy can apply to the Secretary of State for a review of the determinations. I argued in Committee last night that the nature of the Bill is to force schools to consider that their most important relationship is not with local parents or pupils but with the Secretary of State.
This is a centralising Bill that concentrates power and decisions into the office of the Secretary of State. The Opposition think that there should be more independence from Whitehall and more power for local people, which could include the proprietor of the academy. On that basis, amendment 61 would replace the idea of the proprietor going directly to the Secretary of State to ask for a review and allow the owner of the new academy to appeal to a local commissioner.
Amendment 64 would make it clear that the term “local commissioner” has the same meaning as that given by section 23 of the Local Government Act 1974, which essentially means the local government ombudsman. That is a well-recognised route for conducting investigations into local matters and gives a degree of impartiality and independence because the local commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We think that the Secretary of State for Education, under the provisions in the Bill, is responsible for a number of things, namely entering into an academy arrangement, making an academy order and reviewing the transfer of school circumstances among other things. There does not seem to be any effective challenge to the single authority of the Secretary of State, which is one reason why we have tabled the amendments.
The inclusion of the word “review” is also somewhat vague and does not give reassurance and confidence to the proprietor of the academy, or to anybody else for that matter, that a proper procedure will be followed. Amendments 62 and 63 would strengthen the wording of the Bill by leaving out the word “review” and inserting the word “appeal”, which gives a sense, in our opinion, that a proper and transparent process must be adhered to. The amendments would not increase any bureaucratic burden on any interested party, but they would provide a degree of certainty and reassurance for stakeholders, particularly the proprietor of the new academy. For that reason, I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendments, and I commend them to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. These four amendments have been grouped together because they concern the appeal procedure. It is our policy that a maintained school that converts to academy status should take with it any funds that it has accumulated in previous years. I do not think that that is news to the shadow Minister. Schools might have earmarked such funds for particular purposes and we would not want them to be prevented from carrying out their plans as a consequence of their conversion to academy status. The Bill therefore makes provision for that and for an academy to appeal to the Secretary of State, as we see fit, where it believes that the local authority has wrongly calculated the appropriate amount.
The Opposition’s amendments would change the whole appeal process so that the academy would appeal to the local government ombudsman rather than the Secretary of State. I think the shadow Minister characterised the measure as being centralising rather than localising, but we do not believe that what the Opposition suggest is appropriate. We have published draft regulations to enable hon. Members to see the Government’s intentions in this regard. The draft regulations state that the local authority would have to determine, within three months of the conversion date, whether the school had a surplus immediately prior to the conversion date and, if so, the level of that surplus. That is consistent with the usual period for finalising local authority accounts at the end of the financial year and should give sufficient time to calculate accruals and commitments accurately. If the academy’s proprietor did not agree with the determination, they would have one month from being informed of the determination to apply to the Secretary of State for a review. On receiving such an application, the Secretary of State would have three months in which to determine whether the school had a surplus and, if so, the amount of that surplus, and to inform the academy’s proprietor and the local authority of those determinations.
If there has been a review, the local authority must pay over any surplus within a month of being informed of the Secretary of State’s determination. If there is no review, the authority would have to pay over any surplus within one month of either the proprietor informing the authority that they agreed with the determination or at the end of the period in which the proprietor may apply for review—whichever is earlier. That is very clear.
Tim Loughton
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, there is a further explanation that might satisfy him.
Decisions regarding financial disputes of this kind should rest with the Secretary of State, as they do currently. The Secretary of State is responsible for making a decision when the local authority and schools forum disagree about the operation of the minimum funding guarantee or about the level of central expenditure retained by the local authority in the schools budget. The Secretary of State is also able to approve additional arrangements when local authorities request to have school finance regulations disapplied and so is well used to evaluating these issues.
What is proposed would be an unnecessary extension of the role of the local government ombudsman, whose role is to deal with complaints from members of the public about local authorities rather than to deal with disputes between two publicly funded bodies about the detail of financial accounts. We do not think it appropriate for that role to lie with the ombudsman. Dealing with that sort of dispute is already an established part of the Secretary of State’s role. On that basis, we do not think that the amendments are necessary and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment
Mr Wright
I thank the Minister for clarifying the situation, but I still am not entirely certain about the right to appeal. If a review had taken place and the proprietor was still unhappy with the situation, would they be able to appeal again to the Secretary of State or an independent body? We have suggested that they could appeal to the local government ombudsman, but there could be other routes; we are quite flexible about that. Will the Minister clarify that?
Tim Loughton
I thought I had made this clear, but obviously I have not. The Secretary of State’s decision is final, so the Secretary of State will be the final arbiter.
Mr Wright
I thank the Minister for confirming that. My fundamental concern about this aspect of the Bill remains the same, namely that it seems to be a very centralising Bill. It diverts the relationship away from a school thinking about local stakeholders, and having a good, constructive partnership and collaborative arrangement with local people, pupils, staff and so on, and towards having a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. I thought that was contrary to what the coalition Government would want to do with regard to empowering local people. In that respect, I remain unhappy.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Is there not a problem with the lack of accountability of the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State effectively approves the transfer of funds between the local authority and the academy, in one way or another. If there is a dispute, it is resolved by the Secretary of State, who gave his approval in the first place. There is no obvious transparency in the system, as far as the Secretary of State is concerned, and it is not obvious where one goes if either party simply does not accept the Secretary of State’s decision.
Mr Wright
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is keen to expand academies as quickly as possible, so he has a vested interest in making sure that that happens. Then there is the decision on the transfer of surpluses; as my hon. Friend says, the Secretary of State is the final judge and jury on that issue. There is an inherent conflict of interest between various bodies, and I am concerned about that. There is a general concern about the complete lack of consultation with local stakeholders on the provisions, and I remain concerned about that.
Tim Loughton
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), there are many areas of schools business where the final decision will remain with the Secretary of State, and that is proper, but remember that the Secretary of State needs to have regard not just to the future and the financial viability of academies, but to the sustainability of other schools, which will continue to be administered through local education authorities. The Secretary of State is interested not just in academies, but in all schools.
Mr Wright
I thank the Minister for his contribution. I am keen for him to intervene again, because I still think that the word “review” is very vague. It does not set out in any degree what the process would be, so that the proprietor of the academy could be reassured that appropriate processes had taken place. Our amendments 62 and 63 would tighten up the language of the Bill. They would ensure that there was not a review, to use that broad, somewhat ambiguous word, but an appeal. That would help to clarify certain matters in the Bill. I would be happy for the Minister to respond further on that point.
Dan Rogerson
I am intrigued by this role reversal: the hon. Gentleman is standing up for the proprietor of the academy against the local authority in this instance. It seems a reversal of the way in which the arguments have gone throughout the day. It strikes me that we are talking about a one-off instance, not a continuing relationship. Once the decision has been made, the academy is in the area, doing things with the local community. On his point about the provisions being a centralising measure, what he describes may not happen in every case, and the measure is a one-off.
Mr Wright
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and reasonable point. I am anxious to proceed with business; I want to put it on the record that that is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I did not press amendment 71 to a vote. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I still think that this is a centralising Bill. The comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) put the matter in a wider context. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Iain Wright
I beg to move amendment 76, page 5, line 34, leave out from ‘time’ to end of line 36 and insert
‘after deducting from any amount made available by a local authority to the school’s governing body (under section 50 of SSFA 1998 or otherwise) that has not been spent by the governing body or the headteacher, all existing and contingent liabilities not transferring to the Academy under a property transfer scheme (including any liabilities of the local authority incurred on behalf of the school), there is a net amount available.’.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 66, in clause 8, in page 6, line 22, leave out ‘property, rights and liabilities’ and insert ‘property and rights’.
Mr Wright
As I mentioned earlier, clauses 7 and 8 are significant elements of the Bill; they change dramatically the current situation on the transfer of school surpluses and property. It is worth reiterating the point that I made about clause 7. Clause 7(2) requires that when the Secretary of State approves a maintained school’s application to become an academy,
“The local authority must determine…whether, immediately before the conversion date, the school has a surplus, and…if so, the amount of that surplus.”
Under clause 7(3), once that is done the local authority must pay the surplus over to the proprietor of the academy. As I said earlier, that represents a fundamental change to the current landscape, as at the moment surpluses of closing schools remain with the local authority. That includes cases in which an existing school is closed to become an academy.
A school might have built up a surplus for many reasons. Shared facilities might generate an income, for example, or a local authority or other party might have provided additional funding for work in the community and the maintained school might have been encouraged to build up a surplus to ensure that the new community facility could be built or established. That has certainly happened in my constituency, and I am sure that it has happened in other Members’ as well. In Hartlepool, a sports centre has been built on the estate of a particular school, through increased funding from various sources and surpluses held by that school. The understanding is that it will be used by other schools and by community groups.
Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, in such a situation the surplus would be transferred to the new academy, and any benefit to the wider community that was originally envisaged—the original purpose of the surpluses—would be lost. What reassurances can the Minister give to ensure that that does not happen? What is the Minister doing to stop a situation in which, somewhat late in the process, a school that has built up surpluses and is anticipating the building of a new community or shared facility on its estate, following negotiations with the local authority, then decides to convert to an academy?
That could happen without real consultation, but the school would hold on to those surpluses. The issue comes back to unilateral decisions that fail to take into account the wider community and collaboration between schools and the local education authority. In essence, the amendment tries to probe the Minister by asking what checks and balances he will insert into clause 7 to ensure that such surpluses are identified as appropriate and constitute value for money.
Mr Graham Stuart
Why would a school that had built up such surpluses to provide a community facility for joint use suddenly wish to deviate from that when it sought to become an academy? I am not saying that that would be impossible, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it would be the norm.
Mr Wright
I am not suggesting at all that that would be the norm, but we could provide a control mechanism in the legislation on this issue, to tighten up the existing provision. We are not suggesting that the transfer of surpluses should not take place, but wider circumstances might be considered that could prove detrimental to neighbouring schools.
The whole Committee would agree with the need to see transparency and value for money in all aspects involving public money and public assets. To respond to the Chair of the Education Committee, I should say that, essentially, clause 7 moves taxpayers’ money from the public sector to the private sector. What controls is the Minister proposing to ensure that that is subject to appropriate balance, scrutiny, transparency and probity?
Mr Graham Stuart
It is surely unfair to say that the clause moves resources to the private sector. We are talking about an independent state school, but it would still be a state school and not part of the private sector. Yesterday evening, the hon. Gentleman made a desperate effort to change the wording to “free market schools” rather than the wording in his amendment; that suggested more political desperation than is the norm with him.
Mr Wright
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee and I entirely understand his point. Perhaps I should moderate my language in Committee. However, the point is essentially the same: how do we ensure that local taxpayers get good value for money? Like the equalities impact assessment, the impact assessment of the Bill is somewhat vague and light on detail. It states:
“Total one-off costs incurred by schools converting to an academy are estimated to be an average £78k including VAT.
Since the VAT costs are a transfer payment from DoE to HMRC, they are not economic costs. The total economic costs per conversion to academy are therefore £66k.
However, there is scope for Academies meeting these costs from within their existing balances which could reduce the cost to DFE to as little as £25,000 per Academy.”
Will the Minister outline the evidence base for this? No mention whatever is made of the transfer of surpluses in this regard. In preparing for the Bill and with regard to the impact assessment, what work has been done in relation to surpluses that could be transferred to the academy? I would be interested in any information that he could provide about that.
The purpose of amendment 76 is to address those concerns about transparency and accountability and to try to ensure that there is an appropriate process.
Dan Rogerson
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman intends to discuss amendment 66, which is grouped with amendment 76. I may be misreading those amendments, but as I understand it, they are contradictory, because one of them seeks to remove liability while the other seeks to offset liabilities and surpluses. What is the thinking behind that?
Mr Wright
I will come to that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments are not contradictory—they are trying to address a similar problem and to ensure that we can resolve this issue.
Amendment 76 would ensure that all existing and contingent liabilities, including any liabilities that have been incurred on behalf of the school by the local authority, should also be considered. In this context, I take the contingent liability to mean a possible obligation that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the existing school’s control. An example could be outstanding legal cases. We discussed in Committee last night the possibility of legal challenge from staff who might not have had the opportunity or the time to consider properly the TUPE arrangements of moving from a maintained school to an academy—a point that has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). That might be considered a possible contingent liability.
Another example, which has been discussed this afternoon, could be any liabilities arising under current private finance initiative arrangements. We had an interesting debate about amendment 70, with particular regard to PFI. One of the risks is that a local authority could have a potential 25-year period of liabilities arising from PFI, and converting a maintained school to an academy means that the academy has no way of being liable for that payment over that quarter of a century. What reassurance can the Minister give in that regard?
Mr Graham Stuart
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to TUPE and the speech last night by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who was passionate about the uncertainty that could beset many employees of schools? Will he, as the Minister did, but from his side of the House, put their minds at rest? Can he confirm that when a school converts and becomes an academy, the staff will have no reason to believe that they will have any different conditions, and that it is therefore hard to see exactly what great liabilities could be in store in that transfer?
Mr Wright
I am not suggesting that there would automatically be any sort of change or reduction in terms and conditions. However, the freedoms and flexibilities, and the movement away from national terms and conditions and pay scales, could provide a degree of anxiety for staff, particularly low-paid staff who may have given good and loyal service to the local education authority for many years. For example, staff might think that they have had insufficient time to consider what converting to an academy might mean, and therefore, in conjunction with the union, take their employer to a tribunal. Perhaps that should be considered as part of a contingent liability. We need to ensure that all possible scenarios have been considered when taking into account the transfer of surpluses.
Clause 8 allows for the transfer of other property, and amendment 66 would remove the word “liabilities” from subsection (5)(b), which refers to the apportionment of properties, rights and liabilities. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the reasoning behind the amendment is similar to the point that I made earlier about contingent liabilities. I reiterate that there is a particular concern about arrangements such as those under the private finance initiative regarding the transfer of liabilities, and the potential for them to be apportioned between the local authority and a new academy. In a PFI arrangement with 25 years of payments still to go, we must ask how appropriate costs should be so apportioned, and the amendment is an attempt to resolve that question.
We reason that if an academy is to operate as an independent school with full autonomy and freedom from the local authority, it should be responsible for full liability under any PFI arrangement in respect of the school. That seems balanced and fair, and I ask the Minister whether he is opposed to it.
We seek reassurance from the Minister that local authorities, which will face immense financial pressures over the next few years, with enormous potential cuts and pressures from changing social circumstances such as the ageing population, will not be liable for the debts of schools that have transferred as well as having to cover the costs of central services such as payroll, human resources and other infrastructure that they were, and will be, providing to maintained schools. I hope that he can provide that reassurance, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Tim Loughton
I seek to provide the shadow Minister with some reassurances on the various concerns that he has raised about surpluses. I support his objective that the whole system should be transparent and properly accountable. I think he is perhaps unduly concerned, but he is right to tease out some more information through what I believe are probing amendments. I shall address them in order and then turn to his points on the PFI.
Amendment 76 would widen the definition of the surplus to take account of all liabilities not being transferred to an academy, including any liabilities that a local authority incurred on behalf of a school. In calculating the surplus, local authorities will follow normal accounting procedures and take into account expenditure in respect of which work has been done or goods received but invoices have not yet been paid. As we see the new converters as continuing schools, we will seek to ensure that local authorities are not left to fund any remaining costs that would otherwise have been charged to the school’s budget—that is only fair. If a school has ongoing commitments such as an internal loan, we will expect it to continue those payments and the local authority to accept that.
For the same reason, it would not be appropriate to offset against the surplus any liabilities incurred by the local authority on behalf of the school that would not otherwise have been charged against the school’s budget. We understand that closing the old school’s accounts can be a lengthy process, and that authorities are concerned that they might pay over a final cash sum to the academy in accordance with the regulations, only to be left later with outstanding bills without any funding, which would not be fair.
We are drafting guidance on the calculation of surpluses, which I hope will give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he seeks. It will cover debtors and creditors, bank accounts and internal loans and is being developed with partners including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. There is also a model commercial transfer agreement for adoption by the school’s governing body, the academy and the local authority, which will deal with possibilities such as he described.
Mr Iain Wright
I thank the Minister for his clarification and welcome the fact that guidance will be provided. Can he give us any reassurance about the status of that guidance? Will it be, say, in secondary legislation subject to a negative resolution of the House, or will it be simply a press release on the Department’s website?
Tim Loughton
I do not know. It is right for the hon. Gentleman to ask—we will give him the information as soon as possible. It is a policy matter and, in the interests of transparency and accountability, we will ensure that we keep him informed of how the guidance is being worked up, unless I am told something while I am on my feet.
We expect all those matters to be agreed between the local authority and the governing body before conversion, and for the new academy to work within that agreement. The power to make a scheme under clause 8 is a reserve power for the Secretary of State to exercise in the absence of agreement, to ensure that liabilities are appropriately covered.
Mr Iain Wright
That sounds like a potential nightmare, and an awful lot of work needs to be done on it. The impact assessment mentions the negotiations between the DFE and DCLG only very briefly. What further information and clarity can the Minister give the Committee to ensure that good cross-departmental work is done so that local authorities are not penalised financially?
Tim Loughton
Such negotiations are not only between the DFE and DCLG; it is also a Treasury matter. We have had discussions involving those parties. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and in ongoing discussions, we will take note of his point. However, I think he is unduly concerned. He quite rightly said that it is a complicated matter, but we have looked at the PFI scenario to ensure that there are no contingent liabilities that could queer the pitch for the authorities or academies involved. The Government believe that amendments 76 and 66 are unnecessary. It is appropriate that he has used them as probing amendments, but on the basis of those assurances, I invite him not press them to a Division.
Mr Iain Wright
The Minister has clarified many of my concerns, but some remain. This is another example and illustration of the Minister and his team legislating in haste. They may have to unravel much of the Bill in subsequent legislation in the next few months and years. I hope that he keeps the Opposition informed about discussions with his colleagues in DCLG, because I do not want local authorities to be liable for anything that could harm them financially in the next few years.
I hope that the guidance is slightly more than just that. It would have been a good idea to subject it to the negative resolution of the House. The Minister could have reflected over time and perhaps tabled a Government amendment on Report to that effect, but alas, that option is not available to us.
I am anxious to move proceedings on. I hope the Minister and his team will keep us informed. I understood him when he said that I was unduly concerned, on which basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Transfer of other property
Mr Iain Wright
I beg to move amendment 65, page 6, line 38, at end add—
‘(11) 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;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.’.
An identical amendment was tabled in the other place by the noble Baroness Sharp of Guildford, and the rationale behind the proposal remains sound. The clause allows the Secretary of State to “make” a property transfer scheme, which might involve the transfer of IT equipment and other assets. I mentioned last night the weakness in the Bill regarding consultation, and amendment 65 would improve the consultative process. It seems perfectly reasonable to the Opposition that the local authority and the current owner—if that is not the local authority—are consulted to ascertain what should happen to other property or assets, and whether they could be used elsewhere in the area for alternative educational provision.
In speaking to the identical amendment in the other place, Baroness Sharp also said the clause does not mention consultation with interested parties that might be affected by such a transfer, such as catering contractors. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and I made a similar point last night about proper consultation with hard-working staff within the estate, such as catering and cleaning staff, as well as consultation on other assets such as IT equipment.
The amendment would mean a much smoother transfer from the existing school when it converts to academy status. The Minister in the other place said that he would reflect on the matter, and I believe that clause 10 arose as a result of that reflection. However, what should happen to other property, because that too should be subject to wider consultation? There should be proper consideration on important assets, of which the most important are the people who will be affected by the transfer. By doing so, we would ensure a much smoother, less painful and more considered transfer.
Mr Gibb
Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to make a scheme to transfer the property of a maintained school in respect of which an academy order has been made. Amendment No. 65, ably moved by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), would require the Secretary of State to consult the local authority or other owner or any other appropriate persons before making a property transfer scheme that would affect, among other things, desks, computers and the assets of any existing school.
In the case of converting academies, we intend that there should be a seamless transfer between the existing maintained school and the academy, as part of which the school will clearly need to be able to continue to use its property, and to take advantage of contracts into which it may have entered, such as those for cleaning, catering and insurance. It may also need to transfer the benefit of trust funds left in trust for pupils or the school. The trust—say, a bursary for art left to the school many years ago in the will of a benefactor—may well mention the name of the predecessor school, and clause 8 would enable it to be transferred to the new entity of the academy.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
In this consultation, is there a specific undertaking given by the Government that in any transfer they would consult the staff or staff organisations of those employed by contractors in one building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) pointed out in his contribution?
Mr Gibb
In earlier debates we talked about TUPE. If staff are subject to the TUPE regulations, all the relevant consultation processes would apply. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about a contractor who works neither for the previous maintained school or the local authority, and who will not become an employee of the academy, his or her employment rights continue to lie with the contracting company, not with the predecessor school or the academy.
Jeremy Corbyn
My point is that if there is a contract for, say, computer maintenance, with clear employment implications, and it is transferred, the employment requirement also carries on. If it is not transferred, there would be employment implications to which the Secretary of State might be blind because he is looking only at the transfer of property.
Mr Gibb
In those circumstances, the contract would transfer under this clause, but the employment rights would be between the company that is the subject of the contract and the employee, who is not employed either by the predecessor school or the successor academy. The employment rights would not change because the contract would continue with the employer, who would not change.
I should say that we anticipate that the making of any scheme under the provisions of this legislation will be rare. We hope that, in most cases, the transfer of property in connection with a school converting to an academy would be, as now, by agreement among the parties. In most circumstances, a transfer of contract would take place by agreement. That would be our starting point for any property transfer, and this would ensure that all those with an interest in the transfer of such property would be involved in negotiations about their potential transfer. Therefore, we would not get to the point of considering making a scheme under this clause until such discussions were exhausted. It is therefore inconceivable that anyone with an interest in the property to be transferred would not be consulted on a possible transfer in advance of any scheme being made. There is no reason why the Secretary of State would go to the trouble or expense of making a scheme if matters could be resolved amicably. There might be some contracts though, where the other party might try to use a transfer to obtain further financial benefit. The possibility of the making of a scheme would remove that incentive. The provision is an attempt to prevent the possibility that someone might be able to leverage financial compensation, knowing that the transfer has to take place. It is to avoid that possibility that this clause is in place, so that the Secretary of State can make a transfer against the wishes of people who are party to the contract.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool to withdraw it.
Mr Iain Wright
In the large amount of time I have available, I would like to say that the Minister has explained a lot, and to be fair he has gone some way further than the Minister in the other place—
Business without Debate
John McGrath
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Before I begin the Adjournment debate I will let hon. Members leave, as I anticipate and understand they will, given the hour.
As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring to the House’s attention a very serious and tragic matter. It is almost a year to the day since John McGrath was killed by his grandson, William Barnard. John McGrath’s wife, Mabel, was seriously injured in that unfortunate incident. William Barnard was sentenced last month and is now in Rampton secure hospital, where he will be, no doubt, for a considerable time, because at the time of the incident he was seriously ill, suffering from paranoia and schizophrenia. Those who were supposed to be in charge of his care in the mental health services team available to him have helpfully provided a report that goes into considerable detail about the events that led up to that dreadful incident.
I will not go into the detail of that report. It is available for anybody to read if they contact me or Nottinghamshire Healthcare. However, it is clear from the report that there was a significant and serious failing in the care and supervision that should have been enjoyed by William. That is deeply regrettable, because this incident happened without that care and supervision. Had he had it, this tragedy would not have occurred. I am grateful that the Minister has come along today, and I know that, if time allows, he will meet the family. On their behalf, may I extend to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, their thanks for allowing me to address the House in this way? In short, they are very keen to ensure that John McGrath did not die in vain.
The report contains many recommendations. The NHS trust in Nottinghamshire, Nottinghamshire Healthcare, assures me that it has learned many lessons and has said the failings identified that will not happen again, as a result of the recommendations that it is determined to implement. However, through this debate, I want on behalf of the family to ensure that everyone—every team, every trust, every authority—not only reads the report, but understands the failings that it identified and is made aware of the recommendations that it contains, in order to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
I will quote from the report in time, but I would like to begin by talking briefly about John McGrath. John earned the nickname Dr John, because of his kindness and his willingness to help anyone who came his way, in any way that he could. At the time of his death he was almost 82, and he and Mabel lived in Stapleford, a small town in my constituency. William was the son of their youngest daughter Kathleen. The couple had three other children, all of whom are in the Public Gallery today, as is Mabel. Her other grandchildren, and William’s sister and her boyfriend are also here.
As the report says, William Barnard is part of a large and supportive extended family, who played a significant role in providing care for him under extremely difficult circumstances. I have met the family and they are remarkable. They are an example to us all of the sort of love and support that we wish we could all enjoy. They are good people. Indeed, it is perhaps testimony to the sort of people the family are that they have come to this place today with a file containing other cases—cases that I know will cause the Minister great concern, as they concern us all—cases of other people who were meant to be in the care of mental health teams and workers, but who unfortunately did not receive the care and support that they should have had, and either killed or injured other people. I know that the Minister will take that dossier and read it.
It is because of the love and support within that family that they have always had great concern for William, to whom I want briefly to turn. In his late teens, he began to exhibit signs of a serious mental illness. He spoke to his mother, who at that time was training to be a nurse. She knew that there was a problem, and together they engaged with mental health services. Again, I will not go into all the detail—the appendix to the report makes clear some of their dealings with mental health services—but it is clear that, from 2002, he exhibited many of the symptoms of a serious mental illness. That, if I may say so, was clear for all to see.
I am no expert, but if I may say so, in 2007 William was exhibiting some of the stereotypical behaviours of somebody in need of serious help and assistance. There were a number of unfortunately very typical symptoms shown by people who experience such an illness, but the important features included a non-engagement with, and suspicion of, mental health care workers and their team. There was also a lot of evidence that William was at great risk of inflicting serious harm to himself through self-neglect. I would say that there were also features—I have read about them in the appendix—that should certainly have caused those responsible for his care to be alerted to a potential risk to other people.
Today I was shown a photograph of Will, as he was known by his family, from when he was well. He was described by his family to me as a gentle giant, and in the photograph—I am sure that the family and he will forgive me for saying this—one can see a rather chubby-faced young man, and he is smiling. He looks happy, and he is clearly well. That stands in sharp contrast to the photograph that has appeared in some of the local papers—understandably so—of William on his arrest. In that photograph, he is a gaunt, haunted young man. That just shows how his illness had affected him.
In 2007 going into 2008, William was sectioned, which was largely due to the efforts of his mother. Again, it was clear that he had a problem, with a lack of engagement with, and a great suspicion of, those charged with his care. Indeed, he escaped from hospital in Derby. He was, in effect, captured—again, it is thanks to the family that he was detained—and he returned to hospital, before being discharged in due course from that Mental Health Act order and returning to Stapleford, into his loving and caring family.
Because of the nature of William’s illness, he should have been looked after by the assertive outreach team. In my work as a criminal barrister, I have represented a number of people who have suffered from mental illness. I have come into contact with some of the people who work with people with mental health difficulties and serious mental illnesses, and I have not met one who did not have the most remarkable skills, and a commitment to the person in their charge. They perform a difficult job, and often struggle to resolve huge conflicts. The outreach team in this case was well staffed and well equipped. According to the report, its members were trained. So this was not one of those cases involving a pitiful lack of funding or staff, or any other such deficiency. There were enough people; that was not the problem. The problem was a lack of care and supervision. No one took responsibility for William’s care. According to the dossier that the family has handed to me, that is all too common a feature of these terrible tragedies.
In December 2008, William refused to take his medication. That is typical of people with these conditions. He did not take his medication for some seven months before the incident, and those charged with his care knew about that. There were 30 attempts to make contact, but they resulted in only four face-to-face meetings, some of which were only fleeting. For four months before the incident, he was not seen by any professional health team workers at all. There were, however, 11 recorded occasions on which the family contacted the assertive outreach team, and 13 other instances in which other people and agencies, including the pharmacist and even the police, contacted the team to express their genuine, well-founded concerns.
The report talks about an “excessive passivity” in the management of William’s case, and a lack of information and detailed knowledge. It describes a breakdown in the assertive outreach team’s function. Concern was expressed by some workers, and I do not seek in any way to go behind that. No doubt there were people who were there to look after William and who had concerns about him, but the lack of communication and the systemic failings meant that no positive action was taken. There was no proper analysis of the signs of William’s deterioration. According to the report, there was “confusion” and “inaction”, as well as ineffective leadership and absent leadership. The report is a damning indictment of what happened in this case. It reveals a systemic failure.
I want to give the House an example, which makes profoundly sad reading. On 20 April, a meeting was called to consider the information that had been placed before the team. It was decided that Will would be monitored for six weeks, after which time a further meeting would be held to reassess his case and to decide whether he should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. No one made a proper note of what was to happen, however; certainly, no one carried out any work. No review date was set, and there is no record of any action being taken. Worse still, perhaps, was the fact that no attempt was made to see Will for a month.
On 15 June, reports were received from the police and from the pharmacist, who, according to the report, did a remarkably good job of trying to get this young man the help he needed. There were also reports from the family. All kinds of alarm bells should have been ringing loudly at this point, but again, nothing was done or planned. On 24 July, Will was deemed to be an acute risk, not only to others but—most importantly, it could be said—to himself. There was another failed visit. Those who attended his flat saw blood on a door handle, and strange writings and other things on his door. All that clearly indicated that this young man was in desperate need of assistance. Again, his family was spoken to, and his grandfather spoke of his grave concern for the grandson he loved so much. And that grandson loved him and saw him very much as a father figure. A request for a Mental Health Act assessment to be carried out that very day, as it should have been, was turned down, and a decision was made to wait until the following Monday. By then, of course, it was too late, for it was on that very day that this dreadful incident took place.
The real question to be asked is, “What is to be done, and why are we in the House of Commons raising this matter?” We know that there is to be a report from the strategic health authority, and we look forward to reading its comments and recommendations. We believe that there will also be a coroner’s inquest report, as well as the report to which I have referred.
As I have said, lessons must be learnt, not just by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust—which has given me an assurance, for whose assistance I am grateful, and to whose representatives I have spoken at length—but throughout the country. We are keen to ensure that when reports such as this are produced, whatever tragedy they concern, it is not one of those cases in which all that happens is that someone says, “Yes, we will carry out all the recommendations.” Perhaps that is done for a short period, but there is no long-term, regular audit to ensure that everything that should have been put right has indeed been put right for the future.
The other thing that everyone wants is for families to be far more involved in the care of people like Will who mean so much to them. According to the report, there was a lack of interaction, and we want that to change. Of course there are some cases in which the family does not need to be involved, and of course there are real conflicts over the autonomy of a patient; but in this case, as in so many others, the people involved should have been listened to, and should have been involved to a greater extent. It could be said that William’s grandparents, Mabel and John, were themselves vulnerable people to whom a duty of care was owed. They should have been listened to, and they should have been involved.
As a result of an Act introduced by the last Administration, those who work with people who suffer from the sort of illness from which William Barnard suffered, and still suffers, have powers to enter homes. They also have powers to ensure that someone who should be taking medication and is not doing so can be “recalled”—a criminal barristers’ term—to hospital. I ask the Minister to ensure that everyone involved in local health services is aware of those powers and willing to use them, and that the assertive outreach teams that exist throughout the country do exactly what it says on the tin, and are assertive in their care and support.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Paul Burstow)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on securing what I think is her first Adjournment debate. Adjournment debates provide an opportunity for issues such as this to be debated in the House, and for the Government to account for what they are responsible for and ensure that others do the same. It is entirely appropriate for such a tragic and distressing case to be raised in an Adjournment debate.
Our thoughts must go first to the family whose lives have been turned upside down by this devastating incident. I offer them my deepest sympathies. As my hon. Friend said, members of the family are in the Gallery listening to the debate, and I look forward to meeting them afterwards and discussing the case with them directly. I fully understand their desire to ensure that something positive comes out of this terrible tragedy. As my hon. Friend said, our priority now is to ensure that the NHS learns from the incident, at a local and also, where appropriate, at a national level. I have asked my officials to look carefully at the issues raised by the case as they consider the future direction of mental health policy.
I shall say a little more about the national context later, but let me begin by focusing on the local issues. As my hon. Friend explained, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust launched an internal investigation, which reported in April. It is a frank and honest account of what went wrong, and it gives the local NHS a good basis on which to improve the safety and effectiveness of its mental health teams. All that precedes the full external and independent investigation that the strategic health authority will commission in the near future. The trust has assured me that since the internal report came out it has taken active steps to address the weaknesses identified. It tells me that it is improving records management, strengthening communication between teams and reviewing its policy and procedures for assertive outreach. It is also addressing the way that mental health teams assess and manage risk, as well as looking at leadership issues and how they manage a patient's condition over the long term.
In addition, the trust has reviewed the cases of every patient using assertive outreach services to ensure that their care is not being compromised by the same failings. It has commissioned an external review of its assertive outreach teams, which is due to report in a fortnight. I have been reassured that the trust's board will examine the findings and respond swiftly and diligently to them. My hon. Friend and I would agree that all that work must feed directly through into better and safer practice on the ground. Crafting objectives and principles is one thing; achieving tangible improvements to practice is quite another.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the issues of strong leadership and clear lines of responsibility in assertive outreach teams. I can tell her that what should happen is that every assertive outreach patient has a named care co-ordinator. The co-ordinator takes overall responsibility for the appropriate assessment, care and review of the patient. There is no nationally prescribed model for who must take on that responsibility. I do not think that it is sensible to start prescribing how local teams are structured or run through a mandatory code. After all, patients’ needs will differ, and so will local circumstances.
However, there must be clarity. Everyone should know who is responsible for what, and people should be properly qualified, skilled and supported to discharge their responsibilities. The trust accepts that point. It tells me that it has set out a clear process for responding to service users who have not adhered to the agreed level of contact. Team managers are now responsible for monitoring that. I also understand that a risk assessment expert has spent a week with the assertive outreach team and is now developing a risk training programme for all staff. That training will be delivered in October.
Building on that point, I have also asked the trust about its quality assurance procedures. Assertive outreach obviously depends on strong relationships across different teams. That can be hampered if people change jobs, or if the continuity is broken in some other way, so the right quality assurance process is vital. Change has to be embedded within the organisation through regular and robust assessment of the competency of assertive outreach teams. In this regard, the trust tells me that it has improved clinical and managerial supervision as well as its performance management arrangements. For instance, attendance at multidisciplinary team meetings is now compulsory for anyone involved in a patient's care. Team managers now carefully monitor attendance at these meetings, and ensure that all actions coming out of the meetings are properly followed up.
I am keen that lessons from this tragedy are shared and absorbed by the rest of the NHS. In our White Paper, we talk about an NHS freed from the endless succession of top-down mandates and departmental circulars. That is the right approach. We want to replace command and control with much stronger local accountability, with councils in particular taking a much stronger role in working with the NHS and holding it to account. We have also said that the NHS will focus much more on achieving better outcomes; there is a debate to be had about what those outcome measures will be. A consultation is happening over the summer, and outcomes for mental health patients will form part of those discussions.
However, cutting the Whitehall apron strings does not mean abandoning our duties to look at local incidents and consider national repercussions. I will not pre-judge the external investigation. My hon. Friend would not expect me to do that, but I can tell her that the external investigation will be sent to the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicides and Homicides by People with Mental Illness as a matter of course. The inquiry team will consider the findings as part of its regular reviews of homicide investigations. The National Patient Safety Authority would respond to any points of national concern raised by the independent investigation.
In addition, my hon. Friend may be aware that the NHS already flags patient safety incidents via the NPSA’s national reporting and learning service, and if a trend or pattern emerges the NRLS can issue an alert to all relevant providers. Those alerts would give advice to the NHS on how to prevent such events from occurring.
My officials have contacted the NPSA about the specifics of this incident and it says no similar problems affecting other assertive outreach teams have been reported to it. Therefore, I will be particularly interested to see the dossier of evidence and I will follow that through.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
This incident was very movingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I do not think it is an isolated incident—I think it has happened elsewhere around the country. Can the Minister give an assurance that the lessons from this case will be learned across the country and that it will change the way things are done in the future?
Mr Burstow
In terms of the systems as they work now, we will do all we can to make sure that that learning is embedded, but I am concerned that my inquiries today have shown that the NPSA was not aware of this dossier and I will therefore look into that, and look at the dossier itself in order to see what it can teach us.
However, I want to reassure both hon. Ladies—and other Members—that if the independent investigation were to make recommendations with national implications, we would look at them very closely and make sure they were translated into action and learning around the country.
Let me end by saying that mental health professionals have an extremely difficult and challenging role; the hon. Member for Broxtowe was right to acknowledge that. The judgments they make are often finely balanced, and the risks they shoulder are considerable. Most professionals are doing an excellent job, and we ought to acknowledge that while also being concerned where practice falls short, but sometimes there are failures in care that could and should have been avoided. Tragedies like the case of John McGrath demonstrate the need for constant vigilance, scrutiny and self-improvement.
When such tragedies do happen, it is vital that all responsible authorities, both local and national, are honest about the weaknesses and diligent about putting things right for the future. Like the hon. Lady, I will take a close personal interest in the independent investigation and the coroner’s report. I want to ensure that this incident leads to improvements, because that is probably the only consolation that can come from such a tragedy.
That is my message to the McGrath family and the hon. Lady who has secured the debate tonight. I look forward to meeting the family shortly to discuss these matters further and to working with colleagues across the House to make sure our mental health services protect and give good quality care for people with mental health needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Lady Forester Community Nursing Home and Forester's Court
Westminster Hall
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
National Lottery Reform
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to have the opportunity to address Members on what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a British success story—the national lottery. It was set up under the previous Conservative Government in 1994 and has continued ever since, with some ups and downs, to perform an extremely valued job across the country. It has become an integral part of Britain’s national life, principally because it gives so much to good causes. The figures are truly remarkable. Since it was set up 16 years ago, the national lottery has given more than £24 billion to good causes and funded more than 345,000 projects. I doubt that there is an MP in the current Parliament, and certainly in previous Parliaments, who could not tell stories of how those donations and projects have transformed the lives of some of their constituents. That is the case in every constituency across the country, from Lands End to John O’Groats. That is a measure of the national lottery’s success and of how it has worked its way into the marrow of the nation’s bones.
It is important to remember that one of the founding principles of the national lottery was additionality—an arcane piece of Whitehall jargon that means something very important. It means that national lottery funding for good causes needs to be in addition to core Government spending; it should not be used to subsidise or replace Government spending but should go to causes that would not otherwise receive funding. That is essential, because the four areas to which it gives money—heritage, sport, culture and what is now called the big society—all go to making the soul of the country work. They go to make Britain a better place to live in, rather than just somewhere that works okay. We would all be impoverished and diminished if the national lottery did not fund those things, and that is why it has become an accepted part of our national life. That demonstrates how successful and loved the national lottery and the projects that it funds have become.
Not to say that the national lottery is perfect. In the 16 years since it was set up, the world has moved on. It would be irresponsible for any Government, particularly a newly elected one, not to run over the figures with a slide rule and look at whether some things could be improved. The national lottery might be doing a vast amount right, much of which is tremendously valued, but can we give the tiller some small tweaks to improve what is already excellent?
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions small tweaks, and what immediately springs to my mind are the small charities in my constituency, many of which have difficulty planning, sometimes even for the next year, because of the short-term way in which decisions on lottery funding pan out. When charities are turned down for funding, the reasons for the decision often seem inexplicable. That is especially true for small charities, which sometimes suspect that there is an element of fashion in the funding decisions and conclude that they are not in fashion that year and so are left to go to the wall.
John Penrose
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and make two points in response. First, it is always open to the distribution agents to award grants that can be disbursed over a period of time, sometimes several years, so that longer-term projects can be funded, and they do that already. It does not always happen that way, so I take her point. Also, the grant-giving bodies are sensibly at arm’s length from political interference, and I suspect that all Members, regardless of their party, would applaud the principle that we do not want any politicians to be able to direct or interfere with the grant-giving process, because that way lies political favouritism.
Secondly, if my hon. Friend feels that there are clear examples of funding being granted according to fashion and the direction of prevailing winds, I encourage her to write to me. I would take that evidence to the lottery distribution bodies, following the principle of an arm’s-length approach, to ensure that they are protecting themselves against such accusations so that a Minister, either me or my successors, does not take that up in the wrong way.
There are a number of things we can do to move the lottery on after 16 years. There is much to be applauded, valued, maintained and preserved in its current arrangements, but perhaps some things could be updated a little. The coalition Government have laid out a reasonable programme for that. For example, we want to examine the case for instituting a gross profits tax approach to the lottery. The lottery would be allowed to flex the rate at which it offers prizes and, in exchange, could drive up participation and ticket sales. The benefit would be that it could then win more money that could be disbursed to good causes. There are several important concerns about that proposal to be dealt with, not least the fact that the Treasury rightly wants to ensure that taxpayers, as well as good causes, are not disadvantaged. We have pledged to examine that, but good examples and interesting evidence from other gaming organisations indicate that that could be a productive and effective change, so we are looking at it seriously.
We want to reform the national lottery so that the arts, heritage and sport receive 20% of the money that goes to good causes, which was the original intention. In recent years, the funding for those areas has been cut, understandably, so that more can go to the Olympics, so their share is now down to 16.66%. We want to raise it to 20% again so that those important areas of our national life receive more of the cash. Given current projections, each of those areas would receive roughly £50 million a year extra as a result of that change. I am sure that Members from all parties would applaud that, as it clearly means that the benefits are being spread more widely.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the arts, and we have all heard of the cuts of up to 40% that are being planned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. To what extent does he expect that the increased lottery funding for the arts will simply replace grants withdrawn by DCMS?
John Penrose
As I have said, an important principle at the heart of the national lottery is additionality, which should already be enshrined in the grants that DCMS makes and that the relevant national lottery distributors make, so there should be a firewall between the two. We must ensure that any proposed changes do not breach that firewall or that principle. All Ministers in the Department are trying to ensure that we do not breach that principle as we grapple, along with Ministers in other Departments, with the problems of dealing with the spending review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others like him will scrutinise closely any announcements that are made to ensure that we are true to our word. I can assure him that we are being scrupulously careful about that.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Minister will appreciate that he told only part of the story on moneys being transferred to the Olympics, because from the mid-1990s significant moneys went into the millennium fund, which came to an end shortly after the turn of the century. Many of us have been concerned for some time about the emergence of the Big Lottery Fund. There seems to be a grey area in relation to political interference and additionality, because moneys have been going into a range of projects related to health and education that many people feel should be, and probably in the past were, funded through general taxation. Will the Minister pledge to ensure that the Big Lottery Fund as it currently stands will be diminished, if not abolished, so that the arts, heritage and sport can be restored to their former glory?
John Penrose
I am afraid that I cannot pledge to abolish the Big Lottery Fund, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we share his concern about question marks over some of the donations from the Big Lottery Fund to individual projects in the past 10 years, and we are determined to ensure that such questions should not be asked in future. It is vital that Big continues to donate to the voluntary and community sector—it is an essential piece of the Government’s agenda for the big society, as a way of building up and maintaining the kind of voluntary and local community action that is central to the Government’s vision. Big, if managed properly and in the pure form we hope to get it in, has a tremendously important future. It will be refocused, sharpened and—if I may put it like that—purified, to match an agenda such as he has set out.
John Penrose
I have to confess that we have not discussed the notion of the label on the door in any great detail so far. I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion and am sure that it will be taken on board.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to hear the Minister talking about the need for consistency and predictability. No one could argue with his wish to refresh the funds and to consider whether they are meeting the intended targets. However, the rebalancing of the arrangements for the Big Lottery Fund in particular would have an impact on the distribution of funds which, at the moment, is needs based, ensuring that funds go to individuals and communities in greatest need. Can he reassure us about that? Wales in particular has fears that a reduction in the amount of money going through the Big Lottery Fund would reduce the overall level going to Wales. It would be wonderful if the Minister could set that fear at rest.
John Penrose
I am delighted to be able to help the right hon. Gentleman out here, and I hope to provide the reassurance that he is seeking.
We will be phasing in the share changes. Currently, they start from a 16.66% share, and we will raise them to 20% each over the course of the next two years. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in two years the Olympic top slice of lottery funding will come to an end. Therefore, although Big’s share will fall from 50% today to 40% in two years’ time, it will be a smaller slice of a much larger pie, because the Olympic funds will then be part of the whole. As a result, if he does the calculations, he should see a steady increase in cash terms for Big as well as for the other good causes. That is certainly shown by all the figures that I have seen. That outcome is important, which is why we have phased the changes to match the end of the Olympic funding.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
Going back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), if arts bodies suffer a loss of grant as a consequence of the cuts by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will they be able to apply to the lottery to make good that loss?
John Penrose
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that anyone is free to apply, but the real question is whether that application is successful. The test that I expect any lottery grant-giving operation would apply is whether the application matches its terms and conditions and fits the limitations that it can impose on funding. I expect that a fund would look very carefully at a straight one-for-one comparison, because it would be very concerned about breaching additionality. I know that lottery fund grant distributors are alive to that issue.
I go back to the response that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) a little while ago—because such operations are at arm’s length, it is rather difficult for any Minister to predict or suggest too strongly what they will do. The decision, after all, is theirs, but I imagine that they would look at such issues tremendously closely.
Paul Farrelly
The Big Lottery Fund is an important body. Many groups will take some comfort from the fact that the Government have no intention to abolish or substantially diminish it—turning it into a small society fund, in effect. In my constituency, the Big Lottery Fund has never been criticised for being politically correct or for making grants to bodies other than the thoroughly worth while. It has made grants of £3.8 million in my constituency since 2004.
One of my proudest moments in the previous Parliament was working with the lottery to get a £500,000 grant for the Peter Pan special needs nursery, which cares for profoundly disabled children from birth. The grant allows the nursery to operate comfortably for five years, giving it a secure future. I hope that such projects will continue to be funded and supported by the Big Lottery Fund, under whatever name the Government chooses in the future.
John Penrose
I completely agree with and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the enormous amount of good will and love for how the lottery distributors have managed to fund all sorts of important good causes ever since the lottery began.
My party has criticised the fund in a small number of cases which, none the less, are important because of the risk to the reputation of the lottery. I do not want to go into huge detail now, unless pressed or provoked, but additionality was the issue on a number of occasions, potentially leaving the way open to damage of the lottery’s reputation. None of us would want that to be a possibility even. It is important for the lottery to be like Caesar’s wife and seen to be above reproach.
I will give way once more, but then I must make progress, because other people want to speak.
Mr Field
I would like to reiterate the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—he is right. A small number of individual cases have been the subject of a hue and cry in the tabloid press. I once shadowed this role, as the Minister knows, and the point that I would like to make is more philosophical—it is about additionality.
One concern, worthy though much of the work is, is that perhaps the work funded by the lottery is taken out of the health, education or other government budgets. At the outset, the very idea of the national lottery was to provide additional money in areas that would otherwise not qualify for taxpayers’ money, that are not run of the mill. Especially in such fraught economic times, which we have not seen in the past decade and a half, the danger remains that, however worthy many of the Big Lottery Fund’s projects might be, we are essentially denuding arts, sports and heritage projects of money that they would otherwise receive.
John Penrose
I completely take my hon. Friend’s point. I come back to the point that distributors such as the Heritage Lottery Fund—one of the lottery distributors that I am particularly involved with—are required at the end of every year to sign a piece of paper saying that they have satisfied the principles of additionality. The chief executive signs that piece of paper, taking personal responsibility. I am sure that that test will be applied to all the lottery distributors. Even if it was not part of the audit trail, if I may put it that way, I am sure that all hon. Members would want to make sure that it is maintained.
I want to move on quickly, because I am conscious of time and I want to leave time for other contributions.
I have mentioned a number of things that we would like to change, update and alter. I will mention one more. We want to ensure that the lottery distributors are a little more efficient and effective at distributing the cash at a lower cost. All of us are conscious that we live in an age of austerity. We all know that we are having to tighten our belts. We all know that we are all in this together—to coin a phrase—and we have to make sure that we are doing more with less. It is reasonable to ask the lottery distributors to ensure that they are as efficient as possible in distributing funds so that the largest possible proportion of the money reaches the good causes for which it is intended.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Would the Minister agree that the Big Lottery Fund is currently the most efficient of the distributors?
John Penrose
I would love to agree with the hon. Lady, but the difficulty at the moment is that the data are extremely—
John Penrose
I shall pick up where I left off when we vanished to do our democratic duty in the Lobby. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun had asked whether the Big Lottery Fund was the most efficient of the disbursing organisations. I was saying that nobody is sure which of them is the most efficient, mainly because they all illustrate their figures and report their numbers on slightly different bases. It is therefore difficult to ensure that we are comparing apples with apples when working out what their stated percentage of the funds disbursed is taken up in costs.
To reassure the hon. Lady, I have set the lottery disbursing organisations the challenge of agreeing a common set of reporting standards, so they all show their numbers in the same way, enabling us to make a direct comparison. We then need to ask whether those figures can be reduced and whether we can start to disburse the funds to good causes more efficiently and cheaply, to ensure that more money gets to the front line and reaches the people for whom it is intended.
There may be some legitimate reasons for variation: for example, at the moment the Olympic Lottery Distributor is one of the most efficient because it only has to distribute funds to one organisation, which is comparatively simple, administratively speaking—I am not saying that it is simple all round—whereas Big distributes to a very large number of smaller organisations. There may be legitimate reasons for differentials, but we need clear data, at least, telling us how to compare the distributors and that like-for-like comparisons are safe, and then we need to start looking for ways to reduce costs.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Many small community organisations applying for funding are frustrated because the system is bureaucratic and they require a huge amount of advice and support. Often, mentors are allocated to such organisations to assist them through the process. Are the Government considering simplifying the procedure, particularly for small voluntary organisations seeking support?
John Penrose
The hon. Lady is right to mention that the administrative costs of disbursement do not fall only on the lottery distributors, although that is clearly part of the process; they also fall on applicants, and the more complicated the process, the larger the costs that fall on them. I expect lottery distributors that are trying to re-engineer their internal processes to make themselves more efficient to consider the entire system cost. I am waiting to see what they come back with and how they think they will react, but I suspect that they understand the importance of ensuring that more money gets to the front line, to be used in the right way. I am sure that they will want to do that without my telling them, because they will hear about it from the people they are disbursing the money to.
I hope that I have, through the highways and byways of various interventions and questions, illustrated some of my points. I hope that I have set out not only the Government’s position on the national lottery, which is that we can all be proud of it and we want to maintain, preserve and enhance it in future, but that there are a number of aspects that can and should be improved. The world has moved on in the 15 or 16 years since the lottery was set up and certain developments are needed. I look forward to hearing comments from hon. Members from all parties and, given the chance, to responding to them.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I declare that I am a trustee of the Barony ‘A’ Frame Trust, which has had substantial funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. I also stand here as a an arts graduate from the Glasgow school of art and Goldsmiths, university of London, so far be it from me ever to suggest that money is not well invested in the arts. I have also been an active supporter of a number of heritage projects in my area and across Scotland, and I stress my support for them. However, I am concerned about the proposals outlined by the Government, because there are general implications for some of our more disadvantaged communities, which, although they were not given special treatment under the previous arrangements, were at least recognised. I also want to raise interests specifically relating to Scotland.
First, let me pick up on the question about efficiency. As the Minister recognised, it is possible in theory for an organisation that simply disburses funds to a small number of large projects to be relatively efficient. He rightly accepted—I was glad to hear it—that the Big Lottery Fund, which deals with a large number of small grants and assesses many different proposals, might not, on the face of it, look so efficient. I understand, however, the Big Lottery Fund itself believes that it has got efficiency down to a fine art and that it is able get the best value for money.
Another important point, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), is that many of the small organisations that apply for funds require support in capacity building; they do not have the infrastructure to produce business plans or elaborate proposals to sustain themselves as organisations over months and sometimes years in order to secure funding, given that many use a cocktail of funding from different sources. It is therefore important to recognise that the Big Lottery Fund’s overheads are not simply about administrative costs, but about capacity building and support costs. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to that, and I hope that he can give further reassurance that that will be taken into account.
I mentioned that I share some of the general concerns about the Big Lottery Fund. I am particularly worried about the aspect of additionality. We have not yet heard fully how it will be assessed. I have heard people express concerns about how cuts in departmental budgets for arts and heritage projects and moving Big Lottery Fund money into such projects will inevitably result in things that were previously funded by the Government taking lottery money away from smaller organisations that would otherwise have benefited.
The Minister talked about projects in the grey areas that should perhaps not have been funded. I am not entirely persuaded that we had answers on that, either. At a time when local government and other parts of the public sector are feeling the squeeze, I am not sure that the Minister has given a compelling explanation of how local authorities will be able to fill the gaps that will be created if the lottery funding stream is taken away from local communities.
I am particularly concerned about schools and other parent-led organisations in local communities. On the face of it, an application from a school might look like something that the local authority should deal with, but it might in fact be a matter of a group of parents working with a school to provide activities after school—after-school clubs are an obvious example, but I have also seen eco-garden projects in schools in my constituency, which are linked to improving the local environment. Other projects have provided children and young people with sporting opportunities which they might not otherwise have had. That has not been fully addressed.
There is a particular issue in Scotland. Scotland receives 11.5% of the total Big income in the UK. That is because the income is apportioned by applying the Barnett formula plus a weighting for deprivation to recognise the particular circumstances in Scotland, but it is my understanding that none of the other lottery distributors reflects that. Any change in the shares is therefore likely to result in an overall net loss of available lottery funding in Scotland, which is a concern for me. I appreciate that the Minister has tried to give me some assurance on that, but can he guarantee that Scotland will not lose out as a result of the changes, when it is secure under the current regime?
John Penrose
I will not interrupt many speeches, but the hon. Lady asks a direct question and I thought that I might be able help. As I am sure she would expect, we have done some calculations. Last year, the Big Lottery Fund’s total income was £564 million, so 92%—the percentage that Big says it gave to voluntary and community services last year—works out at £520 million. With a 40% share, the projection for Big for 2013-14—after the Olympic transfers end—is £630 million. We are therefore comparing £520 million with £630 million, so the hon. Lady will see that there is a large increase UK-wide. If we apply that to Scotland, the figures for Big come out at £54 million beforehand and £65 million afterwards. The result should therefore be a net cash increase, which I hope reassures the hon. Lady.
Cathy Jamieson
That is a reassurance. I will watch the matter with great interest and no doubt scrutinise the figures in more detail when I have time.
Another issue that concerns me is the proposals to restrict lottery funding 100% to the voluntary and community sector, which will have a real impact on schools and other organisations. About 90% of the funding already goes in that direction, so what is the point of cutting that 10%—the very small grants to very local organisations that really benefit from them? When I looked at where the money went in my constituency, I discovered that many of those small grants are linked to things such as arts projects—for example, a dance project in a special needs school—or community arts. It might include things such as local community councils being able to apply to put their Christmas lights up or to decorate the village for festivals. These things might not seem important in the global scheme of things when people are looking at very large sums, but a few hundred pounds can make a difference to the quality of life of people in such communities. Similarly, many of the relatively small grants were going to projects that involved getting young people actively involved in sport.
I hope that the proposals can be looked at again in full, because they may have unintended consequences. I say that as gently as I can, which is not my usual style. I am usually a bit more robust, but I am trying to say very gently that there may be unintended consequences, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that he will go back, look at the issue again and seek to ensure that there is proper consultation with communities.
Many organisations have had funding from the Big Lottery Fund and the relatively small grants to them have had a big impact. I do not want us to get into a situation where Awards for All becomes awards for some. Everyone in local communities should have the opportunity to have their say. Will the Minister address that point when he winds up the debate, and will he consider how communities and organisations that have received grants will be consulted?
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I am grateful to have been called in what is clearly an important debate. I will be outlining the Liberal Democrat position on the reforms in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who could not be with us today. Before I do that, however, I want to acknowledge how incredibly valuable lottery money is.
When I think of the odds of winning the lottery, a saying comes to mind: “Don’t bet on the lottery, bet on yourself.” However, the fantastic thing about the national lottery is that that is exactly what it allows us to do; it contributes hugely to the things that allow us to better ourselves as individuals, as members of our local communities and as a country.
The various arts councils contribute to the UK’s artistic culture, which is one of the most exciting in the world. Our arts help to drive our immensely successful creative industries. However, they also nourish the inner life of everybody who engages with them. The sports distributors support activities that improve health and longevity. They promote not only self-esteem and the drive to succeed as individuals, but teamwork and co-operation.
As a country we have been bequeathed a physical heritage that is part of our national character, which the Heritage Lottery Fund helps to maintain. It also helps to preserve our local identity. In St. Austell, the Heritage Lottery Fund has provided £850,000 to regenerate the china clay museum where I worked before being sent by my constituents to this place. The museum celebrates the history of the china clay mining communities in the heart of Cornwall and provides a fascinating insight into how the industry changed and shaped the environment that I represent.
I recently attended the opening of a local art exhibition on the theme of Newquay and the sea, a display of 19th century paintings, many of which were owned or created by local people. That also benefited from £10,000 of Heritage Lottery Fund assistance. Through Big, lottery funding is directed to a host of other community groups and volunteers working on all manner of important projects. There are other benefits from promoting all those good causes and organisations—far more than I can list here—which work very hard. Indeed, as the Minister said, we have all benefited from the £24 billion that the lottery has generated for them since its creation. That does not mean that improvements cannot be made, and the coalition Government are right to look at ways to make the most of lottery money.
The lottery reforms, as has been mentioned, will lead to a boost in funding for the arts, heritage and sport. The relevant distributors have welcomed the changes. The Minister will be aware that no one funding stream can completely replace another: £1 million of public money is not the same as £1 million of private money, and £1 million of lottery money is something else again. There are plans to boost private donations for the arts, for instance, and that is welcome, but we must still try to ensure that risky projects, smaller groups and organisations based outside London, such as in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) or, indeed, in the south-west, all of which may be less appealing to private donors, do not miss out in the reforms. We must remain aware that sometimes funding is conditional. Money is offered from one source only because another has signed up, and if one goes there is a risk the other will also be withdrawn.
Therefore, the boost in lottery funding will not be a panacea, but it is still an important step. To make the most of it we need to ensure that cuts will not be implemented immediately, but phased in gradually. I understand that statutory instruments to enact changes to lottery distribution will be laid in September, according to recently published DCMS plans, but it will be 2012 before distributors receive their full 20% of good cause funding. Bearing in mind that £88 million of cuts have already been found this year, our side of the coalition would like reassurances that spending reductions will be restrained until that money comes into play. As the Minister said, the money that was redirected towards the Olympics will also start to find its way back, and will provide some relief; but we seek further reassurances.
The coalition agreement contains a promise to look more closely at a gross profits tax system for the lottery. Camelot’s figures showed that that would generate many millions of pounds of extra income for the Exchequer, but there has been little movement since the coalition agreement was published, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what recent discussions have taken place with the Chancellor about gross profits tax, and when we can expect further announcements. Overall, we want greater urgency from the Government on those points. Most importantly, I urge the Department not to front-load the cuts but, instead, to phase them in, so that they begin to bite only when the new funding sources that I have mentioned become available.
That brings me to the matter of how we handle cuts to administration. Under current plans, lottery distributors will be instructed to reduce their spending on admin to below 5%. It is of course right to make the most of limited funds and ensure that they are spent as efficiently as possible, but, again, such cuts need to be implemented intelligently. As other hon. Members have said, and distributors have made clear in representations to us, distributors are not just banks doling out large sums of money. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee, in a report in 2008, considered the efficiency of grant making and said:
“The Big Lottery Fund has increased the spread of successful applications across the United Kingdom and from different social groups”.
The report goes on to stress the importance of making funding available to small organisations, and stimulating higher-quality applications. To provide the support needed to make that happen, distributors need dedicated backroom staff. Such staff should be seen as valuable assets, not unnecessary paper-pushers.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It would be helpful to hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman would explain when the Liberal Democrats changed their policy from their manifesto commitment of protecting spending on arts and culture, which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) repeated ad nauseam before the election, to their present supine acquiescence in what are likely to be savage cuts by the coalition Government.
Stephen Gilbert
The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who left the country in a situation that meant that some difficult choices had to be made in the negotiations between the two coalition parties. If he lets me finish my remarks he will see that I am trying to encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to make the changes as softly as possible.
Backroom staff should be seen as valuable contributors to building the capacity of the sector. Even if a small organisation does not eventually succeed in securing a grant, the recommendations that a distributor makes can improve the operation that it is advising. The risk is that distributors will have to make a few large grants because making lots of small grants becomes too expensive. Small organisations should not lose out as a result of cuts. For that reason, such “hand-holding” should not fall within the definition of administration; I should be grateful if the Minister would address that point.
I have mentioned the PAC’s assessment of Big and its valuable work. My constituency has benefited from around £4.5 million in Big awards since 2004. Some of them are as large as the £1 million given to the Eden project; others are as small as the few hundred pounds offered to war veterans, their families and their carers, so that they could travel to memorial services or the places where they saw active service. There are already many deprived communities around the country and the challenges that they face will not get any easier as we try to get a grip on the country’s miserable financial situation—an unwelcome gift from the previous Administration. Big, and the organisations that it supports, will have an important role in creating opportunities and making such places better places to live. I note that some have received more money than others in the past, and that some—including places in my own constituency—are much more deprived than others. I urge Big to rise to that challenge, and funnel money where it is most needed.
Overall, I welcome the Government’s intention to prevent abuses of lottery money. Lottery funding is not a piggy bank to be dipped into to plug Government spending or fund ministerial pet projects. However, we are concerned that limiting Big to funding the voluntary and community sector only could mean that a lot of good projects miss out. There are concerns that individuals could no longer be funded—such as the veterans I mentioned from my constituency, who were helped by the “Heroes Return” scheme. Sometimes a statutory body, such as a parish council, or a school, may be better placed to implement a project. If the aim, for example, is to reduce antisocial behaviour, and a school can do that by putting on after-school activities, why not give the money to the organisation that is best placed to do that? Biscovey junior school in my constituency received an award to do just that by involving older boys in its choir.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, but is there not a risk that when organisations, such as schools with after-school clubs, try to do more and more activities, it will start to dilute their original purpose? The same is true of a parish council. Perhaps instead voluntary organisations could be allowed into that area to provide different solutions, rather than dealing with things in a state-controlled environment.
Stephen Gilbert
It depends on one’s understanding of the big society. My understanding is that we should be encouraging more groups and individuals to participate in creating vibrant, thriving communities; it will depend on the organisations.
I have talked about the need not to exclude the groups that are best able to carry out projects from receiving the money. There are relevant groups benefiting from the 8% of Big funding that does not go to the voluntary and community sector. It makes sense to make the most of what they can offer, rather than shutting them out completely. We might consider some kind of community benefit test. That would achieve our goal of ensuring that lottery money is not being used to plug gaps in local service budgets—I think that was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) was making—but would still allow Big to fund projects that clearly benefit the community, even if the funding goes to a statutory body, a social enterprise, or an individual. It would have the added advantage of future-proofing Big. When the lottery was first created, we did not anticipate the increasing importance of social enterprises. It is important that any restrictions on Big are flexible enough to enable it quickly to embrace future innovations and changes. I welcome the recent announcements about the big society bank, which will work to enable similar projects, but it seems worth giving the Big Lottery Fund the flexibility also to fund projects in its own way.
There are concerns that voluntary and community organisations could see a reduction in the amount of funding that they receive if Big has its funding capped at 40%. Currently, it receives 50% of all good cause money, of which 46% goes to VCOs. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurances on this matter, as well as considering the other suggestions that I have made.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I chair the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, and it is particularly pleasing to see in the new Parliament new Members on both sides of the House taking a real interest in the issues affecting that sector, as well as volunteering and charities. I suspect that that will be reflected further in this debate. I welcome the consultation and opportunity to debate how the lottery funds should be redistributed after the Olympics, when additional elasticity is provided in the way the Minister described. I am certain that restoring the levels of funding for sports, arts and heritage will be important for the next decade.
Responding to a comment by a Government Member, I have to say that I do not accept that either the extent of the cuts in Government expenditure or the precipitate nature of the cuts, which puts private sector growth at risk, is necessary. All the parties certainly knew that we were facing difficult financial circumstances, and that was reflected in what was said in advance of the election by my party. The Liberal Democrats in particular cannot abandon almost everything that they said in the run-up to the election using the excuse that they had somehow failed to notice an international crisis that was affecting our national finances. They put up a set of propositions in the light of well known financial circumstances and were clearly cavalier in what they said, not expecting to be in a position of having to make decisions in government.
One problem is that the precipitate nature of some of the cuts is damaging to some of the poorest communities throughout the country. For example, in Wales, dependence on employment in the public sector is higher than in many other parts of the United Kingdom. That means that public sector cuts are likely to undermine the capacity of private businesses, particularly small businesses that serve the community, when money is extracted from those economies. We must treat that seriously. I make those comments not to stir up controversy with the Minister, but to correct the excuses that were offered by his Back Benchers.
It is certain that lottery money will be important in giving funds to important activities and in many cases attracting additional funding from other sources. I applaud the Minister’s response on the importance of maintaining additionality. It will be philosophically difficult to maintain that when funding is sought for good projects that will provide value for money and for local communities; however, I think he has accepted the challenge to apply the right principles. It is important that that does not result in funds going only to communities that are better off and perhaps have the resources to prepare a good case for their projects.
Mr Andrew Smith
My right hon. Friend brings enormous expertise and experience to this debate. In relation to shaping the balance of national lottery allocations for the future, what does he think of the proposition that the views of the people who play the lottery, whose money ultimately funds those projects, should be taken more widely into account when deciding where the balance of priorities should be?
Alun Michael
There are two points to make, I think. First, those who play the lottery are contributing and should have something to say. Secondly, many of them are from more deprived communities and are less well off. I spoke to someone about the fact that many of those who play the lottery cannot afford to do so. A friend of mine who was representing a deprived community in my constituency made a good point when he said that the more deprived someone is, the more difficult it is to make ends meet and to provide for their families, so the more they need something to provide hope. The gamble and the likelihood of a return may not make sense, but they are buying a dream, not a ticket. If the way people buy that dream leads to a contribution that is likely to come back to their community and help people in similar situations, surely that principle should be pursued. That is a good way of introducing a point that I want to emphasise: a needs-based approach is important, and that has been the approach adopted by the Big Lottery Fund. I hope that it will continue.
The Minister made the point that we will be talking about the funds that go into the Big Lottery Fund being a smaller proportion of a larger sum, so there will at least be an increase in money terms, but I would prefer a greater proportion of increased funds to go to areas and communities with the greatest needs. That is the essence of a needs-based approach. It is not impossible to achieve it while pursuing the Minister’s objectives. For example, it might be a question of emphasising the importance of a needs-based approach to the other lottery funds. There is more than one way of achieving a specific outcome, but I hope that the Minister will undertake today to consider how best the needs-based approach can be protected within the new arrangements for the Big Lottery Fund, and perhaps the other funds.
The Big Lottery Fund formula for allocating funding within the United Kingdom—I believe that this applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as Wales—is based on need rather than population. Wales is likely to be worse off from any change in shares, unless that point is taken on board. The Minister has a pleasantly listening visage this afternoon, so I hope that he will take my points into account.
We need a larger proportion of a larger sum to go to the places in greatest need, but that does not necessarily apply only to the crude figures of the distribution between different lottery funds. The Big Lottery Fund distributes its money to charities, health, education and the environment, and its mission is to support people and communities in the most need. That is why I am concerned about the consultation. The Minister seems to have someone sitting behind him who specialises in shaking her head, but I have given a factual description of how the Big Lottery Fund works.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I am shaking my head because I completely and fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the whole debate, but if I am called to speak I will make precisely the opposite plea—that we get rid of the politically correct nonsense formula, and allow the lottery to be what it is: additional funding that celebrates communities throughout the country, not just more politically correct indices that the Labour Government dreamed up.
Alun Michael
I am glad that the hon. Lady has exposed her views, but I hope that the Minister will take a more intelligent approach to what I am saying. I am not talking about political correctness; I am talking about the difficulty of getting money to the most deprived communities that lack resources. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) pointed out, those are the communities that contribute most to the lottery because people are buying a dream.
The Big Lottery Fund has sought to enable such communities to develop the skills and contributions of individuals who often have a great deal to offer but struggle to do so. Often, the lack of an infrastructure as well as the lack of money in those communities acts as a considerable obstacle to bringing projects forward. I have worked in deprived communities in my city of Cardiff and within my own constituency. Those communities do not lack commitment or a degree of energy; what they lack is money and often a professional infrastructure among the people who live there, so they often find themselves at the end of the queue when projects are proposed.
Such communities often lack the capacity to produce big schemes, because planning, infrastructure and voluntary contributions by architects and so on can make a big difference to achieving projects that meet the criteria of the different lottery funds. I do not think that what I said is controversial. I thought that the Government were intent on creating a big society that involves the concept of inclusiveness. The hon. Lady is expressing the political correctness of the right in—if I may say so—a most unpleasant and worrying manner. I hope that we will hear later that that is not the view of the Government as a whole.
The Secretary of State stated his desire to protect the voluntary and community sector and proposed that the Big Lottery Fund should exclusively fund that sector. I am instinctively sympathetic to that approach because it is too easy for funds to slide into the public sector rather than the voluntary sector, where more effort is sometimes required. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), and I hope that the Minister will take care to leave some flexibility so that priority and preference is given to funding outcomes that will actually be delivered for the local community, while allowing some discretion for lateral thinking and for those communities that struggle to obtain the necessary infrastructure. At least I can agree with the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay on that. It is right to have tight criteria, but it also makes sense to have some flexibility.
I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the three essential principles laid down to underpin the national lottery will continue to apply. The first is the independence of the lottery distributors, which are independent of Government but accountable to Parliament and have the freedom to take decisions on funding priorities and specific grant allocations, after consultation. Second is the principle of additionality, which the Minister has already markedly underlined, and third is sustainability, meaning that lottery funding should cover the full cost of the activity being funded with the aim of helping organisations to deliver and sustain the project throughout and beyond the life of the grant.
I ask for care in portraying the national lottery as an efficient way of giving to charity. The Minister has said that the lottery raises considerable funds that go to charitable, voluntary and community purposes, and that is correct. However, it is fair to note that if gift aid is used, a £1 donation given directly to charity results in £1.23 for that charity, whereas only 28p in every £1 spent on the lottery goes to good causes. I make that point not to undermine the effectiveness of the lottery, but to suggest that if people want to give to a good cause, additional value is created by donating with gift aid and a greater sum will go to that good cause.
I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay about the danger of misunderstanding how administrative costs work. It does cost more to give funds to smaller and more community-based organisations, but often that funding will have a disproportionately large benefit in those communities. Small sums of money can sometimes attract other, greater, funds. When I was responsible for national parks, I set up funding through the sustainable development fund to encourage community-based projects within national parks, based on the principles of sustainable development. That led to millions of pounds of other money coming in from organisations such as parish councils, charities or from business donations and contributions from individuals who wanted to take part in a community project. It was beneficial because everybody could see the value of bonding together to produce positive outcomes that were good for the national parks and for the communities and voluntary organisations, such as youth clubs, that used them.
Sometimes the value of small grants is greater in terms of long-term impact than that of big sums of money. However, it takes more time and administrative effort to achieve those outcomes. Applying simple proportionality in judging administrative costs is too crude, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that and take it into account when he responds to the debate. I welcome this opportunity to debate this subject with the Minister, and I hope that he will take account of the constructive points that have been raised.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am indebted to you, Mr Benton, and to the Minister for the opportunity to debate the national lottery and the Big Lottery Fund.
Although I will focus my remarks mainly on issues relating to social enterprise, I would also like to pick up on a critique that was made of my hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats, suggesting that they had not noticed that there was a financial crisis. Those of us who witnessed the extraordinary sense of denial about the financial crisis in the last Government regard that as a somewhat breathtaking criticism. Perhaps a few minutes in front of the mirror might be worth while for Labour Members. Such comments undermine some of the good points they were making, particularly the exhortation regarding the importance to charities and social and voluntary organisations of long-term planning—something that was particularly absent in the latter months of the last Government.
Before looking at social enterprise and the implications of the statements that have been made today, I want to ask the Minister whether as part of his review of the lottery since 1994—I think he mentioned small tweaks on the tiller—he intends to look at some of the concerns about the impact of the national lottery on gambling. In particular, will he look at the regressive nature of the lottery in taking money from people on low incomes and its general impact on encouraging people to gamble? Those are not necessarily substantive points for the review he mentioned today, but it would be helpful for hon. Members to know whether such matters will be part of it.
In my comments on social enterprises, I am informed by and indebted to the Social Enterprise Coalition and to Michele Rigby. Michele runs Social Enterprise East of England, which is based in my constituency. I would appreciate the Minister’s response to a couple of questions. The first relates to regulation and registration. There are concerns that too tight a focus, particularly on charitable purposes, will have the unintended consequence of rendering a number of social enterprises unable to undertake the very important work that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want them to continue.
In a recent survey, 62,000 social enterprises were listed. Many of us might think that the number is much more substantial, but there are certainly 62,000. If I may, I shall give the Minister the relevant numbers in case he does not have them to hand. The maths does not add up to 100%, because of double registration, but 37% were listed as registered charities, 59% as companies limited by guarantee, 17% as community interest companies, 12% as industrial and provident societies or co-operatives, and 9% came under other forms of registration.
Can the Minister provide some assurance that as we look to the ways in which the big society’s remit is written, social enterprises that are not listed as registered charities will not be excluded purely on that basis? As the organisations are regulated in a number of different ways, it will be important to consider that as well. Those registered under a trust deed or a charitable constitution are, I think, registered and overseen by the Charity Commission.
Cathy Jamieson
Given the hon. Gentleman’s support for the social enterprise and co-operative sector, which I welcome, does he agree that it would be somewhat iniquitous if independent, private schools, which have charitable status, were able to apply for some of the funding when some of the very organisations that he describes would not be able to do so?
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady makes a very wise point, from her point of view. In my constituency, there are splendid independent schools, which are fully involved in their charitable endeavours and do not see a conflict between the two, but see them as mutually reinforcing.
I was making a point about the registration of social enterprises. I think that companies limited by guarantee are regulated by Companies House, and community interest companies obviously have their own regulator, so will the Minister be kind enough to confirm that in the regulation of social enterprises, that will not be listed as the sole reason for their exclusion under the new rules? That would provide a lot of reassurance to many of the organisations that we are talking about.
My next point is about the important principle of additionality, which now applies in a very different economic circumstance for our country. At a time of retrenchments and necessary deficit reduction measures, it is easy to call that principle into question. That would be unfortunate. However, there are some potential tensions between the principle of additionality and the other goal—promoting the big society—part of which I have addressed through the registration of social enterprises. If we want the big society taken from a vision to a reality, we shall have to rely on the vibrancy of our social enterprises and small community groups and their ability to step up and achieve the things that we are talking about. There is a fierce urgency about enabling those organisations to have the capacity in place to do that. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) made a very good point about that, which I shall turn to in a minute.
As the Minister rightly said, the issues about disbursement are correctly at arm’s length. We would not like political interference in that, but can he give me some idea of whether there will be any review of the guidance to disbursement organisations, so that the overall ambitions that we all share, of seeing a more vibrant civil society and social society, are not affected because of the urgency of the times in which we are living?
My next point is about capacity building versus short-termism. In many of our constituencies, there will be charities and non-profit organisations that have been delighted to receive funding from various sources—not just national lottery schemes, but other sources. For 18 months or two years, they can start to live their dream and build their future, but then they are cut off precisely when they are starting to get traction. One concern about the programmes under the previous Government was that a solution was never found—presumably because it is extraordinarily difficult to find one—to overcome that problem.
Capacity building in social enterprises is more important now than it has ever been. We shall be relying on social enterprises to take on many more responsibilities than they may have anticipated, to achieve many of our social goals. In the review, will the Minister consider carefully how lottery funding can focus on capacity building? There have been very sensible recommendations from a number of Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, about low-cost applications. Making applications really is a bugbear in terms of an organisation’s capacity to apply and the cost of applying. There should also be more encouragement for multi-year funding of social enterprises and charities, because with that effort in place, there will be a much better long-term impact in our communities from the good works that are the objective of the national lottery fund.
Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As I listened to what he was saying, it occurred to me that a fresh look at issues such as tapering might be worth while. In the old urban funding periods, for instance, there was a period when people knew what the funding was and then a couple of years when there was diminished funding, which sometimes facilitated finding new partners to ensure longer-term viability for a scheme.
Richard Fuller
Tapering is one option, and it is not a bad one. Actually, it is a very good option—I had not thought of it. Furthermore, with the introduction of organisations such as the big society bank and with more pressure on private enterprises to be more involved and to move beyond corporate social responsibility and into really investing in the fabric of our civil society, it would be helpful, if it was in the Minister’s remit, to connect funding sources—perhaps the initial seed funding that comes through the national lottery and the Big Lottery Fund—to other organisations. That could ensure that transitions in funding from one pot to another are handled better and that more signposting is given in the initial grant—“We will fund you for x number of years” or “We will fund you for this amount and after that, these are the two or three funding sources you can go to”. I thank the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) for making that very good point.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate, which is important for our communities and many community organisations. I shall echo some of the points that have already been made. It is only fair to say that there is a great deal of concern that Scotland will see a net overall reduction in funding from the lottery as a result of some of the proposed changes. Will the Minister examine that?
A number of hon. Members from Scottish constituencies are present. That is because in Scotland at the moment there is conversation and discussion about the proposals, and much of its content is that Scotland will fare badly as a result of them. That would be very sad, particularly as there has already been considerable debate in Scotland about the implications of the funding of the Olympics and the withdrawal of funding from Scotland, and many other parts of Britain, as a result of lottery funding being targeted on the Olympics.
I fear that the effect of some of the proposals may be to target funding on more built-up areas, particularly cities and centres where many large institutions are providing arts and other facilities to the community. I say that partly from my experience over the past five years of representing a very rural constituency and working with a wide range of different organisations that have been trying to obtain funding, not just from the lottery, but from other bodies, such as the Scottish Arts Council and a range of other public sector bodies.
Quite often, there is a view that arts institutions in particular should look like the kind of organisation traditionally seen in cities. Therefore, organisations such as the West Kilbride Craft Town in my constituency, and a range of other arts bodies trying to do important work in a more rural environment and in small communities, have found it difficult to get arts funding. That should be looked at, particularly in the light of some of the Government’s proposals.
It is important that rural, poorer, more deprived and working-class areas benefit from the proposals that emerge when the Government decide on the matter. Some powerful points have been made about who buys lottery tickets, and whether those people and their communities are the ones who benefit at the end of the process of lottery allocation. Those arguments may not be made often, but there are important principles that should be taken into account.
As a Member of Parliament since 2005, I have met numerous community organisations and individuals to discuss applications to the Big Lottery Fund, as has practically every constituency MP, I suspect. New Members will have a huge amount of experience of that over time. It is fair to say that my views are anecdotal and probably reflect my constituency. If I represented a different kind of constituency, I would probably make other points, depending on my experience.
I have concerns about the social policy implications of some past policies, which have encouraged institutions in our communities to move into the voluntary and community sectors rather than link with the public sector. I represent an area that was traditionally wealthy, because it was very industrialised, having gone through the industrial revolution early. As a result, we have many small communities with a proud history and impressive buildings, but without the wherewithal to maintain the infrastructure that was developed over time, so old buildings are falling into a great state of disrepair. Almost every community in my constituency has public buildings such as Saltcoats town hall, which is gorgeous but is falling to pieces and boarded up at the moment. Another example is Walker hall in Kilburnie, a town built on industries such as Knox rope, which was sold all over the empire and fuelled the construction of impressive buildings that are not being maintained.
In general, the state has taken over ownership of those buildings. However, because of the way national lottery funds operated in the past it has not been possible to get funding to regenerate them. I am not talking about long-term maintenance because that is a slightly different issue. Pressure has been put on community bodies—for example, voluntary committees that help run those halls—to move into the private and voluntary sectors, so that they can apply for funding. As a matter of public policy, it is appropriate for the national lottery and for Big to provide one-off funding to try to regenerate our communities and buildings of that nature, but that should not involve communities having to take on long-term responsibility for running those institutions, when other parts of the community, such as the council, might be willing to do so. I am concerned about the way in which the funding rules have operated to date, in that they influence the decisions that people make in communities.
I am concerned about the administrative role that local organisations have had to play—the fact that it is necessary to create a business plan when making a relatively small application for funding. People in communities without the skills to present a successful application have to professionalise themselves and put a huge amount of work into making applications. Communities that do not have to hand architects, solicitors and surveyors willing to provide their services free are at a disadvantage. More middle-class communities, where there are individuals who can assist and can present applications, will be at an advantage. No community should have to put a disproportionate amount of trouble into making an application. That is something the Government should look at when they consider the matter.
The approach has partly developed from a very cautious decision-making process because money is involved, and organisations have to account for it to the public and the Government. They want to be careful that grants can be justified and are for viable projects, but that makes it difficult for local communities to make applications.
I echo some of the points made about long-term planning and the fact that there has often been a short-term approach to funding. An early experience I had in my constituency concerned the Three Towns Healthy Living Centre, which was set up partly with the support of lottery funding, to provide preventive health services in the community. Eight such healthy living centres were set up in Scotland in deprived communities. According to those who used and had contact with them, they were very successful. However, they were not the kind of project that the NHS was ever going to take on and at the end of the funding period, they had to wind up. We have seen that again and again with the lottery. That point needs to be taken on board. Is it responsible or realistic to provide funding to set up services on a short-term basis if others—whether in the private or public sector—will not come in to fund those projects? I think it would be acceptable for the lottery to say it will fund such projects on a much longer-term basis and that those decisions should be taken in the long term, rather than the short term. It would be helpful if the Government could look at that.
There is great concern that there may be problems with some proposals, particularly at a time of significant cuts in the arts, museums, culture and, no doubt, many sporting facilities, if Government policy is implemented. Although extra funding for that part of society will be welcome, there is concern—particularly if we are to be living through difficult times—that many community organisations and small projects will lose out, if some of the proposals become reality. I ask for that to be taken on board.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I had not planned to speak today—if Hansard asks for my notes it might not be able to make head nor tail of them—but I felt compelled to speak after intervening on the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael). I do not always attend debates to make a speech; I often come to listen, but I enjoyed today’s debate so much that I feel I have to join in.
I welcome the lottery. It is John Major’s greatest legacy. He may claim that his greatest legacy is the golden economic legacy he bequeathed to new Labour, but I believe that the national lottery is his best and will be his most enduring legacy.
I do not speak for the Government, of course, but for the people of Suffolk Coastal. It is for that reason that I am here. I should perhaps declare an interest: I was recently given lunch by Camelot, but I have no intention of talking about that side of the national lottery today. I believe that all Members were recently invited to surgeries by the lottery distributors. I was surprised to learn how little funding had been received by projects in Suffolk. Billions of pounds have been generated for good causes in the past 15 or 16 years, but Suffolk—especially Suffolk Coastal—seems not to have received much, particularly not Big Lottery funding. I asked the lottery distributors why they thought that was so, and they came clean, saying that the funding formula was biased towards certain aspects and indices and that Suffolk, being average, loses out. That is unfair.
One of the things that I have discovered as one of the Suffolk MPs is that the county’s statistics seem always to be average, but we all know that there are great pockets of deprivation as well as wealth. The poorer areas definitely lose out when such indices are applied across such a large area. Many of the indices and formulae used for health funding, police funding, education funding and so on, including the basic support grant for our councils, have been consistently skewed away from rural areas, especially in rural England, in favour of other parts of the country.
Opposition Members have spoken of their concern about certain aspects of the lottery in Scotland and Wales. I have an idea for the Minister. He spoke of having arm’s length bodies, but I think that it would be fair for the Government to give guidance to distributors, and perhaps there should be a rule to restrict lottery grants to the United Kingdom. My constituents would be surprised to hear that Big Lottery Fund money goes to overseas projects.
An encouraging aspect for people playing the national lottery is that they believe that they are helping their own communities, just as when they give money to Children in Need they are conscious that the money stays in the United Kingdom and does not go abroad. Many of my constituents would be surprised to hear that El Salvador has received funding in connection with setting up trade unions, that in Nicaragua there are projects on certain aspects of the millennium development goals, and that there are other projects elsewhere around the world. One of the reforms I suggest to the Minister is that that the funding generated by the national lottery should be used in the UK.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is wholly at odds with the spirit of the Government’s intention to protect (1) the budget (2) of the Department of International Development. The Government should be utterly comfortable with that, as should her constituents, because poverty and deprivation in other parts of the world have an impact on this country.
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—we call each other “hon. Friend” because we are friends outside the Chamber, although as a political convention we do not always use that term. I understand what she says. Funnily enough, if the money given in grants by the Big Lottery Fund was part of the 0.7% of gross national income aid target to which we are committed, I could see some logic in it, but lottery funds are about additionality rather than substitution for Government funding, so I do not necessarily agree with her on that point.
I welcome the move in the allocations back to the original percentages of 40, 20, 20, 20 and away from the 50% split. Again, some of my constituents might be surprised that some of the big society funding—I mean Big Lottery funding; I apologise—is used to fund credit unions. That is a great idea. Many of us recognise the extent of the personal debt crisis in this country; rather than having people going into the arms of loan sharks, Members on both sides of the House are trying to encourage credit unions. However, I think my constituents will be more surprised to hear that some Big Lottery Fund money is going to trade unions—for trade union learning or for particular projects such as “The Union Makes Us Strong: TUC History Online”. I do not think that that is appropriate use of the Big Lottery Fund.
I understand that the lottery is growing. I appreciate that we are going back to the principle of additionality and getting rid of redirection towards Government policy. With appropriate marketing, that might encourage more players to resume, as there has been a drop in the number of people playing. This is not necessarily an interest, but I used to play regularly through a syndicate at work. I was determined that the people who worked for me who could retire if they won that magic figure were not going not leave me behind, so I too contributed. I may even get a syndicate going in the House. It is not that we feel poor because of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but we would all like to enjoy the prosperity of a win on the lottery. Indeed, it could be any one of us. However—to continue this personal anecdote—when the funding formula started to change and when I thought that the Government were starting to redirect money, I decided not to play as regularly, because I thought that the money was not necessarily going to causes in my community. For me, that was an important motivation.
An interesting point was raised about efficiency in the distribution of funds. I hope that the Government can find a way of benchmarking the different funds and distributors. When it comes to the Big Lottery Fund, I would like the Government to consider having a wider range of distributors. I pay tribute to the Community Foundation Network, which I think was set up by the previous Government. Community foundations are either county based or much more local. I pay particular tribute to the Suffolk community foundation; it really has its finger on the pulse and is much better than the big regional offices that we see. We should do all we can to help them.
Alun Michael
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. In view of her earlier comments, I am glad to find some common cause with her. Funding through community foundations means that the communities that find it most difficult to apply are more likely to obtain assistance—the point that I was making earlier. When I was deputy Home Secretary, I set in train something that led to the rural policing grant, because rurality is indeed one of the elements that should be taken into account. It seems that the hon. Lady is not arguing against the basic philosophical starting point, which is that those areas that have the greatest need and which find it most difficult to apply for funding, including those in her constituency, should be assisted with doing so.
Dr Coffey
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am not saying that the proportion of money spent on the national lottery in an area should automatically result in that much going back to that postcode area. I welcome what he says about the police grant—I did not know that, and I thank him for educating me—but I honestly believe that generally there has been a skew away from rural areas because of the way certain indices have been applied, so we are not likely agree on that point, but I am glad that we have found common cause on the community foundations being an efficient way of distributing funds.
I hope that when the Minister considers the input into the lottery, including trying to encourage more people to take part and ensuring that even more post offices can benefit—I believe that a third of post offices have a lottery terminal on their premises—he will also give careful consideration to getting the money out as efficiently as possible, as cheaply as possible and, dare I say it, as least politically correctly as possible.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for coming to the debate regardless of whether they have spoken. It has been good to see so many people here. Furthermore, I am grateful to the Government for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues.
Let me start by saying that I agree entirely with the Minister’s opening remarks about the invaluable contribution the national lottery has made to our national life. Indeed, that is something on which Members on both sides of the House can agree. However, I have a number of questions about the specifics of the review and about one or two things that the Minister and other Members have said during the debate.
When the Conservatives were in opposition, they said on a number of occasions that they would return the lottery to its original four good causes: arts, sports, heritage and charities. The fifth good cause, health, education and the environment, was introduced by Labour through the National Lottery Act 1998, and it enabled lottery distributors to fund a wider range of public projects and things that the public had said in numerous surveys that they valued.
In November 2009, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), now the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, said:
“So one of the first things the Conservative Government will do will be to restore the Lottery to its original four good causes.”
My first question is what has happened to that commitment? When I asked in a parliamentary question whether the Big Lottery would continue to be able to fund the fifth good cause, the Minister replied:
“The Big Lottery Fund will continue to be a lottery distributor after April 2011, funding the same range of projects as it does, now but focusing on the voluntary and community sector.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 333W.]
There is an element of confusion, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the matter. Given that it was one of the first things that his party said that it would do after the election, when can we expect legislation to implement that commitment? Or is it yet another commitment that has been dropped since the Conservatives arrived in government?
The Minister has begun to implement the commitment that the Government made before the election to increase the proportion of lottery revenue going into the arts, sports and heritage. However, as a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, increasing the lottery funding going to the arts, sports and heritage will not make up for the savage and unnecessarily severe cuts that the Government appear to be intent on making to the arts, culture and sport. I am disappointed that Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are not resisting Treasury demands in the negotiations on the comprehensive spending review. As the Minister has followed the debate very carefully, he will know that there are good economic and broad cultural arguments for protecting spending on the arts and culture. Indeed, I suspect that those arguments were why the Liberal Democrats had a manifesto commitment to do exactly that. I always made it clear that I would fight hard in any negotiations with the Treasury.
Overall spending on the arts and culture represents less than the underspend in the national health service every year. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) said that the Liberal Democrats had a Damascene conversion because they did not realise how serious the economic situation was, but the argument that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) repeatedly made before the election was that cutting spending on the arts and culture would have such an infinitesimal impact on reducing the deficit and would inflict such damage that it was not worth doing. I would like some reassurances that when the Treasury asks the Minister and his colleagues to jump, they are not simply saying, “Yes, very nice, but how high?”
Does the Minister accept that by shifting the priorities in lottery spending, the Government are effectively cutting funding to community and voluntary groups? When the Conservatives formulated their policy in opposition, they worked on the basis that the Big Lottery Fund, which at the moment receives 60% of lottery good cause money, spent 80% of its revenue on community and voluntary groups and 20% on the non-CVS sector. In fact, as the Minister acknowledged in his opening remarks, 92% of Big Lottery’s spending went to the voluntary sector last year. That means that if Big Lottery’s share of funding is reduced from 50% to 40%, even if it is restricted exclusively to funds within the community and voluntary sector, the share of lottery funding to voluntary groups will be cut. Will the Minister explain how his leader’s big society will be helped by cutting funds to voluntary groups?
Let me turn now to the administrative costs of the lottery. In its structural reform plan, the Government state that by the end of this year they intend to
“reduce lottery distributors’ administration costs and ban lobbying activities.”
In opposition, the Conservatives were more precise:
“So we insist that admin costs should be no more than 5% of grants distributed… Self-publicity by the distributors will also be banned. As will lottery money being spent on lobbying and public affairs.”
Are the Government still insisting that administration costs should be cut to 5%? If so, perhaps the Minister can explain on what basis that figure has been chosen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) rightly said, Big funds many community projects. The Minister will be aware that it is much more expensive to administer the costs of funding such projects. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has also expressed concern. It estimates that Big’s current administration is 7.5% of its costs. It says:
“Because BIG funds many community projects and because of its approach to supporting those it funds, in practice these costs are relatively low. Moreover, this approach helps BIG to maximise the effectiveness of its grants, thereby achieving better value for money in the longer term. There are further concerns that pressure on administration costs may make the funding of smaller, community projects more difficult.”
Will the Minister reassure me that that will not be the result of his policy? Moreover, will he be happy to meet voluntary organisations, perhaps under the umbrella of the national council, to ensure that his drive to reduce administration costs does not make it more difficult for small community and voluntary groups to win lottery funding?
The Government’s structural reform plan states that the Big Lottery Fund will be restricted to funding the community and voluntary sector. Will the Minister confirm that the intention is to restrict it exclusively to funding the CVS sector? If so, what does that mean for schemes such as Heroes Return, which provides grants to world war two veterans to enable them to return to the battlefields where they served their country? More than 40,000 veterans and their families have benefited from that scheme. Will the Minister assure the Chamber that such an initiative can continue to be funded by the Big Lottery Fund?
Moreover, will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the national lottery independence Bill, which we were told was needed so that the lottery
“cannot be raided by politicians for their own pet projects.”
Given that commitment, which was made before the election, will the Minister explain why the DCMS structural reform plan states that Ministers will
“direct the Sport Lottery Distributor to take responsibility for the community sports legacy following London 2012.”?
Again, I detect a slight conflict. The Government appear to be pointing in two directions at once. The Minister said that he would push forward with the proposals that were made before the election to introduce a gross profits tax. Will he outline the time scale for that?
We all agree, I think, on the diversion of money for the Olympics. The maximum contribution to the 2012 Olympics from the lottery was capped at £2.2 billion, with no more than half diverted from non-Olympic distributors. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not raise that cap? Furthermore, can he guarantee that the Government will honour the commitment that we gave to return all the money that was diverted from good causes in full, using the proceeds of land sale after the Olympics? If he cannot do that, will he write to me after the debate?
Finally, let me ask the same question that I ask in all such debates. It would interest all Members in the Chamber if the Minister could point to a single Liberal Democrat policy on the lottery that is being implemented by the Government. Or is this yet another example of the Liberal Democrats having absolutely no influence whatever on the coalition Government?
John Penrose
I am delighted to respond to the various points that have been made by Members from all parties during this debate. There is a very pleasing unanimity about the importance of the national lottery, which is not exactly unexpected but none the less welcome. I think that there is also a general acceptance that the national lottery has become a tremendously important part of our national life. While there may be some important questions to be asked and some important quibbles here and there, there is a vast fund of good will and cross-party consensus on the importance of the national lottery carrying on and continuing to do good work.
I will try to collect the various points that hon. Members have made into a series of themes. If I miss anybody out, I apologise and perhaps they can sort of grab me after the debate. However, I will try to ensure that I have picked up every point that was made.
A number of Members asked whether the commitment to focus the Big Lottery Fund even more closely on operating through the voluntary and community sector rather than statutory bodies would have an unintended negative effect. Looking around Westminster Hall, I think that that point was made by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made it too.
In response to all those Members, I will say that the reasoning behind that commitment is purely an attempt to prevent any questions being raised about a breach of the principle of additionality. It is an attempt to ensure that there can be no question that money goes to statutory bodies as a way of getting round the principle of additionality. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth who said that it was terribly easy for that appearance to be created, which is something that we must watch out for at all times.
Therefore, I think that we are all agreed on the importance of the principle of additionality. I also think that it is right to say, as the shadow Secretary of State said, that the Big Lottery Fund has been tending towards that direction anyway. It used to be the case that 80% of its donations went to the voluntary and community sector, but that share has recently gone up to 92%, and we are encouraging the fund to make the percentage go even higher.
However, in response to a point that was raised by a number of people, I must say that we have no intention of phrasing the revised policy direction that we are aiming to come up with so narrowly that we end up with the unintended consequence that, if a voluntary and community sector organisation is partnering the local library or whatever local organisation it may be, it would be discounted. That consequence would clearly be counter-productive and unintended, and it is not what we want to achieve. There needs to be enough flexibility for a balance to be struck.
Cathy Jamieson
For the record, and for the benefit of those of us who have represented Scottish interests in Westminster Hall today, will the Minister tell us whether the policy direction that he will announce for the Big Lottery Fund will be for England? What discussions has he already had with the Scottish Government in relation to this issue?
John Penrose
I thank the hon. Lady for drawing everybody’s attention to that issue. She is absolutely right to point out that any such policy direction would be purely for England; it would then be up to the devolved Administrations to decide whether they wished to follow or not. Alternatively, if they wanted to change or flex the policy direction, it would be entirely up to them to decide how they wanted to react. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question. It is important that we strike the right balance and are flexible on that issue, because an overly rigid approach could create some unintended consequences.
I also want to pick up briefly on one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who is standing in today very nobly for my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster). He asked how we were getting on with the gross profit tax; incidentally, that is an answer to the shadow Secretary of State’s question about whether there was a policy that the Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservatives had backed. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the gross profit tax is that discussions with the Treasury are already under way. I am afraid that the timetable is still slightly elastic, because the Treasury is in charge of it, since it is a tax rather than something that is directly the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, as I say, discussions are happening, officials are already involved and I have spoken to the relevant Minister at the Treasury about it already.
Mr Bradshaw
I asked the Minister whether any discrete Liberal Democrat policies that were not shared by the Conservatives before the election were now Government policy.
John Penrose
I am afraid that I shall have to rely on my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who is speaking for the Liberal Democrats today, to answer that question, as I am not quite such an expert on their election manifesto as I am sure he is. I am certain that he will be willing to be buttonholed by the right hon. Gentleman after the debate and will put him right, as necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked about the speed at which the spending cuts would be made. He and a number of other Members also asked whether we would try to be flexible in making those cuts. In fact, the right hon. Member for Exeter was also very concerned—to put it charitably—about the extent of cuts. We have four years in which to achieve those cuts and therefore we will carefully phase any reductions that have to be made. None of us here like the notion that there have to be cuts at all; sadly, they are a necessary thing rather than something that anyone is looking forward to implementing. But we will try to ensure that we phase them over that four-year period in the most intelligent way possible, to minimise the effect on the front line and to ensure that adjustments that have to be made can be made during that period.
In response to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Exeter about the need for these cuts, I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. I am afraid that it is true that these cuts are not something that anybody wants to implement; none the less, they are the result of the previous Government’s actions. The reason why they have to be made is not that anybody wants to make them but simply because of what is happening to countries such as Greece. If we look at those countries, we can see that if a country’s public sector finances are not in balance, the international capital markets and the rest of the world will form their own view about its creditworthiness. We are borrowing a vast amount from international creditors at the moment so we need to ensure that we are a credible borrower in their eyes; otherwise, we will not be able to carry on doing anything that we want to do. I am afraid that that credibility has been gravely put in peril, and that is why we have to bring the national accounts back into balance as fast as is reasonably possible. However, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay that we need to do that with sensitivity and care and attempt to minimise the impact on the front line as far as possible.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made some points about the needs-based approach, which were picked up by a number of other Members. I think that he was suggesting that he would prefer to see the Big Lottery Fund contribution maintained at 50% rather than at 40%, although as a result of our creating a smaller slice of a bigger pie the total cash amount will go up; I hope that I also answered his question about the impact on both Scotland and Wales. I think that his argument was that he would prefer that contribution to remain as a higher percentage as well as that higher total cash amount, because he felt that that would maximise the amount of money being given on a needs-based approach.
To reassure the right hon. Gentleman—
John Penrose
I just want to finish this point and then I will be happy to give way again.
I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I will necessarily agree on that basic point of principle about the percentage that should go to the Big Lottery Fund, but I just wanted to reassure him that the situation was perhaps not quite as bad as he feared. Partly, that is because, as I said, the total amount of cash being distributed by the Big Lottery Fund should rise in both Scotland and Wales, along the lines that I was talking about earlier. In addition, a large proportion of money is distributed by other lottery distributors, which also goes to the voluntary and community sector. For example, 48% of the money from the Heritage Lottery Fund has gone to voluntary and community sector organisations and indeed 81% of the projects that the Heritage Lottery Fund supports have been led by the voluntary and community sector. So I hope that that helps him a little, even if it does not satisfy him fully.
Alun Michael
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my point. I was not necessarily arguing that there should be no change in the percentage. I was saying that there is more than one way to achieve a needs-based approach to allocation. One possible way is to look at the other funds, because of course the sort of communities that I am seeking to protect are very interested in issues such as sport, art and heritage. I had hoped that the Minister would reassure me—I think that he is part way to doing so—that that needs-based approach would perhaps be applied more widely and not just in the crude overall percentages.
John Penrose
I am not sure that I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman fully on that point. However, I hope that the figures that I have just quoted about other lottery distributors that give money to voluntary and community sector organisations in a way that is perhaps not terribly well publicised show that money is already going to sporting organisations—he gave the example of sport—in needy constituencies such as his.
Cathy Jamieson
For my information, are the figures that the Minister has just given based on an assumption that lottery ticket sales will rise and, if so, by how much?
John Penrose
The figures are based on existing public figures for projected lottery ticket sales over the next couple of years. They are available on the website, so the hon. Lady can check them when she likes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked about the effect of the national lottery on problem gambling. A large body of work has been done on problem gambling, as I am sure he is aware. I reassure him that if he speaks to the Gambling Commission, or indeed the National Lottery Commission, they will tell him what most of those who have made representations to me say: the national lottery is one of the least problematic kinds of gambling in this country. Large numbers of people play it, but the penetration of problem gambling among them is comparatively low. There are many other types of gaming that are of more concern than the national lottery. He also asked me to confirm whether non-charities would still qualify for Big funding. They do now, and they will continue to do so. I am happy to reassure him about that.
Several hon. Members discussed the cost of making applications to Big, particularly for small organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked specifically whether it would not be good for hand-holding to fall outside the definition of administrative costs involved in Big’s distribution. I have two responses to that. First, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is important to realise that there may be good reasons why the 5% target that the Secretary of State asked me about might be slightly less applicable to Big. I want to ensure that we have common measurement criteria before we start applying anything in a mechanistic way. We will have to wait and see what happens, but there might be a legitimate reason for an in-built additional cost when dealing with small organisations. I want to benchmark that cost against the cost of doing a similar job in other countries in order to check it.
Secondly, it must surely be better for us to reduce the costs of hand-holding in the first place—to reduce the necessity for it by reducing the complexity of the application process, particularly for small voluntary and community sector organisations—than to fund those additional costs. That is where I would start. As hon. Members commented in responses to interventions by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), it is far more important to understand that costs are incurred not only by distributors; complexity also creates knock-on costs for applicants. It is vital that we reduce the total system costs to all parties. That is probably the biggest and most immediate single thing that we can do.
I hope that I have responded to everybody. As a final remark, the shadow Secretary of State asked about what he called the fifth good cause. I now understand the reasoning behind the written parliamentary question that he asked the other day, which he quoted. We have no plans to legislate to remove the fifth good cause from Big’s charter. We want purely to ensure that any projects in such areas benefit the voluntary and community sector rather than breaching additionality and funding statutory bodies, as we discussed. I hope that that answers his question.
I hope that I have dealt with the issues. We have had a wide-ranging discussion, but the most reassuring and important thing to me is that there is huge respect for and cross-party unanimity on the importance of the national lottery. I am sure that everybody here wishes it well.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Informal Competitiveness Council
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
The EU informal Competitiveness Council took place in Louvain-la-Neuve (industry sessions) and Brussels (research sessions) in Belgium on 14 to 16 July. The UK was represented by myself on 14 July and by BIS officials when I was not in attendance.
The first day of the industry session focused on future EU industrial policy. EU Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani emphasised the importance of SMEs, a well run EU single market, the external dimension of EU industrial policy and a strong better regulation agenda. He also highlighted the importance of the EU space sector and tourism to European economies.
The UK called for a step change in the better regulation agenda and more efficient use of natural resources. He stressed that the EU single market was the EU’s most effective industrial policy, but also that open trade on a global scale could create new opportunities for European companies. The Belgian presidency concluded that overall member states preferred a horizontal (rather than sectoral) approach to EU industry policy.
In discussion of the external dimension of EU industry policy, the UK and a few other member states focused on the importance of free trade, while a few other member states favoured the introduction of protectionist measures. At a morning session on the second day of the industry session, measures to help the integration of innovation by small to medium sized companies (SMEs) were discussed. The UK stressed the importance to SMEs of the single market, access to finance and making EU innovation programmes easier to use.
In the first research session on the afternoon of the second day, the EU Research and Innovation Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn outlined her plans for an EU “Innovation Union”, one of the flagship initiatives under the Commission’s Europe 2020 long-term economic strategy. She stated that she wanted the EU innovation strategy to address major societal challenges such as healthy ageing and creating carbon neutral cities. She stressed the need for the EU to broaden its approach to include innovation in services, business models, design, marketing and society. The UK welcomed the Commission’s approach of looking beyond technological innovation and considering how innovation policy could address major societal challenges, stressing the need to ensure framework conditions for innovation were right in Europe.
The second research session on the final day focused on the simplification of the EU research and development (R&D) funding programme. There was general agreement that the current rules for applying for funding were too complicated, inconsistent and too slow. The UK stressed the importance of the simplification agenda but said that moves away from a cost-based funding regime to one more focused on results and outputs needed to be treated with caution, as any new system would need to recognise the actual costs of the research and offer applicants a choice of funding methods. EU Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn said that the Commission intended to address these concerns through a radical overhaul of existing rules.
Skills for Sustainable Growth
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr John Hayes)
Balanced and sustainable economic growth can only be driven by business and enterprise. Business in the UK cannot prosper while the risk of a debt crisis hangs over the economy. This Government have therefore put decisive action on the fiscal deficit at the centre of their agenda. Equally though, it is vital we recognise strong and continuing growth as a key route to getting this country back on track, including reducing our debts. Skills and training are a central component of this, contributing to employment, productivity and economic growth.
Today I am publishing “Skills for Sustainable Growth”—a consultation document which sets out our emerging vision for skills and explores some key areas where we would like to seek further views. This is complemented by a technical consultation document which seeks views on a simplified funding system.
I am inviting employers, individuals, colleges and training organisations to share their ideas on how they would like skills policy to be set out in future.
We will publish a full strategy for skills after the spending review in October, informed by these views, which will set out in more detail how we intend to support our learning and skills priorities.
We have developed some key principles to guide our work as we develop our strategy for skills in England. These principles are designed to underpin a strategy that will:
Provide a respected, credible vocational training offer that will provide people with a route into employment, help them progress in their careers or support them in starting their own business.
Tackle the needs of those who have poor work prospects or a high chance of spending long periods out of work.
Give learners and employers access to high quality, impartial information so they will be able to choose the learning that best suits their needs.
Realise the best returns on both Government investment and the increasing amount of learner and employer investment in the skills system.
Give greater freedom to colleges and training organisations to respond flexibly to employer and learner demand.
Empower communities to develop the informal life-long learning opportunities in which they want to participate.
Recognise that in the current fiscal environment, it is even more important that public funding is used where it is most needed and where it gives most value.
The spending review will provide an opportunity to transform the skills system so that informed and empowered learners are placed at the heart of provision. We want to ensure that our strategy for skills supports economic growth, encourages progression and promotes learning for wider cultural and community benefit.
Information on how to respond to the consultation document is available on the BIS website and copies of “Skills for Sustainable Growth” have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Dunfermline Building Society (DBS)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Today the Treasury has laid in both Houses of Parliament copies of the accounts for the Dunfermline Resolution Account for the year ending 31 March 2010.
The accounts have been prepared in relation to the operation of the Dunfermline Resolution Account established in accordance with article 6(1) of, and schedule 1 to, the Dunfermline Building Society Compensation Scheme, Resolution Fund and Third Party Compensation Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1800) (“the Order”).
The accounts have been prepared by the account holder for the Dunfermline Resolution Account, Eversheds LLP in accordance with paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1 to the order and the accounting direction issued by the Treasury.
These accounts have been examined, certified and reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with paragraph 2(3) of schedule 1 to the order.
Paragraph 2(5) of schedule 1 to the order requires the Treasury to lay the accounts before each House of Parliament.
The Dunfermline Resolution Account was closed on 31 March 2010 and no further accounts will therefore be produced.
The Treasury has also laid in both Houses of Parliament the report it has received from the Bank of England on the activities of the DBS Bridge Bank. Under section 80(1) of the Banking Act 2009, the Bank of England is required to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the activities of the DBS Bridge Bank and under section 80(4) the Chancellor of the Exchequer is required to lay this report before both Houses of Parliament.
Regional Government
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
In our first two months in government we have demonstrated our commitment to localism, decentralisation and rolling back regional government in England. We have announced the abolition of Regional Development Agencies, abolished the Regional Strategies, ended funding for the Regional Leaders’ Boards (the successors to the Regional Assemblies) and are closing the Government Office for London.
We have taken these steps because they are right in principle and as part of a fundamental transfer of power from central Government down to local councils and down further to local communities. We have done so to reduce spending on bureaucracy and protect front-line services against the backdrop of an unsustainable budget deficit and national debt.
We do not believe the arbitrary government regions to be a tier of administration that is efficient, effective or popular. Citizens across England identify with their county, their city, their town, their borough and their neighbourhood. We should recognise that the case for elected regional government was overwhelmingly rejected by the people in the 2004 North East Referendum. Unelected regional government equally lacks democratic legitimacy, and its continuing existence has created a democratic deficit.
In the coalition’s “Programme for Government” we said we would consider the case for abolition of the eight remaining Government offices.
I am announcing today the Government’s intention in principle to abolish the remaining eight Government offices, subject to the satisfactory resolution of consequential issues through the spending review.
The final decisions on the future of the Government offices, including arrangements for closure and for the transfer of on-going functions, will be made at the end of the spending review in the autumn.
The Government offices are not a legal entity. They act on behalf of 13 Government Departments and are staffed by civil servants from these departments. Communities and Local Government is the biggest contributor to Government offices providing 41% and 33% of funds and staff respectively in 2010-11. The Home Office; Departments for Education; Business, Innovation and Skills; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Transport are also employers of Government office staff.
We are making good progress with our programme of radical reform to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on local authorities and businesses, including removing the inflated local government performance regime and doing away with the unnecessary regional tier. Consequently many of the functions Government offices undertook are no longer necessary. By announcing our intention in principle now, we will further progress our programme of reform, allow staff, councils and departments to take account of this, and make an earlier start in the spending review on securing savings for the public purse.
I believe that the original intentions behind the establishment of the Government offices for the regions (to join up different departmental teams outside London into a “one stop shop”) have been lost. Such functions are no longer necessary in an internet age and given the coalition Government’s commitment to genuine decentralisation and devolution of power.
There are, however, some Government office functions, such as arrangements for resilience and civil contingencies, which will need to continue. The spending review process will be used to test which activities currently carried out by the Government offices should continue, and to decide the most cost-effective on-going arrangements.
The spending review will also consider arrangements for the redeployment or release of Government office staff, and for sharing as appropriate the savings, costs, assets and liabilities arising from the decision.
We should be clear: the Government offices are not voices of the region in Whitehall. They have become agents of Whitehall to intervene and interfere in localities, and are a fundamental part of the “command and control” apparatus of England’s over-centralised state.
Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (Removal of Agency Status)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
With effect from 31 July 2010, the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA) will cease to have the status of an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
DSDA was established as an agency in 1999 to store, maintain, issue, process and distribute materiel for the MOD and other designated users. In April 2006, DSDA launched a major efficiency programme under the future defence supply chain initiative (FDSCi). This completed in 2008 having successfully delivered savings of 35% in annual operating costs, reductions in staff levels of 37% and fundamental improvements in service levels.
Subsequently the operational efficiency programme (OEP) has been considering potential future operating models for DSDA post-FDSCi. It anticipated greater value for money may be achieved by pursuing a strategy of increased outsourcing and transfer of business and assets to third party providers for the majority of activities that can be delivered outside of MOD.
This does not require agency status. Moreover, the change of status will enable the restructuring of the joint support chain to improve and streamline the end to end support chain to be fully implemented and deliver significant improvements.
Service Personnel (Rest and Recuperation)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
I wish to inform the House about the new arrangements we shall be setting in place for “rest and recuperation” for service personnel on operations.
This Government are dedicated to the care and welfare of the men and women of our armed forces, particularly those on operations in Afghanistan. This is reflected in the commitments within the coalition programme for Government, including that we would rebuild the military covenant. One step in doing so is to optimise the rest and recuperation periods for those deployed to Afghanistan. We recognise that rest and recuperation is a key part of the morale and welfare of our people and their families so it is important we get it right.
But this is not an easy issue. There are very real limits in terms of the airbridge in and out of Afghanistan. In making any adjustments to rest and recuperation policy we must remain mindful of these constraints because, above all, any changes must not compromise the operational effectiveness of our forces deployed in Afghanistan.
I am delighted to announce today, however, that we are making changes so that in future no service men and women serving tours in Afghanistan (and on other qualifying deployed operations) will lose out on their two weeks rest and recuperation. Where flights home are delayed or circumstances dictate they cannot take all that rest and recuperation during their tour, as occurred, for instance, when flights were suspended because of the volcanic ash cloud, personnel will in future receive additional post operational leave in compensation. So in future, no-one will lose out on rest and recuperation they would otherwise have received because of disruption to the airbridge.
We will also increase the resilience of the airbridge and prioritise the needs of those who serve the longest—six months or more—in Afghanistan. The chiefs of staff have recommended that the best way to achieve this improved resilience is to deploy those posted for short tours for less than four months so that they will no longer receive a week’s rest and recuperation in the middle of their tour. This will affect a minority of the force, primarily from the RAF, but improved airbridge resilience will significantly benefit the 85% of the force, drawn from all services, who are serving on longer tours. Our feedback from families and personnel themselves also suggests that one week of rest and recuperation in a short tour does not allow time to transit, adjust, rest, prepare and return. I have therefore agreed the chiefs of staffs’ recommendation which will come into effect for those deploying on or after 1 January 2011.
Together these two measures will strengthen our operational effectiveness in Afghanistan and ensure those serving the longest tours receive the rest and recuperation they so richly deserve.
Prime Minister's Questions (Yarl's Wood)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
In the course of Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, I confirmed to the House that:
“the Government will make an announcement shortly about how we will deliver on our pledge to end child detention and to close the Yarl’s Wood detention centre for good.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2010; Vol.514, col. 349].
I understand that this statement inadvertently caused some confusion. I am very happy to clarify that my statement related to child detention. Yarl’s Wood detention centre family unit will be closed for child and family detention, but the centre will continue to function as an immigration removal facility for adults.
ContactPoint
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
I am today confirming arrangements for closing down the ContactPoint children’s database, in line with the Government’s long-standing commitment. Instead of a database containing millions of children’s details, accessed by hundreds of thousands of practitioners, we are examining the case for a more proportionate approach to supporting front-line professionals to help protect vulnerable children from harm.
I recognise the problem that the previous Government were trying to solve in establishing ContactPoint, and the well-intended efforts that many hard-working practitioners and managers have put into improving the quality and use of data on vulnerable children. Front-line practitioners need to be able to provide support for our most vulnerable children when they move across local authority boundaries or access services in more than one area. Experience shows the potential value of a quick and reliable means of discovering whether another professional has worked with such a child. It is worth considering a national approach to that issue.
However, we have never agreed that ContactPoint was the answer. It has always been our view that it was disproportionate and unjustifiable to hold records on every child in the country, making them accessible to large numbers of people. Accordingly, we are exploring the practicality of a new national signposting service which would focus on helping practitioners find out whether another practitioner is working, or has previously worked, in another authority area with the same vulnerable child. Social workers in particular, and potentially other key services like the police or accident and emergency departments, may need this information very quickly. Such a service must aim to ensure that these children are not “lost” to social care services when they move. We are working closely with our partners to assess the feasibility and affordability of such an approach.
In the meantime, we have considered carefully whether it is necessary to keep the existing ContactPoint database operating in order to move towards a more targeted approach. It is now clear that it is not and in the light of the coalition Government’s clear pledge to end ContactPoint as soon as practicable we will now proceed to shut it down. On 6 August, we will switch the database off and we will subsequently decommission it, safely removing and destroying the existing data.
We are today writing to local authorities and other partners to provide them with the necessary guidance to ensure that ContactPoint is closed down in a managed, safe and controlled way. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As we do so, we shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the investment made to date in developing ContactPoint can so far as possible contribute to the task of protecting our most vulnerable children from harm. We will continue to draw on views, experience and expertise of front-line staff and managers. Critical to the success of any service must be that it provides a modern, effective tool that supports the front line and that it supports the broader aims of Eileen Munro’s review to improve child protection and social work practice. It is also important that we keep any development and implementation costs to a minimum and that the service can demonstrate value for money. We shall provide a further update in due course.
Departmental Arm's Length Bodies
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
This Government are committed to sustainable development and to becoming the greenest Government ever, promoting economic development, environmental protection and an improving quality of life for everyone in the UK.
In support of this, DEFRA’S new Structural Reform Plan was published last week. It sets out three departmental strategic priorities:
to support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food production;
to help to enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life; and,
to support a strong and sustainable green economy, which is resilient to climate change.
To deliver these priorities, sustainability needs to be driven across Whitehall and beyond.
I am committed to increasing the transparency and accountability of DEFRA’S public bodies, to playing my part in reducing public spending and to reducing the burden of regulation. Following my written ministerial statement of 29 June 2010, Official Report, column 36WS, I am today announcing the next series of reforms to DEFRA’S network of arm’s length bodies.
On sustainability—together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—we are determined to play the lead role across the whole of Government. We will mainstream sustainability, strengthen the Government’s performance in this area and put processes in place to join up activity across Government much more effectively. I am not willing simply to delegate this responsibility to an external body. I have accordingly decided that I will withdraw DEFRA funding from the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) at the end of the current financial year, and instead take a personal lead, with an enhanced departmental capability and presence.
I also fully support the role of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in this area: powerful scrutiny within the democratic process.
The SDC was founded in October 2000 and recently became an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB). It is jointly owned with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of them has to decide on the best future arrangements to meet their needs and over the next few months my Department will work very closely with them to ensure a smooth transition.
The SDC has made a positive contribution to sustainable development across Government and society over the past 10 years, and I pay tribute to their work and to their current and previous chairs, Will Day and Jonathon Porritt.
I am also announcing today that I intend to abolish the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2011, subject to the necessary processes and ongoing discussions with devolved Administration Ministers. When the RCEP was set up in 1970, there was very little awareness of environmental issues, with few organisations capable of offering relevant advice. The situation now is very different, and the Government have many such sources of expert, independent advice and challenge. Protecting the environment remains a key Government aim, and DEFRA intends to draw on the full range of expertise available, including Foresight, the research councils, the Living With Environmental Change programme (in which DEFRA and DECC are partners with the research councils) the Royal Society and other academies. In making this decision, I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Commission and its current chair, Sir John Lawton. Over the last 40 years the commissioners have made a significant contribution to raising the profile of environmental issues in the UK.
A range of public bodies affiliated to DEFRA was established by the 1948 Agricultural Wages Act. Over time, this piece of legislation has become outdated, inflexible and burdensome for farmers and workers. So today I am announcing that we will be seeking agreement with the Welsh Assembly Government to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. In England, we will be taking measures to bring agricultural workers within the scope of the National Minimum Wage Act and my Department will be working closely with BIS to make the necessary amendments to the Act itself. We are discussing with the Welsh Assembly Government the arrangements they wish to propose in respect of Wales, and will agree with them measures for the abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation and, separately, the Commons Commissioners. The 15 Agricultural Wages Committees and the 16 Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees will also be abolished. Appropriate measures for effecting these changes will be brought forward as part of the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill. The cumulative effect of these changes will allow the agricultural industry to adopt flexible and modern employment practices in order to help ensure a vibrant and sustainable industry for the future.
I have decided that DEFRA should have a stronger role in developing policy for inland waterways and have already signalled our preference for moving British Waterways to a civil society model. Today I am announcing that I also intend to abolish the Inland Waterways Advisory Council. DEFRA will lead on developing future policy in this area by consulting all interests directly, by making full use of the evidence which can be provided by the navigation authorities and by forming a closer relationship with stakeholders. This decision highlights the importance I attach to the effective management of inland waterways and my determination to place them on a more sustainable long-term footing.
The changes I am announcing today will help streamline and modernise DEFRA’S network of arm’s length bodies and enhance accountability and transparency. I am continuing to look closely at DEFRA’S other arm’s length bodies and will make further announcements at the appropriate time.
Drought (North West)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The House will be aware that the first six months of 2010 have been the driest since 1929—this is partly attributable to more of our winter and spring wind coming more from the north than is usual (bringing with them the ash cloud earlier in the year), rather than the usual winds from the west which bring us much of our winter/spring rain. This has had a broad impact on the availability of water in rivers, reservoirs and canals, and on the environment and agriculture, with the lack of rain reducing grass growth and stressing other crops.
The problem has been particularly acute in the North West which has received only 60% of its average rainfall in the first half of this year. Public water supplies in this region are more reliant than most on reservoirs which are quick to replenish when it rains but also quick to empty when there is a long dry period as now. As a consequence United Utilities, the water company in the region, has encouraged consumers to be careful how they use water and on 9 July they imposed a hosepipe ban to reduce consumption.
I have been following developments closely and receive full briefing weekly from the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for managing our water resources. In addition, I recently met Philip Green, CEO at United Utilities, who updated me on the actions the company is taking to help protect supplies of water to its customers. Since the last drought in the North West in 1995-96, leakage has halved and is now operating at its economic level of leakage; this has contributed to a drop of almost a quarter in the total demand for water over the same period; United Utilities is increasing resilience of supplies through a new west to east link that is nearing completion. Other water companies are also taking positive action, as I saw for myself in a recent visit to Yorkshire Water; this company has improved resilience of its water supply since 1995-96 through creation of a network to redistribute water taken from rivers, reservoirs and groundwater across its supply area.
All water companies plan for secure supplies through their 25-year water resources management plans. These set out how a company will provide for a sustainable supply and demand balance taking into account pressures such as population growth and climate change. But that does not mean that they can avoid introducing restrictions in times of water shortage: typically they plan for restrictions once every 20 years. To plan for resources that would meet demand in any circumstances would build in significant additional costs, which would fall to their customers, and would have impacts on the environment too. And so all companies take a risk-based approach, balancing a planned level of service, to include measures such as hosepipe bans, against the costs customers are willing to pay for a secure supply.
None of us can predict what the weather will bring over the coming year and, while I am advised by the Environment Agency that no other part of England is anticipating imposing hosepipe bans at present, after such a dry six months we should all take care to protect the resources available for essential uses and not let it run to waste unnecessarily. Householders can get good advice on how to make best use of water from their water supplier, and from Waterwise (www.waterwise.org.uk).
Looking more broadly at the UK situation we must recognise that the United Kingdom has finite water resources, with some parts of England having less water per person than many hotter and drier countries. Using our water supplies wisely so that we have what we need for essential domestic and industrial purposes, while minimising the impact on the natural environment at a time of climate change and population growth is the challenge for the future. It is now 20 years since the current regulatory regime was put in place and the White Paper I plan to publish next summer will examine the options for reforming the industry to drive greater efficiency and improving the way we value and use our water resources.
I will continue to monitor the situation and will keep the House updated if there is any material change in the situation.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 12 July, the first under the Belgian presidency.
Belgium’s Federal Agriculture Minister (Laruelle) and Flemish Minister-President (Peeters—who will chair fisheries items at Council), gave an overview of their priorities for the next six months. On agriculture, there will be a continuation of discussions of future CAP in advance of the forthcoming communication; and legislative proposals on dairy, food for the needy and quality policy. There would also be other discussions on the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) roadmap, animal health strategy and the regulatory framework on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On fisheries there would be the annual cycle of decisions on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas, but also discussion on CFP reform, in particular on the link between science and fisheries.
Commissioner Ciolos introduced the dairy high level group recommendations as a means to enable the EU to achieve market stability for the milk sector and pave the way for a future without quotas. There will be a legislative package at the end of the year concentrating on the first three recommendations on contractual relations, bargaining power of producers and the role of producers (POs) and interbranch organisations (IBOs).
Council was divided between those calling for more regulatory and market management intervention, and those urging more competitive responses, using the full scope of existing provisions. Some called for mandatory contracts between producers and milk purchasers, but others, led by the UK, wanted these kept voluntary.
The UK and the Netherlands argued that no changes were needed to competition law to allow better functioning of the milk supply chain, but a number of others urged relaxations of competition rules to allow producers more scope to manage sales.
Origin labelling also featured, with a number of member states against compulsory labelling, whilst others preferred voluntary labelling, especially for imitation products. On market measures there was broad consensus that reform should continue, but still a need for some form of safety net.
There was a mixed response on POs and IBOs, with France and most southern Europeans wanting their powers extended in the milk sector.
Northern member states urged caution around changes to role of POs and IBOs, warning against with the risk of creating an IBO monopoly.
The UK stressed the need for rebalancing producer power, but noted that there was already scope to do so under current rules and that it should not interfere with free market principles. The UK also underlined the clear differences in market organisation between member states—one size solutions would not fit all, and any legislation would have to minimise burdens.
The presidency (Laruelle) plan Council conclusions to steer the Commission’s legislative package for the September Council.
Next, Ciolos noted the derogation from the state aid rules which allowed the German alcohol monopoly to buy spirits from certain distillers at guaranteed prices. The German authorities accepted that the derogation could not continue and therefore it was proposed that this be phased out by 2013, although Germany would be able to continue paying state aid to the sector up to 2017. Germany concurred and in order to allay concerns about distortion to the market, highlighted that the monopoly only represented less than 1% of the EU market of ethyl alcohol and that there was free access to its market for spirits produced elsewhere in the EU. The special Committee on agriculture (SCA) would continue discussions on the proposal in September.
Under any other business, Lithuania (with some support) requested that it be allowed to make advance direct payments (from 16 October rather than 1 December) to farmers due to the exceptionally harsh winter which had led to the loss of winter crops in many areas. The Commissioner said his services would deal with any individual request made, but stressed that member states must demonstrate that the circumstances were truly exceptional.
Review of Controls on the Import of Animal Products 2009-10
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
As required under the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended by the Animal Health Act 2002) the Government will publish today a review of controls on the import of animal products for the financial year 2009-10. As the new Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, I welcome the opportunity to report on the efforts of DEFRA and other Government Departments and agencies during the past year to reduce the risk of disease entering the country via imports of animal products.
Imports of animal products from outside the European Union (EU) bring with them the risk of animal diseases which, as we know, could potentially introduce disease to our livestock and crops and to the environment. The risk can also be to public health—diseases such as highly pathogenic avian influenza type H5N1 can infect humans and are of serious public concern—and also be high economic cost as we know from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in 2001 which is estimated to have cost £3 billion relating to agriculture and the food chain.
Effective enforcement and raising public awareness are therefore key to ensuring that we meet our objective.
Controls are already in place to carry out veterinary checks on legally imported animal products from non-EU countries. UK Border Agency (UKBA) delivers a flexible, risk based enforcement strategy to prevent illegal imports including using information from DEFRA on the entry routes that pose the greatest threat of introducing animal disease.
DEFRA with UKBA and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have undertaken a focused publicity campaign as part of the overall communications strategy—inland within GB, at the border and also overseas. During this last year we have seen the re-launch of the personal food imports campaigns for general travellers in October 2009 and for the black and minority ethnic (BME) communities in November 2009.
The changes to the EU personal import rules in May 2009, in particular an increase to the personal concession amount allowed for fish, has enabled UKBA to refocus deployments to target the high risk routes for illegal meat and dairy products carried by incoming travellers more effectively. The number of seizures of illegal imports of animal products have therefore shown a 3% increase this year with seizures of meat and dairy products up by 14% and 45% respectively.
We can never have a zero risk but we monitor and assess the changing threats from around the world (such as the evolving FMD situation in South East Asia), and work with UKBA and other enforcement partners to ensure that our enforcement activity is targeted at the current risks.
Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, on the DEFRA personal food imports website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/personal- import/index.htm), and sent to DEFRA customers for information giving them the opportunity to provide their feedback. Hard copies will also be available on request.
General Affairs /Foreign Affairs Council
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 26 July in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will represent the UK. I will also attend.
The agenda items are as follows:
General Affairs Council (GAC)
Belgian EU Presidency
Chairing his first GAC under the new Belgian presidency, Foreign Minister Vanackere will present the presidency’s programme for the next six months programme. Other Ministers will have an opportunity to question him on Belgium’s priorities. We believe there are number of areas in which we can work well with the Belgian presidency including on trade and free trade agreements (FTAs), particularly with countries such as India and Korea.
European External Action Service (EEAS)
Ministers will discuss the EEAS decision, which was passed by the European Parliament on 8 July, and has been scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. The decision provides a framework for the establishment of the EEAS, as provided for in the treaty of Lisbon. It sets out a framework for the nature and scope of the service, its functions, its central Administration, and the management of its staffing, budget and programming.
There remain a number of implementation-related issues to be worked through over the coming months. We shall support the Baroness Ashton in establishing the EEAS as a body which enables the EU to pursue agreed common positions in a cohesive and effective way. We shall be both vigilant and determined to ensure that the EEAS respects the competences of member states for foreign and security policy as set out in the treaty, and that it provides value for money. We will keep Parliament updated regularly on progress.
Iceland
The GAC will agree the EU’s general position on the negotiating framework for Iceland’s accession negotiations. Official opening of the negotiations will take place on 27 July. The negotiating framework reflects UK objectives that stipulate that Iceland implements its EEA obligations, including those identified by the EFTA surveillance authority (i.e. Iceland’s breach of the deposit guarantee directive).
Follow-up to the June European Council
We expect there to be a short review of the key conclusions from the June European Council: Europe 2020 strategy, the G20 summit, millennium development goals (MDGs), and climate change. There may also be a discussion about the frequency of European Councils and the role of the GAC in preparing for them.
September European Council
Ministers will discuss the forthcoming September European Council (16 September), which will be themed around foreign policy and attended by both Leaders and Foreign Ministers. Baroness Ashton or Herman Van Rompuy may outline their understanding of the scope of discussion in September, and solicit views. Ministers may seek to debate the EU’s strategic relations with emerging powers.
Foreign Affairs Council (FAC): Foreign Ministers
EU’s strategic relationships (India/Brazil)
Following the morning GAC discussion on the September Council, Baroness Ashton will chair a discussion over lunch on the EU’s relationship with Brazil and India.
On Brazil, Ministers will discuss the recent EU-Brazil summit, and the longer-term vision of the High-Representative/Vice-President for this important strategic partnership. Ministers are likely to discuss the relaunch of EU—Mercosur free trade agreement negotiations, and the potential benefits of increasing trade with this large and dynamic region.
On India, Ministers will assess the prospects for delivering more from the EU’s relationship with this emerging power. We would like to see the EU-India free trade agreement finalised this year, though this will not be easy given some of the difficult issues to overcome, particularly on migration and EU political clauses. Ministers may also discuss other areas highlighted by the November 2009 EU-India summit, including counter terrorism. Ministers will look ahead to the 2010 EU-India summit, on 21 October in Brussels.
Sudan
Ministers will discuss the challenges facing Sudan over the coming months as the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) reaches its conclusion. We expect Ministers to agree conclusions that support:
the upcoming referenda processes in South Sudan and Abyei through substantial technical and financial assistance;
peaceful implementation of the CPA, reaching an agreement on post-referendum issues and working towards long term regional stability;
the work of the African Union high-level implementation panel;
capacity building and assistance to meet the challenges faced by South Sudan;
efforts to address insecurity and reach a lasting peace settlement for Darfur;
the work of the International Criminal Court; and,
continued development and humanitarian assistance across Sudan.
On international coordination, we expect Ministers to agree to coordinate closely with the Sudanese parties, the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN), IGAD, the United States and other national, regional and international partners.
Iran
Ministers are expected to agree to a Council decision setting out a comprehensive package of EU sanctions against Iran in response to the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear programme, and in line with the dual track strategy of engagement and pressure.
Gaza/Middle East Peace Process
Ministers will discuss the response from Israel and the international community to the situation in Gaza following the flotilla incident. Baroness Ashton will give an update on her recent visit to Gaza and discussions about how the EU could assist with the opening of Gaza. Ministers will also discuss the wider peace process including the American-led proximity talks and their progress. Depending on the outcome of the discussion, the Council may issue a conclusion statement.
Kyrgyzstan
Ministers are expected to discuss the ongoing crisis in Kyrgyzstan and adopt conclusions welcoming the successful conduct of the 27 June constitutional referendum. Foreign Ministers Kouchner and Westerwelle visited Kyrgyzstan on 16 July and tabled a joint paper at the OSCE Informal Foreign Ministers meeting in Almaty, which we understand they are likely to raise at the FAC.
Georgia
On Georgia the aim is to ensure continued EU focus as we approach the second anniversary of the Russia-Georgia war. The Council will not have to take any decisions and discussion is likely to focus on a debriefing by EUHR Catherine Ashton on her recent visit to Georgia. If time allows, Ministers might discuss Georgia’s relations with the EU following the launch of negotiations on an association agreement on 15 July and the recent signature of a visa facilitation agreement. There may also be discussion of the Georgian Government’s action plan for engagement with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Western Balkans
Ministers are expected to discuss Kosovo, given the forthcoming advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The Government firmly support Kosovo’s independence and believe that both Kosovo and Serbia should use the ICJ outcome to reinforce and not undermine stability in the Western Balkans region. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The Government strongly support BiH’s ambition for future EU membership but are very concerned about the current reform blockage and nationalist rhetoric. We believe that the EU military force, EUFOR Operation Althea, continues to play an important role in underpinning stability in BiH.
Cuba
The Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos may update the Foreign Affairs Council on the recent release of a number of political prisoners in Cuba, and Cuban Government assurances that 52 in total will be released over the next few months. Discussion may then touch on the EU common position on Cuba.
British Council Annual Report
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The “British Council Annual Report” will be laid before Parliament this afternoon. The report covers the work of the British Council in the period 2009-10. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office (and Printed Paper Office in the House of Lords). A copy of the report is also available on the British Council website (www.britishcouncil.org). I commend the report to the House.
NHS White Paper Consultation
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing two further supporting documents to the national health service White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”, which was published on 12 July. The documents have been placed in the Library, and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote office. The documents are also available at: www.dh.gov.uk/liberatingtheNHS.
The documents, “Commissioning for Patients” and “Local Democratic Legitimacy in Health” provide further detail on the principles of the policies set out in the White Paper, and seek views from the public and external partners on some of the questions arising out of them.
One of the central features of the proposals in the White Paper is to devolve commissioning responsibilities and budgets as far as possible to those who are best placed to act as patients’ advocates and support them in their healthcare choices. “Commissioning for Patients” sets out my intended arrangements for general practitioner (GP) commissioning and the role of the NHS Commissioning Board.
Through our world-renowned system of general practice, GPs and other primary care, professionals are already supporting patients in managing their health, promoting continuity and co-ordination of care, and making referrals to more specialist services. In empowering GP practices to come together in wider groupings, or “consortia”, to commission care on their patients’ behalf and manage NHS resources, we are building on these foundations. We are also empowering primary care clinicians to work more effectively alongside the full range of other health and care professionals and, where appropriate, to work collaboratively to combine their commissioning power and influence. The NHS Commissioning Board will provide overall leadership on commissioning for quality improvement. It will have a duty to ensure comprehensive coverage of consortia and hold them to account for the outcomes they achieve and for their financial performance.
“Local Democratic Legitimacy in Health” is a joint publication between my Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government. It sets out proposals to increase local democratic legitimacy in a way that is consistent with national accountability for a national health service. Local authorities will become responsible for local public health improvement functions. They will have a new role in shaping NHS commissioning activities and a new role promoting integration. Local authorities will lead in assessing the needs of their populations and co-ordinate local strategies to address these needs. This will promote integration and partnership across the NHS, social care, public health and wider services such as housing and disability services. Local HealthWatch organisations, acting as independent consumer champions, will also be funded by and accountable to local authorities. To reinforce local accountability, local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that local HealthWatch are operating effectively, and for putting in place better arrangements if they are not.
The document also outlines how local authorities may choose to work with their partners to implement the arrangements and how the new public and patient involvement and local authority health improvement functions will be taken forward.
Both documents seek views on a number of questions by 11 October.
Immigration (Points-based System)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The immigration rules specify that the detail of how certain requirements will be applied will be set out in UK Border Agency guidance rather than in the immigration rules themselves. This is essential best practice as it enables the UK Border Agency to have the flexibility it needs to make minor changes while staying within the framework set out in the immigration rules.
However, on two particular points successful legal challenges have been brought to the extent to which requirements must be set out in the immigration rules rather than in UK Border Agency guidance. The first is the minimum levels of courses that may be studied under tier 4 (general). The second is the periods of time that applicants must have held available funds for.
In the light of the court judgments I am bringing the detail of these requirements within the immigration rules. The requirements themselves are not changing, although in the case of English language courses, I am using this as an opportunity to reintroduce the minimum level for such courses which was in place before the judgment was handed down. By doing this, if the requirements do change in future, those changes will need to be laid before Parliament.
I am also making a further change to the tier 4 (general) category today to make it a requirement for some students studying below degree level to provide evidence of having passed a UK Border Agency-approved secure English language test at a minimum of B1 level on the common European framework of reference for languages. This change builds on the previous position where the sponsors of such students were required to make their own assessment of the English language level of the student. The use of an independent test is an advance on this as it should help ensure that sponsors are not duped by students offering false or fake documents to prove their English language ability.
It is right that under the points-based system, all students now need to apply to the UK Border Agency to vary their leave before being able to change institutions. This is essential so that the UK Border Agency can maintain accurate records of where migrants are studying and check that the institutions to which they wish to move are bona fide and are willing to take on the sponsorship of their new students under tier 4. Consequently, tier 4 students are unable to start studying at their new sponsor institution until they have received a positive decision on their application.
The principle of sponsorship—whereby those who benefit most directly from the contributions migrants make to the United Kingdom (employers and education institutions) are expected to play their part in ensuring the UK’s migration system is not abused—is an integral part of the points-based system. The new highly trusted sponsor licence introduced for tier 4 sponsors on 6 April 2010 provides a further segmentation of the existing sponsor rating system designed to identify those sponsors who are achieving the highest levels of compliance with their sponsor obligations and whose students are showing the greatest compliance with the terms of their visa or leave. Those holding a highly trusted sponsor licence are granted additional freedoms and offered new services to recognise their previous track record of good compliance.
In recognition of the high levels of student compliance among highly trusted sponsors; I have agreed an additional freedom for their students which is being introduced by the change to the immigration rules for tier 4 (general) and tier 4 (child) students today. The change will allow the students of highly trusted sponsors to commence their studies with them before receipt of UKBA’s decision on their application.
In addition, for the avoidance of doubt, I am also making changes today to our general grounds for refusing applicants, (for example on the basis of submitting false documents), to make it absolutely clear that these provisions also apply to applicants who have overstayed their previous permission to be here.
Because of the urgent nature of some of these changes, it has not been possible in respect of some of them to follow the usual convention of laying them before the House for 21 days before they come into force. I regret that this has not been possible in this instance. The changes permitting students to change sponsors where their new sponsor is a highly trusted sponsor and those made following successful legal challenges will come into force tomorrow, on 23 July.
Hillsborough Independent Panel
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I want to place on record the Government’s support for the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel under the chairmanship of the Right Reverend James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool.
What happened at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 was a tragedy of national and international significance. The Government recognise that despite the various examinations of the circumstances which have taken place over the years, important questions remain to be resolved. With this in mind, the Hillsborough Independent Panel has been created to oversee the disclosure of the records relating to Hillsborough; to report on how the disclosed material adds to public understanding of the tragedy and its aftermath, and to make recommendations for a permanent archive.
The panel has the Government’s full support in achieving maximum possible disclosure of the records, initially to the Hillsborough families and then publicly. No changes are to be made either to the panel’s terms of reference or to its membership, which both remain as previously published.
I am well aware of the significance of the Hillsborough disaster, which had a profound impact on Liverpool as well as people in Sheffield, Nottingham and beyond. My meetings with the Bishop of Liverpool have confirmed to me both the importance of the panel’s work and the diligence and professionalism with which it is carrying out its duty, and I am happy to confirm it will continue with our full support.
Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Informal Council on 15 and 16 July in Brussels.
Discussions on the Interior day centred on two themes: how to reach a common European Asylum System by 2012 and crime prevention.
During the first session, the presidency posed a couple of questions asking whether priority should be given to the negotiations on the Dublin and Eurodac regulations and qualification and long-term residence directives while allowing additional time to consider the appropriate way forward on the procedures and reception conditions directives and whether Ministers supported the inclusion of a temporary suspension clause in the Dublin regulation for countries under pressure.
I underlined that asylum required an international response and that the UK had taken in the highest number of individuals in Europe last year. However, the UK did not believe the directives resolved the challenges facing member states: they increased the rights of asylum seekers, at the expense of providing protection quickly for those in need and return for those who were not in need. I underlined the need for practical co-operation to build the capacity of member states’ asylum systems including via the European Asylum System Office and Frontex. On Dublin I said that the UK remained very sceptical of a suspension mechanism, which would address the symptoms not the cause of the problems and risked making them worse.
During the second session, the presidency posed a number of questions on crime prevention, calling for implementation of the EU internal security strategy to focus on practical co-operation and prevention, identification of a methodology for prioritising threats and identified two areas where work might begin on firearms trafficking and itinerant groups.
I welcomed the presidency priority given to the internal security strategy and the Commission’s analysis of the link between organised crime and local crime, particularly efforts to tackle illegal firearms but on itinerant groups I would want more information on how they were to be defined. I noted the role of passenger name records in fighting organised crime and expressed disappointment at the Commission’s recent information that the directive would not be published until next year. Other delegations also called on the Commission to bring forward plans to publish an EU passenger name records directive
Discussions on the Justice day centred on the role of Eurojust and the launch of the e-Justice portal. The Justice Secretary stated that the UK valued Eurojust and felt that the EU should wait until the Eurojust council decision had been fully implemented and evaluated before looking to legislate in this area again. The Justice Secretary reinforced the UK’s position that it would not be participating in the European Public Prosecutor Office.
The European e-Justice portal was launched by the Belgian Justice Minister with Commissioner Reding. The portal is a website that functions as a point of access to a range of information on justice matters across the EU. This first release of the portal concentrates on the provision of information—for example how the legal systems in each member state work and links to websites of most relevant interest to citizens and lawyers.
Terrorism Legislation (Lord Carlile Report)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC has completed his report on the operation in 2009 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which will be laid before the House today. Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.
I am grateful to Lord Carlile for his detailed report and thank him for his continuing work in carrying out the role of independent reviewer for terrorism legislation so effectively.
I will carefully consider his views and recommendations. Given a number of Lord Carlile’s key recommendations relate to powers that are being considered in the review of counter-terrorism and security powers that I reported to the House on 13 July 2010, I intend to respond to his report after that review has been completed.
Security Industry Authority Annual Report
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
I am pleased to announce that the annual report 2009-10 and accounts of the Security Industry Authority (SLA) will be laid before Parliament today and will be published on 26 July 2010.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.
e-Borders Programme
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
e-Borders is the electronic collection and checking of individual passenger details against UK police, security and immigration watchlists. It is a key element of our strategy to deliver robust border controls and it supports our national counter terrorism strategy. It helps to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks, to disrupt cross border crime and to prevent abuses of the immigration system. That is why we made clear in the coalition programme that we support the idea of e-Borders.
It has been clear for some time that the way the existing programme was developing gave rise to serious concern. Over recent weeks we have been examining the progress of the programme and it has been extremely disappointing. While some elements have been delivered, they have not been delivered on time. Delivery of the next critical parts of the programme are already running at least 12 months late. On top of this there remain risks of further delays, and there is no confidence in the current prime supplier—Raytheon Systems Limited—being able to address this situation.
The efficiency reform group has looked at the project as part of its major project assessment review and their view was that the history of the programme was a succession of missed milestones coupled with issues of quality. Since July 2009 the supplier has been in breach of contract and there have been extensive negotiations about a remedial plan; no agreement has been reached.
The supplier’s performance to date has not been compliant with their contractual obligations. As a consequence I have taken the decision to terminate the e-Borders contract. The supplier is required to ensure a smooth handover of services to a new supplier.
The decision has not been taken lightly, but after much consideration. We will now seek alternative providers to secure the key benefits that the contract has so far been unable to deliver. This work will be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
To date and since the project was started in 2007, the Government have spent £188 million on supplier costs against a total contract cost of around £750 million.
What we currently have in place is the software for the collection of data in advance of travel and their subsequent storage; the technology to enable carriers to feed information into a central hub and a National Border Targeting Centre which opened earlier this year and where the information is checked against watchlists and reviewed by the police and border force officers.
Going forward, the e-Borders programme remains a priority. The termination of this contract does not change this. The Government are determined to get value-for-money from its major contracts, and requires the highest standard of performance to be delivered.
e-Borders is part of a wider activity with our partners to check passengers against watchlists before they travel. Security and immigration checks carried out by the UK Border Agency will continue as normal before individuals travel and at the UK border.
The Government are committed to enhancing e-Borders capabilities and to ensuring that we can progress this project in a timely and cost-effective way. Those parts of the e-Borders programme that have already been delivered should continue to run as normal.
We need to know who is coming to the country and who has left so that we are able to stop those who are not allowed to come here. A working e-Borders programme will help us perform all those vital tasks. That is why we have taken this decision, and why we will ensure that the benefits of e-Borders are delivered through a programme that meets its targets, so that everyone in this country is made safer.
St Helena (Access)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government recognise their special responsibilities and international obligations towards their overseas territories, and are committed to supporting their economic development. We want to provide a permanent, economically viable solution to the problem of access to St Helena. This is in the long-term interest of both the British taxpayer and the citizens of this overseas territory.
St Helena is one of the most remote inhabited islands in the world and is currently accessible only by sea. In 2005, the previous Government committed themselves to building an airport. They put the project out to tender in 2007. In October 2008, they appointed a preferred bidder and commenced contract negotiations. Two months later they “paused” the project. In 2009 the Government set up a further consultation on “whether an airport is the most appropriate option for access to St Helena in the current economic climate”.
Should an airport not be built, HMG would have to spend an estimated £64 million on a new ship, because the current vessel is reaching the end of its economic life, and continue to subsidise its operating costs. St Helena would stand little chance of becoming financially independent, meaning it would permanently rely on substantial annual budgetary and other support from HMG (currently in excess of £20 million every year). A new ship would provide a costly service but not a solution to St Helena’s stagnation and perpetual dependence on UK-aid support.
It also appears that airport cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the length of the runway run-on using an Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS). This shorter run-on still allows planes to stop safely after reaching the end of the runway itself. This is a technological advance in air safety, which is already in use in airports around the world but which has yet to be approved by Air Safety Support International, the regulator for the UK overseas territories.
Since taking office, the Government have reviewed the economic costs and benefits of a new ship compared to the construction of an airport. Further independent analysis has concluded that, provided certain conditions are met, the best long-term solution from an economic and financial perspective for both HMG and St Helena is to construct an airport. This would allow us over time to eliminate the cost to HMG of servicing access to the island, to create the potential for St Helena to develop a self-sustaining economy (hence, eliminating the need for budgetary support from HMG) and to provide a permanent solution to economic isolation.
I have therefore reached the provisional conclusion, following careful discussion with Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that the additional short-term costs of constructing an airport are outweighed by the long-term benefits. So, I believe that this option is likely to represent the best value-for-money for the British taxpayer.
We would therefore be willing to finance an airport for St Helena on condition that:
an acceptable contract price is achieved;
the risk of cost and time overruns after the award of the contract is addressed;
the airport design using EMAS is approved by Air Safety Support International: and
the St Helena Government undertake to implement the reforms needed to open the island’s economy to inward investment and increased tourism.
We will make a further announcement once we are satisfied that the above conditions can be met.
DFID Resource Accounts and Annual Report
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The 2009-10 resource accounts and annual report for the Department for International Development have been laid before Parliament today.
The annual report covers DFID’s activities in 2009-10 in line with the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006.
The Reports will be available online on DFID’s website ( www.dfid.gov.uk ).
Arrest Warrants—Universal Jurisdiction
(13 years, 9 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)
The United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction over war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act, and over a few other offences of exceptional gravity, because of our international obligations and our commitment to ensuring that there is no impunity for those accused of such crimes. That commitment is unwavering.
It is important, however, that universal jurisdiction cases should be proceeded with in this country only on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution—otherwise there is a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or to pursue a coherent foreign policy. It is unsatisfactory that, as things stand, an arrest warrant for these grave offences can be issued on the application of a private prosecutor on the basis of evidence that would be insufficient to sustain a prosecution.
The Government have concluded, after careful consideration, that it would be appropriate to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued to a private prosecutor in respect of an offence of universal jurisdiction. This would interfere as little as possible with the existing rights of private prosecutors, and would not prevent them from initiating prosecutions for these offences where the evidence justified that course.
A suitable legislative amendment will be brought before Parliament at the first opportunity.
Service Personnel (Inquests)
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I think it right that we continue the previous Government’s practice of issuing quarterly statements to the House detailing inquests of service personnel who have died overseas. There was, however, no written ministerial statement in late April because of the general election. This is the first of these statements that we have made.
Like our predecessors, we too cannot express enough how highly we regard all of our service personnel who are or have been involved in the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We send our deepest condolences to the families of those personnel who have been killed serving their country. It is also with particular sadness that we note that, since the previous Government gave their last statement on 2 February, 71 further servicemen and women have died.
Today we are announcing the current status of inquests conducted by the Wiltshire and Swindon and other coroners. This statement gives the position at 16 July.
The tables which accompany this statement include information about those cases which involve a board of inquiry or a service inquiry. It is encouraging to see that steps are being taken to reduce the average period of time from the date of death to the inquest. We very much hope that this trend will continue, as it greatly benefits the bereaved families primarily, but also other parties to the inquests. In some cases a coroner may choose not to hold their inquest until the completion of a service inquiry, or it may be delayed for other logistical reasons. It is important that the coroner has all possible information about the death, and that all witnesses are able to attend the hearing.
Current status of inquests
Since the last statement a further 71 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel in operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. This makes a total of 325 inquests held into deaths of service personnel in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since June 2006, when additional resources were first provided to the Oxfordshire coroner.
Since operations commenced in 2001 there have been a total of 376 inquests into the deaths of service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, including six service personnel who died in the UK of their injuries. In two further cases, no formal inquest was held, but the deaths were taken into consideration during inquest proceedings for those who died in the same incident.
We would like to express our gratitude for the efforts of all of the coroners who are involved in conducting these inquests. We also wish to state that we are committed to continuing the Government’s support for these coroners.
Open inquests
i. Pre-31 March 2007 Fatalities
There are currently no outstanding pre-March 31 2007 inquests in the Oxfordshire coroner’s district.
ii. Post-1 April 2007 Fatalities
Since 1 April 2007 fatalities have been repatriated via RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire and since October 2007 additional resources were provided by the previous Government to ensure that a backlog of inquests did not build up in the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner’s district. The coroner, David Ridley, transfers inquests for service personnel to a coroner closer to the bereaved family, where possible.
There are, at present, 101 open inquests to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel who died in Iraq and Afghanistan whose bodies were repatriated after 1 April 2007 (56 involving deaths in the last six months). Of these, Mr Ridley has retained 34 inquests, while 67 inquests are being conducted by coroners closer to the next-of-kin. At 16 July two recent fatalities had been repatriated but the inquests were yet to be opened. Six recent fatalities awaited repatriation and inquest opening. Hearing dates have been set in 13 cases.
iii. Inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured
There remain 12 inquests to be held of service personnel who returned home injured and subsequently died of their injuries. Hearing dates have been set in two cases.
We shall keep the House informed about progress with the remaining inquests. I have placed tables in the Library of the House which outline the status of all cases and the date of death in each case. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
Office for Judicial Complaints (Annual Report)
(13 years, 9 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)
With the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, I will today publish the fourth annual report of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). The OJC provides support to the Lord Chief Justice and myself in our joint responsibility for the system of judicial complaints and discipline.
I welcome the publication of this report which provides details of the work undertaken by the OJC over the last year and the complaints dealt with.
The past year has seen significant change within the OJC with the appointment of Sheridan Greenland OBE as the new Head of the Office for Judicial Complaints in August 2009. I am pleased to see that, under new leadership, the OJC continues to build upon the firm foundation set down during the previous three years.
I note the progress which has been made in identifying efficiency and performance improvements through a “LEAN” review process and look forward to further improvements as the same principles are applied more widely throughout the OJC. I am similarly pleased to record the successful launch of the OJC’s online complaint service, providing greater accessibility and access to the OJC’s services to members of the public.
Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. Copies of the report are also available on the internet at:
http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk/publications.htm.
Department for Transport Resource Accounts
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip Hammond)
I have today published my Department’s resource accounts for 2009-10. Copies have been laid before Parliament and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Appended to the resource accounts, as per guidance issued by HM Treasury, are performance data tables.
Rail Franchising
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In a written statement of 17 June, I informed the House that the Department for Transport would shortly begin a consultation exercise on the future of rail franchising policy. That consultation has been published today.
The reforms presented for consultation include longer more flexible franchises aimed at incentivising private sector investment in the railways to benefit passengers. The consultation will provide industry partners, local authorities, passengers and other groups with the opportunity to comment on the Government’s approach to rail franchising. In particular, we would welcome responses on the best way to ensure that the proposed reforms improve the efficiency and value for money of rail franchises, for both taxpayers and fare payers.
The consultation will remain open until Monday 18 October 2010. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Taylor of Goss Moor
Introduction: Lord Reid of Cardowan
Introduction: Baroness Eaton
International Criminal Court
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stern
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the outcome of the Review Conference on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court held in Kampala, Uganda, from 31 May to 11 June.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, our response is positive. The ICC review conference in Kampala was a major milestone in the international community’s fight to combat impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern. The stocktaking of international criminal justice will help shape the future development of the court. The UK will now consider whether to ratify the amendment on the use of certain weaponry in a non-international armed conflict. The conference agreed a package, including the definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions for exercise of jurisdiction, to be put forward for discussion and possible adoption in 2017.
Baroness Stern
I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware—I am sure he is—of the considerable gratitude from across the world to the United Kingdom for the support which successive Governments have given to the ICC, as I learnt when I represented your Lordships’ House at an international meeting of parliamentarians for the ICC? Perhaps I may ask him a specific question about sexual violence, which is such a major and horrible aspect of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Government pledged to the review conference to do more for victims, particularly victims of sexual violence. Can he tell us what the Government plan to do specifically to help victims of this deeply appalling crime?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, which of course apply equally to the previous and the present Government of the United Kingdom. The conference at Kampala adopted a resolution on the victims issue which recognised the rights of victims to have access to justice and to participate in judicial proceedings. That applied to victims generally. For our part, the United Kingdom is committed to tackling the problem of violence against women. We will continue to promote programmes in support of this agenda, including measures that will address the special needs of women and children in areas of conflict.
Lord Chidgey
Will the Minister confirm the importance of the step taken in amending the Coroners and Justice Act, particularly in regard to enabling prosecutions of suspects for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes from 1 January 1991? However, can he also tell us how that will be implemented to enable, for example, the prosecution of suspects such as the four Rwandans who have been accused of war crimes but whose extradition failed last year, which has left us in a quandary?
Lord Howell of Guildford
In answer to my noble friend I can only express the hope that this will be resolved. The Kampala conference addressed these issues but did not reach any final conclusions. A great deal of the conference was simply carrying forward and firming up the work of the ICC in the light of its experience, of which my noble friend has just mentioned one example. I cannot give a more specific answer at this moment.
Lord Archer of Sandwell
I congratulate the Government on the amendment to define aggression. However, does the noble Lord agree that the decision to defer its implementation until 2017 demonstrates that those who oppose international answerability are at least as determined as those who support it? Can he assure the House that the Government will oppose any further attempts to undermine what has been achieved?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do not quite agree with the implication of the noble and learned Lord’s question although obviously I agree with him about the importance of the issue; it is a very complex question which was discussed in considerable detail at Kampala. The UK has a principled position: that the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for dealing with aggression. We maintain that that is right. If in the discussion the complexities of developing a further definition can be overcome, then the general purpose—all are agreed —is the right one. However, there are some obvious complexities here that need resolving. They are not in any way against carrying forward the concern with crimes of aggression; the only question is the technique and method by which that should be done.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that an International Criminal Court arrest warrant still is outstanding against Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army? The LRA has been responsible for some of the worst violations against women, such as those described by my noble friend Lady Stern a few moments ago, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Uganda, where it is estimated that the LRA has killed over 1 million people. Will he confirm that a letter was received by the Prime Minister only a week ago from a young woman called Juliet, who is here in London and who was herself raped by the LRA when she was just 12 years old?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, always speaks with authority and knowledge on these issues. It is significant that this meeting was held in Kampala, and of course it is in Uganda that these arrest warrants are currently out for a number of people. It is also where some particularly horrific crimes appear to have occurred, including crimes against women, about which we were talking a moment ago. That is the position and I can only reaffirm what the noble Lord has said: this is a good example of where the ICC really can carry forward the causes of peace and justice together in what we hope is an effective way.
Lord Goldsmith
Does the noble Lord agree that it is very important that our allies operate under the same conditions as we do? Would he therefore tell us whether the Kampala conference has advanced at all the prospect of the United States committing to the International Criminal Court, and will the Government—both parts of the Government—encourage the United States to join?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think that the answer is maybe. The United States sent 23 delegates to the Kampala conference; they all turned up and discussed these issues in detail. I asked those at the conference whether that will lead to a better prospect of the United States signing up to this but they were not sure of an answer. They say that the United States is involved in the discussions and interested in carrying matters forward, but the signs that it will actually put its signature to it are, I am afraid, still a bit fuzzy and remote.
Bovine Tuberculosis
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dixon-Smith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the practice of skin testing for bovine tuberculosis followed by the slaughter of reactors will eliminate the disease from the national herd.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
Tuberculin skin tests are the internationally accepted standard for detecting TB. Many countries have eradicated TB using a test and slaughter approach. In England, evidence suggests that without addressing the disease in badgers, it will be impossible to eradicate TB in cattle. The department has committed to developing affordable options for a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB.
Lord Dixon-Smith
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. There is evidence that the present testing regime correctly identifies the presence of tuberculosis within a herd, but no longer identifies all the infected animals so that after a series of tests, a residue of infection is left within the herd which can continue to spread the disease despite the removal of the identified animals. Will the noble Lord ask the Government to conduct a thorough review of the implications of this? The existing regime is not satisfactory and there are managerial consequences for biosecurity on the farm. Although this programme was very successful half a century ago, it is not working now. We are effectively burning pound notes.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept that there are occasions when using the current test—what I have described as the internationally accepted comparative test—that some cattle are missed. If we move to another test, known as the single test, there is a possibility of a greater number of what are described as false positives, which again would not be satisfactory. A further test is used, a blood test which is known as the gamma test, and we can look at it. I can give my noble friend an assurance that we will look at all three, but for the moment we think that the comparative test is the best one to use.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth
My Lords, I declare an interest as an associate member of the British Veterinary Association. Does my noble friend agree that blood testing is a good alternative or addition to skin testing and reveals more reactors? Will he consider a Defra policy of blood testing as well as skin testing in bovine TB hot spots, particularly where the badger population is considerable?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend, I think, refers to the gamma interferon blood test, which is used alongside the tuberculin skin test in certain prescribed circumstances to improve the sensitivity of the testing regime and identify more affected animals more quickly. I shall certainly look at whether it is possible to use that test solely, but, as I said earlier, for the moment, we believe that the comparative tests that we are using are possibly the best.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the sharp, 25 per cent decline in bovine TB which is recorded in today’s Farmers Guardian, for example. Given that Defra has shelved its own vaccination project, will the Minister assure us that the department will continue strongly to support vaccination and assist those farmers who wish to use it?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct to say that there has been a decline. Addressing bovine TB still involves great expense, in compensation, testing, research and surveillance. Something of the order of £63 million was spent on it in 2009-10. Some £29.9 million has been invested over the years in vaccine development. We shall continue to work on vaccine development and encourage others to do so as well.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, can foxes and rabbits carry bovine tuberculosis?
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness has absolutely stumped me. I do not know whether foxes and rabbits can spread bovine TB. We know that badgers are the principal problem, which is why we want to address them first, but if there is a problem in foxes and rabbits, I am sure that we will look at that as well.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, before breeding cattle are imported into this country, are they sufficiently checked to make sure that they have certificates stating that they are free from TB, and, if not, why not?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my understanding is that when breeding cattle are imported—the same would be true of export—the single test would be used. As I have said, that test can be more accurate, but it leads to more false positives. However, in the cases to which my noble friend refers, a false positive would be better than missing some of the others.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, the Minister mentioned budgets. Will he update us on the Government’s latest position on making progress against badgers if they are going to do so?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we are looking at all the relevant key evidence, including the published scientific evidence from what was referred to as the “randomised badger culling trial” and subsequent post-trial analysis. Having looked at that, we will draw up proposals. We will then consult on them and consider the best way forward.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
My Lords, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a rigorous attack was made on bovine TB, consisting of the double intradermal test, strict regulation of movement of cattle, the attested herd scheme and the TT scheme for milk production. I had the pleasure of participating in that as a young vet. We very nearly eliminated TB from the United Kingdom. It was only when it got into wildlife and badgers in particular that it went astray.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior
Does the Minister agree that an even more rigorous campaign to attack TB in cattle is now necessary, because it is causing great harm to most producers?
Lord Henley
My Lords, we have every intention of attacking the problem vigorously, but whatever we do will be based on the science that is put before us. We will make sure that we understand that science and act on it.
Lord Walton of Detchant
Does the Minister accept that one of the problems with skin testing for tuberculosis in both animals and man is that it does nothing more than indicate that the individual has at some stage been infected with tuberculosis but cannot, under all circumstances, indicate the presence of an active infection, because the infection may well have died out some time ago?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord knows far more about these matters than many in the House and I listen to him with great respect. I shall certainly take on board what he says. As I said, at the moment we believe that the comparative test is the right one but, as the noble Lord well knows, there are other tests at which we can, and will, look.
Visas
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the impact of the points-based visa system on visiting artists and performers.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there are no current plans for such a specific review, but a broader survey across all categories of tier 5 applicants—including, of course, artists and performers—has recently been undertaken, the findings of which will shortly be published. The arts and entertainment task force is closely involved to ensure that the detail of the system reflects the creative sector’s needs while being robust and fair.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. It was a breath of fresh air compared with replies on the subject from the previous Government. Will the Minister ensure that, in the process that he has described, he will consult the Manifesto Club and talk personally to the arts community, which has a great concern about this? Will he include also the issue of academic visiting visas, which is a matter of concern to the academic community?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. As I have said, the survey has been completed and the results will shortly be published. My noble friend was good enough to give me sight of a paper from the Manifesto Club which referred to three specific examples of artists. To explain each in detail would take too long today but, to summarise, in one case the applicant cut rather fine the timing of the application; in the other cases, the applicants provided no evidence of funds to support them in the UK. Although advice and guidance are available, it sounds as though in the latter two cases better advice could have been provided, and I have made that clear to the department.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, given the devastation that the Government plan to visit upon the arts through massive cuts in public funding for which there is no conceivable justification, is it not all the more important that no unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles should be placed in the way of distinguished performers coming to work with our orchestras, theatre companies and other arts organisations?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I agree at least with the latter half of the noble Lord’s contention. Two routes are useful for short-term visitors: one is a concession under tier 5 for non-visa nationals that requires no prior entry clearance—I can explain the system in greater detail to the noble Lord if he wishes—and the other is an entertainer visitor scheme outside the points-based system. We are doing what we can to help.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, does the Minister realise that whether artists are unknown or established, poor or rich, cultural interaction and travel are part of their lifeblood? It should be as easy for overseas artists to visit this country as it is for British artists to travel abroad.
Lord De Mauley
I cannot disagree with anything the noble Earl has said. It is very important to us to encourage and foster culture in our country. Foreign artists and performers are extremely welcome here, but the system has to be conducted in a robust but fair way.
Lord Geddes
My Lords, where an artist—let us say for reasons of health—has to drop out of a performance at very short notice and the only suitable replacement artist is from abroad, is my noble friend aware of the potential difficulty in obtaining a visa for the artist coming in as a subsidiary?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, yes, I am aware of that. As I have tried to explain, there are certain routes to facilitate an artist in that situation, but they have to be used with a system of undertaking proper checks of documentation.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, many artists travel to this country—to study, in particular—on ancestry visas. What is the coalition policy on ancestry visas?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I am not briefed on that specific point, so I will write to her, if I may.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, ask her first question. She was a very honourable High Commissioner for Australia. I asked, and had an answer from, the previous Government about people coming here to study—exactly those referred to by the noble Baroness. Will the Minister consider that there is a great deal of difference between visiting artists and young people who are not yet artists? I have cited in the past Joan Sutherland, who was nothing when she first came here. The time and training that she had here made a difference. The previous Government replied that they had introduced a degree of flexibility to enable young talent to come particularly from Australia, because Australian points are what we are basing this on. No one goes to Australia to become an artist.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am racking my brains to think of an artist, but I accept my noble friend’s general point. I mentioned earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, the concession under tier 5, which allows for non-visa nationals, including nationals from Australia specifically. That is one example. We will look at any suggestions that that my noble friend may offer.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, in view of the supplementary point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about academics, is any check being made of the impact of the points system on academic appointments?
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord will of course be aware that the Question was about tier 5 applicants and students. I think that academics are dealt with under tier 4, which is somewhat outside the scope of the Question. I will look into what he asks and write to him, if I may.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, tempted as I am to ask the noble Lord why he thinks the Sydney Opera House was built, does he recognise that in the operation of the system the problem often lies not at policy level but on the ground, where there is insufficient briefing and training for everyone to operate the system in the way that is intended?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, I take that point. My noble friend may be interested to hear that the independent chief inspector has recently published a report on the UKBA’s handling of complaints and correspondence that makes a number of important recommendations. We are determined to act on those and improve our existing practices. In future, I am hopeful that the certain lack of helpfulness to which my noble friend referred will be addressed.
Sheffield Forgemasters
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they cancelled a loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, given the willingness of the company to dilute its equity share.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the decision not to pursue the loan was taken on grounds of affordability.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place made statements to the effect that the reason why the loan was withdrawn was that the company would not dilute its equity share. It has since transpired that the Deputy Prime Minister was aware that the company was in fact prepared to dilute its equity share. Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not apologise to Parliament for misleading it? Why have the Government taken such a crass decision to withdraw the loan from the company, which could have provided a massive foundation to the development of a nuclear supply chain industry in this country?
Baroness Wilcox
Absolutely not. Our decision not to proceed with the loan was a matter of affordability and that only. The shareholder structure of SFIL did not influence any assessment. I have no knowledge of any privy discussions between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government’s decision has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. We regard Mr Honeyman and his team as having produced an excellent project with no criticism of him or of the company. Perhaps the Opposition should apologise for the necessity of cuts based on the state of the economy that we inherited.
Lord Brookman
My Lords, I declare an interest as the ex-leader of the trade union that represents most of the workers at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Minister is aware—it has already been stated by my noble friend—that this was a loan, not a grant. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the attitude of the coalition Government. As my noble friend said, two companies make this product for the nuclear industry: Sheffield Forgemasters and a plant in Korea. Is it not the case that this loan should be provided to save jobs in the community in Sheffield and to help manufacturing?
Baroness Wilcox
There is no doubt about it: I shall have to answer again and again that this decision was taken on grounds of affordability. Nobody would argue that Sheffield Forgemasters is not an excellent example of a successful British manufacturing company. The Government wholeheartedly support what the company does and I place on the record our recognition of its excellent work. Once again, I tell noble Lords that the only reason why we took the decision was affordability and we had to take that decision because of the condition that the previous Government left us in financially.
Lord Broers
My Lords, in light of the fact that it is largely German and Danish companies that will build the hugely expensive offshore wind turbines, do the Government not think that they should do more to ensure that the same thing does not happen with regard to nuclear power plants?
Baroness Wilcox
I think that the noble Lord will well know the view of this Government—both sides of our Government—on nuclear power. It is something that we have considered long and hard and it was not an easy decision to take. For our party, we will always say that we will not subsidise the nuclear industry.
Lord King of Bridgwater
Does my noble friend not agree that, despite the outrage expressed on the other side of the House, the financial situation of Sheffield Forgemasters might have been much different if the previous Government had not dithered so consistently on the question of further nuclear power for this country, so that that company could have had decent orders instead of having to seek loans from the Government to bail itself out?
Baroness Wilcox
Of course I agree with my noble friend. I say again that Sheffield Forgemasters is an excellent example of a successful British manufacturing company and will, I am sure, continue to be so for a long time to come.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister must agree that the decision to cancel this loan—after all, it was a loan, not a grant—is inexplicable until one realises that it follows a letter to the Government from Mr Andrew Cook, a major Conservative Party donor, who owns two forges in Sheffield. Surely that cannot be a coincidence, can it?
Baroness Wilcox
I assure the noble Lord that the representation from Mr Cook—copies were sent to Clive Betts MP and Angela Smith MP in another place yesterday on their request and will be placed on the BIS website today—had no bearing on the decision-making process. The decision not to pursue the loan was made on grounds of affordability.
Lord Cotter
My Lords, would the Minister not agree—and I am sure that this could highlight the situation generally in the manufacturing industry—on the need for the banks to give support to manufacturing in particular, especially in the light of a recent report from the British Bankers’ Association showing that bank lending fell substantially last year and that many businesses are still being turned down for loans? I know that the Government are concerned about this, but I urge renewed efforts to persuade the banks to address this issue. Time and again they say that they are lending, but the facts say not—and this is an example, perhaps, of a manufacturing industry issue where lending is required.
Baroness Wilcox
The banks will say, as they always say, that it is not their money that they are lending but other people’s money—
Baroness Wilcox
Not all of them are using taxpayers’ money. It must be for the banks to protect that investment and make sure that they get a good return. Sheffield Forgemasters has concluded that at present there is no available private sector alternative funding structure that is both economically viable for the company and fair to existing shareholders and that the company’s best interests will be served by suspending work on the project for the time being. However, as it has also stated, it is still keen to undertake the project.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Since the issue is one of affordability and value for money, will the Minister confirm that the Government will publish the value-for-money case?
Baroness Wilcox
The trouble with the party on the other side is that it misunderstands what “affordability” means or implies. As I have said, the Government inherited a massive and growing debt. If that had been allowed to grow beyond control, every company in the country would have had to face the risk of a disastrous rise in borrowing costs and there might have been even less money to borrow from the banks.
Business of the House
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 26 July to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill and any Finance Bill brought from the Commons to be taken through all their remaining stages that day.
Business of the House
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of Lord McKenzie of Luton to three hours.
Administration and Works Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Faulkner of Worcester be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Communications Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the Lord Bishop of Liverpool be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Plant of Highfield be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Rosser, resigned.
Refreshment Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That Baroness Crawley be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Davies of Oldham, resigned.
Policing and Crime
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
To call attention to policing and crime rates; and to move for papers.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, I am pleased and honoured to introduce this timely and important debate. I was looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, but I have been informed that he has flu and therefore will not be able to attend. I am sure that the House will extend to him our best wishes under the circumstances, and we look forward to his maiden speech on a future occasion.
Crime is an issue that is never far from the news headlines. Policing and crime affect all our lives. Television and films depict criminal enterprises as entertainment—and that is fine; I love a good detective or gangster film myself. It is important, however, that when politicians engage in debate on these vital issues, they do so on the basis of fact and evidence, not pure invention for the purpose of political advantage.
One of the first duties of any state is to safeguard its people from both within and outside its territory. Citizens from inside our borders need to be protected by those seeking wealth, advantage or gratification through the commission of crime against innocent victims.
I intend to touch on three main issues today: to expose the myth asserted recently by the Prime Minister that violent crime rose under the previous Government; to voice the fears of many citizens that serious crime will grow over the coming years because of cuts in front-line policing caused by the slashing of police budgets, the review of security cameras and the reduction in the DNA database; and to express the concern that the coalition Government, against all advice by respected chief officers and others, intend to politicise the police by introducing elected police commissioners, thereby risking for the first time the political independence of a police service that is respected throughout the world.
First of all, on the crime figures, at Prime Minister’s Questions on 7 July in another place, the right honourable David Cameron said:
“The point is that under the last Government violent crime and gun crime went through the roof”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/10; col. 364.]
Not true—the latest annual update on national crime statistics for England and Wales, released last week on 15 July, demonstrates that the Government are misleading the public about levels of crime.
Both the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime figures show that overall crime is down on last year by 9 per cent. I will cite the British Crime Survey, which is accepted as the most accurate measure of trends. Vehicle-related crime is down on last year by 17 per cent. Domestic burglary is down on last year by 9 per cent. Violent crime is down on last year by 1 per cent. Police recorded crime shows that firearms offences are down by 22 per cent since 2002-03 and knife crime is down on last year by 7 per cent. Since 1997, when the previous Government took office, the British Crime Survey shows that overall crime is down by 43 per cent; overall crime against the person is down by 41 per cent; overall household crime is down by 44 per cent; burglary is down by 59 per cent; and violent crime is down by 42 per cent. I could go on but by any standard these figures demonstrate how impressively the police and the criminal justice system have tackled crime under the policies of the previous Administration.
The Prime Minister has since been rebuked by the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Michael Scholar, for misusing violent crime figures. He confirms that the authority remains of the view that the British Crime Survey provides the most reliable measure of the trends in violent crime. Any attempt to suggest otherwise by misquoting or disbelieving the British Crime Survey, which is accepted as a gold standard by most British academics and internationally, is beneath contempt. It deserves to be exposed as a scaremongering propaganda effort of which Joseph Goebbels would have been proud. I know that the facts get in the way of a good story but I ask the Minister, in replying, to apologise on behalf of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister for recent utterances on these important matters. It is accepted by most informed commentators that the fear of crime is far worse than the risk of crime. By stoking the fear of crime the coalition Government create unnecessary concerns, particularly among the elderly.
While dealing with Ministers and their statements, I will comment on the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke. He said last week in his Mansion House speech:
“Crime has fallen in Britain throughout a period of both rising prison populations … and economic growth, with strong employment levels and rising living standards. No one can prove cause and effect. The crime rate fell”.
He went on to claim credit for his improved economic legacy, which by implication he suggested caused the drop in crime. Again, this is a travesty of the truth. Last year’s crime figures which I have just quoted are from a period of recession, which refutes the Justice Secretary’s argument that falls in crime are solely down to greater prosperity. He also omitted to say that when crime was remorselessly rising in the early 1990s, Ken Clarke was the Home Secretary. I know because I was the vice-president of the Police Superintendents’ Association at that time. While Home Secretary, like a bull in china shop, Ken Clarke took on the police service head-on. He had a history of belligerence in dealing with other public services and appointed the chairman of British American Tobacco, Sir Patrick Sheehy, to bring private sector efficiency and values to the police. How about that? It is just what our respected police service wanted: the moral and ethical values of an international tobacco company.
In the summer of 1993, a mass rally of 20,000 police officers gathered in Wembley Arena to protest about the Sheehy proposals, such as performance-related pay—presumably based on the number of arrests made by each officer. It was a truly historic occasion. I remember the star political speaker against Sheehy being the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who I see in his seat today as part of the Government on the coalition Benches. The point is that Kenneth Clarke totally demoralised the police service; under his stewardship crime really did go through the roof.
Fortunately for the police, the economic crisis at that time, when Britain crashed out of the ERM, led to the resignation in 1992 of the then Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He was succeeded by Kenneth Clarke—you’ve guessed it—whose legacy left the police service in total disarray. The new Home Secretary at that time, Michael Howard, is well known to your Lordships and has just been introduced into this House. He immediately scrapped the controversial Sheehy reforms and declared famously that “prison works”. I spoke yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who cannot be here because he is in France. He said to me, in terms, “Michael Howard, put it right”. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, demonstrated that prison works because crime fell dramatically under his stewardship as prison numbers rose. Ken Clarke now talks of bringing the same private sector values and profiteering to community service in place of short prison sentences. He says that he will empty prisons to save money, thereby putting decent people at risk of becoming victims of crime. Does the Minister agree with the Justice Secretary, Mr Ken Clarke, or with his noble friend Lord Howard, the previous Tory leader, who said yesterday that Ken Clarke is totally “misguided” on this?
There are also rumours in the press that the Sheehy report is being dusted down and revisited. Will the Minister give us an assurance today that this report, with its private sector values, is dead and buried, because the police service is very concerned that it is being revisited? The police are a public service, not a private company. The last thing that is required, on top of all the planned cuts and upheaval on the scale of what appears to be being planned for the National Health Service, is a similar operation for the police. Is this really what Liberal Democrat voters expected when they placed their cross on the ballet paper? It certainly was not in the manifesto.
What has brought crime down over the past decade has been record numbers of police and uniformed support officers on the streets, and the willingness to use prison as a deterrent against people who simply refuse to comply with the courts. The police service increased by 16,000 to 143,000 officers under the previous Administration—record numbers—plus 16,000 uniformed police community support officers. This is what the public want. Only this week, Sir Denis O’Connor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said that only 10 per cent of police officers were available at any one time on the front line to help the public and respond to calls. This is because of specialist posts, shift rotas, leave and the like. Is it not time for a royal commission to examine the police to see how they should be organised? It is estimated by the House of Commons Library that the £125 million of cuts proposed by the coalition would result in a reduction of some 4,100 police officers. This is on top of the 25 per cent reduction in the Home Office budget.
Another bright idea of the Tory wing of the coalition is the election of so-called police commissioners. It is said to make the police more accountable. Whatever else is wrong with the police, it is not a lack of accountability. They are accountable to the Home Secretary and to police authorities, which have elected members among their number. They are accountable locally to district and parish councils, which have regular meetings with local officers. Most importantly, of course, they are accountable to the law in the courts. I spent some time with the FBI in the United States and saw at first hand how the police were dragged into the political arena through the election of sheriffs. Judges and district attorneys are also elected in some areas.
The system we have has stood the test of time. Police are accountable and the last thing we want is a commissioner standing on a party ticket or on a single issue. I remember talking to a deputy sheriff in America who was a crony of the sheriff, of course, because he appoints them. He was canvassing on behalf of his boss, as his job depended on it. Is this really what we want in this country? The criminal justice system should be above party politics and independent of political pressure. Can you imagine a British National Party member standing on a tough law-and-order and anti-immigration ticket being elected a commissioner of police? Once we allow this poisonous genie out of the bottle, it will be very difficult to put it back in.
Parliament must scrutinise all this very carefully and any planned legislation to take our cherished police service kicking and screaming down this road should be rejected. The police service is totally against such changes and Sir Hugh Orde, the respected president of ACPO, has said that there could be senior resignations if such a policy were to be implemented. Similar caution has been expressed by Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, when he stated that regional and national gangs would be allowed to flourish because of a lack of national co-ordination, as local commissioners would stand, quite understandably, on local issues, and we do not have a federal system of law enforcement, as in the United States.
Caution is the watchword. Let us not destroy the good simply for the sake of change. I leave the Minister with the following questions to answer. I hope that he answers, because there is a tendency in this House for Ministers not to answer the questions that they are asked in debates. Does he accept that it is not true that violent crime increased under the previous Administration? Can he assure the House that front-line policing will not be reduced by the proposed cuts in policing budgets? Is he prepared to accept the risk of rising crime and more crime victims by preventing the courts from using prison as a final deterrent and introducing community sentences for profit in their place? Can he reassure the police that the discredited Sheehy report will not be revisited? Finally, does he accept the very real dangers of the politicisation of the police by the introduction of elected commissioners?
Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, for instituting this important debate. We also have the benefit of a very balanced report, produced jointly by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the two audit bodies for England and Wales.
I should like to add my support to the Government’s intention to consult—I repeat, consult—on plans for the election of police commissioners. This strikes a balance between the practice in, for instance, the United States—on which the noble Lord gave us a valuable insight—where chief police officers are elected on a political basis, and the United Kingdom. The former is quite rightly anathema to senior police officers in this country, since it would remove the ultimate operational independence from the chief police officer, while the Government’s proposal would make the commissioner accountable to his electorate.
However, this is a sensitive subject on which there are differing views from within the police forces and outside, as the noble Lord articulated. The Government are wise to consult on this. A factor to be considered will not least be the actual control that a commissioner would have over the selection and employment of chief and senior police officers in the respective forces. I should be very interested to hear the contribution of my noble friend Lady Harris from the Benches of our coalition partners.
I turn to SOCA. At a recent conference of the Police Foundation, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson left his audience in no doubt on the resourcefulness of the masters of organised crime, not only in the sophistication of their methods, but in the ever widening geographical scope of their operations. For instance, I understand that SOCA keeps closely in touch with the US Coast Guard. I believe that SOCA in its short life has made a promising start, but it must be resourced to enable it to have multifocused vision, as it were, on its global activities, while being able to address domestic considerations in the United Kingdom. It is in the latter environment that more co-operation between forces would be beneficial to SOCA’s effectiveness.
That leads me on to the subject of amalgamation of forces. I entirely support the Government in their view that this can be only on a voluntary basis with mutual agreement between forces. We saw a few years ago the tensions that arose from what was perceived by certain forces as attempted shotgun marriages, if your Lordships will pardon the metaphor.
Where there is real scope for co-operation is in relatively non-contentious areas, such as IT and the back office in general, in forensics and in motorway policing, where a regional or even a national unit might be considered. In many of these areas, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire have taken the initiative and that could provide a good example nationally.
Let us not forget the main thrust in this debate. The police community in England and Wales is understandably concerned at the impact of the cuts that will inevitably be required to be made. It has been well said that every country has the police it deserves. We are proud and well served by our police forces, and it is incumbent on the coalition Government that these unpalatable measures are handled as sensibly and sensitively as possible.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, before I begin, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the national Association of Police Authorities, a former chair of a police authority and a patron of the National Victims’ Association, about which I shall speak later.
According to the British Crime Survey, whose statistics, as we heard, were released last week, crime is at its lowest level for three decades. It dipped below 10 million offences to fall by 9 per cent last year to the lowest level since comparable records began in 1981—the year in which I became a member of a then police committee. Crime recorded by the police also fell by 8 per cent to 4.3 million crimes in the 12 months to April this year.
These statistics do not, however, include some of the more serious violent and sexual crimes, such as homicide and rape, but these are covered by police figures, and even accounting for these gaps does not shift the overall downward trend in crime statistics, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, has told us. However, the figures still mean that 26,000 people fall victim to a crime every day, and the one area that proves resistant to such welcome falls in crime rates is sexual offences. This rise may represent the implementation of new guidelines to improve the recording of rape; nevertheless, it is extremely worrying. However, we should all be very happy and congratulate those who have contributed to these considerable falls in crime. I am sure that your Lordships will wish such gains to be maintained, and indeed built on, because 26,000 people rendered as victims of crime every day is far too many.
We recognise that to wish for continued falls in crime in our present economic context is perhaps to place hope over experience, as previous periods of economic downturn have generally been followed by upwardly mobile crime figures. Let us hope that that will not be so this time. I believe that we all have a part to play in helping to ensure that it does not happen. We know that proposals to come before Parliament would fundamentally alter the form and nature of police accountability in England and Wales. I should have thought that the recent crime figures might have persuaded the Home Secretary that police accountability, through the police authorities, had finally come good and that the structures put in place to ensure that police forces focused on providing police services to the satisfaction of their communities was working.
The arguments around this proposal will be brought out when we shortly see the consultation document. I understand that it will not be in the form of a White Paper, which is a little disappointing, but I hope that my noble friend will reflect on the success of police authorities and not consider putting in their place untested and potentially expensive experiments which will deflect politicians and professionals alike from the core policing tasks.
We have been reminded about the Sheehy proposals, which were indeed disastrous, but I also well remember the last time that we were engulfed in proposals to alter police structures and accountability, between 2005 and 2006. Then, we saw considerable falls in police performance in serving the most fundamental of the public’s needs, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred. I am talking, of course, about the proposed mergers of police forces which, thankfully, were dropped because of massive opposition across the country. I hope that we learn from that mistaken proposal.
The present system has since 1995 delivered success, huge falls in crime and year-on-year efficiency savings—more than 30 per cent over 10 years. There are welcome signs that the service and national agencies are increasingly making inroads into the terrible threats posed to every neighbourhood by both serious organised crime and terrorism. All those developments are to be applauded and we would be foolish to throw away a system that has delivered such results.
Within the statistics that I spoke of earlier there are others that are more insidious and below the radar. So I now move on, briefly, to voice a very real concern about how victims of crime are treated. Last weekend I attended a meeting of the National Victims’ Association, of which I am a patron. This amazing organisation, led by its chair David Hines, supports families of those who have lost loved ones through murder or manslaughter. On another occasion I will bring to the attention of noble Lords much more detail about how both policing and the criminal justice system as a whole have so grievously and badly let down those who have to turn to this charitable organisation for help. It exists from hand to mouth and almost certainly will not be able to continue unless core funding for its services is provided in the very near future. Those families are the lost survivors who receive barely any help or recognition and it is a national shame that that is so.
We heard the most chilling and horrendous stories of how relatives of murder victims were treated. I will, if I may, quote two instances which illustrate areas which the police will have to address to improve their help to victims. We were told about Hughie and Betty, whose son was drugged and then beaten to death. The people responsible put his body in the boot of a car, drove it on to the Derbyshire moors and set fire to it. They were caught but because they simply blamed each other, the police did not know which one to charge with delivering the fatal blow and no one was ever charged with George’s murder. On top of that, to this day, Hughie and Betty are regularly intimidated by the families of the murderers.
Then there were Carla and Rachel, two young women. Their father, a retired police officer, was beaten to death in the kitchen of his home and his blood covered the floor, walls and ceiling. The police said that there was no funding to pay for a professional clean-up team, so those two young ladies had to do it themselves. On their hands and knees they cleaned up their murdered father’s blood, and years later they are still deeply traumatised by the experience.
I met all these relatives and was struck by their dignity and bravery, so I determined to tell noble Lords their stories. I have many more, sadly, to remind us that policing also needs to focus on those many, many victims of crime who are not helped sufficiently by either the police or the criminal justice system. I will most certainly be speaking about the National Victims’ Association on other occasions.
This has been an opportunity to talk about policing generally and I welcome that and thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, for bringing it to your Lordships’ attention. I sincerely hope that the comments I have made about the National Victims’ Association will not be lost in the overall concern being expressed about police funding or crime statistics.
Lord Birt
My Lords, this debate addresses an issue of rising salience, not least with the White Paper on the presses, so I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, on his superb timing. It is also a pleasure to participate on what we should term “Mackenzie” day in your Lordships’ House, with two successive debates—albeit with slightly different spellings—inspired by a Lord Mackenzie. I, too, regret that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not able to make his maiden speech in today’s debate. A long time ago, when he was a young man and I was a slightly less young man, we worked together in broadcasting. It was clear even then that he was a figure of exceptional authority and real ability. He will, as your Lordships will see, adorn this House.
No one who has had experience of the police in recent years, at any level, could fail to be impressed by their thoughtfulness and by their sensitivity to the public in general, and—dare I say?—to victims in particular, although the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, powerfully reminds us that there is still, and always will be, scope for improvement. Individual officers deal routinely with bad or extreme behaviour, and we have just heard some vivid examples of that. They come face to face daily with the consequences of social malaise or policy failure. They do so with courage and without complaint.
There are many agencies in the criminal justice system, and all have made a contribution to the long-term decline in offending—and there can be no doubt that there has been a long-term decline. However, no one can doubt that the police, alongside those other agencies, have played their part in these important advances too. Yet there can be no room whatever for complacency. Offending in the UK is still high by global standards. Crime is still responsible for enormous individual harms and for massive social and economic costs. Therefore, we need new policies and ever more effective agencies that can bear down on crime, and can reduce it yet more substantially. This needs to happen now against the grim backdrop of deficit reduction, from which no public sector organisation can be immune. This is, then, an opportune moment for a fresh and fundamental look at policing in the UK—a good moment to scrutinise the model that in all its essentials is now 50 years old, a model which was left relatively untouched by the previous Government.
The first challenge is to create a structure that focuses on different categories of crime. It is not self-evident that 43 forces structured around metropolitan areas and old county lines is an appropriate model for dealing with crime and disorder today. SOCA is a real advance, as is the regional focus on counterterrorism. However, many policing functions in the 43 forces may be better provided at local, regional or national level.
At grassroots level, in the immediate locality with which we can all identify, we need an intense and accountable focus on anti-social behaviour and locally generated volume crime. There are issues, too, at regional level. I recently saw an excellent programme on television about a truly impressive and innovative specialist police unit for rape set up by Hampshire police. At the end of the programme, the rape unit was closed down. That was because serious sexual crime in Hampshire was infrequent and its incidence unpredictable, so the utilisation of officers was uneven. The obvious answer, perhaps, was that this very real centre of excellence should have extended its geographic focus to a more appropriate regional level, but structural impediments stood in the way. On the other hand, some crime has a more national or global focus. Cyber crime costs our economy literally billions of pounds, but the police's focus on online fraud is simply lamentable. Here I declare an interest as chairman of PayPal Europe.
At all those different levels, not just at the most local level, the police need to be more accountable for the outcomes that we want them to deliver. At national level, we should also re-evaluate the architecture of the oversight institutions, including ACPO, to ensure that there is a challenging, strategic and performance-enhancing centre at the very heart of British policing.
Secondly, the police need to bring their workforce practices into line with the world around them, which has changed massively over recent decades. Frankly, Governments have, for perfectly understandable reasons, dodged that issue for too long. As with MI5 and SOCA, policing at every level needs to focus more on the offender and less on cleaning up after the offence. That points to more intelligence-based policing, greater analysis and a smarter use of technology. Modern policing needs greater flexibility and a wider range of capabilities than a single point of entry currently allows, with different kinds of specialists and front-line officers focusing on different kinds of crime. Moreover, police pay should relate to achievement, not to tenure. Weak performance should also be addressed, as in other organisations, and pensions should be portable, offering greater workforce mobility.
There are operational issues as well. Shift patterns should be more flexible, allowing commanders more easily to match resource to operational need. There is more crime and disorder on a Saturday night than on a Monday morning. Police productivity can be increased in other ways. Procurement of helicopters and the like should be centralised, not localised. Back-office services inefficiently duplicated across multiple forces can be outsourced, and all core policing processes should be re-examined and made fit for purpose and cost-effective—a common call.
I note, as did a previous speaker, the joint report released this week by the Audit Commission and HMIC suggesting that only 12 per cent of police costs could be saved through greater efficiency. From my experience, I would say that, for a mature bureaucracy, that is a very modest target indeed.
The third challenge is one for Ministers, not for the police. Much public and, indeed, political rhetoric connects the notion of reducing crime exclusively with uniformed front-line policing. In truth, we will not bear down on crime as we could and should unless and until policymakers, and all the multiple agencies in and around the criminal justice system, work harmoniously together with matching and complementary objectives and focus hard on the offender. Together, they must aim to prevent individuals entering the pathway to offending and to address the causes of the offending behaviour in those who do, particularly in relation to drugs. Finally, they must strive at all costs to prevent repeat offending.
Only when we have effective multiagency working in democratically accountable structures with high-quality information and performance reporting have we any hope of achieving the massive further reduction in crime which I am sure is possible, and which I am also sure all here desire.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, for giving us an opportunity to discuss policing. I am sorry not to be able to follow the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was going to ask him whether he had left any notes for my noble friend Lord McNally, who succeeded him in his post at the Ministry of Justice, because my noble friend has not found them yet.
The expectations of the police among the public are very high. For one thing, the public expect to see a lot of them and to see almost instant results and success. In this television age we have become accustomed to seeing cases solved within an hour, minus seven minutes for commercials, and often using cutting-edge forensic techniques—would that life were quite so simple. Whenever I have raised this issue directly with senior officers, they have been keen to acknowledge the public’s wish for highly visible police on the streets and have played down the problems of competing calls on the funds of expensive forensics, but I cannot help thinking—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, touched on this—that there is a major tension here of which we will see more in the next few months.
Public trust and confidence are among the building blocks of successful policing. Without them it must be difficult to achieve policing by consensus. I am afraid that it is inevitable that statistics will be bandied about regarding police numbers, crime rates, detection rates and so on. I was interested to see in the report published a few days ago from the Audit Commission and HMIC, to which several noble Lords have referred, that the forces that achieved the highest cashable efficiencies do not have lower levels of public confidence, which may be something to take on board.
The British Crime Survey tells us that there is a disparity between perceptions about crime rates nationally, which are thought to be constantly on the rise, and people’s perceptions in local areas, which are closer to reality. The issue of public trust in crime statistics behoves us all to use them responsibly. If the figures are to give a realistic picture, it is important to understand that in the case of some crimes an apparent increase in the rate may be a sign of success because the victim has been able to report the crime.
I had expected the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, to talk about prevention—he is nodding and I think that he has anticipated what I am going to say—which is an important role of the police.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
I thought that I touched on it when I talked about the numbers of police officers on the streets increasing by some 16,000. That in itself is a preventive measure.
Baroness Hamwee
Indeed. The rollout of Safer Neighbourhoods teams has been welcome in that connection, as well as in others, which is why local authorities have invested heavily in them. It will not be easy for local authorities buying that service or for the police to weigh up the competing calls on money. Policing is a particularly people-heavy activity. I understand that it accounts for about 80 per cent of the budget. There are not the same powers to make employees redundant as in other areas of employment. I am not trying to encourage noble Lords to leap up and say that we are predicting massive redundancies. I am pointing out that there is an issue.
A number of ways of working are perhaps a bit out of date, to which the noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred. There will be outcomes from cutting down on recruitment, and not just in the numbers. It is still a struggle to get our police forces to look like the public they serve. Recruiting from BME communities and promoting those officers to higher ranks has long been an issue and has an impact on the trust of the different communities.
The numbers game has meant that, over a long period, there has been something of a misrepresentation about the numbers in operational roles, at any rate as I have seen them. It does not seem necessarily to be better to have a warranted officer dealing with, for instance, human resources problems. I suspect that this is likely to become more of an issue because of the matters to which I have referred. Police officers cost considerably more on average than police staff members. I understand that not only have the headline figures for spending on the police increased, but within those, overtime payments have increased by over 90 per cent. It has long seemed to me that overtime needs to be addressed. Furthermore, officer numbers have increased over the past 10 years by 12 per cent while civilian staff numbers have risen by 46 per cent. That in itself has been a move in the right direction and I hope it does not row back.
Although I hate the term, I was interested to see that a new key performance indicator has been introduced in London regarding the front line: to maximise the use of warranted officers deployed into operational policing in order to produce an annual 2 per cent improvement. This is not wholly new. Something similar has been used in the Met for eight or nine years, with an operational policing measure to accurately reflect the number of police officers and police staff who provide a visible uniform presence, but it has become a performance indicator.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, did not serve his cause well by rejecting wholesale, as I heard it, the lessons that might be learnt from the private sector. I do not support transferring every private sector approach into the public sector, but some can work well. Indeed, the private sector can also sometimes learn from the public sector. One of the findings of Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s review of policing was the negative impact of risk aversion on decision-making, something which the private sector is better at tackling. I was interested to read Jan Berry’s comments, in her recent report, that:
“Over-reliance on compliance with set rules and targets has reduced the ability of many officers to use their professional judgement”.
She said also that there are,
“strong links between a predisposition to avoid taking risks and levels of professional knowledge, skills and experience in the use of discretion”.
Those are important points.
Just before the election, the CBI published a paper on what in its view the private sector has to offer the police by way of smarter working and different working in order to increase productivity and reduce costs. It talks about the need for,
“the right people with the right skills doing the right things at the right times—the fundamentals of a modern workplace. But too often the debate about crime at a national and local level has tended to focus on overall officer numbers and has avoided questions about how these officers are deployed and their overall effectiveness”.
It also makes the point that:
“Success has frequently been measured by inputs—the overall number of officers—rather than outcomes—reducing crime and dealing with the consequences of crime”.
I share the focus on practical measures contained in the report, and while I do not support everything it says, there is a lot that is sensible. There is also a focus on practical measures, which characterises much of the coalition’s programme for government on crime and policing. They range from the use of technology to make policing more effective at lower cost and with fewer time-consuming activities that give bureaucracy a bad name—bureaucracy does have a place—to requiring hospitals to share non-confidential information so that the police can target work on gun and knife crime hot spots.
In the short time that we have today, and without the consultation paper, one can only scratch the surface of what is to be said about crime and policing. There will be plenty of opportunity to extend our discussions to the issues of structure and accountability later in the Session and I, for one, am sure that I will find myself expressing quite firm views about accountability and how to achieve it.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Mackenzie for introducing the debate. I was rather hesitant in putting down my name to speak because I lack the credentials of many other noble Lords who are taking part.
I have long been concerned about the relationship between crime rates and the incidence of repeat offending among those released from custodial sentences, particularly among young offenders. I have been impressed by the way in which education initiatives in prison, together with a focus on training for skills for employment, can make a huge impact on reoffending rates. So I was particularly proud of the way in which the Labour Government focused laser-like attention on this issue, developing nationwide schemes through the offenders’ learning and skills scheme, the Learning and Skills Council and FE colleges, as well as hugely successful collaborations with the Open University. These were accompanied by the encouragement of a range of initiatives, including many employer-led schemes such as the National Grid Transco young offenders’ scheme, which I have long supported. While I was chief executive of Universities UK I encouraged the scheme to find places in the university sector for the employment of young offenders.
Like other noble Lords, I shall refer to the crime statistics published last week which show that the Labour Government’s commitment over more than 10 years has paid off. The British Crime Survey showed a 9 per cent drop, the lowest since the survey began in 1981, and crimes recorded by police forces across England and Wales fell by 8 per cent. The statistics show—other noble Lords have referred to this, as did the Daily Telegraph—that crime is at its lowest level on record. Indeed, the Independent newspaper said that the figures,
“paint an impressive picture of the [Labour] party’s record on crime during its 13 years in power”.
Although I entirely agree with the Home Secretary in another place that figures for offences are still far too high, I hope the Minister, when responding to the debate, will pay tribute to the impressive way in which the police and other agencies have tackled crime over the past 10 years and that he will not be churlish in acknowledging the previous Government’s commitment to reducing these figures.
Governments often have difficulty in seeing beyond the short term and there are many pressures which dissuade them from doing so, including the media. I hope the coalition Government will be just as determined as my party was in government to stick with policies that work in the longer term. That is why focusing on reoffending pays such dividends in cutting crime rates. There are a huge number of social, economic and other issues that cause first offences, and these have been explored in many debates in your Lordships’ House. For many offenders, a prison sentence is a wake-up call and can provide a chance for greater self-awareness and true rehabilitation, largely through education and the prospect of developing skills that most prisoners did not even begin to think they had.
In a Question earlier this year in the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, who was a moment ago in her place, I was glad to see, said that,
“education in prison is a proven pathway to reducing reoffending”.—[Official Report, 8/2/10; col. 471.],
and the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, emphasised the importance of all-round education for mature prisoners who can neither read nor write. My Government increased investment in education for all offenders threefold and increased spending on education for young people in custody more than sevenfold. Will the Minister commit to similar levels of investment in this hugely important area at a time when, because of greater economic challenges, ex-prisoners will find it even harder to be accepted as good citizens and potentially good employees?
I hope the coalition Government do not throw away the huge strides that have been made. Only a few days ago, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, in her valedictory address, emphasised the considerable progress that had been made in prisons. On education, she said that in 2003, 78 per cent of prison education was assessed as inadequate by the education inspectorate; in 2009 it was 6 per cent. That is not to deny her criticisms in other areas—including a lack of action on the Corston report and the Bradley report, both produced by Members of this House—but there is no doubt that there has been a sea change in emphasis on education and skills development as the key to reducing reoffending.
I hope the Minister will acknowledge the importance of this in delivering the aim of the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke,
“to end the revolving door of crime and reoffending”.
He reminded us that prisoners not given access to education in custody are three times more likely to reoffend.
This should be an entirely non-partisan issue and, although it is important to acknowledge the strides made by the Labour Government, there is no room for complacency. There is a huge challenge ahead. In a recent factsheet on education in prisons, Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, found that 76 per cent of prisoners do not have paid employment to go to after release; almost 90 per cent of prisoners under the age of 21 reoffend within two years; and almost two-thirds of adult prisoners reoffend within two years. Employment is said to reduce reoffending by between a third and a half. If that were not compelling enough, the total cost of recorded crime committed by reoffenders is estimated at around £11 billion per year.
The key to much of this is that half of all prisoners do not have the skills required by 96 per cent of jobs. That is what the Offender Learning and Skills Service is working hard to address, along with the heartening number of education and training programmes produced by other bodies at national and regional level.
I conclude with a further reference to the young offenders’ programme led by National Grid Transco. This scheme now involves scores of employers and has demonstrated dramatic achievements for the hundreds of offenders who have gone on to rebuild their lives and the 80 companies that employ them. The reoffending rate of young people through this programme is less than 6 per cent, as opposed to the national average of 70 per cent. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place has, like his predecessor in the previous Government, commended the scheme as demonstrating what can be achieved by sustained effort and commitment.
The coalition Government are committed to the values of the big society. Reducing reoffending is a key area where these values are most relevant and will be tested. Will the Minister confirm that they will continue to support these programmes and the important programmes and initiatives delivered via public funding?
Lord Brett
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate on securing this timely and important debate. I go further in congratulating him because, with the authority of the experience and knowledge that he brings to policing issues, he has presented a devastating case to the House and made my task much easier. I totally endorse his case and associate myself with the pertinent and crucial questions he has put to the Minister. I look forward to the Minister’s reply with great interest. I recognise that sometimes we tend to overburden Ministers with questions—when I was on the other side of the Chamber I counted 43 on one occasion, but I do not think there are 43 questions today—and, if he is unable to answer all the questions, I trust that he will, in his usual courteous manner, provide written answers to those who have taken part in the debate.
The admirably brief contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, touched on two issues. He referred to the resourcing of SOCA. Several noble Lords said that SOCA is an innovative step forward in co-ordination, both nationally and internationally. That begs the question of whether the resourcing of SOCA will remain adequate. Are there plans to maintain funding of that very important element?
The noble Viscount’s second point was on elected police commissioners and the balance, as he put it, between the United Kingdom and the United States. In my experience of the United States, it is not the case that police commissioners are elected in major cities. In New York, Los Angeles and Chicago they are appointed by the mayor. There is quite an interchange between city chiefs of police moving from one major city to another. In each case, once they are appointed, they are answerable to the mayor and the authority—be that the city council or city management committee. Therefore, they are accountable to the public of the city of which they are chief of police. It is true that in the county system, the sheriff or deputy sheriff in many cases is elected, with all the dangers that my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate set out.
It may have been Winston Churchill who said that truth was the first casualty of war. I sometimes feel that language and its meaning are the first casualties of political exchange. That is certainly the case at the present time with many of the political exchanges that we have had between the Government, the opposition parties, the public, within the coalition and beyond. For example, the Government talk of the millions of pounds to be saved by efficiency savings when in truth that means cuts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, said in her very thoughtful and wise contribution. The Government would do themselves a great service by reading it with interest, taking her experience and knowledge into account. She made the point that efficiency savings had been with us for a decade. They have been achieved, but to pretend that they can continue and to multiply that achievement and call it efficiency savings is a misuse of that phrase.
Statistics have been given by a number of noble Lords and the facts are simple. Crime has gone down, according to the BCS on 15 July 2010. But the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said that crime has gone up. The Home Secretary said that on 7 June. The truth is that violent crime as recorded has fallen by 50 per cent since 1995 according to the BCS. The British Crime Survey was endorsed, as has been said by my noble friend, by Sir Michael Scholar and the ONS as the best and most authoritative survey to tell us what crime is doing within the country in which we live. The BCS was introduced by the Conservatives in 1991, but now, when its figures produce an inconvenient truth, the Government seek to question them.
Accountability is another word that is strangely abused and misused. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate spelt out the accountability currently falling to the police and the people and representatives to whom they are accountable—everything from courts at one level to the Home Secretary at the other level, through police authorities and so forth. For the life of me, I fail to see how accountability or transparency is improved by taking the accountability currently afforded to the police through the policing pledge and elected and independent members of police authorities and investing that in a single individual—leaving aside the fears and warnings my noble friend spelt out. The Government would do well to consider that when the consultation comes. I am sure the opinion that will be voiced will be that accountability is hardly likely to be increased by such a move.
Another misuse of the language is the word “targets”. The Government tell us that they have removed targets in the health service and in the police service. The target of seeing a cancer specialist within 14 days in the health service and the scrapping of the police pledge were described as the removal of targets. I get off the train on a Monday morning at Euston Station and for the past couple of weeks have been bombarded everywhere by big posters promising me that the National Westminster Bank will do a whole series of things about answering phone calls and dealing with my complaints. They rightly call them commitments because they are committed. They are promises. They are something that they would give me were I a NatWest customer, in return for being such a customer.
In that sense, I look to the police pledge as being precisely that—a pledge and a commitment. It was not a target. What did it promise the public? There were a series of 10 pledges that covered treating people fairly with dignity and respect and ensuring fair access at a time reasonable and suitable to them. Others included responding to messages within 24 hours, answering 999 calls within 10 seconds and going to a whole series of regular public meetings. If you were a victim of crime, they would see how often you would like to be informed of progress. You had the right to be kept informed at least every month if you wished for as long as was reasonable. Those were not targets: they were levels of service that we promised the public as part of our commitment in government.
Therefore, my question is a relatively simple one. What are the real reasons for that being scrapped, as it is not a target but a commitment? Has the policing pledge been scrapped because the Government believe that the public do not require the promised levels of service that were being delivered via the pledge? Or is it that, as they know, the intention is to cut policing budgets by 25 per cent, which would guarantee that there would be fewer police and fewer resources, thereby rendering the pledge impossible to meet? That, it seems to me, is the central question and one that I would be grateful if the Minister could address.
The Minister was asked a series of other questions that arise from the commitment to substantially cut funding. Several noble Lords referred to the Audit Commission and HMRC report published on 20 July. Do the Government accept the report of the commission that a funding cut of 12 per cent will negatively affect and impact on front-line police numbers? The simple translation of that question is, do the Government expect police numbers on the front line to be as great at the end of the exercise—perhaps the life of this coalition in four years’ time—as it is now, or are the Government for the first time prepared to admit that there have to be substantial cuts, if only because we know that some 90 per cent of the budget goes on policing and police support finances and only 10 per cent is spent on other issues? Taking 25 from 100 does not leave 90. You have to get something substantially less, which can only mean a loss of numbers. Central to that is whether the Government will continue to fund centrally police salaries. Will that be maintained? Given that the Home Secretary seems to be in denial regarding the record falling crime numbers over a period, and to echo the question asked by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie, do the Government accept the view of the Lord Chancellor, who said that the crime rate had fallen under Labour?
All of the contributions to this debate have been valuable. A number, including those of my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, have brought wider issues into the debate. All point to the difficulty of maintaining anything like the level of service that we provide to the community, which people expect. They will hold to account very closely a Government who reduce that level. They will be even less impressed with a Government who are not honest enough to tell them what they are doing.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, for initiating this very important debate. These are vital issues and rightly deserve the proper consideration of your Lordships.
Perhaps I may start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and paying tribute to the police for their tireless work on all of our behalves. They work under extreme pressure, often risking their lives, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
I have listened carefully to the contributions of all noble Lords today and take note of what they have all said. I was very much looking forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, whose former constituency is very near my home, on his maiden performance in this House. Perhaps his noble friends will pass him my best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour is a priority for this Government. We believe that the best way to achieve this is with a democratically accountable police service that adopts a commonsense approach to policing and is free to tackle local priorities. We need to move away from a centrally micromanaged police service, shackled with unnecessary bureaucracy. The public expects, quite rightly, that police officers should be on the streets, tackling crime and criminal behaviour and helping communities to feel safer, not stuck behind desks, away from the public, completing unnecessary forms. Regrettably, that is what we find—a police service tied up in red tape and denied the discretion to do its job properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, points, among other things, to a 9 per cent drop in crime levels, reported by the British Crime Survey, as a measure of the previous Government’s success. Of course, any fall in crime is very welcome, but this does not show the whole picture. Crime, by any measure, remains too high. As my noble friend Lady Harris said, 26,000 crimes take place every day in our country. The police continue to record more than 1,000 incidents of grievous or aggravated bodily harm each day and perhaps even more worryingly, around 100 incidents of serious knife crime. Muggings and violence against strangers remain stubbornly high, with more than 1 million offences last year, according to the British Crime Survey. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to the fact that we are still a country, in the international context, with a high relative rate of crime. Levels of victimisation are much higher in the UK than in many other countries. The latest International Crime Victimisation Survey in 2004— admittedly that is some years ago now but it is still important—found that over 20 per cent of the population of England and Wales had been the victim of a household crime that year, compared with just 12 per cent in France and 13 per cent in Germany.
My noble friend Lady Harris asked about victim support. We provide funding of £30 million to Victim Support, an organisation that works alongside the National Victims’ Association. I assure my noble friend that we will ensure that victims are at the centre of the criminal justice system, and a new victims’ commission has been appointed to help this. We will not lose sight of the awful anguish that victims feel, and we are reviewing the services provided.
The British Crime Survey is an important survey, but it does not cover all victims or all crimes. It omits rape, sexual assault, drug offences, fraud, forgery, crime against businesses, and even murder. We have long argued the need for it to capture the experience of young people, and only now, for the first time, is there an experimental element to it which reveals, depending on your definition, anything between several hundred thousand and 2 million crimes against those under 16. The Government share the UK Statistics Authority's desire to have crime statistics that are robust and generate public trust. This is a complex issue and we are considering how this should be achieved in consultation with the UK Statistics Authority and others.
The police service needs more freedom from central control, with fewer centrally-driven targets and less intervention and interference from government. That is why we have abolished the centrally-imposed target on police forces to improve public confidence and have scrapped the policing pledge. We want the police to be crime fighters, not form fillers. And yet the police have been spending more time on paperwork than on patrol. That is unacceptable. We will be ruthless in identifying and eradicating processes and procedures that are unnecessarily time-consuming for police officers and support staff, including in the wider criminal justice system. For example, by November we will scrap the stop form in its entirety and reduce the burden of the stop and search procedures. We will also consider how we can maximise the use of technology to reduce the paper work in policing.
To cut crime, policing relies on the consent and co-operation of the public that it serves, but conditions that support this, such as trust in the police, confidence that the police and councils deal effectively with crime and anti-social behaviour and confidence in the wider criminal justice system are still too low. The bond between the police and local people is too weak. This is because the police have been focusing on the issues that national politicians have told them are important rather than their local communities. The police have been reporting their performance to civil servants in Whitehall rather than giving information to their local communities, so they can judge how well they are doing. I respectfully remind the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that only 7 per cent of the public are aware that they can go to their police authority if they are unhappy with their policing. As his noble friend Lord Rooker wisely noted during the passage of the Police Reform Bill in 2002:
“The fact is that if one person in three knows the name of his Member of Parliament, I doubt whether more than one person in a thousand knows the name of any member of the police authority in his area”.—[Official Report, 16/4/2002; col. 828.]
Effective democratic accountability of the police is the bedrock of the policing model in this country. Robert Peel set this out as long ago as 1829, when he said that,
“the police are the public, and the public are the police”,
which continues to be our guiding principle today. The fact is that the existing accountability model is not working. Police authorities are too invisible and in some cases ineffective. People still do not know how to influence how their streets are policed, let alone how to get involved. Only 8 per cent of local councillors are police authority members, and there is no simple way for the public to change them if they feel they are not doing a good job. We need to replace bureaucracy with democratic accountability.
Lord Brett
The Minister is painting a picture of a populace that is totally unaware of what is going on. I live in a small village with a parish council. The local police officer attends the parish council at least every three months and has made everybody aware of the policing pledge, which is printed in a newsletter that goes to everybody in the village. I am not on the parish council and do not take any active part in it, but it seems to me that that would belie the black picture being painted. I do not think that there is any particular peculiarity about Irthington or Brampton in the county of Cumbria compared to other parts of the country.
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, for his intervention. He is very lucky to live in a small village. I am assured that the case that he has portrayed is not the same everywhere.
We need to replace bureaucracy with democratic accountability, which is why we proposed introducing directly elected individuals, elected by and accountable to the public. They will ensure that the police are held to account by the public that they serve, rather than bureaucrats based in Whitehall who cannot fully appreciate local concerns. As my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, later this month the Home Office will publish a consultation document, with the final policy to be announced in the autumn. We are very keen to hear the views of the public and policing professionals on how this model should work. As the Home Secretary announced at the APA/ACPO conference earlier in the summer, we will soon be bringing forward detailed proposals and introducing the necessary legislation to be implemented in this Session of Parliament.
On the subject of ACPO, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, asked about its role. The Government’s position is that ACPO has an important part to play in the effective delivery of policy. We are working with it to focus its role as the organisation responsible for the professional leadership of the police service and we will do so by ensuring that it is properly accountable and transparent in fulfilling that function and spending public money. We also want to see a return to common-sense policing. We must trust the police service and treat the police as professionals, with the discretion to make key decisions. That is why we will be taking action to return more charging decisions to officers for minor offences.
We believe that the police are only part of the solution. Lasting success in tackling crime and anti-social behaviour will lie in the response of local services and communities to the problems they face, and the Government are committed to empowering that response. That is why we will make sure that crime data are published at a level that allows the public to see what is happening on their streets.
We will also support the police to be available and accessible to their communities through regular police beat meetings, giving residents the opportunity to put forward their concerns and hold the police to account for how they are dealing with problems in their area. We would like to see all adults being part of an active neighbourhood group and playing a role in tackling crime in their communities. We want the voluntary and community sector to play an enhanced role, contributing its expertise and innovation.
Engaging other local services and building a culture of local co-operation is vital. These partnerships need to drive joint action, not further bureaucracy, and be more accountable to communities. As we reduce the ring-fences on central programmes, streamline funding and allow autonomy for local agencies to set priorities, we will want them to answer for outcomes, not inputs or processes.
I turn to funding. I have heard the concerns expressed today by noble Lords about this issue. We have made it clear that value for money must be a key driver of everything we do as a Government. The Government’s priority is to cut the budget deficit and get the economy moving in the right direction.
The Budget on 22 June set out our plans to reduce the deficit, including £32 billion per year in spending reductions by 2014-15. The police, along with everyone else, will have to bear a share of that burden. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his helpful recommendations, which we will consider carefully.
There has been some speculation—the noble Lords, Lord Mackenzie and Lord Brett, asked about this—that this could lead to a reduction in the number of police officers. All government departments are subject to the comprehensive spending review, which is due to be completed in October. Before then, it would be misleading and unhelpful to speculate about the outcome.
In any case, policing is not a numbers game. The test of an effective police force is not how much it costs or the number of officers it employs but how it protects the public it serves. Our challenge is to use our resources most effectively by freeing up officer time to deal with crime. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made some useful suggestions about certain back-office functions.
I turn to some specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, raised a point about co-ordination of effort across the piece, from crime to arrest to documentation and through the criminal justice system. That is why the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, Nick Herbert, has a combined role to enable him to bring together the reform of policy within the wider reform of the criminal justice system. This includes making sure that processes elsewhere in the criminal justice system do not generate excessive bureaucracy for the police.
My noble friends Lord Bridgeman and Lady Harris asked about our approach to serious organised crime. We agree that we need to ensure that the police and agencies have the capacity and structures to fight serious organised crime. Our proposals will enhance the local accountability of police and create stronger arrangements to tackle crimes that cross force borders, including serious organised crime. For example, we are looking at steps that can be taken to strengthen and further develop collaboration between forces. We are committed to ensuring that SOCA makes an effective contribution to the overall law enforcement approach to tackling serious organised crime.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about risk aversion. We agree with her and with Jan Berry that police officers need to be less risk-averse. That is why the Government’s approach to reducing bureaucracy has at its centre the need to return discretion to police officers. Examples of this, as I mentioned earlier, are returning charging decisions to the police for more minor offences and taking action to amend some of the health and safety practices that get in the way of common-sense policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, and my noble friend Lady Harris asked about our attitude to the Sheehy review. We have announced a review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff. The terms of the review will be announced shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, asked about rehabilitation, a subject that we consider very important. We are conducting a full assessment of sentencing and rehabilitation policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending, something that she specifically referred to. We will take time to get this right, and we will consult widely before bringing forward coherent plans for reform. We intend to publish proposals for reform in the autumn that will then be subject to public consultation.
If I have not answered every question that has been raised today, I will write to noble Lords. The changes to policing that I have outlined today will play an important part in giving the public the police service that they deserve—one that is democratically accountable, effective and free to tackle local priorities.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in the light of the crime figures published last week showing dramatic reductions in crime, does he believe that the Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons at Prime Minister’s Questions, when he said that crime had gone through the roof under the previous Administration, was grossly misleading the public?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in this debate we have discussed at some length the fact that the British Crime Survey figures do not include a number of important types of crime. The key fact is that violent crime remains unacceptably high. Furthermore, internationally, we are still a country with a high relative rate of crime.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
My Lords, this has been an interesting and informed debate, including the contribution of my noble friend Lady Warwick, who was far too modest about her contribution. I am sure that we will be revisiting these issues in the months after the Recess. All that is required now is for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Poverty
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To call attention to the impact of the Budget on people in poverty; and to move for papers.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open this debate and am grateful to all noble Lords who are proposing to contribute. I look forward to hearing maiden speeches from four new Members of your Lordships’ House. I also thank the number of organisations that have offered us briefings for this debate. The consistency of their analysis and the intensity of their concerns are startling.
Poverty has many faces, none of them attractive. There are many in our world who live in abject, absolute poverty without sufficient nourishment and with no access to clean water, shelter, simple life-saving medicines or rudimentary education. Defeating such poverty remains, quite properly, a supreme cause of our time. There are, however, issues closer to home that should also command our attention and commitment. These might be described as matters of relative poverty, which, for families, was characterised by the founder of the Child Poverty Action Group in this way:
“Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average … family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.
It is from this perspective that I would like us to consider the impact of the recent Budget, which cut spending beyond inherited plans by £32 billion a year, as well as raising net taxes by a further £8 billion. Eleven billion pounds of spending cuts will come from specific welfare measures.
In analysing these issues, let me anticipate and deal with the complaint that the state of the public finances gave no room for any other Budget judgment. Our borrowing has risen because the global financial crisis caused tax receipts to fall and spending to rise. The fiscal stimulus led to more borrowing, but it was the right choice to stop recession turning into depression. We had set out our clear deficit reduction plan, which would have brought the deficit down to 5 per cent of GDP in 2013-14. The coalition Budget goes faster, cuts deeper and adopts a different set of priorities. Let us be clear: the Government chose to do this; they did not need to do it.
In March, George Osborne declared that we are all in this together and said that he would not balance the Budget on the backs of the poor. It is by that statement that we will judge him and the coalition Government of which he is part. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed his Budget as a progressive Budget, saying that it was tough but fair. Tough it was; progressive and fair it most certainly was not. The Budget Red Book presents various charts to justify the claim of being progressive, but the truth has been laid bare, in particular by the IFS. Only by overlaying the Budget measures with the progressive measures inherited from Labour’s March Budget can the net result be seen as progressive, even taking account of the personal allowance change. Even this must be treated with some caution, as the analysis does not fully factor in all the draconian consequences of the housing benefit measures. It also cannot as yet take account of what is coming down the track from the cuts that will pour from the expenditure review—cuts that will inevitably impact most on the poor.
When we hear that the Budget is grounded in fairness and that we are all in it together, frankly, we beg to differ. We do so because of what the Budget contains in rises in VAT; in reductions in tax credits; in the freezing of child benefit; in restricted benefit and pension uprating; in narrowing the gateway to disability living allowance; and in illogical and spiteful cuts in housing benefit.
I start with the impact of the changes to housing benefit. These changes include taking a reduced level of local rents for the housing allowance; capping rent levels for each type of property; increasing the non-dependant deduction; uprating the local housing allowance rates by CPI, rather than actual rent levels; and docking 10 per cent from the long-term unemployed. These amount to a net cut of £1.7 billion a year—a cut to be met by the poor and those on low incomes. Penalising working-age people who are unemployed is a particularly savage act. The need for reform of housing benefit to improve work incentives is accepted, but a 10 per cent deduction in housing benefit is entirely arbitrary, will cause incredible hardship to those who seek to make up the shortfall from their jobseeker’s allowance and will exacerbate poverty in those very communities where jobs are hardest to come by.
As Shelter points out, the reforms adopting the 30 per cent level rather than the median level of rents for housing allowance will lead to a significant reduction in the amount received by many claimants across the country. Citizens Advice calculates that an average allowance for a two-bedroom property in England will fall by nearly £10 a week, and for a three-bedroom property by £13, worsening existing rent shortfalls. Shelter says:
“We expect that many households will try to remain in their home and be forced to make financial sacrifices in order to do so. For those households already struggling to balance very tight budgets, a reduction in local housing allowance will … push … them over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness”.
This will be made even worse by the uprating over time of local housing allowances by CPI, rather than actual rents, so that the allowance will be increasingly disconnected from rent levels.
The National Housing Federation has warned that these cuts will put more than 200,000 people across Britain at risk of homelessness. It says that they will force families to move, for some away from social and family networks, undermining well-being, employment and childcare opportunities. It will amount, in effect, to the expulsion of low-income families from some communities. These consequences are not difficult to predict. There is no massive affordable housing programme to rely on to take the pressure off private sector rents. If the expectation is that there will be downward pressure on private sector rents, this is a huge gamble being taken with the lives of some of our most vulnerable families. From the Government there seems to be no recognition of the consequences, no compassion and no understanding of the devastation that this will cause to so many who need our help.
I turn now to issues of indexation. Until now, most benefits have been uprated by the RPI, with means-tested benefits by the Rossi index, a variant that excludes certain housing-related costs. Moving to uprating all benefits by CPI will mean that the real-terms value of benefits will continue to fall compared to average earnings and will fall at least 1 per cent faster—although the IFS suggests that this would be closer to 2 per cent—than under previous uprating rules. Without countervailing measures, uprating benefits by RPI was anyway at risk of driving inequality as the cumulative gap with earnings widened. Uprating by CPI will, in the terms of CPAG, cause the downward escalator to move even faster. This is a cut to benefits of nearly £6 billion annually—this when research shows that, because of their spending patterns, people on low incomes face much higher inflation rates than CPI. How does the Minister justify this? What rationale underpins this change, other than reducing the costs of benefits?
The use of CPI does not relate only to benefits; it has a profound effect on pensions and pensioners. More than 10 million people get a state second pension, including 6 million women. The reforms to S2P in recent years have been particularly focused on improving outcomes for the low-paid. The average state second pension is now £36 a week. The switch to uprating this by CPI rather than RPI means a loss on average of more than £2 a week by 2015, with growing losses thereafter. There was no mention of that when boasting about the triple lock. There are also ramifications for public sector pensions and for many private sector occupational pensions because uprating is linked to S2P uprating. This comes at a time when pensioners are faced with the burdens of the VAT increase and no benefit from the increased personal tax allowance. As the Public Service Pensioners’ Council points out, it was assured by all three parties that any changes to public sector pensions would have a long lead-in time and be the subject of consultation. Where was the consultation? It may be fashionable to attack public sector pensions, but many who gave public service are on low or modest pensions and the uprating changes affect them, too. What evidence is adduced to support the Government’s intention that CPI is a better measure of inflation for pensioners than RPI? Given that the coalition agreement specifically recognises that work is needed to amend the CPI index, can the Minister advise us of progress?
We should give credit where credit is due. We welcome the increases in the child tax credit announced for April 2011, even though—as Save the Children pointed out—those on housing benefit will see a reduction in housing support of up to 65 per cent of this increase. However, these increases in child tax credits are dwarfed by a plethora of reductions to the tax credit regime. CPAG calculates that only 20 per cent of the £3.2 billion of cuts will come from reducing entitlement for families on higher incomes. The rest will have a direct impact on low-income families. The increased rate at which tax credits are withdrawn would lose someone earning £16,420 a year £200. Introducing the £2,500 income disregard for households facing a drop in income— a novel invention, I am bound to say—could mean a reduction in tax credits of £1,000, particularly affecting people who take maternity leave or long-term sick leave.
Families with babies seem to have been especially targeted by this Budget, despite the rhetoric around family values. They lose the health in pregnancy grant, the £545 baby element of the child tax credit and the £500 Sure Start maternity grant, other than for the first child. Then there is the demise of child trust funds. The increase in the child tax credit is not enough to compensate for these. Freezing child benefit for three years will have a disproportionate effect on the poor, because child benefit contributes a larger proportion to their household income than it does for more affluent households. Notwithstanding all this, the Government assert that increasing the child element of the child tax credit above inflation to ameliorate the freezing of child benefit will cause no measurable impact on child poverty in the next two years. Will the Minister please confirm that this assessment is made on the basis of all the measures set out in the latest Budget, rather than just those two items? We welcome the Government’s commitment to the child poverty targets but, frankly, this Budget takes us in the wrong direction.
Time does not permit a detailed analysis of how different households might be affected by different combinations of Budget measures, but the Citizens Advice briefing is recommended reading. However, we know that one group will particularly bear the brunt of this Budget—women. This was covered extensively in yesterday’s debate on the role of women. The analysis shows that, of the £8 billion net revenue to be raised in 2014-15, some £6 million will be from women—and this at a time when women still lag behind men in earnings and wealth.
That is just one more manifestation of a regressive Budget judgment. If we needed proof, the choice of a VAT increase as a revenue-raising measure is it. The 2.5 per cent increase in VAT is the biggest single item in the Budget, raising some £13.4 billion. Both the Prime Minister and his deputy are on record as acknowledging that it is a regressive tax, hitting the poorest hardest. The IFS analysis shows percentage income losses for the poorest to be more than twice those for the richest. The Government know that the VAT hike will have a significant adverse impact on the incomes of poor families but chose it in preference to targeted taxes on the assets and income of the wealthiest.
On proper scrutiny, it is clear that the 2010 coalition Budget is deeply regressive. It cuts benefits, reduces tax credits for families on low and moderate incomes, short-changes pensions and pensioners, exacerbates homelessness and chooses regressive taxes. These choices did not have to be made.
We came into politics through a variety of influences. Many of us wanted to bring about social justice, combat poverty and promote equality. The improvement in our own material well-being and our inculcation into grand institutions such as your Lordships’ House may have dimmed or deflected that commitment. However, if that cause needed a catalyst—a call to action—it is writ large in this unfair, regressive and ill judged Budget. We have work to do to expose its excesses and we must use our energies to protect those whose lives will be scarred by its ideology.
Lord Boateng
My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for initiating this debate, I confess a degree of trepidation in speaking to your Lordships’ House for the first time. That trepidation is in no way engendered by the kindness and warmth shown to me and my fellow newcomers to this House by all Members, officers and staff, but by the requirement to be both brief and uncontroversial. That does not come naturally to me. Given the rather rueful faces of some of my noble friends, I think that they probably share that view. Nevertheless, one will do one’s best. I am encouraged in that by the traditions of this House. I first encountered those traditions on the very first occasion that I came to the Palace of Westminster many years ago. I came here wearing flares and with an Afro—when one had hair and wore flares—which tells noble Lords just how long ago that was; it was 14 December 1978.
I came here as a young lawyer accompanying a group of black women from the London Borough of Lewisham. They were concerned about what was happening to their children and other young people in Lewisham—black and white, but largely black—in relation to a piece of legislation known as the sus laws. These women had attempted to initiate a debate about the sus laws in the other place. They had a great deal of support for that from their then local MP, Chris Price, but they did not succeed. The then Labour Government did not want to debate the sus laws or to hear from this group of black women in Lewisham. It was your Lordships' House that found the time and the space to discuss this matter in a debate on a Private Member’s Bill on the sus laws initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I will never forget it, nor will I forget the respect that was shown to these women and their concerns by the noble Lord and by the late Lord Pitt, who was one of the first Afro-Caribbeans—my race—to find a place and a welcome in your Lordships' House. He was an inspiration to many of us.
I also remember the contribution of the late Lord Gardiner and the response of the Minister in this House at that time. This House listened. The Motion was not carried, but subsequently a Conservative Government—due very largely to the heroic efforts not only of those women but of the right honourable Sir John Wheeler—abolished this unfair and discriminatory piece of legislation. However, it was this House, with its tradition of being responsive to the needs of those who might otherwise not get a hearing—the poor and the dispossessed—which showed the way. That taught me something which I have not forgotten in the course of my subsequent career in the law and in politics, and which strengthens my resolve to put before your Lordships a concern that those women in Lewisham would have wanted this House to hear, were they here today. It is a concern about the impact of the Budget, and a number of its proposals, on a group of young people who all too often are not heard in our society—young people at risk and young people in care. These are some of the most vulnerable young people in our society. They do not have much of a chance because they tend to go into care, having been subjected to abuse and disadvantage in myriad ways. When they are in care, I fear that the state does not prove to be a very good parent.
This Budget was introduced in the context of the notion of the big society. It seems to me that if the big society is to live up to its name, it has to find a place within it for young people at risk and young people in care. I learned, in the course of putting together the Green Paper Every Child Matters, way back in 2003, that young people at risk and young people in care are to be found not just in the inner cities of our in country, but in rural areas too, because poverty and deprivation can be found all over our land. Young people—young people at risk and young people in care—tend to be the least advantaged of all.
The big society is often juxtaposed with the big state. That is a false dichotomy. It is not a question of whether or not you have a big society or a big state; it must surely be a question as to whether or not the state empowers and enables citizens to make a contribution, to come together to care, and to form sustainable and cohesive communities. I fear that aspects of this Budget work against that. The removal of ring-fencing in terms of local authority grants will, I fear—I am not alone in this; it is a fear shared by many in local government, many social workers and many who run voluntary organisations—lead to a collapse in funding for voluntary organisations, cutbacks in the special support services provided to children in care and children at risk. That would be damaging.
I ask the noble Lord who will reply for the Government in this debate: please, please, in the course of the spending review that must take place, and is taking place, make sure that there is a stream of work that looks at the impact of the budgetary provisions that we are debating on those children in care and children at risk, and the voluntary organisations that serve them, who will inevitably be affected by the increase in VAT and who do not have a rebate system upon which they can rely.
I ask the noble Lord to think also about how the office of the Children’s Commissioner, which is being reviewed, can be strengthened in such a way that it is answerable to Parliament. The Children’s Commissioner should be appointed by Parliament and have a specific remit to examine the implications of all Budgets, presented in any circumstances, on children and young people at risk, so that they do not as a result of a side wind or neglect lead to their being further disadvantaged.
I hope that I have been brief and uncontroversial—because this cause can unite the whole House—but none the less passionate.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. As predicted and as expected, it was excellent. This is just a taste of what we in this House may expect to come from the noble Lord in the many years ahead.
Poverty is a cause which the noble Lord has spoken passionately about for years. In fact, in his maiden speech in the other place in 1987 he spoke of poverty in his constituency of Brent South. He played a leading role in establishing and launching the £450 million children’s fund designed to tackle child poverty—of which he has just spoken. In his young life—the noble Lord is still young; he has not yet reached 60 and middle age will come next year—he has achieved much as a passionate campaigner and activist, as a lawyer who is both a solicitor and a barrister, and he has achieved many firsts, including being the first black Cabinet Minister, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in May 2002. During his victory speech as an MP in 1987, he famously said, “Today Brent South, tomorrow Soweto!” Of course, he was talking about South Africa being freed from apartheid, but he was also presciently talking about his future appointment as British High Commissioner in South Africa from 2005 to 2009, a role in which he excelled. He has made his mark throughout his career, and we are fortunate that he will continue to make his mark here in this House.
Soon in my role as president of the UK India Business Council I will accompany the Prime Minister on his visit to India, following up on what was said in the gracious Speech. I quote:
“My Government looks forward to enhanced partnership with India”.
Although I was born and brought up in India throughout my childhood, although I visit India several times a year, and although India is today a global emerging economic superpower with amazing capabilities in IT, aerospace and even in space, every time that I get off that plane I am hit by the dire, abject poverty. Sadly, 300 million people there live on less than a dollar a day, and many of those are not living, but merely existing. This poverty exists now as much as it did during my childhood in India and I console myself about the enormity of the problem and the challenges that this most diverse and complex country in the world, with a population of over 1 billion, faces.
Then I think about us here in the UK, one of the largest absolute economies in the world. Whichever way you measure it—absolute GDP or GDP per capita—we are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We are relatively small, with 60 million people, yet it saddens me that we have such high levels of poverty and child poverty. According to Save the Children, 3.9 million children are living in poverty. There is no excuse at all for poverty in this country. After all, we have one of the most generous welfare states in the world. We have free education; people are entitled to free housing; those without work get an income to live on; and we have free healthcare from cradle to grave—all funded by the state. So surely poverty should not exist at all. And when I say poverty, I mean poverty of any sort, let alone the scale of the dire poverty in India.
Where are we going wrong and what should we do about it? One answer is that the welfare state is meant to address it and the Government are spending massive amounts on it. Public expenditure has reached 54 per cent of GDP, when it should be at around 40 per cent. This has led us to enter an age of austerity, as the Prime Minister put it. How can we maintain a safety net and at the same time work towards eradicating poverty? I am afraid that increasing taxes in the Budget, maintaining the 50 per cent higher rate tax, maintaining the non-dom levy, increasing VAT, and increasing capital gains tax, will not solve the problem. The Government are not meant to be Robin Hood—taking from the rich to give to the poor. We have seen that this does not work and that even in the boom time, with massive levels of public expenditure, poverty increased. The Gini coefficient that measures wealth and equality is the highest that it has been in 30 years, and over the past decade there has been no increase in the average income of the poorest tenth in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, recently asked a Question in this House: what proportion of wealth is held by the richest 10 per cent of the population? The Answer given by the Minister was 54 per cent. This was shown not to be out of line with other countries, with France on 61 per cent and the US on 69.8 per cent. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I strongly believe that the answer is not, as he suggested, to take action to reduce the level of wealth of the top 10 per cent. It is wealth generation that should generate opportunities for wealth creation. I have said it before and I will say it again that the job of the Government is to create an environment for business—in particular SMEs—to flourish and create the jobs that pay the taxes, that pay for the public services, that pay for the welfare that pays for those who genuinely need our help.
However, in my eight years on the New Deal task force and then the National Employment Panel, it became very apparent to me that work was the best way out of poverty. Yet, sadly, millions in this country are in a benefits trap where generations in certain areas have not worked, because work often does not pay. The difference between welfare support and a 40-hour week on a minimum wage is £37 a week—hardly enough to inspire people in difficult times to seek jobs. For this reason, the welfare reform Bill is welcome in its efforts to simplify the benefits systems, remove barriers to work and attempt to lessen the hold of the awful benefits trap that exists in this country.
However, it is even more challenging when our schools are letting our children and our country down, where over a third of 11 year-olds leaving primary school have difficulty reading, and a fifth leave their secondary school without being able to read and write with confidence. This makes it very difficult for them to be employable.
In my role at Cambridge University as a visiting entrepreneur and a member of the advisory board, I was presented with a paper from Professor Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu and their colleagues on whether the UK can win in an age of scarcity. Their theory is: “more for less for more”—an approach that places emphasis on delivering more value for less cost for more people. If necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, scarcity is the grandmother of innovation. This is where a developed economy such as ours can learn from some of the amazing innovative models that have been pioneered in emerging markets such as India, Brazil and China.
We have such advantages in this country. We have the finest higher education in the world and cutting-edge research. One university, Cambridge, has produced almost 90 Nobel Prize-winners. Our greatest strength is our people. The Government alone cannot eradicate poverty, even with the best of intentions; we have to work together, and this is where NGOs working together can really help, as we have heard. The coalition Government’s answer of promoting the big society and getting communities to work together is fabulous. However, is it not ironic that a big society goes hand in hand with smaller government? It is about people coming together to care, share, help each other and prosper together.
This country used to have a glass ceiling. As recently as three decades ago, it was not a meritocracy. However, today this country is a true meritocracy. It enabled me 21 years ago, with £20,000 of student debt to pay off, to start up a business from scratch. This is a country with opportunity for all, and the poorest person is given hope by that opportunity.
Earlier this week, we in Parliament had a visit from Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the world. He addressed Parliament on development. How inspirational that here is an individual giving away tens of billions of dollars. He changed the world through his business; now he is going to change it through his development work on the alleviation of poverty. I have a saying that achievement leads to inspiration; inspiration leads to aspiration; aspiration leads to achievement—and a virtuous circle follows. We can just imagine that if only we had that virtuous circle in every corner of this country, we would obliterate poverty and genuinely make it history.
Recently, I met those running a charity in India called the Akshaya Patra Foundation. The foundation has a vision that:
“No child in India shall be deprived of education because of hunger”.
Today, it reaches 1.2 million children every day, giving them lunchtime school meals. However, the sad reality is that it has had to adjust its practices. On Monday, after the day off on Sunday, it has to provide double the amount of food for the children because they have not eaten on the Sunday. That is true poverty, and it depresses me that this wealthy nation of ours has poverty in the 21st century. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Our people need to come together, helping one another to succeed. We need to raise the water level for all the boats to float and to get bigger, and that is going to take a huge amount of work from government and NGOs and from communities and citizens. A friend of mine defined luck as being when opportunity meets determination. We have the opportunity; we have to be determined as a nation.
I conclude by quoting Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous “Tryst with Destiny” speech made on the occasion of India’s independence in 1947, as it is pertinent to what we are talking about:
“The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation”—
he was talking about Mahatma Gandhi—
“has been to wipe every tear from every eye”.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, since I was introduced on 1 July, I have been overwhelmed by the warmth of my welcome and the generosity of noble Lords on all sides of the House in sharing their experiences with me. I am grateful, too, for the dedication and friendliness of the staff, who seem to be able to read my mind when I am uncertain about geographical direction or procedure. I thank them most sincerely for their care and support.
As a former chair of ACAS, my first instincts are to form a consensus based on bringing the parties together. I am not sure whether those skills will be useful in this House. I know from experience that, when the going gets tough, it is difficult to promote agreement between employer and workers but that it is infinitely more difficult on occasion to achieve agreement among members of the same side. If the coalition Government were ever in need of mediation skills, I would be available.
ACAS’s contribution to the modernisation of public services was to recognise that the world of work was not just about collective bargaining but about the millions of individuals, both employers and employees, needing advice. Radical changes were achieved with the involvement and consent of the staff and trade unions in ACAS, and without the demotivating effect of so many pronouncements about public service workers. Calls to the ACAS helpline amounted to 1.2 million last year, and the website is much praised by employers and employees because of its quality and impartiality.
The subject of poverty has been a theme that has threaded throughout my life. On the day of my introduction to this House, one of my cousins gave me a copy of a payslip belonging to our late grandfather, Arthur Howard. It was for £1.53, dated 11 November 1933, and came from New Monckton Collieries near Barnsley, where he worked for most of his life. He brought up four daughters on that wage, played the cello and built the first television in Worsbrough Common. He had no money but a wealth of talent and unfulfilled promise. My own parents taught me the value of work, education and caring for others.
After university, I worked at the Institute of Education in London for 33 years. I had become an assistant registrar at a very early age and was probably destined to be a registrar or secretary, or to fill a role with one of the newer titles in universities today. I was fortunate to work for the great Lionel Elvin, our director, who had been a member of both the Robbins and McNair committees, and then with Sir William Taylor. Both instilled in me the importance of teacher training and education. So what happened to change me from going in the direction of a potentially glittering university career?
The institute took a decision in 1969 not to give a pay rise to its clerical and library staff on the ground of affordability. Academics were given a pay rise. I decided that it was patently unfair to pick on the lower paid and helped to form a union branch of NALGO. No one had ever been in a union before. We lobbied the institute and were awarded our pay rise, backdated. I carried on recruiting members and for 16 years was privileged to represent all clerical and related staff in universities in their pay negotiations, and set up national pay scales for the first time. Ninety per cent of the members were women and 90 per cent were first-generation trade union members. I spent most of my career boxing and coxing between my paid employment and my unpaid trade union activity. I moved within the institute to become permanent secretary of the students’ union and was licensee of the union bar for 16 years. I am aware that some noble Lords on different sides of the House have owned breweries, and it is possible that some of them have been their occasional customers, but I suspect that very few have actually been licensees.
After 13 years on the TUC General Council, I became its president. I would chair the General Council and then sometimes appear before the magistrates’ court to apply for an extension to opening hours in the students’ union bar. Such were the contrasts in my dual life.
In 1997, the continuing theme of poverty arose when I was appointed a founding member of the Low Pay Commission. This was an absolutely wonderful experience, and I like to think that my practical experience of wage structures and the impact of low wages helped to set up a framework that is virtually intact today. We learnt that poverty is complex—a single mother in the south-east would have to earn over £17 an hour to make up any loss in benefits—yet we fixed on £3.60 an hour because the minimum wage cannot solve everything. We learnt that poverty is not a north/south or even a regional phenomenon. The largest proportion of low-paid workers, in terms of population, live in London and the south-east. We also learnt that the low paid need no lessons in hard work or the ability to calculate their earnings. Observing textile workers calculate their complex piece-rate earnings in their heads to the nearest penny would impress any mathematician.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in moving the regulations concerning the national minimum wage on Monday, was kind enough to say that the proposed increase for this October,
“strikes the right balance between ensuring that low-paid workers are treated fairly and preventing adverse economic effects. It is based on sound evidence and consultation, and takes into account the present economic circumstances”.—[Official Report, 19/7/10; col. 888.]
Those criteria were established at the start of the Low Pay Commission’s work, and it is gratifying to see that this evidence-based work continues and is appreciated by the Government.
I am aware of the recent short debate on poverty on 15 June, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, and of the excellent contributions that were made. It is not my intention to go over the same ground. I am aware that the measure for poverty might seem like a dry academic debate to some, but if an official poverty measure is changed, it can be used as a respectable excuse for taking away support systems from those who do not fit the new criteria. The Government have promised to maintain the target of ending child poverty in the UK by 2020, and I shall watch this with interest.
There are people now seeking work who are healthy and motivated and have a good employment history, but they cannot find work, so how will those with disabilities, language and literacy barriers or no work record find work? Joblessness is a scourge on any society and the Government will be judged on how many people are unemployed. The margin between poverty and just about managing is perilously narrow. Cutting pennies here and there from benefits, VAT costs, pay and pensions may not seem a lot to those who are privileged to lead society, but together they will have a catastrophic outcome for individual families.
We are a country of extremes in income and no Government have solved that particular inequality. I make a plea to this Government that more work should be done on why we are a relatively low-wage society. Average earnings of £24,000 a year include paid overtime—mainly done by men—and City bonuses. That completely distorts the real situation. Just as we on the Low Pay Commission discovered, women who earned too little to pay national insurance did not appear on any statistics and could not therefore be counted as a group that might benefit from a national minimum wage. Clearly, steps were taken to rectify the Alice in Wonderland situation, but it shows that statistics without common sense and grounded reality can be used to hold back progress, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes not.
The Economist on 3 July stated:
“The past decade made a disappointingly small dent in poverty, but it may be the best time the poor will know for many years”.
I look for an assurance from Ministers that that grim forecast will not be realised.
In conclusion, I thank my two sponsors, my noble friends Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lord McKenzie of Luton for all their help and encouragement. I offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for raising this topic today and for giving me an opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject about which I feel so passionately.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Donaghy on her passionate and informed maiden speech. I would have expected no less of her, having known and admired her abilities for nearly 30 years. I first met her when we were both trade union officials in the university sector in London in the 1980s. Since that time she has had an impressive trade union career becoming the president of both her own union, NALGO, and then president of the TUC.
Following that time, as we have heard, she served as chair of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for seven years, helping to make it into the modern and effective organisation that it is today. It was also one of the periods of the lowest industrial unrest in its history and, as she has indicated, I am sure these skills of bringing peace and harmony to potentially warring factions can be put to good use in your Lordships’ House, not least among noble Lords on the coalition Government Benches. Finally, lest anyone might think that her skills are on the soft side, she also served on the Committee on Standards in Public Life for seven years before becoming its interim chair. I am sure that she will play her part in keeping us all in line in the years to come, with her trademark reputation for intelligence, independence and straight talking.
I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Boateng on his passionate and inspired maiden speech and very much look forward to the maiden speeches of other noble Lords in this debate.
Before I start, I declare an interest as the chair of Circle 33 housing association and record that I am a volunteer in The Passage homeless centre in Victoria. I, therefore, have some direct experience of the fine line walked by some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society, for whom managing a weekly budget and staying out of debt is a constant trial and burden. It takes only one trigger—perhaps a partner leaves, someone falls ill or an employer closes down—for an individual or family to fall behind with their rent and face homelessness. When you are already living in poverty the financial margins are tight and the consequences of default can be devastating. I say that in the confident knowledge that the previous Government—my Government—both understood this fear and acted on it. They understood that you could be working but still poor and they introduced the working families tax credit to make work pay. They understood that a child brought up in poverty would bear the scars for life and so they increased child benefit and set a goal of ending child poverty completely by 2020. They invested in jobs and training to give people the skills to get secure and rewarding work.
Of course, not everything they did was perfect and not all their ambitions were achieved but I am proud of a Government who invested in public services, reduced unemployment and raised people out of poverty. We went a long way to creating a fair and benevolent society in which the poorest and most vulnerable were protected.
That brings me to this Government’s Budget and what it tells us about their values and beliefs. First, they seem to have abandoned the post-war Keynesian analysis that government fiscal and monetary measures can mitigate against economic recession. Instead, we appear to be returning to a rather alarming 1930s free market programme, which became discredited first time round and now risks driving the recession into a deeper and longer trough. Of course, there is a need for a clear deficit reduction plan and part of that will inevitably include tough choices on spending. But in the current fragile world economy, there is a particular imperative to prioritise growth as a precondition for economic recovery. That remains Labour’s strategy. It is based on sound economic modelling and was already proving to be successful in stopping our economy sliding into a recession. Therefore, the question remains: do the current Government have an alternative growth strategy or are they happy to let high unemployment and increased poverty act as the drivers for future economic policy?
Secondly, despite their election promises, they are intent on squeezing public services and cutting front-line staff. It is obvious to everyone that departmental cuts of 25 per cent or even more can be achieved only by wholesale services being abandoned. Those public servants who are lucky enough to remain will have their income and, therefore, their spending power reduced as a result of the freeze in public sector pay, while those who are made redundant will cost the country billions in lost tax revenues and increased benefit bills. The consequence of this policy is bound to have a further depressing effect and will, of course, particularly impact on the poorest regions where public services play a particularly valuable role.
Thirdly, they appear to be abandoning the goal of ending child poverty by 2020. At present nearly 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK. We know from previous research that child benefit has proved to be one of the most effective and popular ways of cutting child poverty so freezing it for three years will hit the very families who need it the most. Again, this will prove to be a false economy because respected research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has estimated that £17 billion every year could be saved from public spending if child poverty was eradicated.
Finally, to return to a subject particularly close to my heart, the cuts in housing benefit will cause hardship to many and may well push families in high-priced areas on to the streets. There has of course been a need to reform housing benefit for some time, but the cuts proposed in the Budget are not the solution. There is a myth developing that housing benefit claimants are wayward families bent on living the highlife. In truth, as Shelter research has confirmed, the vast majority are pensioners, those with disability, people caring for a relative, or hardworking families on low incomes, while only one in eight is unemployed. At the same time, nearly half of local housing allowance claimants are already making up a shortfall of almost £100 a month to meet their rent, so further cuts to this benefit could trigger a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness.
Of course, at the heart of this problem is a critical shortage of affordable housing, which means that more and more families are forced into the private rented sector, often into inferior, poorly maintained properties with rents that are almost double those in the social housing sector. It is this lack of affordable housing that the Budget could have, and failed, to address.
This coalition Government have made the misuse of the English language into an art form. The use of words such as “fair” and “progressive” to describe a Budget that is blatantly neither of these things has rendered those words obsolete in their true sense. As the weeks go by and the consequences of the Budget are spelt out, it is becoming clear that the government agenda has at its heart an ideological drive to promote the free market, close down public services and hand over the remaining services to private multi-nationals. It is a policy that is increasingly saying to the poorest and most vulnerable, “You’re on your own. If you’re lucky, a charity or a private philanthropist will come to your rescue, but don’t expect anything from us”.
Interestingly, this attitude was notably absent in the election campaign. Prior to that, there was lots of talk of compassionate conservatism, but now there appears to be a view that compassion is for wimps. Budgets are inevitably about global statistics and calculations running into billions of pounds and affecting millions of people. But behind those statistics are real people, like the ones I work with at The Passage whose lives are on the margins of success and failure, for whom small shifts in their fortunes make the difference between a job start or staring at a wall all day, between paying their rent or being on the streets. These are the people I fear for with this Government’s policies, so I hope that the Minister is able to reassure me that my fears are groundless and that those at the bottom of the economy really will be protected in the years to come.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, it is a great privilege to have been returned to your Lordships’ House following the recent Cross-Bench by-election and I thank everyone for the warm welcome that I have received. I have very much enjoyed the remarkable maiden speeches that we have heard today and look forward to those yet to come.
We have of course many experts in the Chamber today, but perhaps the biggest experts of all on the subject of this debate are not present. They are the poor themselves. I believe that they should be here in the Chamber somehow, for the simple reason—and it seems common sense to me—that the views of the poor should be heard in a debate on the poor. It is a question of representation, since those who are poor and on the margins of the mainstream are effectively denied a voice. This is the reason, I think, why we still have something called “poverty” in our sophisticated western society.
I was once a little closer to this form of expertise; I was on benefits myself, specifically income support. This was in Sheffield in the 1980s at a time when unemployment was less reviled than it is now, partly because of the sympathy for those working in the coal-mining and steel industries who had been put out of work.
I suggest that poverty as an experience is actually very simple, even if the bureaucracy that has accumulated to deal with it, including the benefits system, is complicated and public attitudes themselves are convoluted. I think that over a period of decades we have become, with a larger middle class, more aware at least of the idea of poverty, but perhaps less tolerant of those who remain unemployed, in the sense, of course, of not having paid work.
I believe that there are really just two things that a Government should bear in mind about poverty. The first is money. This Government are freezing benefits and capping the housing benefit. Sheffield was then, and still is, cheaper than London, but income support was impossible to live on then; today, with a personal allowance rate of £51.85 per week for the under-25s, who have been hit the hardest by this recession, I would say that it is absolutely impossible to survive on. Whatever you read in the newspapers, it is difficult to survive on most benefits.
The second and related issue is the stigma of being unemployed, by which I mean not having paid work, which is not necessarily the same as not working. For everyone on basic benefits, this stigma is now less connected with unemployment; it is more about being off the map and unvalued as a citizen. I believe passionately that one should be regarded as a citizen whether one is in paid work or not—indeed, whatever one’s status. That means that if you do not have an income, or have a low income, the state should pay you a decent rate on which to live.
The very language that the new Government use perpetuates the stigma. For example, The Coalition: Our Programme for Government says:
“The Government believes that we need to encourage responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, training and targeted support for those looking for work, but sanctions for those who turn down reasonable offers of work or training”.
Carrot and stick, carrot or stick, it does not matter—this is still, in an old-fashioned sense, a perpetuation of an “us and them” situation for the poor who, in comparison with the poor in Victorian times, are highly articulate and educated and have expectations.
If we were not so wedded to the entirely constricting idea of paid work being the measure of all things, we would solve poverty overnight. However, by these restrictions on benefits, this Government are saying that we cannot afford to do so. Like others, I believe that this Budget owes its inspiration much more to political philosophy than to national need. The Green Party for one, now represented in Parliament at last, believes that we should not be having these cuts at all and that we should be doing quite the opposite and creating jobs in the public sector.
Another example of this same stigmatisation are the powerful television adverts which are supposed to target, in their words, “benefit thieves” but which in fact, I believe, help to criminalise people who are claiming benefits. Just as bad is the fact that no Government yet have run TV adverts advertising unclaimed benefits, which is a little bit like the “finders keepers” rule. Why do a Government who would claim to lift people out of poverty not chase down as assiduously the poor who do not know how to claim benefits as ferociously as they do those who may be claiming too much? It is easy to build up a head of righteous indignation over those who it is said are abusing the system, but are we not truly abusing the system if we do not reach out to those who are so caught in the poverty trap that they do not even know that help exists, let alone how to claim? I would like an answer from the Minister as to whether the new Government would consider running such TV adverts.
Where should we be looking for answers? Is it appropriate for charities to fill the gap? I notice this week from the Evening Standard that the Government, in a supposed time of national austerity, are providing £1 million of matching-funds to a newspaper editor’s project to dispense largesse to the poor, piecemeal via a number of charities. This is David Cameron’s big philanthropic society in action, turning the clock back to a Victorian society in an age when the poor do not want to be, and should not be, patronised. I am not saying that individuals might not be helped by this, or that charities are not fine, but the proper purpose of charities is, in my view, that they do—yes—a significant job of stepping into the breach when a Government fail to do the appropriate and long-term job that they should do. I would support a Government who said, “We will make all the charities that cater to poverty redundant by such and such a date”.
I can give one example of a government policy that seemed to address the twin evils of money and stigma. From income support, I went on to the original enterprise allowance scheme as an artist. Of course, the scheme did not suit everyone at the time—those who had worked in traditional industries in and around Sheffield just wanted their old jobs back—but a number of things made the enterprise allowance scheme unique.
First, you were instantly destigmatised, because as soon as you were self-employed, you were considered to be working, although—this is the significant point—you might not yet have had any income from your work except for the small weekly grant that you received. Secondly, there was no bureaucracy. The business plan was easy for anyone to fill in. You did not have to be a businessperson to do that and you were not judged according to how the business might do, although some people later became highly successful commercially as a result of being on the scheme. Thirdly, they left you alone—a mark of respect and trust. Fourthly, you followed your dream, or simply continued with your work, for which one might say that the state was paying, although not very much.
Unfortunately, the enterprise allowance scheme did not last. It was watered down and then scrapped as the big stick once more came out, but it is being looked at again. It features in the recent Arts Council England report, Creative Survival in Hard Times. I understand that the Government are taking an interest in the original scheme and I would like to know whether they are thinking about reintroducing it.
I believe that the only way to cure poverty is finally to accept that there will never be full employment in terms of paid work unless the state itself fills that gap and assumes and respects people’s contribution to society irrespective of their income.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, it is with a great sense of privilege, tinged with a certain degree of nervousness, that I rise to make my maiden speech in this debate, particularly after so many distinguished contributions and excellent maiden speeches have been made already. I thank all the staff, all my colleagues and my sponsors for the warmth of their welcome and for their willingness to go out of their way to explain the workings of the House to me. There is much to learn. The support that I have received has been exceptional and I am deeply grateful for it.
I am a Yorkshireman by birth, although not from the town whose name I bear. I was born and brought up on the Yorkshire coast, in Whitby, but have been an adopted Geordie for the past 40 years in Newcastle upon Tyne, where I worked for many years for the Open University and where I have been a councillor for more than 30 years. I would like to concentrate on that latter connection in this debate.
Last year, Newcastle City Council was appointed as one of three beacon councils, along with Cornwall and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, in addressing child poverty. Forty per cent of Newcastle residents are in the lowest national deprivation quintile—twice the average England figure. Men in that quintile have a 10-year lower life expectancy than men in the least deprived quintile, while women have a seven-year lower life expectancy, so reducing child poverty could have a major impact later in life in terms of life expectancy.
One in three children in Newcastle lives in poverty, according to official definitions, compared to just over one in five in England as a whole, so the need for us locally to take action to mitigate child poverty has been stark. In Newcastle, we have learnt a number of things. The first is that it is important to understand the diverse needs of local communities and to empower all of our partners to go much further than just engagement.
Although child poverty is closely related to financial deprivation, deprivation of experience and of aspiration can both have a massive impact on a child’s future opportunities. Teachers have to work hard to help children in deprived neighbourhoods to reach their age-expected levels of attainment. Imagine, for example, the hurdles that children have to get over in comprehension exercises when what is being described bears no relationship to their experience. That is why personal enrichment through education remains the key to social mobility and it is why a pupil premium proposed for children in disadvantaged areas could be so important. Educational achievement grows from raised aspiration, which in turn results from enriching the experiences of all our children.
Addressing child poverty is not just about the level of benefits or a fairer tax system. Although both of those are crucial, neither is designed as a measure to abolish child poverty on its own. For example, measures to combat fuel poverty and making our homes more energy efficient are of great importance to families on low incomes. In Newcastle, we have had great success with our Warm Zone initiative in cutting fuel costs by more than £3 million a year.
Abolishing child poverty by 2020 is a commitment. That is why employment and skills matter so much and why we in Newcastle have decided that reducing child poverty is the not just the business of children’s services but our core business across the whole of the council and the whole of the local strategic partnership. We have introduced projects to promote intensive multi-agency support to individual families. For example, there has been the Barnardo’s young dads’ project, which engages young men in developing their skills as fathers and promotes their literacy and numeracy and their skills for work. There is family learning in schools, which gives parents the chance to learn new skills and to help their own children to learn. Parents can spend up to a day a week in school with their child.
In Newcastle, Moorside Community Primary School is one example of a school that does not allow deprivation to be an excuse for low expectation. A majority of Moorside’s pupils live in areas within the 10 per cent most deprived nationally, but the school has raised attainment and aspirations of children and has increased opportunities for parents to enter employment, education and training, which has had the effect of reducing benefit claimant rates. Key to that has been the appointment of parent link workers to enhance relationships between school and home. Through family learning at Moorside, several hundred parents have obtained accreditation from courses that they have taken, with awards being presented in front of their children, which has a big influence on raising aspirations of both child and parent. Parents are then supported to progress further through link agencies such as Newcastle Futures, which we set up in partnership with the Government to find solutions to worklessness and which has helped more than 1,000 long-term jobless people into work.
However, research by Barnardo’s has shown that, although work is often seen as the best route out of poverty, low pay can still keep families in financial poverty. That is why taking low-income families out of income tax altogether, as proposed in this Budget and future Budgets, matters so much.
In conclusion, children who grow up in poverty are less likely to attend school regularly, to stay on at school, to obtain qualifications, to go on to higher education or to aspire to well paid employment. The gap in attainment between children receiving free school meals and other children is marked. The obvious follows. Reducing the number of children who grow up in poverty will increase the number of young people with chances to succeed as adults. That success will increase the life chances of their children and in turn promote a cycle of aspiration.
I thank your Lordships once again for the warmth of your welcome and for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I greatly look forward to making further contributions to the work of the House in future.
Lord Best
My Lords, I congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches today. We have a wealth of new talent among us. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who has rejoined us on the Cross Benches, on his powerful contribution. As president of the Local Government Association, I must welcome the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, particularly. He will be another strong voice for local government, which will be very important in this era of localism and devolution of power from the centre to local government. He brings us expertise from the public and private sectors; from academia in a very distinguished form; and from the arts, which Newcastle and Gateshead have done so much to promote over recent years.
Most of all, the noble Lord has been a councillor for 35 years and since 2006 has been leader of Newcastle City Council. Newcastle has seen the most incredible transformation in recent years. I have followed its progress wearing various hats in the housing world and as the father of a student at Newcastle University, which has entailed endless visits to that vibrant and exciting place. Over the years in which the noble Lord and his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who we will shortly welcome here, have been responsible, they have done so much to change a great city. I congratulate the noble Lord on a most eloquent and articulate speech, and we look forward to many more contributions of that high calibre.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, very much for introducing this debate. He has drawn attention, among other aspects of the ways in which the Budget impacts on people in poverty, to the problems that will be created by reductions in housing benefit. I want to share with your Lordships some thoughts on the ways in which the housing benefit cuts may have an effect.
The intention is that the Budget will see a reduction of some £2 billion each year in the amount paid in housing benefit, which means that a hit has to be taken either by the landlords or by the tenants. There are no other sources from which we can draw that £2 billion of savings each year. In other contexts, I will explore with your Lordships some of the impacts on landlords in facing a situation in which their rental income is likely to reduce but today I want to concentrate on the impact on tenants.
The cuts that are to face tenants who receive housing benefit, or in the case of those in the private rented sector the local housing allowance, are in several different forms. The first is the cap on rents in the London area. Although we may hear shock-horror stories of a handful of families with many children who have received as much as £2,000 a week for their accommodation, these are very few and far between. The new cap is to be set for the largest families at £400 per week. One would think that that is quite a large sum, but it is not so in inner London where that is the amount required to house families. Indeed, it is impossible to find accommodation in many parts of inner London at that price.
This will mean that the families whose rent is currently well in excess of this figure will have to move away from inner London to accommodation elsewhere, which is likely to be incredibly disruptive of family life. For example, there may be children at school, carers close at hand, people with disabilities who know a particular area and have no desire to leave it, people who go to a hospital locally and wish to remain there, and people in a range of circumstances who will find it very difficult to relocate to other parts of the country in order to avoid the gap which could be, in the case of inner London, several hundred pounds a week between the rent that will be paid in the future and the actual costs of their accommodation. We need to think ahead to how we will handle the exodus of the lowest income households from the high-priced areas of inner London.
There is also the cap that comes from using the 30th decile instead of the 50th decile in determining the housing benefit for a household, which is a complicated business. It means that in a lot of cases people will again, all across the country and not just in London, find that there is a gap between what they receive in housing benefit and the market rent in the area in which they are located.
Other reductions follow on top of those. If you are living in accommodation deemed to be too large for your needs, there will be a housing benefit cap relating to the size of accommodation in which you are living. If, for example, you are in a three-bedroom council property but it is deemed that you could well do with only a two-bedroom or a one-bedroom place to live, you will be required to move or you will not receive the full rent to continue where you are. The problem with that is that councils have built over the years five times as many three-bedroom homes as they have built of any other size. The actual opportunities to move to the smaller accommodation, until we build more homes, may be rather complicated. If you are living in a tower block, it is likely that you are a single person. Local authorities have been reluctant to put children into the three-bedroom accommodation in towers because of the impact on family life. These are restrictions that families will face.
There is a further restriction if you are on jobseekers’ allowance and are unemployed. Whatever efforts you are making to secure employment, if you fail to do so your housing benefit will be cut by 10 per cent after a year of looking for a job, even if you are in an area of high unemployment. Even if you have been demonstrating that you have been trying your very best to get employment, you will still see a deduction from your housing benefit.
I accept that in some cases landlords will be willing to cut the rents and take a lower rent than they have in the past. That is particularly the case in those low-value areas where a large proportion of those tenants coming to them are on housing benefit. That is not the case in London and in the high-value areas where there will be plenty of choice of other people to accept. Frankly, landlords would be ill advised very often to take anyone who was in receipt of housing benefit. Those people will have to move on and it is not at all certain to where they will move.
We heard about the spiral of arrears, followed by evictions, followed by homelessness, which seems to be a likely outcome in far too many cases. For other people, there will be attempts to struggle on and find the full rent to stay in the accommodation or to move into accommodation elsewhere even though there is a gap between the housing benefit received and the rent that must be paid. That gap would have to be filled from the income support or other benefit being received by—let us remember—some of the poorest people in society. It will be extremely difficult for people to meet that gap out of the income they receive from the state on benefits calculated specifically to exclude any housing costs. They are benefits paid in order to cover food, heating and other costs, but not housing. To fill that gap from within their benefits will be extremely problematic for the poorest households.
Perhaps I may suggest four ways in which the Government might need to respond to the position in which they find themselves. Few people doubt that housing benefit requires an overhaul. It is a very complex arrangement which could do with changes. First, I suggest that we need to phase the cap for those London households which will have to move to the edges of London or beyond. We will need to take that more gently and slowly than at the moment—at the anniversary of your rent coming up—and suddenly finding a colossal cut in what you can pay to your landlord.
Secondly, the discretion for local authorities to make up the difference requires a larger fund than the one that the Government have set aside. They have said that £60 million is available to councils to top up those families and individuals for whom there is that gap. The £60 million is against a backdrop of a £20 billion a year housing benefit expenditure. That £60 million will not go very far. It would go towards two to three families in each local authority area for a year. The sum for local authorities and the discretion that they have needs to be increased.
Thirdly, it would be wise if job centres could certify that people had done their very best to get jobs and they should not have their housing benefit cut by 10 per cent. Finally, I would ask the Minister to ensure that there is now dialogue with Citizens Advice, Shelter, the Chartered Institute of Housing and others who have ideas on how one can make the most of a very difficult situation.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I congratulate my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lady Donaghy as well as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on excellent maiden speeches, and I look forward with eager anticipation to the speech by my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith—not least to find out where Alcluith is, which as a Scot I fear I should already know. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, has done the House a service in securing this debate because I firmly believe that the poorest in society should not bear the burden of rebalancing the current fiscal deficit. As a result of the Budget announced last month, that is precisely what will happen.
Today, 3.9 million children are living in poverty in the UK—that is, in a household with an income of less than 60 per cent of the median household income, which in 2008 was £404 a week. Households in poverty therefore have a net income equal to or below 60 per cent of that, which amounts to a weekly income of £244 or less. After housing costs, that figure falls to just £206 a week for a family. It should be stressed that more than half the children whose family income is less than £206 a week after housing costs live in households where at least one of the adults is in paid work, so this is not just a question of worklessness. In this context, the changes to tax credits and other in-work benefits for the low paid are particularly important.
A number of changes in the Budget will result in a reduction in the income of the poorest—for instance, changing the basis for calculating the uprating of benefits from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. The main difference between them is that the CPI does not include housing costs. The effect of the change will be a 1 to 2 per cent reduction in the benefits paid to families. Housing benefit—a subject to which I shall return—will also be affected by the change in the basis for uprating. The increase in the rate of VAT to 20 per cent will have a disproportionately large impact on the poorest families, because the poorest 10 per cent spend 14 per cent of their disposable income on VAT compared to the most affluent 10 per cent, who spend just 5 per cent of their income on VAT.
The Budget did include measures aimed at helping low-income families. The increase in child tax credit is welcome, although if a family also receives housing benefit, that allocation will be cut in recognition of the increased family income from the child tax credit. This occurs because the child tax credit is taken into account when the household income is calculated. For the housing benefit to remain unchanged by the increase in child tax credit, the regulations would need to change so there was a disregard for child tax credit, and I will be interested if the Minister will give the House the benefit of his views on this point.
This Budget is deeply regressive. People in the bottom half of the population are heavy users of services and benefits and there are more children and elderly people in the bottom half of the population than the top half. Public service cuts therefore fall disproportionately on the bottom half. The problem is not just that cuts risk tipping us back into recession and will hit the worst-off hardest. It is that by taking demand out of the economy and undermining a fragile recovery in the process, the coalition could actually increase the size of the deficit as has happened in Greece and Ireland, as we know all too well. The extent of these measures amounts to a Budget of ideological choice, not of necessity. There was nothing unavoidable about adding £40 billion to the previous Government's already swingeing plans to halve the deficit in four years. The effect of this Budget will be to shrink the state below 40 per cent, which even the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, never attempted during her time as Prime Minister.
I say to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches that I wonder what those old Liberal heroes Beveridge and Keynes would make of such draconian deficit cutting or of £11 billion of welfare cuts. Most of that comes from slicing 2 per cent off every benefit by cutting inflation indexing. You simply cannot cut a quarter of social care for the old, children's services or child protection without doing dangerous harm to millions of vulnerable people. To take only 23 per cent from taxes with 77 per cent in cuts means that the pain will fall on the poorest people in the poorest regions most dependent on public spending.
The coalition has opted for cuts far beyond anything the markets expected or demanded and the reasoning can only be ideological. The Budget's key objective—reducing the deficit—is not premised on economic logic. You do not require a degree in economics to understand that cutting spending and raising taxes reduces demand—someone who has just been made redundant will not be spending much—and could choke off recovery before it has begun. Indeed, the Chancellor is ignoring the cautionary voice from his own recent creation, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has revised down its growth forecast for the next year by 0.3 per cent—£5 billion—as a direct result of the Budget, so even his own experts believe that the Budget will have an immediate, negative effect on growth. Both Barclays Wealth and Ernst & Young—not organisations that I am normally given to quoting—have produced analyses suggesting that the Government are, in the latter's words,
“underestimating the impact of this significant fiscal tightening".
The International Monetary Fund is equally unimpressed, because it has cut its growth forecast for the UK both this year and next in the light of this austerity Budget. For all Mr Osborne's protestations that the measures in his Budget were “unavoidable”, there is every reason to believe that cutting fast and deep could, and indeed should, have been avoided.
Many charities have warned that drastic changes to the housing benefit system outlined in the Budget will lead to overcrowded homes and a surge in evictions. They fear the changes will make central London unaffordable to anyone on a low income, ghettoising the city by pushing the poor to the outer boroughs. I welcomed the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who spoke very knowledgably on this subject and in greater depth than I can. As he said, the changes will see housing benefit capped at £400 from next April. Thousands of people renting from private landlords in London and other high-rent cities will find that that will no longer cover their weekly rent, forcing them to move to a cheaper area. From April 2013, people who have been on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more will also see a 10 per cent reduction in their housing benefit. The coalition has said that it wants to make sure that when you work you are better off. That is not unreasonable, but the suggestion that the system is being changed to encourage people to go into work is based on a popular misconception about those who claim housing benefit: only one in eight people receiving that benefit is unemployed. The changes will be very serious for London and other inner-city areas and could result in thousands of people becoming homeless. The policy would force people on low incomes out of central London. In fact, it could replicate what has become of Paris, where the well-off have annexed the city centre, while the poor form a ring around the outskirts.
As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the situation in London is currently so grave that the Evening Standard has begun an appeal, which it has named the Dispossessed Fund, to help those who it has identified as being in distress. Yesterday's edition highlighted a cleaner working at the Treasury, who the newspaper claimed was paid so little that her children have to live on soup. The homelessness charity Shelter estimates that some people currently claiming housing benefit could lose up to 40 per cent of their total rent, which will force people out of their accommodation with nowhere for them to go. Shelter expects to see debt and evictions rise as a result of this change. Any savings to the Government would be more than offset by the cost of rehousing families unable to afford their rent. The coalition needs to answer the question: where are people on low incomes meant to live? Even the Mayor of London has forsaken party loyalty to condemn the proposed changes to housing benefit as draconian, and not all Lib Dem MPs are prepared to forsake their principles. Simon Hughes has urged the coalition to slow down changes to housing benefit, saying:
“We need a system that is flexible and ties in to areas of different need”.
Indeed we do, and that begs the question as to how long Liberal Democrats will adhere to the Tory agenda when the Budget has shown that it is the poor who will be hit hardest. During the general election, the Liberal Democrats actively campaigned against much of what is now being implemented. Even excluding the effect of wider spending and benefit cuts, the squeeze on the worst-off 10th of the population will, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, be five times the impact on the richest 10 per cent by 2015.
The Chancellor insisted that his Budget was progressive, fair and unavoidable. In fact, it was the precise opposite on all counts. Raising the regressive value added tax while cutting housing, disability and child benefits contrasts starkly with plans to cut corporation tax year after year and let banks off with a levy that is inconsequential when compared to the huge amounts they pay out in bonuses. Even the boost to child tax credit will be more than offset by the housing benefit squeeze and the ending of maternity and pregnancy grants, along with other benefits targeted at women and children.
Lib Dem voters backed a party which stood against early cutbacks, in support of a ratio of cuts to tax increases of 2.5:1 and fiercely opposed the threat of what it called a “Tory tax bombshell” of increased VAT. Now, sadly, I have to say that it has binned all three commitments in the name of coalition compromise and signed up to a Budget which must be alien to much of what it has hitherto stood for.
This unnecessary and dangerous Budget is very likely to push the economy back into recession, and the big worry is that it will lead to what the Nobel economist Paul Krugman has called the long depression: zero growth and high unemployment for years. There are no prizes for guessing who that will hit the hardest.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, it is a deep privilege for me to be a Member of this House, and particularly to be making my maiden speech today. Since my introduction, I have found nothing but a welcoming atmosphere and encouragement from all sides of the House, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the staff of the House—the Doorkeepers, the Library staff, the catering staff and others—for their care and attention both of me and my family, especially on the day of my introduction. I would also like to thank my sponsors, my noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Myners. My noble friend Lord Graham is an old friend. He entertained my children over 30 years ago and he met them again. I think they were better able to understand his humour as a result of the passage of time.
I have long admired the intellectual rigour and broad expert nature of debates in this House. My interest goes back to the days when I was an opposition Front-Bench spokesman in the other place. I made it a feature to read the Lords’ Hansard to better perform and educate me in my role. I hope that it did that, and I am now delighted to have a ringside seat at these debates.
I was privileged to represent West Dunbartonshire for 23 years, and I was born and bred in Dumbarton, as was my wife, Joan. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked where Alcluith is. It is the Gaelic name for Dumbarton and goes back to the dark ages of the fifth century. I was unable to obtain the name “Dumbarton”, so Alcluith was the name I focused on. Alcluith literally means “the rock on the Clyde”. The rock refers to Dumbarton castle, which is associated with historical figures such as Robert the Bruce and the infant Mary, Queen of Scots before she was taken to France for her safety. Merlin is supposed to have stayed there, too. The earliest reference to Alcluith is recorded in a letter from St Patrick to King Ceretic of Alcluith in which he complains about the raids the Britons were making on his Irish converts. I can tell noble Lords that complaints and warring factions are still a feature of my area, and over the years I have been asked to mediate in them, but that is part of a healthy society. The primary school I attended was named St Patrick’s, as was my secondary school. In fact, my first teaching post was in St Patrick’s secondary school. As one of my friends said the other day, “John, if Alcluith is good enough for St Patrick, then it’s good enough for you”. I take the point well.
The other part of the name refers to the River Clyde, which has dominated my area because it has been a site of shipbuilding dating back to the days of Robert the Bruce when he set up shipbuilding on the River Leven and the River Clyde. The area has an historic industrial heritage, with shipyards lining the Clyde. As far back as 1963, there were 33 shipyards on the Clyde. In my area, we had the mooring where the “Cutty Sark” was built, and we had the “QE2”, for which I was privileged to represent the Clydebank area, and the former John Brown’s shipyard. In my home town of Dumbarton we had Denny’s shipyard, which closed in the 1960s but which was able to develop the hovercraft. So there is a proud shipbuilding history in the area, and I have been privileged to chair two regeneration companies in my constituency, Clydebank Re-built and the Strathleven Regeneration Company, both of which are dealing with the consequences of our industrial heritage and hoping to formulate a new age. I have included the Strathleven Regeneration Company in my interests in this House, and I also declare an interest, which is recorded in the register of interests, in a company that has aspirations to be a bank.
I come from having nine wonderfully privileged years chairing the Treasury Select Committee in the other place. Latterly, times were hugely uncertain and worrying. They have been challenging for our country and its citizens. One of the achievements of which I am most proud is that in the teeth of very divisive debate between the political parties as to the source and responsibility for the crisis, the Treasury committee kept its focus and delivered unanimous reports throughout the period which, in the words of the then Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, pioneered the way forward for restructuring the financial sector. That resulted in reform in the UK that has not been seen in other major countries.
This week, the Treasury committee came out with its report on the June 2010 Budget. It is pertinent to the debate today because it warns of the increasing risk that Britain will slide back into recession, and of the coming austerity hurting the poor disproportionately. Robert Chote, the distinguished head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, gave evidence to the committee that the Budget is regressive, contradicting what the Treasury said, which was that it was progressive. Robert Chote pointed out that when you dig deeper, you find that the Chancellor’s statements have been focused only on the next two years, to 2012-13, but beyond that, experts say that the cuts in housing benefit, disability living allowance and the in-year changes to tax credits will hit the poorer half of households harder than they will the rich. The Chancellor is on record as saying that the Budget will not increase poverty according to measured child poverty targets over the next two years, but given that many welfare cuts will not take effect until after 2012-13, one can understand the concerns of experts and groups such as Save the Children and the Child Poverty Action Group about the future, particularly for poorer people.
The Chancellor has made promises that have to be set against the provisions in the Child Poverty Act 2010, which will guide him. The Government have signed up to this Act and, as previous speakers in the debate have said, it makes meeting the 2020 target of eradicating child poverty legally binding. The 2010 Act has four targets. An assurance has been given by the Chancellor on what he declares is “measured child poverty”, but that is limited to a two-year timeframe. No assurances have been given on the other three targets set out in the Act. If this Budget is indeed to be worthy of the description “progressive”, it demands detailed and continuous scrutiny in order that the Government’s ambitious rhetoric and their solemn legislative undertakings serve the interests of all, but especially the poorer and most needy members of our society.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord McFall. I welcome him to your Lordships’ House and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I extend my congratulations to my noble friends Lord Boateng and Lady Donaghy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on their excellent contributions today. My noble friend Lord McFall and I have known each other for 20 years, and in that time I have come to hold him in very high regard indeed. We have seen from his contribution to this debate why he was such a successful chairman of the Treasury Select Committee in the other place. With great skill he held the Government to account while at the same time preserving the unity of his committee. He was relentless in conducting his inquiries into the banking crisis, and many a banker did not look forward to appearing before him when he sought to hold them to account, exposing their greed and ineptitude which brought the world economy to the brink of collapse. My noble friend served in the Whips’ Office for some time, and in the Northern Ireland Office. Many in the Province will remember him for his compassion and his cool head on the day of the Omagh bombing, when he was the only Minister in Northern Ireland.
Yet my noble friend has one shortcoming, and I hope he will forgive me for revealing it. It is that he and good timekeeping are not close companions; indeed, some would say they are total strangers. His extraordinary work rate, running from one engagement to another, is the reason for it. I well remember a few years ago arranging to meet him and other friends for dinner. We all arrived at the appointed restaurant at the appointed time and waited and waited and waited for my noble friend. Eventually, after half an hour of putting off an eager waiter who wanted to take our order, we surrendered our table to other diners who were very hungry indeed. My noble friend did not arrive for a further half an hour and we had to queue to get our table back. I regret to say that I am not sure that his timekeeping has greatly improved, but I have no doubt that we will welcome his further contributions in this House. As our debates are carefully timetabled, I am sure that that will do much to improve his timekeeping.
The two poorest and most disadvantaged groups in our society are at the extreme end of the age spectrum: children and pensioners. During the past 12 years, a Labour Government did much to redress this with the record increase in child benefit, family tax credits and the child trust fund, all aimed at helping families with young children. We also saw the introduction of pension credits, free bus travel free television licences, all improving the quality of life of pensioners. But these significant advances may now be reversed by what Paul Krugman has called “ideologically fixed deficit hawks”. Only on Monday, we saw this Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government begin their assault on child trust funds. We know that they will freeze child benefit and, with massive cuts in public services predicted, every family with children and every pensioner needs to be concerned about the future.
The Conservative/Liberal Democrat Budget of a few weeks ago heralds a major attack on public services which support the most disadvantaged in Britain—public services that we have built up over years and make us a civilised society. What this Government have forgotten is that public service is labour intensive. We cannot sack police officers and put CCTV cameras on every street corner and call it policing; we cannot sack teachers and sit every child in front of a computer screen and call it teaching; and we cannot sack social workers, give every pensioner a microwave and call it home care. I have no doubt that we on these Labour Benches will need to be vigilant in these coming months if we are to defend public services on which so many of our vulnerable citizens depend and which the two parties opposite seem determined to put to the sword.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the plight of disabled people in general and those with autism in particular. Research conducted by Leonard Cheshire Disability found that 30 per cent of disabled people live below the poverty line. That is one in three and a terrible indictment of Britain in the 21st century. The National Autistic Society says that the lack of support that people with autism receive means that they and their families experience extreme financial difficulties. Some people with autism are able to live independent and fulfilling lives with very little support, but we all know that others will need support throughout their lives. The vast majority of people with autism want to work, and we need to do more to help them to do that. But as a dear friend of mine, a now retired GP, Dr Dipak Ray, said to me only last week: “Suddenly, creating jobs is out; inflicting pain is in”. That seems to be the message that we have had from this Budget.
Only 15 per cent of adults with autism are in full employment. Some 66 per cent of adults with autism are not in any kind of employment. Almost 80 per cent of those are on incapacity benefit. Six out of 10 adults with autism survive only with family and parental financial support. Caring for a child with autism is a full-time job. According to the National Autistic Society, 68 per cent of carers it surveyed said that their caring responsibilities exceeded 70 hours a week. The same survey revealed that only 41 per cent of carers had jobs, while almost 70 per cent gave up work to carry out their caring responsibilities.
More than half of families with disabled children borrowed money from family and friends to pay for essentials. According to a recent Contact a Family survey, one in four families is going without heating in their homes, one in seven is going without food and nine out of 10 said that financial worries are having a severe impact on family life.
I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the House will find these circumstances unacceptable and will want to challenge any Government who plan to introduce cuts in public services for the disabled. Disabled people, especially those with autism and their families, will be forced into greater poverty and financial dependence on family and friends if we do not take steps to protect them.
The Prime Minister said recently that the third sector was really the first sector. He was right in that we esteem that sector, but I hope that his remarks were not code for plans to offload the responsibilities of the state on the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector in Britain makes a huge contribution to the quality of life of millions of our citizens. Many voluntary groups are hard pressed. With massive public spending cuts in the offing, this will cascade into the voluntary sector.
The government programme states that the main burden of the deficit reduction will be borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes. It also states that people needing care deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. I hope that the Government recognise that, without funding for services for the disabled, there can be no respect and certainly no dignity.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, the Government have made a strong commitment to fairness, but there are some grave concerns about certain groups among us who were already suffering from poverty and whose situation will be worsened following the Budget announcement. Careful attention needs to be paid to those people who are most affected.
In 2007-08, 13.5 million people in this country were living in households below the low-income threshold of 60 per cent or less of the average income. This is about a fifth of the population and an increase of 1.5 million compared with three years previously. We know that the UK has a higher proportion of its population in relative low income than most other EU countries. Of the 27 EU countries, only four have a higher rate than the United Kingdom.
We know that health inequalities associated with socio-economic status are pervasive and can be found in all aspects of health, from infant death to the risk of mental ill health. We also know that life expectancy is closely related to this. The difference in life expectancy between the leafy suburbs of the south-east and the inner-city deprived areas of the far north can be as much as 17 years. This is a death sentence and is totally unacceptable.
I turn to disabled people, who were movingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. About a third of working-age disabled adults live in low-income households, which is twice the rate of that for non-disabled adults. The gap between the two is markedly higher than a decade ago.
In the Budget, many entitlements were scaled back. The Work and Pensions Secretary admitted that the decision of the Cabinet to scrap free school meals for working parents’ children and reduce the number of people who get tax credits made his own long-term goal to alleviate unacceptable levels of poverty and social exclusion difficult.
An issue which particularly affects older people—although not exclusively—is that of excess winter deaths. In 2008-09 the number of winter deaths increased by 36,700 compared with the average for the non-winter period—a 49 per cent increase compared with the number in the previous winter of 2007-08. The elderly population experiences the greatest increase in deaths each winter. In 2008-09 there were 29,400 more deaths among people aged 75 and over as compared with those in the non-winter period. In contrast there 7,300 among those under the age of 75. That is a terrible differential.
On fuel poverty, in 2007, 2.8 million households in England alone were classified as being in fuel poverty. In 2004, 5.9 per cent of households were considered to be fuel poor, but that rose to 7.2 per cent in 2005; 11.5 per cent in 2006; and it went up to 13.2 per cent in 2007. Fuel poverty is increasing mostly because of the continued significant increases in fuel prices, and VAT increases will be passed on directly to the consumer, making the situation of people suffering fuel poverty even worse.
The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has estimated that 4.6 million homes across England could now be in fuel poverty. It added that investment in energy infrastructure and measures to reduce greenhouse gases were essential but that the cost of these was largely passed on to consumers and that bills could soar by a further 50 per cent. Both overall and among those in low-income, single-person households, many people are more likely to be in fuel poverty than other household types by 2020.
On the issue of decent homes, in 2008 about 7.4 million homes were described as non-decent—that is one-third of our homes. Overall, homes in the social sector were in a better condition than those in the private sector, where most poor older people live; 27 per cent are non-decent compared to 34 per cent previously. For vulnerable groups, 24 per cent of private homes had at least one category 1 hazard; 13 per cent in social rented homes; and 31 per cent in private rented homes. The National Audit Office examination of the decent homes programme concluded that while good progress has been made there are risks in terms of completing the target to eliminate non-decent social rented homes—originally by 2010—and of a new build-up of a repairs backlog if a new programme is not put into place. Such a new programme seems remote in the current circumstances.
By capping housing benefit nationally, the Budget creates real issues in London and the south-east particularly. That, together with the regressive nature of VAT, means that the Chancellor has got his work cut out to prove that he is putting fairness first, particularly in the longer term. I hope the Government will consider these issues.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I am not sure of the collective noun for maiden speeches—an avalanche, a torrent? Whatever it is, we have had it today and I congratulate all noble Lords who have made maiden speeches. They have demonstrated the genuine concern in your Lordships’ House for the poor and the vulnerable. I hope that the Government will take note of their concern that such people should not be exploited but should be given a fair deal.
The coalition Government are in a hurry. They are hurrying to change the nature of education, they are hurrying to have fewer public services delivered by the state and they are hurrying to change the economy. However, when you hurry, one thing stays the same: the law of unintended consequences remains alive, well and flourishing. As my noble friend indicated in his authoritative speech moving the Motion, it is the poor who are the victims.
Let me give some examples arising from the increase in VAT—a rise that has caused concern to many noble Lords. Some of the examples that I consider important have been mentioned by other noble Lords. Was it really the Government’s intention to take away half the surplus of the housing associations? Many speakers are concerned about the effect of the Budget on affordable housing but, according to Mr David Montague, chief executive of the London & Quadrant Housing Trust, the increase in VAT will cost the housing association sector £125 million, which is half its surplus. The Minister knows that it is the poorer households that are increasingly concentrated in social housing. If you want to eliminate poverty and enhance life chances, social housing is essential. Amid all their talk of fairness, did the Government in their Budget really want to make life more difficult for the housing associations? The noble Lord, Lord Best, reminded us that housing benefit is a third of the income of the housing associations, so their work will be doubly more difficult—more VAT and less housing benefit. Was this really the Government’s intention?
Was it really the Government’s intention to victimise poor women more than men? As my noble friend Lord McKenzie told us, women have lower incomes, so the VAT increase will hit them harder. This effect on poorer women is supported by a recent paper from the House of Commons Library that shows that the extra VAT raised will come disproportionately from women. In addition, because of their lower incomes and their greater caring responsibilities, women are bigger users of public services, both for themselves and for those for whom they care. They will have to fill the gaps left. Do the Government really intend to victimise women more than men—or is this the law of unintended consequences at work?
Was it really the Government’s intention to penalise charities? According to the Charities Aid Foundation, charities will pay £140 million a year more in tax. Therefore, charities are going to be hit in two ways: they will have to pay more VAT and their income will be reduced because of the hard times. Yet, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, reminded us, the Government and society look to the charities to help the poor, the unfortunate and those who cannot cope. Indeed, a third of their income comes from the Government because the Government look to charities to provide services that many of us consider essential. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Budget to penalise them—or, again, is this the law of unintended consequences at work?
The only way to deal with the law of unintended consequences is to legislate, not through dogma or political belief, for what works—for what gives the intended consequence. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, this forces me to the conclusion that this Budget is more driven by politics and less driven by the need to deal with our deficit. Perhaps there are no speakers from the Conservative Back Benches because it is impossible to defend ideology triumphing over common sense. If it were otherwise, the housing associations, women and charities would be compensated with increased benefits for the rise in VAT. Surely that is right, because VAT is a tax that does not take into account your ability to pay. That is why it is regressive.
On average, the rise in VAT will cost every household £500 per year, irrespective of ability to pay. That is why it hits the poor hardest. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats often spoke of raising a similar amount through taxing unearned income or through carbon taxes. Since the election, they have been silent. I join my noble friend Lord Watson in asking whether the Liberal Democrats have deserted the poor by having to defend a Conservative Budget—or is this another unintended consequence?
The stated aim of the Budget was to protect the vulnerable. My noble friend Lord McFall told us that that was shown to be misleading by the IFS. It was shown the following day when the IFS helpfully disaggregated George Osborne’s June Budget alongside Alistair Darling’s March Budget. They were shown separately and are dramatically different. The bias towards those on lower incomes that characterised the Labour years has more or less been inverted in the first coalition Budget.
This unfairness to the poor is further emphasised by the inconsistencies in the Budget architecture, as Chris Wales pointed out in a recent Smith Institute seminar. The Chancellor won praise for his commitment to the triple lock for uprating the state pension, but people on welfare benefits live in the same world as pensioners, often with higher demands placed on them and even less to live on. Unless the Government believe that they are all scroungers living off the state when they should be working, it would be logical to assume that, in the interests of fairness, the poor on benefits should have the same uprating guarantees. Is that unintended neglect or just plain right-wing politics?
Of course, other aspects of the Budget will hit the poor unfairly and other noble Lords have mentioned them. What concerns many of us is the gigantic gamble that the Government are taking with people’s jobs and livelihoods. The Government are convinced that we are spending too much on the workless and at the same time that work has to be transferred from the public to the private sector. It is not rocket science to identify some of the unintended consequences of that on poor people’s jobs. It is a gamble, because there are so many uncertainties. Business will not invest without demand, yet the economy is being starved of the money necessary to create the demand.
Also, a high proportion of people depend on benefits because of low pay. One-third of households have state benefits. If, as we are told, there is to be a high number of unemployed people, pay will stay low. Will that low pay be subsidised by tax credits? If so, jobs will be transferred to the private sector to save money, but they will be subsidised with public money. That seems curious economics to me. Surely if the jobs are going to the private sector to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, it makes sense for private sector employees to get a living wage and not the minimum wage mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, which has to be subsidised by the taxpayer. Are these more unintended consequences or just crazy economics?
Surely the right question to ask is why people are in low-paid jobs and what can be done about it. I agree with Iain Duncan Smith that you have to make sure that there is enough financial gain for people to benefit from work. You have to support poor people in work for a short time until they get to work longer hours or are promoted. Do the Government have a plan B? Is there a plan to delay the rise in VAT until the cuts in public sector jobs are in balance with the rise in private sector jobs? Is there a plan to think through all the unintended consequences? Is there a plan to protect the poor as things go wrong?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton for instigating this debate, the subject of which brought so many of us into politics and public life in the first place. We have heard some excellent contributions, particularly the maiden speeches. Like my noble friend Lord Haskel, I am not sure what the collective noun is, but my noble friend Lord Boateng, as ever, gave us an outstanding oration and an uncontroversial appetiser for what I am sure will be substantial contributions to come. I was particularly pleased that he reminded us of the importance of giving a voice in your Lordships' House to looked-after children and other children at risk, for whom he has been such a great advocate throughout his career.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, treated us to a taste of her extraordinary range of experience and reminded us of the threat of joblessness leading to increased poverty—something that I will return to later. It was great to hear once again from your Lordships’ equivalent of a retread with the return of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. He made a passionate plea for attention to the dangers of stigma being attached to those dependent on benefits. Like him, I had an early career in the arts on the enterprise allowance scheme and I look forward to the Minister's answers to his questions on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gave us an insight into his experience of tackling child poverty in Newcastle, particularly on the council there, especially reminding us of the links to health and education inequalities. As a former Schools Minister, I was particularly struck by his description of the excellent work done on family linking with schools. I was delighted to be here for the final maiden speech of the day, from the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, which he explained meant “the rock on the Clyde”. For me, the noble Lord was the rock during my time in the other place, chairing the Treasury Committee and always leading off the Back-Bench contributions to the Budget debates as the measures flowed out from this place to the country. We look forward to more contributions from all these excellent new Members of your Lordships' House.
We have not yet heard from the Conservative Benches, but I am sure that it would be unkind to suggest that they are contracting out concerns for poverty to their coalition partners. In the lead-up to the general election, in response to questions about fairness from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Deputy Prime Minister, as he now is, said:
“The Liberal Democrats want to make sure that the burden of controlling spending falls on those who can afford it… so that closing the gap doesn’t bear down on those who already have too little”.
I welcome the coalition’s commitment to continuing the work undertaken by my party to eradicate child poverty by 2020 but, taking on board the findings of numerous non-governmental studies, I believe that this Government’s economic policy risks not only delaying that target but plunging further families into poverty. Cuts in allowances, the VAT hike, decreased incomes and increased outgoings—the right honourable Chancellor is going to hit the poorest hardest. As my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, it was his choice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, reminded us, that was the choice made in the 1930s, when the then coalition Government, encouraged by business, pursued austerity and then took us into the great depression. From that situation, Keynes developed his great economic theories, now abandoned by the Liberal Democrats. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us in the context of disabled children, if we want to raise children out of poverty, we need to raise their household incomes, and this Budget promises anything but. While the Chancellor may claim that his cuts are not expected to raise measured child poverty, there is little of any comfort in it to those families already below the poverty line. I share the fears of Save the Children that, as a result of this Government's regressive approach to tackling the deficit,
“those families living in poverty will have less income and fewer or less effective services to mitigate the worst affects of poverty”.
Despite the welcome, if menial, increase in personal tax allowance and child tax credits, the Work and Pensions Secretary’s mangling of the benefits system and the axe-wielding of the Chancellor will undoubtedly cost lower-income families more than they can hope to gain. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, reminded us, more than half of those 3.9 million children whose families live in poverty come from households where at least one of the adults is in paid work. For these families, child tax credits, which many noble Lords have spoken about, are vital. Yet many will see that lifeline disappear in the immediate future. A family with one child on as little as £15,000 will see their tax credits fall next year. The following year, a one-child family earning just £30,000 will lose all their tax credit. Meanwhile, the promise of a £210 increase in that benefit for those eligible over the next two years is, of course, when isolated, a great step forward—but not if that increase ultimately leaves lower-income families worse off than they were previously. Failure to correspondingly amend the way in which housing benefits are calculated will have exactly that effect. At present, the child tax credit is not disregarded in calculations for housing benefits. Resultantly, the coalition's proposed rise in child tax credits, increasing the family income, will lead to cuts in that family's housing benefits.
Other conflicting and confusing measures have been discussed by noble Lords, including the proposed 10 per cent cut to housing benefit for those who have been on jobseeker’s allowance for 12 months or more, which the Child Poverty Action Group has called a stealth cut on JSA. The Chartered Institute of Housing has calculated that the cumulative outcome of the coalition's proposals means that by 2020 every tenant's housing benefit will be too low to cover their rent. The net outcome of this is clear: debt, overcrowding and homelessness. There are already 1 million children living in overcrowded households. Such living conditions affect children’s mental and physical health, their education and, ultimately, their life chances. As we have heard from speakers such as the noble Lord, Lord Best, reductions, restrictions and caps on the housing benefit that families can claim will force some of them to move, often into accommodation inappropriate to their needs. In addition, that might unnecessarily fracture the family unit and leave families out of reach of the services that they rely on. So much for being the party of the family. The Child Poverty Action Group warns that:
“There may be, in effect, an expulsion of low income families from some communities and a tendency for greater ghettoisation of poverty where there are concentrations of substandard housing stock”.
The coalition could go some way towards remedying this simply by altering the status of child tax credits so that they were disregarded in benefit calculations. Furthermore, the proposed cuts in public services present a severe indictment against the fairness of the emergency Budget.
Poorer households are higher users of public services. Thus, cuts to these services disproportionately hit lower-income families compared with those that are more affluent, owing to the larger contributions that they make to such a family’s income. One study projects that public spending cuts will be equivalent to 20.5 per cent of the poorest 10th of households' regular income, but equivalent to only 1.6 per cent of the richest 10th. These measures reverse any positive impact that direct taxation or government-provided subsidies and services might have for the poorest in society.
As my noble friend Lord Haskel has just argued so forcefully, the unfairness in the Budget manifests itself most significantly in the VAT rise. This will, as Save the Children has identified, simply widen inequalities and entrench existing unfairness. Not only does a rise in VAT, so nobly campaigned against by the Liberal Democrats at the election, risk economic recovery at such a fragile time but it disproportionately hits the pockets of low-income families. The VAT rise impacts on the entire population, regardless of earnings or income level. In that respect, it does what the Chancellor says it should—we all share in the pain.
There are exemptions, of course, and it is argued that these equalise such measures, assuming that lower-income families spend the majority of their income on exempted items like food, children’s clothing and household bills. But do poorer people not need beds to sleep in, clean clothes to wear or hot food in their stomachs? There are no exemptions on furniture, toiletries or household appliances like cookers and washing machines. Increasing VAT simply makes these items even more difficult to afford, making it harder for low-income families to stretch their budgets even further. Simply because the Budget does not discriminate, that does not make it non-discriminatory. These rising costs are likely to increase the number of households that fall below the poverty line.
There is much more to say but I do not want to delay your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reminded us of the health consequences of the Budget, especially for the elderly. On Tuesday I set out some of my concerns about unemployment rising due to cutting too fast and due to cutting employment programmes such as the Future Jobs Fund and the six-month allowance. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, work is the best route out of poverty, but the Government are pulling up that ladder.
Similarly, the free-market schools policy and allowing outstanding schools to be academies risks allowing the best schools to advance at the expense of the poorest, widening the gap and making it harder for poorer families to use education as a route out of poverty—as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said. Mention has been made of ending free school meals and breakfast clubs, both fundamental to alleviating poverty. I will just argue with the noble Lord about the Labour Government’s record on schools; to take reading as an example, we ended a 30-year standstill in improvements in reading quality during the course of the previous Government with the introduction of the literacy hour.
Because of this Budget, the founder of the Child Poverty Action Group, Peter Townsend, warns that we risk perpetuating the exclusion of already impoverished children from the,
“ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”,
of average families. Accordingly, the Budget elevates the risk of negative life outcomes. These measures condemn to poverty those kids from lower-income households—families looking not for a handout but for a foot up.
One of the key measures of the success of this Government and their Budget will be how they tackle poverty. Like so many others, I am worried that they will fail miserably.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and others in congratulating those noble Lords who have made maiden speeches today. I enjoyed all of them. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, pointed out the importance of young people at risk and in care, with all the passion that we would have expected from him. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, reminded us that poverty is a complex set of issues. My noble friend Lord Shipley’s focus was on reducing the number of children in poverty and trying to reinforce the cycle of aspiration. Finally but certainly not least, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, with his deserved reputation for calling the Government to account, gave us, and me in particular, fair warning of continuous scrutiny in the years to come. I await that with some trepidation.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in particular for giving us the opportunity to tackle the issue of poverty in Britain today. It is an issue close to my heart, and I know that that is shared widely in this Chamber.
The issue, as I have mentioned, is complex, so it is worth putting the impact of the Budget in context. Many of the measures in the emergency Budget were taken in the face of a potential eurozone economic crisis. This was a legacy that we inherited from the previous Administration, with borrowing forecast at a stunning £149 billion this year, the second largest in Europe. The Budget simply had to tackle borrowing and get that deficit down.
We are now on track to cut debt. The figure is £116 billion for next year and £89 billion for the year after. We will get the structural current deficit into balance by 2015-16, when borrowing will be down to £20 billion. Undoubtedly, reducing the national debt to stabilise our finances and get the economy back on track left us with some extremely tough choices. Those choices were made with some key principles in mind. We wanted to align efficiency and value for money with long overdue and much needed strategic reform. We wanted to protect the vulnerable and ensure that our reforms were made with fairness and responsibility uppermost in our minds. In this context, it is worth raising something that always puzzles me and puzzled me today when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, excoriated the measures. The previous Administration were also planning very large cuts. They were a little smaller than the ones that we have put through but they were large nevertheless. I am always puzzled by what exactly they would be, since every single measure that we have taken is wrong. However, the Opposition would have had to take at least three-quarters of them in their own programme.
The Budget measures revolve around three key objectives: to make work pay and reinforce responsible behaviour; to reform the welfare system to make it fairer, improve targeting and reinforce conditionality; and to protect the most vulnerable while tackling the deficit. As I said, underpinning the approach is a commitment to fairness. That is why we increased the personal allowance to boost rewards for work for low and middle-income people. As a result, around 23 million basic rate taxpayers will pay up to £170 a year less in tax in 2011-12 and 880,000 people will be taken out of income tax altogether. Wherever possible we have made sure that this is a fair and progressive Budget, tackling the deficit while maintaining the right balance between taxation and spending. Even though we had to make a tough choice on VAT to avoid even greater spending cuts, VAT on such everyday essentials as food and children’s clothing remains zero-rated.
At the same time, we wanted to use the Budget to reform our welfare system and make it fit for the 21st century. My right honourable colleague Iain Duncan Smith has talked extensively about the need for radical welfare reform. I know he will be grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for that today. Iain Duncan Smith has pointed out that reform is so urgently needed because so many people are left without incentives to work and abandoned on long-term benefits. That was a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Iain Duncan Smith is looking at how we can implement reforms through a far simpler benefits system, and concentrating absolutely on the huge social and economic advantages we will gain as a society if we can move to a more dynamic system that gets this right once and for all.
The case for urgent reform is clear. The welfare budget has spiralled out of control in recent years, rising in real terms from £63 billion in 1996-97 to £87 billion in 2009-10. That includes tax credits. The true cost of our welfare system is not measured purely by the increasing burden on the taxpayer, great though that is. The price of worklessness and welfare dependency is paid by the individual, their families and their children, who get trapped in a cycle of inter-generational poverty. To change that, we need a fundamental reappraisal of the benefits system. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, we need to support those who genuinely need help, but we do not need to put them in a benefits trap. We have already announced our proposals for a new work programme, and in the near future we will introduce key measures to reform and simplify the benefit system to make it fit for the 21st century.
Housing benefit was mentioned by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Knight. The housing benefit reforms are an excellent example of how we have aimed to balance much needed and long overdue reform with fairness and value for money. In real terms, the cost of working- age housing benefit has jumped by £5 billion in five years, and was projected to reach £21 billion in 2014-15. In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about the cuts in housing benefit. I emphasise that we are not talking about absolute cuts in housing benefit, even in real terms. We have put brakes on the sledge as we go down the run. All we are doing in practice is reducing the £21 billion figure by £1.8 billion. According to the projected forecast, it will still go up by £3 billion in the next four years. However, cost is not the only problem. The scale of these payments has meant that housing benefit has become a disincentive to move into work and has created distortions in the social rented market.
The figures show that 75,000 people get more than £10,000 a year in housing benefit and that some—admittedly, a small number—get more than £100,000 a year, which means that housing benefit is often unfair as some hardworking people could not hope to afford the properties available to some people on housing benefit. It is interesting to note that recent reports in the press indicate that many people agree that the system needs a major shake-up. That is why we have capped local housing allowance levels to the rate for four-bedroom properties, introduced size restrictions to the social rented sector, and changed the percentile of market rents for local housing allowance rates from 50 per cent to 30 per cent. These changes are vital and will reset the balance, making housing benefit fairer and creating reasonable incentives for people to move into work. Tomorrow we will publish the impact assessment on housing benefit so that everyone can see exactly how these reforms will work in practice. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his recommendations, which we will take back and consider.
As I said, we have had to make very tough choices in order to tackle the deficit, but at the same time our overarching concern is to protect the most vulnerable. That is why many of the measures are progressive, including tax credit reforms that target support away from the better-off and towards lower-income families by increasing the child tax credit.
I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the freezing of child benefit. That impact is redressed for the poorest by the move on child tax credit. The Budget package recycles £1.2 billion of savings back into child tax credit next year, and £1.84 billion in 2012-13, offering enhanced support to poorer children and families. As a result, the child element of the child tax credit will be increased by £150 next year and by £60 in 2012-13, above the level of indexation. I should also point out that the Budget package has no statistically significant impact on child poverty over the next two years.
I should add something on which I assured the House on 15 June; we are committed to our goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020, and the Prime Minister has asked Frank Field to lead a review on poverty. I hope that that addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord McFall.
The reforms to disability living allowance rebalance our support for the most severely disabled people to ensure that their needs are better met. We remain absolutely committed to supporting those with severe disabilities so that they can live with dignity and independence in their own homes. However, costs have ballooned to £12.1 billion, with the number of claimants increasing by more than half a million in just five years. This suggests that some laxity has crept into the system, which is why we have taken the decision to introduce a new DLA assessment from 2013. This will ensure that the system is fair and that properly targeted support is available for those who need it.
We are applying the same principled approach to reform to benefit pensioners, too, so that older people can enjoy dignity and security in old age. The legacy that we have inherited includes 1.8 million pensioners living in poverty—nearly one in six. We aim to remedy that situation in the long term and encourage people to save responsibly for their future. That is one of our key goals for long-term reform, but we have to be fair and sensitive to the needs of those already in or nearing retirement. This is important, because while we have the levers to tackle dependency and poverty at working age and in an intelligent way, we have to recognise that tackling poverty beyond retirement age is an entirely different proposition. That is why we are doing more to protect pensioners, and why the Government have committed to restoring the earnings link with the basic state pension from April next year with a triple guarantee. This means that pensions will be raised in line with earnings, prices, or by 2.5 per cent—whichever is higher. That is a good start. In reality it is rather better, because we have paid for the unfounded 1.5 per cent clawback that the previous Government left for us when we arrived—a £300 million hole in this year’s DWP budget.
I appreciate the issue raised about using the CPI rather than the RPI, but, as has been pointed out, the CPI is the standard measure used by government and in many cases most accurately reflects the costs borne by pensioners. Let us not forget that pensioners can continue to rely on housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as benefit from our decision to keep winter fuel payments, bus passes and TV licences. However, the Government are well aware of the need to keep driving reform to ensure that we have a simple, coherent and sustainable pension system.
I have very little time to deal with the many interesting questions asked, although I think that I have dealt with the majority. However, perhaps I may pick up the point about the economy and the pace of fiscal consolidation, which was raised by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Haskel and Lord Watson. The fiscal challenge in the UK is, by some measures, more serious than in any other advanced economy. That is why consolidation will support recovery, underpinning private sector confidence and creating the space for business to grow. In particular, it will reduce the burden of public sector debt and the effect of interest payments, which, if they get out of hand and we lose the confidence of the markets, will tend to have a significant depressive effect. It is almost a race between those two factors.
The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Haskel, talked about the VAT rise, saying that it was regressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been much quoted today, has said that total expenditure is arguably a better guide to lifetime living standards, as households smooth their expenditure over their lifetime. Therefore, analysis by expenditure, rather than income level, is a better measure of the impact of the VAT increase and, on this basis at least, the VAT increase is progressive.
A number of noble Lords argued that the poorest families will bear the biggest burden. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made that point. This is a progressive Budget, with every part of society contributing to dealing with the deficit, but the rich are paying more than the poorest. There is a handful of questions that I do not have time to deal with, but I shall of course write to noble Lords to pick up those points.
In conclusion, we live in a wealthy country, yet more than one in four working-age adults do not work, 5 million people are trapped on benefits, 1.4 million people have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine out of the past 10 years, and a higher proportion of children—2 million of them—grow up in workless households than in almost any other country in Europe. That is why the measures that we introduced in the Budget could not just be about getting the deficit down; they also had to form an integral part of the long-term reforms that Britain needs to reinvigorate the economy and tackle poverty—not just the symptoms of poverty but the causes, too. Our welfare and pension measures, combined with our plans to support private sector job creation and reduce the impact of the proposed jobs tax, will allow this country to move forward from the recession stronger, fitter and more resilient to take on the challenges of the future.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, it just remains for me to thank all noble Lords for contributing to today’s debate. It has been wide-ranging and informative, as one would expect from your Lordships’ House.
I add my congratulations on four marvellous maiden speeches, from my noble friends Lord Boateng, Lady Donaghy and Lord McFall of Alcluith, and from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The passion, knowledge and experience that went into these speeches make me feel glad that I slipped under the wire earlier when the standard was not so high.
I thank the Minister. It is a pity that we did not hear from any Conservative Back-Benchers on poverty issues. Perhaps we should take a message from that. I accept that the Minister has an interest in and is passionate about tackling poverty; I know that from our debates on the Child Poverty Bill. His assertions about protecting the most vulnerable were not particularly convincing, if I may say so. Concern about increasing work incentives on the basis of the Budget is partly about driving down the level of benefits, and fairness in housing benefits is very difficult to see from the propositions that are coming forward.
We shall clearly have the opportunity to debate these at length as the primary and secondary legislation comes forward. I am gratified by the fact that, on today’s showing, more noble Lords will participate in that endeavour. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.